&EPA
EPA-600/R-09/151
December 2009
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from
Electric Utilities - Leaching and Characterization Data
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
EPA-600/R-09/151
December 2009
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from
Electric Utilities - Leaching and Characterization Data
D. Kosson1, F. Sanchez1,
P. Kariher2, L.H. Turner3, R. Delapp1, P. Seignette4
1Vanderbilt University
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Nashville, TN 37235
2ARCADIS
4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F
Durham, NC27713
3Turner Technology, LLC
Nashville, TN 37205
4Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands
Contract No. EP-C-09-027
Work Assignment No. 0-7
Prepared for:
Susan A. Thorneloe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
11
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors are grateful to the input provided by G. Helms, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (Washington, D.C.) in helping with the research design and application of
improved leaching test methods to provide better characterization data for fly ash and other coal
combustion residues.
Overall project planning and integration was carried out jointly by D.S. Kosson and F. Sanchez
(Vanderbilt University), and P. Kariher (ARCADIS).
R. Delapp and D. McGill of Vanderbilt University were responsible for the chemical analyses of
the leachate samples except for mercury analysis. All other laboratory testing including physical
and chemical analysis, sample digestion, and leaching tests of fly ash and other coal combustion
residues was conducted by ARCADIS. Technical assistance was provided by A. Garrabrants of
Vanderbilt University. Solid phase chromium analysis by X-ray Absorption Fine Structure was
carried out under the direction of N.D. Hutson (U.S. EPA). Database management and data
presentation technical assistance was provided by L.H. Turner (Turner Technology, LLC) and P.
Seignette (Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands).
K. Ladwig and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) are gratefully acknowledged for
assistance in obtaining coal combustion residue samples and providing information from the
EPRI database on coal combustion residues.
S. Thorneloe provided technical direction for this research. In addition, she was responsible for
obtaining samples, communication, and report writing.
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
ABSTRACT
This report evaluates changes in composition and constituent release by leaching that may occur
to fly ash and other coal combustion residues (CCRs) in response to changes in air pollution
control technology at coal-fired power plants. The addition of flue-gas desulfurization (FGD)
systems, selective catalytic reduction, and activated carbon injection to capture mercury and
other pollutants will shift mercury and other pollutants from the stack gas to fly ash, FGD
gypsum, and other air pollution control residues. The objective is to understand the fate of
mercury and other constituents of potential concern (COPC) in air pollution control residues and
support EPA's broader goal of ensuring that emissions being controlled in the flue gas at power
plants are not later being released to other environmental media.
This report includes data on 73 CCRs [34 fly ashes, 20 flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, 7
"other" FGD residues (e.g., scrubbers without oxidation or with inhibited oxidation), and 8
blended CCRs "as managed" (e.g., scrubber sludge mixed with fly ash and lime prior to
disposal)]. Each of the CCRs sampled has been analyzed for a range of physical properties, total
elemental content, and leaching characteristics for mercury, aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, selenium and thallium.
The leach testing methods that were used in this research consider the impact on leaching of
management conditions. These methods are intended to address concerns raised by the National
Academy of Science and the EPA's Science Advisory Board with the use of single-point pH
tests. Because of the range of field conditions that CCRs are managed during disposal or use as
secondary (or alternative) materials, it is important to understand the leaching behavior of
materials over the range of plausible field conditions that can include acid mine drainage and co-
disposal of fly ash and other CCRs with pyrites or high-sulfur coal rejects. The methods have
also been developed into draft protocols for inclusion in EPA's waste testing guidance document,
SW-846, which would make them available for more routine use.
(http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/index.htm)
The major conclusions from this research include:
There is great variability in both the range of total constituent concentration values and in
leaching values (orders of magnitude). In comparing there results to health indicator
values such as the maximum concentration limit or toxicity characteristic, there are
multiple COPCs of potential concern.
Distinctive patterns in leaching behavior have been identified over a range of pH values
that would plausibly be encountered for CCR management.
Total constituent content is not a good indicator of leaching which has been found to be a
function of the characteristics of the material (pH) and field conditions in which the
material is managed.
The maximum eluate concentration from leaching test results varies over a wide range in
pH and is different for different CCR types and elements. This indicates that there is not a
single pH for which testing is likely to provide confidence in release estimates over a
wide range of disposal and beneficial use options, emphasizing the benefit of multi-pH
testing. Furthermore, for CCRs, the rate of constituent release to the environment is
affected by leaching conditions (in some cases dramatically so), and that leaching
11
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
evaluation under a single set of conditions will, in many cases, lead to inaccurate
conclusions about expected leaching in the field.
The intended use for the data in this report is to support future risk and environmental
assessments of the CCRs studied. A follow-up report is planned which will use these data in
conducting a probabilistic assessment of mercury and other COPCs release rates based on the
range of plausible management scenarios for these materials in either disposal or beneficial use
situations. The data summarized in this report will also be made available electronically through
a leaching assessment tool (LeachXS Liteฎ) that can be used to develop source-term inputs
needed for using groundwater transport and fate models. The leaching assessment tool will also
provide means for data management in viewing data resulting from the of the improved leaching
test methods.
in
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ACT
Al
AL
APC
APPCD
As
ASTM
B
Ba
BDL
BET
CAIR
CAMR
Cd
CCRs
CCV
Co
COPCs
Cr
CV
CVAA
DIG
DOC
DOE
DI
DRC
dw
DWEL
EPA
EPRI
ESP
Activated Carbon Injection
Aluminum
Action Level
Air Pollution Control
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Arsenic
American Society for Testing and Materials
Boron
Barium
Below Detection Limit
Brunauer, Emmett and Teller (method for estimating surface area)
Clean Air Interstate Rule
Clean Air Mercury Rule
Cadmium
Coal Combustion Residues
Continuing Calibration Verification
Cobalt
Constituents of Potential Concern
Chromium
Coefficient of Variation
Cold Vapor Atomic Adsorption
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon
United States Department of Energy
Deionized (i.e., deionized water)
Dynamic Reaction Chamber
dry weight basis
Drinking Water Equivalent Level
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Electric Power Research Institute
Electrostatic Precipitator
IV
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
GLOSSARY
ESP-CS
ESP-HS
FF
FGD
FID
FO
FSS
FSSL
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Hg
HHV
Ho
ICP-OES
ICP-MS
ICV
In
IO
lOx
LF
LOI
LS
M
Max
MCL
MDL
Mg Lime
Min
ML
Mo
OF TERMS - CONTINUED
Cold-side Electrostatic Precipitator
Hot-side Electrostatic Precipitator
Fabric Filter (baghouse)
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Flame lonization Detector
Forced Oxidation
Fixated Scrubber Sludge
Fixated Scrubber Sludge with Lime
Unwashed Gypsum
Washed Gypsum
Mercury
Higher Heating Value
Holmium
Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
Initial Calibration Verification
Indium
Inhibited Oxidation
Inhibited Oxidation (this abbreviation used in some figures to improve
clarity)
Landfill
Loss On Ignition
Liquid-to-Solid Ratio (LS ratio)
Molar
Maximum
Maximum Contaminant Level (for drinking water)
Method Detection Limit
Magnesium Enriched Lime (often also referred to as "mag-lime")
Minimum
Minimum Level of Quantification
Molybdenum
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
GLOSSARY
NETL
NIOSH
NO
NOX
NSPS
OC/EC
ORD
OSWER
PAC
Pb
PJFF
PM
PRB
PS
QA/QC
RCRA
RFA
SAB
SCA
Sb
ScS
SCR
SNCR
SDA
Se
SI
S02
SOFA
SPLP
SRM
s/s
OF TERMS - CONTINUED
National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE)
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Natural Oxidation
Nitrogen Oxides
New Source Performance Standards
Organic Carbon/Elemental Carbon
Office of Research and Development (EPA)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA)
Powdered Activated Carbon
Lead
Pulse-Jet Fabric Filter
Particulate Matter
Sub-bituminous coal mined in Wyoming's Powder River Basin
Particulate Scrubber
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reference Fly Ash
EPA Science Advisory Board
Specific Collection Area
Antimony
Scrubber Sludge
Selective Catalytic Reduction
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
Spray Dryer Absorber
Selenium
Surface Impoundment
Sulfur Dioxide
Separated Overfire Air
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure
Standard Reference Material
Stabilization/Solidification
VI
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
GLOSSARY OF TERMS - CONTINUED
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TC Toxicity Characteristic
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Tl Thallium
XAFS X-Ray Absorption Fine Structure
XRF X-Ray Fluorescence
vn
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is the third in a series to evaluate changes in composition and constituent release by
leaching that may occur to fly ash and other coal combustion residues (CCRs) in response to
changes in air pollution control technology at coal-fired power plants. The addition of flue-gas
desulfurization (FGD) systems, selective catalytic reduction, and activated carbon injection to
capture mercury and other pollutants will shift mercury and other pollutants from the stack gas to
fly ash, FGD gypsum, and other air pollution control residues. The Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Division (APPCD) of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is conducting
research to evaluate potential leaching and other cross media transfers of mercury and other
constituents of potential concern (COPCs) resulting from the management of CCRs resulting
from wider use of state-of-the art air pollution control technology. This research was cited as a
priority in EPA's Mercury Roadmap1 to ensure that one environmental problem is not being
traded for another. The objective is to understand the fate of mercury and other COPCs in air
pollution control residues and support EPA's broader goal of ensuring that emissions being
controlled in the flue gas at power plants are not later being released to other environmental
media.
Approximately 40% of the 126 million tons of CCRs produced in the U.S. as of 2006 were
utilized in agricultural, commercial, and engineering applications. The remainder (i.e., 75 million
tons) was managed in either landfills or impoundments. The physical and chemical
characteristics of CCRs make them potentially suitable as replacements for materials used in a
wide range of products including cement, concrete, road base, and wallboard. Use of CCRs as an
alternative to virgin materials helps conserve natural resources and energy, as well as decrease
the amount of CCRs being land disposed.
In developing data to characterize the leaching potential of COPCs from the range of likely
CCRs resulting from use of state-of-the-art air pollution control technology, improved leaching
test methods have been used2. The principle advantage of these methods is that they consider the
impact on leaching of management conditions. These methods address concerns raised by
National Academy of Science and EPA's Science Advisory Board with the use of single-point
pH tests. Because of the range of field conditions that CCRs are managed during disposal or use
as secondary (or alternative) materials, it is important to understand the leaching behavior of
materials over the range of plausible field conditions that can include acid mine drainage and co-
disposal of fly ash and other CCRs with pyrites or high-sulfur coal rejects3'4. The methods have
1 EPA (2006). EPA's Roadmap for Mercury, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, http://www.epa.gov/mercury/pdfs/FINAL-Mercury-Roadmap-6-29.pdf (accessed August 21,
2009).
2 Improved leaching test methods described in (Kosson et al., 2002) have been developed as draft SW-846
protocols. These methods consider the effect of varying environmental conditions on waste constituent
leaching.
3 National Academy of Sciences (2006). Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines, Washington,
D.C.
4 Sanchez, F.; Keeney, R.; Kosson, D., and Delapp, R. Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal
Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control, EPA-600/R-
06/008, Feb. 2006; http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r06008/600r06008.pdf.
viii
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
also been developed into draft protocols for inclusion in EPA's waste testing guidance document,
SW-846, which would make them available for more routine use.
(http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/index.htm).
The selected testing approach was chosen for use because it evaluates leaching over a range of
values for two key variables [pH and liquid-to-solid ratio (LS)] that both vary in the environment
and affect the rate of constituent release from waste. The range of values used in the laboratory
testing encompasses the range of values expected to be found in the environment for these
parameters. Because the effect of these variables on leaching is evaluated in the laboratory,
prediction of leaching from the waste in the field is expected to be done with much greater
reliability.
The categories into which samples have been grouped are fly ash, flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
gypsum, "other" FGD residues (such as from spray drier absorbers), blended CCRs "as
managed" (mixtures of fly ash and scrubber residues with and without added lime or mixture of
fly ash and gypsum), and wastewater filter cake. In the first report from this research5, results of
leaching from fly ash were reported for mercury, arsenic, and selenium. Report 2 provided
leaching results for an expanded list of materials and COPCs to include mercury, aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, selenium and
thallium6. In the current report (Report 3), analyses of eluates from CCR samples presented in
Report 1 have been included for the expanded list of COPCs. Report 3 also includes the data
previously reported in Report 2, and leach test results for an additional 38 CCRs. A total of 73
samples were evaluated, and all results are presented in the current report to facilitate
comparisons (Table ES-1).
5 Sanchez, F.; Keeney, R.; Kosson, D., and Delapp, R. Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal
Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control, EPA-600/R-
06/008, Feb. 2006; http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r06008/600r06008.pdf.
6 Sanchez, F.; Kosson, D.; Keeney, R.; Delapp, R.; Turner, L.; Kariher, P.; Thorneloe, S. Characterization
of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control;
EPA-600/R-08/077, July 2008; http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08077/600r08077.pdf.
IX
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table ES-1. Identification of CCRs evaluated and included in this Report.
Samples Evaluated
Fly Ash
FGD Gypsum
"Other" FGD Residues
Blended CCRs "as managed"
Wastewater Treatment Filter
Cake
Report 1*
12
-
-
-
-
Report 2**
5
6
5
7
Additional
Samples Collected
17
14
2
1
4
Total in Report 3
34
20
7
8
4
* Sanchez, F.; Keeney, R.; Kosson, D., and Delapp, R. Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion
Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control, EPA-600/R-06/008, Feb. 2006;
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r06008/600r06008.pdf.
**Sanchez, F.; Kosson, D.; Keeney, R.; Delapp, R.; Turner, L.; Kariher, P.; Thorneloe, S. Characterization of Coal
Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control; EPA-600/R-08/077,
July 2008; http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08077/600r08077.pdf.
Each of the CCRs sampled has been analyzed for a range of physical properties, total elemental
content, and leaching characteristics. Laboratory leach data are compared to field observations
from industry and EPA data from sampling of impoundments and landfills. The laboratory leach
results are also compared to reference indicators to provide context for the data including:
The toxicity characteristic (TC), which is a threshold for hazardous waste determinations;
The maximum concentration limit (MCL), which is used for protecting drinking water;
and,
The drinking water equivalent level (DWEL), which is used to be protective for non
carcinogenic endpoints of toxicity over a lifetime of exposure7.
These comparisons to reference indicators do not consider dilution and attenuation factors
(collectively referred to in this report as attenuation factors) that arise as a consequence of
disposal or beneficial use designs and transport from the point of release to the potential receptor.
Minimum attenuation factors needed to reduce maximum leach concentrations (based on
laboratory test results) to less than MCL or DWEL values are provided to illustrate the
importance of consideration of attenuation factors during evaluation of management options.
The intended use for the data in this report is to support future risk and environmental
assessments of the CCRs. A follow-up report is planned which will use these data in conducting
a probabilistic assessment of mercury and other COPCs release rates based on the range of
plausible management scenarios for these materials in either disposal or beneficial use situations.
The data summarized in this report will be made available electronically through a leaching
assessment tool that can be used to develop source-term inputs needed for using groundwater
7DWEL was developed for chemicals that have a significant carcinogenic potential and provides risk
managers with evaluation on non-cancer endpoints, but infers that carcinogenicity should be considered
the toxic effect of greatest concern (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pubs/gloss2.htmltfD).
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
transport and fate models8. The leaching assessment tool will provide easier access to the leach
data for a range of CCRs and potential field conditions. The tool can be used to develop more
detailed leach data as input to more refined assessments of CCRs and support environmental
decision-making that will ensure protection of human health and the environment.
Summary of Conclusions
In Table ES-2 and Table ES-3, the total metals content of the fly ash and FGD gypsum samples
evaluated is provided along with the leach test results. Reference indicators (i.e., TC, MCL, and
DWEL) are also provided to provide some context in understanding the leach results. It is critical
to bear in mind that the leach test results represent a distribution of potential constituent release
concentrations from the material as disposed or used on the land. The data presented do not
include any attempt to estimate the amount of constituent that may reach an aquifer or drinking
water well. Leachate leaving a landfill is invariably diluted in ground water to some degree when
it reaches the water table, or constituent concentrations are attenuated by sorption and other
chemical reactions in groundwater and sediment. Also, groundwater pH may be different from
the pH at the site of contaminant release, and so the solubility and mobility of leached
contaminants may change when they reach groundwater. None of these dilution or attenuation
processes is incorporated into the leaching values presented. Thus, comparisons with regulatory
health values, particularly drinking water values, must be done with caution. Groundwater
transport and fate modeling would be needed to generate an assessment of the likely risk that
may result from the CCRs represented by these data.
In reviewing the data and keeping these caveats in mind, conclusions to date from the research
include:
1. Review of the fly ash and FGD gypsum (Table ES-2 and Table ES-3) show a range of
total constituent concentration values, but a much broader range (by orders of magnitude)
of leaching values, in nearly all cases. This much greater range of leaching values only
partially illustrates what more detailed review of the data shows: that for CCRs, the rate
of constituent release to the environment is affected by leaching conditions (in some
cases dramatically so), and that leaching evaluation under a single set of conditions may,
to the degree that single point leach tests fail to consider actual management conditions,
lead to inaccurate conclusions about expected leaching in the field.
2. Comparison of the ranges of totals values and leachate data from the complete data set
supports earlier conclusions9'10' u that the rate of constituent leaching cannot be reliably
estimated based on total constituent concentration.
The leaching assessment tool, LeachXS Liteฎ, will be available for inclusion in the CCR docket
(December 2009).
9 Senior, C; Thorneloe, S.; Khan, B.; Goss, D. Fate of Mercury Collected from Air Pollution Control
Devices; Environmental Management, July 2009, 15-21.
10 U.S. EPA, Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities
Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control, EPA-600/R-06/008, Feb. 2006;
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r06008/600r06008.pdf.
XI
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
3. The maximum eluate concentration from leaching test results varies over a wide range in
pH and is different for different CCR types and elements. This indicates that there is not a
single pH for which testing is likely to provide confidence in release estimates over a
wide range of disposal and beneficial use options, emphasizing the benefit of multi-pH
testing.
4. From the more complete data in this report, distinctive patterns in leaching behavior have
been identified over the range of pH values that would plausibly be encountered for CCR
disposal, depending on the type of material sampled and the element. This reinforces the
above conclusions based on the summary data.
5. Summary data in Table ES-2 on the leach results from evaluation of 34 fly ash samples
across the plausible management pH domain of 5.4 to 12.4, indicates leaching
concentration ranges over several orders of magnitude as a function of pH and ash
source:
o the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the TC
values for As, Ba, Cd, Cr, and Se.
o the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the MCL
or DWEL for Sb, As, Ba, B, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mo, Se, and Tl.
6. Summary data in Table ES-3 on the leach results from evaluation of 20 FGD gypsum
samples across the plausible management pH domain of 5.4 to 12.4, indicates leaching
concentration ranges over several orders of magnitude as a function of pH and FGD
gypsum source:
o the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the TC
values for Cd and Se.
o the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the MCL
or DWEL for Sb, As, B, Cd, Cr, Mo, Se, and Tl.
7. The variability in total content and the leaching of constituents within a material type
(e.g., fly ash, gypsum) is such that, while leaching of many samples exceeds one or more
of the available reference indicators, many of the other samples within the material type
may be lower than the available regulatory or reference indicators. Additional or more
refined assessment of the dataset may allow some distinctions regarding release potential
to be made among particular sources of some CCRs, which may be particularly useful in
evaluating CCRs in reuse applications.
Work is underway to develop a fourth report that presents such additional analysis of the
leaching data to provide more insight into constituent release potential for a wider range of
scenarios, including beneficial use applications. This will include calculating potential release
UU.S. EPA, Characterization of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities Using Wet Scrubbers
for Multi-Pollutant Control; EPA-600/R-08/077, July 2008;
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08077/600r08077.pdf.
xn
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
rates over a specified time for a range of management scenarios including use in engineering and
commercial applications using probabilistic assessment modeling
12
In interpreting the results provided in this report, please note that the CCRs analyzed in this
report are not considered to be a representative sample of all CCRs produced in the U.S. For
many of the observations, only a few data points were available. It is hoped that through broader
use of the improved leach test methods (as used in this report), that additional data from CCR
characterization will become available. That will help better define trends associated with
changes in air pollution control at coal-fired power plants.
12 Sanchez, F. and D. S. Kosson, 2005. Probabilistic approach for estimating the release of contaminants
under field management scenarios. Waste Management 25(5), 643-472 (2005).
Xlll
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Table ES-2. Leach results for 5.4 < pH < 12.4 and at "own pH13" from evaluation of thirty-four
fly ashes.
Total in
Material
(mg/kg)
Leach
results
(Hg/L)
TC fog/L)
MCL
(Mg/L)
Hg
0.01-
1.5
<0.01
-0.50
200
2
Sb
3-14
<0.3-
11,000
-
6
As
17-
510
0.32-
18,000
5,000
10
Ba
590-
7,000
50-
670,000
100,000
2,000
B
NA
210-
270,000
-
7,000
DWEL
Cd
0.3-
1.8
<0.1-
320
1,000
5
Cr
66-
210
<0.3-
7,300
5,000
100
Co
16-
66
O.3-
500
-
-
Pb
24-
120
O.2-
35
5,000
15
Mo
6.9-11
<0.5-
130,000
-
200
DWEL
Se
1.1-
210
5.7-
29,000
1,000
50
II
0.72-
13
<0.3
-790
-
2
Note: The shade is used to indicate where there could be a potential concern for a metal when comparing the leach
results to the MCL, DWEL, or TC. Note that MCL and DWEL values represent well concentrations; leachate
dilution and attenuation processes that would occur in groundwater before leachate reaches a well are not accounted
for, and so MCL and DWEL values are compared to leaching concentrations here to provide context for the test
results and initial screening.
Table ES-3. Leach results for 5.4 < pH < 12.4 and at "own pH" from evaluation of twenty FGD
gypsums.
Total in
Material
(mg/kg)
Leach
results
(Hg/L)
TC fog/L)
MCL
(Hg/L)
Hg
0.01-
3.1
O.01-
0.66
200
2
Sb
0.14-
8.2
<0.3-
330
-
6
As
0.95-
10
0.32-
1,200
5,000
10
Ba
2.4-67
30-560
100,000
2,000
B
NA
12-
270,000
-
7,000
DWEL
Cd
0.11-
0.61
O.2-
370
1,000
5
Cr
1.2-
20
<0.3-
240
5,000
100
Co
0.77-
4.4
<0.2-
1,100
-
-
Pb
0.51-
12
<0.2-
12
5,000
15
Mo
1.1-12
0.36-
1,900
-
200
DWEL
Se
2.3-
46
3.6-
16,000
1,000
50
II
0.24-
2.3
<0.3
-
1,100
-
2
Note: The shade is used to indicate where there could be a potential concern for a metal when comparing the leach
results to the MCL, DWEL, or TC. Note that MCL and DWEL values represent well concentrations; leachate
dilution and attenuation processes that would occur in groundwater before leachate reaches a well are not accounted
for, and so MCL and DWEL values are compared to leaching concentrations here to provide context for the test
results and initial screening.
13 "Own pH" is defined as the end-point (equilibrium) eluate pH when a CCR is extracted with DI water
at liquid to solid ratio of 10 mL/g, and is measured as part of leach testing as a function of pH.
xiv
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments i
Abstract ii
Glossary of terms iv
Executive Summary viii
Table of Contents xv
List of Tables xviii
List of Figures xix
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Regulatory Context 5
1.1.1. Waste Management 5
1.1.2. Air Pollution Control 5
1.2. Configurations of U.S. Coal Fired Power Plants and Multi-pollutant Control
Technologies 6
1.2.1. Current Air Pollution Control Technologies 7
1.2.2. Wet Scrubbers, NOX Controls and Multi-pollutant Controls 9
1.2.3. Mercury Control Using Sorbent Injection 10
1.2.4. Mercury Control by Conventional PAC Injection 12
1.2.5. Mercury Control by Halogenated PAC Injection 13
1.3. Coal Combustion Residues 13
1.4. Residue Management Practices 14
1.4.1. Beneficial Use 14
1.4.2. Land Disposal 15
1.5. Leaching Protocol 17
2. Materials and Methods 21
2.1. CCR Materials for Evaluation 21
2.2. Leaching Assessment Protocols 34
2.2.1. Alkalinity, Solubility and Release as a Function of pH (SR002.1) 34
2.2.2. Solubility and Release as a Function of LS Ratio (SR003.1) 35
2.3. Analytical Methods 35
2.3.1. Surface Area and Pore Size Distribution 35
2.3.2. pH and Conductivity 35
xv
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
2.3.3. Moisture Content 36
2.3.4. Carbon Content- Organic Carbon/Elemental Carbon Analyzer 36
2.3.5. Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIG) and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) 36
2.3.6. Mercury (CVAA, Method 3052, and Method 7473) 37
2.3.7. Other Metals (ICP-MS, ICP-AES, Method 3052, Method 6020, and Method 6010) 37
2.3.7.1. ICP-MS Analysis (SW-846 Method 6020) 39
2.3.7.2. ICP-OES Analysis (SW-846 Method 6010) 40
2.3.8. X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) 42
2.3.9. XAFS 44
2.3.10. Determination of Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+) and Total Chromium Species in
CCREluates 44
2.3.ll.MDL and ML for Analytical Results 44
2.4. Quality Assurance assessment 45
2.4.1. Homogenization of Individual CCR Samples and Aliquots for Analyses 45
2.4.2. Leaching Test Methods and Analytical QA/QC 45
2.4.3. Improving QA/QC Efficiency 46
2.4.4. Data Management 47
2.5. Interpretation and Presentation of Laboratory Leaching Data 49
2.5.1. Interpretation of Mechanisms Controlling Constituent Leaching 49
2.5.2. Field pH Probability Distribution 52
3. Results and Discussion 54
3.1. Total Elemental Content 54
3.2. Laboratory Leaching Test Results 86
3.2.1. Typical Characteristic Leaching Behavior as a Function of pH 87
3.2.1.1. Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection 88
Main characteristics leaching behavior (Figure 41 and Figure 42) 88
Effect of coal type (Figure 38, Figure 39, and Figure 40) 90
Effect of NOX control (SNCR vs. SCR, Figure 43) 90
Effect of fabric filter vs. CS-ESP (Figure 44) 91
Chromium speciation in selected fly ash samples and eluates (Figure 45) 91
3.2.1.2. Fly ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs 106
3.2.1.3. Gypsum, Unwashed and Washed Ill
3.2.1.4. Scrubber Sludge 118
xvi
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
3.2.1.5. Spray Dryer Absorber Residues 121
3.2.1.6. Blended CCRs (Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge/Mixed Fly Ash and
Gypsum) 124
3.2.1.7. Waste Water Filter Cake 127
3.2.2. Comparisons of the Ranges of Constituent Concentrations from Laboratory Testing
(Minimum Concentrations, Maximum Concentrations, and Concentrations at the Materials'
OwnpH) 130
3.2.3. Leaching Dependency on Total Content 146
3.2.4. pH at the Maximum Concentration Value versus the Materials' Own pH 153
3.2.5. Comparison of Constituent Maximum Concentrations and Concentrations at the
Materials' Own pH from Laboratory Testing Grouped by Material Type with Measurements
of Field Samples and the EPA Risk Report Database 162
3.2.6. Attenuation Factors Needed to Reduce Estimated Leachate Concentrations to Less
Than Reference Indicators 177
4. Summary of Results, Conclusions and Recommendations 180
5. References 184
Appendices 189
A. Facility Descriptions and CCR Sample Locations A-l
B. Quality Assurance Project Plan B-l
C. Solid Phase Characterization of CCR Samples C-l
D. Total Content by Digestion D-l
E Total Content by XRF E-l
F. CCR Leaching Test Results F-l
G. CCR pH Titration Curves G-l
H. Hexavalent Chromium and Total Chromium Analyses by Arcadis & ERG H-l
I. Summary of Statistics (Min/Max/Own pH value) 1-1
J. Summary of Statistics (Percentiles) J-l
K. Outliers K-l
L. Attenuation Factors L-l
ANNEX - Analytical QA/QC (all data on a DVD)
xvn
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. Identification of CCRs evaluated and included in this Report x
Table ES-2. Leach results for 5.4 < pH < 12.4 and at "own pH" from evaluation of thirty-four fly
ashes xiv
Table ES-3. Leach results for 5.4 < pH < 12.4 and at "own pH" from evaluation of twenty FGD
gypsums xiv
Table 1. General characteristics of coals burned in U. S. power plants (EPA, 2005) 6
Table 2. Projected coal-fired capacity by air pollution control configuration as per data collection
in 1999 (EPA, 2005) 8
Table 3. Beneficial uses of CCRs (ACAA, 2007) 16
Table 4. Summary of facility configurations, CCR sample types and sample codes 22
Table 5. CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type and air
pollution control configuration 26
Table 6. MDL and ML of analysis of DIC and DOC 37
Table 7. ICP instrument used for each element 38
Table 8. Method detection limits (MDLs) and minimum level of quantification (ML) for ICP-MS
analysis on liquid samples 40
Table 9. Method detection limits (MDLs) and minimum level of quantification (ML) for ICP-
OES analysis on liquid samples 41
Table 10. XRF detection limits 43
Table 11. Data quality indicator goals 47
Table 12. Identification of CCRs evaluated and included in this Report 181
Table 13. Fly Ash - Laboratory leach test eluate concentrations for 5.4 < pH < 12.4 and at "own
pH" from evaluation of thirty-four fly ash samples 183
Table 14. FGD Gypsum - Laboratory leach test eluate concentrations for 5.4 < pH < 12.4 and at
"own pH" from evaluation of twenty FGD gypsum samples 183
xvin
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Flow diagram describing processing and nomenclature of FGD scrubber residues and
samples included in this study 3
Figure 2. Illustration of available technology for multi-pollutant control at coal-fired power
plants 10
Figure 3. Coal-fired boiler with sorbent injection and spray cooling (Senior et al., 2003) 11
Figure 4. Flow diagram for power plant with a hot ESP, carbon injection, and a compact hybrid
particulate collector (Senior et al., 2003) 12
Figure 5. Uses of CCRs based on 2006 industry statistics (ACAA, 2007) 17
Figure 6. An example of eluate concentrations as a function of pH from SR002.1 51
Figure 7. An example of eluate concentrations as a function of LS ratio from SR003.1 52
Figure 8. Probability distributions for field pH. Summary statistics for the field data and the
probability distribution are provided to the right of the graph (EPA, 2000; EPA, 2007b;
EPRI, 2006) 53
Figure 9. Aluminum. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 57
Figure 10. Arsenic. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 58
Figure 11. Barium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 59
Figure 12. Cadmium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 60
Figure 13. Cobalt. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
61
Figure 14. Chromium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 62
Figure 15. Mercury. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Method 7470) 63
Figure 16. Mercury. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Method 7473) 64
Figure 17. Molybdenum. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 65
Figure 18. Lead. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
66
Figure 19. Antimony. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 67
Figure 20. Selenium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 68
xix
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Figure 21. Thallium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and
6020) 69
Figure 22. Aluminum. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 70
Figure 23. Barium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 71
Figure 24. Carbon. Comparison of total elemental content 72
Figure 25. Calcium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 73
Figure 26. Chloride. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 74
Figure 27. Fluoride. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 75
Figure 28. Iron. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 76
Figure 29. Potassium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 77
Figure 30. Magnesium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 78
Figure 31. Sodium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 79
Figure 32. Phosphorous. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 80
Figure 33. Sulfur. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 81
Figure 34. Silicon. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 82
Figure 35. Strontium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 83
Figure 36. Thallium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF 84
Figure 37. Total calcium content (by XRF) and own pH for fly ash samples 85
Figure 38. pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without mercury
sorbent injection [bituminous low sulfur coal] 92
Figure 39. pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without mercury
sorbent injection [bituminous medium and high sulfur coal] 94
Figure 40. pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without mercury
sorbent injection [sub-bituminous and lignite coal] 96
Figure 41. pH dependent leaching results. Selected results to illustrate characteristic leaching
behavior 98
Figure 42. pH dependent leaching results. Selected results to illustrate characteristic leaching
behavior of calcium, magnesium, strontium, iron, and sulfur 100
Figure 43. Effect of NOX controls - none (or by-passed; samples DFA, EFB, FFA, TFA), SNCR
(samples GFA, SFffi) or SCR (all other samples) for facilities burning Eastern Bituminous
coal and using CS-ESP for particulate control 101
Figure 44. Effect of fabric filter vs. CS-ESP (fabric filter without NOX control, sample CFA; with
SNCR, sample AFA; CS-ESP without NOX control, samples DFA, EFB, FFA, TFA; with
SNCR, samples GFA, SHE) for facilities burning Eastern Bituminous coal 103
xx
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Figure 45. Chromium speciation results. Bituminous coal: Facility B with SCR (BFA), with
SCR-BP (DFA); Facility K with SCR (KFA); Facility A with SNCR (AFA), with SNCR-BP
(CFA). Sub-bituminous coal: Facility J with SCR (JAB) 105
Figure 46. pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facility pairs with and without
mercury sorbent injection 109
Figure 47. pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes U) and
washed (sample codes __W) from facilities using low and medium sulfur bituminous coals.
112
Figure 48. pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes U) and
washed (sample codes W) from facilities using high sulfur bituminous coal 114
Figure 49. pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes U) and
washed (sample codes W) from facilities using sub-bituminous and lignite bituminous
coals 116
Figure 50. pH dependent leaching results. Scrubber sludges 119
Figure 51. pH dependent leaching results. Spray dryer residue samples (sub-bituminous coal).
122
Figure 52. pH dependent leaching results. Facility A samples (low S east-bit., fabric filter,
limestone, natural oxidation). SNCR-BP. Fly ash (CFA); scrubber sludge (CGD); blended fly
ash and scrubber sludge ("as managed," CCC) 125
Figure 53. pH dependent leaching results. Filter cake samples 128
Figure 54. Aluminum. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed
in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were
from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 132
Figure 55. Arsenic. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in
SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from
facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 133
Figure 56. Boron. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in
SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Figure 60. Chromium. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed
in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were
from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 138
Figure 61. Mercury. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed
in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were
from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 139
Figure 62. Molybdenum. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations
observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA
samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 140
Figure 63. Lead. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in
SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from
facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 141
Figure 64. Antimony. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed
in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were
from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 142
Figure 65. Selenium. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed
in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were
from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 143
Figure 66. Thallium. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed
in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were
from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal 144
Figure 67. pH. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities
burning sub-bituminous coal 145
Figure 68 and Figure 69. Aluminum and Arsenic. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion 147
Figure 70 and Figure 71. Barium and Cadmium. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion 148
Figure 72 and Figure 73. Cobalt and Chromium. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion 149
Figure 74 and Figure 75. Mercury and Molybdenum. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion 150
Figure 76 and Figure 77. Lead and Antimony. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH < 12.4)
as a function of total content by digestion 151
Figure 78 and Figure 79. Selenium and Thallium. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion 152
Figure 80. An example of pH identity plot. Dashed red lines are used to indicate the pH domain
of 5.4 to 12.4 154
Figure 81 and Figure 82. Aluminum and Arsenic. pH identity plots 155
Figure 83 and Figure 84. Boron and Barium. pH identity plots 156
xxii
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Figure 85 and Figure 86. Cadmium and Cobalt. pH identity plots 157
Figure 87 and Figure 88. Chromium and Mercury. pH identity plots 158
Figure 89 and Figure 90. Molybdenum and Lead. pH identity plots 159
Figure 91 and Figure 92. Antimony and Selenium. pH identity plots 160
Figure 93. Thallium. pH identity plots 161
Figure 94. Aluminum. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1
at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate
and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and
the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 164
Figure 95. Arsenic. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1
eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS =
lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate and pore
water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA
Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 165
Figure 96. Boron. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1
eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS =
lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate and pore
water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA
Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 166
Figure 97. Barium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1
eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS =
lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate and pore
water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA
Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 167
Figure 98. Cadmium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1
at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate
and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and
the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 168
Figure 99. Cobalt. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1
eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS =
lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate and pore
water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA
Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 169
Figure 100. Chromium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1
at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate
and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and
the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 170
xxin
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Figure 101. Mercury. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1
at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate
and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and
the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 171
Figure 102. Molybdenum. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1
at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate
and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and
the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 172
Figure 103. Lead. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1
eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS =
lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate and pore
water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA
Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 173
Figure 104. Antimony. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1
at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate
and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and
the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 174
Figure 105. Selenium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1
at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate
and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and
the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 175
Figure 106. Thallium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and
SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1
at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate
and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and
the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) 176
Figure 107. Minimum attenuation factor needed for the maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH
< 12.4) to be reduced below the MCL or DWEL for all COPCs considered in this study.
COPC requiring the greatest attenuation factor is indicated for each CCR 178
Figure 108. Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be
reduced below the MCL or DWEL for all COPCs considered in this study. COPC requiring
the greatest attenuation factor is indicated for each CCR 179
xxiv
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
1. INTRODUCTION
More wide-spread implementation of multi-pollutant controls is occurring at U.S. coal-fired
power plants. Although much research has occurred to characterize high-volume coal
combustion residues [i.e., fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
solids] extending back to the 1970s, previous research has not considered the wide range of field
conditions that occur for coal combustion residues (CCRs) during land disposal and use in
agricultural, commercial, and engineering applications. The objective of this research is to
characterize the changes in total composition and constituent release potential occurring to CCRs
resulting from wider use of multi-pollutant controls at U.S. coal-fired power plants. This
characterization includes detailed analysis of the fly ash and other air pollution control residues
in relationship to differences in air pollution control configurations and coal rank. The
characterization also includes evaluating the leaching potential of constituents of potential
concern (COPCs) across the range of plausible management conditions that CCRs are likely to
encounter during land disposal or use in agricultural, commercial, and engineering applications.
This research was cited as a priority in EPA's Mercury Roadmap (EPA, 2006b) to evaluate the
potential for any cross-media transfers from the management of CCRs resulting from more
stringent air pollution control at coal fired power plants. This report is part of a series of reports
helping to document the findings of this research to provide more credible, up-to-date data on
CCRs to identify any potential cross-media transfers.
The focus of this report is to present an evaluation of air pollution control residues that may
result from the use of SO2 scrubbers and other air pollution control technologies being used to
control multiple pollutants at coal-fired power plants. The pathway of concern addressed in this
report is the potential for transfer of pollutants to water resources or other environmental systems
(e.g., soils, sediments). The residues studied for this report were fly ashes, unwashed and washed
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, scrubber sludge, blended CCR residues "as managed"
(mixtures of fly ash and scrubber residues with and without added lime or mixture of fly ash and
gypsum), and wastewater filter cake generated from power plants with a range of air pollution
control configurations.
In particular, this report focuses on the potential for leaching of mercury and other COPCs
during land disposal or beneficial use of the CCRs is the focus of this report. This research is part
of an on-going effort by EPA to use an integrated, comprehensive approach to account for the
fate of mercury and other metals in coal throughout the life-cycle stages of CCR management
(Sanchez et al., 2006; Thorneloe et al., 2009; Thorneloe et al., 2008). Related research and
assessment on environmental fate of constituents during CCR management includes conducting
thermal stability studies, leach testing, and probabilistic assessment modeling to determine the
fate of mercury and other metals that are in coal combustion residues resulting from
implementation of multi-pollutant control technology (EPA, 2002; Kilgroe et al., 2001).
CCRs include bottom ash, boiler slag, fly ash, scrubber residues and other miscellaneous solids
generated during the combustion of coal. Air pollution control can concentrate or partition metals
to fly ash and scrubber residues. The boiler slag and bottom ash are not of interest in this study
because air emission controls are not expected to change their composition. Use of multi-
pollutant controls minimizes air emissions of mercury and other metals by the transfer of the
metals to the fly ash and other CCRs. This research will help determine the fate of mercury and
other COPCs from the management of CCRs through either disposal or reuse. Fly ash may
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
include unburned carbonaceous materials and inorganic materials in coal that do not burn, such
as oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium. Fly ash is light enough to be entrained in the
flue gas stream and captured in the air pollution control equipment.
The type and characteristics of FGD scrubber residue produced is primarily a function of (i) the
scrubber sorbent used (i.e., limestone, lime, magnesium enriched lime referred to as Mg lime, or
alkaline fly ash), (ii) the extent of oxidation during scrubbing (i.e., forced oxidation, natural
oxidation, or inhibited oxidation), (iii) post-scrubber processing, including possibly dewatering
or thickening, drying, water rinsing, or blending with other materials, and (iv) coal rank
combusted. The presence and leaching characteristics of the COPCs in air pollution control
residues is a consequence of the coal combusted, process sequence employed, process
conditions, process additives and use or disposal scenario.
Figure 1 illustrates the processes used in the production of materials that were sampled for this
study, sample nomenclature, and the typical management pathways for each material. FGD
gypsum is defined here as the by-product of the SC>2 wet scrubbing process when the scrubber
residue is subjected to forced oxidation. In forced oxidation systems, nearly all of the by-product
is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4ปH2O). The resulting wet gypsum is partially dewatered and
then either disposed in a landfill (unwashed gypsum; Gyp-U) or water rinsed (in some cases) and
dried to produce washed gypsum (washed gypsum; Gyp-W) that then potentially can be used in
wallboard manufacturing or agricultural applications. Scrubber sludge (ScS) is the by-product of
the SO2 wet scrubbing process resulting from neutralization of acid gases at facilities that use
either inhibited oxidation or natural oxidation of scrubber residue. In inhibited oxidation systems,
nearly all of the by-product is calcium sulfite hemihydrates (CaSO3ป/^H2O). In natural oxidation
systems, the by-product is a mixture of CaSOs'/^FkO and CaSCVFkO. Scrubber sludge typically
will be either partially dewatered in a thickener and then disposed in a surface impoundment, or
after thickening, further dewatered and mixed with fly ash to form blended CCRs "as
managed14." In most cases, additional lime is also blended with the scrubber sludge and fly ash.
The blend of fly ash and scrubber sludge is typically between 0.5 to 1.5 parts fly ash to 1 part
scrubber sludge on a dry weight basis, with 0 or 2-4% additional lime added. Blended CCRs
typically are either disposed in a landfill or supplied to a beneficial use (e.g., fill in mining
applications). Facilities that have spray dryer absorbers (SDA) collect fly ash and FGD residues
simultaneously as a sample residue stream.
This report evaluates the characteristics of fly ash, FGD gypsum, SDA, scrubber sludge, and
blended CCRs "as managed" from thirty one (31) coal combustion facilities. In addition filter
cake from waste water treatment was evaluated from four facilities.
14 As managed is defined as how the material is managed by the coal-fired power plant either through
disposal or reuse.
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Absorber
(Forced Oxidation)
Absorber
(Inhibited Oxidation
or Natural Oxidation)
Wet Gypsum
Dewatering
-Landfill (or agriculture or
other potential use)
(Unwashed Gypsum; Gyp-U)
Rinsing
& Drying
(Washed Gypsum; Gyp-W)
Wallboard
Thickener *- Impoundment
(Scrubber Sludge; ScS)
Drying
I
Mixing of Scrubber Sludge
Fly Ash (FA) and Lime
(Blended CCRs, "as managed";
either FA+ScS or FA+ScS+lime)
Landfill or
Beneficial Use
Figure 1. Flow diagram describing processing and nomenclature of FGD scrubber residues and
samples included in this study.
When coal is burned in an electric utility boiler, the resulting high combustion temperatures
vaporize the Hg in the coal to form gaseous elemental mercury (Hgฐ). Subsequent cooling of the
combustion gases and interaction of the gaseous Hgฐ with other combustion products may result
in a portion of the Hg being converted to gaseous oxidized forms of mercury (Hg2+) and particle-
bound mercury (Hgp). The specific chemical form-known as the speciation-as a strong impact on
the capture of mercury and other metals by boiler air pollution control (APC) equipment (EPA,
2001).
Mercury and other elements partition between the combustion gas, fly ash and scrubber residues.
Depending upon the gas conditioning, presence or absence of post-combustion NOX control and
other air pollution control technology in use, there may be changes occurring to the fly ash that
can affect the stability and mobility of mercury and other metals in the CCRs. Similarly, NOX
control and SC>2 scrubber technology may affect the content, stability and mobility of mercury
and other metals in scrubber residues.
The specific objectives of the research reported here are to:
1. Conduct analysis on range of air pollution control residues (i.e., fly ash, FGD residues
and other CCRs) resulting from differences in coal rank and air pollution control
configurations;
2. Evaluate the potential for leaching to groundwater of mercury and other COPCs (i.e.,
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,
molybdenum, selenium, and thallium) removed from the flue gas of coal-fired power
plants using multi-pollutant controls to reduce air pollution; and
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
3. Provide the foundation for assessing the impact of enhanced mercury and multi-pollutant
control technology on leaching of mercury and other COPCs from CCR management
including storage, beneficial use, and disposal.
This is the third of a series of reports that addresses the potential for cross-media transfer of
COPCs from CCRs. The first report focused on the use of sorbent injection (activated carbon and
brominated activated carbon) for enhanced mercury control (Sanchez et al., 2006). The second
report focused on facilities that use wet scrubbers for multi-pollutant control and includes results
for 23 CCRs (fly ash, gypsum, scrubber sludge, fixated scrubber sludge) sampled from eight
facilities (Sanchez et al., 2008). This report focuses on CCRs from coal-fired power plants that
use air pollution control technologies, other than those evaluated in the first two reports,
necessary to span the range of anticipated coal-types and air pollution control technology
configurations. A subsequent report will address:
Assessment of leaching of COPCs under additional management scenarios, including
impoundments and beneficial use on the land (report 4); and,
Broader correlation of CCR leaching characteristics to coal rank, combustion facility
characteristics and geochemical speciation within CCRs supported by information and
analysis on additional trace elements and primary constituents (report 4).
Sampled CCRs were subjected to multiple leaching conditions according to the designated
leaching assessment approach, which is designed to examine leaching potential over a range of
pH and LS ratios. Leaching conditions included batch equilibrium15 extractions at acidic, neutral
and alkaline conditions at an LS of 10 mL/g, and LS from 0.5 to 10 mL/g using distilled water as
the leachant. In this report, the results of this testing are being used to evaluate the likely range of
leaching characteristics during land disposal (i.e., landfill or surface impoundment) scenarios.
Results of the laboratory leaching tests carried out in this study were compared to the range of
observed constituent concentrations in field leachates reported in a U.S. EPA database (EPA,
2007b) and an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) database (EPRI, 2006). The testing
results presented here will be used for evaluating disposal and beneficial use scenarios in a
subsequent report.
The extensive nature of the results reported here necessitates detailed data presentation with only
a broad assessment overview. Future reports will provide more detailed data evaluation and
application of the data to evaluation of specific CCR management scenarios.
As part of this research program, a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan consistent
with EPA requirements was developed for the leaching assessment approach (see Section 2.4).
The QA/QC methodology included initial verification of acceptable mercury retention during
laboratory testing through evaluation of a mass balance around testing procedures (Sanchez et
al., 2006). Modifications to the QA/QC program to reduce the experimental and analytical
burden while maintaining confidence in the resulting data, based on program results to date, are
presented in Report 2 (Sanchez et al., 2008); further modifications are identified in this report.
15 In the context of leaching tests, the term "equilibrium" is used to indicate that the test method result is a
reasonable approximation of chemical equilibrium conditions even though thermodynamic equilibrium
may not be approached for all constituents.
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Laboratory testing for leaching assessment was carried out at the EPA National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina).
1.1. REGULATORY CONTEXT
1.1.1. Waste Management
The management of coal combustion residues is subject to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) which is the federal law regulating both solid and hazardous wastes.
Hazardous waste regulations are developed under Subtitle C of RCRA whereas other solid and
non-hazardous wastes fall under RCRA Subtitle D. Subtitle C wastes are federally regulated
while Subtitle D wastes are regulated primarily at the state level. The original version of RCRA
did not specify whether CCRs were Subtitle C or D wastes. In 1980, the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (SWDA) amendments to RCRA conditionally excluded CCRs from Subtitle C regulation
pending completion of a study of CCR hazards. Since that time, CCRs have been regulated at the
state level under Subtitle D.
The SWDA amendments to RCRA required EPA to prepare a Report to Congress identifying
CCR hazards and recommending a regulatory approach for CCRs. In this report (EPA, 1988) and
the subsequent regulatory determination, EPA recommended that CCRs generated by electric
utilities continue to be regulated under RCRA Subtitle D (See 58 FR 42466, August 9, 1993).
Other residues generated at coal-fired electric utilities were not included in this 1993 decision.
EPA conducted a follow-up study specifically aimed at low-volume, co-managed wastes16 and
issued another Report to Congress (EPA, 1999) with a similar recommendation. In April 2000,
EPA issued a regulatory determination retaining the existing exemption from hazardous waste
regulation for these wastes, although national regulation under RCRA Subtitle D were
considered to be warranted (see 65 FR 32214, May 22, 2000). Concern also was expressed over
the use of CCRs as backfill for mine reclamation operations, and it was determined that this
practice should also be regulated under a federal Subtitle D rule. No regulation of other
beneficial uses of CCRs was considered necessary at that time. Currently, the agency is in the
process of developing these regulations
(http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/index.htm). The results presented in this
report, and subsequent reports, will help provide the information needed to identify the release
potential of mercury and other metals that have been removed from stack gases into air pollution
control residues, over a range of plausible management options. These data will help identify
those conditions that will either reduce or enhance releases to the land so that the effects of
different management conditions can be factored into any controls developed under the
regulations.
1.1.2. Air Pollution Control
Coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of anthropogenic mercury emissions in
the country. Power plants are also a major source of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, particulate
matter, and carbon dioxide. New environmental regulations in the U.S. will result in lower
mercury air emissions, but potentially more mercury in CCRs. The Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR) would have required the electric utility sector to remove at least 70% of the mercury
16
Co-managed wastes are low-volume wastes that are co-managed with the high-volume CCRs.
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
released from power plant stack emissions by 2018. However, CAMR was vacated by the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008. EPA is currently
developing regulations under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act to reduce hazardous air pollutants
(including mercury) from coal-fired power plants. Twenty states have implemented their own
mercury regulations already, according to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(Senior et al., 2009). Other EPA regulations17 will necessitate the addition of new air pollution
control devices for NOX and SC>2 at some power plants. This can also affect the fate of mercury
and other COPCs.
1.2. CONFIGURATIONS OF U.S. COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS AND
MULTI-POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
In the U.S., there are approximately 1,100 units at approximately 500 coal-fired electricity
generating facilities. These facilities represent a range of coal ranks, boiler types, and air
pollution control technologies. The combined capacity of U.S. coal-fired power plants as of 2007
is 315 GW with a projection to 360 GW by 2030 (DOE-EIA, 2009). The coal rank burned and
facility design characteristics affect the effectiveness of multi-pollutant control technologies that
are or could be used at these plants. The U.S. coal-fired power plants typically burn one of three
types of fuel: (1) bituminous coal (also referred to as "high rank" coal), (2) sub-bituminous coal,
and (3) and lignite (sub-bituminous coal and lignite are referred to as "low rank" coals). Some of
the characteristics of interest related to the possible environmental impacts of burning these
different coal ranks are given in Table 1 (EPA, 2005).
Table 1. General characteristics of coals burned in U. S. power plants (EPA, 2005).
Coal
Bitu-
minous
Sub-
bitu-
minous
Lignite
Mercury
ppm (dry)
Range
0.036-
0.279
0.025 -
0.136
0.080-
0.127
Avg
0.113
0.071
0.107
Chlorine
ppm (dry)
Range
48-
2,730
51-
1,143
133 -
233
Avg
1,033
158
188
Sulfur
% (dry)
Range
0.55-
4.10
0.22-
1.16
0.8-
1.42
Avg
1.69
0.50
1.30
Ash
% (dry)
Range
5.4-
27.3
4.7-
26.7
12.2-
24.6
Avg
11.1
8.0
19.4
HHVa
BTU/lb (dry)
Range
8,650-
14,000
8,610-
13,200
9,490-
10,700
Avg
13,200
12,000
10,000
Higher Heating Value.
17On March 10, 2005, EPA announced the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (FR 25612, May 2005)
which is expected to increase the use of wet scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units to
help reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from coal-fired power plants. On luly 11, 2008,
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA for
further review and clarification. Thus the rule remains in effect; however, EPA is in the process of
developing a replacement rule that will address the Court's concerns.
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
1.2.1. Current Air Pollution Control Technologies
A range of pollution control technologies is used to reduce particulate, 862, and NOX and these
technologies also impact the emission of mercury and other metals. The pollution control
technology type and configurations vary across facilities. 18
Table 2 shows the current and projected coal-fired capacity by air pollution control technology
configuration using data published in a 2005 report (EPA, 2005). Although the projected
capacity information is considered dated, the projections for air pollution control appear relevant.
The major finding from this report is the projected usage for wet scrubbers which are expected to
double or triple in response to implementation of CAIR. Post-combustion parti culate matter
controls used at coal-fired utility boilers in the United States can include electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs), fabric filters (FFs), particulate scrubbers (PSs), or mechanical collectors
(MCs). Post-combustion 862 controls can consist of a wet scrubber (WS), spray dryer adsorber
(SDA), or duct injection. Post-combustion NOX controls typically involve selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR).
In response to current and proposed NOX and SC>2 control requirements, additional post-
combustion NOX control and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems for SC>2 control are
expected to be installed and more widely used in the future. Some estimates project a doubling or
tripling of the number of wet scrubbers as a result of CAIR implementation. Over half of the
U.S. coal-fired capacity is projected to be equipped with SCR and, or, FGD technology by 2020.
Currently, some power plants only use post-combustion NOX controls during summer months or
when tropospheric ozone is more of a concern. However, likely changes will involve using post-
combustion NOX control year-round.
The mercury capture efficiency of existing ESPs and FFs appears to be heavily dependent on the
partitioning of mercury between the particulate and vapor phases and the distribution of mercury
species (e.g., elemental or oxidized) in the vapor phase. In general, ESPs and FFs which are
designed for particulate control are quite efficient at removing mercury in the particulate phase;
however, the overall mercury removal efficiency in these devices may be low if most of the
mercury entering the device is in the vapor phase (MTI, 2001). Many factors contribute to the
observed differences in mercury removal efficiency, such as the mercury oxidation state.
Differences in mercury contents of U.S. coals also result in a range of mercury concentrations in
the flue gas from the boiler. In general, it is easier to achieve higher mercury percent removal
with higher mercury inlet concentrations (MTI, 2001). Further, the chlorine content of the coal
may have an impact on mercury removal because the oxidation state of mercury is strongly
affected by the presence of halides in the flue gas. In general, the higher the chlorine content of
the coal, the more likely the mercury will be present in its oxidized state, enhancing the
likelihood of its removal from the gas stream. The addition of post-combustion NOX controls may
improve mercury capture efficiency of particulate collection devices for some cases as a result of
the oxidation of elemental mercury (EPA, 2001).
18 Concerns regarding carbon dioxide emissions from coal fired power plants are beyond the scope of this
report.
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table 2. Projected coal-fired capacity by air pollution control configuration as per data collection
in 1999 (EPA, 2005). CCR samples evaluated in this report are from configurations indicated by
shaded (light gray) rows. 2005 capacity reflects date of data collection for EPA report (EPA,
2005).
Air Pollution Control Configuration
Cold-side ESP
Cold-side ESP + Wet Scrubber
Cold-side ESP + Wet Scrubber + ACT
Cold-side ESP + Dry Scrubber
Cold-side ESP + SCR
Cold-side ESP + SCR + Wet Scrubber
Cold-side ESP + SCR + Dry Scrubber
Cold-side ESP + SNCR
Cold-side ESP + SNCR + Wet Scrubber
Fabric Filter
Fabric Filter + Dry Scrubber
Fabric Filter + Wet Scrubber
Fabric Filter + Dry Scrubber + ACT
Fabric Filter + SCR
Fabric Filter + SCR + Dry Scrubber
Fabric Filter + SCR + Wet Scrubber
Fabric Filter + SNCR
Fabric Filter + SNCR + Dry Scrubber
Fabric Filter + SNCR + Wet Scrubber
Hot-side ESP
Hot-side ESP + Wet Scrubber
Hot-side ESP + Dry Scrubber
Hot-side ESP + SCR
Hot-side ESP + SCR + Wet Scrubber
Hot-side ESP + SNCR
Hot-side ESP + SNCR + Wet Scrubber
Existing or Planned Retrofit Units
New Builds of Coal Steam Units
Fabric Filter + SCR + Wet Scrubber
Total All Units
2005 Capacity,
MW
111,616
41,745
-
2,515
45,984
27,775
-
7,019
317
11,969
8,832
4,960
-
2,210
2,002
805
267
559
932
18,929
8,724
-
5,952
688
684
474
-305,000
2005 Capacity,
MW
-
-305,000
2010 Capacity,
MW
(projected)
75,732
34,570
379
3,161
35,312
62,663
11,979
4,576
2,830
10,885
8,037
4,960
195
2,950
2,601
805
267
557
932
11,763
10,509
538
3,233
6,864
1,490
474
-298,000
2010 Capacity,
MW
221
-298,500
2020 Capacity,
MW (projected)
48,915
33,117
379
5,403
22,528
98,138
13,153
2,534
6,088
7,646
9,163
4,960
195
1,330
4,422
2,363
345
557
1,108
10,160
10,398
538
1,847
9,912
1,334
627
297,000
2020 Capacity,
MW
17,292
-314,400
Note: IGCC units are not included as part of this list.
Note: Current capacity includes some SCR and FGD projected to be built in 2005 and 2006.
Note: 2010 and 2020 is capacity projected for final CAIR rule.
Note: Integrated Planning Model (IPM) projects some coal retirements and new coal in 2010 and 2020.
(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epa-ipm/index.html)
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
1.2.2. Wet Scrubbers, NOX Controls and Multi-pollutant Controls
Wet FGD scrubbers are the most widely used technology for SC>2 control. Scrubbers are typically
installed downstream of particulate control (i.e., ESP or FF). Removal of PM from the flue gas
before it enters the wet scrubber reduces solids in the scrubbing solution and minimizes impacts
to the fly ash that might affect its beneficial use.
FGD technology uses sorbents and chemical reactants such as limestone (calcium carbonate) or
lime (hydrated to form calcium hydroxide) to remove sulfur dioxide from the flue gas created
from coal combustion. Limestone is ground into a fine powder and then combined with water to
spray the slurry into combustion gases as they pass through a scrubber vessel. The residues are
collected primarily as calcium sulfite (a chemically reduced material produced in natural
oxidation or inhibited oxidation scrubbers), or can be oxidized to form calcium sulfate or FGD
gypsum (using forced oxidation). The most widely used FGD systems use either forced oxidation
scrubbers with limestone addition, or natural/inhibited oxidation scrubbers with lime or Mg-lime
addition19. Wet scrubbers that use forced oxidation produce calcium sulfate (gypsum) and are
expected to be the most prevalent technology because of the potential beneficial use of gypsum
and easier management and handling of the residues. There are also dry FGD systems that
include spray dryer absorbers, usually in combination with a FF (EPA, 2001; Srivastava et al.,
2001).
NOX emissions are controlled through the use of low NOX producing burners and use of a
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system in the flue gas that is capable of a 90% reduction of
flue gas NOX emissions. SCR is typically installed upstream of the PM control device.
Sometimes selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) is used for NOX control, although use of
SNCR is less common.
Figure 2 illustrates options for multi-pollutant control at power plants.
19 As of 1999: Total FGD units-151; limestone forced oxidation (FO)-38 units (25%); limestone
natural/inhibited oxidation - 65 (43%); lime FO (all forms other than Mg-lime) - 1 (<1%); lime
natural/inhibited oxidation (all forms other than Mg-lime) - 23 (15%); Mg-lime FO - 0 (0%); Mg-lime
natural/inhibited oxidation - 25 (17%). It is estimated that the numbers of natural/inhibited systems has
remained nearly the same since 1999, and the limestone FO units have increased significantly. In the
future, limestone FO units will increase significantly, and all types of natural/inhibited units will likely
decrease (Ladwig, 2007).
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Oxidizing Wet Scmbber Stack
Catalysts
Coal & Air
SCR PM Control
Figure 2. Illustration of available technology for multi-pollutant control at coal-fired power
plants.
Improvements in wet scrubber performance to enhance mercury capture depend on oxidizing
elemental mercury (Hgฐ) to Hg2+ by using additives to the flue gas or scrubber. A DOE-funded
study found that wet scrubbers can remove as much as 90% of the oxidized gaseous mercury
(Hg2+) in the flue gas but none of the elemental mercury (Pavlish et al., 2003). The percentage of
total Hg removed by multi-pollutant controls (particulate and scrubber devices) is influenced by
coal chlorine content, which determines the Hg oxidation status exiting the particulate control
and entering the scrubber. Fuel blending, addition of oxidizing chemicals, controlling unburned
carbon content in the fly ash, and addition of a mercury-specific oxidizing catalyst downstream
of the particulate matter control can help improve mercury capture (EPA, 2005).
1.2.3. Mercury Control Using Sorbent Injection
Injection of dry sorbents, such as powdered activated carbon (PAC), has been used for control of
mercury emissions from waste combustors and has been tested at numerous utility units in the
United States. There are different approaches that can be used to increase mercury capture
efficiency as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Figure 3 presents a coal-fired boiler with
sorbent injection and spray cooling. Figure 4 presents a power plant with a hot-side ESP (HS-
ESP), carbon injection, and a compact hybrid particle collector (COHPAC). Dry sorbent is
typically injected into the ductwork upstream of a PM control device - normally either an ESP or
FF. Usually the sorbent is pneumatically injected as a powder. The injection location is
determined by the existing plant configuration. Another approach, designed to segregate
collected fly ash from collected sorbent, would be to retrofit a pulse-jet FF (PJFF) downstream of
an existing ESP and inject the sorbent between the ESP and the PJFF. This type includes of
COHPAC and when combined with sorbent injection is referred to as Toxic Emission Control
(TOXECON). The TOXECON configuration can be useful because it avoids commingling the
larger fly ash stream with mercury recovered on the injected sorbent. Implementation of sorbent
injection for mercury control will likely entail either:
10
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Injection of powdered sorbent upstream of the existing PM control device (ESP or FF); or
Inj ection of powdered sorbent downstream of the existing ESP and upstream of a retrofit
fabric filter, the TOXECON option; or
Injection of powdered sorbent between ESP fields (TOXECON-II approach).
In general, factors that affect the performance of sorbent technology for mercury methods
include:
Injection rate of the sorbent measured in lb/MMacf20;
Flue gas conditions, including temperature and concentrations of HC1 and sulfur tri oxide
(SOs), and oxidation state of the mercury present;
The air pollution control configuration;
The characteristics of the sorbent (e.g., conventional or halogenated); and
The method of injecting the sorbent.
ESP or
FFI
Figure provided by ADA
Environmental Sofutions, Inc.
ESP- Electrostatic Preciplator
FF-Fabre Filters
CEM-Continuous Emission Monitor
Figure 3. Coal-fired boiler with sorbent injection and spray cooling (Senior et al., 2003).
20 Sorbent injection rate is expressed in lb/MMacf, i.e., pounds of sorbent injected for each million actual
cubic feet of gas. For a 500 MW boiler, a sorbent rate of 1.0 lb/MMacf will correspond to approximately
120 Ib/hour of sorbent.
11
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Figure provided by AD A
Environmental Solutions. Inc
WF -wall fired
A/H -si heater
COHPAC -Compact
Hybrid Particulate
Collector
Figure 4. Flow diagram for power plant with a hot ESP, carbon injection, and a compact hybrid
particulate collector (Senior et al., 2003).
1.2.4. Mercury Control by Conventional PAC Injection
The most widely tested sorbent for mercury control at utility boilers is PAC.
In general, the efficacy of mercury capture using standard PAC increases with the relative
amount of Hg2+ (compared with Hgฐ) in flue gas21, the number of active sites22 in the PAC, and
lower temperature. The amount of Hg2+ in flue gas is usually directly influenced by the amount
of chlorine present in the flue gas, with higher chlorine content enhancing Hg2+ formation. Based
on these factors, standard PAC injection appears to be generally effective for mercury capture on
low-sulfur bituminous coal applications, but less effective for the following applications:
Low-rank coals with ESP (current capacity of greater than 150 GW; the capacity with
this configuration is not expected to increase significantly in the future). Lower chlorine
and higher calcium contents in coal lead to lower levels of chlorine in flue gas, which
results in reduced oxidation of mercury and, therefore, lower Hg2+ in flue gas;
Low-rank coals with SDA and FF (current capacity of greater than 10 GW; the number of
facilities with this configuration is expected to increase significantly in the future).
Similar effect as above, except lime reagent from the SDA scavenges even more chlorine
from flue gas;
21 Standard PAC binds mercury via physical (i.e., weak) bonds, which are formed more easily with Hg2+.
There have been results that show a similar removal for both elemental and oxidized mercury. However,
the results do not account for surface catalyzed oxidation of Hgฐ followed by sorption on the carbon
(EPA, 2005).
22 These are collection of atoms/radicals such as oxygen, chlorine, hydroxyls, which provide binding sites.
12
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
High-sulfur coal (current capacity with wet FGD of approximately 100 GW; the number
of facilities with this configuration is likely to increase to more than 150 GW). Relatively
high levels of SOs compete for active sites on PAC, which reduces the number of sites
available for mercury. Generally, plants will use wet FGD and, in many cases, SCR; PAC
injection may be needed to meet mercury reduction limits; and
Hot-side ESPs (current capacity of approximately 30 GW; the number of facilities with
this configuration is not likely to increase). Weak (physical) bonds get ruptured at higher
temperatures resulting in lower sorption capacity.
1.2.5. Mercury Control by Halogenated PAC Injection
Some situations, as described above, may not have adequate chlorine present in the flue gas for
good mercury capture by standard PAC. Pre-halogenated PAC sorbents have been developed to
overcome some of the limitations associated with PAC injection for mercury control in power
plant applications (Nelson, 2004; Nelson et al., 2004).
Halogenated PACs offer several potential benefits. Relative to standard PAC, halogenated PAC
use:
may expand the usefulness of sorbent injection to many situations where standard PAC
may not be as effective;
may avoid the need for installation of downstream FF, thereby improving cost-
effectiveness of mercury capture;
would, in general, be at lower injection rates, which potentially will lead to fewer plant
impacts and a lower carbon content in the captured fly ash;
may result in somewhat better performance with low-sulfur (including low-rank) coals
because of less competition from SCh; and,
may be a relatively inexpensive and attractive control technology option for technology
transfer to developing countries as it does not involve the capital intensive FF installation.
Performance of a halogenated sorbent such as brominated PAC appears to be relatively
consistent regardless of coal type and appears to be mostly determined by whether or not the
capture is in-flight (as in upstream of a CS-ESP) or on a fabric filter.
1.3. COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUES
In 2006, 125 million tons of coal combustion residues were produced with -54 million tons
being used in commercial, engineering, and agricultural applications (ACAA, 2007). CCRs
result from unburned carbon and inorganic materials in coals that do not burn, such as oxides of
silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium. Fly ash is the unburned material from coal combustion that
is light enough to be entrained in the flue gas stream, carried out of the process, and collected as
a dry material in the APC equipment. Bottom ash and boiler slag are not affected by post-
combustion APC technology and, therefore, these materials are not being evaluated as part of
this study. Bottom ash is the unburned material that is too heavy to be entrained in the flue gas
13
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
stream and drops out in the furnace. Boiler slag, unburned carbon or inorganic material in coal
that does not burn, falls to the bottom of the furnace and melts.
The properties of fly ash and flue gas desulfurization residues are likely to change as a result of
APC changes to reduce emissions of concern from coal-fired power plants. The chemical and
physical properties may also change as a result of sorbents and other additives being used to
improve air pollution control.
1.4. RESIDUE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
CCRs can be disposed in landfills or surface impoundments or used in commercial applications
to produce concrete and gypsum wallboard, among other products. Research on the impact of
CCR disposal on the environment has been conducted by many researchers and has been
summarized by the (EPA, 1988; EPA, 1999). However, most of the existing CCR data are for
CCRs prior to implementation of mercury or multi-pollutant controls.
1.4.1. Beneficial Use
In the United States, approximately 43% percent (or 54 million tons out of total 125 million tons
produced) of all CCRs produced are reused in commercial applications or other uses that are
considered beneficial and avoid landfilling. Of the 125 million tons of CCRs produced as of
2006, about 60 percent (72.4 million tons of fly ash out of 125 million tons of CCRs) of CCRs is
fly ash which is potential candidate for use in commercial applications such as making
concrete/grout, cement, structural fill, and highway construction (ACAA, 2007; Thorneloe,
2003). Twelve million tons of the FGD gypsum was produced in 2006 with 7.6 million tons (i.e.,
62% or 7.6 million out of 12 million) used in making wall board (ACAA, 2007). Table 3 and
Figure 5 present the primary commercial uses of CCRs, and a breakdown of U.S. production and
usage by CCR type.
Some beneficial uses may involve high temperature processing that may increase the potential
for release of mercury and other metals. In cement manufacturing, for example, CCRs may be
raw feed for producing clinker in cement kilns. Because of the high temperatures (-1450 ฐC),
virtually all mercury will be volatilized from CCRs when they are used as feedstock to cement
kilns. EPA has proposed (74 FR 21136m May 6, 2009) regulations to reduce mercury emissions
from cement kilns, which may result in use of air pollution control technology similar to that
used at coal-fired power plants (e.g, wet scrubbers and sorbents for enhanced Hg capture). The
addition of air pollution control at cement kilns should not affect the ability to use fly ash or
FGD gypsum in the production of clinker. However, to avoid installation of air pollution control,
kiln inputs (such as fly ash) containing mercury may be avoided which could impact usage of
some CCRs.
Through a separate study by EPA's Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, three high-
temperature processes using coal ash have been evaluated for stability of mercury and other
COPCs found in coal ash. This research is documented in a separate EPA report (Thorneloe,
2009).
The fate of mercury and other metals is also a potential concern when CCRs are used on the land
(mine reclamation, building highways, soil amendments, agriculture and in making concrete,
cement) or to make products that are subsequently disposed (e.g., disposal of wallboard in
14
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
unlined landfill). The potential for leaching is a function of the characteristics of the material and
the conditions under which it is managed.
For some commercial uses, it appears unlikely that mercury in CCRs will be reintroduced into
the environment, at least during the lifetime of the product (e.g., encapsulated uses such as in the
production of concrete). However, the impact of advanced mercury emissions control technology
(e.g., activated carbon injection) on beneficial use applications is uncertain. There is concern that
the presence of increased concentrations of mercury, certain other metals, or high carbon content
may reduce the suitability of CCRs for use in some applications (e.g., carbon content can limit
fly ash use in Portland cement concrete).
1.4.2. Land Disposal
There are approximately 600 land-based CCR waste disposal units (landfills or surface
impoundments) being used by the approximately 500 coal-fired power plants in the United States
(EPA, 1999). About 60% of the 125 million tons of CCRs generated annually are land disposed.
Landfills may be located either on-site or off-site while surface impoundments are almost always
located on-site with the combustion operations. Although the distribution of units is about equal
between landfills and surface impoundments, there is a trend toward increased use of landfills as
the primary disposal method.
15
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Table 3. Beneficial uses of CCRs (ACAA, 2007). Total production of CCRs during 2006 was 124,795,124 short tons (values indicated
are as reported in the primary reference and precision should not be inferred from the number of significant figures reported).
CCR Categories (Short Tons)
CCR Production Category Totals2
CCR Used Category Totals3
CCR Use By Application4
1. Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout
2. Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker
3. FlowableFill
4. Structural Fills/Embankments
5. Road Base/Sub-base/Pavement
6. Soil Modification/Stabilization
7. Mineral Filler in Asphalt
8. Snow and Ice Control
9. Blasting Grit/Roofing Granules
10. Mining Applications
11. Wallboard
12. Waste Stabilization/Solidification
13. Agriculture
14. Aggregate
15. Miscellaneous/Other
CCR Category Use Tools
Application Use to Production Rate
Fly
Ash
72,400,000
32,423,569
Fly
Ash
15,041,335
4,150,228
109,357
7,175,784
379,020
648,551
26,720
0
0
942,048
0
2,582,125
81,212
271,098
1,016,091
32,423,569
44.8%
Bottom
Ash
18,600,000
8,378,494
Bottom
Ash
597,387
925,888
0
3,908,561
815,520
189,587
19,250
331,107
81,242
79,636
0
105,052
1,527
647,274
676,463
8,378,494
45.0%
FGD
Gypsum
12,100,000
9,561,489
FGD
Gypsum
1,541,930
264,568
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,579,187
0
168,190
0
7,614
9,561,489
79.0%
FGD Wet
Scrubbers
16,300,000
904,348
FGD Wet
Scrubbers
0
0
0
131,821
0
0
0
0
232,765
201,011
0
0
0
0
338,751
904,348
5.5%
Boiler
Slag1
2,026,066
1,690,999
Boiler
Slag1
0
17,773
0
126,280
60
0
45,000
41,549
1,445,933
0
0
0
0
416
13,988
1,690,999
83.5%
FGD Dry
Scrubbers1
1,488,951
136,639
FGD Dry
Scrubbers1
9,660
0
9,843
0
249
299
0
0
0
115,696
0
0
846
0
46
136,639
9.2%
FGD
Other
299,195
29,341
FGD
Other
0
0
0
0
0
1,503
0
0
0
0
0
27,838
846
0
46
29,341
9.8%
1 As submitted based on 54 percent coal burn.
2 CCR Production totals for Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, FGD Gypsum, and Wet FGD are extrapolated estimates rounded off to nearest 50,000 tons.
3 CCR Used totals for Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, FGD Gypsum, and Wet FGD are per extrapolation calculations (not rounded off).
4 CCR Uses by application for Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, FGD Gypsum, and Wet FGD are calculated by proportioning the CCR Used Category
Totals by the same percentage as each of the individual application types' raw data contributions to the as-submitted raw data submittal total
(not rounded off).
16
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
c
O
+J
c
O
ce
u
O
>
c
(D
18
16
14
10
8
6
4
1
1111
s
1
1
i
1
l
ง
=
=
i
^
1
TTT
ง
1
_,
ง
1 ^ m 1 ra m
FGD Dry Scrubbers
m Boiler Slag
H FGD Gypsum
a Bottom Ash
S3 Fly Ash
S<^
Figure 5. Uses of CCRs based on 2006 industry statistics (ACAA, 2007).
1.5. LEACHING PROTOCOL
One of the major challenges initially facing this research was identification of an appropriate test
protocol for evaluating the leaching potential of CCRs that may have increased levels of several
metals, particularly mercury. The goal of this research is to develop more accurate estimates of
likely constituent leaching when CCRs are used or disposed on land. These estimates of leaching
need to be appropriate for assessing at a national level the likely impacts through leaching of
pollutants from CCRs that is a consequence of installation of enhanced mercury and, or, multi-
pollutant controls. Because management conditions are known to affect the leaching of many
metals, evaluation of leaching potential for CCRs over a range of test conditions is needed to
consider a range of as managed scenarios (to the degree this is known), and provide leach testing
results that can be appropriately extrapolated to a national assessment. A significant
consideration in this research has been to identify and evaluate CCR samples collected from the
most prevalent combinations of power plant design (with a focus on air pollution control
technology configurations) and coal rank used. In addition, the resulting data set is expected to
serve as foundation for evaluation of CCR management options for different types of CCRs at
specific sites.
17
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
As a key part of this assessment approach, data have been collected on the actual disposal
conditions for CCRs. These conditions are determined by a number of factors, and conditions
will vary over time, which also needs to be considered when evaluating leaching (EPA, 1999;
EPA, 2002; EPA, 2007b). When disposed, CCRs are typically monofilled23 or disposed with
other CCRs, so initial conditions may be determined largely by the tested material, and any co-
disposed CCRs. However, CCR composition can change over time, due to reactions with the
atmosphere (e.g., carbonation and oxidation), leaching out of soluble species, creation of
reducing conditions at lower landfill levels, changes in the source of coal or coal rank burned, or
due to installation of additional pollution control equipment.
Many leaching tests have been developed by regulatory agencies, researchers, or third-party
technical standards organizations, and are described in the published literature. States and others
have expressed concern with the variety of leaching protocols in use, the lack of correlation of
test results with field conditions and actual leaching, and lack of comparability of available data
because of incomplete reporting of test conditions. There is also limited or no quality assurance
(QA) information for many of these tests. Leaching tests such as the Toxicity Characterization
Leaching Procedure (TCLP)24 (which reflects municipal solid waste co-disposal conditions) or
the synthetic precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP), or any number of deionized water based
tests may be inappropriate, or are at least not optimal for evaluating the leaching potential of
CCRs as they are actually managed (i.e., monofilled or co-disposed with other CCRs). These
tests either presume a set of prevailing landfill conditions (which may or may not exist at CCR
disposal sites; e.g., TCLP), try to account for an environmental factor considered to be important
in leaching (e.g., SPLP), or presume that the waste as tested in the laboratory will define the
disposal conditions [such as deionized (DI) water tests]. Most existing leaching tests are
empirical, in that results are presented simply as the contaminant concentrations leached when
using the test, and without measuring or reporting values for factors that may occur under actual
management and affect waste leaching, or that provide insight into the chemistry that is
23 The term "monofilled" refers to when a CCR is the only or dominant component in a landfill or
disposal scenario.
24 The Toxicity Characterization Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was not included as part of this study for
several reasons. First, EPA previously made a waste status determination under RCRA that coal
combustion residues are non-hazardous (65 FR 32214, May 22, 2000). Therefore, use of TCLP was not
required as indicated under the RCRA toxicity characteristic regulation for determination of whether or
not CCRs were hazardous. Second, TCLP was developed to simulate co-disposal of industrial waste with
municipal solid waste as a mismanagement scenario, and to reflect conditions specific to this scenario.
However, although MSW co-disposal of CCRs is plausible, the vast majority of CCRs are not being
managed through co-disposal with municipal solid waste, and the test conditions for TCLP are different
from the actual management practices for most CCRs. Third, SAB and NAS expressed concerns that a
broader set of conditions and test methods other than TCLP are needed to evaluate leaching under
conditions other than co-disposal with municipal solid waste. In seeking a tailored, "best-estimate" of
CCR leaching, the leaching framework is responsive to SAB and NAS concerns and provides the
flexibility to consider the effects of actual management conditions on these wastes, and so will be more
accurate in this case.
18
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
occurring in leaching. Most tests are performed as a single batch test, and so do not consider the
effect of variations in conditions on waste constituent leaching25.
In searching for a reliable procedure to characterize the leaching potential of metals from the
management of CCRs, EPA sought an approach that (i) considers key aspects of the range of
known CCR chemistry and management conditions (including re-use); and (ii) permits
development of data that are comparable across U.S. coal and CCR types. Because the data
resulting from this research will be used to support regulations, scrutiny of the data is expected.
Therefore, the use of a published, peer-reviewed (but not promulgated) protocol is also
considered to be an essential element of this work.26
EPA ORD has worked closely with EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) to identify an appropriate leaching protocol for evaluating CCRs. The protocol that
has been adopted is the "Integrated Framework for Evaluating Leaching in Waste Management
and Utilization of Secondary Materials" (Kosson et al., 2002) and referred to here as the
"leaching framework." The leaching framework consists of a tiered approach to leaching
assessment. The general approach under the leaching framework is to use laboratory testing to
measure intrinsic leaching characteristics of a material (i.e., liquid-solid equilibrium partitioning
as a function of pH and LS ratio, mass transfer rates) and then use this information in
conjunction with mass transfer models to estimate constituent release by leaching under specific
management scenarios (e.g., landfilling). Unlike other laboratory leaching tests, under this
approach, laboratory testing is not intended to directly simulate or mimic a particular set of field
conditions. Development work to-date on the leaching framework has focused on assessing
metals leaching, and this work includes equilibrium batch testing (over a range of pH and LS
ratio values), diffusion-controlled mass transfer, and percolation-controlled (column) laboratory
test methods in conjunction with mass transfer models, to estimate release for specific
management scenarios based on testing results from a common set of leaching conditions. EPA
OSWER and ORD believe that this approach successfully addresses the concerns identified
above, in that it seeks to consider the effect of key disposal conditions on constituent leaching,
and to understand the leaching chemistry of wastes tested.
The following attributes of the leaching framework were considered as part of the selection
process:
The leaching framework will permit development of data that are comparable across U.S.
coal and CCR types;
The leaching framework will permit comparison with existing laboratory and field
leaching data on CCRs;
25 Many factors are known or may reasonably be expected to affect waste constituent leaching. The
solubility of many metal salts is well known to vary with pH; adsorption of metals to the waste matrix
varies with pH; redox conditions may determine which metal salts are present in wastes; temperature may
affect reaction rates; water infiltration can affect the leaching rate, and also affect leaching chemistry and
equilibrium.
26 EPA is working to include the leaching test methods used in this research as part of standard methods in
SW-846.
19
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
The leaching framework was published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Kosson
et al., 2002);
On consultation with EPA's OSWER, it was recommended as the appropriate protocol
based on review of the range of available test methods and assessment approaches; and
On consultation with the Environmental Engineering Committee of the Science Advisory
Board (SAB, 2003), the committee considered the leaching framework responsive to
earlier SAB criticisms of EPA's approach to leaching evaluation, and also was
considered broadly applicable and appropriate for this study
For this study, the primary leaching tests used from the leaching framework were Solubility and
Release as a Function of pH (SR002.1) and Solubility and Release as a Function of the Liquid-
Solid Ratio (LS) (SR003.1)27. These tests represent equilibrium-based leaching characterization
(Kosson et al., 2002). The range of pH and LS ratio used in the leaching tests is within the range
of conditions observed for current CCR management practices. Results of these tests provide
insights into the physical-chemical mechanisms controlling constituent leaching. When used in
conjunction with mass transfer and geochemical speciation modeling, the results can provide
conservative28 but realistic estimates of constituent leaching under a variety of environmental
conditions (pH, redox, salinity, carbonation) and management scenarios.
This test set is considered Tier 2 testing (equilibrium-based) for detailed characterization, which
was selected to develop a comprehensive data set of CCR characteristics (Kosson et al., 2002).
Mass transfer rate testing (Tier 3, detailed characterization) may be carried out in the future for
specific cases where results from equilibrium-based characterization indicate a need for detailed
assessment.
Eluates from leaching tests were analyzed for more than 35 constituents (e.g., elements, anions,
DIG, DOC) and characteristics (e.g., pH and conductivity), however, 13 constituents were
selected to be the focus of this report based on input from OSWER due to potential concern for
human health and the environment.
Laboratory testing for leaching assessment was carried out at EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (Research Triangle Park, NC) with technical assistance from Vanderbilt
University.
27 LS refers to liquid to solid ratio (mL water/g CCR or L water/kg CCR) occurring during laboratory
leaching tests or under field conditions. SR002.1 is carried out at LS=10 with several parallel batch
extractions over a range of pH, while SR003.1 is carried out using several parallel batch extractions with
deionized water at LS= 0.5, 1, 2, 5 and 10. Under field conditions, LS refers to the cumulative amount of
water passing through the total mass of CCR subject to leaching. SR002.1 and SR003.1 are Vanderbilt
University test method designations. An appropriately defined and structured version of test method
SR002.1 is being proposed as SW-846 Draft Method 1313 - Leaching Test (Liquid-Solid Partitioning as
a Function of Extract pH) of Constituents in Solid Materials Using a Parallel Batch Extraction Test;
similarly, test method SR003.1 is being proposed as SW-846 Draft Method 1316 - Leaching Test
(Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid-to-Solid Ration) of Constituents in Solid Materials
Using a Parallel Batch Extraction Test.
28 In this report, "conservative" implies that the constituent release estimates are likely to be equal to or
greater than actual expected release under field conditions.
20
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The following sections discuss the specific CCR materials evaluated in this report and the
specific methods of characterization, including physical and chemical properties, elemental
composition and leaching characteristics. The Quality Assurance Project Plan supporting this
work is provided as Appendix B and assessment of quality assurance results is discussed in
section 2.4.
2.1. CCR MATERIALS FOR EVALUATION
The 73 CCR samples tested in this study (inclusive of all three reports) include 27 fly ashes
without Hg sorbent injection, 7 fly ashes with Hg sorbent injection, 2 spray dryers with fabric
filter, 11 unwashed gypsum, 9 washed gypsum, 5 scrubber sludges, 8 blended CCRs (7 mixed fly
ash and scrubber sludges; 1 mixed fly ash and gypsum) from 31 coal fired power plants (Table
4). Most coal fired power plants providing samples are identified by a single or two letter code
(i.e., Facility T or Facility Ba) to allow specific facilities to remain anonymous. In addition, 4
filter cake samples from the waste water treatment process associated with the management of
CCRs were evaluated. Table 5 summarizes the CCR samples evaluated, grouped by residue type,
coal type and air pollution control (APC) configuration. Description of the facilities and CCR
sampling points is provided in Appendix A.
The facilities and CCRs that were sampled were selected to allow comparisons:
1. Between fly ashes for different coal types (bituminous vs. sub-bituminous vs. lignite29),
particulate control devices (cold-side ESP vs. hot-side ESP vs. fabric filter), and NOX
control (none or by passed, SNCR or SCR);
2. Between fly ashes from the same facility without and with Hg sorbent injection (Brayton
Point, Salem Harbor, Pleasant Prairie, and Facilities J, L, C, and Ba);
3. Between unwashed and washed gypsum from the same facility (Facilities N, O, S, T, W,
X, and Aa); and,
4. On the impact of different FGD scrubber types on scrubber sludge (Facilities A, B, and
K), blended fly ash and scrubber sludge (Facilities A, B, K and M), and blended fly ash
and gypsum (Facility U).
29 This project had a difficult time obtaining coal ash samples from lignite coal. Samples (fly ash and
FGD gypsum) were obtained from one facility using Gulf Coast lignite. For facility Ba, the obtained fly
ash was from a coal blend of PRB and North Dakota lignite.
21
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table 4. Summary of facility configurations, CCR sample types and sample codes.
Facility Information
Facility
Code
^rayton
Point
^rayton
Point
^leasan
t Prairie
Vleasan
t Prairie
^alem
Harbor
^alem
Harbor
2A
2A
2B
2B
*C
*c
E
Coal
Type
East-Bit
East-Bit
PRB
Sub-Bit
PRB
Sub-Bit
LowS
East-Bit
LowS
East-Bit
East-Bit
East-Bit
East-Bit
East-Bit
Low S Bit
Low S Bit
MedS
East-Bit
NOX
Control
None
None
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR-BP3
SNCR
SCR-BP*
SCR
None
None
SCR (in
use and
BP)
PM
Control
CS-ESP
ACI+
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
ACI+
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
ACI+ CS-
ESP
Fabric
Filter
Fabric
Filter
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
HS-ESP
with
COHPAC
HS-ESP +
ACI +
COHPAC
CS-ESP
FGD Scrubber
Limestone
orMg
Lime
None
None
None
None
None
None
Limestone
Limestone
Mg Lime
Mg Lime
None
None
None
Oxidation
None
None
None
None
None
None
Natural
Natural
Natural
Natural
None
None
None
CCR Sample Types and Sample Codes
Fly Ash
BPB
BPT
PPB
PPT
SHB
SHT
CFA
AFA
BFA
DFA
GAB
GAT
EFA, EFB
Spray
Dryer
Ash
Gypsum
Gyp-
U
Gyp-
W
rr:n
AGO
DGD
ScS
BCD
Blended CCRs
FA+
Gyp
FA+
ScS
ccc
ACC
FA+
SCS+
Lime
BCC
DCC
Filter
Cake
22
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 4. Summary of facility configurations, CCR sample types and sample codes.
Facility Information
Facility
Code
E
F
G
H
*J
*J
2K
\
\
2M
2M
2N
20
2P
2Q
R
Coal
Type
HighS
East-Bit
Low S Bit
Low S Bit
High S Bit
Sub-Bit
Sub-Bit
Sub-Bit
Southern
Appala-
chian
Southern
Appala-
chian
Bit
Bit
Bit
Bit
Bit
Sub-Bit
Sub-Bit
PRB
NOX
Control
SCR (in
use and
BP)
None
SNCR
SCR
None
None
SCR
SOFA4
SOFA
SCR-BP
SCR
None
SCR
SCR&
SNCR5
None
None
PM
Control
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
Br-ACI +
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
HS-ESP
Br-ACI +
HS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
HS-ESP
CS-ESP
FGD Scrubber
Limestone
or Mg
Lime
None
None
None
Limestone
None
None
Mg Lime
None
None
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Wet
Limestone
Oxidation
None
None
None
Forced
None
None
Natural
None
None
Inhibited
Inhibited
Forced
Forced
Forced
Forced
Forced
CCR Sample Types and Sample Codes
Fly Ash
EFC
FFA
GFA
HFA
JAB
JAT
KFA
LAB
LAT
Spray
Dryer
Ash
Gypsum
Gyp-
Li
NAD
OAU
PAD
QAU
RAD
Gyp-
W
KfiD
NAW
OAW
ScS
Blended CCRs
FA+
Gyp
FA+
ScS
FA+
ScS+
Lime
KCC
MAD
MAS
Filter
Cake
23
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table 4. Summary of facility configurations, CCR sample types and sample codes.
Facility Information
Facility
Code
s
T
U
V
w
X
Y
z
Aa
Coal
Type
High S Bit
East-Bit
Low S Bit
Sub-Bit
PRB
East-Bit
Sub-Bit
PRB
Sub-Bit
PRB
Sub-Bit
PRB
East-Bit
NOX
Control
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
before air
preheater
None
SCR
PM
Control
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
Spray
Dryer/
Baghouse
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
Baghouse
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
FGD Scrubber
Limestone
or Mg
Lime
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
slaked lime
Limestone
Iron a
Limestone
Slaked Lime
/Spray
Dryer
Adsorber
None
Limestone
Oxidation
Forced
Forced
Forced
None
Forced
Forced
Natural
None
Forced
CCR Sample Types and Sample Codes
Fly Ash
TFA
UFA
WFA
XFA
ZFAZFB
(totals
only)
AaFA
AaFB
AaFC
Spray
Dryer
Ash
VSD
YSD
Gypsum
Gyp-
Li
SAD
TAD
DAD
WAD
XAU
AaAU
Gyp-
W
SAW
TAW
WAW
XAW
AaAW
ScS
Blended CCRs
FA+
Gyp
UGF
FA+
ScS
FA+
SCS+
Lime
Filter
Cake
TFC
WFC
XFC
24
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 4. Summary of facility configurations, CCR sample types and sample codes.
Facility Information
Facility
Code
Ba
Ca
Da
Coal
Type
Sub-Bit
PRB/
Lignite
(Gulf
Coast)
Gulf Coast
Lignite
East-Bit
NOX
Control
Low NOX
burner
SCR
PM
Control
CS-ESP w/
COHPAC
NH3inj.
before
ESP for
flue gas
conditioning
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
FGD Scrubber
Limestone
or Mg
Lime
None
Wet
Limestone
Limestone
Oxidation
None
Forced
Forced
CCR Sample Types and Sample Codes
Fly Ash
BaFA
CaFA
Da FA
Spray
Dryer
Ash
Gypsum
Gyp-
Li
Gyp-
W
CaAW
DaAW
ScS
Blended CCRs
FA+
Gyp
FA+
ScS
FA+
ScS+
Lime
Filter
Cake
DaFC
1 (Sanchez etal., 2006)
2(Sanchezetal.,2008)
3BP - designates that the post-NOx combustion control (either SCR or SNCR) was not in use or by-passed during sample collection. Clean Air Interstate Rule
requires year-round use of post-NOx combustion whereas previously if used, then it was seasonal during the summer months.
4SOFA - Separate overfire air, it is often added above the burner level to stage combustion.
5Facility P has one wet scrubber for two boilers. Both boilers have post-combustion NOX control - one with SCR and the other with SNCR. The sample collected for
this facility is from the wet scrubber.
25
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table 5. CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type and air
pollution control configuration.
Facility
Sample
ID
Coal Source
(Region)
PM
Capture
NOX
Control
Hg
Sorbent
Injection
S03
Control
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
Brayton Point
Facility F
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Salem Harbor
Facility G
Facility A
Facility L
Facility C
BPB
FFA
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
SHB
GFA
AFA
LAB
GAB
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Southern
Appalachian
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Southern
Appalachian
Eastern bituminous
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
HSESP
HSESP
w/
CO HP AC
None
None
SCR-BP
SNCR-
BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility E
Facility W
Facility E
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
EFB
WFA
EFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
Da FA
AaFC
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent
injection
- Trona
None
None
None
None
None
None
26
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 5 (continued). CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type
and air pollution control configuration.
Facility
Sample
ID
Coal Source
(Region)
PM
Capture
NOX
Control
Hg
Sorbent
Injection
S03
Control
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, High S
Facility E
Facility H
EFC
HFA
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
Pleasant Prairie
Facility J
Facility Z
Facility X
PPB
JAB
ZFA
XFA
Powder River Basin
PRB (85%)/Bit (15%)
Powder River Basin
Powder River Basin
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
Gulf Coast
CSESP
None
None
None
27
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table 5 (continued). CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type
and air pollution control configuration.
Facility
Sample
ID
Coal Source
(Region)
PM
Capture
NOX
Control
Hg
Sorbent
Injection
S03
Control
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Bituminous, Low S
Brayton Point
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Salem Harbor
Facility L
Facility L
Facility C
Facility C
BPB
BPT
SHB
SHT
LAB
LAT
GAB
GAT
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Southern
Appalachian
Southern
Appalachian
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
HSESP
HSESP
w/
CO HP AC
HSESP
w/
CO HP AC
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
SOFA
None
None
None
PAC
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
PAC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Sub-bituminous
Pleasant Prairie
Pleasant Prairie
Facility J
Facility J
PPB
PPT
JAB
JAT
Powder River Basin
Powder River Basin
Other
Other
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
None
None
None
Lignite
Facility Ba
BaFA
PRB/Lignite blend
CSESP
w/
COHPAC+
Ammonia
Injection
None
PAC
None
28
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 5 (continued). CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type and air pollution control configuration.
Facility
Hg FGD
Sample Coal Source PM NOX Sorbent Scrubber SO3
ID (Region) Capture Control Injection additive Control
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected together)
Sub-Bituminous
Facility V
Facility Y
VSD
YSD
Powder River Basin
Powder River Basin
Fabric F.
Fabric F.
SCR
SCR
None
None
Slaked
Lime
Slaked
Lime
None
None
29
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table 5 (continued). CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type and air pollution control configuration.
Sample
Facility ID
Region
Wet FGD
Residue PM NOX Scrubber Scrubber SO3
type Capture Control type additive Control
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, Low S
Facility U
UAU
Southern
Appalachian
Gyp-U
CSESP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Limestone
None
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
TAD
TAW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR&
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
Duct
Sorbent
inj. - Trona
Duct
Sorbent
inj. - Trona
None
None
None
None
30
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 5 (continued). CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type and air pollution control configuration.
Sample
Facility ID
Region
Wet FGD
Residue PM NOX Scrubber Scrubber
type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility O
Facility O
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Illinois Basin
Illinois Basin
Other
Other
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Powder River Basin
Powder River Basin
Powder River Basin
Powder River Basin
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
HSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gulf Coast
Gyp-U
CSESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
None
31
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table 5 (continued). CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type and air pollution control configuration.
Sample
Facility ID
Region
Wet FGD
Residue PM NOX Scrubber Scrubber SO3
type Capture Control type additive Control
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BGD
AGO
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Cold-side
ESP
Fabric
Filter
Cold-side
ESP
Fabric
Filter
SCR-BP
SNCR-
BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural
Ox.
Natural
Ox.
Natural
Ox.
Natural
Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
Eastern bituminous
Scrubber
sludge
Cold-side
ESP
SCR
Natural
Ox.
Mg lime
None
32
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 5 (continued). CCR samples evaluated in this study, grouped by residue type, coal type and air pollution control configuration.
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOX Scrubber Scrubber SO3
Facility ID Region type Capture Control type additive Control
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
Eastern bituminous
FA+ScS+
lime
FA+ScS
FA+ScS+
lime
FA+ScS
CSESP
Fabric
Filter
CSESP
Fabric
Filter
SCR-BP
SNCR-
BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural
Ox.
Natural
Ox.
Natural
Ox.
Natural
Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
Bituminous Med S
Facility K
KCC
Eastern bituminous
FA+ScS+
lime
CSESP
SCR
Natural
Ox.
Mg lime
None
Bituminous Med S
Facility M
Facility M
MAD
MAS
Illinois Basin
Illinois Basin
FA+ScS+
lime
FA+ScS+
lime
CSESP
CSESP
SCR-BP
SCR
Inhibited
Ox.
Inhibited
Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
33
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
2.2. LEACHING ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS
Laboratory testing for this study focused on leaching as a function of pH and LS ratio as defined
by the leaching framework. This test set is considered Tier 2 testing (equilibrium-based) for
detailed characterization, which was selected to develop a comprehensive data set of CCR
characteristics. Mass transfer rate testing (Tier 3, detailed characterization) may be carried out in
the future for specific cases where results from equilibrium-based characterization indicate a
need for detailed assessment.
2.2.1. Alkalinity, Solubility and Release as a Function of pH (SR002.1)
Alkalinity, solubility and release as a function of pH were determined according to method
SR002.1 (Kosson et al., 2002). This method is currently under review as a preliminary version of
Method 131330 for publication in SW-846. This protocol consists of 11 parallel extractions of
particle size reduced material, at different pH values ranging from pH 2-13, and at a LS ratio of
10 mL extractant/g dry sample. In this method, particle-size reduction is used when necessary to
prepare large-grained samples for extraction so that the approach toward liquid-solid equilibrium
concentrations of the COPCs is enhanced. For the samples evaluated in this study, particle size
reduction was required infrequently. Each extraction condition was carried out with replication
as appropriate31 using 40 g of material for each material evaluated. In addition, three method
blanks were included, consisting of the DI water, nitric acid and potassium hydroxide used for
extractions. Typical particle size of the tested materials was less than 300 jim using standard
sieves according to ASTM E-l 1-70 (1995). An acid or base addition schedule is formulated
based on initial screening for eleven eluates with final solution pH values between 3 and 12,
through addition of aliquots of nitric acid or potassium hydroxide as needed. The exact schedule
is adjusted based on the nature of the material; however, the range of pH values includes the
natural pH of the matrix that may extend the pH domain (e.g., for very alkaline or acidic
materials). The final LS ratio is 10 mL extractant/g dry sample which includes DI water, the
added acid or base, and the amount of moisture that is inherent to the waste matrix as determined
by moisture content analysis. The eleven extractions were tumbled in an end-over-end fashion at
28 ฑ 2 rpm for 24 hours followed by filtration separation of the solid phase from the eluate using
a 0.45 |im polypropylene filter. Each eluate then was analyzed for constituents of interest. The
acid and base neutralization behavior of the materials is evaluated by plotting the pH of each
eluate as a function of equivalents of acid or base added per gram of dry solid. Concentration of
constituents of interest for each eluate is plotted as a function of eluate final pH to provide
liquid-solid partitioning equilibrium as a function of pH. Initially, the SR002.1 test was carried
out in triplicate; however, replication was reduced to two replicates of the test method for later
Preliminary version denotes that this method has not been endorsed by EPA but is under consideration
for inclusion into SW-846. This method has been derived from published procedures (Kosson et al, 2002)
using reviewed and accepted methodologies (USEPA 2006, 2008, 2009). The method has been submitted
to the USEPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery and is currently under review for
development of interlaboratory validation studies to develop precision and bias information.
31 Initial replication was in triplicate (as indicated in Report 1 and for some of the samples in Report 2),
which was reduced to duplicate based on quality assurance review of the triplicate analyses results.
34
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
samples based on good replication and consistency amongst the early results (Sanchez et al.,
2006).
2.2.2. Solubility and Release as a Function of LS Ratio (SR003.1)
Solubility and release as a function of LS ratio was determined according to method SR003.1
(Kosson et al., 2002). This method is currently under review as a preliminary version of Method
131432 for promulgation in SW-846. This protocol consists of five parallel batch extractions over
a range of LS ratios (i.e., 10, 5, 2, 1, and 0.5 mL/g dry material), using DI water as the extractant
with aliquots of material that has been particle size reduced. Typical particle size of the material
tested was less than 300 jim. Between 40 and 200 g of material were used for each extraction,
based on the desired LS ratio. All extractions are conducted at room temperature (20 ฑ 2 ฐC) in
leak-proof vessels that are tumbled in an end-over-end fashion at 28 ฑ 2 rpm for 24 hours.
Following gross separation of the solid and liquid phases by centrifuge or settling, leachate pH
and conductivity measurements are taken and the phases are separated by pressure filtration
using 0.45-jim polypropylene filter membrane. The five leachates are collected, and preserved as
appropriate for chemical analysis. Initially, the SR003.1 test was carried out in triplicate;
however, replication was reduced to two replicates of the test method for later samples based on
good replication and consistency amongst the early results.
2.3. ANALYTICAL METHODS
2.3.1. Surface Area and Pore Size Distribution
A Quantachrome Autosorb-1 C-MS chemisorption mass spectrometer was used to perform 5-
point Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller (BET) method surface area, pore volume, and pore size
distribution analyses on each as-received and size-reduced CCR. A 200 mg sample was degassed
under vacuum at 200 ฐC for at least one hour in the sample preparation manifold prior to analysis
with N2 as the analysis gas. Standard materials with known surface area were routinely run as a
QC check. Tabular results for each CCR are provided in Appendix C.
2.3.2. pH and Conductivity
pH and conductivity were measured for all aqueous eluates using an Accumet 925 pH/ion meter.
The pH of the leachates was measured using a combined pH electrode accurate to 0.1 pH units.
A 3-point calibration was performed daily using pH buffer solutions at pH 4.0, 7.0 and 10.0.
Conductivity of the leachates was measured using a standard conductivity probe. The
conductivity probe was calibrated using appropriate standard conductivity solutions for the
conductivity range of concern. Conductivity meters typically are accurate to ฑ 1% and have a
precision of ฑ 1%.
32 Method SR003.1 was developed into a preliminary version of Method 1314: Leaching Test (Liquid-
Solid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid-to-Solid Ratio) for Constituents in Solid Materials using an Up-
flow Percolation Column Test, 2009 (submitted to EPA Office of Solid Waste; under review for inclusion
in SW-846).
35
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
2.3.3. Moisture Content
Moisture content of the "as received" CCRs was determined using American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) D 2216-92. This procedure supersedes the method indicated in the
version of the leaching procedure published by (Kosson et al., 2002). Tabular results are
provided in Appendix C.
2.3.4. Carbon Content - Organic Carbon/Elemental Carbon Analyzer
Organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) content of each CCR tested was measured using
a Sunset Lab thermal-optical EC/OC analyzer using the thermal/optical method (NIOSH Method
5040). The sample collected on quartz fiber filters is heated under a completely oxygen-free
helium atmosphere in a quartz oven in four increasing temperature steps (375 ฐC, 540 ฐC, 670 ฐC
and 870 ฐC) at 60 second ramp times for the first three temperatures and a ramp time of 90
seconds for the final temperature. The heating process removes all organic carbon on the filter.
As the organic compounds are vaporized, they are immediately oxidized to carbon dioxide in an
oxidizer oven which follows the sample oven. The flow of helium containing the produced
carbon dioxide then flows to a quartz methanator oven where the carbon dioxide is reduced to
methane. The methane is then detected by a flame ionization detector (FID). After the sample
oven is cooled to 525 ฐC, the pure helium eluent is switched to an oxygen/helium mixture in the
sample oven. At that time, the sample oven temperature is stepped up to 850 ฐC. During this
phase, both the original elemental carbon and the residual carbon produced by the pyrolysis of
organic compounds during the first phase are oxidized to carbon dioxide due to the presence of
oxygen in the eluent. The carbon dioxide is then converted to methane and detected by the FID.
After all carbon has been oxidized from the sample, a known volume and concentration of
methane is injected into the sample oven. Thus, each sample is calibrated to a known quantity of
carbon as a means of checking the operation of the instrument. The calibration range for these
analyses was from 10 to 200 jig/cm2 of carbon using a sucrose solution as the standard. The
detection limit of this instrument is approximately 100 ng/cm2 with a linear dynamic range from
100 ng/cm2 to 1 g/cm2. Tabular results of OC and EC content are presented in Appendix C.
2.3.5. Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
Analyses of total organic carbon and inorganic carbon were performed on a Shimadzu model
TOC-V CPH/CPN. Five-point calibration curves, for both dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and
non-purgeable dissolved organic carbon (DOC) analyses, were generated for an analytical range
between 5 ppm and 100 ppm and are accepted with a correlation coefficient of at least 0.995. An
analytical blank and check standard at approximately 10 ppm were run every 10 samples. The
standard was required to be within 15% of the specified value. A volume of approximately 16
mL of undiluted sample was loaded for analysis. DIC analysis was performed first for the
analytical blank and standard and then the samples. DOC analysis was carried out separately
after completion of DIC analysis. DOC analysis began using addition of 2 M (mole/L) of
hydrochloric acid to achieve a pH of 2 along with a sparge gas flow rate of 50 mL/min to purge
inorganic carbon prior to analysis. Method detection limit (MDL) and minimum level of
quantification (ML) are shown in Table 6. All DIC and DOC results will be made available
separately through an electronic format as part of the leaching assessment tool (LeachXS Liteฎ).
36
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 6. MDL and ML of analysis of DIG and DOC.
DIG
DOC
MDL (ng/L)
130
170
ML (ng/L)
410
550
2.3.6. Mercury (CVAA, Method 3052, and Method 7473)
Liquid samples were preserved for mercury analysis by additions of nitric acid and potassium
permanganate and then prepared prior to analysis according to the following method. For each
87 mL of sample, 3 mL of concentrated nitric acid and 5 mL of 5 wt% aqueous potassium
permanganate solution were added prior to storage. Immediately before cold vapor atomic
absorption (CVAA) analysis, 5 mL of hydroxylamine were added to clear the sample and then
the sample was digested according to ASTM Method D6784-02 (i.e., Ontario Hydro) as
described for the permanganate fraction (ASTM, 2002). On completion of the digestion, the
sample was analyzed for mercury by CVAA. Samples with known additions of mercury for
matrix analytical spikes also were digested as described above prior to CVAA analysis.
Sample preparation of the solids and filters was carried out by HF/HNOs microwave digestion
according to Method 3052 (EPA, 1996) followed by CVAA analysis as indicated above. No
additional preservation or digestion was carried out prior to CVAA analysis.
Mercury analysis of each digest, eluate and leachate was carried out by CVAA according to EPA
SW846 Method 7470A "Mercury in Liquid Waste (Manual Cold Vapor Technique)" (EPA,
1998a). A Perkin Elmer FIMS 100 Flow Injection Mercury System was used for this analysis.
The instrument was calibrated with known standards ranging from 0.025 to 1 |lg/L mercury.
Solids also were analyzed by Method 7473 "Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal
Decomposition, Amalgamation, and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry" (EPA, 1998b). A
Nippon MD-1 mercury system was used for this analysis. The instrument was calibrated with
known standards ranging from 1 to 20 ng of mercury. The method detection limit for mercury in
solids is 0.145 |ig/kg.
2.3.7. Other Metals (ICP-MS, ICP-AES, Method 3052, Method 6020, and Method 6010)
Liquid samples for ICP-MS and ICP-AES analysis were preserved through addition of 3 mL of
concentrated nitric acid (trace metal grade) per 97 mL of sample. Known quantities of each
analyte were also added to sample aliquots for analytical matrix spikes. Solid samples were
digested by EPA Method 3052 (EPA, 1996) prior to ICP-MS and ICP-AES analysis. Table 7
indicates the switch from ICP-MS to ICP-AES for specific elements and samples.
37
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Table 7. ICP instrument used for each element.* Elements indicated in bold are discussed in this
report; results for all other indicated elements will be available through the leaching assessment
tool.
Symbol
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Ca
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ni
K
Re
Se
Si
Na
Sr
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Instrument
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
Used
ICP-OES
ICP-
OES*
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-
OES*
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-
OES*
ICP-OES
Switch Date
Report 3 Samples
Only SR003.1 Report 1
Samples*
Report 1 and 3 Samples
Report 3 Samples
Report 3 Samples
Report 3 Samples
*Only Report 1 Samples
Report 3 Samples
Report 3 Samples
Report 3 Samples
Report 3 Samples
Only SR003.1 Report 1
Samples*
Report 3 Samples
* Samples were analyzed on the ICP-OES for the indicated elements. Measurements for the same
elements on Facility T samples (TFA, TFC, TAW, and TAU) were also completed on the ICP-
MS for comparison. Precision of results was within 15% for concentrations above 100 |ig/L and
within 25% for concentrations below 100 |ig/L.
38
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
2.3.7.1. ICP-MS Analysis (SW-846 Method 6020)
ICP-MS analyses of aqueous samples from laboratory leaching tests were carried out at
Vanderbilt University (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) using a Perkin
Elmer model ELAN DRC II in both standard and dynamic reaction chamber (DRC) modes.
Standard analysis mode was used for all analytes except for As and Se, which were run in DRC
mode with 0.5 mL/min of oxygen as the reaction gas. Seven-point standard curves were used for
an analytical range between approximately 0.5 jig/L and 500 jig/L and completed before each
analysis. Analytical blanks and analytical check standards at approximately 50 |ig/L were run
every 10 to 20 samples and required to be within 15% of the specified value. Samples for
analysis were diluted gravimetrically to within the targeted analytical range using 1% v/v Optima
grade nitric acid (Fisher Scientific). Initially, analyses for 10:1 dilutions were performed to
minimize total dissolved loading to the instrument. Additional dilutions at 100:1 and 1000:1
were analyzed if the calibration range was exceeded with the 10:1 dilution. 50 jiL of a 10 mg/L
internal standard consisting of indium (In) (for mass range below 150) and bismuth (Bi) (for
mass range over 150) was added to 10 mL of sample aliquot prior to analysis. Analytical matrix
spikes were completed for one of each of the replicate eluates from SR002.1. For each analytical
matrix spike, a volume between 10 jiL and 100 jiL of a 10 mg/L standard solution was added to
10 mL of sample aliquot. Table 8 provides the element analyzed, method detection limit (MDL)
and minimum level of quantification (ML). Analyte concentrations measured that are less than
the ML and greater than the MDL are reported as estimated value using the instrument response.
The values reflect the initial 10:1 dilution used for samples from laboratory leaching tests.
39
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Table 8. Method detection limits (MDLs) and minimum level of quantification (ML) for ICP-MS
analysis on liquid samples. Elements indicated in bold are discussed in this report; results for all
other indicated elements will be available through the leaching assessment tool.
Symbol
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Ca
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ni
K
Re
Se
Si
Na
Sr
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Zr
Units
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Hg/L
MDL
0.96
0.08
0.64
0.57
0.64
0.65
0.17
1.02
0.50
0.41
0.70
0.94
0.23
0.57
0.34
0.76
0.73
1.38
0.24
0.52
1.56
0.74
0.52
0.51
0.70
0.52
0.30
0.31
0.92
0.47
ML
3.06
0.25
2.04
1.82
2.03
2.06
0.54
3.24
1.58
1.32
2.23
3.00
0.73
1.83
1.09
2.41
2.31
4.38
0.77
1.65
4.97
2.35
1.66
1.61
2.22
1.66
0.95
0.98
2.94
1.48
2.3.7.2. ICP-OES Analysis (SW-846 Method 6010)
ICP-OES analyses of aqueous samples from laboratory leaching tests were carried out at
Vanderbilt University (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) using a Varian ICP
Model 720-ES. Five-point standard curves were used for an analytical range between
approximately 0.1 mg/L and 25 mg/L for trace metals. Seven-point standard curves were used
for an analytical range between approximately 0.1 mg/L and 500 mg/L for minerals. Analytical
blanks and analytical check standards at approximately 0.5 mg/L were run every 10 to 20
samples and required to be within 15% of the specified value. Initially, analyses were performed
on undiluted samples to minimize total dissolved loading to the instrument. Samples for analysis
40
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
were diluted gravimetrically to within the targeted analytical range using 1% v/v Optima grade
nitric acid (Fisher Scientific) if the maximum calibration was exceeded. Yttrium at 10 mg/L was
used as the internal standard. Analytical matrix spikes were completed for three test positions
from one of the replicate eluates from SR002.1. For each analytical matrix spike, a volume of
500 ML of a 10 mg/L standard solution was added to 5 mL of sample aliquot. Table 9 provides
the element analyzed, method detection limit (MDL), and minimum level of quantification (ML).
Analyte concentrations measured that are less than the ML and greater than the MDL are
reported as estimated value using the instrument response.
Table 9. Method detection limits (MDLs) and minimum level of quantification (ML) for ICP-
OES analysis on liquid samples.
Symbol
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Ca
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ni
K
P
Se
Si
Ag
Na
Sr
S
Tl
Sn
Ti
V
Zn
Zr
Units
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
MDL
1.00
8.00
15.0
1.00
5.00
1.00
6.00
3.50
1.00
1.00
4.1
2.90
7.00
6.00
1.00
3.60
1.00
2.20
1.50
6.2
17.0
2.80
18.00
3.50
1.00
8.30
5.00
17.0
6.40
1.30
2.50
2.70
ML
3.18
25.4
47.7
3.18
15.9
3.18
19.1
11.1
3.18
3.18
13.0
9.22
22.3
19.1
3.18
11.4
3.18
7.00
4.77
19.7
54.1
8.90
57.2
11.1
3.18
26.4
15.9
54.1
20.3
4.13
7.95
8.59
41
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
2.3.8. X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF)
XRF analysis was performed on each CCR to provide additional information on each CCR total
elemental composition. For each CCR two pellets were prepared as follows. 3000 mg of material
was weighed and mixed with 1.5 mL (100 mg dry solids) of liquid binder to give a 32 mm
diameter pellet weighing 3150 mg with a material-to-diluent ratio of 0.05. For high carbon
content samples 3.0 ml (100 mg dry solids) of liquid binder was used to give a 32 mm diameter
pellet weighing 3300 mg with a material-to-diluent ratio of 0.1. XRF intensities were collected
on each side of each pellet using Philips SuperQ data collection software and evaluated using
Omega Data System's UniQuant 4 XRF "standardless" data analysis software. The UQ/fly ash
calibration was used to analyze the samples. The pellets were evaluated as oxides. Known fly ash
Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) were also run to assess the accuracy of the analysis. This
information is useful in supplementing CVAA and TCP results.
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry was used in the Research Triangle Park laboratories of EPA-
NRMRL to analyze these samples. A Philips model PW 2404 wavelength dispersive instrument,
equipped with a PW 2540 VRC sample changer, was used for these analyses. The
manufacturer's software suite, "SuperQ", was used to operate the instrument, collect the data,
and perform quantification.
The instrument was calibrated at the time of installation of the software plus a new X-ray tube
using a manufacturer-supplied set of calibration standards. On a monthly basis, manufacturer-
supplied drift correction standards were used to create an updated drift correction factor for each
potential analytical line. On a monthly basis, a dedicated suite of QC samples were analyzed
before and after the drift correction procedure. This data was used to update and maintain the
instrument's QC charts.
The software suite's "Measure and Analyze" program was used to collect and manage the
sample data. Quantification was performed post-data collection using the program "IQ+". IQ+ is
a "first principles" quantification program that includes complex calculations to account for a
wide variety of sample-specific parameters. For this reason, sample-specific calibrations were
not necessary. This program calculates both peak heights and baseline values. The difference is
then used, after adjustment by drift correction factors, for elemental quantification versus the
calibration data. Inter-element effects are possible and the software includes a library of such
parameters. Data from secondary lines may be used for quantification where inter-element
effects are significant or the primary peak is overloading the data acquisition system. Where the
difference between the calculated peak height and baseline is of low quality, the program will not
identify a peak and will not report results. IQ+ permits the inclusion of data from other sources
by manual entry. Carbon was an example of this for these samples. Entry of other source data for
elements indeterminable by XRF improves the mass balance.
Table 10 presents detection limit data in two forms. The two forms are not mutually exclusive.
The "reporting limit" is built into the software and reflects the manufacturer's willingness to
report low-level data. Data listed in the "detection limit" column were based upon the short-term
reproducibility of replicate analyses (two standard deviations, 2o) and were sample matrix
specific. These calculations are likely to report higher detection limits for elements present at
high concentrations than what would be reported if the same element was present at trace levels.
In this data set, calcium is a likely example of this behavior.
42
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 10. XRF detection limits.
Analyte
Al
As
Ba
Br
Ca
Cd
Ce
Cl
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Fe
Ga
Ge
K
La
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Nb
Ni
Pb
Px
Rb
Sc
Se
Si
Sr
Sx
Ti
V
w
Y
Zn
Zr
Reporting
Limit
mg/kg
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Detection Limit,
wt%
2o (wt. %)
0.016
0.038
0.0084
0.02
0.1
0.064
0.022
0.0046
0.0024
0.0028
0.0014
0.082
0.034
0.0016
0.0014
0.0048
0.0054
0.01
0.0032
0.0026
0.0076
0.0018
0.0048
0.0034
0.004
0.0016
0.0016
0.0018
0.092
0.0016
0.05
0.003
0.0038
0.0036
0.0018
0.0014
0.0024
43
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
2.3.9. XAFS
XANES and EXAFS spectra were collected using the MR-CAT (Sector 10 ID) beamline at the
Advanced Photon Source (APS) at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL, Argonne, IL) and
beamline XI8B at the National SynchrotronLight Source (NSLS) at Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL, Upton, NY) and analyzed according to the methods previously described
(Hutson et al., 2007).
2.3.10. Determination of Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+) and Total Chromium Species in
CCR Eluates
Fly ash samples were leached at three different pH values in duplicate using the SR002.1.1
leaching procedure for the determination of hexavalent and total chromium concentrations. The
pH target values for the leachates were defined as 7-7.5, 10.5-11, and the natural CCR pH. The
eluates were split into three samples for analysis by Eastern Research Group (ERG) and
Vanderbilt University. ERG received one unpreserved and one nitric acid preserved sample.
Vanderbilt University received one nitric acid preserved sample. Samples were preserved by
adding 97 mL of leachate with 3 mL concentrated nitric acid.
Hexavalent chromium concentrations of the un-preserved CCR leachate eluates were determined
using ion-chromatography. This procedure was modified from the EPA Urban Air Toxics
Monitoring Programs (UATMP) method developed by ERG for the determination of Cr6+ in air
by analyzing the eluates from sodium-bicarbonate impregnated cellulose filters (EPA, 2007a).
The ion chromatography system was comprised of a guard column, an analytical column, a post-
column deriviatization module, and a UV/VIS detector. In the analysis procedure, Cr6+ exists as
chromate due to the near neutral pH of the eluent. After separation through the column, the Cr6+
forms a complex with 1,5-diphenylcarbohydrazide (DPC) and was detected at 530 nm (EPA,
2006c). This method had a reporting limit (RL) of 0.03 ng/mL.
The total chromium species for the nitric acid preserved samples were analyzed by ERG and
Vanderbilt University using inductively-couples plasma / mass spectroscopy (ICP/MS) found in
SW-846 Method 6020.
2.3.11. MDL and ML for Analytical Results
The MDL is defined by 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B, July 1, 1995, Revision 1.11 as "the
minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence
that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in
a given matrix containing the analyte."
The MDL was determined statistically from data generated by the analysis of seven or more
aliquots of a spiked reagent matrix33 and verified by the analysis of calibration standards near the
calculated MDL according to (EPA, 2004). The MDL then was determined by multiplying the
33 Establishing spikes in an actual leaching extract matrix is not possible because the sample being
extracted dictates the matrix composition by virtue of the constituents that partition into the resulting
aqueous extract, which varies by test position and material being tested. However, the extract aliquots are
diluted at least 10:1 with 1% nitric acid (prepared from Optima grade nitric acid, Fisher Scientific), and
the COPCs are dilute in the resulting analytical sample. Therefore, the 1% nitric acid solution was used as
the matrix for MDL and ML determinations.
44
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
standard deviation of the replicate measurements by the appropriate Students t value for a 99%
confidence level (two tailed) and n-1 (six) degrees of freedom and also multiplying by the
minimum dilution factor required for matrix preservation and analysis.
The ML is defined by 40 CFR Part 136, 1994 as "the lowest level at which the entire analytical
system must give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point for the analyte."
According to (EPA, 2004), the ML is intended to be the nearest integer value (i.e., 1, 2 or 5x10",
where n is an integer) to 10 times the standard deviation observed for determination of the MDL.
This value is also multiplied by the minimum dilution factor required for preservation and
analysis of the sample matrix to obtain the ML reported here.
The above methodology for determination of MDL and ML values was used for all ICP-MS and
ICP-OES measurements (Table 8 and Table 9).
Mercury, as measured by CVAA, required modification of the calculation of the MDL and ML
because very consistent replication resulted in calculation of a MDL lower than the instrument
detection limit. For this case, the standard deviation of seven replicate analyses of 0.025 jig/L
was 0.00069. Therefore, the MDL was set equal to the instrument detection limit of 0.001 |ig/L
times the minimum dilution factor from sample preparation (3.59) to result in an MDL of 0.0036
|ig/L. The ML was set to 10 times the instrument detection limit and rounded to the nearest
integer value as above. The resulting ML was 0.01 |ig/L.
2.4. QUALITY ASSURANCE ASSESSMENT
2.4.1. Homogenization of Individual CCR Samples and Aliquots for Analyses
To ensure sample homogeneity the fly ashes were mixed using a Morse single can tumbler
model 1-305 as described in (Sanchez et al., 2006). Scrubber sludges that were flowable slurries
were mixed using a paddle mixer. Gypsum and CCRs samples were mixed by repetitively coning
and quartering while passing through a mesh screen.34 After mixing, ten subsamples were taken
from sample MAD (blended CCRs) and analyzed by XRF to evaluate the homogeneity of the
resultant material; the total content variability for primary and most trace constituents was less
than 20% for this set of samples [see Report 2 (Sanchez et al., 2008)].
2.4.2. Leaching Test Methods and Analytical QA/QC
One of the requirements of this project was to establish a QA/QC framework for the leaching
assessment approach developed by (Kosson et al., 2002). The developed QA/QC framework
incorporates the use of blanks, spiked samples, and replicates. Appendix B provides the complete
Quality Assurance Project Plan, as updated for this phase of the study. For each designated
leaching test condition (i.e., acid or base addition to establish end-point pH values and LS value),
triplicate leaching test extractions were completed (i.e., three separate aliquots of CCR were each
extracted at the designated test condition) for early samples, while duplicate extractions were
34 "Coning and quartering" is a term used to describe how the material is mixed. The approach is to pass
the material through a screen so that a "cone" forms in the collection container. Then the cone is bisected
twice into quarters (quarter sections of the cone) and each section then is passed sequentially through the
screen again to form a new cone. This sequence is repeated several times to achieve desired mixing.
45
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
used after evaluation of initial results. The three types of method blanks were the deionized water
case, the most concentrated nitric acid addition case, and the most concentrated potassium
hydroxide addition case. Each method blank was carried through the entire protocol, including
tumbling and filtration, except an aliquot of CCR was not added.
During analysis for mercury by CVAA and elemental species by ICP-MS and ICP-OES,
multipoint calibration curves using at least seven standards and an initial calibration verification
(ICV) using a standard obtained from a different source than the calibration standards were
completed daily or after every 50 samples, whichever was more frequent. In addition, instrument
blanks and continuing calibration verification (CCV) standards were analyzed after every 10
analytical samples and required to be within 10 percent of the expected value based on the
standards used. Samples were rerun if they were not within 10 percent of the expected value.
CCV standards and instrument blanks also were run at the end of each batch of samples.
For ICP-MS and CVAA analyses, analytical spikes (aliquot of the sample plus a known spike
concentration of the element of interest) for the constituents of interest were carried out for one
replicate of each test case to assess analytical recoveries over the complete range of pH and
liquid matrix conditions. For ICP-OES analyses, analytical matrix spikes were completed for
three test positions from one of the replicate eluates. The "spike recovery" was required to be
within 80 - 120% of the expected value for an acceptable analytical result.
2.4.3. Improving QA/QC Efficiency
Throughout the study, the approach to QA/QC was regularly reviewed to seek out opportunities
for increased evaluation efficiency without unacceptable degradation of precision or accuracy in
results. Based on evaluation of results from the first several facilities [Report 1, (Sanchez et al.,
2006)], the number of replicates for Method SR002.1 (solubility as a function of pH) and
Method SR003.1 (solubility as a function of liquid/solid ratio) was reduced from three to two
[Report 2, (Sanchez et al., 2008)]. Results from Report 1 (Sanchez et al., 2006) and Report 2
(Sanchez et al., 2008) show that the precision between duplicate analyses is acceptable and that
the triplicate set does not significantly increase the quality of the data set. This finding follows
from recognition that (i) the data sets generated by Method SR002.1 and SR003.1 must provide
both consistency between replicate extractions and analyses, and internal consistency between
results at different pH and LS ratio, and (ii) precision is controlled primarily by the degree of
homogeneity of the CCR under evaluation and representative sub-sampling, rather than by the
intrinsic variability of the leaching test methods.
Data were screened for outliers based on comparison of individual data points (i) relative to
replicate extractions (i.e., parallel extractions of aliquots of the same material under the same
extraction conditions), and (ii) relative to the other data points in the extraction series [i.e.,
parallel extractions of aliquots of the same material at different pH (SR002.1) and LS conditions
(SR003.1)] because of the expected systematic response behavior. The pH was considered an
outlier when the final pH of the eluate deviated from the other replicates by more than 0.5 pH
units and the corresponding constituent analyses did not follow systematic behavior indicated by
other eluates across multiple constituents. Individual constituent results were considered outliers
when results of constituent analyses deviated from the systematic behavior indicated by results in
the extraction series (as a function of pH or as a function of LS) by more than one-half to one
order of magnitude. Results were screened through inspection of the appropriately plotted
results.
46
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
There were more than 80,000 final data observations required to complete this study, not
including additional observations required for quality control and quality assurance purposes.
Leaching test results required 69,733 observations considering all leaching test eluate analytes.
The 13 constituents analyzed in leaching test eluates evaluated in detail in this report required
27,849 final observations.
As part of the QA/QC review of the data, two authors independently reviewed the data. The
observations were screened for outliers based on comparison of individual observations as noted
above. Anomalous observations were flagged for further review by the other reviewing author
before a determination of outlier status was made.
Of the final 27,849 observations, 28 eluate concentration observations were considered as
outliers relative to the data set. Additionally, 20 pH observations out of a total of 2,042 pH
observations were considered as outliers relative to the data set. A pH observation was
considered to be an outlier when the reported pH value was clearly incorrect in the context of the
test method and other results. When a pH observation was determined to be an outlier, then all
eluate concentration observations associated with the particular eluate were also considered
outliers because they would be evaluated as a function of pH at an incorrect pH value. This
resulted in an additional 252 eluate concentrations being considered as outliers based on the pH
observation. The 300 total outlier observations were excluded from the statistical, graphical, and
tabular evaluations. The specific outliers are tabulated in Appendix K.
Overall, these results indicate an error rate of approximately 0.1 percent for determination of
constituent concentrations in leaching test eluates and an error rate of less than 1.0 percent for
pH measurements.
Data quality indicators (DQIs) were measured for all parameters continuously during the
leaching experiments and during analytical tasks. Chemical (ICP, CVAA, XRF, 1C, EC/OC) and
physical (surface area, pore size distribution and density) characterization data were reduced and
reports were generated automatically by the instrument software. The primary analyst reviewed
100% of the report data for completeness to ensure that quality control checks met established
criteria. Sample analysis was repeated for any results not meeting acceptance criteria. A
secondary review was performed by the Inorganic Laboratory Manager to validate the analytical
report.
2.4.4. Data Management
Data quality indicator (DQI) goals for critical measurements in terms of accuracy, precision and
completeness are shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Data quality indicator goals.
Measurement
Hg Concentration
Non-Hg Metals
Concentration
Method
CVAA/7470A
ICP/6010
Accuracy
80-120 %
80-120 %
Precision
10%
10%
Completeness
>90%
>90%
47
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Accuracy was determined by calculating the percent bias from a known standard. Precision was
calculated as relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate values and relative standard
deviation (RSD) for parameters that have more than two replicates. Completeness is defined as
the percentage of measurements that meet DQI goals of the total number measurements taken.
Types of QC samples used in this project included blanks, instrument calibration samples,
replicates, and matrix spikes.
Accuracy and precision for the samples analyzed for mercury concentration leachate
determinations were made using replicates and matrix spike analyses. Data validation for the
mercury samples was performed after the analyses and outliers for accuracy were re-analyzed to
improve results. Mercury samples not meeting the accuracy goals occurred most often in samples
at the alkaline end of the pH testing and with the blank samples. The greatest mercury leaching
occurred in the samples with the lower pH where there was greater availability. The samples not
meeting the accuracy goals for matrix spiking did not affect the quality of the data. Limited
volume of leachate collected for the SR003.1 samples resulted in only one spike being performed
per replicate set.
QC samples required for CVAA analysis are detailed in Method 7470A. The mercury analyzer
software was programmed with the acceptance criteria for Method 7470A with respect to
independent calibration verifications, continuous calibration verifications, and blank solution
concentrations. All calibrations and samples analysis parameters passed the QA/ QC criteria and
may be considered valid samples.
The pH meter was calibrated daily before each batch of measurements. Standards purchased
from Thomas scientific (Swedesboro, NJ) were used to calibrate the probe at pH values of 4, 7,
and 10. Each solution was certified to a precision of ฑ0.01 at 25 ฐC and was traceable to the
National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) standard reference material (SRM) SRM-
186-I-candl86-II-c.
48
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
2.5. INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION OF LABORATORY
LEACHING DATA
Complete laboratory leaching test results for each facility are presented in Appendix F. For each
facility, results are organized by constituent of interest in the alphabetic order of the symbol
(aluminum [Al], arsenic [As], boron [B], barium [Ba], cadmium [Cd], cobalt [Co], chromium
[Cr], mercury [Hg], molybdenum [Mo], lead [Pb], antimony [Sb], selenium [Se], and thallium
[Tl]). For each constituent, results of Solubility and Release as a Function of pH (from test
method SR002.1) and results of Solubility and Release as a Function of LS ratio (from test
method SR003.1) are presented side by side. Results of pH as a function of acid or base addition
(from test method SR002.1) are presented in Appendix G.
In addition, comparisons of results of Solubility and Release as a function of pH (SR002.1) are
provided in Section 3.2.1. Comparisons are grouped by residue type (fly ash, gypsum, scrubber
sludge, spray dryer absorber residues, and blended CCRs), followed by coal type and air
pollution control configurations, and are organized by constituent of interest. For each grouping,
selected results of Solubility and Release as a Function of pH (SR002.1) are also presented to
illustrate characteristic leaching behaviors.
For Solubility and Release as a Function of pH (SR002.1), results are presented as eluate
concentrations as a function of pH. The "own pH35" of the system is indicated by a circle
surrounding the corresponding data point. Included with each figure are horizontal lines at the
drinking water maximum concentration level (MCL) or drinking water equivalent level
(DWEL)36, or action limit (AL, for lead) and analytical limits (ML and MDL) to provide a frame
of reference for the results. Also included with each figure are vertical lines indicating the 5th and
95th percentiles of pH from field observations of leachates from landfills and surface
impoundments containing combustion residues (see Section 2.5.2). An annotated example of the
results is provided as Figure 6. Actual results are presented in the following sections.
For Solubility and Release as a Function of LS ratio (SR003.1), results are presented as eluate
concentrations as a function of LS ratio. Also indicated are the relevant ML, MDL, MCL,
DWEL, or AL. An annotated example of the results is provided as Figure 7.
2.5.1. Interpretation of Mechanisms Controlling Constituent Leaching
Constituent (e.g., mercury, arsenic, and selenium) concentrations observed in laboratory leach
test eluates and in field leachate samples may be the result of several mechanisms and factors.
The discussion presented here focuses on constituent leaching and source term modeling
approaches. Source term is defined here as the flux or amount of constituent released from the
waste or secondary material (e.g., CCRs). Factors controlling constituent release and transport in
and within the near field of the CCRs are often distinctly different from the factors and
35 The "own pH" of a material refers to the equilibrium pH when the material is placed in deionized water
at a ratio of 10 g CCR per 100 mL of water.
36 MCL, DWEL, and AL values used are as reported in (EPA, 2006a).
49
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
mechanisms which are important for subsequent vadose zone or groundwater transport outside of
the near field area.
In general, constituents are present in the waste or secondary material either as adsorbed species,
co-precipitated as amorphous or crystalline solid phases, or incorporated as trace components in
solid phases. These three different cases can often be distinguished from one another based on
the results of these leaching tests, either through direct interpretation of leaching results or in
conjunction with geochemical speciation modeling. If chemical equilibrium conditions are
approached (as is the approximate case for the laboratory and field sample conditions discussed
in this report), then the functional behavior of the aqueous solution concentrations reflects the
nature of the constituent species in the waste or secondary material, the presence of any co-
constituents in the aqueous phase influencing aqueous solution speciation (e.g., effects of high
ionic strength, chelating or complexing constituents), and the presence of species in the solution
that may compete for adsorption sites if adsorption is the controlling solid phase mechanism. If
the constituent is present in the waste or secondary material as an adsorbed species, many
different adsorption/desorption characteristic patterns are possible (Duong, 1998; Ruthven,
1984).
The simplest case is when the constituent of interest is present at very low concentration in the
waste or secondary material, relatively weakly adsorbed, and the presence of complexing and/or,
competing species in solution is at a constant concentration. For this case, leaching test results
will indicate a constant concentration as a function of pH at a fixed LS ratio, and linearly
increasing concentration as LS ratio decreases at constant pH. This case is represented
mathematically as a linear equilibrium partitioning function, where the critical constant of
proportionality is the partitioning coefficient, commonly known as Kd. Linear partitioning and
use of Kd values is a common approach for mathematically modeling contaminant transport at
low contaminant concentrations in soils. Assumption of linear partitioning is a valid and useful
approach when the necessary conditions (discussed above) are fulfilled37.
A different case is when mercury is adsorbed on activated carbon. For mercury adsorbed on
activated carbon or char particles in fly ash, a complex combination of adsorption mechanisms is
indicated. During laboratory leaching tests, mercury concentrations in the leaching test eluates
are relatively constant over the pH range and LS ratio of interest, and independent of total
mercury content in the CCR. In addition, the total mercury content in the CCR is very low. These
results are indicative of adsorption phenomena where, in the adsorbed state, interactions between
adsorbed mercury species are stronger (thermodynamically) than the interactions between the
adsorbed mercury species and carbon surface38. This observation has been supported by the
observation of mercury dimer formation during sorption (Munro et al., 2001) and the occurrence
37 Often specific Kd values are a function of pH because of competition for adsorption sites by hydrogen
ions. Therefore, in cases where hydrogen ions do compete for binding sites, the varying of pH would
violate the condition that competing species are at constant concentration, and the leaching curve would
not be linear. However, often a single Kd or range of Kd values are used in contaminant fate and transport
models, without accounting for any specific relationship between pH and Kd which can result in
misrepresentation of actual contaminant behavior.
38 For this case, the first mercury molecule is adsorbed more weakly than subsequent mercury molecules
because the adsorbed mercury-mercury interaction is stronger than the adsorbed mercury-carbon surface
interaction [see (Sanchez et al., 2006) for further discussion].
50
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
of chemisorption as the dominant adsorption mechanism at temperatures above 75 ฐC (consistent
with conditions in air pollution control devices (Vidic, 2002). In other studies, this phenomenon
has been observed as the formation of molecular clusters on the adsorbent surface (Duong, 1998;
Rudzinski et al., 1997; Ruthven, 1984). For this case, use of a Kd approach would underestimate
release because desorption is best represented as a constant aqueous concentration until depletion
occurs, rather than the linearly decreasing aqueous concentration indicated by a Kd approach.
A third case is encountered when the constituent of interest is present in the waste or secondary
material (e.g., CCR) as a primary or trace constituent in either an amorphous or crystalline solid
phase and there may be complexing or chelating co-constituents in the aqueous phase. Observed
aqueous concentrations are a non-linear function of pH and LS ratio, and reflect aqueous
saturation with respect to the species of interest under the given conditions (pH, co-constituents).
For these cases, an approximation of field conditions can be made empirically based on
laboratory testing and observed saturation over the relevant domain (as applied in this report), or
geochemical speciation modeling coupled with mass transfer modeling can be used to assess
release under specific field scenarios (the subject of a future report). Use of a Kd approach would
not be appropriate for these cases because constituent concentrations will remain relatively
constant at a given pH until the controlling solid phase is depleted and control is shifted to a new
solid phase or mechanism.
5th percentile
of field pH
95th percentile
of field pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
Own pH of pH
the system
CL, DWEL, or AL (for lead)
ML
MDL
Concentrations less than the
MDL are reported as 1A MDL
Figure 6. An example of eluate concentrations as a function of pH from SR002.1. Different
colors, symbols and line types are used to represent different data sets. In this example figure,
green, red, and blue indicate different CCR samples and open symbols are used to represent
replicate data.
51
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Ba concentration as function of L/S
0.0001
4 6
L/S (L/kg)
10
MCL, DWEL, or AL (for lead)
ML
MDL
Figure 7. An example of eluate concentrations as a function of LS ratio from SR003.1.
2.5.2. Field pH Probability Distribution
A probability distribution of field leachate pH values from coal combustion waste landfills was
derived, as described below, from the set of field pH observations included in the EPA Risk
Report (EPA, 2007b). The data set developed for the EPA Risk Report included (i) observations
from the comprehensive database of landfill leachate characteristics developed by the EPA's
Office of Solid Waste (EPA, 2000), (ii) field observations from literature, primarily from EPRI
reports, (iii) additional data reported to EPA, and (vi) pH observations from laboratory leaching
tests.
Only pH measurements from field samples (i.e., leachate, pore water) were selected for use in
development of the resulting pH probability distribution. The resulting data set included 580
observations from 42 CCR landfill disposal facilities and was highly unbalanced, with some sites
having only a few (e.g., less than five) observations and some sites having many observations
(e.g., greater than 20). To prevent the unbalanced data from skewing the resulting probability
distribution, the minimum, 25th, 50th, 75th percentile, and maximum values of observations for
each individual facility were compiled into a single data set. For facilities with fewer than five
observations, all observations for that facility were included. This data set then served as the
basis for determining a balanced statistical distribution function of field leachate pH values from
the disposal sites with reported values. Different distribution functions were used to fit the data
and the one providing the best data fit based on the chi-square test was selected. The resulting
field pH probability distribution was truncated and normalized to the pH range of the field data
(Figure 8) (EPA, 2000; EPA, 2007b; EPRI, 2006).
Field pH observations were also evaluated for surface impoundments that receive CCRs from
coal combustion facilities with FGD scrubbers in use. Pore water pH values measured in samples
obtained from within the settled CCRs were extracted from the EPRI database. These pH
observations were across the same range as the landfill field pH observations, but were
insufficient to develop an independent pH probability distribution for surface impoundments.
52
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Therefore, the same pH probability distribution was used for both landfill and surface
impoundment facilities.
-th
-th
The resulting 5 and 95 percentiles of observed field pH values, equal to pH 5.4 and 12.4,
respectively, are indicated on the figures of eluate concentrations as a function of pH (Figure 6).
PH
Min
5th percentile
50th percentile
90th percentile
95th percentile
Max
Field data
2.75
5.40
10.53
12.20
12.40
12.80
Fitted
distribution
-7.42
5.84
10.38
12.18
12.43
12.81
Simulated
2.76
5.85
10.24
11.94
12.43
12.43
2
3456789 10 11
PH
EPA Risk database & EPA leach
Fitted distribution (BetaGeneral)
12 13
2000
Distributions
BetaGeneral(9.0369, 1.5076, -7.4214, 12.814)
Figure 8. Probability distributions for field pH. Summary statistics for the field data and the
probability distribution are provided to the right of the graph (EPA, 2000; EPA, 2007b; EPRI,
2006).
53
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) identified the following COPCs based on the potential for
either human health or ecological impacts using a screening risk assessment: aluminum (Al),
arsenic (As), antimony (Sb), barium (Ba), boron (B), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr),
lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), molybdenum (Mo), selenium (Se), and thallium (Tl).39 Thus, the
evaluation provided here focuses on the same thirteen constituents and can be used in future risk
and environmental assessments.
3.1. TOTAL ELEMENTAL CONTENT
Total elemental content of CCR samples was analyzed by acid digestion (digestion Method 3052
and ICP-MS analysis by Method 6020; see Section 2.3.7) for constituents of potential concern
(Al, As, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Mo, Pb, Sb, Se, Tl)40 and mercury was analyzed by Method 7470 with
selected samples also analyzed by Method 7473; results of these analyses are provided in Figure
9 through Figure 21, with tabular results in Appendix D. Total elemental content for boron was
not analyzed because of interferences by the sample digestion method. Total elemental content
also was analyzed by XRF for major constituents and other detectable constituents (Al, Ba, Ca,
Cl, F, Fe, K, Mg, Na, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti) and carbon was analyzed independently; results of these
analyses are provided in Figure 22 through Figure 36, with tabular results provided in
Appendices E and C. Several of the COPCs analyzed by ICP-MS were below the detection limits
for XRF analysis (e.g., As, Sb, Se).
Two elements, Al and Ba, were analyzed by both acid digestion and XRF methods.
Measurement accuracy and precision is better by acid digestion for low concentrations (e.g., less
than 10,000 |ig/g) and better by XRF for higher concentrations (e.g., greater than 10,000 |ig/g).
Results suggest higher content for some trace elements in CCRs when SCR is in use, however,
these observations are based on single samples from a limited number of facilities and evaluation
of additional samples from the same and additional facilities is warranted. Primary observations
for the constituents of concern (Figure 9 through Figure 21 and Figure 22 through Figure 36) are
as follows:
Aluminum (Al) (Figure 9 and Figure 22). Al content in fly ash was 6-15 percent, in gypsum
between 0.3-1 percent, and in scrubber sludges 0.7-20 percent. There is no apparent systematic
effect of coal type or air pollution control system on Al content in CCRs. One likely source of
variability is the Al content of the additive used for flue gas desulfurization (e.g., limestone or
magnesium lime).
Arsenic (As) (Figure 10). As content in fly ash was 10-200 |ig/g, with a higher content (500
|ig/g) observed in one sample from a COFtPAC facility with ACT (Facility C, sample GAT). As
content in gypsum was 1-10 |ig/g, in scrubber sludge and blended CCRs 3-70 |ig/g. There was
39 The database used in the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) for the assessment was based on both
measurements of field samples (e.g., leachate, pore water) and single point laboratory leaching tests (e.g.,
TCLP, SPLP).
40 The total elemental content of boron in CCRs was not measured for samples reported here because of
analytical interference (digestion Method 3052 uses boron as part of the method).
54
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
no clear effect of coal type at the high level categorization based on coal rank and region on As
content in CCRs, although coal from within a region has been observed to have considerable
variability with respect to trace element total content.
Barium (Ba) (Figure 11 and Figure 23). Ba content in fly ash from bituminous and lignite coals
was 0.06-0.2 percent, and 0.6-1.5 percent in fly ash from sub-bituminous coals. Ba content in
gypsum was 2-80 |ig/g, and in scrubber sludges 80-3,000 |ig/g. Likely sources of variability of
Ba content in gypsum include the source of limestone used in flue gas desulfurization and the
extent of carryover of fly ash into the gypsum.
Cadmium (Cd) (Figure 12). Cd content in all CCRs was less than 2 |ig/g, with lower content
typically in gypsum than fly ash samples. An exception was the fly ash sample from Facility U
(UFA) which had Cd content of 15 |ig/g.
Cobalt (Co) (Figure 13). Co content in fly ash was 20-70 |ig/g, and 0.8-4 |ig/g in gypsum.
Results for scrubber sludge suggest less Co content in samples from facilities without NOx
controls (1-2 |ig/g) than for facilities with NOX controls (SCR or SNCR) in operation (3-40 |ig/g,
including paired comparisons).
Chromium (Cr) (Figure 14). Cr content in fly ash was 70-200 |ig/g, and 1-20 |ig/g in gypsum
with no apparent relationship to coal type. Higher Cr content in scrubber sludges was associated
with facilities using SCR (Facilities B and K, samples BGD and KGD; 50-300 |ig/g compared to
9-20 |ig/g for other samples).
Mercury (Hg) (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Hg content in all CCRs was from 0.01-20 |ig/g with
highest Hg content associated with fly ash samples from facilities with ACT and gypsum from a
facility burning lignite coal (Facility Ca, sample CaAW).
Molybdenum (Mo) (Figure 17). Mo content in fly ash and scrubber sludges was similar at 8-30
|ig/g, with one exception in fly ash at 80 |ig/g (Facility U, sample UFA). Mo content in gypsum
was 1-10 |ig/g. No apparent relationship to coal type or air pollution control system was
observed.
Lead (Pb) (Figure 18). Pb content in fly ash was 20-100 |ig/g, 0.4-10 |ig/g in gypsum and 2-30
|ig/g in scrubber sludges. No apparent relationship to coal type or air pollution control system
was observed.
Antimony (Sb) (Figure 19). Sb content in fly ash and scrubber sludge was 3-15 |ig/g and 0.15-8
|ig/g in gypsum. No apparent relationship to coal type or air pollution control system was
observed.
Selenium (Se) (Figure 20). Se content in all CCRs was distributed over range with typical
content of 2-50 |ig/g with two samples with approximately 200 |ig/g (Brayton Point, sample
BPT; Facility C, sample GAT).
Thallium (Tl) (Figure 21). Tl content was 0.8-15 in fly ash and scrubber sludges, and 0.2-2 |ig/g
in gypsum. No apparent relationship to coal type or air pollution control system was observed.
Major species analysis by XRF (Figure 22 to Figure 36) indicated that fly ash from facilities
burning sub-bituminous coals had greater content of Ba, Ca, Mg, Na, P and Sr than fly ash from
facilities burning bituminous or lignite coals. Total Ca content in fly ash can be divided into
three groupings related to coal types: (i) sub-bituminous, 10-20%, (ii) high calcium bituminous
and lignite, 1-6%, and (iii) low calcium bituminous, 0.3-0.7%. Fly ash samples with low total
55
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
calcium had acidic own pH values (typically 4 < pH < 5) compared to samples with medium and
high calcium content that had alkali own pH values (typically pH > 10). The relationship
between total calcium content (by XRF) and own pH for fly ash samples is illustrated in Figure
37. Higher calcium content results in greater fly ash alkalinity, as indicated by higher pH values.
Major species analysis also indicated that gypsum contained up to 5 wt% carbon and up to 7
wt% Si, both indicative of fly ash carry over into the FGD scrubber. Based on Si content in
gypsum, this suggests up to 5% of the non-carbon content is comprised of fly ash.
In interpreting these results, please note that the CCRs analyzed in this report are not considered
to be a representative sample of all CCRs produced in the U.S. For many of the observations,
only a few data points were available. It is hoped that through broader use of the improved leach
test methods (as used in this report), that additional data from CCR characterization will become
available. That will help better define trends associated with changes in air pollution control at
coal-fired power plants.
56
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10 -
5 10
"35
10
_
-
-
=
-
-
-
E
-
^
PI
^
22
n r
2
2
2^2"
-i
22
NA = Not Analyzed
BDL = Below Detection Limit ""
<ซ
<ซซซซ
n
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
G
=jd^y^y^y udJd^y^y y=
^
uy^b
5 With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
444r-H4444--l--W--
i-i
Q
f
4,
n
n
n
n
i
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
i-i
"
nf
r-i
i-i
-i
Gypsum
Bituminous
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sub-Bit
.3
1 1 1 ll
44=44-^4^4=1-444^4^
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
-4444-
Al
By Digestion"
I
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
Q_ L_ L_ L_ L_ L_ X LJ- LJ- ซ L_ LJ- LJ_ LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- L
_ LL. Q_ < L_ LJ-
ฃLi-ca t
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
O)
Q.Q.
Figure 10. Arsenic. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
58
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
105-E
104-E
103-E
[O5
"35
2, 7
co 10 -
CQ =
101-!
mฐ
-in'1
ซ
zz
ซ
zz
ซ
zz
<
z
^
<
z
ซ
zz
ซ
zz
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
G
\&m&&&& ^^^^d W
[Sub-Bit
\l
IsUgU
CQl-l-OOCO^C/jC^*^ J (J 1 LjJ>LjJi^rO(D(DrO LJ i Q_ iMX
ฃ LI- CQ < CQ => ~j^2> :lo.s^
ง!p'i'88 = !'ง!! pllliitt 'ง8 Mซ
2 L_ LJ_ LJ_ u_ ,_,_ C ,7 LJ- "-1- nl "-"-"-I- raLJ-LJ- O U u O U- L_ C "-1- LJ_
>> m u_cacacaca ca
TO m L_ L_ LL L_ in
m(0 CD
01 0
Q_
NA = Not Analyz
BDL = Below Del
ed
Action Limit
ซซซซซซ
zzzzzzzzzzzz
n
^
f
t
t
t
t
t
t
f
f
f
f
f
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
5 With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
i-
-
<
Q
T
~ J J JJJJ J J JJJJ_ _L_
igi isipstpsipsipsipisipgi igc.'
Q CQ CQ ui c/) ^!,^!,C3 C3 D- D- C.C.,2 > >
3 ^
I 11
ฃ &2^>^> ss ฃ
ir .hr (a ca ro ^
CQCQC/)C/) 0) <1)
D.D-
n witho
With h
Witho
With /
D Unwa:
Wash
Hashing = \
jt NOx control
JOx control
Jt ACI
\C\
;hed
3d
with COHPAC
nn
-i i-ir
J
-
__
1-1
__
Gypsum
Bituminous
II II II II II II II II II
Sub-
BitR
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1-1
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
Ba
By Digestion
(-,
-i
-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
J^uiuj^ J JJJJJ J J^LJ, -W-UU 4444444.
ggg'gigigg'g'Qiggigig'gigiggygigi ggggg oUox?c?Qw^
=>l | >'j"^'^'^'D-Zz''/'c/)Oo''^OXX^:-' CQ'o ^E = .^j^>^0 'o 77 ฐ 'G 'o ^ 'o 'o tJ'o J5^ 'u'u'o'u'u 'u'u 'o 'u'u ^ 'o 'u
co.,un3Oi7T^=i=L=nJca;:;nJ(nn3mn3cai,ca:= cacaracaca cacgnjcacamcarc
LJ- ^LJ- ca % U'o 'o ^ LJ_ L-i- LJ- ฃ ^ LJ- LJ- 'u LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ Q^ Lฃ LJ_
^ u_ ฃ,"3 ra ca
LJ_ LJ_ LJ_
Figure 11. Barium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
59
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
io-
O)
O
Figure 12. Cadmium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
60
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
O)
o
10"
~~^
zz
PI
PI
zz
zz
PI
z
i-i
i-i
z
1-1
zz
In
zz
i
NA = Not Analyz
ซซซซซซ
zzzzzzzzzzzz
ed
Action Limit
t
0
f
f
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
G
=jd^y^y^y i=uj=y=y=y y=
^
uy^b
5 With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
444i4^~W44^-m^-l^~
._.
Q
f
4=
.-
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
--
i-i
i-i
In
nf
i-
-i
Gypsum
Bituminous
II II II II II II II II II II II II II 1
Sub-Bit
.3
1 1 1 ll
44=44-^4^4=1-444^4^
E
i-i
Scrubber
B tuminous
-4444-
c
ty Digestic
i-i
0
in-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
ฃLJ-CQ?-&
c y 'o 'o o 'o
o ,ra co co ro ca
2 L_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ ,_,_
Q_ L_ L_ L_ L_ L_ X LJ- LJ- ซ L_ LJ- L_ LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- L
C5S^^ t
illi l
_ LJ- Q_ < L_ LJ-
>1>,>1
'o 'u 'o
IS
1*11
3-S-c 1 ra
_?'co'ccOOc
_0)_0)
Q.Q.
Figure 13. Cobalt. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
61
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Cr
By Digestion
NA = Not Analyzed
BDL = Below Detection Limit
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
<<<<<ซ<ซ<<
Sub-Bit ? With and Without ACI
_ " _ _ u_ _ _ _ _ _ _
5,cd,CTl Hj-iJ> LL),^, 5 ra ca ca
Figure 14. Chromium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
62
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10"
_
-
-
E
-
-
-
=
E
-
^
-
2.
Z
~
2
-i
^T2T
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
G
^y^y^y^y ud j^y=y=y y=
~
p.
Sub-Bit
1 1 1
-LJ-4-
r-i
n
_
...
\IA = Not Analyzed
3DL = Below Detection Lin
-
-
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
f
f
t
t
t
;
t
' t
;
4
t
f
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
dr4Jr-Ur4dr4Jr-y^
-i
Q
f
4,
lit ""
r-
|-|
D Without NOx contra
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
|-,
-
|-|
-
-i
-i
Gypsum
Bituminous
II II II II II II II II II II II II II
Sub-Bit
.3
1 1 1 ll
^-W-4J^dcy^cH=Hcl^'^ddc
Hg (ivietnoa /4/uj
By Digestion"
~
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
._.
-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
Q_L_Ll_Ll_Ll_Ll_^Ll_Ll_<:
cQ^z-Qt^JB^w Cฃ,<,-
cOouOo-r'uu
o.^cacacaca-'-mra
2 L_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ ,_,_ C|^Ll_
_ _
I LU
ll
_ _
LUI
^
1!
Q_ <ฃ L_ LJ-
Q_-iMX
Q_ Q_ T " - < - Q_ - < < J-
CD CD t/) t/) i ^(j o Q. Q. i ^, ro
0101
Figure 15. Mercury. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Method 7470).
63
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
io1-
_
-
-
0
10 ;
PO -
""" -in'2
10 ;
-
-
-
-ir.'3
10 =
_
-m'4
~
^^^^
^^^_,
-
<ซ
^^_,
^^^^
-
ซ
2^r
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
G
yg^gtslgyglglsU 1^^^^^ W
<ฃ
-2.
r-i
Sub-Bit
III
S'S'5'5
n
y
""
\IA = Not Analyzed
3DL = Below Detection L
~
i-i
-
t
t
t
t
t
ซ t
^
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
\ [j
t
i
j
j
j
j
ซ *
_,_, ^
<
With and Without ACI ^
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
S'PS'pS'PS'Pslp'S'pg' Iglg
D Without NOx control
mil "" D With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
1 r
<(
. ._,
r-
-
<ซ
_,_,_,
ซ
^^
-
<;
2
i-i
Gypsum
Bituminous
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111
44^^M4^^
Sub-
Bits
l
51515^
Hg (Mel
<-<-<-<-<-
^^^^^
Scrubber
Bituminous
S'steys
thod 7473)
By Digestion
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
loydoysyc:
E^CQ> raO^.S1 0 ฐ ฐ-e-eiW2^raraOOCa ^S1 &.S1S>^> <^ ^ ^^^^^^^^.S1^ S1^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
fiiiiiism iipifftt ii 1^1 1 iiii^iiii^f ii iiiiftttiiiiiippit iiiis 11111111
Cu (ft d) CQ^OOCOOJOJ
a. a_a_
Figure 16. Mercury. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Method 7473).
64
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10 -
O)
Figure 17. Molybdenum. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
65
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
10
Figure 18. Lead. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
66
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10 -
NA = Not Analyzed
BDL = Below Detection Limit
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
O)
c/)
Sb
By Digestion
10
Figure 19. Antimony. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
67
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
10 -
II i|ttt|il|:li|t 'i'i'i'i'
--^00 ฃ-ฃ-ฃ --o
Figure 20. Selenium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
68
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
O)
p 10-
10
Figure 21. Thallium. Comparison of total elemental content by digestion (Methods 3052 and 6020).
69
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
io6-
_
-
-
-in5
10 =
-
~
-
4
rai E
~O> I
^
-in3
10 ;
io2-
_
~
in1
^p
Jin
n n
PI
1-1
-i PI
r-i
r-i
p
1_1
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
| Medium S |
Q
JJJJJJJJ J JJ U J LJJJJ J J l_l_
Is1g1g1g*<1g1sl5151sls1 Igwgl51g|s1s1g|ol 'G'S1
I^KIIf |S| H^HU!
Sub-Bit -s
1 1 1
ysMsi k
NA = Not Analyzed
BDL = Below Detection Limit
r-i
n nn
P
t
t
t
t
t
t
f
J
;
t
;
,
F
>
^
H1
H1
H1
t
\
\
;
>
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
ypisysysipisysyg1
<
in
II
yd
D Without
NOx
control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing
= with
COHPAC
p.
PI
In
-
-
pi
Gypsum
Bituminous
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ft Pi! ง I
if) o) mLUt/)t/)a)0)
a. a. a.
y
i
Sub-BitJ5
1 1 1 1
^^งy
p|
f]
Scrubber
B tuminous
sfefefet
B}
Al
/XRF
||
i
pi
-
Blended OCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
-1444444-
cJO'O'cjrO'SwI
z?
H
w
o
ฃ
wC
") .-, Q^ f~YX ><; ^i' CQ) >) >-, 21 ^.-^ 2^Q ^^S1^^ ^^^^^ &&&
o o ^ 'o 'u y 'o -^ 'o'o'o'o'o 'u'u o u o -Q 'o 'o
cncayraca.^ca'- carararaca racacacacajncara
ul LJ_ ฃ LJ- LJ_ "-1- LJ_ ^ L_ L_ u- u- u- L_ L_ u- u- u- ul LL. LJ-
co
Figure 22. Aluminum. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10 -
10 -
O)
2, 7
ra 10 -^
CO
10"
-=
=
-
-
PI
n
-i
PI
^
MA = Not Analyzed D Without NOx control
3DL = Below Detection Limit D With NOx control
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
| Medium S |
Q
^y^y^y^i^ ud j^i^y^ ut
Sub-Bit
1 1 1
AAJb
5
^.
t
t
t
t
f
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
. t
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bitlf
J J JL-LJ J J JJJJ^-
m witnoutAU
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with CC
)HPAC
QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn
QQQQQQ
CD CD CD CD CD CD
<; Gypsum
1/1 Bituminous
II II
Sub-BitN
=U ^-4-U-Hcrlcry^crHcrl^
i
Q
03
r-i
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
dddd^
Ba
ByXRF
-I
i
Q
CD
1
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
m
111
-N-UN-W-
Q_ L_ L_ L_ L_ L_
O O O O O < ^ O
co< co< :*: ^ ^ D
& & & & & & & &
'u'u 'o 'o'u ^ ^ 'u
cacacacacajncara
L_ L_ L_ L_ L_ ฃ LJ_ LJ-
Figure 23. Barium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
71
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
g
10 ^
-
_
_
_
-in5
10 -
rai
O)
" -in4
o 10 =
=
-
-
3
10
-
-
_
-
in2
-
r~
r-i
-
r-i
i-i
~
PI
PI 1-1
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
| Medium S |
Q
JJJJJJJJ J JJ U J LJJJJ J J l_l_
Is1g1g1g*<1g1sl5151sls1 Ig|s1gl51g|51s1g|ol "e^s1
I^KIIf IS| IP^Illll
Sub-Bit 5 Wit
m B,
ysfey y y^s
NA = Not Analyzed
7
H>
F '
iflf
; n n
^
!i
! T
i /
! L
t
t n
'
. ^ ..
t
i.;
7[
*
j
j
t
t
t
hand 'fiithoutACI
uminou0 Sub-Bit-
kkk^skkk^
LJ I d) ' ^ X ~ ' 'c'c *~ ^ ' 'OO ^ ^ ' '
._.
<
CO
II
yd
D Without NOx control
D Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
r-i
.-.
n
-
i-
-
PI
|-|
T
.-.
Gypsum
Bituminous '
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
44^m4
03 ฃ-<^- 2-t-^^ > ^ TO TO $^^
ft Pi! | I
m1"" TO TO i; ub-BitN
1 1 1 1
__
n n
Scrubber
B tuminous
sfefefet
u
r
-i
Blended OCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
ddddd&k
^"'co
if) Q --. Q^ O"^* X ^~' CQ^tCQ^t^ rn~J& >p >? ^ & 2vt? 2^Q ^^^^^ ^^^^^ &&&
l^lllllll^ 11111 llllllll
[2 "- l2 1J- ฃ "- lฃ lฃ ^ [ฃ [ฃ LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- LJ- ฃ il LJ-
TO
Figure 24. Carbon. Comparison of total elemental content.
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10-
10 -
O)
c3 10
io3^
10
NA = Not Analyzed
BDL = Below Detection Limit
Fly Ash
D
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
D
D
Gypsum
Scrubber
Sludge
Ca
-ByXRF
Blended CCRs
o , ra ca 'u i
2 LJ- LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ L
11
.-....
11 Hill
-iJ-uT.ra ra
_0)_0)
D.D-
Figure 25. Calcium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
73
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
105-E
10 -
5
^_
o
102-E
10-:
10
NA = Not Analyzed
BDL = Below Detection Limit
Fly Ash
D
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
D
Gypsum
Scrubber
Sludge
Cl
ByXRF
Blended CCRs
Figure 26. Chloride. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
74
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
-in5
10 -
-
_
_
-in4
10 -
"35
Ll_ 10 =
-
:
-
-in1
QQQQQQQQQQQ
COCQCOCQCOCQCOCQCOCQCO
QQQQQQQQQ
COCQCOCQCOCQCOCQCO
QQ
COCO
QQ Q
COCO CO
n
CO
NA = Not Analyzed
_i
n
CO
QQQQQQQQQQQ
COCQCOCQCOCQCOCQCOCQCO
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
G
yg^gtslgyglglsU 1^^^^^ W
|sub-Bit|
||
1
ysfey y
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Isub-BitN
ypistypisipisysygi
_l_l
QQ
COCO
D Without NOx control
With MOv rnntrnl
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
_i_i_i
QQQ
CO CO CO
_i_i_i_i_i_i_i
QQQQQQQ
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
_l
Q
CO
Gypsum
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
1 1 1 1 111 111
yd yyyyyyyyybybybybyb^y
-
_l _l _l
QQQ
CO CO CO
Scrubber
B tuminous
cjSteyS
F
By XRF
_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i
QQQQQQQQ
COCQCOCQCOCQCOCQ
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
loydoysyd
BtaฃS3wo<^3 ty.|Sg.||| Si ฃ3,M,x Q se,ฃฃ3.3.33ฃฃ3,3,| ฃ> a,t^|p||fei,zWwogg,axg< QoS^l|^ir^ ^2^2^83. &>> li^r 5" s'sll^^lliiiS l>s> ^^f^ff^l^^^?,^^ >->-&&& 2^>^^l
|i2ฃฃฃฃEฃฃ Wl^|||l ฃฃ E^ฃฃ | llEE^^EE! ฃฃ ^^llitt^l^l^P^^t ฃฃฃฃฃ ฃฃฃฃฃ|ฃฃ
CD ^ S CQCQ^^ ss
D. D.D-
Figure 27. Fluoride. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
75
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
10"-
ioฐ-
oi 10 -^
O)
CD
10
-
~_
nn
i
-
PI
-i
-i
nnn
nn
-, r-i
\IA = Not Analyzed
3DL = Below Detectio
|-i
-ip
-
F
t
t
vxxxxxv
!!
>
nn 7(
t
t
t
4
t
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
| Medium S | | ^
^y^y^y^dd ud^y^u^y ut
Sub-Bit
1 1 1
- _uy~
\ With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
, dr4Jr4^dr4^W4-b
n Limit
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
D Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
^
<
r-JT
-
Gypsum
1/5 Bituminous
II II II II II II II II II II II II II III
Sub-BitN
1 1 1 1
^ ^-4-U-Hcrlcry^crHcrl^
i-
-
r-i
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
dddd^
B}
-
-
Fe
/XRF-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
-m-N-w-
ฃLi-ca t
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
O)
10
I
_
_
-
-
-
~
=
-1
i-
-
i-i
i-i
PI nfln
Fly Ash
Bituminous Su
Low S
| Medium S | | ^
JJJJJJJJ J JJ U J LJJJJ J J U, _L
NA = No
Rni RO
t Analyzed
low Detectk
n-n-Bfei
mill
!;
j^
\
' ^
' ^
' ^
' ^
;
" " ;
iri'
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
;
b-Bit 5 With and Without ACI
Bituminous |sub-Bit|5
~w^~ -~ ^~n^4w^~m^~w^~n^~
3n Limit
D Without NOx control
D With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
-i
"-
n nr-
i i
QQ
CD CD
r-i
<; Gypsum
1/5 Bituminous
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1
Sub-Bit
.3
1 1 1 ll
^ ^-4-U-Hcrlcry^^^
1-1
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
dddd^
B\
DJ
K
/XRF-
1-1
-
-i
i-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
-m-N-w-
ฃLJ-CQ
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-in5
10 -
_
-
-
-in4
10 ;
_
-
-
ui 103-E
ZL
O)
102-E
W-E
_
-in0
-
~
-
r-i
PI
1-1
r-i
-
PI
PI
~
PI
""
MA = Not Analyzed
3DL = Below Detection Limit
~
F
t
t
t
f
*f
t
;
t
;
t
nn
.-.
J
J
'
j
,
J
F
J
J
t
T
\
\
' t
f
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
G
yg^gtslgyglglsU 1^^^^^ W
Sub-Bit
1 1 1
ysfey
r
y
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
ypistypisipisysygi
i-i
C/)
T
ty
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
PI
-
-
i_.
P
Gypsum
Bituminous
II II II II II II II II II II II II II
44^&^4
CO LL,Q C_XO,Z> (f) C3 <^iUI> t-^15 tL^-Jr ra ra ra LฑJ I Q_ ^,I^iS ro ^ ฃ9-O ^ ciUdO C3 Q- Q- Cl^ ro ป H> H^E > 5 rc "ai "-^9-Q-Z
o SZ'Z'Z' Z^o ^Z'S^ .Z?Zr:^Z>Z>ซ a< 2>Z> ^-S?2' O ฐ,g-e-e.^- S^^S'S'-SCQ ^S1 2^>^ *<<(5Sl-
!! pi! * 11
LLJ y^ (1) CUL1-'t/)t/)tl)tl)
D. D.D-
Sub-Bit
.g
1 1 1 ll
^^4^E^
p
Scrubber
B tuminous
sestet
Mg
By XRF
P
PI
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
oydoysyd
z t/^c/j o n ^ O"5Sx ra QOcc<^: QOCQ<^:^^Z)
^^^'u^o'Um^-S1 'u'uo'u'u 'o'o'o'o'o^'o'o
^ LJ- ฃ LJ- LL L1- LJ- ^ LJ- ^ L_ L_ LJ_ L_ L_ L_ L_ U_ U_ U_ ฃ L_ LJ_
CO
Figure 30. Magnesium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
78
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
io5-
_
-
-
-in4
10 =
=
_
5J 103-
O)
3.
it^t^llli
5iB
[g
:z
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
5
10
_
-
-
PI
PI
-
-iH
-
i-i
NA = Not Anaty
n f
t
t
t
t
;
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
| Medium S |
Q
^y^y^y^i^ ud j^i^y^ ut
Sub-Bit
1 1 1
AAJb
5
^.
With and Without AC
Bituminous Sub-B
AAAAAAAAJiAAr
zed C
D
C
fin
Ha
ft
if ' '
t
t
t
<
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
shing = with COHPAC
r-.
-
i i
QQ
CD CD
r-l
Gypsum
1 ^ Bituminous
i II II II II II II
II
Illlllll
~i^~ -~\~ ^~i^~i^-m-m^-m^~i^~m^~
Sub-Bit
I-I
.3
1 1 1 ll
-]-kU=
|-|
i-i
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
dddd^
BI
1-1
/XRF-
i
Q
CD
1
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
m
111
-m-N-w-
Q_L_Ll_Ll_Ll_Ll_^Ll_Ll_":
O O O O O < ^ CI>
Su-
.,.....
^ 1HH
0) 0)
D.D-
Figure 32. Phosphorous. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
80
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
106-
_
-
_
_
_
-in5
10 -
"35
" -m4
co 10 =
-
io3-
_
_
-
-m2
-
-, p
~
-
PI
PI
PI
NA
BDL
pi r
-
= Not Analyzed
= Below Detection Limit
[L
-
n
^
;
^
^
nn
0
;
j
j
Fly Ash <
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
y^^sWsyigl
S
งllllli|l|| p
2 LL. LJ_ LJ. LJ_ LL. ฃ iZ LI- "- lZ "-Li-
ra a
m ra
LU c/1
^
3
>
'u
CO
L_
3
5
c^
gl
Q
oiy
u 'u &&ฃ>&
ca ca ^= ^=
u_ u_ u u 'o o
CO CD CD CD
LJ- LJ- Ll_ L_
in
LU
'u
S.
3
Sub-Bit
1 1 1
ysMsi
2 With and
Without ACI ^
Bituminous |sub-Bit|5
ji ypisU
>"> .= 21 21 O O O -D -Q
u Q- ro m ^ ^ ceil
1 ฃ ffll
0) L13 CD y^ QQ
Q_
yp
Jsipfstfeys1 yd 4
D Without NOx control
D With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
rl|_1 Hashing = with COHPAC
nn
Gypsum
Bituminous '
II II II II II II II II II II II II III
Sub-BitN
I I 1 1
nrf
Scrubber
B tuminous
S'S'S'S'C
By X
^>
RF
Pi
n n
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
II II II II II II II
-N-UN-W-
o'o'o'o'o'Swi
m (D'o'oQ-Q- CD CD -^ 'o O 'o y U i^ - .^^ >> ^ 'o TT ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ >~> 'u'u'o'u'u '(3 '(3 'O 'O 'O ^ ^ '(3
LrLl_CDCD*i*iLl_Ll_~ CD CD CD.^CDO'TT^ -caraSCaCDCDyfOcD,CaCD'- CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCDmCDfO
^^LLLLCC U L_L1_ L.^uICD^O'^ Ll-LL^Ll-^LZ^I-l-Ljl'-'-Lj:^ LL-LL-Ll-l-l-l-l- L-L-U-U-U-^iZu-
(/)(/) Ll_ Lj-LJ_Li_CDcD CD
0) 0)
Q.Q.
Figure 33. Sulfur. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
81
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
106-
_
-
_
_
105-
_
-
_
rai
O)
i
ฃ io4-
-
-in3
10
-
-
_
-
in2
nf
n n
i-i
-
^
|~||-||~| |~|
l~ln
Fly Ash
Bituminous Sub
Low S
| Medium S | | ^
JJJJJJJJ J JJ U J LJJJJ J J U, JJ
B1
H-
H-
H-
t
'
'
'
J
,
'
>
-Bit s With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
5*5" ^ mPSvfev^S^PSv^SV-^5
~
<
CO
II
InW
n
n
i
1
n
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
Hashina = with COHPAC
-
n
,-1
i-i
"
Gypsum
Bituminous Sub-Bit
.2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll
sMd4J
Q_ Ll_ Ll_ Ll_ Ll_ Ll_ ^ Ll_ Ll_ -i>.->, TO . = o o -^ >^~/ ^-^ c c >-, ;
^ซCi< &g< 'ssl1!1 0 ฐ ฐ-e-e^ฃ^^raraฃi
"u.&.&.&.S1 1^ i^l'g .& ^^iil'^^^ii^i
^iS^^^^ ฃฃ E"-^^ ^ 22EEi2L2rara--1J.iJ
IฃIฃฃLฃ S ฃ &&i 2> S^.S1^ 5
-f -2-2 ^If
m1" TO eg .h: ,y> eg eg eg eg
t/) 0) m m C/) C/) 0) 0)
D. D.D-
i
,-f --
<^
<^
t.i
"1
"^
r Z-r "^t "^t Z-r "^t ^? "^t ^? "^t "^t "^ 2?
b1
l-l
i-i
Scrubber
B tuminous
S'S'S'S'S
B\
Dj
C3l
/XRF
r
._.
-
i-i
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
-1444444-
tJtJtJtJtJEfWL
5 cri cri cri cri cri oooOO'^'^cri
ra QOCQ<^ QOCQ<^^^ =
'2-Q-zzwu1Oo'ci:axx^- CQ51.&i>.ei.sis^.sv|>.^ i1^!1!1!1 l1!1!1!1!1.^.^!
^is-iO'o7^ o 'o 'o ^ 'o 'u y 'o -^ 'o'o'o'o'o 'u'u o u o (; 'u c
Z. TOcOXTOf-.fgJJfgmCQflj.ri COCOTOCOCO COCOTOCOCOfnfgC^
j = LJ- LJ_ ^ LJ_ ฃ ฃ CO u_ ฃ LJ_ ฃ = LJ! LJ! LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ L_ L_ L_ L_ L_ ฃ Ljl LJ.
0 CO CO
">
Figure 34. Silicon. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
82
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
O)
O)
3.
to
SLI-L
.. ...
11
.-....
11 Hill
ฃฃ$c/>
-iJ-uT.ra <5
_0)_0)
D.D-
Figure 35. Strontium. Comparison of total elemental content by XRF.
83
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
5
10
_
~
-
CD
-
-
NA = Not Analyzed
BDL = Below Detection Limit
-
c
H-
*
f
t
\
f
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
G
44444444444 i=uj=y=y=y 14=
Sub-Bit
1 1 1
444-
r
^_
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
444444444444^
f
-
Q
f
4=
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
i-
CD
cocococococococo
-
CO CO CO
Gypsum
Bituminous
-1
ECO
Sub
-Bits
II
144444444444444444'- ~-
nF
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
B}
i-i
Ti
f Xrxr
-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
1 1 1 II 1 1 1
Q_ Li- U_ LL LL LL ~r LL LL LL^^ ra ro ro ra LU i Q_ C^C^iS ro m ฃ9,CO t/) cdcdCTl 00.0."
ELL.CQ
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
14 -
1 Q
1 o
I f.
1 1
I I
in
n
i 9
Q.
, o
1 8 .
0 7
/
c
1
Ca
' 2
o3
:
ป--i--f-T-j|
! !<*c
3 456
ซ
j a 9
1(
C
o . '
i *
mo \
--D---
2 3 '
D4
ia - Total By XRF [|J
i
z
5 (
9/f)]
5789
1(
<
n
D5
2ss A.
^. ^....
^^
Low S Bit
Medium o bit
X High S Bit
$ Sub-bit
n Lignite
2 34
5
Figure 37. Total calcium content (by XRF) and own pH for fly ash samples.
85
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
3.2. LABORATORY LEACHING TEST RESULTS
Appendix F provides graphical presentation of the results of Solubility and Release as a Function
of pH (SR002.1) and Solubility and Release as aFunction of LS (SR003.1) for the 13
constituents of interest in this report. Results are grouped by facility type and within each facility
comparisons are made by CCR type (fly ash without Hg sorbent injection, fly ash without and
with Hg sorbent injection pairs, spray dryer, gypsum, scrubber sludge, blended CCRs, and filter
cake) and constituent of interest. Appendix G provides graphical presentation of the pH titration
curves from test method SR002.1.
Discussed below are:
1. Typical characteristic results for pH and each of the 13 constituents of interest (Section
3.2.1);
2. Comparison of the ranges of observed constituent leaching concentrations from
laboratory testing (minimum concentrations, maximum concentrations, and
concentrations at the materials' own pH - Section 3.2.2);
3. Comparison of the constituent maximum leaching concentrations and concentrations at
the materials' own pH from laboratory testing grouped by material type with
measurements reported elsewhere on field leachate and pore water samples for CCR
disposal sites and the database used in the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b) (Section
3.2.3); and,
4. pH at the maximum concentration value versus the materials' own pH (Section 3.2.4).
Complete data also have been developed for other constituents (e.g., other ions, DOC, etc.) to
facilitate evaluation of geochemical speciation of constituents of concern and provide more
thorough evaluation of leaching under alternative management scenarios in the future if
warranted.
For each CCR evaluated, results of the leaching tests provide the following information:
Leachate concentrations for the constituents of interest as a function of pH over the range
of reported field management conditions (from test method SR002.1);
pH titration curves (from test method SR002.1). This information is useful in
characterizing the CCR and assessing how it will respond to environmental stresses and
material aging (e.g., carbon dioxide uptake, acid precipitation, co-disposal, mixing with
other materials); and,
Leachate concentrations for the constituents of interest and pH as a function of LS ratio
when contacted with distilled water (from test method SR003.1). This information
provides insight into the initial leachate concentrations expected during land disposal and
effects of pH and ionic strength at low LS ratio. Often these concentrations can be either
greater than or less than concentrations observed at higher LS ratio (i.e., LS=10 mL/g as
used in SR002.1) because of ionic strength and co-constituent concentration effects.
The MCL, DWEL, or AL (for lead) as available is used as a reference value for the constituent of
interest. However, laboratory leaching test results presented here are estimates of concentrations
86
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
potentially leaching from landfills, not the concentrations at potential points of exposure. Any
assessment of the environmental impact of these releases needs to consider the dilution and
attenuation of these constituents in ground water, and the plausibility of drinking water well
contamination resulting from the release. Dilution and attenuation factors for metals (DAFs)
have been estimated to be potentially as low as 2 to 10 on a national basis or as high as 8,000 at a
particular site with hydrogeology that indicated low transport potential41. Therefore, comparison
of the laboratory leach test results with thresholds greater than the MCL and developed for
specific scenarios may be appropriate.
3.2.1. Typical Characteristic Leaching Behavior as a Function of pH
Comparisons of the leaching behavior as a function of pH for each of the 13 elements of interest
are presented in Section 3.2.1.1 for fly ashes without Hg sorbent inj ection (as a baseline
measure), Section 3.2.1.2 for fly ashes without and with Hg sorbent injection pairs, Section
3.2.1.3 for unwashed and washed gypsum, Section 3.2.1.4 for scrubber sludges, Section 3.2.1.5
for spray dryer absorber residues, and Section 3.2.1.6 for blended CCRs (mixed fly ash and
scrubber sludge/mixed fly ash and gypsum). These comparisons illustrate on an empirical basis
some of the differences in leaching behavior for different CCRs that result from the combination
of the coal type combusted and air pollution control configuration used, including particulate
control devices (cold-side ESP, hot-side ESP, or fabric filter), NOX control (none or by passed,
SNCR or SCR), and without and with Hg sorbent injection.
These figures illustrate that for a particular constituent, the chemistry controlling release or
aqueous-solid equilibrium may be similar within a material type (i.e., mercury behavior for fly
ash or scrubber sludge) or across material types (i.e., the same behavior for aluminum in fly ash
and blended CCRs) but that there are not necessarily generalized behaviors present for each
constituent that are consistent across all samples within a material type or between material
types. The most robust groupings of leaching behavior will result from the development of
geochemical speciation models of the materials that account for the underlying solid phase
speciation (e.g., solid phases, adsorption behavior) and modifying solution characteristics (e.g.,
dissolved organic matter, pH, ionic strength, co-dissolved constituents). Development of the
needed geochemical speciation models, and associated leaching behavior groupings as a function
of coal rank, combustion facility design, and CCR type, will be the subject of a subsequent report
(Report 4). The resulting models and groupings, in turn, are expected to allow for more detailed
constituent release predictions based on limited testing for a broader set of facilities.
41 See 60 FR 66372, Dec. 21, 1995, for a discussion of model parameters leading to low DAFs,
particularly the assumption of a continuous source landfill. Implied DAFs for the metals of interest here
can be found at 60 FR 66432-66438 in Table C-2. Site specific high-end DAFs are discussed in 65 FR
55703, September 14, 2000.
87
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
3.2.1.1. Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Figure 38 through Figure 40 present comparisons of leaching behavior as a function of pH for fly
ash without Hg sorbent injection for each of the 13 elements of interest. Results are organized by
coal type: bituminous, low sulfur coal (Figure 38); bituminous, medium and high sulfur coal
(Figure 39); and sub-bituminous, sub-bituminous/bituminous mix, and lignite coal (Figure 40).
Figure 41 shows the main characteristic leaching behaviors observed for each element of interest
for the different coal types and air pollution control configurations. Figure 42 presents the
leaching behavior of calcium, magnesium, iron, strontium, and sulfur, expected to control or
have an effect on the chemistry of the materials. Figure 43 illustrates the effect of NOX controls
(none or by-passed, SNCR or SCR) for facilities burning Eastern Bituminous coal and using CS-
ESP for particulate control. Figure 44 illustrates the effect of fabric filters versus CS-ESP with
and without SNCR for facilities burning Eastern Bituminous coal. Chromium speciation in
selected fly ash samples and eluates is shown in Figure 45.
Main characteristics leaching behavior (Figure 41 and Figure 42)
The discussion of the results provided below is solely empirical and intends to show the range of
leaching characteristics as a function of pH that were encountered for the fly ash without Hg
sorbent injection. Details of speciation are beyond the scope of this report and require
development of geochemical speciation models of the materials, which will be part of a
subsequent report.
Aluminum (Al). The behavior of Al was generally amphoteric with a broad minimum between 4
< pH < 8.5 and minima observed at different levels depending upon the ash type. The
concentration of the minimum is typically influenced by the amount of DOC complexing
aluminum in solution (increased complexation increases dissolved aluminum). Several samples,
e.g. UFA, exhibited dramatically decreased leaching at pH > 11.
Arsenic (As). Six different leaching behaviors were observed for As. Sample LAB provides an
example of a typical amphoteric behavior with minimum leaching occurring at a pH~5.2. Sample
UFA is an example of typical oxyanionic behavior with increasing As concentration as pH
decreased from ca. 10.5 to less than 3. Sample GAB shows an example where As concentration
peaked at pH~8, which was, in this case, most likely a consequence of the presence of the
COHPAC. Sample ZFA shows an example where As release was below the MDL for all pHs
and was representative of the sub-bituminous and sub-bit/bituminous mix coal, reflecting the
relatively high total content of calcium and magnesium of this coal type compared to the other
coal types. Sample AaFC also showed amphoteric behavior but was distinctly different from that
of sample LAB. Sample AFA also showed oxyanionic behavior but at a lower concentration
level than sample UAF. As concentrations were at or above the MCL value for most pHs, except
for the sub-bituminous coal, e.g. ZFA, for which arsenic concentrations were below the MDL
across the full pH range examined.
In general, As leaching behavior had been reported to be influenced by precipitation/co-
precipitation with group II elements (Mg, Ca, Ba, and Sr) and precipitation/adsorption onto iron
oxide (Drahota et al., 2009; Mohan et al., 2007). Figure 42 presents the characteristic leaching
behavior of these constituents, which shows significant differences between ash types. Sample
ZFA had overall the greatest concentrations of group II elements while sample LAB had the
88
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
lowest concentrations of group II elements. As a general observation, the bituminous coal fly
ashes having a low own pH and corresponding to eluate calcium concentrations of less than 120
mg/L, tended to exhibit amphoteric behavior. Detailed mechanistic evaluation is, however,
beyond the scope of this report and will be addressed in Report 4.
Boron (B). Most samples showed relatively constant boron concentrations for pH < 10.5 with a
few samples, e.g. AFA, showing a decrease in B eluate concentration with increasing pH for pH
> 8. In general, samples with decreasing concentration for pH>8 were those with higher own pH
and eluate calcium concentration greater than 120 mg/L. B is highly soluble at neutral to acidic
pHs and as a result observed B concentrations were most likely controlled by the total B content
of the material.
Barium (Ba). All samples showed a similar leaching behavior of Ba with the exceptions of
samples ZFA and XFA for which a much greater release of barium was observed, in agreement
with a much greater Ba content for these samples (as much as 12 times greater than for the other
samples). All own pH results were less than the MCL except for the sub-bituminous and lignite
coal samples.
Cadmium (Cd). Typical behavior of increasing eluate concentration with decreasing pH for
pH<5 was observed for Cd for most cases except for sample AFA that showed increasing eluate
concentration with decreasing pH for pH < 8.
Cobalt (Co). Cobalt leaching behavior was similar for all samples tested with minimum values
observed for pH > 11, an increase in eluate concentration with decreasing pH for pH < 11, and a
maximum concentration reached for pH less than 5.
Chromium (Cr). Three different leaching behaviors were observed for Cr: (i) amphoteric
behavior (e.g., UFA and AaFC), (ii) relatively constant concentration for pH>5 with an increase
in concentration for pH < 5 (e.g., AFA and GAB) [Both have fabric filter (one fabric filter and
one COUP AC)], and (iii) concentration peaking at 8 < pH < 10 with low concentrations at both
low and high pH values (e.g., ZFA, typical for all sub-bituminous coal and sub-bit/bituminous
mix samples). The amphoteric behavior was typical for all bituminous coal samples with the
exceptions of the samples where SCR or SNCR resulted in elevated ammonia concentrations
(e.g., BFA) and the samples where a fabric filter (e.g., CFA) or COHPAC (GAB) was used.
Mercury (Hg). Three different leaching behaviors were observed for Hg: (i) an increasing
concentration peaking at pH~8 (e.g., AFA), most likely indicative of ammonium complexation
from the use of SNCR (Wang et al., 2007), (ii) an increasing concentration with decreasing pH
for pH < 5 with a peak concentration at pH~3.8 and a relatively constant concentration for pH >
5.5 (e.g., GAB, most likely, in this case, a consequence from the use of HS ESP with COHPAC),
and (iii) concentrations below the MDL for most pHs (e.g., ZFA and UFA).
Molybdenum (Mo). All bituminous coal and lignite samples, except when SCR or SNCR
resulted in elevated ammonia (e.g., AFA), showed relatively constant concentrations with a
decrease at pH < 7 (e.g., GAB and LAB) or pH < 4 (UFA) followed by an increase. As with Hg,
sample AFA exhibited a Mo concentration peaking at pH~8, most likely indicative of
ammonium complexation from the use of SNCR in conjunction with fabric filter. As with Cr, all
sub-bit/bituminous mixes showed an increased Mo concentration peaking at pH~8 (e.g., ZAP).
89
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Lead (Pb). Minimal lead leaching was observed. In all cases, lead leaching was below the MDL
between pH 4 and 12. For some samples, e.g. AaFC, typical amphoteric behavior was observed
with increased concentrations for pHs above 12 and below 4.
Antimony (Sb). Several leaching behaviors were observed for Sb: (i) a decreasing concentration
with decreasing pH (e.g., LAB), (ii) an increasing concentration with decreasing pH (e.g., UAF),
(iii) concentrations below the MDL over the entire pH range (e.g., ZFA), (iv) a concentration
peaking at pH~8 (e.g., AFA), most likely indicative of ammonium complexation from the use of
SNCR, and (v) concentrations peaking at 7 < pH < 10 (e.g., GAB)
Selenium (Se). Four different leaching behaviors were observed for Se. Sample LAB provides
an example of typical amphoteric behavior with minimum leaching occurring at 5
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
Effect of fabric filter vs. CS-ESP (Fisure 44)
The effect of fabric filter vs. CS-ESP with and without SNCR was examined for the facilities
burning Eastern Bituminous coal. An effect was seen only on Cr, Hg, Co, and Mo concentrations
with an increase in the release in some cases by a factor much greater than 10 (e.g., Cr from CFA
vs. FFA, DFA, TFA, and EFB). The effect of ammonia complexation from the use of SNCR was
seen with an increase in Hg and Mo concentrations peaking at pH~8 (AFA).
Chromium speciation in selected fly ash samples and eluates (Figure 45)
Chromium leaching as a function of pH (SR002.1) was analyzed for all samples. Leaching
results for samples from selected facilities are provided in Figure 45 to illustrate (i) comparative
results from the sample facility operated without and with NOX controls and bituminous coal
(Facility A, SCR-BP and SCR on [samples CFA and AFA, respectively] and Facility B, SNCR-
BP and SNCR on [samples DFA and BFA, respectively]), and (ii) for a facility with relatively
high chromium leaching but not having NOX controls and burning sub-bituminous coal (Facility
J, sample JAB). Initial review of these results suggested that fly ash samples obtained from
facilities with NOX controls (i.e., SNCR or SCR) resulted in higher chromium concentrations in
the leachates as a consequence of the NOx controls. Leaching results as a function of pH also
indicated concentration profiles indicative of Cr(VI) leaching. Selected fly ash samples were
leached using the SR002.1 procedure at subset of desired endpoint pH values, with the resulting
eluates analyzed directly to differentiate between Cr(III) and Cr(VI) in solution. Results of
solution phase chromium speciation are provided in a tabular format in Appendix H, and plotted
along with the initial SR002.1 results in Figure 45. Chromium speciation in the solid phase of fly
ash samples was also confirmed using X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy (XAFS;
Appendix H). Results of these analyses indicate:
1. Comparison of leaching of the same samples from facilities without and with NOX
controls indicated higher chromium concentrations in eluates when NOX controls were in
use. However, direct comparisons are limited to two facilities and a similar range of
leaching results was observed for other facilities that both did and did not have post-
combustion NOX controls.
2. For all of the cases except one examined, the chromium in eluates at pH > 7 was
determined to nearly 100 percent Cr(VI), within the uncertainly of the analytical method.
3. The amount of chromium leached under the test conditions and pH > 5 is a small fraction
(< 1% up to <10 %) of the total chromium present in the solid phase.
4. The amount of the chromium present in the solid phase as Cr(VI) is on the same order of
magnitude as the amount of Cr(VI) leached at neutral to alkaline pH but precise
quantification by XAFS is uncertain.
It is hypothesized that residual ammonia injected as part of NOX controls or to facilitate
particulate capture by ESPs may play a role in solubilizing Cr(VI) in the fly ash. If this is the
case, it would explain why samples BFA and AFA had relatively less chromium leaching when
analyzed after several months of storage in comparison to testing recently sampled fly ash. The
expected cause would be loss of ammonia during sample storage. However, although this
mechanism is consistent with operations of air pollution control devices (EPRI, 2008) and
residual ammonia observed, ammonia content was not measured in CCR samples for this study.
91
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
0 AFA(P,1,2)
4BFA(P,1,2)
ป CFA(P,1,2)
ADFA(P,1,2)
FFA(P,1,2)
GAB(P,1,2)
GFA(P,1,2)
Q-LAB(P,1,2)
-*-- SHB(P, 1,2)
XUFA(P,1,1)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH dependent Concentration of As
pH dependent Concentration of B
g 0.01
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
^ 10
pH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Figure 38. pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without mercury
sorbent injection [bituminous low sulfur coal]. Facility A (AFA, CFA), Facility B (BFA, DFA),
Facility C (GAB), Facility G (GFA), Facility L (LAB), Salem Harbor (SHE).
92
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
1357
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
g o.oi
O 0.001
3579
PH
Figure 38 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without
mercury sorbent injection [bituminous low sulfur coal]. Facility A (AFA, CFA), Facility B
(BFA, DFA), Facility C (GAB), Facility G (GFA), Facility L (LAB), Salem Harbor (SHE).
93
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
AaFA(P,l,l)
ปAaFB(P,l,l)
AaFC(P,l,l)
* DaFA(P,l,l)
EFA(P,1,2)
EFB(P,1,2)
EFC(P,1,2)
--AHFA(P,1,2)
e KFA(P,1,2)
*TFA(P,1,2)
WFA(P,1,2)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
ฃ o.oi
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
1
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Figure 39. pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without mercury sorbent
injection [bituminous medium and high sulfur coal]. Facility E (EFA, EFB), Facility K (KFA),
Facility T (TFA), Facility W (WFA), Facility Aa (AaFA, AaFB, AaFC), Facility Da (DaFA).
94
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
g o.oi
O 0.001
Figure 39 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without
mercury sorbent injection [bituminous medium and high sulfur coal]. Facility E (EFA, EFB),
Facility K (KFA), Facility T (TFA), Facility W (WFA), Facility Aa (AaFA, AaFB, AaFC),
Facility Da (DaFA).
95
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-CaFA(P,l,l)
-JAB(P,1,2)
-PPB(P,1,2)
-XFA(P,1,1)
-ZFA(P,1,1)
-5%
-MCLorDWEL
-MDL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
ฃ o.oi
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Figure 40. pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without mercury
sorbent injection [sub-bituminous and lignite coal]. Sub-bituminous: Facility J (JAB), Facility X
(XFA), Facility Z (ZFA), Pleasant Prairie (PPB). Lignite: Facility Ca (CaFA).
96
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
a
ง 0.00001
1357
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
7 9 11 13
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Figure 40 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facilities without
mercury sorbent injection [sub-bituminous and lignite coal]. Sub-bituminous: Facility J (JAB),
Facility X (XFA), Facility Z (ZFA), Pleasant Prairie (PPB). Lignite: Facility Ca (CaFA).
97
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-UFA(P,1,1)
-5%
-MCLorDWEL
-MDL
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH dependent Concentration of As
pH dependent Concentration of B
"a
ฃ o.oi
\-=*
ฎ
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
B
ra
g 0.01
-*-*
T-V-
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Figure 41. pH dependent leaching results. Selected results to illustrate characteristic leaching
behavior.
98
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
3 o.ooooi
\
~.TA
/*-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
O 0.001
fciA
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Figure 41 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Selected results to illustrate characteristic
leaching behavior.
99
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
AaFC(P,l,l)
GAB(P,l,2)
UFA(P,l,l)
AB\(P,l,2)
-LAB(P,l,2)
ZFA(P,l,l)
pH dependent Concentration of Ca
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mg
pH dependent Concentration of Sr
E 10
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Fe
pH dependent Concentration of S
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH
Figure 42. pH dependent leaching results. Selected results to illustrate characteristic leaching
behavior of calcium, magnesium, strontium, iron, and sulfur.
100
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
AaFA(P,l,l)
ปAaFB(P,l,l)
A BFA(P,1,2)
eDaFA(P,l,l)
DFA(P,1,2)
XEFA(P,1,2)
AEFB(P,1,2)
EFC(P,1,2)
FFA(P,1,2)
GFA(P,1,2)
ปHFA(P,1,2)
AKFA(P,1,2)
--*SHB(P,1,2)
XTFA(P,1,2)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
pH dependent Concentration of B
ฃ o.oi
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
i
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Figure 43. Effect of NOX controls - none (or by-passed; samples DFA, EFB, FFA, TFA), SNCR
(samples GFA, SFffi) or SCR (all other samples) for facilities burning Eastern Bituminous coal
and using CS-ESP for particulate control.
101
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
g o.oi
O 0.001
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Figure 43 (continued). Effect of NOX controls - none (or by-passed; samples DFA, EFB, FFA,
TFA), SNCR (samples GFA, SFffi) or SCR (all other samples) for facilities burning Eastern
Bituminous coal and using CS-ESP for particulate control.
102
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
AFA(P,1,2)
CFA(P,1,2)
-DFA(P,1,2)
-EFB(P,1,2)
-FFA(P,1,2)
-GFA(P,1,2)
-SHB(P,1,2)
-TFA(P,1,2)
-5%
-MCLorDWEL
-MDL
own pH
own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
ฃ o.oi
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Co
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Figure 44. Effect of fabric filter vs. CS-ESP (fabric filter without NOX control, sample CFA; with
SNCR, sample AFA; CS-ESP without NOX control, samples DFA, EFB, FFA, TFA; with SNCR,
samples GFA, SFffi) for facilities burning Eastern Bituminous coal.
103
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Figure 44 (continued). Effect of fabric filter
sample CFA; with SNCR, sample AFA; CS
TFA; with SNCR, samples GFA, SHE) for
vs. CS-ESP (fabric filter without NOX control,
-ESP without NOX control, samples DFA, EFB, FFA,
facilities burning Eastern Bituminous coal.
104
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration ofCr
ation (mg
Conce
0.001
10
12
PH
-ABFA(P,1,D A BFA(P,1,2) A BFA(P,1,3) A DFA(P,1,1
-ADFA(P,1,2) A DFA(P,1,3)KFA(P,1,1) KFA(P,1,2
A BFACr+6 A DFACr+6 A KFACr+6
pH dependent Concentration ofCr
ation (mg
Conce
0.01 -
0.001
10
12
PH
AFA(P,1,1) AFA(P,1,2)AAFA(P,1,3) A CFA(P,1,1
A CFA(P,1,2)*CFA(P,1,3) a AFACr+6 A CFACr+6
pH dependent Concentration ofCr
10
Ol
^>
c
ฃS 0.1 ^-~
(Q
01
g 0.01
o
u
0.001
A*
7 9
PH
11
13
A JAB(P,1,D
-JAB(P,1,2) A JAB total Cr A JABCr+6
Figure 45. Chromium speciation results. Bituminous coal: Facility B with SCR (BFA), with
SCR-BP (DFA); Facility K with SCR (KFA); Facility A with SNCR (AFA), with SNCR-BP
(CFA). Sub-bituminous coal: Facility J with SCR (JAB).
105
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
3.2.1.2. Fly ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Figure 46 presents comparisons of leaching behavior as a function of pH for fly ash without and
with Hg sorbent injection pairs for each of the 13 elements of interest. For each facility, the
baseline case and the treatment case (with Hg sorbent injection), either activated carbon injection
or brominated activated carbon injection for facilities J and L, are compared. Also, note that
Facilities C and Ba use COHPAC air pollution control configuration. Report 1 (Sanchez et a/.,
2006) provided results for Hg, As, and Se. The discussion below expands the list to also include
Al, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Mo, Pb, Sb, and Tl.
Considering the results provided in Appendix F and comparisons in Figure 46, the following
observations were made.
Aluminum (Al). Al eluate concentrations as a function of pH showed typical amphoteric
behavior. For Brayton Point and Facility C, the cases with ACT showed overall an increase in Al
concentrations compared to the same facility without. For Facilities J and L, no significant
change was observed, while a corresponding decrease was seen for Pleasant Prairie.
Arsenic (As). There was not a consistent pattern with respect to the effect of ACT on the range of
laboratory eluate concentrations. For Salem Harbor and slightly for Pleasant Prairie facilities, the
cases with ACT had an increase in the upper bound of eluate concentrations compared to the
same facility without ACL For Brayton Point and Facilities C and J, a corresponding decrease
was observed.
Very low eluate concentrations were observed for the Facility J without and with brominated
PAC, even though the total arsenic content was comparable to several of the other cases.
Conversely, relatively high eluate concentrations were observed for Facility L without and with
brominated PAC, even though the total arsenic concentration was low compared to the other
cases. Thus, the presence of other constituents in the CCRs or the formation conditions appears
to have a strong influence on the release of arsenic.
The range of arsenic concentrations observed in the laboratory eluates is consistent with the
range of values reported for field leachates from landfills and impoundments. For some cases,
both laboratory (Salem Harbor, Facility C, Facility L) and field concentrations exceeded the
MCL by greater than a factor of 10. The expected range of arsenic concentrations under field
conditions is less than 10 |ig/L to approximately 1000 |ig/L.
Arsenic leachate concentrations typically are strongly a function of pH over the entire pH range
examined and within the pH range observed for field conditions. For some cases (for example,
see Facility J, Appendix F), measured concentrations of arsenic are strongly a function of LS
ratio at the material's natural pH, with much greater concentrations observed at low LS ratio.
Therefore, testing at a single extraction final pH or LS ratio would not provide sufficient
information to characterize the range of expected leachate concentrations under field conditions.
Furthermore, for some of the CCRs a shift from the CCR's natural pH within the range of
anticipated conditions (e.g., Facility L, Brayton Point with ACT, Salem Harbor baseline, Facility
C baseline) can result substantial increases in leachate concentrations. Therefore, co-disposal of
these CCRs with other materials should be carefully evaluated.
For several cases [Brayton Point, Salem Harbor, Facility C (without ACT), Facility L], arsenic
concentrations in laboratory eluates appear to be controlled by solid phase solubility, while
106
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
adsorption processes appear to play a more important role for other cases [Pleasant Prairie,
Facility C (with ACT), Facility J].
Boron (B). No significant effect of ACT on B eluate concentrations as a function of pH was
observed, except for Brayton Point that showed an increase in B concentrations for 8 < pH < 12
with ACL Facility L showed the lowest B eluate concentrations with and without ACT (by a
factor greater than 10). Most samples showed a relatively constant B concentrations over the
entire pH range, except for the samples from Facility J showing an increase with decreasing pH
for9.5 12 (above the MCL).
Cadmium (Cd). For Salem Harbor, the case with ACT had an increase in Cd eluate
concentrations for pH > 4.5 compared to the same facility without ACL For Brayton Point a
decrease in Cd concentrations was observed with ACT for pH < 7. No significant effect of ACT
was seen for the other facilities tested.
Cobalt (Co). Sample BaFA (lignite, ACT + COHPAC) showed the greatest Co eluate
concentrations for all pHs examined. No significant effect of ACT on Co eluate concentrations
was observed, except for Brayton Point that showed a decrease in Co concentration with ACL
Chromium (Cr). For most cases a decrease in Cr eluate concentrations was observed for the
cases with ACT compared to the same facility without ACL Facility C showed, however, an
increase in Cr concentrations for pH > 7 for the case with ACL
Mercury (Hg). Although the use of activated carbon injection substantially increases the total
Hg content in the fly ashes, the range of laboratory leaching eluate concentrations in the baseline
cases and cases with sorbent injection are either unchanged or the maximum leaching
concentration is reduced as a consequence of activated carbon injection. The exceptions are
Facility C and Facility L, which have an increased maximum eluate concentration for the case
with sorbent injection.
The expected range of Hg leachate concentrations based on these results is from < 0.004 (below
MDL) to 0.2 |ig/L over the range of pH conditions expected in coal ash landfill leachate.
The range of Hg concentrations observed from laboratory eluates is consistent with the range
reported for field leachates from landfills in the EPRI database.
All concentrations observed in laboratory leach test eluates from fly ash over 5.4 < pH < 12.4
were at least an order of magnitude less than the MCL.
For all cases of laboratory eluates, Hg concentrations in eluates from fly ash were consistent
without any significant effect of total mercury content, pH, or LS ratio observed. Mercury
leaching appears to be controlled by adsorption from the aqueous phase with strong interaction
between adsorbed mercury molecules, indicating that use of a linear partition coefficient (Kd)
approach to model source term mercury leaching would not be appropriate. Variability observed
in concentrations observed within individual cases is likely the result of sampling and CCR
heterogeneity at the particle scale (i.e., resulting from mercury adsorption specifically onto
107
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
carbon surfaces and relatively more or less carbon particles in a specific subsample used for
extraction).
Molybdenum (Mo). For all cases, there was no significant effect of ACT on Mo eluate
concentrations as a function of pH.
Lead (Pb). Minimal Pb leaching was overall observed. In most cases, Pb leaching was at or
below the MDL for 4 < pH < 12. For Facility J, the case with ACT showed an increase in Pb
eluate concentrations for 4 < pH < 10 compared to the same facility without.
Antimony (Sb). There was no significant effect of ACT on Sb eluate concentrations, except for
Salem Harbor that showed an increase in Sb concentrations with ACT over the entire pH range
and Brayton Point for which an increase in Sb concentrations for pH > 8 and a decrease for pH <
7.5 was observed with ACL
Selenium (Se). The range of selenium concentration in laboratory leach test eluates is not
correlated with total selenium content in the CCRs. For example, Brayton Point with ACT had
much greater total selenium content than the other cases except Facility C with ACT, but had
only the fifth highest selenium concentration under the laboratory leaching conditions.
Conversely, Facility C baseline had one of the lowest selenium total content (less than MDL) but
had second greatest selenium concentration under the laboratory leaching conditions.
The range of selenium concentrations observed in laboratory leach test eluates for Facility C are
much greater than the concentrations observed for other cases and for field conditions. This is a
COHPAC facility and field leachate composition data for CCRs from this type of facility were
not available in the EPA or EPRI databases. For all other facilities, the range of concentrations
observed from laboratory testing is consistent with the range reported in the EPRI database for
landfills. The concentration range reported in the EPA database for CCR landfills has a much
lower upper bound than reported in the EPRI database.
The concentration range for laboratory eluates and field observations exceeded the MCL for all
cases except Facility L. For 5 out of 12 of the cases used for laboratory evaluation, and for some
field observations, the MCL is exceeded by more than a factor of 10.
Selenium concentrations in laboratory leach test eluates typically are strongly a function of pH
over the entire pH range examined and within the pH range observed for field conditions (for
example, see leaching test results for Brayton Point, Salem Harbor, Facility C). For some cases
(for example, see Brayton Point, Salem Harbor, and Facility J in Appendix F), measured
concentrations of selenium are strongly a function of LS ratio at the material's natural pH, with
much greater concentrations observed at low LS ratio. Therefore, testing at a single extraction
final pH or LS ratio would not provide sufficient information to characterize the range of
expected leachate concentrations under field conditions.
For several cases (Brayton Point, Salem Harbor, Facility C, Facility L) selenium concentrations
in laboratory eluates appears to be controlled by solid phase solubility, while adsorption
processes appear to play a more important role for other cases (Pleasant Prairie and Facility J).
Thallium (Tl). For Pleasant Prairie, the case with ACI resulted in an increase in Tl
concentrations over the entire pH range compared to the same facility without ACI. For Facility
J, a decrease in Tl eluate concentrations with ACI was observed for all pHs examined. For
Brayton Point, the case with ACI showed an increase in Tl concentrations for pH > 10 and a
decrease for pH < 9.
108
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
K BaFA(P,l,l)
BPB(P,1,2)
*-BPT(P,l,2)
ปGAB(P,1,2)
ป--GAT(P,l,2)
AJAB(P,1,2)
*-JAT(P,l,2)
LAB(P,1,2)
ป-LAT(P,l,2)
X PPB(P,1,2)
*-PPT(P,l,2)
SHB(P,1,2)
ป-SHT(P,l,2)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
own pH
0 own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
pH dependent Concentration of B
ฃ o.oi
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
pH
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Figure 46. pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facility pairs with and without
mercury sorbent injection. Sample codes ending B (BPB) indicate without sorbent injection;
Sample codes ending T (BPT) indicate with sorbent injection for the corresponding facility.
109
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
g 0.01
O 0.001
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Figure 46 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Fly ash samples from facility pairs with
and without mercury sorbent injection. Fly ash samples from facility pairs with and without
mercury sorbent injection. Sample codes ending B (BPB) indicate without sorbent injection;
Sample codes ending T (BPT) indicate with sorbent injection for the corresponding facility.
110
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
3.2.1.3. Gypsum, Unwashed and Washed
The effect of the washing step on the leaching behavior of gypsum as a function of pH for each
of the 13 elements of interest is illustrated in Figure 47, Figure 48, and Figure 49. Typically,
washing resulted in at least an order of magnitude reduction in the observed leached
concentrations for the soluble species (e.g., B, Tl) and the oxyanions (e.g., Se). B and Tl release
from both unwashed and washed gypsum were generally relatively constant as a function of pH
for most facilities. Se release was either relatively constant as a function of pH (Facilities O, P)
or amphoteric (Facilities N, Q).
The washing step resulted, however, in greater leaching concentrations of Hg (7 < pH < 10) and
Cr (4 < pH < 12) for Facility X. Also, the washed gypsum sample from lignite (CaAW) showed
a greater release for Pb and Se compared to washed and unwashed gypsum samples from
facilities using high sulfur bituminous or sub-bituminous coal.
The unwashed sample from Facility W (WAU) showed greater concentrations of As, Pb, and Tl,
which was most likely a consequence of the Trona injection used for SO3 control by this facility.
Ill
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-AaAU(P,l,l)
--AaAW(P,l,l)
-m DaAW(P,l,l)
-*PAD(P,1,2)
-ปTAU(P,1,2)
-ปTAW(P,1,2)
-AUAU(P,1,1)
-KWAU(P,1,2)
-*--WAW(P,l,2)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
own pH
O own pH
own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
^ 10
pH dependent Concentration of As
pH dependent Concentration of B
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Figure 47. pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes U) and
washed (sample codes __W) from facilities using low and medium sulfur bituminous coals.
112
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Figure 47 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes
U) and washed (sample codes __W) from facilities using low and medium sulfur bituminous
coals.
113
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
BOAW(P,1,2)
ASAW(P,1,1)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
0 own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
1
s
pH dependent Concentration of As
pH dependent Concentration of B
"a
V*s
6
'S - _-n!~r
* / '
f
6 mmป
-*-ซl
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
3 5 7 9
pH
13579
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
B 0.01
1
S
g 0.001
----- V--
b
ซQ
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
7 9
pH
Figure 48. pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes U) and
washed (sample codes __W) from facilities using high sulfur bituminous coal.
114
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
a
ง 0.00001
1357
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Figure 48 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes
U) and washed (sample codes __W) from facilities using high sulfur bituminous coal.
115
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
- Cafi
-QAU(P,1,2)
-XAU(P,1,1
-5%
-MCLorDWEL
-MDL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
95%
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
100 9
^ 10
E i
centrati
| P
0.001 |
o.oooi 1 . .
x\
7 9
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
pH dependent Concentration of B
"a
..
*tฎ *
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
13579
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Figure 49. pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes U) and
washed (sample codes __W) from facilities using sub-bituminous and lignite bituminous coals.
116
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
a
0.0001
*
ง
ง 0.00001
u
0.000001
O"'
1357
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
E o.i
1
1357
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
E o.oi
c
1
r;-3.~j*~TM1-*9-**z
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Figure 49 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Gypsum samples unwashed (sample codes
U) and washed (sample codes __W) from facilities using sub-bituminous and lignite
bituminous coals.
117
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
3.2.1.4. Scrubber Sludge
Figure 50 presents results of the leaching behavior as a function of pH for the scrubber sludge
samples. The effect of SNCR in combination with a fabric filter (AGD vs. CGD) was manifested
by (i) a significant increase in the leaching concentrations of Cr over the entire pH range
examined, (ii) a slight reduction in Hg, and (iii) an increase in Tl. An effect of SCR (BGD vs.
DGD) was seen for As (slight increase with SCR), Ba (increase with SCR), Co (increase with
SCR), and Cr (significant increase with SCR). Sample KGD exhibited the highest leaching
concentrations for Ba, Cd, Co, Mo, Se, and Tl.
118
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
AGD(P,1,2)
BGD(P,1,2)
CGD(P,1,2)
DGD(P,1,2)
KGD(P,1,2)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
0 own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Figure 50. pH dependent leaching results. Scrubber sludges. Facility A (AGD, CGD), Facility B
(BGD, DGD), Facility K (KGD). Samples DGD and KGD with SCR, Samples BGD with
SNCR. Samples CGD and DGD without post-combustion NOX controls.
119
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
ฃ o.oooi
O 0.00001
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Figure 50 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Scrubber sludges. Facility A (AGD,
CGD), Facility B (BGD, DGD), Facility K (KGD). Samples DGD and KGD with SCR, Samples
BGD with SNCR. Samples CGD and DGD without post-combustion NOX controls.
120
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
3.2.1.5. Spray Dryer Absorber Residues
Figure 51 presents results of leaching behavior as a function of pH for spray dryer residue
samples. Sample VSD showed a greater release of Al (9 < pH < 12), Ba (8 < pH < 12), Cr (pH <
6), and Tl (pH < 6) and a lower release of Co and Pb (4 < pH < 12) than sample YSD, though the
two samples are from the same coal type and air pollution control configurations. The observed
differences between the two samples could be due to differences in the lime used.
121
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
VSD
* YSD
5%
MD
.or OWE L
L
0
0
own pH
own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
^ 1 '
"a
= 0.1
_o
1
o
1
\
f
\
Ji
==**/
'^rrrHSta^
f
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
3-
E
o 1 '
B
2 01
V
c 0.01
3
0.001
ซ
ป.-i^
U
w
ซ*r
*-e
s
).
-
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
1
1
ra
V
I
^
^
N
Vs-
"^\
"""^1
-
-._.
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
3-
"a 10ฐ
1 01
S
g 0.01
U
1
|_
\
L__
V
135
>iซr^
^v ^ ""
^x
A
\
\
\
s
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
E
c 1
o
1
o
1
<
3
* II
.. ._*TTfc
5
:.
.. _i__^_
^A
^s
is
-
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
G1
"5
c
Concentrat
o
\ 1 I
<
1
L
\
'A
~^
.^ H
-
L A i.-*-
t*.
-^
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
1 i
I ni
1
c
o
0 0.001
4
V
\
1
*^
135
k h y
-^y^T
T?
K
"^S
-
.._.
7 9 11 13
pH
Figure 51. pH dependent leaching results. Spray dryer residue samples (sub-bituminous coal).
122
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
B 0.01
1
"A ~~
\
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
1
U 0.001
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
...c
0.0001 ; -
13579
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
3579
pH
Figure 52 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Facility A samples (Low S East-Bit.,
Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR-BP. Fly ash (CFA); Scrubber sludge (CGD);
Blended fly ash and scrubber sludge ("as managed," CCC).
126
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
3.2.1.7. Waste Water Filter Cake
Figure 53 presents results of leaching behavior as a function of pH for waste water filter cake for
each of the 13 elements of interest. These are samples with waste water treatment process
associated with management of CCRs and are not a direct product of the air pollution control
systems. Overall similar results were observed for all samples tested except for sample XFC that
showed a greater release for Hg, Mo, Pb, and Se.
127
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
XFC(P,1,1)
-5%
-MCLorDWEL
-MDL
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration ofAl
pH dependent Concentration of As
pH dependent Concentration of B
13579
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
13579
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Figure 53. pH dependent leaching results. Filter cake samples.
128
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
ฃ o.oooi
O 0.00001
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Figure 53 (continued). pH dependent leaching results. Filter cake samples.
129
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
3.2.2. Comparisons of the Ranges of Constituent Concentrations from Laboratory Testing
(Minimum Concentrations, Maximum Concentrations, and Concentrations at the
Materials' Own pH)
Figure 54 through Figure 66 present comparisons of the range of constituent concentrations
observed in laboratory eluates from testing as a function of pH and LS (SR002.1 and SR003.1)
over the pH range from 5.4 to 12.4 and LS ratios from 0.5 to 10. This pH range represents the 5th
and 95th percentiles of pH observed in field samples from CCR landfills and surface
impoundments, as discussed in Section 2.5.2. For laboratory leaching test eluates, the presented
data represent the observed maximum and minimum concentrations within the pH range from
5.4 to 12.4 from both test methods (upper and lower whiskers) and the concentration at the
materials' own pH (closed circles or asterisks), which may be outside the pH range criteria.
Including results from testing as a function of LS allows consideration of potentially higher
concentrations observed for initial releases that may occur at low LS ratios in the field. The TC
and MCL, DWEL, or AL (as available) is included in each figure as a dashed horizontal line to
provide a reference value. The concentration ranges indicated in the figures as results of this
study are direct measurements of laboratory eluates of the CCRs and do not consider attenuation
that may occur in the field. Tabular results are provided in Appendix I.
Important observations from these figures are summarized as follows.
Aluminum (Al). Gypsum generally had lower eluate concentration ranges than the other CCR
types. No trend was readily discernable with respect to coal type or facility configuration.
Arsenic (As). Lower eluate concentration ranges were associated with fly ash produced from
sub-bituminous coal than other coal types. Many of the values for eluates from fly ash exceeded
the MCL but results only for one fly ash sample (WFA) exceeded the TC. Results for five of the
gypsum samples exceeded the MCL. For scrubber sludges, results suggest that use of post-
combustion NOX controls may increase As teachability.
Boron (B). Washed gypsum samples all had lower eluate concentrations for B than unwashed
gypsum samples, indicating the effectiveness of the washing process in reducing teachable B. All
of the CCR types had a significant fraction of the samples that exceeded the DWEL.
Barium (Ba). The greatest Ba concentrations in eluates was from fly ash and SDA sample
produced from sub-bituminous coal. All gypsum samples had barium eluate concentrations less
than the MCL. Use of post-combustion NOX controls appears to have reduced Ba teachability in
blended CCRs.
Cadmium (Cd). All CCR types had a significant fraction of samples from which eluate
concentrations exceeded the MCL. For many samples of all CCR types, the own pH
concentration was less than the method detection limit.
Cobalt (Co). All CCR types had samples with cobalt eluate concentrations from less than the
method detection limit up to three orders of magnitude greater. SDA residues had the greatest
range in Co eluate concentrations.
Chromium (Cr). Use of post-combustion NOX controls appeared to increase the eluate
concentrations for fly ash, scrubber sludges, and blended CCRs when samples were collected
from the same facility. All gypsum samples except one unwashed gypsum, had eluate
130
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
concentrations less than the MCL. All other CCR types had multiple samples with eluates that
exceeded the MCL.
Mercury (Hg). The greatest Hg concentrations in eluates were from scrubber sludges and
blended CCRs, including all of those that exceeded the MCL.
Molybdenum (Mo). Higher eluate concentration ranges were associated with fly ash, SDA
residues and blended CCRs (which include fly ash) than associated with gypsum and scrubber
sludge samples. All CCR types had multiple samples with eluates that exceeded the DWEL.
Lead (Pb). Eluate concentrations were below the AL for eluates from all samples except for 8
samples. There was no clear trend with respect to coal type, facility configuration or CCR type.
Antimony (Sb). Higher eluate concentration ranges were associated with fly ash samples than
with gypsum samples although there were exceptions to this trend. All CCR types had samples
for which eluate concentrations exceeded the MCL.
Selenium (Se). All CCR types had similar ranges in Se eluate concentrations with several fly ash
and gypsum samples having notably higher Se eluate concentrations without any clear
dependence on coal type or facility configuration.
Thallium (Tl). Most CCR samples had eluate concentrations that exceeded the MCL with no
apparent trend with respect to coal type or facility configuration.
pH. Figure 67 presents the pH ranges (minimum and maximum) of actual samples observed in
SR002.1 and SR003.1 over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. The closed circles represent the
material's own pH. When the closed circle is outside the range 5.4
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
10
106-^
io5-g
io4-g
io3-^
< 2 __,
10 -^
10 -=
10ฐ-i
10"
I
Maximum Cone
Cone At Own pH
Minimum Cone
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
O
Unwashed
Washed
WithACI
= Without COHPAC
= With COHPAC
I
8
T
fl
...Al
Tr,;
I
MDL: ICP-OES
MDL: ICP-MS
Figure 54. Aluminum. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates
over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal.
132
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10 -
10 -
10"
I
Maximum Cone O Without NOx control O Unwashed
Cone At Own pH With NOx control Washed
Minimum Cone O Without ACI With ACI
= Without COHPAC
= With COHPAC
As
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
[5ub-Bi|g
Gypsum
Bituminous
|sub-Bi|;
rc
MDL: ICP-OES
MCL
MDL: ICP-MS
Figure 55. Arsenic. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over
the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal.
133
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
io7-j
io6-j
io5-j
io4-j
O^ z
pn ~"
101-!
10ฐ -j
m'1 -
-ir.'2
10
TT
;ipu|
* p
I Maximum Cone O Without NOx control O Unwashed = Without COHPAC
Cone At Own pH With NOx control Washed X = With COHPAC
Minimum Cone O Without ACI With ACI
I
IT,
jC^*
5
TT
*|
1
rTT
1 "p^ ^]T
' ' W?-
ซ ill
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S Mediums I ฑ
[Sub-Bij
1
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Bub-Bi ~
ysM^y^Msy iLlJi^COCOCOCO LJi n ~SM X
ฃL-mi<-)1o7;1o:gi(j = 1o1o 'ii'o S> 'o'ij'o'ij'ij 'ij'ij'o'o'o^'jj'ij
o o ^ ,- u_ u_ ra ra LJ_ LJ_ 7= ,ra ra cn
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10
10 -=
10"
I
Maximum Cone
Cone At Own pH
Minimum Cone
O
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
O
Unwashed
Washed
With ACI
= Without COHPAC
= With COHPAC
D.D-
MCL
MDL: ICP-OES
MDL: ICP-MS
Figure 57. Barium. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over
the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal.
135
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
T3
O
10"
-=
-=
=
=
I
I
^
j
I
i
i
t
(
"
1 1
3
; Maximum Cone
Cone At Own pH
Minimum Cone
-
\ r
L
. -L
T
j i
1
.
L_
f
v
4
h
O Without NOx control
With NOx control
O Without ACI
4
h
O Unwashed
Washed X
With ACI
TT
I
i
y -
P
m
m
(
L
(
-T-*
ffl
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium
S
on
1
[Sub-Bij
a
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
|sub-Bn|5
-p
=
Without COHPAC
With COHPAC
t
I'
(
1
<
(
_. (
I
I"
Gypsum
Bituminous
|sub-
BJj|
T
f
9m
.r
h
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Cd
T
.
1
r '^
ป
i
U4-.
L
* 4
Blended
1
^Ji -Jj,-
CCR:
Bituminous
rc
MDL: ICP-OES
MCL
MDL: ICP-MS
Figure 58. Cadmium. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over
the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal.
136
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
_J
1
o =
-ir.0
10 =
=
.2
1 1
<
-
-p
1
1
' '(
I
Maximum Cone O Without NOx control O Unwashed
Cone At Own pH With NOx control Washed X
Minimum Cone O Without ACI With ACI
1
(
_
1
w
(
ป
i
i
J
"
(
(
-p
i
<
-p
1 i
Fly Ash |
Bituminous
Low S
1
D
g
1
'<
D
E
;
Q
jy "- l2ฃ,2l2 S
T ca ca
-i (s> a)
D.
a
With and Without ACI |
Bituminous Bub-BiJ~
- w
ithout COHPAC
ith COHPAC
< i
n
ฅ <
K
>
gjl
|
i
J
, 1
(
< i
r
ฃ
1 1
Gypsum
Bituminous
|sub-
BJj|
-p
ซ'
.J,l.
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Cc
-p
'iT
l_ ;:
_L i
,
Blended CCR
Bituminous
)
- MDL: ICP-OES
h
y fetyty^ty^ y^ y^y^bfeb^^ y^ ^y^y
I ||l|llll||^f 11 Hi
C&^tSltS) 0) 0)
D.D-
Figure 59. Cobalt. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the
pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal.
137
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
O)
3.
i_
O
10"
-=
-=
1
=
rJ<
A
' I
1
j.
r
_
1 P
< i
]
E
Maximum Cone O Without NOx control O
Cone At Own pH With NOx control
Minimum Cone O Without ACI
i|
<
i
0
i
r~
i
*
i
<
i
i
i
^m
(
)
1
1 l
1
^
i
1 i
(
)
(
(
1
M l"
i j_
I
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
c/l
i
i
[Sub-Bij
a
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Bub-BiJ~
{ 1
11
Unwashed = Without COM
Washed 3ฃ = With COHPA(
With ACI
-p
lUj|j-rfeJ|fI
|j ]
Gypsum
Bituminous Bub-Bij~
3AC
r
y
it
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Cr
U
ป
1 1
&
r}
-L
Blended CCR:
Bituminous
rc
MCL
MDL: ICP-OES
MDL: ICP-MS
Figure 60. Chromium. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates
over the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal.
138
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
O)
^10"
10 -
ioj-
10"
-=
=
^H ^H ^H M
(
i
<
1
1
h
1
rr
(
E
Maximum Cone O
Cone At Own pH
Minimum Cone O
(
d
i
t
ป
<
h
I
>
*
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
O Unwashed
Washed X
With ACI
I I
(
i
i
L
.<
><
>,
,
4
(
il
(
i
<
1
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
on
i
[Sub-Bij
a
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Bub-B
i
1
=
Without COHPAC
With COHPAC
<
(
ป
<
r*
>
(
i-
<
1
Gypsum
Bituminous Bub-Bit^
"0
J_ (
-r
m
I
<
< i
ป
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
Hg
-p
I
1
1
1
1 l
(
< '
Blended CCR:
Bituminous
rc
MCL
MDL
Q_ L_ L_ L_ L_ L_-r L_ L_ <ซ; u_ L_ u_ L_ L_ L_ u_ u_ u_ LJ_LJ_
i. ^,,nซ ->r, ^ ,._ '-LU^LU^cacacaca
-^^^_'<; ^^
^3 ca-=L=:=i=
!_u_ o u'u'o
,^,9.^,9
yy
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
10 -=
10"
-=
1
2
;
-
$
L
1
r
1 1'
iT
I
Maximum Cone O
Cone At Own pH
Minimum Cone O
I
i
rj
1
FIT.
"
T
1
ป
<
i
li.
h
Without NOx contra
With NOx control
Without ACI
_
O Unwashed
Washed X
With ACI
Ttl tl
A- 11
*
1
h
T
Ti
i
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
1
[Sub-Bij
1
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Bub-BiJ~
I
Q
= Without COHPAC
= With COHPAC
I"
i|
<
']
t,rr
1IJ
_
'
r
f
-
A
<
^m
ป
"
J
^m m
i r
T
, *
Gypsum
Bituminous
1
>ub-BiJ5
j
1
<
1
ป
Scrubbei
Sludge
B tuminous
Mo
-p
i IT
: L I*
i Ml
4 l
Blended CCR:
Bituminous
DWEL
MDL: ICP-OES
MDL: ICP-MS
t
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
104^
10 -
O)
^7 1
.a 10
CL
10' -
10"
I
Maximum Cone O Without NOx control O Unwashed
Cone At Own pH With NOx control Washed
Minimum Cone O Without ACI With ACI
= Without COHPAC
= With COHPAC
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
[5ub-Bi|g
T..I
III
II
Gypsum
Bituminous
Scrubber
Sludge
Pb
Blended CCR:
Bituminous
rc
AL
MDL: ICP-OES
MDL: ICP-MS
Figure 63. Lead. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the
pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal.
141
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
io5-i
io4-i
103-J
102-J
nr -
_Q 10 =
C/5 i
10ฐ -j
1C'1!
E
-in'3
10
I Maximum Cone
Cone At Own pH
Minimum Cone
-I-
T
r
r
j
""
-<
ซ
<
ii(i
jj
J ,
*!
-L
?
O Without NOx control O Unwashed
With NOx control Washed
O Without ACI With ACI
y
.
<
t>
'r
-p
(
1 1.
" ^ o Tl
- tt
^Cff
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS || Mediums |||^|
y*
i <
i ป
i
T*
irJ
rT
i1'
*
Gypsum
Bituminous Bub-Bij~
3
m LJ- Q O CQ Z) r/} CI>< ' CD 1 LU > LU ^ co co co co LUX Q_ iMX
ci.- -wii^_-'^.ซ_iฃift -*~ 'i^, ^ - ->^ -~ '<ซ; o <; ^_^T' ct^ -
ฃL-m& 'M'S:S
t-'o'o'u'o^-r^'^07;! 'o'u^'u'u S1^^^ 'u^ IX m ฐ ฐ
งra ro co co co-1- co ^i?3 co ,ro ro'o > m L_COCOCOCO CO
CO Ji: L_LJ_Li_Ll_ (/)
CQ ro ro
Q_
-M ป
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
Sb
._
1 1
:ra
-L -L
Blended CCR:
Bituminous
MDL: ICP-OES
MCL
MDL: ICP-MS
y fetybypypfetyygi y^ ^^^^^^^ ydb^y ydddddwd
"- D.D.nซซD.D.ซLi- c/ic/) ซ3<5<33ซ3<3<3<ซ5? 00000 OOOOO<ซJ
Q SSffia^SS&a^S >i Stt5|5jrafe5isfleaoฃS2ix S"S<& SJiSSSSlS
^ E.ฃooT'-ioo.g.gTl'5,ra ป ='HH>5:"rs a-Zz^c/iOo^aXx CQi<-)1o7;1o:gi(j = 1o1o 'ii'o S> 'o'ij'o'ij'ij 'ij'ij'o'o'o^'jj'ij
o o ^ ,- u_ u_ ca ca LJ_ LJ_ 7= ,ra ca ca. ca O'rr^^ra ca ^ ca s ca ^ ra ca.^3 ca= cacaracaca cacaracacamcara
" ^EE"- LJ-U-CC o LJ.U. u.u-u.ra^0o:cu-u-12u-iฃu-ฃu-u-u-u-:c u-u- "-"-"- u. u. u- u- u- ฃ u. n.
CQCQy^t/) tl)
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10 -
10 -
0)
C/5
10 -
10"
-=
-=
=
ij
<
< r^
I Maximum Cone
Cone At Own pH
Minimum Cone
TTT
F
4
I
+
F
f"
i
T *J-
( i
'
y
(
m
ป
O Without NOx control O
With NOx control
O Without ACI
-
.
<
.
i
"jo
1 1 -L
I
ป
-
J
F
i;
i
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S | ^
1
[Sub-Bij
a
With and
Without ACI
Bituminous Bub-BiJ~
VL_i
. *
Unwashed = Withoi
Washed 3ฃ = With C
With ACI
JlAflJ
Jt COHPAC
OHPAC
T
fFWJ;
-L
Gypsum
Bituminous Bub-
BJj|
-_
"II
4
Scrubber
Sludge
B tuminous
Se
" -pT
.( .. ..
< ' *
) LU~
^^
Blended CCR:
Bituminous
rc
MCL
MDL: ICP-OES
MDL: ICP-MS
Q_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ X Ll- LJ_
i
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
I
Maximum Cone O Without NOx control
Cone At Own pH With NOx control
Minimum Cone O Without ACI
O Unwashed
Washed
With ACI
= Without COHPAC
= With COHPAC
10ฐ---
Figure 66. Thallium. Comparison of maximum, minimum and own pH concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over
the pH domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4. SDA samples were from facilities burning sub-bituminous coal.
144
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
14 -
12 -
10 -
8-
-L
4
1
(
i
'<
f
4
(
>
i
I Maximum Cone O Without NOx control O Unwashed = Without COHPAC
Cone At Own pH With NOx control Washed X = With COHPAC
Minimum Cone O Without ACI With ACI
i
'.
4
(
)
>
--m--
t
(
i
ป
..
-
(
1
-
-
1
r
i
(
i
i
i
14
L
4
;
1
(
(
1
^
:
u.
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S Medium S I ฑ
|sub-Bit|
I
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Bub-Bit ~
IS
m
- C/)
2
]
_
*!
.
(
(
(
(
1
m
1
(
(
1
(
Gypsum
Bituminous
Sub-Bi^
(
( 1
-'-
Scrubber
Sludge
Bitum nous
PH
W _ T
^^m
(
1
(
1
(
(
( 1
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
6
4 -
2 -
s^^
LJ_ Ll_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ U_ LJ_ LJ_ LJ_ Q_ < LJ_ LL- LJ_ Q_ Q_ I I ซ ซ Q_ Q- ซ LL. (f)
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
3.2.3. Leaching Dependency on Total Content
An on-going question has been whether or not total content of an element in a CCR sample is a
useful indicator of potential environmental impact by leaching. This question was evaluated by
comparing for the COPCs (i) the maximum eluate concentration over the pH domain 5.4 < pH <
12.4 with the total content by digestion (Figure 68 to Figure 79), and (ii) the eluate concentration
at own pH with the total content by digestion (results not shown). The maximum eluate
concentration as a function of total content is presented in Figure 68 to Figure 79 because in
understanding the meaning of research results, the focus is often on the potential for exceedance
of a particular threshold value. However, results of own pH eluate concentration as a function of
total content were similar. Results are annotated on Figure 69 (arsenic) for illustration purposes.
Each of these figures show (i) there is a poor correlation between leachate concentration and
total content of any of the elements considered, (ii) a wide range of total content values (over
more than one order of magnitude) can result in the same or very similar eluate concentrations,
and (iii) a wide range of eluate concentrations (over more than one order of magnitude) can be
observed for CCRs with similar total content values. If leaching correlated closely with total
concentration, the data on these figures would be expected to show strong linearity, and
relatively less scatter. Thus, it is clear that leaching phenomena is controlled by complex solid-
liquid partitioning chemistry and that total content is not a good indicator of leaching.
Furthermore, the absence of a linear or unique monotonic relationship between total content and
eluate concentrations indicates that representation of leaching as a linear partitioning
phenomenon (i.e., the linear distribution coefficient, Kd, approach) is not appropriate.
146
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Al [ug/L] - Max. Eluate Concentration
o o o o o
i ro co -ti tn O
| | | | |
10
* I
xz
2
Z
Z
f
**z ซ'
Z X
z *
ซPcM
""o ^
'& *
X
u
n
r
(
Al
3 0
*
Fly Ash
D SDA
C Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
n Blended CCRs
1 1 1 1
102 103 104 105 106
Al - Total By Digestion [ug/g]
As [|jg/L] - Max. Eluate Concentration
o o o o o o
i O ' r-o GJ -t>. O
1 1 1 1 1 1
10
2
Same eluate
concentration with
different total cont
3
'
Xxn n
ents_ x_ <
ฃ>. _ ' TjoctjJ^ 'V'
: ^
z
z
i
1 ' 1
H
n
Same to
with diff
concent
fi.
-A. rP]
]J n t^
H
g
tal content As
erent eluate
rations
Fly Ash
0 SDA
Z Gypsum
< Scrubber Sludge
n Blended CCRs
1 1 1
10"1 10ฐ 101 102 103
As - Total By Digestion [|jg/g]
Figure 68 and Figure 69. Aluminum and Arsenic. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion.
147
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
|jg/L] - Max. Eluate Concentration
o o o o
J OJ 4^ Ul O
| | | |
03 10 -
CQ :
-,J
10
*E X
_ S
X ji
*0
X ^~n l
r _ 4^i^
4 I *! 4.
o
n o
<>
n M
c
a
f
1
*
|Ba
i:.
4
Fly Ash
0 SDA
X Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
* Blended CCRs
10ฐ 101 102
Ba - Total By Digestion [ug/g]
"1
103 104
-l/-v3
10 i
O 2
ซ 10 E
i_ _
c I
0)
o
O -l/-v1
S 1ฐ E
ro :
LlJ
00 -in0
J 10 I
"
~&>
^- ,
-i/-\"'
-o 10 i
O :
-2
10
1
z
1 ^,3
x XJ[ ^
i-^
z <>
xx x 5X
^ ^ x n^
z * *
z
' 2 3456789
o-1 K
**
? n
n "
' .
i -^
1
2 3 456789
3ฐ K
Cd - Total By Digestion [ug/g
I
D1
Cd
1
Fly Ash
SDA
Z Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
n Blended CCRs
2 3 456789
1C
,2
Figure 70 and Figure 71. Barium and Cadmium. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion.
148
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
10 i
c
.0 3
2 10 1
CD I
O
O -in2
CD =
ro ;
LJJ
X -i
^ 10 i
HP
o 10 i
O :
-1
10
1
X
X
2 3456789
O"1 K
x
Y X *^
A v O
x x
xx x
X
2 3 456789
Dฐ K
Co - Total By Digestion [|jg/g
+
n
D1
Co
"4 "n
"<|>?"
Fly Ash
SDA
X Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
* Blended CCRs
2 3 456789
1C
,2
-l/-v4
10 :
.g
ro 3
jate Concent
i
> c
ro
d IU E
X
03
s
_l
^5 -i/-\^
3. 10 :
i_ ~
o :
^^0
10
1
X
X
XX
x x E 8
x x i X3
_ X
z ^
' 2 3456789
0ฐ K
O
"
r q. n a
o
n
** 4 f
n
x n
i i i i i i i i
2 3 456789
D1 K
Cr - Total By Digestion [|jg/g]
^
1
,
D2
Cr
P
+
1
1 1
Fly Ash
0 SDA
X Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
n Blended CCRs
2 3 456789
1C
,3
Figure 72 and Figure 73. Cobalt and Chromium. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion.
149
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Hg [ug/L] - Max. Eluate Concentration
ฐ, ฐ, 0 0 0
oo ro * O ป i\
ul | | | |
10
n
1
z
g i
o
o
V
z
z E
x x ?
1 T
X
Hg
z
X
f
Fly Ash
SDA
Z Gypsum
< Scrubber Sludge
n Blended CCRs
2 3456789 2 3456789 2 3456789
ID'2 10'1 10ฐ 101
Hg - Total By Digestion [ug/g]
jg/L] - Max. Eluate Concentration
o o o o
OJ 4^ Ul O
| | | |
o 102 -i
10
""
Z
z _ t
z ._
x n
T zxx *+
z
z x
Mo
n %
g
i
" n
i .+. n-*~-
0
z
n
n FIvAsh
0 SDA
Z Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
n Blended CCRs
' i i
2 3 4567891 2 3 456789
10ฐ 101 102
Mo - Total By Digestion [ug/g]
Figure 74 and Figure 75. Mercury and Molybdenum. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion.
150
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
2
10 8 =
6-
"
c
.0
1 2-
c
CD
O 1
c 10 ~
O 8-
o 6:
S
00 4-
3
LฑJ
X 2-
03
^ inฐ
d 8:
^5 6-
^_
.0 4"
CL
2-
1
10
_l
T X
^t
X
X X
X
* J^
z ^
z
ซ n
z z n
4s
A<^
OZ
Z
0
n
i
Oi
:
J i
B 1
1 1
i i
1 c
1
1
z
B
Pb
1
Fly Ash
0 SDA
X Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
* Blended CCRs
-101
10 10 10
Pb - Total By Digestion [ug/g]
1 ' 1
2 3
10 10
-l/-v5
10 =
c -m4
o 10 =
2 "
c
8 m3
ง 10 =
O :
0) ~
ro "
m io2-|
X
cc
^ in1 "
U 10 =
"S5 :
-ฐ 0
oo 10 I
-1
10
1
X
| x x
EE
YX
--X--
X
' 2 3456789
o-1 K
M
F*"n
" 4 t
xi
n " nx >t,
"*z
5T^ T X
1
2 3 456789
Dฐ K
Sb - Total By Digestion [ug/g
!
A
D1
Sb
l
I
n
Fly Ash
SDA
X Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
n Blended CCRs
2 3 456789
1C
,2
Figure 76 and Figure 77. Lead and Antimony. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH < 12.4)
as a function of total content by digestion.
151
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
10 :
.2
2 _4
uate Concent
i
> c
CO
u IU E
X
CO
^ 10 i
CD
C/) I
1
10
1
z
*z ~ *""."
t *
2 3456789
0ฐ K
Z
m# x
z
n '
2 3 456789
D1 K
Se - Total By Digestion [|jg/g
D2
Se
Fly Ash
0 SDA
Z Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
* Blended CCRs
2 3 456789
1C
,3
-l/-v4
10 i
ง -m3 "
ฃ 10 :
co :
i_ _
0)
o
O 2
O 10 i
s -
00 -
CD
x nni
ra 10 i
"
~&)
- in0
p 10 E
-1
10
1
x
x nc
^ ฐz^X...
Es "i
Y r
Zx
Z Z
' 2 3456789
o-1 K
^*
*3 ^B
itf_^_i*_
s" -1 n
i
P
i i i i i i i i
2 3 456789
Dฐ K
Tl - Total By Digestion [|jg/g]
O
D1
Tl
Fly Ash
SDA
Z Gypsum
f Scrubber Sludge
n Blended CCRs
2 3 456789
1C
,2
Figure 78 and Figure 79. Selenium and Thallium. Maximum eluate concentration (5.4 < pH <
12.4) as a function of total content by digestion.
152
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
3.2.4. pH at the Maximum Concentration Value versus the Materials' Own pH
Figure 81 through Figure 93 plot the pH at which the maximum eluate concentration for a CCR
sample occurs over the domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4 as a function of the own pH for the same sample.
Results for arsenic are annotated as Figure 80. The diagonal gray line indicates a slope equal to
one; when a data point falls on or near (within the light gray band) this line, the maximum eluate
concentration occurs at or near the own pH for the specific CCR sample. Data points indicated
with an open symbol have maximum eluate concentrations that are less than either the MCL or
DWEL as indicated for the element of interest. Data points indicated with a filled symbol have
maximum eluate concentrations that are greater than either the MCL or DWEL. When a sample
falls above the gray diagonal line, processes that result in increased elution pH (e.g., mixing with
other materials such as lime, other CCRs or other alkaline materials) are indicated to lead to
increased leachate concentration for that element. When a sample falls below the gray diagonal
line, processes that result in decreased elution pH (e.g., mixing with other more acidic materials
or uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide) are indicated to lead to increased leachate
concentration for that element. For example, uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide (carbonation)
occurs when pore solution pH is greater than 8, with the most pronounced effect when pore
solution pH is greater than 10. Carbonation results in decreases in pH typically to between 8 and
9. These potential changes must be qualified with the caveat that changes that result in increased
or decreased elution pH may also result in significantly changed chemistry (e.g., redox changes)
that may also influence leaching.
Important observations from these figures include:
1. Often the maximum eluate concentration occurs at a pH other than the material's own
pH, regardless of the element or material being evaluated.
2. The maximum eluate concentration varies over a wide range in pH and is different for
different CCR types and elements. This indicates that there is not a single pH for which
testing is likely to provide confidence in release estimates over a wide range of disposal
and beneficial use options, emphasizing the benefit of multi-pH testing.
3. Multi-pH testing provides useful insights into the CCR management scenarios that have
the potential to increase release of specific constituents beyond that indicated by monofill
management scenarios.
153
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
Processes increasing pH may
lead to increased concentration
(e.g., mixing with other materials
such as lime, other CCRs, or
alkaline materials)
Below Above
MCL MCjX=10[ug/L]
Fly Ash
SDA
Gypsum
Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
Processes decreasing pH may
lead to increased concentration
(e.g., carbonation or mixing with
other more acidic materials)
Figure 80. An example of pH identity plot. Dashed red lines are used to indicate the pH domain
of 5.4 to 12.4.
154
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
CD
o
O
O
X
CO
CO
I
Q.
CD
O
o
o
X
CO
CO
X
Q.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Al
Fly Ash
SDA
Gypsum
Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
6
789
Own pH
10 11 12 13 14
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
As
Below Above
MCL MCL =10[ug/L]
m m Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
0 4 Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
6
789
Own pH
10 11 12 13 14
Figure 81 and Figure 82. Aluminum and Arsenic. pH identity plots.
155
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
CD
o
O
O
X
CO
CO
I
Q.
CD
O
O
o
x
CO
CO
1C
Q.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
B
Below Above
DWEL DWEL = 7000 [|jg/L]
El Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
O * Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
6
789
Own pH
10 11 12 13 14
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Ba
Below Above
MCL MCL = 2000 [ug/L]
H Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
* 4 Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
4
\
6
I ' I ' I
789
Own pH
I ' I
10 11
I ' I ' I
12 13 14
Figure 83 and Figure 84. Boron and Barium. pH identity plots.
156
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
CD
o
O
O
X
CO
CO
I
Q.
CD
O
O
o
x
CO
CO
1C
Q.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Cd
EB,
"- J-P-T- -
Below Above
MCL MCL = 5 [|jg/L]
El Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
O * Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
6
789
Own pH
10 11 12 13 14
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Co
"
Fly Ash
SDA
Gypsum
Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
4
\
6
I ' I ' I
789
Own pH
I ' I ' I ' I ' I
10 11 12 13 14
Figure 85 and Figure 86. Cadmium and Cobalt. pH identity plots.
157
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
CD
o
O
O
X
CO
CO
I
Q.
CD
O
O
o
x
CO
CO
1C
Q.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Cr
Below Above
MCL MCL =100[|jg/L]
El Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
O * Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Own pH
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Hg
&ia~ ' 5^x~ %
Below Above
MCL MCL = 2 [ug/L]
H Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
* 4 Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
4
I ' I ' I
789
Own pH
I ' I
10 11
I ' I ' I
12 13 14
Figure 87 and Figure 88. Chromium and Mercury. pH identity plots.
158
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
CD
o
O
O
X
CO
CO
I
Q.
CD
O
O
o
x
CO
CO
1C
Q.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Mo
Below Above
DWEL DWEL = 200 [|jg/L]
El Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
O * Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
6
789
Own pH
10 11 12 13 14
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Pb
Below Above
AL AL =15 [ug/L]
E! Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
* 4 Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
4
\
6
I ' I ' I
789
Own pH
I ' I ' I ' I ' I
10 11 12 13 14
Figure 89 and Figure 90. Molybdenum and Lead. pH identity plots.
159
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
CD
o
O
O
X
CO
CO
I
Q.
CD
O
O
o
x
CO
CO
1C
Q.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Sb
X
Below Above
MCL MCL =6[|jg/L]
El Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
O * Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
6
789
Own pH
10 11 12 13 14
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Se
"
Below Above
MCL MCL = 50 [ug/L]
H Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
* 4 Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
4
I ' I ' I
789
Own pH
I ' I ' I ' I ' I
10 11 12 13 14
Figure 91 and Figure 92. Antimony and Selenium. pH identity plots.
160
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
CD
o
O
O
X
CO
CO
I
Q.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
Tl
31-.- -fcW- _
Below Above
MCL MCL = 2 [|jg/L]
El Fly Ash
ฉ SDA
Z Z Gypsum
O * Scrubber Sludge
Blended CCRs
\
6
789
Own pH
10 11 12 13 14
Figure 93. Thallium. pH identity plots.
161
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
3.2.5. Comparison of Constituent Maximum Concentrations and Concentrations at the
Materials' Own pH from Laboratory Testing Grouped by Material Type with
Measurements of Field Samples and the EPA Risk Report Database
Figure 94 through Figure 106 provide summary comparisons for each element by material type
of (i) the maximum eluate concentration observed during leaching testing as a function of pH
(SR002.1) and as a function of LS (SR003.1)42 over the domain 5.4 < pH < 12.4, and (ii) the
eluate concentration observed at "own pH" by leaching with deionized water at LS=10 mL/g
(SR002.1), and (iii) reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field leachate and
pore water concentrations (surface impoundments - "EPRI SI"; landfills - "EPRI LF") and
derived from the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007b). These are the same reference data ranges used
previously as part of this study (Sanchez et al., 2008). Tabular results are provided in Appendix
J.
The category "Fly Ash" includes data from all fly ash samples tested (n=34), including those
from all coal types and all air pollution control configurations. The category "SDA" represents
the results of the two samples of spray dryer residue tested. The category "Gypsum" represents
the results from all FGD gypsum samples tested (n=20), including unwashed and washed
gypsum samples from all coal types and air pollution control configurations. The category "FGD
Residues" represents the results from all FGD scrubber residue samples (n=5) except gypsum.
The category "Blended CCRs" represents mixed residues as managed (n=8), including mixtures
of fly ash with scrubber residues and with or without added lime, and one as managed sample
that was comprised of mixed fly ash with gypsum. The distinction between Blended CCRs and
SDA categories was made because Blended CCRs are formed by blending materials captured as
separate streams in the air pollution control system, while for SDA fly ash and scrubber residue
are captured together.
When five or more data points were available in a given category of test data ("Maximum
Values" and "Values at Own pH"), a "box plot" was used to represent the data set, with the
following information indicated (from bottom to top of the box and whisker symbol): (i)
minimum value (the lowermost whisker), (ii) 5th percentile (mark on lower whisker), (iii) 10th
percentile (mark on lower whisker), (iv) 25th percentile (bottom of box), (v) 50th percentile or
median value (middle line in box), (vi) 75th percentile (top of box), (vii) 90th percentile (mark on
upper whisker), (viii) 95th percentile (mark on upper whisker), (ix) maximum value (the
uppermost whisker). To the left of each box plot figure, open circles represent each individual
value within the data set. This representation of individual values is used to provide an indication
of the distribution of values within the data set because they typically are not normally
distributed and in some cases the maximum or minimum values may be very different from the
next value or majority of the data. For the SDA category, only each value is displayed because
only two data values are contained in the set.
Representation of "Reference Data Ranges" indicates the 5th, median, and 95th percentile of field
data for surface impoundments ["EPRI SI"] and landfills ["EPRI LF"]. Ranges of field
observations are included for comparison as derived from the EPRI database, considering only
observations from disposal sites associated with facilities that have wet FGD scrubbers. Surface
42 Including results from testing as a function of LS allows consideration of potentially higher
concentrations observed for initial releases that may occur at low LS ratios in the field.
162
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
impoundment data are comparable with scrubber sludge results because scrubber sludges are
most likely to be disposed in this manner. Landfill data are comparable to blended CCR data
because these blended materials are likely to be disposed in landfills. Also included for
comparison is the 5th percentile, median, and 95th percentile of the database used to carry out
human and ecological health risk evaluations in the EPA Risk Report (EPA, 2007) ("CCW Ash,"
"CCW FGD," and "CCW Ash and Coal Waste" referring to monofilled fly ash, disposed FGD
scrubber sludge, and combined CCR disposal, respectively).
The MCL or DWEL or AL (for lead) if available is included in each figure as a green dashed
horizontal line to provide a reference value. The TC, if available, is included in each figure as a
maroon dashed line as a second reference value. However, the concentration ranges indicated in
the figures as results of this study are direct measurements of laboratory eluates and do not
consider attenuation that may occur in the field.
For almost all constituents, a greater range of observed values was evident from laboratory
testing compared to the reference data sets. The upper bound concentrations observed for
laboratory testing over the domain of 5.4 < pH < 12.4 exceeded the upper bound of reference
data sets by one or more orders-of-magnitude for Ba, Cr, Hg, Mo, Sb, Se, and Tl. The upper
bound concentrations observed for laboratory testing over the domain of 5.4 < pH < 12.4 were
less than the upper bound of reference data sets by one or more orders-of-magnitude for Co and
Pb. The MCL or DWEL values were exceeded by the maximum laboratory eluate concentration
by one or more samples for fly ash (As, B, Ba, Cd, Cr, Mo, Sb, Se, Tl), SDA residues (As, B, Ba,
Cd, Cr, Mo, Sb, Se, Tl), gypsum (As, B, Cd, Cr, Mo, Sb, Se, Tl), FGD residues (As, B, Ba, Cr,
Hg, Mo, Sb, Se, Tl), and blended CCRs (As, B, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Mo, Sb, Se).
The observation that most constituent concentrations, both maximum values and own pH values
in laboratory eluates, as well as field observations spanned several orders-of-magnitude indicates
the very substantial roles that coal type, facility design and operating conditions, and field
conditions have on expected concentrations of constituents of concern in leachates from
beneficial use or disposal. For example, the observed laboratory eluate concentrations from fly
ash samples spanned more than four orders of magnitude, both for maximum values and own pH
values.
163
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-in6
10 =
-
-
-
1Q5 -=
=
-in4
10 =
-
i' 3
S E
< 2
0 =
I
-in1
10 =
-in0
10 =
-
10'1-
O |
O
ง.
...
p100th%ile
95th%ile
90th%ile
U75th%ile
1 1 Median
n
8
g
5
@ _
O Laboratory data
0
'25th%ile X ฐ R ฐ
x "I" | |
c
10th%ile
5th%ile I
3 -
_
[[
fl
o
0 =
oJ-l 8
I
X SDA has only two data points
_
"T
'
j :r
Maximum Values
ซ=
-g---
e
|
g "
8
u
1
1 '
o 1
B
r ฐ"
ir
x of
o 1
งL
o
A o
o
r
I
^
8'
o
0-
O ^~
ฐJ
8 -
o
L
Values at Own pH
Al
^^ 95th%ile
<
<
> Median
- 5th%ile
4
^^^
4
ป
>
Reference Data Ranges
I
i
*' * *//
I
^ ^- ^
>" 4>r cT
<* c$
& X' \S
/ //
Figure 94. Aluminum. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 <
pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field
leachate and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA Risk Report (EPA,
2007b).
164
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
-in5
10 =
_
-in4
10 =
I
-in3
10 E
-
-
-
10ฐ l
-
-
in'1
10 =
-
-in'2
10
O p100th%ile
ง-
P
0
O
8-
o L
8
8
o
o
O Laboratory data :
C SDA has only two data points
-95th%ile
90th%ile
l-i75th%ile O ^
1 Median Q
'25th%ile ฐ
--V^j
- 10th%ile S
n
0
0
^
I ~
1
0
.JL.
v
1
8T
o
ง
^ ~n
o *^^
0 -I-
-5th%ile""
0 -^Oth%ile
Maximum Values
0-
0
o _
I
I
H
e
O
o
o
.
0
ฅ ง
I -
I
^
@
1 O ^~
o
0-
I
^m
X
ฐT
0
0
o
O ^^
Values at Own pH
As
4
- 95th%ile
> Median
<
^ 5th%ile"
_ 4
> ^
4
>
^
4
_
ป
Reference Data Ranges
1
1
X ^ o//
. A^ ^>
^ 0ฐ cT ^
Figure 95. Arsenic. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 < pH
< 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field
leachate and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA Risk Report (EPA,
2007b).
165
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-
10 E
io5 -i
_
1ฐ41
=S- -p. 3
10 E
DQ E
-
_
-in2
10 E
101!
=
-in0
10
O Laboratory data Z SDA has only two data points
o ^^95th%ile I ฐ ^T ฐ ^T
P 4- n
K T
ft + 90th%ile 0 i-L, 0
Q O o O JL
i r-Li 75th%ile Q PI
8 ฐ H
3 ^ Median v O o ซ^ o 1 1
Q U-'25th%ile ฎ ~ O^
o -^ ' S
Oth%ile g
8""
o
0 =
Maximum Values
n ^^^
8 -
Q
1
o
g
O p
Q jjn
n _ _ _B
0
ฐ
o
S
งi g
Z ฐ
^ o
8-
o -
t
' -8p
ฐr
^L
o -
"o
o
Q
0-
I
_
1
1
Values at Own pH
B
'
- 95th%ile
'Median^
4
^ 5th%ile
4
>
4
ป
^^
4
^
ป
Reference Data Ranges
I I
1
^^ ^s. v^ Cn -Cj "^. ^s. v^
>" cjf ;/ ^ 0
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
m6
10 E
~
m5
10 E
Z
~
104l
73> 1031
CO
m io2 1
-in1
10 E
mฐ
10 =
-
10'1-
O Laboratory data :
C SDA has only two data points
o iaaii,::,L
0
0
o
งr
-e
-
i"
\2
z
-95th%ile
90th%ile
Z
-|75th%ile
_ _ _ .
^
Median
J25th%ile n ฐ
_10th%ile6th%i|e 8 I
Oth%ile B I I 0
i
I ss. o
B
"
z
0
o"
0
o
8-
Jn
^
r
Maximum Values
o -
o
o
o
^
1
b LI
x
L _ _ _ _
X
8T
1 i. i ^
o ^J
_ _ ^-
in ง
oil ฐ
O -J
o -
I
I
_i
Values at Own pH
Ba
^^^^^^^^^_
4
- 95th%ile -
~P
> Median 1 4
- 5th%ile
>
4
~ <
Reference Data Ranges
I
I
I
*? ^
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-in3
10 E
-
_
loS
_
,.
10 -=
"B)
^ 10ฐ-=
f \ _
^^
-
-i
10 E
10 E
-in'3
10
0-
.
_ง_"
@
8
8
~5
0 OODO
8 =
t
^
I
100th%ile C
95th%ile
90th%ile
O Laboratory data
3^
O -
75th%ile X o
Median I
I
_ _ _ j
)
25th%ile o I
ง '
O
5tli%iie j
Oth%ile c
]
1
,
C SDA has only two data points
ฐ~r
0 J_
O ^pi
^m
p T
O ^"
0 ^*i
Maximum Values
O -
ง-
8
Q
gj "
0
i
n
o
8
o
o -
X
X o
o
o
o
0
-L "6 J
I
o -
o
0
o
Values at Own pH
r
Cd
<
- 95th%ile
> Median
1 5th%ile-
<
<
K
4
ป
Reference Data Ranges
I
1
^^ ^s. -^ Co x%^5
^ * C/ ^ /"
^- Q>> s& ^
1
1
^ ^ ,//
f^ป ^x x^
X0ฐ ,^ o<^
/ ^
TC
MCL
/ //
Figure 98. Cadmium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 <
pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field
leachate and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA Risk Report (EPA,
2007b).
168
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
-
10 E
-
10 |
_
loS
zr
CD
o 101 -=
o E
-in0
10 E
-
A ~
10 E
-in'2
10
Z
100th%ile
g X 9Qth%ile
O Laboratory data
Z SDA has only two data points
3 ?TT~^
S r-L| 75th%ile
H I I Median ง _
8 LJ25th%ile O
1
D
O
O
O -
c
I
1
10th%ile O
P -
5th%ile
3
Oth%ile O
O i
o
""0"
O L
r .
-
y
i^
i
o -J
I
1
Maximum Values
0-
o
PI '
1
ง
o
8
0
ง
O
ฐT
o ,
i
i d
i
o -
0
O '
8T
8
O'
0
ot
Values at Own pH
Co
4
- 95th%ile
> Median
4
^^ 5th%ile
4
r Z
>
ป
Reference Data Ranges
i
i
1
^ * ^// ^ * ฐ~%
\
&
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
4 -
1
-in3
10 =
I
-in2
10 =
_
io1-i
CT)
~s o
11 TO =
O E
-in'1
10 =
-in'2
10 =
-3
10 -=
-in'4
10
g^
q^ho/.Mo
O Laboratory data :
C SDA has only two data points
Q J- 9Qth%ile
| i-L,75th%ile
@
"
O
1
O -
^
T
J_
Median X
o
0 ^~
10th%ile
5th%ile
Oth%ile C
1 JL
y g
T ฐ.
^m
hr
0-1-;
Cr
0
H
O 1 O r^
Maximum Values
ฐT x
o
o I
8
O
fi'
g
9
8
0
o .
0
o _
o -
z
0
IF
0
a
J o J
"
b
1
O
0-
JL
I
. 8~r
Q
0
o
Values at Own pH
Cr
<
p 95th%ile
> Median
<
ป
Reference Data Ranges
^
<*
i
i
1
^ o/ /
& <ฃ?
Ocf
/
i
1
^ ^ ,//
.cf
/
1 1
vj Cj /* o
o
"^
Q;
TC
MCL
Figure 100. Chromium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 <
pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field
leachate and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA Risk Report (EPA,
2007b).
170
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
m3
10 =
102-|
I
a 10ฐ n
ZL -
en
-
_
-2
10
=
-in'3
10 =
-
,n-4
10
O Laboratory data :
E SDA has only two data points
ฐT
8-
1
8
8
a
o -
[
r
o
o
o
100th%ileX O ^~
'95th%ile
90th%ile O
75th%ile p ^
""f
Median ,
c
25th%ile I
C
n o-
jH
j 4*
pr
3B
1 E
0
o
0
0-
"
I
^10th%ile5th%ile O ^"
Oth%ile
Maximum Values
O i
o-
!-
i-l
[
1
8 L
o -
:T
h I งT~"
I ^ n^
o Jt,
s
g
_
_
i
o-l-
Values at Own pH
Hg
--Media
Reference Data Ranges
I
I
I
^^ ^s. -^ Co x%^5
^ * c/ ^ /"
\ 0i Ct?1 O1
1 1
1
1 1 1
TC
MCL
y ^ J* .e/ rcf ^ ^ .^ ^ 4?
<* ^ / / ^ ^ C^ cJ# ^
Figure 101. Mercury. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 <
pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field
leachate and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA Risk Report (EPA,
2007b).
171
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
10ฐ i
iฐS
~CT>
t ioS
10ฐ l
-1
10 1
io-2-
O
Laboratory data
Z SDA has only two data points
- -95th%ile
ง - - 90th%ile
งi-L| 75th%ile _
. n
1 \-\ Median
I LrJ25th%ile O p
8 8 T
|ilOth%ile6-%,|e
Oth%ile 8 |
g
งT
1
ฐT
0 r^n
Q.
,O
Q 'MK> A
:|_i.
Q y~j
Maximum
Values
?-
1 "
o
ง.
o -
X
f"'
IS
m
b
E
TFT s t
!? J
0 ^ ฐ J
Values at Own pH
^
i
n
Mo
4
r- 95th%ile
4
* Median
, <
, <
- 5th%ile
-I-
Reference Data Ranges
1 1
,x> ^V
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
-
10 E
-
-in3
10 =
-in2
10 =
|
^ ~
CD
.^7 1
JD 1 0 E
Q- E
-in0
10 =
ID'S
=
-in'2
10
O
Laboratory data Z SDA has only two data points
z
O ^^^100tn%ile
x
--95th%lle e
^ j
R - - 90th%ile
8 I
B |J-|75th%ile
I
1 U Median 9
g Lpl 25th%ile
ง 0
- 10th%ile
- -5th%ile
O ^Loth%ile O -
.L
_
8
O
I
-
o ^^
0 _
o
@
0
. o.X ฐ^
Maximum
Values
o -^
O ^^^ Y
1 .
8[
9
1
o
o
o J-
Z
0-
L 8
0
i
o
o
-L o '
T
1
-
i
0
ฐpq 8
g Q
B,
o-l o J-
Values at Own pH
Pb
i 95th%ile
<
> Median ซ
M
4
<
ป
Reference Data Ranges
I
i
1
1
<^ ^ ,-ฃ? <^ XOฐ ^ ^ ..-^f
^ <3^ <^ -ฃ> X 0^
,<0 cP ,-
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
5 -
104-
_
3
10 =
-
_
-in2
10 =
CT)
^7 1
JD '^ =
CO I
10ฐ l
! -
10 =
~
-2
10 -=
-in'3
10
.a.
o
@
@ _
p100th%ile
95th%ile
90th%ile
O Laboratory data
Z SDA has only two data points
O
n75th%ile
l~l Median
8-
o _
0-
J25th%ile o .
10th%ile o
^
งH
' ,Q ,
~th%Ne n " <^^ ~
-Oth%ile IT
ol
Maximum Values
o ^^
o -
o -
o
0
g-
[If
X ft
Z o
o
^
J
o -
_^ ฐ H
0-
Values at Own pH
~
1
L
Sb
<
p 95th%ile
> Median
4
I
>
Reference Data Ranges
1
1
<<*> 4?
.,
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
0 E
=
4
10 E
I
-
in3
10 =
^j :
CD
^ io2 -=
to E
10' -j
in0
10 =
=
io-1-
O ^p100th%ile
--95th%ile c
0
O
Ir
i
1 .
1
ง h
8-
90th%ile
O Laboratory data
3 1 i
a -
Li75th%ile
J
1 Median '
5
i-l 25th%ile
i J
!
2 .
Z SDA has only two data points
o <
S
I"
^ iutn%ne
5th%ile" ^ '
Oth%ile
_ __ Q.
0
I
ง r
o 1
0 ^
1
j
^
Maximum Values
s-
8
@
o
|
'
o
i.
8_
0 -I
0 .
n o
0
X
I O
r P
1
IT
O ^^^m
o ^
8n ^
J
Values at Own pH
r
^^H
?
Se
^p 95th%ile
< > Median
^^H ^^H ^^V
4
<
> _
<
>
^
Reference Data Ranges
1
1
1
y ^ ^
4?
., O^
^ ^ cP cT ^
Figure 105. Selenium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 <
pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field
leachate and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA Risk Report (EPA,
2007b).
175
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-
10 E
IDS
-in2
10 =
~
i 1
1
:r io1 -=
n
10 l
-
-
,-!
10 E
=
,n-2
10
O Laboratory data Z SDA has only two data points
O ^p95th%ile
@ J_ 90th%ile
8 1
8 rl-|75th%ile
ง
o
@ ^ Median
8 o .
n _l_
ฐ n ^n
0 M @ Hh
M 25th%ile ฃ g Hh o TT
..-.-- M
|-.10th%ile M QJ_
ฐ - -5th%ile ฐ
O ^Loth%ile g
0 -
Maximum Values
Q "
e "
f>
ง_
O
i
8
0
Q
ฐ
0-
o
x ง
T ^^
o
L o.
Z
I
I
i
o M of
oX ฐ
C
5
_
Values at Own pH
Tl
^r 95th%ile
4
<
>
> Median
4
>
Reference Data Ranges
I
I
i
1
^^ ^s. v^ Cn -Cj "^. ^s. v^
>" cjf ;/ ^ 0 /--^ <3? XO ^ ,.,&
x &
,<0 O^
^ ^ cP cT ^
Figure 106. Thallium. Comparison of maximum concentrations observed in SR002.1 and SR003.1 eluates over the pH domain 5.4 <
pH < 12.4, own pH concentrations from SR002.1 at LS = lOmL/g, and reference data ranges derived from the EPRI database of field
leachate and pore water concentrations (EPRI SI - surface impoundments; EPRI LF - landfills) and the EPA Risk Report (EPA,
2007b).
176
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
3.2.6. Attenuation Factors Needed to Reduce Estimated Leachate Concentrations to Less
Than Reference Indicators
Comparison of leaching test results to reference indicators does not consider dilution and
attenuation factors (collectively referred to here as attenuation factors) that arise as a
consequence of disposal or beneficial use designs that limit release and attenuation that occurs
during transport from the point of release to the potential receptor. Minimum attenuation factors
needed to reduce maximum leach concentrations (based on laboratory test results for 5.4 < pH <
12.4) to less than MCL or DWEL values were calculated for each COPC to illustrate the
importance of consideration of attenuation factors during evaluation of management options
Minimum attenuation factors needed to reduce own pH leach concentrations (based on
laboratory test results using DI water as the eluant) to less than MCL or DWEL values also were
calculated. The resulting attenuation values were calculated by dividing the appropriate
measured laboratory leaching test concentration by the respective MCL or DWEL for each
COPC. Thus, values greater than one reflect concentrations greater than the MCL or DWEL.
Appendix L provides figures comparing attenuation factors calculated for CCR for individual
elements and also provides a summary table of all calculated values.
Based on evaluation of the results for each COPC, one consideration was to evaluate across the
entire set of COPCs the minimum attenuation factor needed for each CCR sample to result in all
COPCs being less than the MCL or DWEL. Furthermore, this evaluation was used to identify the
specific COPC (e.g., As, Cd, etc.) that required the greatest attenuation factor for each CCR
sample (i.e., the controlling COPC). Results of this analysis are provided in Figure 107 and
Figure 108. For each CCR sample, the minimum attenuation factor needed for all COPCs to be
less than the MCL or DWEL is graphed, along with identification of the specific COPC driving
the result. Two important observations result from this data analysis:
1. Maximum leaching concentrations between pH 5.4 and 12.4 from all CCRs tested in this
study require some attenuation to reduce concentrations to less than the MCL or DWEL
across all COPCs evaluated; and,
2. For fly ash, the controlling constituent (i.e., the constituent within each sample that
required the largest attenuation factor) and the number of samples (..) in which that
constituent is controlling are As (11), Ba (3), Cr (4), Sb (5), Se (3), Tl (8); for gypsum the
controlling constituents are As (2), Se (13), Tl (5); for scrubber sludge the controlling
constituents are Sb (1), Tl (5); for blended, as managed CCRs the controlling constituents
are As (3), Cr (1), Hg (1), Sb (2), Tl (1). Thus, it is important to consider these
constituents when evaluating the potential impacts from CCR management on human
health and the environment.
177
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
IOH-
10ฐ-
Q
o 102
O
-
~~
<-
= $
- n ro
ifl" p ซ P r
1 ^ nP *ฃ a)<1'
_ uin^f ฐ>
* j r-i
t^ ----- j H
J; j nnn n n ^ n ^ฐ
jj.J 11
:::::::::::!:::::! :: ::::::::::::::t
p
< Gypsum
2 With and Without ACI ^ Bituminous Sub-Bit
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
Attenuation Factor needed
based on all COPCs
maximum eluate
concentration, 5.4
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
-in3
10 ;
-
-
-
-ir.2
10 ;
-
_l
LฑJ
5
Q
i_ -]
_i -
O I
^ _
^
C
O o
X 10 ;
CO
S =
-
-in'1
10 -
_
-irV2
|_ yt
JU 1-
p
cn
O
n r
CO
-1
CD
n-
p
O-ฐ
"
(/)
**i"i
(flH
!~~
i
~
<
1
co
CD
co
CD
^
u
rri
CD
n
CD
CO
CO o .,cl)
r-i
co (f/~n
CD
f
-Q^ A
t/J(/)
H-
H1
H-
(
r
H-
1
t
t
t
?
*
t
Jco
' n
'|-L _ป_
' COQ(J:> =^H i- Jj^^ ฐ- 5^ (/To'^'aa x x^ &<&<* m2> -50.^ 0 oo-e-e^^^SraOOCQ >^>^ ^^^^^S^^^.^S^.^^S &&&&& &&&&>ป,>>&
llllHllHl SpSfftf 11 1*11 t iillllilll^f 11 llllftttllililillllt 11111 11111111
m1" TO TO ^fY^CCCCcgcg
D. D.D-
i
ra
Figure 108. Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be reduced below the MCL or DWEL for
all COPCs considered in this study. COPC requiring the greatest attenuation factor is indicated for each CCR.
179
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present conclusions from the results presented in this report.
Changes to fly ash and other coal combustion residues (CCRs) are expected to occur as a result
of increased use and application of advanced air pollution control technologies in coal-fired
power plants. These technologies include flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems for SC>2
control, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems for NOX control, and activated carbon
injection systems for mercury control. These technologies are being or are expected to be
installed in response to federal regulations [e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Utility
MACT Rule], state regulations, legal consent decrees, and voluntary actions taken by industry to
adopt more stringent air pollution control.
The Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD) of EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) has been working since 2000, to evaluate the potential for leaching and
cross media transfer of mercury and other constituents of potential concern (COPCs) from
management of these modified CCRs (primarily disposal, but also reuse). This research was
cited as a priority in EPA's Mercury Roadmap (http://www.epa.gov/mercury/roadmap.htm) to
ensure that the solution to one environmental problem is not causing another.
CCR samples of each material type were collected in an attempt to span the range of likely coal
types [i.e., low, medium and high sulfur bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite] and air
pollution control configurations reflecting use of more stringent air pollution control. This report
presents results from the evaluation of 73 CCRs from 31 coal-fired power plants with various
combinations of particulate matter, NOX, Hg, and SC>2 control. For several of the 31 plants,
samples were obtained before and after changes were made in air pollution control.
CCRs have been grouped into the five categories as shown in Table 12. Each of the CCR
samples was analyzed for a range of physical properties, total metals content, and leaching
characteristics. The testing methods used in this research assess CCR leaching potential over a
range of values for two parameters that both vary in the environment and can affect the rate of
constituent leaching from a material. These are: (1) the pH and (2) the amount of water contact
[in the test, the ratio of liquid-to-solids (LS) being tested]. These are considered improved
leaching test methods that address key concerns with single point testing that were raised by
EPA's Science Advisory Board and the National Academy of Sciences. An advantage of using
this testing approach is that analysis of the data can be tailored or targeted to particular waste
management or use conditions. When key material management conditions are known, the data
can be used to estimate leaching over the range of plausible management conditions for that
particular material. This can be done for either a broad range of conditions (e.g., in assessing
release potential on a national basis) or more narrowly (as in estimating release potential at a
particular site or limited set of sites).
180
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 12. Identification of CCRs evaluated and included in this Report.
Samples Evaluated by
CCR Category
1. Fly Ash
2. FGD Gypsum
3. "Othef FGD Residues (primarily
calcium sulfite from scrubbers
that do not use oxidation to
generate gypsum)
4. Blended CCRs (typically a
mixture of fly ash, calcium sulfite,
and lime)
5 . Wastewater Treatment Filter Cake
Report 1*
12
-
-
-
-
Report 2**
5
6
5
7
Additional
Samples Collected
for this report
17
14
2
1
4
Total Samples
Evaluated in
this Report
34
20
7
8
4
* (Sanchez etal., 2006).
** (Sanchez etal., 2008).
Provided below in a summary table for each CCR category are the range of leach results over the
pH range of 5.4 and 12.443, along with comparison to available regulatory or reference indicators
including TC, MCL, and DWEL. In making such comparisons, it is critical to bear in mind that
these test results represent an estimate of constituent release from the material as disposed or
used on the land. They do not include any attempt to estimate the amount of constituent that may
reach an aquifer or drinking water well. Leachate leaving a landfill is invariably diluted in
ground water or constituent concentration attenuated by sorption and other chemical reactions in
groundwater and sediment. Also, groundwater pH may be different from the pH at the site of
contaminant release, and so the solubility and mobility of leached contaminants may change
when they reach groundwater. None of these dilution or attenuation processes is incorporated
into the leaching values presented, and so comparison with regulatory reference values,
particularly drinking water values, must be done with caution.
The principle conclusions are:
1. Review of the data presented in Table 13 and Table 14, for fly ash and FGD gypsum,
show a range of total concentration of constituents, but a much broader range (by orders
of magnitude) of leaching values, in nearly all cases. This much greater range of leaching
values only partially illustrates what more detailed review of the data shows: that for
CCRs, the rate of constituent release to the environment is affected by leaching
conditions (in some cases dramatically so), and that leaching evaluation under a single set
of conditions will, in many cases, lead to inaccurate conclusions about expected leaching
in the field.
43 This pH range could understate potential concerns when these materials are used in agricultural,
commercial, and engineering applications if the field conditions are more variable than during disposal.
For example, 9 of the 34 fly ash samples evaluated indicated the eluate pH in deionized water (i.e., the pH
generated by the tested material itself) to be more acidic than pH 5.4.
181
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
2. Comparison of the ranges of totals values and leachate data also supports earlier
conclusions that the rate of constituent leaching cannot be reliably estimated based on
total constituent concentration alone or with use of linear Kd partitioning values.
3. The maximum eluate concentration from leaching test results varies over a wide range in
pH and is different for different CCR types and elements. This indicates that there is not a
single pH for which testing is likely to provide confidence in release estimates over a
wide range of disposal and beneficial use options, emphasizing the benefit of multi-pH
testing.
4. Distinctive patterns are observed in leaching behavior over the range of pH values that
would plausibly be encountered on CCR disposal, depending upon the type of material
and element.
5. Summary data in Table 14 on the leach results from evaluation of 34 fly ash samples
across the plausible management pH range of 5.4 to 12.4, indicates leaching
concentration ranges over several orders of magnitude as a function of pH and ash
source:
a. the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the TC
values for As, Ba, Cr, and Se.
b. the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the MCL
or DWEL for Sb, As, Ba, B, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mo, Se, and Tl.
6. Summary data in Table 15 on the leach results from evaluation of 20 FGD gypsum
samples across the plausible management pH domain of 5.4 to 12.4, indicates leaching
concentration ranges over several orders of magnitude as a function of pH and FGD
gypsum source:
a. the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the TC
values for Se.
b. the leach results at the upper end of the concentration ranges exceeded the MCL
or DWEL for Sb, As, B, Cd, Cr, Mo, Se, and Tl.
7. There is considerable variability in total content and the leaching of constituents of
potential within a material type (e.g., fly ash, gypsum) such that while leaching of many
samples, without adjustment for dilution and attenuation, exceeds one or more of the
available reference indicators, many of the other samples within the material type may be
less than the available regulatory or reference indicators. This suggests that materials
from certain facilities may be acceptable for particular disposal and beneficial use
scenarios while the same material type from a different facility or the same facility
produced under different operating conditions (i.e., different air pollution controls) may
not be acceptable for the same management scenario.
In interpreting these results, please note that the CCRs analyzed in this report are not considered
to be a representative sample of all CCRs produced in the U.S. For many of the observations,
only a few data points were available. It is hoped that through broader use of the improved leach
test methods (as used in this report), that additional data from CCR characterization will become
available. That will help better define trends associated with changes in air pollution control at
coal-fired power plants.
182
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
Table 13. Fly Ash - Laboratory leach test eluate concentrations for 5.4 < pH < 12.4 and at "own
pH" from evaluation of thirty-four fly ash samples.
Total in
Material
(mg/kg)
Leach
results
(Hg/L)
rc fog/L)
MCL
(Mg/L)
Hg
0.01-
1.5
<0.01
-0.50
200
2
Sb
3-14
<0.3-
11,000
-
6
As
17-
510
0.32-
18,000
5,000
10
Ba
590-
7,000
50-
670,000
100,000
2,000
B
NA
210-
270,000
-
7,000
DWEL
Cd
0.3-
1.8
O.1-
320
1,000
5
Cr
66-
210
<0.3-
7,300
5,000
100
Co
16-
66
O.3-
500
-
-
Pb
24-
120
O.2-
35
5,000
15
Mo
6.9-77
<0.5-
130,000
-
200
DWEL
Se
1.1-
210
5.7-
29,000
1,000
50
II
0.72-
13
<0.3
-790
-
2
Note: The shade is used to indicate where there could be a potential concern for a metal when comparing the leach
results to the MCL, DWEL, or TC. Note that MCL and DWEL values represent well concentrations; leachate
dilution and attenuation processes that would occur in groundwater before leachate reaches a well are not accounted
for, and so MCL and DWEL values are compared to leaching concentrations here to provide context for the test
results and initial screening.
Table 14. FGD Gypsum - Laboratory leach test eluate concentrations for 5.4 < pH < 12.4 and at
"own pH" from evaluation of twenty FGD gypsum samples.
Total in
Material
(mg/kg)
xach
results
(Hg/L)
TC fog/L)
MCL
(Hg/L)
Hg
0.01-
3.1
O.01-
0.66
200
2
Sb
0.14-
8.2
<0.3-
330
-
6
As
0.95-
10
0.32-
1,200
5,000
10
Ba
2.4-67
30-560
100,000
2,000
B
NA
12-
270,000
-
7,000
DWEL
Cd
0.11-
0.61
<0.2-
370
1,000
5
Cr
1.2-
20
<0.3-
240
5,000
100
Co
0.77-
4.4
<0.2-
1,100
-
-
Pb
0.51-
12
<0.2-
12
5,000
15
Mo
1.1-12
0.36-
1,900
-
200
DWEL
Se
2.3-
46
3.6-
16,000
1,000
50
II
0.24-
2.3
<0.3
-
1,100
-
2
Note: The shade is used to indicate where there could be a potential concern for a metal when comparing the leach
results to the MCL, DWEL, or TC. Note that MCL and DWEL values represent well concentrations; leachate
dilution and attenuation processes that would occur in groundwater before leachate reaches a well are not accounted
for, and so MCL and DWEL values are compared to leaching concentrations here to provide context for the test
results and initial screening.
183
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
5. REFERENCES
ACAA (American Coal Ash Association), (2007). "2006 Coal Combustion Product (CCP)
Production and Use Survey." Retrieved August 6, 2009, from http://www.acaa-
usa.org/associations/8003/files/2006 CCP Survey (Final-8-24-07).pdf.
ASTM (2002). Method D 6784-02: Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-
Bound, and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources
(Ontario-Hydro Method), American Society for Testing and Materials.
DOE-EIA (Official Energy Statistics from the US Government - Energy Information
Administration), (2009). "Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030."
Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf.
Drahota, P., and M. Filippi (2009). "Secondary arsenic minerals in the environment: A review."
Environment International 35(8): 1243-1255.
Duong, D. D. (1998). Adsorption Analysis: Equilibria and Kinetics. London: Imperial College
Press, 892 p.
EPA (1988). Report to Congress - Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility
Power Plants, EPA/530-SW-88-002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA (1996). Method 3052, "Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion of Siliceous and Organically
Based Matrices." Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods
(SW-846), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA (1998a). Method 7470A, "Mercury in Liquid Waste (Manual Cold-Vapor Technique)." Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA (1998b). Method 7473, "Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition,
Amalgamation, and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry." Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA (1999). Report to Congress - Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels: Volume 2 -
Methods, Findings and Recommendations, EPA 530-R-99-010. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA (2000). Characterization and Evaluation of Landfill Leachate, Draft Report, 68-W6-0068.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2000.
EPA (2001). Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers: Interim
Report, EPA-600/R-01-109. December 2001.
184
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues
EPA (2002). Characterization and Management of Residues from Coal-Fired Power Plants,
Interim Report, EPA-600/R-02-083. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December
2002.
EPA (2004). Revised Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Approaches, EPA-821-B-04-
005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology Engineering
and Analysis Division, Office of Water (4303T), October 2004.
http://epa.gov/waterscience/methods/det/rad.pdf (accessed August 21, 2009).
EPA (2005). Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers: An Update,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Office of Research and Development,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/ord_whtpaper_hgcontroltech_oar-2002-0056-6141.pdf
(accessed August 4, 2009).
EPA (2006a). 2006 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories, EPA 822-R-
06-013 (updated August, 2006). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water.
EPA (2006b). EPAs Roadmap for Mercury, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/mercury/pdfs/FINAL-Mercury-Roadmap-6-29.pdf
(accessed August 21, 2009).
EPA (2006c). Standard Operating Procedure for the Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in
Ambient Air Analyzed by Ion Chromatography (1C), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html (accessed September 17, 2009).
EPA (2007a). 2005 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) - Hexavalent Chromium,
EPA-454/R-07-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 2007.
EPA (2007b). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes, Docket #
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796; Docket Item# EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0009. Released as
part of notice of data availability on August 29, 2007,
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/noda07.htm (accessed August 29, 2007).
EPRI (2006). Characterization of Field Leachates at Coal Combustion Product Management
Sites: Arsenic, Selenium, Chromium, and Mercury Speciation, EPRI Report Number
1012578. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA and U.S. Department of
Energy, Pittsburgh, PA.
EPRI (2008). Impact of Air Emissions Controls on Coal Combustion Products, EPRI Report
Number 1015544. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA.
Hutson, N. D., B. C. Attwood, and K. G. Scheckel (2007). "XAS and XPS Characterization of
Mercury Binding on Brominated Activated Carbon." Environmental Science and Technology
41: 1747-1752.
185
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Kilgroe, J., C. Sedman, R. Srivastava, J. Ryan, C. W. Lee, and S. Thorneloe (2001). Control of
Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers: Interim Report, EPA-600/R-01-
109. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 2001.
Kosson, D. S., H. A. v. d. Sloot, F. Sanchez, and A. C. Garrabrants (2002). "An Integrated
Framework for Evaluating Leaching in Waste management and Utilization of Secondary
Materials." Environmental Engineering Science 19(3): 159-204.
Ladwig, K., 2007. Personal Communication. November 15, 2007.
Mohan, D., and J. C. U. Pittman (2007). "Arsenic removal from water/wastewater using
adsorbentsA critical review." Journal of Hazardous Materials 142(1-2): 1-53.
MTI (McDermott Technology, Inc.), (2001). "Mercury Emissions Predictions." Retrieved
November 2002, from
http://www.mtiresearch.com/aecdp/mercury.html#Coal%20Analvses%20and%20Mercury%
20Emissions%20Predictions
Munro, L. J., K. J. Johnson, and K. D. Jordan (2001). "An interatomic potential for mercury
dimmer." Journal of Chemical Physics 114(13): 5545-5551.
Nelson, S. (2004). Advanced Utility Sorbent Field Testing Program. Mercury Control
Technology R&D Review. DOE/NETL. Pittsburgh, PA. July 14-15, 2004.
Nelson, S., R. Landreth, Q. Zhou, and J. Miller (2004). Accumulated Power-Plant Mercury-
Removal Experience with Brominated PAC Injection. Joint EPRI DOE EPA Combined
Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, The Mega Symposium. Washington, D.C. August
30-September2, 2004.
Pavlish, J. H., E. A. Sondreal, M. D. Mann, E. S. Olson, K. C. Galbreath, D. L. Laudal, and S. A.
Benson (2003). "Status Review of Mercury Control Options for Coal-Fired Power Plants."
Fuel Processing Technology 82: 89-165.
Rudzinski, W., W. A. Steele, and G. Zgrablich, Eds. (1997). Equilibria and dynamics of gas
adsorption on heterogeneous solid surfaces. Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis.
Amsterdam, Elsevier Science B.V.
Ruthven, D. M. (1984). Principles of Adsorption and Adsorption Processes. New York: Wiley-
Interscience, 464 p.
SAB (Environmental Engineering Committee EPA Science Advisory Board) (2003). "TCLP
Consultation Summary." Presented at the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Environmental
Engineering Committee consultation with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington D.C. June 17-18, 2003.
Sanchez, F., R. Keeney, D. S. Kosson, and R. Delapp (2006). Characterization of Mercury-
Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for
Mercury Control, EPA-600/R-06/008. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental
186
-------
Characterization of Coal Cumbustion Residues III
Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Contract No. EP-C-04-
023, Work Assignment 1-31, February 2006.
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r06008/600r06008.pdf (accessed August 5, 2009).
Sanchez, F., D. S. Kosson, R. Keeney, R. Delapp, L. Turner, P. Kariher, and S. Thorneloe
(2008). Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet
Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control, EPA-600/R-08/077. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, July 2008.
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08077/600r0877.pdf (accessed August 5, 2009).
Senior, C., C. J. Bustard, K. Baldrey, K. Starns, and M. Durham (2003). "Characterization of Fly
Ash From Full-Scale Demonstration of Sorbent Injection For Mercury Control on Coal-Fired
Power Plants." Presented at the Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega
Symposium, Washington D.C. May 19-22, 2003.
Senior, C., S. Thorneloe, B. Khan, and D. Goss (2009). "Fate of Mercury Collected from Air
Pollution Control Devices." Environmental Management, Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association (A&WMA): 15-21.
Srivastava, R. K., and W. Jozewicz (2001). "Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art."
Journal of Air and Waste Management 51: 1676-1688.
Thorneloe, S. (2003). "Application of Leaching Protocol to Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion
Residues." Presentation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science
Advisory Board (SAB), Washington D.C., Environmental Engineering Committee. June 17,
2003.
Thorneloe, S. (2009). Evaluating the Thermal Stability of Mercury and Other Metals in Coal
Combustion Residues Used in the Production of Cement Clinker, Asphalt, and Wallboard,
EPA-600/R-09/152, December 2009.
Thorneloe, S., D. S. Kosson, G. Helms, and A. Garrabrants (2009). "Improved Leaching Test
Methods for Environmental Assessment of Coal Ash and Recycled Materials Used in
Construction." Proceedings for the or the International Waste Management and Landfill
Symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 2009 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary
Engineering Centre, Italy. 5-9 October 2009.
Thorneloe, S., D. S. Kosson, F. Sanchez, B. Khan, and P. Kariher (2008). "Improved Leach
Testing for Evaluating the Fate of Mercury and Other Metals from Management of Coal
Combustion Residues." Proceedings for the Global Waste Management Symposium, Copper
Mountain Conference Center, Colorado, USA. Sept. 7-10, 2008.
Vidic, R. D. (2002). Combined Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Mechanisms and
Kinetics of Vapor-Phase Mercury Uptake by Carbonaceous Surfaces, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy (DOE), Final Report. Grant No. DE-
FG26-98FT40119.
187
-------
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues III
Wang, 1, T. Wang, H. Mallhi, Y. Liu, H. Ban, and K. Ladwig (2007). "The role of ammonia on
mercury leaching from coal fly ash." Chemosphere 69(10): 1586-1592.
188
-------
Appendix A
Facility Descriptions and CCR Sample Locations
Facility Descriptions
Brayton Point A-l
Pleasant Prairie A-l
Salem Harbor A-2
Facility A A-3
Facility B A-3
Facility C A-4
Facility E A-4
Facility F A-4
Facility G A-5
Facility H A-5
Facility] A-5
Facility K A^5
Facility L A-6
Facility M A-6
Facility N A-7
Facility 0 A-7
Facility P A-8
Facility Q A-8
Facility R A-8
Facility S A-9
Facility! A-9
Facility U A-9
Facility V A-9
Facility W A-10
Facility X A-10
Facility Y A-ll
Facility Z A-ll
Facility Aa A-ll
Facility Ba A-12
Facility Ca A-12
Facility Da A-12
-------
Facility Flow Diagrams
Brayton Point A-13
Pleasant Prairie A-15
Salem Harbor A-17
Facility A A-19
Facility B A-21
Facility C A-23
Facility E A-25
Facility F A-28
Facility G A-29
Facility H A-30
Facility] A-31
Facility K A-33
Facility L A-34
Facility M A-36
Facility N A-38
Facility 0 A-39
Facility P A-40
Facility Q A-41
Facility R A-42
Facility S A-43
Facility! A-44
Facility U A-45
Facility V A-47
Facility W A-48
Facility X A-49
Facility Y A-50
Facility Z A-51
Facility Aa A-52
Facility Ba A-54
Facility Ca A-55
Facility Da A-56
-------
Appendix A
Facility and Sampling Descriptions
Brayton Point
Brayton Point Station (Somerset, MA) is operated by PG&E National Energy Group. This facility is
composed of four fossil fuel fired units designated as Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. The test unit selected, unit
1, has a tangentially fired boiler rated at 245 MW. Brayton Point Unit 1 was chosen for this
evaluation because of its combination of firing low-sulfur bituminous coal with a cold-side ESP.
This configuration represents a wide range of coal-fired power plants located in the eastern U.S.
(Senior etal.,2003a).
The primary particulate control equipment consists of two CS-ESPs in series, with an EPRICON
flue gas conditioning system that provides SO3 for fly ash resistivity control.
The EPRICON system is not used continuously, but on an as-needed basis. The first ESP ("Old
ESP") in this particular configuration was designed and manufactured by Koppers. The Koppers
2
ESP has a weighted wire design and a specific collection area (SCA) of 156 ft /1000 acfm. The
second ESP ("New ESP") in the series configuration was designed and manufactured by Research-
2
Cottrell. The second ESP has a rigid electrode design and an SCA of 403 ft /1000 acfm. Total SCA
for the unit is 559 ft /1000 acfm. The precipitator inlet gas temperature is nominally 280 ฐF at full
load (Senior et al., 2003a).
Hopper ash is combined between both precipitates in the dry ash-pull system. The ash is processed
by an on-site Separation Technology Inc. (STI) carbon separation system, to reduce the carbon
content. This processed ash is sold as base for concrete and the remainder of the higher carbon ash
is land disposed (Senior et al., 2003a).
The injection rate of the PAC was 20 Ib of sorbent used for each million actual cubic feet of gas
(Ib/MMacf) at the time when the CCR with ACI in use was collected from this facility.
The baseline and post-control ashes used for this study were collected as composite samples from
the C-row ash hoppers of the new ESP before processing for carbon separation. Ash for this study
was collected before processing for carbon separation because not all facilities do this processing.
The baseline ash was collected on 6 June 2002. The post-control fly ash was collected on 21 July
2002. Both fly ashes were stored in covered five gallon buckets in the onsite trailer at ambient
temperatures.
Pleasant Prairie
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy, owns and operates
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant located near Kenosha, WI. The plant has two 600 MW balanced-
draft coal-fired boilers designated Units 1 and 2. Unit 2 is the test unit. This site was of key
interest because it was the only plant in the NETL program that burns a variety of Powder River
A-l
-------
Basin (PRB) low sulfur, sub-bituminous coals. In addition, this facility has the ability to isolate
one ESP chamber (1/4 of the unit) (Starns et al, 2002).
The primary particulate control equipment consists of CS-ESPs of weighted wire design with a
Wahlco gas conditioning system that provides SOS for fly ash resistivity control. The
precipitators were designed and built by Research-Cottrell. The design flue gas flow was
2,610,000 acfm. The precipitator inlet gas temperature is nominally 280 F at full load (Starns et
al., 2002).
Precipitator #2 is comprised of four electrostatic precipitators that are arranged piggyback style
and designated 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4. Each of the four precipitators is two chambers wide and
four mechanical fields deep with eight electrical fields in the direction of gas flow. The SCA is
468 ft2/kacfm (Starns et al., 2002).
Hopper ash is combined from all four precipitators in the dry ash-pull system and sold as base for
concrete (Starns et al., 2002). The PAC injection rate was 10 Ib/MMacf at the time when the CCR
with ACI in use was collected from this facility.
The baseline ash was collected as a composite sample from ash hoppers 7-1 and 7-2 of ESP 2-4.
The post-control ash was collected as a grab sample from ash hopper 7-2 of ESP 2-4 (see Appendix
B for flow diagram). The baseline ash was collected on 11 September 2001, and the post-control fly
ash was collected on 13 November 2001. Both fly ashes were stored in covered five gallon buckets
in the onsite trailer at ambient temperatures.
Salem Harbor
PG&E National Energy Group owns and operates Salem Harbor Station located in Salem, MA.
There are four fossil fuel fired units at the facility designated as Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. Units 1-3
fire a low sulfur, bituminous coal and use oil for startup. Unit 4 fires #6 fuel oil. Unit 1, the test
unit, is a B&W single-wall-fired unit with twelve DB Riley CCV90 burners. It is rated at 88 gross
MW. Salem Harbor Unit 1 was chosen for this evaluation because of its combination of firing
low-sulfur bituminous coal with urea-based SNCR, high LOI, and a CS-ESP. The opportunity to
quantify the impact of SNCR on mercury removal and sorbent effectiveness is unique in this
program. In addition, test results from prior mercury tests have indicated 87% to 94% mercury
removal efficiency on this unit without sorbent injection (Senior et al., 2003a). However, fly ash
from this facility has a relatively high percentage of total carbon without carbon injection (7.8%,
see Table 6), which likely serves as a sorbent for mercury.
The particulate control equipment consists of a two-chamber CS-ESP (chambers designated 1-1
and 1-2), which provides two separate gas flow paths from the outlet of the tubular air heaters to
the ID fan inlets. This Environmental Elements ESP has a rigid electrode design and a SCA of
474 ft /1000 acfm. The precipitator inlet gas temperature is nominally 255 F at full load. Typical
LOI or carbon content of the Unit 1 ash is about 25%. This ash is landfilled.
The PAC injection rate was 10 Ib/MMacf at the time when the CCR with ACI in use was
collected from this facility.
A-2
-------
The baseline and post-control ashes used for this study were collected as grab samples from the first
ash hopper (hopper A) of row 1-1 of the ESP. The baseline ash was collected on 6 June 2002, and
the post-control fly ash was collected on 7 July 2002. Both fly ashes were stored in covered five
gallon buckets in an onsite trailer at ambient temperatures.
Facility A
Facility A is a 440-MW coal-fired power plant with a reverse-air fabric filter followed by a wet
FGD system. The unit burns ~1 percent sulfur eastern bituminous coal. The unit operated at
nominally full load for the duration of the test program. The unit is equipped with a pulverized-coal
boiler and in-furnace selective SNCR; urea was injected into the boiler during the course of
operations within the duration of the initial part of this test program. However, urea was not injected
into the boiler for the final comparison test ("SNCR off). Gas exiting the furnace is split between
two flues equipped with comparable control equipment. Particulate is removed with a reverse-air
fabric filter. Flue gas is then scrubbed through a multiple tower wet FGD unit; FGD is a limestone
natural-oxidation design. The two flues are joined prior to exhausting to a common stack. The
annular stack rises 308 feet above the top of the incoming flue. The stack is operated in a saturated
condition with no reheat. The fly ash and FGD waste are combined and then dewatered before
landfill disposal.
Facility A was sampled in September 2003. During the period of time while the SCR was
operating, two 5 gallon buckets of fly ash (AFA), two 5 gallon buckets of scrubber sludge (AGO),
and two buckets of scrubber sludge fixated with lime (ACC) were collected. In February 2004,
during the period of time while the SCR was bypassed and not operating, two 5 gallon buckets of
fly ash (CFA), two 5 gallon buckets of scrubber sludge (CGD), and two buckets of scrubber sludge
fixated with lime (CCC) were collected. All samples were collected by plant personnel.
Facility B
Facility B is a 640 MW coal-fired power plant with cold side ESP followed by a wet FGD system
with Mg-lime. The unit burns medium to high sulfur eastern bituminous coals. The unit is equipped
with a pulverized coal boiler and selective catalytic reduction composed of vanadium pentoxide
(V2O5) and tungsten trioxide (WO3), on titanium dioxide (TiO2) supporting matrix. One set of
samples was collected during the season of elevated ozone, when ammonia is injected into the
ductwork in front of the SCR catalyst, resulting in a flue gas mixture with a concentration of 320
ppm ammonia as it enters the catalyst. Samples were also collected during the winter when
ammonia was not being injected ("SCR off). Particulate is removed with a cold-side ESP. Flue gas
is then scrubbed through a wet FGD unit; FGD is an inhibited mag-lime design. The FGD sludge is
thickened and then mixed with fly ash and magnesium-enhanced lime before landfill disposal in a
clay-lined site.
Three samples were collected in September 2003 when the SCR was operating: one fresh fly ash
sample collected from the ash hopper (sample BFA), one scrubber sludge filter cake sample
collected after the centrifuge but before mixing with other materials in the pug mill (sample BGD),
and one fixated scrubber sludge sample collected after mixing the scrubber sludge with fly ash and
A-3
-------
magnesium-enhanced lime in the pug mill (sample BCC). Three additional samples were collected
from the same locations in February 2004 when the SCR was not in use (samples DFA, DGD and
DCC, respectively). Each sample consisted of one 5-gallon pails of the material, and all were
collected by Natural Resource Technology (NRT) personnel contractors working for EPRI.
Facility C
This plant has four 270 MW balanced draft coal-fired boilers designated as Units 1-4. All of
these units fire a variety of low-sulfur, washed, Eastern bituminous coals. Unit #3 was used for
the ACI studies.
All of the units at this plant employ HS-ESP as the primary particulate control equipment. The
HS-ESP of unit #3 is followed by COHPAC. The COHPAC system is a pulse-jet cleaned
baghouse designed to treat flue gas volumes of 1,070,000 acfm at 290 ฐF. The COHPAC
baghouse consist of two sides, with the A-side being the control and the B-side being the side
where activated carbon was injected after the HS-ESP but before the COHPAC. An ESP
followed by COHPAC and combined with sorbent injection is referred to as the TOXECON
configuration.
The injection rate of the PAC was 1.5 Ib/MMacf at the time when the CCR with ACI in use was
collected from this facility.
One 5-gallon bucket of fly ash without the PAC injection (GAB) and one 5 gallon bucket of fly ash
with PAC injection (GAT) were collected.
Facility E
This test site has four boilers producing 2,424 megawatt (MW) of power. The plant eastern-
bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are
used on three units and hot-side ESP on one unit for particulate control. One five gallon bucket of
fly ash was collected from each of the four boilers. Sample EFA was collected from a cold-side
ESP from Boiler # 1 burning medium sulfur eastern bituminous coal which when the SCR was
operating. Sample EFB was collected from a cold-side ESP from Boiler #2 burning medium sulfur
eastern bituminous coal which when the SCR was not operating. Sample EFC was collected from a
cold-side ESP from Boiler #3 burning high sulfur eastern bituminous coal which when the SCR was
operating.
Facility F
This test site unit has is a 165 megawatt (MW) per boiler power plant. The plant burns low sulfur
eastern bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators
(ESPs) are used for particulate control. One 5 gallon bucket of fly ash (FFA) was collected from
the ESP hopper by NRT personnel in August 2004.
A-4
-------
Facility G
This test site is a 165 megawatt (MW) power plant. The plant burns low sulfur eastern-
bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are
used for particulate control. A SNCR system was operating to control NOX. One 5 gallon bucket
of fly ash (GFA) was collected from the ESP hopper by NRT personnel in August 2004.
Facility H
Facility H is a 500 MW power plant. The plant burns Illinois Basin coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer
boiler. Cold-side ESPs are used on all units for particulate control, an SCR system was operating,
and wet FGD systems were used to reduce SO2 emissions. The wet FGD systems utilize limestone
slurry sorbents and an inhibited oxidation process. The FGD sludge, consisting primarily of
calcium sulfite, is pumped from the absorber to a thickener. Liquid overflow from the thickener is
recycled back into the FGD system, and the thickened sludge is pumped to a series of drum vacuum
filters for further dewatering. Water removed by the drum vacuum filters is recycled back into the
FGD system, and the filter cake is taken by conveyor belt to a pug mill, where it is mixed with dry
fly ash and dry quicklime for stabilization. The resulting scrubber FGD solids are taken by
conveyor to a temporary outdoor stockpile, and then transported by truck either to a utilization site
or to an on-site landfill. One 5 gallon bucket of fly ash (FIFA) was collected from the ESP hopper
by NRT personnel in August 2004.
Facility J
Facility J has a 160 MW boiler that typically burns a 85:15 blend of PRB and bituminous coals.
The unit sometimes switches to 100% PRB on the weekends. However, during our flue gas/fly ash
sampling, the unit was burning the PRB/bituminous blend. The flue gas from the boiler splits and is
directed into two parallel CS-ESPs (designated the "South ESP" and the "North ESP", each treating
half of the flue gas). The flue gas is then recombined before exiting the stack. During testing, B-
PAC was injected upstream of the South ESP. The unit has no NOX or SO2 controls.
The injection rate of the B-PAC was 5 Ib/MMacf at the time when the CCR with B-PAC in use was
collected from this facility.
One 5-gallon bucket of fly ash without the B-PAC injection (JAB) and one 5 gallon bucket of fly
ash with PAC injection (JAT) were collected.
Facility K
Facility K is two tangentially fired 400 MW coal-fired boilers with cold side ESP followed by a wet
flue gas desulfurization system with wet Mg-lime natural oxidation. These units burn medium
sulfur eastern bituminous coals from Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Flue gas is scrubbed
through a common wet FGD unit; FGD is a wet Mg-lime natural oxidation design. FGD sludge is
mixed with fly ash and quicklime for stabilization prior to disposal.
A-5
-------
Two samples were collected on November 29, 2004: one scrubber sludge filter cake before mixing
in the pug mill (sample KGD), and one fixated scrubber sludge collected after mixing the scrubber
sludge with fly ash and 2-3% lime in the pugmill (sample KCC). On January 12, 2005, one fly ash
sample was collected directly from the ESP before the fly ash storage silo (sample KFA, collected
in January 2005). Each sample consisted of four 5-gallon bucket of the material, and were collected
by plant personnel.
Facility L
This facility is configured similarly to St. Clair except that it used one HS-ESP with two
compartments rather than two CS-ESPs, and it uses separated overtired air (SOfA) ports for NOX
control. As a result, the fly ash collection temperature is between 300 and 450 ฐF. Samples were
collected from hoppers which were evacuated under negative pressure. The pneumatic hopper
controls were turned off to allow enough samples to collect for the leaching evaluation. The
controls were off for about 4 hr. There is concern that because of the high temperature within the fly
ash collection hoppers, some mercury may have desorbed prior to sampling. Therefore, the samples
obtained for evaluation may have a lower metal content. Because of the concern about mercury
desorbing from the fly ash, additional fly ash was collected by turning off the pneumatic transfer for
30 min (2 weeks after the original samples were collected). Total metal content determinations
were completed for all samples, which includes with and without brominated powdered activated
carbon (BPAC) for fly ash collected after accumulation in the hopper for 4 hr (first sampling) and
30 min (second sampling). The leaching evaluation was conducted only on the samples collected
over 4 hr intervals since this provided adequate sample size (5 gallons).
One 5 gallon bucket of fly ash without BPAC (LAB) and one 5 gallon bucket of fly ash with BPAC
(LAT) was collected by ARCADIS personnel.
Facility M
Facility M is a 600 MW per unit power plant. The plant burns bituminous coal in a dry-bottom
pulverizer boiler. Cold-side ESPs are used on all units for particulate control, and wet FGD systems
are used to reduce SO2 emissions on two units. The wet FGD systems utilize limestone slurry and
an inhibited oxidation process. The FGD sludge, consisting primarily of calcium sulfite, is pumped
from the absorber to a thickener. Liquid overflow from the thickener is recycled back into the FGD
system, and the thickened sludge is pumped to a series of drum vacuum filters for further
dewatering. Water removed by the drum vacuum filters is recycled back into the FGD system, and
the filter cake is taken by conveyor belt to a pug mill, where it is mixed with dry fly ash and dry
quicklime for stabilization. The resulting scrubber FGD solids are taken by conveyor to a temporary
outdoor stockpile, and then transported by truck either to a utilization site or to an on-site landfill.
The currently active portion of the landfill is lined and includes leachate collection. An older
inactive portion of the landfill is clay-lined but does not have leachate collection.
Three samples were obtained from the Pug Mill Area by the EPRI contractor during the week of
March 6, 2006 when the SCR was not operating: fly ash, vacuum drum filter cake, and fixated
scrubber sludge with lime (only FSSL was used in this study, sample MAD). In each case, the
A-6
-------
samples were collected daily during the four day sample collection (four daily samples of each), for
compositing in the laboratory. All of the samples were collected into clean 5 gallon plastic pails.
Excess sample was containerized and discharged back into the appropriate system. The drum filter
cake was sampled daily from the conveyor belt leading into the pug mill. Two of the three drum
filters were running simultaneously; both were feeding the conveyor belt. The same drums were
running each day of sampling. Each 5 gallon bucket was sealed immediately after collection and the
lid secured with duct tape. The dry fly ash sample was obtained directly from the day tank via a
hose connected to a sampling port. Each 5 gallon bucket was sealed immediately after collection
and the lid secured with duct tape. FSS was sampled from the conveyor belt on the outlet side of the
pug mill on the first, third and fourth days. A clean, short handled spade was used to collect sample
from the conveyor belt into a 2 gallon bucket. The sample in the bucket was placed on a clean piece
of 3 mm plastic sheeting; then more sample was collected from the conveyor belt into the bucket
and added to the sheet until at least 6 gallons of sample was collected. Each sample was
homogenized on the sheet using the spade and placed into a 5 gallon bucket, sealed immediately,
and the lid secured with duct tape. A similar process was used to collect three more samples the
week of May 9, 2006 when the SCR was in use (FSSL sample MAS).
Facility N
Facility N is a wall fired 715 MW coal-fired power plant with cold side ESP followed by a wet
FGD system using wet limestone in a forced oxidation process. The unit burns medium to high
sulfur eastern bituminous coals with approximately 3% sulfur. The gypsum is washed, dried and
then sold to the wallboard industry.
One 5 gallon bucket of un-washed gypsum (NAU) and one 5 gallon bucket of washed gypsum
(NAW) were collected from this site. Facility N was sampled on June 1, 2006. Samples were
provided by RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. (Raleigh, NC).
Facility O
Facility O is a tangentially fired 500 MW coal-fired plant with cold side ESP followed by a wet
FGD system with wet limestone forced oxidation. The unit is equipped with a pulverized coal boiler
and ammonia based SCR. This unit burns high sulfur eastern bituminous coals. Slurry from the
absorber goes to a primary hydrocyclone for initial dewatering. The gypsum (hydrocyclone
underflow) is dried on a vacuum belt and washed to remove chlorides, before use in wallboard.
Two samples were collected from the FGD gypsum drying facility by compositing samples
collected on June 10, 11, and 12, 2006 when the SCR was operating. On each day, two gallon pails
of unwashed gypsum and washed/dried gypsum were collected. The unwashed gypsum was
collected from the vacuum belt prior to the chloride spray wash. The washed/dried gypsum was
collected from the end of the vacuum belt. The three daily samples were sent to Arcadis for
compositing to form sample OAU (unwashed gypsum) and sample OAW (washed gypsum). All
samples were collected by plant personnel.
A-7
-------
Facility P
Facility P is two wall fired 200 MW coal-fired boilers with cold side ESP followed by a wet FGD
system with wet limestone forced oxidation. Unit 1 is equipped with SNCR and Unit 2 is equipped
with SCR. These units burn medium sulfur eastern bituminous coals. Particulate is removed with a
cold-side ESP. Flue gas is then scrubbed through a common wet FGD unit; FGD is a wet limestone
forced oxidation design. The gypsum provided was not washed.
Facility P was sampled in October 2006 when both SCR and SNCR were operating and the residues
from Unit 1 and Unit 2 were commingled during collection. One 5 gallon bucket of the un-washed
gypsum (PAD) was collected by plant personnel.
Facility Q
Facility Q is a 1800 MW coal fired plant with hot side ESP followed by a wet flue gas
desulfurization system with wet limestone forced oxidation. This plant burns sub-bituminous coal.
FGD is a wet limestone forced oxidation design that includes the addition of dibasic acid to the
absorber1 for to buffer the scrubber liquor and control calcium scaling. Gypsum is not washed, but
make up water is added continually rather than operating closed loop to maintain low chloride
concentrations.
One 5 gallon bucket of un-washed gypsum (QAU) was collected on October 30, 2006. The sample
was collected by NRT personnel. The sample was shipped to ARCADIS for analysis on Mary 4,
2007.
Facility R
This test site is a 175.5 megawatt (MW) power plant. The plant burns sub-bituminous PRB coal in
a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitates (ESPs) are used on all units for
particulate control, and wet FGD systems are used to reduce SO2 emissions on two units. The wet
FGD system utilizes a wet limestone slurry sorbent and a forced oxidation process. Gypsum from
the FGD system uses a hydrocyclone and a vacuum drum filter to remove residual water from the
product. Gypsum is not washed, but make up water is added continually rather than operating
closed loop, so the chlorides stay low. The system was originally designed to wash filter cake. The
gypsum material is recycles for use in wallboard.
One 5 gallon bucket of un-washed gypsum (RAU) was collected on May 3, 2007. The sample was
collected by a contractor for EPRI.
1 Dibasic acid (DBA) is a commercial mixture of glutaric, succinic, and adipic acids:
HOOC(CH2)2.4COOH.
A-8
-------
Facility S
This test site is a 600 megawatt (MW) per unit power plant. The plant burns eastern high sulfur
bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are
used on all units for particulate control, and wet FGD systems are used to reduce SO2 emissions on
two units. The wet FGD systems utilize limestone slurry sorbents and an forced oxidation process
Samples of washed (SAW) and unwashed (SAU) gypsum were collected at this site in July, 2007.
One five-gallon bucket of each was collected by plant personnel.
Facility T
This power plant test site has three boilers producing a total of a 2,000+ megawatts (MW). The
plant burns medium sulfur eastern bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Units 1 and 2
have coal cleaning equipment to reduce ash ad SOX emissions. All three of these units have low
NOX burners and selective catalytic reduction systems for NOX control. Ammonia was injected
upstream of the SCR catalysts. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used on all three
units for particulate control. A wet FGD systems using limestone in a forced oxidation mode are
used to reduce SO2 emissions on Unit 3.
Four samples were collected by plant personnel on September 17, 2007: one 5 gallon bucket of fly
ash from Unit 2 (TFA), one 5 gallon bucket of un-washed gypsum from Unit 3 (TAU), one 5 gallon
bucket of washed gypsum from Unit 3 (TAW), and one 5 gallon bucket of FGD waste water
treatment plant filter cake from Unit 3 (TFC).
Facility U
This test site has eight boilers producing a total of 1,629 megawatts (MW). The plant burns low
sulfur eastern bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Samples from this site were
collected from units 7 and 8. Both of these units have low NOX burners and selective catalytic
reduction systems for NOX control. A cold-side electrostatic precipitator (ESP) were used on unit 7
for particulate control, and a wet FGD system using limestone in a forced oxidation mode is used to
reduce SO2 emissions. Due to low capture efficiency of the ESP on unit 7, approximately 25% of
the FGD gypsum is fly ash. Unit 8 has no ESP but has a FGD system that captures approximately
100% of the fly ash with the gypsum.
Four 5-gallon buckets of fly ash were collected from the hoppers of unit 7. The four fly ash
samples were combined and homogenized to produce one fly ash sample for the leaching study
(UFA). One five gallon bucket of the un-washed fly ash/FGD gypsum material from unit 7 was
collected (UAU). One bucket of the fly ash/FGD gypsum material from unit 8 (UGF) was also
collected. These samples were collected by plant personnel on March 12, 2008.
A-9
-------
Facility V
This test site is a 450 megawatt (MW) power plant. The plant burns sub-bituminous PRB coal in a
dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. A SCR system was operating during the collection of this sample.
The unit uses a spray dryer with slaked lime for FGD control. A baghouse with a fabric filter is
used to control the fly ash and spray dryer ash emissions. The ash is collected in hoppers before
disposal in a landfill.
One five gallon bucket of the spray dryer adsorber material (VSD) was collected by NRT personnel
in April, 2008. This sample was delivered to ARCADIS on 4/15/08.
Facility W
This site is operated by American Electric Power (AEP) and has two 800 MW coal-fired boilers for
a plant total of 1,600 MW. The plant burns eastern bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer
boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used on both units for particulate control,
and wet FGD systems are used to reduce SO2 emissions on two units. The wet FGD systems utilize
limestone slurry sorbents and a forced oxidation process. SO2 concentrations of the inlet FGD are
approximately 1990 ppm with removal efficiencies of 98%. The plant has a Trona injection system
for SOS control, but this system was not operating at the time of sampling.
Samples were collected as follows: dry FGD gypsum after water wash (WAW), moist FGD
gypsum before the water wash (WAU), wastewater treatment system filter cake (WFC), and dry
fly ash (WFA). Five gallon buckets of each of the samples were collected by plant personnel on
11/20/08. Samples were delivered to ARCADIS on 11/28/07.
Facility X
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy, owns and operates Pleasant
Prairie Power Plant located near Kenosha, Wisconsin. The plant has two 600 MW balanced-draft
coal-fired boilers designated units 1 and 2. Unit 2 was selected for inclusion in the NETL program
because it burns a variety of Powder River Basin low sulfur, sub-bituminous coals. In addition, this
facility has the ability to isolate one ESP chamber (1/4 of the unit) (Starns et al., 2002).
The primary pollution control equipment consists of SCR, cold-side ESPs, and a wet-FGD system.
NOX is controlled in the SCR by injecting ammonia in the presenece of a catalyst. The forced
oxidation FDG system uses wet-limestone as a sorbent for SO2 control. This site also contains an
additional mercury oxidation catalyst.
Samples were collected as follows: dry FGD gypsum after water wash (XAW), moist FGD
gypsum before the water wash (XAU), FGD wastewater treatment system filter cake (XFC), and
dry fly ash (XFA). Five gallon buckets of each of the samples were collected by plant personnel
and delivered to ARCADIS on 6/16//08.
A-10
-------
Exiting Boiler
Facility Y
This test site is a 450 megawatt (MW) power plant. The plant burns sub-bituminous PRB coal in a
dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. An SCR before the air preheater was operating at the time of
sampling. The unit uses a spray dryer with slaked lime for SO2 control. A baghouse with a fabric
filter is used to control the fly ash and spray dryer adsorber particulate emissions. The ash is
collected in hoppers before disposal in a landfill or recycles as an additive for stucco.
One five-gallon bucket of the spray dryer absorber (SDA) material (YSD) sample was collected by
plant personnel in December, 2007. This sample was delivered to ARCADIS on 12/18/07.
Facility Z
The samples from this power plant facility are generated from four boilers producing 1,135
megawatt (MW) of power. The plant burns sub-bituminous PRB coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer
boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used on all units for particulate control. This
plant produces approximately 112,000 tons of fly ash and 23,000 tons of bottom ash yearly. The fly
ash and bottom materials are stored separately.
Samples of the fly ash from Unit 6 and 7 were collected by plant personnel on 8/28/08. One five
gallon bucket of fly ash was collected from Unit 6 (ZFB) and one from Unit 7 (ZFA). Samples
were received by ARCADIS on 9/1/08.
Facility Aa
This test site has four boilers producing a total of 2,424 megawatt (MW) of power. The plant burns
eastern-bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators
(ESPs) are used on three units and hot-side ESP on one unit for particulate control. Unit 1 at this
plant was burning medium sulfur coal and the SCR was operating. Unit 2 was burning medium
sulfur coal and the SCR was not operating. Unit 3 was burning high sulfur coal and the SCR was
operating. Unit 4 was burning low sulfur coal, the SCR was operating, and uses a hot-side ESP to
control particulate. A dry handling system is used to collect the fly ash from the ESPs.
A-ll
-------
Units 3 and 4 were connected to a single FGD system. The wet FGD systems utilize limestone
slurry sorbents and a forced oxidation process. Samples of the washed and un-washed FGD
gypsum were collected. Fly ash was collected from units 1, 3, and 4. Unit 2 was not operating at
the time of sampling.
Facility Ba
This test site has two boilers producing 1,150 megawatt (MW) of power. The plant burns a mixture
of 54% Powder River Basin sub-bituminous and 46% Gulf Coast Lignite coal in a dry-bottom
pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (CS-ESPs) and a Compact Hybrid Particulate
Collector (COPAC) baghouse system are used on both units. To increase the particulate collection
efficiency, ammonia injection is used for particulate conditioning. A dry handling system was used
to collect the fly ash from the fly ash hoppers.
A combined fly ash sample (BaFA) was collected from units 1 and 2. One five gallon bucket of the
fly ash material was collected by plant personnel November 5, 2008.
Facility Ca
This site has one 454 megawatt (MW) boiler and another boiler currently under construction. The
plant burns Gulf Coast Lignite coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. The plant uses low NOX
burners with cold-side electrostatic precipitators (CS-ESPs) for particulate control. A dry handling
system was used to collect the fly ash from the ESPs. A wet FGD scrubber using limestone in a
forced oxidation configuration is used to control SOX emissions.
Fly ash from this plant is recycled for use in cinder block and cement. Gypsum is in wallboard.
One five gallon bucket of the fly ash material (CaFA) and one five gallon bucket of washed FGD
gypsum (CaAW) were collected by plant personnel November 6, 2008.
Facility Da
This test site has two supercritical boilers producing 2,240 megawatts (MW) of power. The plant
burns eastern-bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. The primary pollution control
equipment consists of low NOX burners, SCR, cold-side ESPs, and a wet-FGD system. NOX is
controlled in the SCR by injecting ammonia in the presence of a catalyst. The forced oxidation
FDG system uses wet-limestone as a sorbent for SO2 control. A dry handling system is used to
collect the fly ash from the ESPs.
One five gallon bucket each of fly ash (DaFA), washed gypsum (DaAW), and FGD waste water
treatment plant filter cake (DaFC) were collected by plant personnel. Samples were received by
ARCADIS on 12/12/2008.
A-12
-------
Facility: Brayton Point
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: BPB
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
A-13
-------
Facility: Brayton Point with ACI
Coal Supply
East bituminous
EPRICON
System
Carbon
Injector
ACI -Activated Carbon Injector
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
A-14
-------
Facility: Pleasant Prairie
Superheater
Coal Supply
PRB
PRB - Powder River Basin
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash
Removal
Sample: PPB
A-15
-------
Facility: Pleasant Prairie with ACI
Coal Supply
PRB
ACI -Activated Carbon Injector
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
A-16
-------
Facility: Salem Harbor
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Low sulfur
East bituminous
Superheater
SNCR - Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash
Removal
Sample: SHE
A-17
-------
Facility: Salem Harbor with ACI
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Low sulfur
East bituminous
SNCR - Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
ACI -Activated Carbon Injector
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: SHT
A-18
-------
Facility: A
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
SNCR
(on)
Fabric Filter
Baghouse
Wet FGD
Scrubber
Lr___j
SNCR - Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
BP - Bypass
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: AFA
Scrubber Sludge Removal
Sample: AGO &ACC
A-19
-------
Facility: C
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East Bituminous
Superheater
SNCR BP
(off)
Wet FGD
Scrubber
Fabric Filter
Baghouse
SNCR - Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: CFA
Scrubber Sludge Removal
Sample: CGD & CCC
A-20
-------
Facility: B SCR on
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: BFA
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Scrubber Sludge Removal
Sample: BCD & BCC
A-21
-------
Facility: B SCR off
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: DFA
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
BP - Bypass
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Scrubber Sludge Removal
Sample: DGD & DCC
A-22
-------
Facility: C
Flue Gas Stack
Superheater
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: GAB
HC-ESP - Hot Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
COHPAC - Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector
A-23
-------
Facility: C with ACI
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
ACI -Activated carbon Injector
HS-ESP - Hot Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
COHPAC - Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector
A-24
-------
Facility: E SCR on
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: EFA
A-25
-------
Facility: E SCR off
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: EFB
A-26
-------
Facility: E SCR on
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: EFC
A-27
-------
Facility: F
Coal Supply
Low Sulfur bituminous
Superheater
A
/\
f-i
i i
i i
i i
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: FFA
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
A-28
-------
Facility: G
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Low sulfur
bituminous
Superheater
SNCR - Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: GFA
A-29
-------
Facility: H
Flue Gas Stack
Superheater
Coal Supply
High sulfur bituminous
SCR
Wet FGD
Scrubber
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: HFA
A-30
-------
Facility: J
Superheater
Coal Supply
Sub bituminous
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: JAB
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
A-31
-------
Facility: J with BPAC
Coal Supply
Sub bituminous
BPAC - Biominated Powder Activated Carbon
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: JAT
A-32
-------
Facility: K
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Sub bituminous
Superheater
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: KFA
Scrubber Sludge Removal
Sample: KGD & KCC
A-33
-------
Facility: L
Superheater
Coal Supply
Southern
Appalachian
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: LAB
HS-ESP - Hot Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
A-34
-------
Facility: L with ACI
Coal Supply
Southern
Appalachian
ACI -Activated Carbon Injector
HS-ESP - Hot Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
A-35
-------
Facility: M SCR off
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
bituminous
Superheater
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
BP - Bypass
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: MAD
A-36
-------
Facility: M SCR on
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
bituminous
Superheater
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
BP - Bypass
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: MAS
A-37
-------
Facility: N
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
bituminous
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: NAU & NAW
A-38
-------
Facility: O
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
bituminous
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: OAU & OAW
A-39
-------
Facility: P
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
bituminous
Superheater
71
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
SNCR - Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: PAD
A-40
-------
Facility: Q
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Sub bituminous
Superheater
71
Wet FGD
Scrubber
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
HS-ESP - Hot Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: QAU
A-41
-------
Facility: R
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Sub bituminous PRB
Superheater
71
Wet FGD
Scrubber
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
PRB - Powder River Basin
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: RAU
A-42
-------
Facility: S
Flue Gas Stack
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Coal Supply
High Sulfur bituminous
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: SAU & SAW
A-43
-------
Facility: T
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Eastern bituminous
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Eastern bituminous
FGD Gypsum
Sample: TAU & TAW
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Sample: TFC
A-44
-------
Facility: U Unit?
Flue Gas Stack
Superheater
Coal Supply
Low sulfur bituminous
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: UFA
FGD Gypsum
Sample: UAU
A-45
-------
Facility: U Units
Flue Gas Stack
Superheater
Coal Supply
Low sulfur bituminous
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: UGF
A-46
-------
Facility: V
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Low sulfur
bituminous
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: VSD
A-47
-------
Facility: W
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: WFA
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: WAU & WAW
Hydrocyclone
Sample: WAU & WAW
A-48
-------
Facility: X
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Sub bituminous PRB
Superheater
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: XFA
PRB - Powder River Basin
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
FGD Gypsum
Sample: XAU & XAW
Hydrocyclone
Sample: XFC
A-49
-------
Facility: Y
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Sub bituminous PRB
Superheater
SCR
before air
preheater
PER - Powder River Basin
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: YSD
A-50
-------
Facility: Z
Superheater
Coal Supply
Sub bituminous PRB
PRB - Powder River Basin
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: ZFA
A-51
-------
Facility: Aa Unit 1
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Eastern bituminous
Superheater
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: AaFA
FGD Gypsum
A-52
-------
Facility: Aa Unit 3 & 4
Superheater
Coal Supply
Eastern bituminous
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
HS-ESP - Hot Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Superheater
_71
Coal Supply
Eastern bituminous f-
SCR
Unit
Boil
W
4
3r
^
f
r
.'
i
i
i
L
f
f
J
1
1
^ ,>
t
U-
k
\)
Flue Gas Stack
A-53
-------
Facility: Ba
Flue Gas Stack
Superheater
Coal Supply
Gulf Coast
54% PRB
46% Lignite
Baghouse
with
COHPAC
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: BaFA
PRB - Powder River Basin
COHPAC - Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector
A-54
-------
Facility: Ca
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
Gulf Coast
Lignite
Superheater
71
Wet FGD
Scrubber
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: CaFA
FGD Gypsum
Sample: CaAW
A-55
-------
Facility: Da
Flue Gas Stack
Coal Supply
East bituminous
Superheater
______
SCR
Wet FGD
Scrubber
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
CS-ESP - Cold Side-Electrostatic Precipitator
FGD - Flue Gas Desulfurization
Ash + Sorbent
Removal
Sample: DaFA
FDG Gypsum
Sample: DaAW
Hydrocyclone
Sample: DaFC
A-56
-------
Appendix B
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
-------
Peter Kariher
ARCADIS U.S., Inc
Work Assignment Leader
! aua Beach Nessley
ARCADIS U S , Inc
Quality Assurance Officer
QAPP for the Characterization of Coal
Combustion Residues
Susan Thorneloe
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Work Assignment Manager
Andy Miller
L'.S Environmental Protection Agency
Acting Chief, Atmospheric Protection Branch
Date
Robert Wiight
U S Environmental Protection agency
Quality Assurance Representative
1^/2.
Date
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Category III /Technology Development
Final
Prepared for:
Susan Thorneloe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by:
ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
4915 Prospectus Drive
Suite F
Durham
North Carolina 27713
Tel 919 544 4535
Fax 919 544 5690
OurRef.:
RN990270.0007
Date:
December 2009
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 1
Date: December 2009
Page: i
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iii
Distribution List iv
1. Project Objectives and Organization 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Project Objectives 2
2. Project Organization 4
3. Experimental Approach 8
3.1 Task I: QAPP Development 8
3.2 Task II: Thermal Stability 8
3.3 Task III: Application of Leaching Framework to Evaluate Leaching Potential of Mercury-Enriched
Coal Combustion Residues and Cement Kiln Dust 8
4. Sampling Procedures 14
4.1 Sample Custody Procedures 14
4.2 CCR, and Reference Fly Ash Samples 14
4.2.1 Physical and Chemical Characterization Samples 15
4.2.2 Leaching Study Samples 15
4.3 Leachate Collection 16
4.3.1 Tier 1 Screening Tests 17
4.3.2 Tier 2 Solubility and Release as a Function of pH and L/S Ratio 17
5. Testing and Measurement Protocols 20
5.1 Physical Characterization 20
5.1.1 Surface Area and Pore Size Distribution 20
5.1.2 pH and Conductivity 20
5.1.3 Moisture Content and Loss on Ignition (LOI) 21
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 1
Date: December 2009
Page: ii
5.2 Chemical Characterization 21
5.2.1 Dissolved Organic Carbon / Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DOC/DIC) and Elemental
Carbon / Organic Carbon (EC/OC) 21
5.2.2 Mercury (CVAA) 22
5.2.3 Mercury by Thermal Decomposition and Cold Vapor Atomic Adsorption (TD-CVAA)
Method 7473 22
5.2.4 Other Metals (ICP) 23
5.2.4.1 ICP-OES Analyses 24
5.2.4.2 ICP-MS Analyses 27
5.2.5 Anions Analysis by 1C 29
5.2.6 X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) 29
5.2.7 XRF Detection Limits 30
5.2.8 Hexavalent Chromium Determination in CCR Extracts 32
6. QA/QC Checks 33
6.1 Data Quality Indicator Goals 33
6.2 QC Sample Types 34
7. Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 35
8. Assessments 36
9. Appendices 37
10. References 66
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 1
Date: December 2009
Page: iii
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Summary of Materials for Testing under Task III to be Performed for Detailed Characterization of
CCRs 11
Table 4-1. NIST 1633B SRM Certified Values 16
Table 4-2. Final Extract pH Targets 18
Table 5-1. MDL and MLQ of Total Organic Carbon Analyzer 22
Table 5-2. Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and Minimum Level of Quantification (ML) for ICP-OES Analysis
on Liquid Samples* 25
Table 5-3. ICP Instrument Used for Each Element* 26
Table 5-4. Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and Minimum Level of Quantification (ML) for ICP-MS Analysis
on Liquid Samples* 28
Table 5-5. XRF Reporting and Detection Limits 31
Table 6-1. Data Quality Indicator Goals 33
Table 8-1. PEA Parameters and Ranges 36
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Project Organizational Chart
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: iv
Distribution List
Copies of this plan and all revisions will be initially sent to the following individuals. It is the responsibility of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Work Assignment Manager and of the ARCADIS, U.S.,
Inc. (ARCADIS) Work Assignment Leader to make copies of the plan available to all field personnel.
Susan Thorneloe, EPA Work Assignment Manager. Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle Park,
NC.
Phone:(919)541-2709
Email: thorneloe.susan@epa.gov
Robert Wright, EPA Quality Assurance Representative. Office of Research and Development, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
Phone:(919)541-4502
Email: wright.bob@epa.gov
Peter Kariher, ARCADIS Work Assignment Leader. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Phone:(919)541-5740
Email: peter.kariher@arcadis-us.com
Laura Nessley, ARCADIS Quality Assurance Officer. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Phone: (919) 544-4535 x258
Email: libby.nesslev@arcadis-us.com
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 1
1. Project Objectives and Organization
1.1 Purpose
The addition of flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) systems, selective catalytic reduction, and activated carbon
injection to capture mercury and other pollutants will shift mercury and other pollutants from the stack gas to
fly ash, FGD gypsum, and other air pollution control residues. The Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Division (APPCD) of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is conducting research to evaluate
potential leaching and cross media transfers of mercury and other constituents of potential concern (COPCs)
resulting from the management of coal combustion residues (CCRs) resulting from wider use of state-of-the
art air pollution control technology. This research was cited as a priority in EPA's Mercury Roadmap
(http://www.epa.gov/mercury/roadmap.htm') to ensure that one environmental problem is not being traded for
another. The objective is to understand the fate of mercury and other COPCs and ensure that emissions
being controlled in the flue gas at power plants are not later being released depending upon how the CCRs
are managed. The questions to be addressed through this research include:
What are the changes to CCRs resulting from application of control technology at coal-fired power plants
including changes in pH, metals content, and other parameters that may influence environmental
release?
For CCRs that are land disposed, the questions to be addressed include:
o Will any of these changes result in an increase in the potential for leaching of mercury (Hg) and
other metals such as arsenic (As), selenium (Se), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), aluminum
(Al), barium (Ba), boron (B), molybdenum (Mo), antimony (Sb), thallium (Tl), and chromium (Cr)
from disposal of CCRs in impoundments, monofills, agriculture amendment, minefills, or other
beneficial use scenarios?
o What is the fate of Hg and other metals from CCRs that are land disposed?
For CCRs that are used in commercial applications, the questions to be addressed include:
o Will any of the changes to CCRs from application of control technologies at coal-fired power
plants impact their use in commercial applications?
o What is the fate of Hg and other metals in CCRs when used in commercial applications?
o What is the extent of Hg, As, Pb, Se, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Cr release during high
temperature manufacturing processes used to produce cement clinkers, asphalt, and wallboard?
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 2
o Are Hg and other pollutants such as As, Se, Pb, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Cr present in
CCRs that are used in commercial applications such as highway construction or beneficial use
scenarios subject to conditions that would result in their release to the environment?
EPA's Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD) through an on-site laboratory support contract
with ARCADIS is to conduct a comprehensive study on the fate of mercury (Hg), arsenic (As), selenium
(Se), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), barium (Ba), boron (B), molybdenum (Mo),
antimony (Sb), thallium (Tl), and chromium (Cr) in CCRs. This research will be conducted in three tasks.
Task I will focus on updating the QAPP to clearly define the project scope and procedures. Task II will focus
on completing the report on evaluating the potential release of Hg and other heavy metals from a cement
kiln operation, asphalt production, and wallboard production using synthetic gypsum. Task III will cover the
evaluation of the potential of CCRs to leach Hg and other heavy metals during disposal or beneficial use
scenarios. The scope of this QAPP covers Task I through Task III.
1.2 Project Objectives
US EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) formerly the Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
has been asked to provide general guidance on appropriate testing to evaluate the release potential of Hg
and other metallic contaminants (As, Se, Pb, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Cr) from CCRs via leaching,
run-off, and volatilization when the CCRs are disposed in landfills and incorporated into commercial products
using high/low temperature commercial processes. This evaluation in projected disposal and reuse
situations (different waste management scenarios; see Section 1.1) will both help assess the likely suitability
of new or modified wastes for reuse, and ensure that Hg, As, Se, Pb, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Cr
removed from stack emissions are not subsequently released to the environment in significant amounts as a
result of CCR reuse or disposal practices.
The primary objective of this project is to generate a comprehensive database that will enable ORCR to (1)
evaluate changes in CCRs resulting from the implementation of different Hg control technologies (see
Section 3.3), and (2) assess environmental releases of these toxic metals during CCR management
practices including land disposal and commercial applications. OSW will be using the results to determine
needs in regard to future policies for managing CCRs whose characteristics are changing as a result of the
MACT under development for coal fired power plants. US EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) will be
using the data to determine the potential for cross-media impacts and potential changes to disposal and
reuse practices which impact the economics of potential regulations for coal-fired power plants. The data will
also be used to address questions raised by Congress and others regarding establishing the net benefit of
potential requirements for reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Data on the chemical stability of these metals (leaching tests) will be generated using the EPA/OSW
recommended methods (see Reply to comments on EPA/OSWs Proposed Approach to Environmental
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 3
Assessment of CCRs Discussed March 5, 2002 - Appendix A) developed by Dr. David Kosson, Dr. Andrew
Garrabrants, and Dr. Florence Sanchez of Vanderbilt University titled An Integrated Framework for
Evaluating Leaching in Waste Management and Utilization of Secondary Materials (Kosson et al., 2002,
Environmental Engineering Science, Volume 19, Numbers). The ability of these EPA/OSW methods to
assess leaching of the metals of interest will be further demonstrated with the use of a NIST standard
reference material (SRM) with certified amounts of trace metals. Using this comprehensive database,
EPA/ORCR will determine the feasibility of the application of the above methods to CCRs and they will
assess the environmental impacts of different types of CCRs'waste management practices.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 4
2. Project Organization
The organizational chart for this project is shown in Figure 2-1. The roles and responsibilities of the project
personnel are discussed in the following paragraphs. In addition, contact information is also provided.
EPA Work Assignment Manager, Susan Thorneloe: The EPA WA Manager is responsible for
communicating the scope of work, data quality objectives and deliverables required for this work
assignment. The EPA WA Manager is also responsible for providing ARCADIS with the various types of
CCRs to be characterized.
Phone:(919)541-2709
E-mail: thorneloe.susan@epamail.epa.qov
EPA QA Representative, Robert Wright: The EPA QA Representative will be responsible for reviewing and
approving this QAPP. This project has been assigned a QA category III and may be audited by EPA QA. Mr.
Wright is responsible for coordinating any EPA audits.
Phone (919) 541-4502
E-mail: wriqht.bob@epamail.epa.gov
ARCADIS Work Assignment Leader, Peter Kariher: The ARCADIS WA Leader is responsible for preparing
project deliverables and managing the work assignment. He will ensure the project meets scheduled
milestones and stays within budgetary constraints agreed upon by EPA. The WA Leader is also responsible
for communicating any delays in scheduling or changes in cost to the EPA WA Manager as soon as
possible.
Phone (919) 541-5740
E-mail: peter.kariher@arcadis-us.com
ARCADIS Inorganic Laboratory Manager, Peter Kariher. In addition to being the WA Leader, Peter Kariher is
also responsible for the operation of EPA's in-house Inorganic Laboratory. Mr. Kariher will review and
validate all analytical data reports and ensure that the leaching studies are performed properly. He will also
operate the mercury analyzer and ion chromatograph. For the leaching studies and mercury and metals
analyses, Mr. Kariher will be supported by one technician: John Foley.
Mr. Kariher will perform SW-846 Method 3052 digestion of solid CCR and SRM samples and also be
responsible for mercury analysis of samples by CVAA. John Foley will perform the leaching tests. Mr.
Kariher will submit the remaining Method 3052 digestates to the subcontract analytical laboratory, Test
America-Savannah for ICP/MS analysis of the other target metals. Mr. Kariher will also be responsible for
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 5
assisting Drs. Kosson and Sanchez in the development of appropriate QA/QC procedures for the leaching
assessment methods.
Phone (919) 541-5740
E-mail: peter.kariher@arcadis-us.com
Test America-Savannah Analytical Manager, Kathryn Smith: Ms. Smith will review and validate the ICP/MS
results for total content digest samples and report them to Mr. Kariher.
Phone (912) 354-7858
E-mail: kathye.smith@testamericainc.com
ARCADIS Designated QA Officer, Laura Nessley: The ARCADIS QA Manager, Laura Nessley, has been
assigned QA responsibilities for this work assignment. Ms. Nessley will be responsible for reviewing this
QAPP prior to submission to EPA QA for review. Ms. Nessley will also ensure the QAPP is implemented by
project personnel by performing internal assessments. All QA/QC related problems will be reported directly
to the ARCADIS WAL, Peter Kariher.
Phone: (919)544-4535
E-mail: libby.nesslev@arcadis-us.com
Vanderbilt University, Methods Development, Professors David Kosson and Florence Sanchez: Dr. Kosson
in cooperation with Dr. Florence Sanchez developed the leachability methods being evaluated on this
project. They will be available to consult regarding method optimization and development of QA/QC
procedures for possible promulgation in the SW-846 methods. Dr. Kosson, Dr. Sanchez, and Ms. Rossane
Delapp will also assist in report writing and determining non-mercury metals concentrations in the leachates,
and development of the LeachXS Lite analytical database for sample data viewing and reporting.
Dr. David Kosson
Phone: (615)322-1064
E-mail: David.Kosson@vanderbilt.edu
Dr. Florence Sanchez
Phone:(615)322-5135
E-mail: Florence.Sanchez@vanderbilt.edu
Ms. Rossane Delapp
Phone: (615)322-1064
E-mail: rossane.c.delapp@vanderbilt.edu
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 6
Eastern Research Group (ERG), Analytical Manager, Laura Van Enwyck: Ms. Van Enwyck will review and
validate the hexavalent chromium and total chromium results generated by the ERG lab for the liquid
leachate digest samples and report them to Mr. Kariher.
Phone (919) 468-7930
E-mail: Laura.VanEnwyck@erg.com
ARCADIS Project Manager, Johannes Lee: The ARCADIS Project Manager, Johannes Lee, has been
assigned financial, contractual and managerial responsibilities for this work assignment. Mr. Lee will be
responsible for communications with the EPA project officer, the oversight of financial status, and fulfilling
contractual requirements.
Phone: (919)544-4535
E-mail: iohannes.lee@arcadis-us.com
ARCADIS Safety Officer, Jerry Revis: The ARCADIS Safety Officer, Jerry Revis, has been assigned the
safety supervisor responsibilities for this work assignment. Mr. Revis will be responsible for reviewing safety
plans, performing periodic safety inspections, communicating with the EPA safety office, and oversight of
safety operations.
Phone:(919)544-4535
E-mail: ierry.revis@arcadis-us.com
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 7
Bob Wright, EPA
Libby Nessley, ARCADIS
David Kosson, Vanderbilt
Florence Sanchez, Vanderbilt
Jerry Revis, ARCADIS
Rosanne Delapp, Vanderbilt
John Foley, ARCADIS
Chromium Speciation/
Analytical Manager
Kathryn Smith, Test America Laura Van Enwyck,
Eastern Research Group
Figure 2-1. Project Organizational Chart
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 8
3. Experimental Approach
3.1 Task I: QAPP Development
The purpose of this task is to edit and modify the existing QAPP developed during WA 4-26 (EPA Contract #
EP-C-04-023) to comply with the requirements of the NRMRL QA requirements and definitions and describe
the most up to date record of analytical QA/QC activities.
3.2 Task II: Thermal Stability
This task covers the work to be performed to modify, edit, and complete the report on the thermal stability
studies titled "Thermal Stability of Mercury and Other Metals in Coal Combustion Residues Used in the
Production of Cement Clinker, Asphalt, and Wallboard". This report focuses on the determination of air
emissions of Hg, As, Se, and Pb from the production of cement clinker, asphalt, and wallboard using CCRs.
3.3 Task III: Application of Leaching Framework to Evaluate Leaching Potential of Mercury-Enriched Coal
Combustion Residues and Cement Kiln Dust
This task will investigate the fate of Hg, As, Se, Pb, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Cr during CCR
management practice of land disposal. Using the recently proposed test methods developed by Kosson et
al. in coordination with ORCR, leaching studies were first conducted on a reference fly ash. The reference fly
ash is a high quantity fly ash that has been characterized by ICP/MS and CVAA analyses. The ICP/MS and
CVAA analyses will be checked using the NIST SRM 1633b. NIST SRM 1633b is a bituminous coal fly ash
that is fully described in Section 4.2.2. The results obtained from the reference fly ash leaching studies were
used to evaluate the performance of the method. Using a known standard in place of the CCR material will
also allow optimization of the proposed test methods. The quality control procedures regarding the reference
fly ash tests are described in Section 6.0.
Two reports have been published to date. The first report titled, "Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal
Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control" (EPA, 2006a)
studied the leaching behavior of fly ash with and without the use of mercury sorbents. The second report
titled, "Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet
Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control" (EPA, 2008) reported the leaching behavior of fly ash, scrubber
sludge, and FGD gypsum.
The third CCR report is currently being drafted and should be complete by the end of November 2009. This
third report will supersede the first and second reports, and will report the leaching behaviors for over 70
materials evaluated using the new leaching procedures.
The fourth report will present a probabilistic assessment of beneficial use scenarios and provide
groundwater model inputs to predict leaching behaviors of Hg and other metals from CCRs.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 9
The group is has developed five leaching methods for consideration for inclusion into SW-846. These
methods are currently in the ORCR analytical measurements group for review. These leaching methods are
derived from published research procedures and methodologies (Kosson et al, 2002) used to evaluate
potential leaching of solid waste through integration of results from a pH-dependence test, a liquid-to-solid
ratio (US) test, a mass-transport leaching test, a column test, and an abbreviated pH-L/S test. Two of these
methods to be used for the leach testing have are included in the appendix. Preliminary Version1 of Method
1313 - Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function of Extract pH for Constituents in Solid Materials Using a
Parallel Extraction Procedure is also referred to in this document as the SR002.1 testing. The Preliminary
Version of Method 1316 - Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function of Liquid-to-Solid Ratio for Constituents in
Solid Materials Using a Parallel Batch Extraction Procedure is also referred in this document as the SR003.1
testing.
The group is also working on the development of a Decision Support Tool (DST) to view and report the data
from our testing and allow users of the methods to input their information to compare with our samples. The
DST will be important to modelers, regulators, state and local governments, and the risk assessment parties
to understand how the leaching function can change due to varying conditions or application. This product is
being produced in collaboration with Vanderbilt University and the Energy Research Centre of the
Netherlands.
Estimates of the extent of release of the metals of concern during management scenarios that include
percolation through the CCRs or infiltration flow around the CCRs (e.g., when compacted to low permeability
or otherwise expected to behave as a monolithic material) will be determined. These data will be used to
determine the risk of land disposal of the different CCRs. Mass balances for each metal will be determined
using the chemical characterization data obtained in Task III to compare total content to CCR leachability.
For some metals with higher solubilities, the total content may correlate to total release. Utilization of mass
balance as a QA/QC tool is described in section 6. Details of this QA/QC procedure are outlined in section 6.
In addition to testing of the CCRs as generated, CCRs as used in commercial products will be examined.
Only commercial uses for which there is a potential for release of Hg during leaching will be considered. One
commercial use of CCRs that may be of concern for Hg leaching is cement-based materials (i.e.,
concrete/grout, waste stabilization, road base/subbase). A generic cement-based product made from
samples representative of the major coal fly ash categories will be examined. A second commercial use of
CCRs that may be of concern is incorporation in gypsum board. In this case leaching of Hg after disposal is
1 Preliminary Version denotes that the associated method has not been endorsed by SW-846, but is under
consideration for inclusion in SW-846. Preliminary methods have been submitted to USEPA Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery and are currently under review for development of interlaboratory
validation studies to develop precision and bias information.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 10
of concern. This task will consider the potential forHg leaching after disposal from a representative gypsum
board product.
A summary of materials for testing that will be carried out on the coal combustion residues is presented in
Table 3-1.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:11
Table 3-1. Summary of Materials for Testing under Task III to be Performed for Detailed
Characterization of CCRs
Facility
Code
Brayton
Point
Brayton
Point
Peasant
Prairie
Peasant
Prairie
Salem
Harbor
Salem
Harbor
A
A
B
B
C
C
E
F
G
H
J
Coal Rank
East-Bit
East-Bit
PRB
PRB
Low sulfur East-Bit
Low sulfur East-Bit
East-Bit
East-Bit
East-Bit
East-Bit
Low sulfur Bit
Low sulfur Bit
East-Bit
Low sulfur Bit
Low sulfur Bit
High sulfur Bit
Sub-Bit
NOx Control
None
None
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR-BP (off)
SNCR (on)
SCR-BP (on)
SCR (off)
None
None
SCR
(on and off)
None
SNCR on
SCR
None
Particulate Control
CS-ESP
ACI-tCS-ESP
CS-ESP
ACI-tCS-ESP
CS-ESP
ACI+ CS-ESP
Fabric Filter
Fabric Filter
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
HS-ESPwith
COHPAC
ACI + HS-ESPwith
COHPAC
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
Lime or Mg
Lime
None
None
None
None
None
None
Limestone
Limestone
Mg Lime
Mg Lime
None
None
None
None
None
Limestone
None
Oxidation
None
None
None
None
None
None
Natural
Natural
Natural
Natural
None
None
None
None
None
Forced
None
Fly
Ash
BPB
BPT
PPB
PPT
SHB
SHT
CFA
AFA
BFA
DFA
GAB
GAT
EFA
EFB
EFC
FFA
GFA
HFA
JAB
Spray
Dryer
Ash
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp +
FA
SCS
CGD
AGO
BGD
DGD
FSS
ccc
ACC
FSSL
BCC
DCC
Filter
Cake
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 12
Facility
Code
J
K
L
L
M
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Coal Rank
Sub-Bit
Bituminous
Southern Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
High sulfur Bit
High Sulfur Bit
Bit
Bit
Bit
Sub-Bit
Sub-Bit PRB
High Sulfur Bit
East-Bit Class F
Low sulfur Bit
Sub-Bit PRB
East-Bit
Sub-Bit PRB
Sub-Bit PRB
NOx Control
None
SCR
SOFA
SOFA
SCR-BP (off)
SCR (on)
None
SCR
SCR&SNCR
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR off
SCR
SCR before air
preheater
Participate Control
BrominatedACI +
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
HS-ESP
BrominatedACI +
HS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
HS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
CS-ESP
ESP
Spray Dryer/
Baghouse
ESP
ESP
Baghouse
Lime or Mg
Lime
None
Mg Lime
None
None
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Wet
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
slaked lime
Limestone
Trona
Limestone
Slaked Lime
/Spray
Dryer
Adsorber
Oxidation
None
Natural
None
None
Inhibited
Inhibited
Forced
Forced
Forced
Forced
Forced
Forced
Forced
Forced
None
Forced
Forced
Natural
Fly
Ash
JAT
KFA
LAB
LAT
TFA
UFA
WFA
XFA
Spray
Dryer
Ash
VSUDAU
YSD
Gyp-U
NAU
OAU
PAD
QAU
RAU
SAU
TAU
WAU
XAU
Gyp-W
NAW
OAW
SAW
TAW
WAW
XAW
Gyp +
FA
UGF
scs
KGD
FSS
FSSL
KCC
MAD
MAS
Filter
Cake
TFC
WFC
XFC
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 13
Facility
Code
Z
Aa
Ba
Ca
Da
Coal Rank
Sub-Bit PRB
East-Bit
Sub-Bit PRB /Lignite
Gulf Coast Lignite
East-Bit
NOx Control
None
SCR
Low nox
burner
SCR
Particulate Control
ESP
ESP
CS- ESP COHPAC
baghouse
Ammonia injection
before the esp for
flue gas
conditioning
CSESP
ESP
Lime or Mg
Lime
None
Limestone
None
Wet
Limestone
Limestone
Oxidation
None
Forced
None
Forced
Forced
Fly
Ash
ZFA
ZFB
(totals
only)
AaFA
AaFB
AaFC
BaFA
CaFA
DaFA
Spray
Dryer
Ash
Gyp-U
AaAU
Gyp-W
AaAW
CaAW
DaAW
Gyp +
FA
SCS
FSS
FSSL
Filter
Cake
DaFC
ACI = activated carbon injection
CS-ESP = cold-side electrostatic precipitator
HS-ESP = hot-side electrostatic precipitator
SCR = selective catalytic reduction
SNCR = selective non-catalytic reduction
SOFA = secondary over-fired air
COHPAC = compact hybrid particulate collector
East-Bit = eastern bituminous
PRB = Powder River Basin
Gyp-U = unwashed gypsum
Gyp-W = washed gypsum
SCS = scrubber sludge
FSS = fixated scrubber sludge
FSSL = fixated scrubber sludge with lime
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 14
4. Sampling Procedures
The following subsections describe the sampling procedures to be used for each task. Whenever possible,
standard methods will be followed. In some cases, draft methods may be evaluated and implemented. Each
method to be used will be cited and any deviations from the methods will be documented.
4.1 Sample Custody Procedures
The following types of samples will be generated during these tests:
1. "As-received" CCR samples before and after application of Hg control technologies, SRM and reference
fly ash samples (solid samples), and treated CCR samples as used in commercial applications. Part of
the procedure is a coning and quartering to homogenize the sample well. A particle size reduction may
also be performed is material size is greater than 2 cm. A plastic sieve with 2 cm square holes is
attached to the coning and quartering apparatus to perform the particle size reduction.
2. Post -leaching and post-thermal desorption CCR, reference fly ash samples and treated CCR samples
(solid samples)
3. Leachate samples (liquid samples) for Hg and other metals analysis
Each sample generated will be analyzed in-house or by outside laboratories and chain-of-custody
procedures will be required. CCRs will be logged as they are received by the ARCADIS WAL, Mr. Peter
Kariher. Information regarding where each CCR originated and any other descriptive information available
will be recorded in a dedicated laboratory notebook by Mr. Kariher. A 200 g grab sample of the
homogenized material will be taken from each "as-received" CCR and processed for physical and chemical
characterization. All samples will be properly contained and identified with a unique sample ID and sample
label. Sample labels at a minimum will contain the sample ID, date sampled, and initials of the analyst
responsible for preparing the sample. Chain-of-custody forms will be generated for all samples prior to
transfer for analysis.
Handling of CCR samples forthe leaching tests (Task III) is described in detail by the leaching procedure
provided by its developers. This procedure is included in Appendix A.
4.2 CCR, and Reference Fly Ash Samples
As mentioned, the focus of this program is to obtain information on the leachability and stability of Hg, As,
Se, Pb, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Cr in CCRs. Chemical modifications are being implemented in wet
scrubbers to enhance the Hg capture. The scrubber sludge from these facilities will be impacted by these
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 15
new control technologies. The scrubber sludge samples from these facilities will be included in this test
program.
The facility descriptions will include information on the history/origin of each CCR sample, facility process
description, CCR type, sampling location, sampling time and method, coal type, operating condition, and
sample storage condition. Section 4.1 describes the sampling custody procedure.
4.2.1 Physical and Chemical Characterization Samples
"As received" CCR will be well mixed prior to taking samples for physical characterization. Mixing of the sub-
samples collected at the site will be done using a riffle splitter. To ensure a good homogeneity of the final
composite sample that will be used for the study, the first two composite samples exiting the splitter will be
reintroduced at the top of the splitter. This procedure should be repeated at least 6 times. At the end, the two
resulting homogeneous composite samples will be combined in the same bucket and stored until laboratory
testing. A 200 g representative sample will be taken from the homogenized "as received" CCR and
subjected to physical characterization measurements. Samples will also be taken of any CCRs that undergo
size-reduction techniques (if size reduction is needed for testing purposes). The reference fly ash samples
will be processed in the same manner as the CCRs. They will be tracked by lot number and will not require
size-reduction.
4.2.2 Leaching Study Samples
CCRs used for leaching studies may undergo size reduction to acquire an adequate sample for testing. The
size reduction method is outlined in the leaching test methods (see Appendix A). If "as-received" CCRs are
altered in anyway prior to leaching studies, a representative sample will be submitted for physical and
chemical characterization. SRM samples will not require size reduction. The NIST 1633B SRM is a
bituminous coal fly ash that has been sieved through a nominal sieve opening of 90 urn and blended to
assure homogeneity. The certified values for the constituent elements are given in Table 4-1. The reference
fly ash will also be certified using ICP/MS and CVAA.
-------
Table 4-1. NIST 1633B SRM Certified Values
Element
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Strontium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Concentration (mg/kg)
136.2+2.6
709+27
0.784 + 0.006
198.2+4.7
112.8+2.6
68.2 + 1.1
131.8 + 1.7
0.141 +0.019
120.6 + 1.8
10.26 + 0.17
1041 +14
25.7 + 1.3
8.79 + 0.36
295.7 + 3.6
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 16
4.3 Leachate Collection
The proposed test methods described in the publication titled An Integrated Framework for Evaluating
Leaching in Waste Management and Utilization of Secondary Materials (Kosson et al., 2002a) will be used
to conduct leaching studies. This publication along with the referenced procedures is provided in Appendix
A. There are three tiers to this test method:
Tier 1) Screening based assessment (availability)
Tier 2) Equilibrium-based assessment over a range of pH and Liquid/solid (US) ratios
Tier 3) Mass transfer based assessment
The Tier 1 screening test provides an indication of the maximum potential for release under the limits of
anticipated environmental conditions expressed on a mg contaminant leached per kg waste basis. Tier 2
defines the release potential as a function of liquid-to-solid (L/S) ratio and pH. Tier 3 uses information on L/S
equilibrium in conjunction with mass transfer rate information. As mentioned previously, prior to testing CCR,
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 17
a reference fly ash will be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed test methods. Procedures
for each tier are discussed in the following subsections.
If needed, prior to tier testing, the "as-received" CCR will be size reduced using the procedure PS001.1
Particle Size Reduction to minimize mass transfer rate limitation through larger particles. The pH will be then
tested using the method pH001.0 pH Titration Pretest. These methods can be found in the Leaching Test
Methods (Appendix A).
4.3.1 Tier 1 Screening Tests
Test Method AV002.1 Availability at pH 7.5 with EDTA (found in the Leaching Test Methods in Appendix A)
will be used to perform the screening test. This method measures availability in relation to the release of
anions at an endpoint pH of 7.5+0.5 and cations under enhanced liquid-phase solubility due to complexation
with the chelating agent. Constituent availability is determined by a single challenge of an aliquot of the
reference fly ash or size reduced CCR material to dilute acid or base in Dl water with the chelating agent,
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Extracts are tumbled end-over-end at 28+2 rpm at room
temperature fora contact time of 24 hours. At the end of the 24-hour period, the leachate pH value of the
extraction is measured. The retained extract is filtered through a 0.45 u.m polypropylene filtration membrane
and the sample is stored at 4ฐC until analysis.
The results from this test are used to determine the maximum quantity, or the fraction of the total constituent
content, of inorganic constituents (Hg, As, Se, Pb, and Cd) in a solid matrix that potentially can be released
from the solid material in the presence of a strong chelating agent. The chelated availability, or mobile
fraction, can be considered (1) the thermodynamic driving force for mass transport through the solid
material, or (2) the potential long-term constituent release. Also, a mass balance based on the total
constituent concentration provides the fraction of a constituent that may be chemically bound, or immobile in
geologically stable mineral phases.
4.3.2 Tier 2 Solubility and Release as a Function of pH and US Ratio
Test Method SR002.1 Alkalinity, Solubility and Release as a Function of pH is the method to be used for Tier
2 pH Screening. This procedure is included in the leaching test methods (Appendix A). The original protocol
consisted of 11 parallel extractions of particle size reduced material at a liquid-to-solid ratio of 10 mL
extractant per gram of dry sample. An acid or base addition schedule is formulated for 11 extracts with final
solution pH values between 3 and 12, through addition of aliquots of HNO3 orKOH as needed. The exact
pH schedule is adjusted based on the nature of the CCR; however, the range of pH values must include the
natural pH of the matrix, which may extend the pH domain. The extraction schedule and the range of tested
pHs are outlined in the developers' leaching test plan Method 1313 - Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a Function
of Extract pH for Constituents in Solid Materials Using a Parallel Extraction Procedure (see Appendix A).
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 18
This method was modified from the original 11 extracts to a more concise leaching procedure using the
criteria found in Table 4-2. Replicates for the leach testing were also reduced to allow a greater number of
samples to be analyzed after trends were seen in the first and second reports. The single replicate was due
to resource constraints and availability of adequate replication in the remaining datasets to provide
comparative interpretation.
To develop a more concise test than the 11 position SR002.1 test, a 9-point test was developed to provide
leaching data for pH points of particular rationale. Table 4-2 presents the final pH points for the concise
SR002.1 testing.
Table 4-2. Final Extract pH Targets
pH Target Rationale
Will Vary* Natural pH at LS 10 mL/g-dry (no acid/base addition)
2.0ฑ0.5 Provides estimates of total or available COPC content
4.0ฑ0.5 Lower pH limit of typical management scenario
5.5ฑ0.5 Typical lower range of industrial waste landfills
7.0ฑ0.5 Neutral pH region; high release of oxyanions
8.0ฑ0.5 Endpoint pH of carbonated alkaline materials
9.0ฑ0.5 Minimum of LSP curve for many cationic and amphoteric COPCs
12.0ฑ0.5 Maximum in alkaline range for LSP curves of amphoteric COPCs
13.0ฑ0.5 Upper bound (field conditions) for amphoteric COPCs
10.5ฑ0.5 Substitution if natural pH falls within range of a mandatory target
This is the pH of the material as received with only deionized water added (i.e., no acid or base addition).
If large particles are present in the CCR material, the material being evaluated is particle size reduced to 2
mm by sieving to remove any large pebbles present. A mortar and pestle may be used to break up clumps
of material. A 40 g dry sample of the reference fly ash or size reduced CCR is used for these tests. Using
the schedule, equivalents of acid or base are added to a combination of deionized water and the reference
fly ash or particle size reduced CCR. The final liquid-to-solid (L/S) ratio is 10 ml extractant per gram of
sample, which includes Dl water, the added acid or base, and the amount of moisture that is inherent to the
waste matrix as determined by moisture content analysis. The 11 extractions are tumbled in an end-over-
end fashion at 28 rpm for a contact time of 24 hrs. Following gross separation of the solid and liquid phases
by centrifuging for 15 minutes, leachate pH measurements are recorded and the phases are separated by
pressure filtration through 0.45 u.m polypropylene filtration membranes. Analytical samples of the leachates
are collected and preserved as appropriate for chemical analysis. For metal analysis, leachates are
preserved by acidification with HNO3 to a pH <2 and stored at 4 ฐC until analysis. For anion analysis by 1C,
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 19
un-preserved leachates are stored at 4ฐC until analysis. Mercury samples are prepared with 87 ml of
leachate, 3 ml of nitric, 5 ml of 5% KMnO4, and 5 ml of 10% hydroxylamine hydrochloride (NH2OH HCI) to
clear the solution before analysis.
Test method SR003.1 Solubility and Release as a Function of L/S Ratio is the method to be used for Tier 2
L/S ratio screening. This method is also referred to as the Method 1316 - Liquid-Solid Partitioning as a
Function of Liquid-to-Solid Ratio for Constituents in Solid Materials Using a Parallel Batch Extraction
Procedure is included in the leaching test methods (Appendix A). The protocol consists of five parallel batch
extractions over a range of L/S ratios (0.5,1,2,5, and 10 mL/g dry material) using the particle size reduced
CCR and Dl water as the extractant. Extractions are conducted at room temperature in leak-proof vessels
that are tumbled at 28+2 rpm for 24 hours. Solid and liquid phases are separated by centrifuging for 15
minutes, and then pH and conductivity measurements are taken. The liquid is further separated by pressure
filtration using a 0.45 |j,m polypropylene filter membrane. Leachates are collected for each of the 5 L/S ratios
and preserved as appropriate for chemical analysis. For metal analysis, leachates are preserved by
acidification with HNO3 to a pH <2 and stored at 4 ฐC until analysis. For anion analysis by 1C, leachates are
stored at 4 ฐC until analysis. The change to single replicates was also changed for the SR003.1 sampling
due to resource constraints and availability of adequate replication in the remaining datasets to provide
comparative interpretation.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:20
5. Testing and Measurement Protocols
Whenever possible, standard methods will be used to perform required measurements. Standard methods
are cited in each applicable section. Where standard methods are not available, operating procedures will be
written to describe activities. In situations where method development is ongoing, activities and method
changes will be thoroughly documented in dedicated laboratory notebooks.
5.1 Physical Characterization
5.1.1 Surface Area and Pore Size Distribution
A Quantachrome Autosorb-1 C-M/S chemisorption mass-spectrometer Surface Area Analyzer will be used
to perform Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller (BET) method surface area, pore volume, and pore size
distribution analysis on each as-received and size reduced CCR. The BET will be operated according to
ASTM Method D-6556-09 (ASTM 2009). A 200 mg sample is degassed at 200 ฐC for at least one hour in
the sample preparation manifold. Samples are then moved to the analysis manifold, which has a known
volume. Total gas volume in the analysis manifold and sample tube is calculated from the pressure change
after release of an N2 gas from the analysis manifold known volume. Report forms are automatically
generated after each completed analysis. The instrument uses successive dosings of N2 while measuring
pressure. Standards of known surface area are run with each batch of samples as a QC check. Detailed
instructions for the operation of this instrument are included in the Mercury Facility Manual.
5.1.2 pH and Conductivity
pH and conductivity will be measured on all aqueous extracts. Conductivity is a measure of the ability of an
aqueous solution to carry an electric current. This ability is dependent upon the presence of ions; on their
total concentration, mobility, and variance; and on the temperature of the measurement.
pH of the leachates will be measured using a combined pH electrode. A 2-point calibration will be done
using National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) traceable pH buffer solutions. The pH meter will
be accurate and reproducible to 0.1 pH units with a range of 0 to 14.
Conductivity of the leachates will be measured using a standard conductivity probe. The conductivity probe
will be calibrated using appropriate standard conductivity solutions for the conductivity range of concern.
Conductivity meters are typically accurate to +1% and have a precision of +1%. The procedure to measure
pH and conductivity will be as follows:
Following a gross separation of the solid and liquid phases by centrifugation or settling, a minimum volume
of the supernatant to measure the solution pH and conductivity will be taken and poured in a test tube. The
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 21
remaining liquid will be separated by pressure filtration and filtrates will be appropriately labeled, preserved,
and stored for subsequent chemical analysis.
5.1.3 Moisture Content and Loss on Ignition (LOI)
Moisture content of the "as received" CCR, the reference fly ash and SRM samples will be determined using
ASTM D 2216-05 (ASTM 2005). This procedure supersedes the method indicated in the leaching procedure
(see Appendix A). This method, however, is not applicable to the materials containing gypsum (calcium
sulfate dihydrate or other compounds having significant amounts of hydrated water), since this material
slowly dehydrates at the standard drying temperature (110ฐC). This slow dehydration results in the formation
of another compound (calcium sulfate hemihydrate) which is not normally present in natural material. The
ASTM method allows cooling at 60 ฐC to prevent the conversion and will be used to determine the moisture
content of materials containing gypsum.
Loss on ignition (LOI) is performed by placing dried samples in a furnace at 750 ฐC for 1 hour and
measuring the mass lost during the combustion using ASTM D7348-08 (ASTM 2008).
5.2 Chemical Characterization
5.2.1 Dissolved Organic Carbon / Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DOC/DIC) and Elemental Carbon / Organic Carbon
(EC/OC)
Analyses of total dissolved organic carbon and dissolved inorganic carbon are performed on a Shimadzu
model TOC-V CPH/CPN combustion catalytic oxidation NDIR analyzer. Five-point calibration curves, for
both inorganic (1C) and non-purgeable organic carbon (NPOC) analyses, are generated for an analytical
range between 5 ppm and 100 ppm and are accepted with a correlation coefficient of at least 0.995.
Reagent grade potassium hydrogen phthalate is used as the NPOC standard and sodium hydrogen
carbonate is used as the 1C standard. An analytical blank and check standard at approximately 10 ppm are
run every 10 samples. The standard is required to be within 15% of the specified value. A new calibration
curve is generated if the check standard measurement does not meet specification. A volume of
approximately 16 mL of undiluted sample is loaded for analysis. Inorganic carbon analysis is performed first
for the analytical blank and standard and then the samples. Total carbon (non-purgeable organic carbon)
analysis follows with addition of 2M hydrochloric acid to a pH of 2 and a sparge gas flow rate of 50 mL/min.
Method detection limit (MDL) and minimum level of quantification (MLQ) are shown in Table 5-1.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:22
Table 5-1. MDL and MLQ of Total Organic Carbon Analyzer
MDL (ppm) MLQ (ppm)
1C 0.07 0.20
NPOC 0.09 0.20
Elemental carbon and organic carbon are determined using a Sunset Laboratory Carbon Aerosol Analysis
Lab Instrument in EPA RTP Laboratory E-581 A. This method is defined in NIOSH Method 5040 (CDC
2003). This equipment uses a furnace to heat the sample and combust the carbon to carbon dioxide. The
carbon dioxide is reduced to methane and a FID is used to quantify the carbon emitted as the sample is
heated from ambient to 870 ฐC over four heating steps. Samples are prepared by weighing 3 grams of the
CCR into a 500 mL Nalgene high-density polyethylene bottle. A 37 mm tarred pre-baked quartz filter is
loaded into a 2.5 urn particulate sampler and attached to the bottle. The particulate sampler is connected to
a vacuum source and a rotometerto control the flow at 4 liters per minute. The CCR material is aspirated
onto the quartz filter for 5 minutes and the filter is reweighed to determine the mass loading. Duplicate filters
are prepared for each material. Three analyses are performed on each filter. Blank filters are provided to
determine background levels.
5.2.2 Mercury (CVAA)
Mercury analysis of each extract and leachate will be carried out by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption (CVAA)
Spectrometry according to EPA SW-846 Method 7470A Mercury in Liquid Waste (EPA 1994). Samples are
treated with potassium permanganate to reduce possible sulfide interferences. A Perkin Elmer FIMS 100
Flow Injection Mercury System is the instrument to be used for this analysis. The instrument is calibrated
with known standards ranging from 0.25 to 10 u.g/L mercury. The detection limit for mercury in aqueous
samples is 0.05 u.g/L.
5.2.3 Mercury by Thermal Decomposition and Cold Vapor Atomic Adsorption (TD-CVAA) Method 7473
Mercury analysis of the solid materials will be carried out by thermal decomposition cold vapor atomic
adsorption (TC/CVAA) according the EPA SW-846 Method 7473 (EPA 1998).
The Lumex RA-915+ Mercury Analyzer is a portable instrument capable of measuring mercury
concentrations in air, liquids, and solids. Developed for use by the Russian Navy to detect elemental
mercury leaks on submarines (mercury is used as ballast), the analyzer is capable of measuring 1 ng/m3.
The instrument contains an internal sample pump, multi-pass optical cell and Zeeman Effect atomic
adsorption detector tuned to a wavelength of 253.7 nm for the detection of mercury. The Zeeman effect
atomic adsorption (AA) detector modulates the frequency of the source to eliminate matrix effects from air
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:23
samples and enhance the detector sensitivity for mercury. An optional RP-91C high temperature (>750 ฐC)
furnace can be used to convert any mercury species to elemental mercury for post combustion detection of
total mercury in the solids. Since the detector can only measure elemental mercury directly, this technique is
based on the thermal decomposition properties of mercury, as only elemental mercury can exist at these
high temperatures. Under high temperatures, any oxidized mercury compounds are converted to elemental
mercury.
To perform a mercury analysis on a solid sample, the solid of known mass is weighed into a quartz or
stainless steel combustion boat. The combustion boat is then inserted into the furnace combustion chamber
and as the elemental mercury is evolved from the sample, the detector measures the mass of mercury. The
mass of mercury is directly proportional to the area under the peak, similar to the quantitation principle used
in gas chromatography. By dividing the mass of mercury by the mass of sample introduced to the
instrument, a mercury concentration can be derived. For wet samples, a moisture measurement of the solid
must be determined to correct the mercury content to a dry basis.
5.2.4 Other Metals (ICP)
Analysis for As, Se, Pb, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Crwill be performed on a ICP-MS using EPA
SW-846 Method 6020A (EPA 2007d). Metals and estimated instrument detection limits are listed in the
method. The ICP will be profiled and calibrated for the target compounds and specific instrument detection
limits will be determined. Mixed calibration standards will be prepared at least 5 levels. Each target
compound will also be analyzed separately to determine possible spectral interference or the presence of
impurities. Two types of blanks will be run with each batch of samples. A calibration blank is used to
establish the analytical curve and the method blank is used to identify possible contamination from varying
amounts of the acids used in the sample processing. Additional daily QC checks include an Initial Calibration
Verification (ICV) and a Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV). The ICV is prepared by combining target
elements from a standard source different than that of the calibration standard and at a concentration within
the linear working range of the instrument. The CCV is prepared in the same acid matrix using the same
standards used for calibration at a concentration near the mid-point of the calibration curve. A calibration
blank and a CCV or ICV are analyzed after every tenth sample and at the end of each batch of samples.
The CCV and ICV results must verify that the instrument is within 10% of the initial calibration with an RSD <
5% from replicate integrations. Procedures to incorporate the analysis of a MS/MSD for these CCR samples
will be evaluated.
These analyses will be performed at two different ICP-MS facilities. The first facility is Test America
Laboratories in Savannah, Ga. This laboratory uses an Agilent ICP-MS with octopole reaction system (ORS)
and will measure the metal species for the total content. The second facility is Vanderbilt University
(Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering). This laboratory uses a Perkin Elmer model ELAN
DRC II or a Varian inductively couple plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). Vanderbilt
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:24
University is responsible for measuring the metals content in the leachates. Standard analysis mode is used
for Pb and DRC mode is used for analysis of As and Se.
5.2.4.1 ICP-OES Analyses
Analysis of the inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) aqueous samples by
SW-846 Method 601OA (EPA 2007c) from laboratory leaching tests will be carried out at Vanderbilt
University (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) using a Varian ICP Model 720-ES. Five-
point standard curves will be used for an analytical range between approximately 0.1 mg/L and 25 mg/L for
trace metals. Seven-point standard curves will be used for an analytical range between approximately 0.1
mg/L and 500 mg/L for minerals. Analytical blanks and analytical check standards at approximately 0.5 mg/L
will be run every 10 to 20 samples and required to be within 15% of the specified value. Initially, analyses
were performed on undiluted samples to minimize total dissolved loading to the instrument. If the maximum
calibration is exceeded, samples for analysis will be diluted gravimetrically to within the targeted analytical
range using 1 % v/v Optima grade nitric acid (Fisher Scientific). Yttrium at 10 mg/L will be used as the
internal standard. Analytical matrix spikes will be completed for three test positions from one of the replicate
extracts from SR002.1. For each analytical matrix spike, a volume of 500 uL of a 10 mg/L standard solution
will be added to 5 mL of sample aliquot. Table 5-2 provides the method detection limit (MDL) and minimum
level of quantification (ML) for each element to be analyzed. Analyte concentrations measured that are less
than the ML and greater than the MDL will be reported as estimated value using the instrument response.
Table 5-3 indicates the switch from ICP-MS to ICP-OES for specific elements and samples.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:25
Table 5-2. Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and Minimum Level of Quantification (ML) for ICP-OES Analysis on
Liquid Samples*
Symbol
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Ca
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ni
K
P
Se
Si
Ag
Na
Sr
S
Tl
Sn
Ti
V
Zn
Zr
Units
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
MDL
1.00
8.00
15.0
1.00
5.00
1.00
6.00
3.50
1.00
1.00
4.1
2.90
7.00
6.00
1.00
3.60
1.00
2.20
1.50
6.2
17.0
2.80
18.00
3.50
1.00
8.30
5.00
17.0
6.40
1.30
2.50
2.70
ML
3.18
25.4
47.7
3.18
15.9
3.18
19.1
11.1
3.18
3.18
13.0
9.22
22.3
19.1
3.18
11.4
3.18
7.00
4.77
19.7
54.1
8.90
57.2
11.1
3.18
26.4
15.9
54.1
20.3
4.13
7.95
8.59
* All elements indicated in Table 5.2 will be analyzed, however, only elements indicated in bold are reported as part of the
leaching studies. The elements that were included in the leaching studies were selected based on input from EPA
program offices due to potential concern for human health and the environment.
-------
Table 5-3. ICP Instrument Used for Each Element*
Symbol
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Ca
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ni
K
Re
Se
Si
Na
Sr
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Instrument
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
ICP-MS
Used
ICP-OES
ICP-OES*
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES*
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES
ICP-OES*
ICP-OES
Switch Date
Report 3 Samples
Only SR3 Rpt 1 Samples*
Report 1 and 3 Samples
Reports Samples
Report 3 Samples
Report 3 Samples
Only Rpt 1 Samples*
Report 3 Samples
Report 3 Samples
Reports Samples
Report 3 Samples
Only SR3 Rpt 1 Samples*
Report 3 Samples
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:26
* Report 3 samples will be analyzed on the ICP-OES for the indicated elements. These elements would require multiple
dilutions on the ICP-MS. Measurements for the same elements on Facility T samples (TFA, TFC, TAW, and TAU) were
also completed on the ICP-MS for comparison. Results were within 15% for concentrations above 100 ug/L and within
25% for concentrations below 100 ug/L. Bold-faced elements are metals that are included in the leaching studies.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:27
5.2.4.2 ICP-MS Analyses
ICP-MS analyses by SW-846 Method 6020A (EPA 2007d) of aqueous samples from laboratory leaching
tests will be carried out at Vanderbilt University (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) using a
Perkin Elmer model ELAN DRC II in both standard and dynamic reaction chamber (DRC) modes. Standard
chamber analysis mode will be used for all analytes except for As and Se, which are run in DRC mode with
0.5 mL/min of oxygen as the reaction gas. Seven-point standard curves will be analyzed with an analytical
range between approximately 0.5 ug/L and 500 ug/L and will be completed before each analysis. Analytical
blanks and analytical check standards at approximately 50 ug/L will be run every 10 to 20 samples and
required to be within 15% of the specified value. Samples for analysis will be diluted gravimetrically to within
the targeted analytical range using 1 % v/v Optima grade nitric acid (Fisher Scientific). Initially, analyses for
10:1 dilutions will be performed to minimize total dissolved loading to the instrument. Additional dilutions at
100:1 and 1000:1 will be analyzed if the calibration range is exceeded with the 10:1 dilution. 50 uL of a 10
mg/L internal standard consisting of indium (In) (for mass range below 150) and bismuth (Bi) (for mass
range over 150) will be added to 10 mL of sample aliquot prior to analysis. Analytical matrix spikes will be
completed for one of each of the replicate extracts from SR002.1. For each analytical matrix spike, a volume
between 10 uL and 100 uL of a 10 mg/L standard solution will be added to 10 mL of sample aliquot. Table 5-
4 provides the element to be analyzed, method detection limit (MDL) and minimum level of quantification
(ML). Analyte concentrations measured that are less than the ML and greater than the MDL are reported as
estimated value using the instrument response. The values will reflect the initial 10:1 dilution used for
samples from laboratory leaching tests.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:28
Table 5-4. Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and Minimum Level of Quantification (ML) for ICP-MS Analysis on
Liquid Samples*
Symbol
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Ca
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ni
K
Re
Se
Si
Na
Sr
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Zr
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
MDL
0.96
0.08
0.64
0.57
0.64
0.65
0.17
1.02
0.50
0.41
0.70
0.94
0.23
0.57
0.34
0.76
0.73
1.38
0.24
0.52
1.56
0.74
0.52
0.51
0.70
0.52
0.30
0.31
0.92
0.47
ML
3.06
0.25
2.04
1.82
2.03
2.06
0.54
3.24
1.58
1.32
2.23
3.00
0.73
1.83
1.09
2.41
2.31
4.38
0.77
1.65
4.97
2.35
1.66
1.61
2.22
1.66
0.95
0.98
2.94
1.48
* All elements indicated in Table 5-4 will be analyzed. However, only elements indicated in bold are reported as part of the
leaching studies. The elements that were included in the leaching studies were selected based on input from EPA
program offices due to potential concern for human health and the environment.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:29
5.2.5 Anions Analysis by 1C
Aqueous concentrations of anions (fluoride, chloride, nitrate, sulfate, sulfides, carbonate and phosphate) will
be determined using ion chromatography (1C). Standard USEPA guideline SW-846 Method 9056A (EPA
2007b) will be used. These analyses are performed using a Dionex HPLC system and a conductivity
detector. Equipment used in the instrument includes an ATC-3 anion trap column, AS-11G 4-mm guard
column, and a AS-11 analytical column. The system uses a sodium hydroxide gradient elution at 1 mL/min
to resolve the peaks.
5.2.6 X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA)
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry is used in the USEPA RTP, NC laboratories to analyze these samples for
the determination of total content forthe major elements. A Philips model PW2404 wavelength dispersive
instrument, equipped with a PW2540 VRC sample changer, is used for these analyses. The manufacturer's
software suite, "SuperQ", is used to operate the instrument, collect the data, and perform quantification.
The instrument was calibrated using a manufacturer-supplied set of calibration standards at the time of
installation of the software plus a new X-ray tube. On a monthly basis, manufacturer-supplied drift correction
standards are used to create an updated drift correction factor for each potential analytical line. On a
monthly basis, a dedicated suite of QC samples are analyzed before and after the drift correction procedure.
This data is used to update and maintain the instrument's QC charts. This has been described in previous
memos.
The software suite's "Measure and Analyze" program collects and stores the sample data. This program has
two basic modes of operation, "scan" and "channels". The scan mode is used to collect the bulk of the data.
It operates in a stepwise scanning mode and uses the manufacturer supplied "IQ+" program to define
operating parameters. IQ+ scans the available wavelength range using a series of 10 sub-scans that vary in
terms of detector, radiant power, collimator crystal, and wavelength. While the instrument incorporates a
sample rotation capability, this is not used by IQ+ since the time spent at any one wavelength is only a
fraction of the pellet rotation time.
The channel mode is typically reserved for trace work. In this mode, the instrument moves to a specific
wavelength and goniometer position and collects data for defined periods of time. These data collection
periods are typically long enough to make use of the sample rotation function worth while. Other instrument
operation parameters, such as tube power and crystal, are taken from the scan function parameters. The
data collected in the channel mode is then incorporated into the sample's data file. The intent is to improve
detection limits for certain trace elements that are often of interest at a small cost in analytical time.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:30
Quantification is performed post-data collection using the program, "IQ+". IQ+ is a "first principles"
quantification program that includes complex calculations to account for a wide variety of sample-specific
parameters. For this reason, sample-specific calibrations are not necessary. This program calculates both
peak heights and baseline values. The difference is then used, after adjustment by drift correction factors,
for elemental quantification versus the calibration data. Interelement effects are possible and the software
includes a library of such parameters. Data from secondary lines may be used for quantification where
interelement effects are significant or the primary peak is overloading the DAQ. Where the difference
between the calculated peak height and baseline are of low quality, the program will not identify a peak and
will not report results. IQ+ permits the inclusion of data from other sources by manual entry. Carbon is an
example of this for these samples. Entry of other source data for elements indeterminable by XRF improves
the mass balance.
Neutron activation analysis (NAA) is an established analytical technique with elemental analysis
applications. This method will be used to confirm the presence of hexavalent chromium species in the CCR
solids. NAA is different from AA or inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) because it is
based on nuclear instead of electronic properties. Neutron activation analysis is a sensitive multi-element
analytical method for the accurate and precise determination of elemental concentrations in unknown
materials. Sensitivities are sufficient to measure certain elements at the nanogram level and below, although
the method is well suited for the determination of major and minor elemental components as well. The
method is based on the detection and measurement of characteristic gamma rays emitted from radioactive
isotopes produced in the sample upon irradiation with neutrons. Depending on the source of the neutrons,
their energies and the treatment of the samples, the technique takes on several differing forms. It is
generally referred to as INAA (instrumental neutron activation analysis) for the purely instrumental version of
the technique. RNAA (radiochemical neutron activation analysis) is the acronym used if radiochemistry is
used to separate the isotope of interest before counting. FNAA (fast neutron activation analysis) is the form
of the technique if higher energy neutrons, usually from an accelerator based neutron generator, are used.
5.2.7 XRF Detection Limits
Table 5-5 presents detection limit data in two forms, which are not mutually exclusive. The reporting limit is
built into the software and reflects the manufacturer's willingness to report low-level data. Data listed under
"detection limit" are based upon the short-term reproducibility of replicate analyses and are sample matrix
specific. These calculations are likely to report higher detection limits for macro elements than what would
be calculated where the same element is present at trace levels. In this data set, calcium is a likely example
of this.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page: 31
Table 5-5. XRF Reporting and Detection Limits
Analyte Reporting Limit, (jg/g
Al
As
Ba
Br
Ca
Cd
Ce
Cl
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Fe
Ga
Ge
K
La
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Nb
Ni
Pb
Px
Rb
Sc
Se
Si
Sr
Sx
Ti
V
W
Y
Zn
Zr
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Detection Limit %, 2a (wt. %)
0.016
0.038
0.0084
0.02
0.1
0.064
0.022
0.0046
0.0024
0.0028
0.0014
0.082
0.034
0.0016
0.0014
0.0048
0.0054
0.01
0.0032
0.0026
0.0076
0.0018
0.0048
0.0034
0.004
0.0016
0.0016
0.0018
0.092
0.0016
0.05
0.003
0.0038
0.0036
0.0018
0.0014
0.0024
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:32
5.2.8 Hexavalent Chromium Determination in CCR Extracts
Fly ash samples will be leached at three different pH values in duplicate using the SR002.1 leaching
procedure for the determination of hexavalent (Cr6+) and total chromium concentrations. The pH target
values for the leachates are defined as 7-7.5, 10.5-11, and the natural CCR pH. The extracts will be split into
three samples for analysis by Eastern Research Group (ERG) and Vanderbilt University. ERG will receive
one unpreserved and one nitric acid preserved sample. Vanderbilt University will receive one nitric acid
preserved sample. Samples will be preserved by adding 97 ml of leachate with 3 ml concentrated nitric
acid.
Hexavalent chromium concentrations of the un-preserved CCR leachate extracts will be determined using
ion-chromatography. This procedure was modified from the EPA Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Programs
(UATMP) Hexavalent Chromium method developed by Eastern Research Group (ERG), Research Triangle
Park NC, for the determination of Cr6+ in air by analyzing the liquid extracts from sodium bicarbonate
impregnated cellulose filters using SOPs developed for the UATMP (EPA 2007a). The analytical system
uses a ion chromatography with a guard column, an analytical column, a post-column deriviatization module,
and a UV/VIS detector. In the analysis procedure, Cr6+ exists as chromate due to the near neutral pH of the
eluent. After separation through the column, the Cr6+ complexes with 1,5-diphenylcarbohydrazide (DPC) to
allow detection at 530 nm (EPA, 2006b). This method had a reporting limit (RL) of 0.03 ng/mL in liquids.
The total chromium species for the nitric acid preserved samples will be analyzed by ERG and Vanderbilt
University using inductively-coupled plasma / mass spectroscopy (ICP/MS) found in SW-846 Method 6020A
(2007d).
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:33
6. QA/QC Checks
6.1 Data Quality Indicator Goals
Data quality indicator goals for critical measurements in terms of accuracy, precision and completeness are
shown in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Data Quality Indicator Goals
As, Se,
Anions
Measurement
Pb, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl,
and Cr Concentration
Hg Concentration
, Sulfate, Carbonates, Chlorides
pH, conductivity, ORP
Carbon Content
Surface Area BET
Loss on Ignition (LOI)
Moisture
Method
ICP-MS/6020
CVAA/7470A/7473
IC/SW-846 9056A
Electrode
DIC/DOC EC/OC
ASTM D6556-09
ASTM D7348-08
ASTM D2216-05
Accuracy
10%
10%
10%
2%
10%
5%
2%
1%
Precision
10%
10%
10%
2%
10%
5%
2%
10%
Completeness
>90%
>90%
>90%
100%
>90%
>90%
100%
100%
Accuracy will be determined by calculating the percent bias from a known standard. Precision will be
calculated as relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate values and relative standard deviation
(RSD) for parameters that have more than two replicates. Completeness is defined as the percentage of
measurements that meet DQI goals of the total number measurements taken.
Mass balance calculations will also be used as a data quality indicator for total content determination and for
thermal stability testing. Different mass balance recovery methods will be examined. The reference fly ash
sample will be used to develop and validate an appropriate mass balance recovery method. Mass balance
will be determined by using the metals concentrations determined by analysis of the "as-received" reference
fly ash as the total. Results from successive leaching samples and analysis of any solid residues will be
combined to determine recoveries.
One approach that will be considered is the use of either total digestion (Method 3052B) or Neutron
Activation Analysis (NAA) for the analysis of solid residues.
The mass balance recovery will only be performed on 3 pH points and one low L/S ratio. Uncertainty
analysis will be considered for each mass balance. The selection of the target pH values will be dependent
on the natural pH of the material. If the natural pH is <5, then natural pH, 7 and 9 will be selected as the
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:34
target pH values. If the natural pH ranges between 5 and 9, then 5, 7 and 9 will be selected as the target pH
values, and if the natural pH is >9, then 5, 7 and natural pH will selected as the target pH values. In addition,
an extraction at the natural pH of the material and an L/S ratio of 1 mL/g will be carried out. At least 4
replicates per extract will be run. In the case where the mass balance will be performed using total digestion
or NAA, at least 3 representative samples per residue will be analyzed.
6.2 QC Sample Types
Types of QC samples used in this project will include blanks, spiked samples, replicates, and mass balance
tests on the reference fly ash and the SRM. For physical characterization testing, duplicate samples of the
CCR, reference fly ash and SRM will be processed through each analysis. Duplicates must agree within
+10% to be considered acceptable. For the leaching studies, an objective of this project is to determine the
appropriate types of QC samples to incorporate in the proposed leaching methods. This will be
accomplished by subjecting the reference fly ash to the leaching procedure and determining the metals'
mass balances by analyzing the leaching solution and the post-leachate solids. Initially, mass balances of
70-130% will be considered as an acceptable QC of the leaching procedure. Further statistical analysis on
available data will be performed to narrow down the range of acceptable mass balances. This method
development will be thoroughly documented in a dedicated laboratory notebook. Leaching of the reference
fly ash samples may also be used as method controls during testing of CCR samples. For the fixed-bed
reactor testing, one in every five tests will be run in duplicate. Duplicate results from the reactor testing are
expected to agree within 20% to be considered valid. Identical to the leaching procedure, the use of the
reference fly ash as a baseline QC sample will also be implemented during TPD tests (initial mass balances
of 70-130%). Required QC samples for metals and mercury sampling trains are detailed in EPA Method 29
(EPA 1996c) and the Ontario Hydro Methods (ASTM 2002). QC samples required for ICP, CVAA, 1C
analysis are detailed in SW-846 Methods 6020A (EPA 2007d), 7470A (EPA 1994), and 9056A (EPA 2007b)
respectively.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:35
7. Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
Chemical (ICP, CVAA, TGA, XRF, 1C, NAA) and physical (surface area, pore size distribution and density)
characterization data are reduced and reports are generated automatically by the instrument software. The
primary analyst will review 100% of the report for completeness and to ensure that quality control checks
meet established criteria. If QC checks do not meet acceptance criteria, sample analysis must be repeated.
A secondary review will be performed by the Inorganic Laboratory Manager to validate the analytical report.
If appropriate, certain chemical characterization data will be compared to the XRF and NAA analyses. In
addition, the designated QA Officer will review at least 10% of the raw data for completeness. Analytical data
will be summarized in periodic reports to the ARCADIS WAL. The procedures for reduction, validation and
reporting of the leaching experiments (Task III) are outlined in Appendix A. ARCADIS WAL is responsible for
the implementation of these procedures. ARCADIS and Vanderbilt University will be responsible for
publishing results and reports. QA/QC activities will be mentioned in any published materials. A data quality
report will be provided in the final report of this investigation.
Data generated for the leachate analysis and total composition are entered into a standard Excel
spreadsheet to ease uploading into the Vanderbilt metals database from the ICP-MS and other analyses.
This data along with QA/QC information can be viewed using the "LeachXS Lite" software program
developed by Vanderbilt University and the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. This software tool
will allow future users to view the metals leaching information based on sample type, facility configuration, or
CCR coal type. This data viewer and database program will be available to the public on-line when
complete.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:36
8. Assessments
Assessments and audits are an integral part of a quality system. This project is assigned a QA Category III
and, while desirable, does not require planned technical systems and performance evaluation audits. EPA
will determine external or third-party audit activities. Internal assessments will be performed by project
personnel to ensure acquired data meet data quality indicator goals established in Section 6.
There are currently no planned performance evaluation audits but Table 8-1 lists the measurement
parameters and expected ranges should EPA determine a PEA should be provided.
Table 8-1
As, Se,
PEA Parameters and Ranges
Analyte or Measurement
Pb, Cd, Co, Al, Ba, B, Mo, Sb, Tl, and Cr
Hg
PH
Method
ICP-MS/3052/6020A
CVAA/7470A
Electrode
Expected Range
1-100 |jg/ml_
0.25to10ug/L
0-14
In addition to the internal TSA, the ARCADIS Designated QA Officer will perform an internal data quality
audit on at least 10% of the reported data. Reported results will be verified by performing calculations using
raw data and information recorded in laboratory notebooks.
-------
Project No.: RN990270.0007
Revision: 0
Date: December 2009
Page:37
9. Appendices
Vanderbilt Leaching Procedures
-------
PRELIMINARY VERSION2 OF METHOD 1313
LIQUID-SOLID PARTITIONING AS A FUNCTION OF EXTRACT pH FOR CONSTITUENTS IN
SOLID MATERIALS USING A PARALLEL BATCH EXTRACTION
SW-846 is not intended to be an analytical training manual. Therefore, method
procedures are written based on the assumption that they will be performed by analysts who are
formally trained in at least the basic principles of chemical analysis and in the use of the subject
technology.
In addition, SW-846 methods, with the exception of required method use for the analysis
of method-defined parameters, are intended to be guidance methods which contain general
information on how to perform an analytical procedure or technique which a laboratory can use as
a basic starting point for generating its own detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), either
for its own general use or for a specific project application. The performance data included in this
method are for guidance purposes only, and are not intended to be and must not be used as
absolute quality control (QC) acceptance criteria for purposes of laboratory accreditation.
1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION
1.1 This method is designed to provide aqueous extracts representing the liquid-solid
partitioning (LSP) curve as a function of pH for inorganic constituents (e.g., metals and
radionuclides), semi-volatile organic constituents (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs)
and non-volatile organic constituents (e.g., dissolved organic carbon) in solid materials. The LSP
curve is evaluated as a function of final extract pH at a liquid-to-solid (LS) ratio of 10 mL
extractant/g dry sample (g-dry) and conditions that approach liquid-solid chemical equilibrium.
This method also yields the acid/base titration and buffering capacity of the tested material at an
LS ratio of 10 mL extractant/g-dry sample. The analysis of extracts for dissolved organic carbon
and the solid phase for total organic carbon allow for the evaluation of the impact of organic
carbon release and the influence of dissolved organic carbon on the LSP of inorganic
constituents.
1.2 This method is intended to be used as part of an environmental leaching
assessment for the evaluation of disposal, beneficial use, treatment effectiveness and site
remediation options.
1.3 This method is suitable for a wide range of solid materials. Examples of solid
materials include: industrial wastes, soils, sludges, combustion residues, sediments, stabilized
materials, construction materials, and mining wastes.
2 Preliminary Version denotes that this method has not been endorsed by EPA but is under consideration for
inclusion into SW-846. This method has been derived from published procedures (Kosson et al, 2002)
using reviewed and accepted methodologies (USEPA 2006, 2008, 2009). The method has been submitted
to the USEPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery and is currently under review for
development of interlaboratory validation studies to develop precision and bias information.
1313-1 December 2009
-------
1.4 This method is a leaching characterization method that is used to provide values
for intrinsic material parameters that control leaching of inorganic and some organic species under
equilibrium conditions. This test method is intended as a means for obtaining a series of extracts
of a solid material (i.e., the eluates), which may be used to estimate the LSP (e.g., solubility and
release) of constituents as a function of pH under the laboratory conditions described in the
method. Eluate constituent concentrations may be used in conjunction with information regarding
environmental management scenarios to estimate the anticipated leaching concentrations,
release rate and extent for individual material constituents under the management c evaluated.
Eluate constituent concentrations generated by this method may also be used along with
geochemical speciation modeling to infer the mineral phases that control the LSP in the pore
structure of the solid material.
1.5 This method is not applicable for characterizing the release of volatile organic
analytes (e.g., benzene, toluene, xylenes).
1.6 The relationships between eluate concentrations observed from this method and
field leachate must be considered in the context of the material being tested and the field scenario
being evaluated. This method provides solutions considered indicative of eluate under field
conditions, only where the field leaching pH is the same as the final laboratory extract pH and the
LSP is controlled by aqueous phase saturation of the constituent of interest.
1.7 The maximum mass of constituent released over the range of method pH
conditions (2 < pH < 13) may be considered an estimate of the maximum mass of the constituent
leachable under field leaching conditions for intermediate time frames and the domain of the
laboratory test pHs.
1.8 The solvents used in this method include dilute solutions of nitric acid (HNO3) and
potassium hydroxide (KOH) in reagent water.
1.9 Analysts are advised to take reasonable measures to ensure that the sample is
homogenized to the extent practical, prior to employment of this method. Particle-size reduction
may provide additional assurance of sample homogenization and also facilitate achievement of
equilibrium during the test procedure. Table 1 of this standard designates a recommended
minimum dry mass of sample to be added to each extraction vessel and the associated extraction
contact time as a function particle diameter. If the heterogeneity of the sample is suspected as
the cause of unacceptable precision in replicate test results or is considered significant based on
professional judgment, the sample mass used in the test procedure may be increased to a greater
minimum dry mass than that shown in Table 1 with the amount of extractant increased
proportionately to maintain the designated LS ratio.
1.10 In the preparation of solid materials for use in this method, particle-size reduction
of samples with a large grain size is performed in order to enhance the approach towards LS
equilibrium under the designated contact time interval of the extraction process. The extract
contact time for samples reduced to a finer maximum particle size will consequently be shorter
(see Table 1).
1.11 Prior to employing this method, analysts are advised to consult the base method
for each type of procedure that may be employed in the overall analysis (e.g., Methods 9040,
9045, and 9050, and the determinative methods for the target analytes), QC acceptance criteria,
calculations, and general guidance. Analysts also should consult the disclaimer statement at the
front of the manual and the information in Chapter Two for guidance on the intended flexibility in
1313-2 December 2009
-------
the choice of methods, apparatus, materials, reagents, and supplies, and on the responsibilities of
the analyst for demonstrating that the techniques employed are appropriate for the analytes of
interest, in the matrix of interest, and at the concentration levels of concern.
In addition, analysts and data users are advised that, except where explicitly specified in a
regulation, the use of SW-846 methods is not mandatory in response to Federal testing
requirements. The information contained in this method is provided by EPA as guidance to be
used by the analyst and the regulated community in making judgments necessary to generate
results that meet the data quality objectives for the intended application. Guidance on defining
data quality objectives can be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf
1.12 Use of this method is restricted to use by, or under supervision of, properly
experienced and trained personnel. Each analyst must demonstrate the ability to generate
acceptable results with this method.
2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD
This method consists of nine parallel extractions of a particle size-reduced solid material in
dilute acid or base and reagent water. A flowchart for performing this method is shown in Figure
1. Particle-size reduction of the material to be tested is performed according to Table 1. A
schedule of acid and base additions is formulated from a pre-test titration curve or prior
knowledge indicating the required equivalents/g acid or base to be added to the series of
extraction vessels so as to yield a series of eluates having specified pH values in the range of 2-
13. In addition to the nine test extractions, three method blanks without solid sample are carried
through the procedure in order to verify that analyte interferences are not introduced as a
consequence of reagent impurities or equipment contamination. The twelve bottles (i.e., nine test
positions and three method blanks) are tumbled in an end-over-end fashion for a specified contact
time, which depends on the particle size of the sample (see Table 1). At the end of the specified
contact interval, the liquid and solid phases are roughly separated via settling or centrifugation.
Extract pH and specific conductivity measurements are then made on an aliquot of the liquid
phase and the remaining bulk of the eluate is clarified by either pressure or vacuum filtration.
Analytical samples of the filtered eluate are collected and preserved as appropriate for the desired
chemical analyses. The eluate concentrations of COPCs are determined and reported. In
addition, COPC concentrations may be plotted as a function of eluate pH and compared to quality
control and assessment limits for the interpretation of method results.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
3.1 COPC A chemical species of interest, which may or may not be regulated, but
may be characteristic of release-controlling properties of the sample geochemistry.
3.2 Release The dissolution or partitioning of a COPC from the solid phase to the
aqueous phase during laboratory testing (or under field conditions). In this method, mass release
is expressed in units of mg COPC/kg dry solid material.
3.3 LSP The distribution of COPCs between the solid and liquid phases at the
conclusion of the extraction.
1313-3 December 2009
-------
3.4 LS ratio The fraction of the total liquid volume (including the moisture
contained in the "as used" solid sample) to the dry mass equivalent of the solid material. LS ratio
is typically expressed in volume units of liquid per dry mass of solid material (mL/g-dry).
3.5 "As-tested" sample The solid sample at the conditions (e.g., moisture content
and particle-size distribution) present at the time of the start of the test procedure. The "as-tested"
conditions will differ from the "as-received" sample conditions if particle-size reduction and drying
were necessarily performed.
3.6 Dry-mass equivalent The mass of "as-tested" (i.e., "wet") sample that equates
to the mass of dry solids plus associated moisture, based on the moisture content of the "as-
tested" material. The dry-mass equivalent is typically expressed in mass units of the "as-tested"
sample (g).
3.7 Refer to the SW-846 chapter of terms and acronyms for potentially applicable
definitions.
4.0 INTERFERENCES
4.1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and other sample processing hardware may yield
artifacts and/or interferences to sample analysis. All of these materials must be demonstrated to
be free from interferences under the conditions of the analysis by analyzing method blanks.
Specific selection of reagents and purification of solvents by distillation in all-glass systems may
be necessary. Refer to each method to be used for specific guidance on quality control
procedures and to Chapters Three and Four for general guidance on the cleaning of laboratory
apparatus prior to use.
4.2 If potassium is a COPC, the use of KOH as a base reagent will interfere with the
determination of actual potassium release. In this case, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) of the same
grade and normality may be used as a substitute.
5.0 SAFETY
5.1 This method does not address all safety issues associated with its use. The
laboratory is responsible for maintaining a safe work environment and a current awareness file of
OSHA regulations regarding the safe handling of the chemicals listed in this method. A reference
file of material safety data sheets (MSDSs) should be available to all personnel involved in these
analyses.
5.2 During preparation of extracts and processing of extracts, some waste materials
may generate heat or evolve potentially harmful gases when contacted with acids and bases.
Adequate prior knowledge of the material being tested should be used to establish appropriate
personal protection and workspace ventilation.
6.0 EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
The mention of trade names or commercial products in this manual is for illustrative
purposes only, and does not constitute an EPA endorsement or exclusive recommendation for
1313-4 December 2009
-------
use. The products and instrument settings cited in SW-846 methods represent those products
and setting used during the method development or subsequently evaluated by the Agency.
Glassware, reagents, supplies, equipment, and setting other than those listed in this manual may
be employed provided that method performance appropriate for the intended application has been
demonstrated and documented. This section does not list common laboratory glassware (e.g.,
beakers and flasks) which nonetheless may be required to perform the method.
6.1 Extraction vessels
6.1.1 Twelve wide-mouth bottles (i.e., nine for test positions plus three for
method blanks) constructed of inert material, resistant to high and low pH values and
interaction with COPCs as described in the following sections.
6.1.1.1 For the evaluation of inorganic COPC mobility, bottles
made of high density polyethylene (HOPE) (e.g., Nalgene #3140-0250 or
equivalent), polypropylene (PP), or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are recommended.
6.1.1.2 For the evaluation of non-volatile organic and mixed
organic/inorganic COPC mobility, bottles made of glass or Type 316 stainless
steel are recommended. Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is not recommended for
non-volatile organics due to the sorption of species with high hydrophobicity (e.g.,
PAHs). Borosilicate glass is recommended over other types of glass, especially
when inorganic analytes are of concern.
6.1.2 The extraction vessels must be of sufficient volume to accommodate
both the solid sample and an extractant volume, based on an LS ratio of 10 ฑ 0.5 ml_
extractant/g-dry. The head space in the bottle should be minimized to the extent possible
when semi-volatile organics are COPCs. For example, Table 1 indicates that 250-mL
volume bottles are recommended when the minimum 20 g-dry mass equivalent is
contacted with 200 mL of extractant.
6.1.3 The vessel must have a leak-proof seals that can sustain end-over-
end tumbling for the duration of the designated contact time.
6.1.4 If centrifugation is anticipated to be beneficial for initial phase
separation, the extraction vessels should be capable of withstanding centrifugation at 4000
ฑ100 rpm for a minimum of 10 ฑ 2 min. Alternately, samples may be extracted in bottles
that do not meet this centrifugation specification (e.g., Nalgene l-Chem #311-0250 or
equivalent) and the solid-liquid slurries transferred into appropriate centrifugation vessels
for phase separation as needed.
6.2 Balance Capable of 0.01-g resolution for masses less than 500 g.
6.3 Rotary tumbler Capable of rotating the extraction vessels in an end-over-end
fashion at a constant speed of 28 ฑ 2 rpm (e.g., Analytical Testing, Werrington, PA or equivalent).
6.4 Filtration apparatus Pressure or vacuum filtration apparatus composed of
appropriate materials so as to maximize the collection of extracts and minimize loss of the COPCs
(e.g., Nalgene #300-4000 or equivalent) (see Sec. 6.1).
1313-5 December 2009
-------
6.5 Filtration membranes Composed of polypropylene or equivalent material with
an effective pore size of 0.45-um (e.g., Gelman Sciences GH Polypro #66548 from Fisher
Scientific or equivalent).
6.6 pH Meter Laboratory model with the capability for temperature compensation
(e.g., Accumet 20, Fisher Scientific or equivalent) and a minimum resolution of 0.1 pH units.
6.7 pH combination electrode Composed of chemically-resistant materials.
6.8 Conductivity meter Laboratory model (e.g., Accumet 20, Fisher Scientific or
equivalent), with a minimum resolution of 5% of the measured value.
6.9 Conductivity electrodes Composed of chemically-resistant materials.
6.10 Adjustable-volume pipettor Oxford Benchmate series or equivalent The
necessary delivery range will depend on the buffering capacity of the solid material and acid/base
strength used in the test.
6.11 Disposable pipettor tips
6.12 Centrifuge (recommended) Capable of centrifuging the extraction vessels at a
rate of 4000 ฑ 100 rpm for 10 ฑ 2 min.
7.0 REAGENTS AND STANDARDS
7.1 Reagent-grade chemicals must be used in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated,
it is intended that all reagents conform to the specifications of the Committee on Analytical
Reagents of the American Chemical Society, where such specification are available. Other
grades may be used, provided it is first ascertained that the reagents are of sufficiently high purity
to permit use without lessening the accuracy of the determination. Inorganic reagents and
extracts should be stored in plastic to prevent interaction of constituents from glass containers.
7.2 Reagent water must be interference free. All references to water in this method
refer to reagent water unless otherwise specified.
7.3 Nitric acid (2.0 N), HNO3 - Trace-metal grade or better, purchased at strength or
prepared by diluting concentrated nitric acid with reagent water. Solutions with alternate normality
may be used as necessary. In such cases, the amounts of HNO3 solution added to samples
should be adjusted based on the equivalents required in the schedule of acid/base additions (see
Sec. 11.3).
7.4 Potassium hydroxide (1.0 N), KOH - ACS grade, purchased at strength or
prepared by diluting concentrated potassium hydroxide solution with reagent water, or otherwise
by dissolving 56.11 g of solid potassium hydroxide in 1 L of reagent water. Solutions with
alternate normality may be used as necessary. In such cases, the amounts of KOH solution
added to samples should be adjusted based on the equivalents required in the schedule of
acid/base additions (see Sec. 11.3).
7.5 Consult Methods 9040 and 9050 for additional information regarding the
preparation of reagents required for pH and specific conductance measurements.
1313-6 December 2009
-------
8.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION, PRESERVATION, AND STORAGE
8.1 See the introductory material to Chapter Three "Inorganic Analytes" and Chapter
Four "Organic Analytes."
8.2 All samples should be collected using an appropriate sampling plan.
8.3 All analytical sample containers should be composed of materials that minimize
interaction with solution COPCs. For further information, see Chapters Three and Four.
8.4 Preservatives should not be added to samples before extraction.
8.5 Samples can be refrigerated, unless refrigeration results in an irreversible
physical change to the sample.
8.6 Analytical samples should be preserved according to the guidance given in the
individual determinative methods for the COPCs.
8.7 Extract holding times should be consistent with the aqueous sample holding
times specified in the determinative methods for the COPCs.
9.0 QUALITY CONTROL
9.1 Refer to Chapter One for guidance on quality assurance (QA) and quality control
(QC) protocols. When inconsistencies exist between QC guidelines, method-specific QC criteria
take precedence over both technique-specific criteria and those criteria given in Chapter One, and
technique-specific QC criteria take precedence over the criteria in Chapter One. Any effort
involving the collection of analytical data should include development of a structured and
systematic planning document, such as a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) or a Sampling
and Analysis Plan (SAP), which translates project objectives and specifications into directions for
those that will implement the project and assess the results. Each laboratory should maintain a
formal quality assurance program. The laboratory should also maintain records to document the
quality of the data generated. All data sheets and quality control data should be maintained for
reference or inspection.
9.2 In order to demonstrate the purity of reagents and sample contact surfaces,
method blanks should be tested at the extremes of the acid and base additions, as well as when
only reagent water (no acid or base addition) is used for extraction.
9.3 The analysis of extracts should follow appropriate QC procedures, as specified in
the determinative methods for the COPCs. Refer to Chapter One for specific quality control
procedures.
9.4 Unless the "as-received" samples are part of a time-dependent (e.g., aging)
study, solid materials should be processed and tested within one month of their receipt.
10.0 CALIBRATION AND STANDARDIZATION
1313-7 December 2009
-------
10.1 The balance should be calibrated and certified at a minimum annually or in
accordance with laboratory policy.
10.2 Prior to measurement of eluate pH, the pH meter should be calibrated using a
minimum of two standards that bracket the range of pH measurements. Refer to Methods 9040
and 9045 for additional guidance.
10.3 Prior to measurement of eluate conductivity, the meter should be calibrated using
at least one standard at a value greater than the range of conductivity measurements. Refer to
Method 9050 for additional guidance.
11.0 PREPARATORY PROCEDURES
A flowchart for the method procedure is presented in Figure 1.
11.1 Particle-size reduction (if required)
11.1.1 In this method, particle-size reduction is used for sample
homogenization and to prepare large-grained samples for extraction so that the approach
toward liquid-solid equilibrium is enhanced and mass transport through large particles is
minimized. A longer extract contact time is required for larger maximum particle-size
designations. This method designates three maximum particle sizes and associated
contact times (see Table 1). The selection of an appropriate maximum particle size from
this table should be based on professional judgment regarding the practical effort required
to size-reduce the solid material.
11.1.2 Particle-size reduction of "as received" samples may be achieved
through crushing, milling or grinding with equipment made from chemically-inert materials.
During the reduction process, care should be taken to minimize the loss of sample and
potentially volatile constituents in the sample.
11.1.3 If the moisture content of the "as received" material is greater than
15% (wet basis), air drying or desiccation may be necessary. Oven drying is not
recommended for the preparation of test samples due to the potential for mineral alteration
and volatility loss. In all cases, the moisture content of the "as received" material should
be recorded.
NOTE: If the solid material is susceptible to interaction with the atmosphere (e.g.,
carbonation, oxidation), drying should be conducted in an inert environment.
11.1.4 When the material appears to be of a relatively uniform particle size,
calculate the percentage less than the sieve size as follows:
% Passing = Msieved x 100%
M
'total
Where: Msieved = mass of sample passing the sieve (g)
Mtotai = mass of total sample (g) (e.g., Msieved + mass not passing sieve)
1313-8 December 2009
-------
11.1.5 The fraction retained by the sieve should be recycled for further
particle-size reduction until at least 85% of the initial mass has been reduced below the
designated maximum particle size. Calculate and record the final percentage passing the
sieve and the designated maximum particle size. For the un-crushable fraction of the "as
received" material, record the fraction mass and nature (e.g., rock, metal or glass shards,
etc).
11.1.6 Store the size-reduced material in an airtight container in order to
prevent contamination via gas exchange with the atmosphere. Store the container in a
cool, dark and dry place prior to use.
11.2 Determination of solids and moisture content
11.2.1 In order to provide the dry mass equivalent of the "as-tested"
material, the solids content of the subject material should be determined. Often, the
moisture content of the solid sample is recorded. In this method, the moisture content is
determined and recorded on the basis of the "wet" or "as-tested" sample.
WARNING: The drying oven should be contained in a hood or otherwise properly
ventilated. Significant laboratory contamination or inhalation hazards may
result when drying heavily contaminated samples. Consult the laboratory
safety officer for proper handling procedures prior to drying samples that may
contain volatile, hazardous, flammable or explosive materials.
11.2.2 Place a 5-10-g sample of solid material into a pre-tared dish or
crucible. Dry the sample to a constant mass at 105 ฑ 2 ฐC. Periodically check the sample
mass after allowing the sample to cool to room temperature (20 ฑ 2 ฐC) in a desiccator.
NOTE: The oven-dried sample is not used for the extraction and should be properly
disposed of once the dry mass is determined.
11.2.3 Calculate and report the solids content as follows:
SC =
M
'dry
Mtest
Where: SC = solids content (g-dry/g)
Mdry = mass of oven-dried sample (g-dry)
Mtest = mass of "as-tested" sample (g)
11.2.4 Calculate and report the moisture content (wet basis) as follows:
Mtest ~ Mdry
Mtest
1313-9 December 2009
-------
Where: MC(wet) = moisture content on a wet basis (gH2o/g)
Mdry = mass of oven-dried sample (g-dry)
Mtest = mass of "as-tested" sample (g)
11.3 Pre-test titration (if required)
In order to conduct the parallel batch test in Sec. 12.0, a schedule of acid and base
additions should be formulated from either a pre-test titration or based on prior knowledge of the
acid/base titration curve of the sample. This section describes the procedure for obtaining a
titration curve of the test material, when sufficient prior knowledge is unavailable.
If the schedule of acid and base additions will be generated from prior knowledge, proceed
to Sec. 11.4. If the schedule of acid and base additions is already known, proceed to Sec. 12.0.
Figures 2-4 show example titration curves for a wide variety of solid materials. Table 2
indicates how these materials may be classified as (a) low alkalinity; (b) moderate alkalinity; or (c)
high alkalinity in terms of the equivalents of acid required for obtaining final extraction pH values in
the range of 2-13.
11.3.1 Predict the classification of the neutralization behavior of the solid
material based on professional judgment, preliminary data, or the material examples
shown in Table 2 and Figures 2-4.
11.3.2 Conduct a five-point parallel extraction test using 10-g-dry samples of
the solid following the pre-test schedule shown in Table 3 for the chosen classification.
Perform the extraction procedure in Sec. 12.0, omitting the filtration, method blanks, and
analytical sample collection.
11.3.3 Plot the pre-test titration curve (e.g., the extract pH as a function of
the equivalents of acid added) considering base equivalents as the negative sign of acid
equivalents.
11.3.4 Reiterate the pre-test extraction, if necessary to expand or contract
the pre-test titration until the 2-13 pH range can be resolved.
NOTE: Additional pre-test point(s) interpolating or extrapolating from the pre-test schedule
may be necessary to provide adequate resolution in the titration curve.
11.3.5 Pre-test titration using provided Microsoftฎ Excel template
The "Pre-Test" worksheet in the provided Excel template may be used to
calculate pre-test extraction formulations and plot the pre-test titration curve. Mandatory
input data for the template includes:
a) particle size of the "as tested" material (see Sec. 11.1);
b) solids content of the "as tested" material (see Sec. 11.2); and
c) five acid/base additions based on the predicted response classification of the
solid material (see Sec. 11.3).
1313-10 December 2009
-------
Enter the eluate pH and plot the pre-test titration curve. Compare the resulting titration
curve to the target pH values as designated in Table 4.
11.4 Formulation of acid and base additions schedule
A schedule of acid and base additions is used in the main extraction procedure (Sec. 12.0)
to set up nine extractions of the test material plus three method blanks. Based on either prior
knowledge of the acid/base titration curve of the sample or the results of the pre-test titration
procedure in Sec. 11.3, formulate a schedule of test extractions using the example in Table 4 and
the following steps.
11.4.1 Using the extraction parameters in Table 1, identify the
recommended minimum dry-mass equivalent associated with the particle size of the "as-
tested" sample. Calculate and record the amount of "as tested" material equivalent to the
dry-material mass from Table 1 as follows:
M
test ~ SC
Where: Mtest = mass of "as-tested" solid equivalent to the dry-material mass (g)
Mdry = mass of dry material specified in the method (g-dry)
SC = solids content of "as-tested" material (g-dry/g)
11.4.2 Label Column A of the schedule table with consecutive numbers for
the nine test positions (shown in Table 4 as "TXX" labels) and three method blanks (shown
in Table 4 as "BXX" labels).
11.4.3 Select the nine target pH points as shown in Table 5 and enter this
data into Column B of the schedule table. One of the nine target pH values should be with
no acid or base addition in order to record the natural pH of the material. The target pH
points shown in Table 5 allow for substitution of one optional target point if the natural pH
of the solid material falls within the tolerance of another designated target pH. For
example, if the natural pH is 11.8 and would satisfy the target pH of 12.0 ฑ 0.5, the
optional target point of
10.5 ฑ 0.5 should be included.
11.4.4 For each test position, determine the equivalents of acid or base
required to meet the target pH from the pre-test titration curve (see
Sec. 11.3). Enter this data into Column C of the schedule table. Interpolate intermediate
acid additions on the pre-test titration curve using linear interpolation or other regression
techniques.
NOTE: Linear interpolation will have some inherent error, which may result in an extract
pH that falls outside of the target pH tolerance. Additional pre-test points
interpolating or extrapolating from the pre-test schedule in Table 3 may be
necessary to provide adequate resolution of the titration curve.
1313-11 December 2009
-------
11.4.5 Enter the acid volumes in Column D and base volumes in Column E
of the schedule after converting the equivalents of acid and base to volume as follows:
Va/b=nc
INa/b
Where: Va/b = volume of acid or base to be entered in the schedule table (ml)
Eqa/b = equivalents of acid or base selected for the target pH as
determined from the pre-test titration curve (meq/g)
Ng/b = normality of the acid or base solution (meq/mL)
11.4.6 In Column F of the schedule table, calculate the volume of moisture
contained in the "as tested" sample as follows:
Vw,sample
Mtestx(l-SC)
Where: VWsampie = volume of water in the "as tested" sample (ml)
Mtest = mass of the "as tested" sample (g)
SC = solids content of the "as tested" sample (g-dry/g)
pw = density of water (1.0 g/mL at room temperature)
11.4.7 In Column G of the schedule table, calculate the volume of reagent
water required to bring each extraction to a LS ratio of 10 mL/g-dry solid as follows:
VRW = Mdry X LS - Vw samp|e - Va/b
Where: VRW = volume of reagent water required to complete LS ratio (ml)
Mdry = dry mass equivalent of solid sample (g)
LS = liquid-to-dry-solid ratio (10 mL/g)
Vw.sampie = volume of water in "as used" sample (ml)
Va/b = volume of acid or base for the extraction recipe (ml)
11.4.8 Method Blanks
In the schedule table, include three additional extractions for processing method
blanks. Method blanks extractions are performed using the same equipment, reagents,
and extraction process as the test positions, but without solid sample. The three method
blanks should include:
1313-12 December2009
-------
a) reagent water (B01 in Table 4);
b) reagent water + maximum volume of acid in the schedule (B02 in Table 4);
and
c) reagent water + maximum volume of base in the schedule (603 in Table 4).
NOTE: If multiple materials or replicate tests are carried out in parallel, only one set of
method blanks is necessary.
11.4.9 Schedule formulation using Excel template
The "Test Data" worksheet in the provided Excel template may be used to
automatically calculate a schedule of acid and base additions, as well as to plot the
response eluate pH and conductivity as a function of acid addition. Mandatory input data
for the template includes:
a) particle size of the "as tested" material (see Sec. 11.1);
b) solid content of the "as tested" material (see Sec. 11.2); and
c) nine acid/base additions determined from the pre-test titration curve with
respect to target pH values designated in Table 5.
Subsequent to the extraction procedure, eluate pH, conductivity, and oxidation/reduction
potential (optional) for up to three replicates may be entered and plotted as a function of acid
added.
12.0 EXTRACTION PROCEDURE
Use the schedule of acid and base additions (Sec. 11.4) as a guide to set up nine test
extractions and three method blanks as follows:
12.1 Label nine bottles with test position numbers and three bottles with method blank
labels according to the schedule of acid and base additions (see
Column A in Table 4).
12.2 Use the extraction parameters in Table 1 to identify the recommended dry-mass
equivalent associated with the particle size of the "as tested" sample. Calculate and record the
amount of "as tested" material equivalent to the identified dry mass from Table 1 as follows:
M
test gc
Where: Mtest = mass of "as tested" solid equivalent to g of dry material (g)
Mdry = mass of dry material specified in method (g)
SC = solids content of "as tested" material (g/g)
12.3 Place the dry equivalent mass (ฑ 0.1 g) of the "as tested" sample, calculated
above, into each of the nine test position extraction vessels.
1313-13 December 2009
-------
NOTE: Do NOT put solid material in the method blank extraction vessels.
12.4 Add the appropriate volume of reagent water (ฑ 5% of target value) to both the
test position and method blank extraction vessels, as specified in the schedule for the LS ratio
makeup (see Column G in Table 4).
12.5 Add the appropriate volume of acid or base (ฑ 1% of target value) to each vessel,
using a continuously adjustable pipettor, as designated in the schedule for acid/base addition (see
Column D and Column E in Table 4).
12.6 Tighten the leak-proof lid on each bottle and tumble all extractions
(i.e., test positions and method blanks) in an end-over-end fashion at a speed of 28 ฑ 2
rpm at room temperature (20 ฑ 2 ฐC). The contact time for this method will vary depending on the
sample particle size as shown in Table 1.
NOTE: The length of the contact time is designed to enhance the approach toward liquid-solid
equilibrium. Longer contact times are required for larger particles to compensate for the
effects of intra-particle diffusion. See Table 1 for recommended contact times based on
particle size.
12.7 Remove the extraction vessels from the rotary tumbler and clarify the extractants
by allowing the bottles to stand for 15 ฑ 5 min. Alternately, centrifuge the extraction vessels at
4000 ฑ 100 rpm for 10 ฑ 2 min.
12.8 For each extract vessel, decant a minimum volume (~ 5 ml_) of clear,
unpreserved supernatant into a clean container.
12.9 Measure and record the pH, specific conductivity, and oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP) (optional, but strongly recommended) of the extracts (see Methods 9040, 9045,
and 9050).
12.10 Separate the solid from the remaining liquid in each extraction vessel by pressure
or vacuum filtration through a clean 0.45-um pore size membrane (Sec. 6.5). The filtration
apparatus may be exchanged for a clean apparatus as often as necessary until all liquid has been
filtered.
NOTE: If COPCs which might be lost under vacuum (e.g., mercury) are suspected, the samples
should be pressure-filtered using an inert gas (e.g., nitrogen or argon).
12.11 Immediately, preserve and store the volume(s) of eluate required for chemical
analysis. Preserve all analytical samples in a manner that is consistent with the determinative
chemical analyses to be performed.
1313-14 December2009
-------
13.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND CALCULATIONS (EXCEL TEMPLATE PROVIDED)
13.1 Data reporting
13.1.1 Figure 5 shows an example of a data sheet that may be used to
report the concentration results of this method. This example is included in the Excel
template. At a minimum, the basic test report should include:
a) Name of the laboratory
b) Laboratory technical contact information
c) Date at the start of the test
d) Name or code of the solid material
e) Particle size (85 wt% less than)
f) Type of acid and/or base used in test
g) Extraction contact time (h)
h) Ambient temperature during extraction (ฐC)
i) Eluate specific information (see Sec. 13.1.2 below)
13.1.2 The minimum set of data that should be reported for each eluate
includes:
a) Eluate sample ID
b) Mass of "as tested" solid material used (g)
c) Moisture content of material used (gH2o/g)
d) Volume (mL) and normality (N) of acid and/or base used
e) Volume of water added (mL)
f) Target pH
g) Measured final eluate pH
h) Measured eluate conductivity (mS/cm)
I) Measured ORP (mV) (optional)
j) Concentrations of all COPCs
k) Analytical QC qualifiers as appropriate
13.2 Data interpretation (optional)
13.2.1 Acid/base neutralization curve
Plot the pH of each extract as a function of the equivalents of acid or base added
per dry gram of material to generate an acid/base neutralization curve.
NOTE: For materials in which both acid and base were used, equivalents of base can be
presented as the opposite sign of acid equivalents (i.e., 5 meq/g-dry of base would
correspond to -5 meq/g-dry of acid).
The titration curve can be interpreted as showing the amount of acid or base that
is needed to shift the pH of the subject material. This is helpful when evaluating field
scenarios where the pH of leachates is not buffered by the acidity or alkalinity of the solid
material.
13.2.2 LSP curve
1313-15 December 2009
-------
An LSP curve can be generated for each COPC following chemical analyses of
all extracts by plotting the target analyte concentration in the liquid phase as a function of
the measured extract pH for each extract. As an example, Figure 6 illustrates the LSP
curves for arsenic and selenium from a coal combustion fly ash and indicates the limits of
quantitation (shown as ML and MDL) and the natural concentration response.
13.2.2.1 The lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) of the
determinative method for each COPC may be shown as a horizontal line. COPC
concentrations below this line indicate negligible or non-quantitative
concentrations.
NOTE: The lower limit of quantitation is highly matrix dependent and should be
determined as part of a QA/QC plan.
13.2.2.2 Natural response is defined as the eluate pH and COPC
concentration measured when the solid material is extracted with reagent water
at an LS ratio of 10 mL/g-dry. The natural response values can be shown on the
LSP curve as a vertical line from the x-axis (at the replicate average natural pH)
intersected with a horizontal line (at the replicate average COPC concentration).
Alternatively, the natural response can be indicated in results using a different
symbol from other results.
13.2.2.3 The values on the curve indicate the eluate
concentration of the constituent of interest at an LS of 10 mL/g-dry over a pH
range. The shape of the LSP curve is indicative of the speciation of the COPC in
the solid phase with four characteristic LSP curve shapes (i.e., relative locations
of maxima and minima) presented schematically in Figure 7.
Cationic Species (e.g., Cd) The LSP curve of cationic species
typically has a maximum concentration in the acidic pH range that decreases to
lower values at alkaline pH.
Amphoteric Species (e.g., Pb, Cr(lll), Cu.) The LSP curves tend to
be similar in shape to cationic LSP curves with greater concentrations in the
acidic pH range. However, the concentrations pass through a minimum in the
near neutral to slightly acid pH range only to increase again for alkaline pH
values. Typically, the increase at high pH is due to the solubility of hydroxide
complexes (e.g., [Pb(OH3)]").
Oxyanionic Species (e.g. [AsO4]", [SeO4]", [MnO4]") The LSP
curves often show maxima in the neutral to slightly alkaline range.
Highly Soluble Species (e.g., Na+, K+, CI") The LSP curve is only a weak
function of pH.
The idealized LSP curves in Figure 7 can be compared with the
general shape of the test data to infer the speciation of the COPC in the solid
matrix. Concentration results from this method may be simulated with
geochemical speciation models to infer the mineral phases, adsorption reactions,
and soluble complexes that control the release of the COPC (see Ref. 1).
1313-16 December2009
-------
14.0 METHOD PERFORMANCE
14.1 Performance data and related information are provided in SW-846 methods only
as examples and guidance. The data do not represent required performance criteria for users of
the methods. Instead, performance criteria should be developed on a project-specific basis, and
the laboratory should establish in-house QC performance criteria for the application of this
method. These performance data are not intended to be and must not be used as absolute QC
acceptance criteria for purposes of laboratory accreditation.
14.2 Refs. 2 and 3 may provide additional guidance and insight on the use,
performance and application of this method.
15.0 POLLUTION PREVENTION
15.1 Pollution prevention encompasses any technique that reduces or eliminates the
quantity and/or toxicity of waste at the point of generation. Numerous opportunities for pollution
prevention exist in laboratory operations. The EPA has established a preferred hierarchy of
environmental management techniques that places pollution prevention as the management
option of first choice. Whenever feasible, laboratory personnel should use pollution prevention
techniques to address their waste generation. When wastes cannot be feasibly reduced at the
source, the Agency recommends recycling as the next best option.
15.2 For information about pollution prevention that may be applicable to laboratories
and research institutions consult Less is Better: Laboratory Chemical Management for Waste
Reduction available from the American Chemical Society's Department of Government Relations
and Science Policy, 1155 16th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036, http://www.acs.org.
16.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Environmental Protection Agency requires that laboratory waste management
practices be conducted consistent with all applicable rules and regulations. The Agency urges
laboratories to protect the air, water, and land by minimizing and controlling all releases from
hoods and bench operations, complying with the letter and spirit of any sewer discharge permits
and regulations, and by complying with all solid and hazardous waste regulations, particularly the
hazardous waste identification rules and land disposal restrictions. For further information on
waste management, consult The Waste Management Manual for Laboratory Personnel available
from the American Chemical Society at the address listed in Sec. 14.2.
17.0 REFERENCES
1. H. A. van derSloot, P.F.A.B. Seignette, J.C.L Meeussen, O. Hjelmarand D.S. Kosson,
(2008), "A Database, Speciation Modeling and Decision Support Tool for Soil, Sludge,
Sediments, Wastes and Construction Products: LeachXS-
ORCHESTRA," in Venice 2008: Second International Symposium on Energy from
Biomass and Waste, Venice, Italy, 17-20 November 2008 (also see www.leachinq.com).
1313-17 December 2009
-------
2. D.S. Kosson, H.A. van der Sloot, F. Sanchez and A.C. Garrabrants, (2002), "An Integrated
Framework for Evaluating Leaching in Waste Management and Utilization of Secondary
Materials," Environmental Engineering Science, 19(3) 159-204.
3. D.S. Kosson, A.C. Garrabrants, H.A. van der Sloot (2009) "Background Information for the
Development of Leaching Test Draft Methods 1313 through Method 1316", (in
preparation).
4. F. Sanchez, R. Keeney, D. Kosson, and R. DeLapp, (2006), "Characterization of Mercury-
Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for
Mercury Control," EPA-600/R-06/008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
5. USEPA (2006) Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from
Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control, EPA-600/R-06/008,
February 2006.
6. USEPA (2008) Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using
Wet Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control, EPA-600/R-08/077, July 2008.
7. USEPA (2009) Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities -
Leaching and Characterization Data, EPA-600/R-09/151, December 2009.
18.0 TABLES, DIAGRAMS, FLOWCHARTS, AND VALIDATION DATA
The following pages contain the tables and figures referenced by this method.
1313-18 December 2009
-------
TABLE 1
EXTRACTION PARAMETERS AS FUNCTION OF MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE
Particle Size
(85 wt% less than)
(mm)
0.3
2.0
5.0
US Sieve
Size
50
10
4
Minimum Dry
Mass
(g-dry)
20 ฑ 0.02
40 ฑ 0.02
80 ฑ 0.02
Contact Time
(h)
24 ฑ2
48 ฑ2
72 ฑ2
Suggested Vessel
Size
(mL)
250
500
1000
TABLE 2
MATERIAL NEUTRALIZATION CLASSIFICATIONS
Neutralization
Classification
Low Alkalinity
Material Types
soils; sediments; CCR fly ash; CCR bottom ash; coal milling rejects;
MSWI fly ash, MSWI bottom ash; sewage sludge amended soil
Moderate Alkalinity soils; wood preserving waste; MSWI bottom ash; steel slag; electric
arc furnace dust; MSW compost; nickel sludge; Portland cement
mortar
High Alkalinity
Portland cement clinker; steel blast furnace slag, solidified waste (fly
ash, blast furnace slag, Portland cement)
NOTE: CCR = Coal combustion residue
MSWI = Municipal solid waste incinerator
1313-19
December 2009
-------
TABLE 3
PRE-TEST TITRATION: ACID EQUIVALENT SCHEDULE
Neutralization Classification
Low Alkalinity
Moderate Alkalinity
High Alkalinity
Equivalents of Acid (meq/g-dry)
Bottle 1
-2.0
-2.0
0
Bottle 2
-1.0
0
5.0
Bottle 3
0
2.0
10.0
Bottle 4
1.0
5.0
15.0
Bottle 5
2.0
10.0
25.0
NOTE: 1) Base additions shown as opposite sign of acid equivalents.
2) Additional pre-test point(s) interpolating or extrapolating from the pre-test schedule
may be necessary to provide adequate resolution in the titration curve.
TABLE 4
EXAMPLE SCHEDULE OF ACID AND BASE ADDITIONS
A
Test
position
T01
T02
T03
T04
T05
T06
T07
T08
T09
B01
B02
603
B
Target
extract
PH
13.0
12.0
10.5
9.0
8.0
Natural
5.5
4.0
2.0
QA/QC
QA/QC
QA/QC
C
Equivalents
of Acid
(meq/g-dry)
-1.10
-0.75
-0.38
-0.15
-0.05
0
0.12
0.90
3.10
0
3.10
-1.10
D
Volume of
2N HNO3
(mL)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.20
9.00
31.0
-
31.0
-
E
Volume of
1N KOH
(mL)
22.0
15.0
7.60
3.0
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
22.0
F
Volume of
moisture in
sample
(mL)
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
-
-
-
G
Volume of
reagent water
(mL)
176
183
190
195
197
198
197
189
167
200
169
178
NOTE: 1) This schedule is based on "as tested" sample mass of 22.2ฑ0.1 g (i.e., equivalent
"as tested" mass for a 20.0 g-dry sample at a solids content of 0.90 g-dry/g).
2) In this example, the natural pH is assumed to be 7.0ฑ0.5.
3) Test positions marked B01, B02, and BOS are method blanks of reagent water,
reagent water + maximum acid addition, and reagent water + maximum base
addition, respectively.
Data modified from Ref. 2.
1313-20
December 2009
-------
TABLE 5
FINAL EXTRACT PH TARGETS
pH Target
variable
2.0ฑ0.5
4.0ฑ0.5
5.5ฑ0.5
7.0ฑ0.5
8.0ฑ0.5
9.0ฑ0.5
12.0ฑ0.5
13.0ฑ0.5
10.5ฑ0.5
Rationale
Natural pH at LS 10 mL/g-dry (no acid/base addition)
Provides estimates of total or available COPC content
Lower pH limit of typical management scenario
Typical lower range of industrial waste landfills
Neutral pH region; high release of oxyanions
Endpoint pH of carbonated alkaline materials
Minimum of LSP curve for many cationic and amphoteric COPCs
Maximum in alkaline range for LSP curves of amphoteric COPCs
Upper bound (field conditions) for amphoteric COPCs
Substitution if natural pH falls within range of a mandatory target
1313-21
December 2009
-------
FIGURE 1
METHOD FLOWCHART
te material at
appropriate
particle size?
Solids/Moisture Content
(Section 11.2)
Acid/Base Addition
Schedule {Section 11.3)
Particle Size Reduction
(Section 11.1)
Pre-Test Titration
{Section 11.3.1}
1
Is extract pH
with in target
(Table 51?
Extraction Procedure
(Section 11.2)
Acid/Base Addition
LeachatEpH.EC, Eh
Sample Preservation
Documentation
and Graphing
Extract Analysis
1313-22
December 2009
-------
FIGURE 2
EXAMPLE TITRATION CURVES FOR SELECTED "LOW ALKALINITY" WASTES
l*t -
to
I/
10 -
Q.
o
1 8
i
6 -
4 -
_
-
J
-
3
L
2
1 l
1 1
i
y^BJ~l /^ nc
A '^FAiKtrTY |
3|[ A
A oฃk
IW O A
ytL I
^^ A
A MJ
^SJ ' A i ^
A |A*n D
A ^ a '-'B n
l l
A
AAA , D A
1 1
A A
i l
i i
1 l
i , . , i
101;
I 2
Acid Added [meq/g-dry]
0 Wood Preserving Soil
HarborSediment2
A Coal Fly Ash
nsoil
DHarborSedimentS
A Coal Milling Rejects
DZincSoil
0 MSWI Bottom Ash
A Coal Bottom Ash
DSewage Amended Soil
ซ MSWI Bottom Ash 2
A Coal Fly Ash
Some data taken LeachXS database (Ref. 1).
1313-23
December 2009
-------
TO
J3
LU
FIGURES
EXAMPLE TITRATION CURVES FOR SELECTED "MODERATE ALKALINITY" WASTES
It
12 -
in .
TU
8 -
6 -
2 -
l
1 >
1 1
<
I
%
] o
3 O
1
3^
ua <ฅ
vปk
, ~~ ~" ~" ~
) ;
0
o
o
c
1
*
oo
( ,
I i
-
f~\
Q
*
0
1
c
;
o
0
MI
'
A
00 <
0
._._.
6 i
*
J 1
0
0 1
Wood Preserving Soil
*MSW Com post
o Steel Slag
Acid Added [meq/g-dry]
DHarborSedimentS
OMSWI Bottom Ash 3
ArcFurnace Dust (K061)
Some data taken from LeachXS database (Ref. 1).
1313-24
o MSW Sewage Sludge 2
0 Dried Nickel Sludge
Cement Mortar
December 2009
-------
FIGURE 4
EXAMPLE TITRATION CURVES FOR SELECTED "HIGH ALKALINITY" WASTES
It
12 -
in -
1 U
I
Q. Q .
O
i
LJJ R
UJ j-j
n -
c
:
.
-
:
.
? ฐ
A
c
[
A A
1
,
:
D D
^ A
^^ A
ป
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D i
i
!
ฐ . i
D
8
i
I
i
L , , , ,
-5
10
15
20
25
.BlastFurnace Slag 2
Acid Added [meq/g-dry]
c Portland CernentClinker Solidified Waste Simulant
Some data taken from LeachXS database (Ref. 1).
30
1313-25
December 2009
-------
FIGURES
EXAMPLE DATA REPORT FORMAT
ABC Laboratories
123 Main Street
Anytown, USA
Contact: John Smith
(555) 111-1111
EPA METHOD 1313
Report of Analysis
Client Contact: Susan Jones
(555) 222-2222
Material Code: XYZ
Material Type: Coal Combustion Fly Ash
Test
Position
T01
Test
Position
T02
Date Received: 10/1/20xx
Test Date: 11/1/20xx
Report Date: 12/1/20xx
Replicate
A
Eluate Sample ID
Solid Material
Moisture Content
Water Added
Acid Added
Acid Strength
Base Added
Base Strength
Target pH
Eluate pH
Eluate Conductivity
Eluate ORP
Chemical Analysis
Al
As
Cl
Replicate
A
Eluate Sample ID
Solid Material
Moisture Content
Water Added
Acid Added
Acid Strength
Base Added
Base Strength
Target pH
Eluate pH
Eluate Conductivity
Eluate ORP
Chemical Analysis
Al
As
Cl
Value
Units
Particle Size:
Contact Time:
Lab Temperature:
Acid Used:
Base Used:
Method
88% passing 2-mm sieve
48 hours
21 ฑ 2 ฐC
Nitric acid
Sodium hydroxide
Note
XYZ-1313-T01-A
40.0
0.01
386.0
14.0
2.0
-
1.0
2.0 ฑ0.5
1.89
12.6
203
Value
216.0
0.64
<4.13
Value
g
g
gH2o/g
ml
ml
N
ml
-
-
mS/c
mv
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Units
EPA 9040
EPA 9050
QC
Flag Method
EPA 6020
EPA 6020
U EPA 9056
Method
Date
11/7/20xx
11/7/20xx
11/9/20xx
Note
Dilution
Factor
1000
10
1
XYZ-1313-T02-A
40.0
0.01
400.0
14.0
2.0
-
1.0
4.0 ฑ 0.5
3.86
0.99
180
Value
449.0
0.979
<4.13
g
g
gH2o/g
ml
ml
N
ml
-
-
mS/c
mv
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
EPA 9040
EPA 9050
QC
Flag Method
EPA 6020
EPA 6020
U EPA 9056
Natural pH
Date
11/7/20xx
11/7/20xx
11/7/20xx
Dilution
Factor
1000
10
1
QC Flag Key: U Value below lower limit of quantitation as reported (< "LLOQ")
1313-26
December 2009
-------
Appendix C
Solid Characterization
(Organic Carbon Content, Elemental Carbon Content, Total Carbon
Content, Loss on Ignition, Moisture Content, and Pore Size Distribution)
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection C-l
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs C-3
Spray Dryer with Fabric Filter (Fly Ash and FGD collected together) C-4
Gypsum, Unwashed and Washed C-5
Scrubber Sludge C-9
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed) C-ll
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed) C-13
Filter Cake C-13
C-i
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Organic Elemental Total
Carbon Carbon Carbon
Loss on Surface
Ignition Moisture Area
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
m2/g
Brayton Point
Facility F
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Salem Harbor
Facility G
Facility A
Facility L
Facility C
BPB
FFA
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
SHB
GFA
AFA
LAB
GAB
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
BML
1.63
BML
0.10
0.43
0.04
BML
0.27
0.11
0.05
0.10
2.22
2.52
1.38
3.55
1.51
0.07
7.82
2.47
9.03
5.51
7.66
2.25
4.15
1.41
3.65
1.93
0.11
7.84
2.74
9.15
5.56
7.75
5.5
7.7
6.2
5.3
5.3
0.4
21.0
1.6
17.6
12.3
18.0
0.2
0.2
4.7
1.6
3.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
8.5
0.9
BML
6.5
6.4
2.4
2.6
5.7
1.0
28.0
4.4
13.9
8.2
15.3
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility E
Facility W
Facility E
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
EFB
WFA
EFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
DaFA
AaFC
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
-Troana
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.59
0.21
0.66
0.31
0.13
0.40
0.83
1.33
1.18
7.74
2.32
6.09
7.40
0.08
8.02
12.6
4.23
3.03
8.33
2.53
6.74
7.72
0.21
8.42
13.4
5.56
4.22
16.0
5.3
5.3
19.5
1.6
7.9
11.0
2.3
6.5
2.0
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
BML
BML
BML
BML
6.1
2.2
1.0
4.5
1.3
1.6
4.9
0.5
1.7
BML - below method limit (not detected)
C-l
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Organic Elemental Total
Carbon Carbon Carbon
Loss on Surface
Ignition Moisture Area
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, High S
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
m2/g
Facility E
Facility H
EFC
HFA
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
0.05
0.25
2.14
0.69
2.20
0.94
4.3
6.7
0.3
0.3
5.2
1.0
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
Facility!
Facility Z
Facility X
PPB
JAB
ZFA
ZFB
XFA
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
1.00
0.92
0.11
0.25
0.13
BML
0.14
0.05
0.25
0.16
1.00
1.06
0.16
0.6
0.4
0.6
6.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.8
2.5
0.5
0.8
2.2
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
-Troana
0.27
0.31
0.59
2.4
BML
0.5
BML - below method limit (not detected)
C-2
-------
Facility
Sample PM
ID Capture
Hg
NOx Sorbent SO3
Control Injection Control
Organic Elemental Total
Carbon Carbon Carbon
Loss on Surface
Ignition Moisture Area
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Bituminous, Low S (Class F)
m2/g
Brayton Point
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Salem Harbor
Facility L
Facility L
Facility C
Facility C
BPB
BPT
SHB
SHT
LAB
LAT
GAB
GAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
HSESP
HS ESP w/
CO HP AC
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
SOFA
None
None
None
PAC
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
PAC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
BML
0.12
BML
BML
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.25
2.22
12.89
7.82
11.2
5.51
5.83
7.66
24.2
2.25
13.01
7.84
11.2
5.56
5.92
7.75
24.4
5.5
12.0
21.0
25.0
12.3
12.4
18.0
36.3
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.9
BML
BML
0.5
6.5
92.0
28.0
36.0
8.2
27.0
15.3
36.6
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
Pleasant Prairie
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
St. Clair
PPB
PPT
JAB
JAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
BML
BML
0.25
3.57
0.13
2.61
0.25
3.58
0.16
2.65
0.6
3.5
0.4
3.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
BML
1.8
23.0
2.5
24.9
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba
BaFA
CS hSP w/
COHPAC
Ammonia
Inj.
PAC
None
0.31
0.27
0.57
1.3
BML
0.6
BML - below method limit (not detected)
C-3
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Organic Elemental Total
Carbon Carbon Carbon
Loss on Surface
Ignition Moisture Area
m2/g
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected together)
Sub-bituminous
Facility V
Facility Y
VSD
YSD
Fabric F.
Fabric F.
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
0.44
2.13
0.01
2.12
0.45
4.25
2.6
4.0
0.9
0.8
6.3
14.7
BML - below method limit (not detected)
C-4
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Organic
Carbon
Elemental
Carbon
Total
Carbon
Loss on
Ignition
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, Low S
| Facility U
UAU
|Gyp-U
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone None
2.27
0.42
2.69
3.7
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
!AU
!AW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR &
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
DuctSorbent
inj. -!roana
DuctSorbent
inj. -!roana
None
None
None
None
1.53
4.14
2.26
3.08
4.85
2.68
0.73
0.12
0.11
0.16
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.56
BML
1.64
4.30
2.34
3.16
4.95
2.74
1.28
0.12
5.2
7.7
15.4
5.3
1.9
2.7
7.7
2.8
BML - below method limit (not detected)
c-5
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control Moisture
Surface
Area
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, Low S
m2/g
| Facility U
UAU
|Gyp-U
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone None
25.8
4.4
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
!AU
!AW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR &
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
DuctSorbent
inj. -!roana
DuctSorbent
inj. -!roana
None
None
None
None
38.2
25.6
38.3
25.9
26.0
26.0
24.4
7.5
9.8
11.0
4.3
7.5
9.1
8.4
3.3
11.3
BML - below method limit (not detected)
c-6
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Organic
Carbon
Elemental
Carbon
Total
Carbon
Loss on
Ignition
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility O
Facility O
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.55
0.51
1.77
1.10
2.50
2.31
BML
BML
0.21
0.11
0.43
BML
0.55
0.51
1.99
1.21
2.93
2.35
9.2
2.1
5.0
4.7
20.4
3.9
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
HSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
2.93
0.87
3.65
1.04
0.04
BML
BML
1.30
2.98
0.91
3.65
2.34
4.8
6.1
2.2
4.6
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gyp-U
CSESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
DuctSorbent
inj. -Troana
1.64
BML
1.64
4.8
BML - below method limit (not detected)
c-7
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control Moisture
Surface
Area
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
m2/g
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility O
Facility O
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
27.8
28.0
27.9
23.4
21.3
21.3
9.9
3.9
19.7
20.5
7.6
3.4
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
HSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
26.5
12.8
34.6
22.9
15.1
22.0
2.2
2.7
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gyp-U
CSESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
DuctSorbent
inj. -Troana
38.2
5.3
BML - below method limit (not detected)
c-8
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Organic
Carbon
Elemental
Carbon
Total
Carbon
Loss on
Ignition
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BGD
AGO
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
0.14
0.12
0.22
0.35
0.30
0.27
0.93
0.10
0.44
0.39
1.15
0.45
9.3
22.1
9.6
15.5
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
Scrubber
sludge
CSESP
None
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
None
0.49
0.22
0.71
8.6
BML - below method limit (not detected)
c-9
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control Moisture
Surface
Area
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, Low S
m2/g
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BGD
AGO
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
8.9
21.7
8.5
15.1
17.5
16.6
22.7
14.5
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
Scrubber
sludge
CSESP
None
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
None
45.3
47.3
BML - below method limit (not detected)
c-io
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Organic
Carbon
Elemental
Carbon
Total
Carbon
Loss on
Ignition
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
0.17
BML
0.17
0.57
0.91
3.93
0.49
8.73
1.08
3.98
0.66
9.30
7.6
8.9
14.6
14.0
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
Facility M
Facility M
KCC
MAD
MAS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
Natural Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
0.58
0.98
0.60
0.26
0.35
BML
0.85
1.33
0.61
5.6
7.1
7.7
BML - below method limit (not detected)
c-n
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control Moisture
Surface
Area
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
m2/g
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
6.5
4.9
13.9
4.7
3.5
4.9
14.5
10.2
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
Facility M
Facility M
KCC
MAD
MAS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
Natural Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
51.4
32.1
27.2
13.3
20.7
7.4
BML - below method limit (not detected)
C-12
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Organic
Carbon
Elemental
Carbon
Total
Carbon
Loss on
Ignition
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
[Facility U
UGF
Other
CSESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
None
4.13
0.18
4.32
3.6
Filter Cake
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility W
Facility Da
TFC
WFC
DaFC
Other
Other
Other
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
None
2.43
9.05
2.01
1.03
1.01
0.39
3.46
10.1
2.41
12.6
17.7
6.1
Sub-bituminous
[Facility X
XFC
Other
CSESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
None
6.13
1.00
7.13
18.7
BML - below method limit (not detected)
C-13
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control Moisture
Surface
Area
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
m2/g
[Facility U
UGF
Other
CSESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
None
11.8
7.0
Filter Cake
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility W
Facility Da
TFC
WFC
DaFC
Other
Other
Other
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
None
66.3
33.4
40.2
25.0
9.9
22.0
Sub-bituminous
[Facility X
XFC
Other
CSESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
None
55.2
35.7
BML - below method limit (not detected)
C-14
-------
Appendix D
Total Content by Digestion
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection D-l
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs D-5
Spray Dryer with Fabric Filter (Fly Ash and FGD collected together) D-5
Gypsum, Unwashed and Washed D-7
Scrubber Sludge D-9
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed) D-9
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed) D-ll
Filter Cake D-ll
D-i
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Al
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
Brayton Point
Facility F
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Salem Harbor
Facility G
Facility A
Facility L
Facility C
BPB
FFA
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
SHE
GFA
AFA
LAB
GAB
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
105900
138200
109400
92200
NA
NA
127100
NA
NA
81
NA
90
88
82
42
26
NA
71
20
94
NA
NA
1360
1361
1461
2143
NA
NA
1016
NA
NA
BML
NA
0.70
1.0
090
14
NA
NA
1.3
0.4
NA
NA
NA
21
49
24
22
NA
NA
55
NA
NA
NA
NA
169
151
192
214
NA
NA
152
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
15
11
77
NA
NA
17
NA
NA
117
NA
36
69
47
55
25
NA
81
45
56
NA
NA
2.8
8.2
3.6
6.3
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
51
NA
2.9
22
2.5
3.8
42
NA
26
4
BML
Bituminous, Med S
Facility T
Facility E
hacility W
Facility E
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
EFB
WhA
EFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
Da FA
AaFC
CS ESP
CSESP
Cb hbP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
None
SCR-BP
bCK-BP
SCR
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- IIUdMd
None
None
None
None
None
None
93100
NA
IJObOO
NA
123200
85200
82000
103600
83200
155
NA
32
NA
85
31
36
58
73
839
NA
1223
NA
585
935
900
1297
1113
0.92
NA
O./K
NA
1.0
052
0.68
0.77
0.76
27
NA
3K
NA
38
53
55
66
50
142
NA
122
NA
124
141
134
170
136
19
NA
11
NA
23
13
15
17
22
55
NA
4b
NA
93
55
60
72
74
5.5
NA
4.2
NA
6.0
4.1
5.2
7.0
11
9.0
NA
13
NA
4.8
17
30
13
1.1
BML - below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
D-l
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Tl
Hg
(7470)
Hg
(7473)
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
Brayton Point
Facility F
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Salem Harbor
Facility G
Facility A
Facility L
Facility C
BPB
FFA
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
SHE
GFA
AFA
LAB
GAB
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
HSESP
HS ESP w/
CO HP AC
None
None
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
4.5
3.2
4.7
13
NA
NA
3.8
NA
NA
0.65
NA
0.11
0.38
0.09
0.01
0.53
NA
0.60
0.01
0.02
0.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.57
NA
NA
NA
0.01
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility E
hacility W
Facility E
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
EFB
WhA
EFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
DaFA
AaFC
CSESP
CSESP
Cb hbP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
None
SCR-BP
bCK-BP
SCR
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- 1 [Udlld
None
None
None
None
None
None
6.0
NA
i.i
NA
13
2.0
2.2
2.3
4.4
0.59
NA
O.lb
NA
0.04
0.15
0.22
0.19
0.01
0.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.23
0.34
0.18
0.01
BML - below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
D-2
-------
Facility
Sample
ID
PM
Capture
NOx
Control
Hg
Sorbent
Injection
S03
Control
Al
mg/kg
As
mg/kg
Ba
mg/kg
Cd
mg/kg
Co
mg/kg
Cr
mg/kg
Mo
mg/kg
Pb
mg/kg
Sb
mg/kg
Se
mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, High S
Facility E
Facility H
EFC
HFA
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
Facility Z
Facility Z
Facility X
PPB
JAB
ZFA
ZFB
XFA
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
68600
73800
98900
21
43
17
22
36
NA
NA
6907
7034
6306
BML
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
NA
NA
34
31
29
NA
NA
70
74
129
NA
NA
8.4
9.4
22
42
46
41
55
51
NA
NA
2.5
3.0
4.2
BML
11
11
14
15
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
77200
22
955
1.7
21
oo
OO
19
56
6.2
8.6
BML - below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
D-3
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Tl
Hg
(7470)
Hg
(7473)
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, High S
Facility E
Facility H
EFC
HFA
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
Facility Z
Facility Z
Facility X
PPB
JAB
ZFA
ZFB
XFA
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
0.81
0.72
0.99
0.16
0.11
0.33
0.63
0.24
0.15
NA
0.35
0.61
0.46
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
1.5
0.08
0.10
BML - below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
D-4
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control Al
mg/kg
As
mg/kg
Ba
mg/kg
Cd
mg/kg
Co
mg/kg
Cr
mg/kg
Mo
mg/kg
Pb
mg/kg
Sb
mg/kg
Se
mg/kg
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Bituminous, Low S (Class F)
Brayton Point
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Salem Harbor
Facility L
Facility L
Facility C
Facility C
BPB
BPT
SHE
SHT
LAB
LAT
GAB
GAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
Hb bbP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
SOFA
None
None
None
PAC
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
PAC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81
28
26
26
20
19
94
506
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BML
BML
NA
NA
0.40
030
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
117
83
25
24
45
42
56
114
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
51
152
42
44
4.1
4.3
BML
206
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
Pleasant Prairie
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
St. Clair
PPB
PPT
JAB
JAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
24
43
41
NA
NA
NA
NA
BML
BML
1.4
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42
47
46
35
NA
NA
NA
NA
BML
BML
11
13
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba
BaFA
Lb bbK W/
COHPAC
BML - below method limit (not detected); NA -
Facility
Sample
ID
PM
Capture
Ammonia
Inj.
not analyzec
NOx
Control
PAC None
Hg
63800
19 2381 099 16 66
6.9 30 2.7 10
Sorbent SO3
Injection Control Al As Ba Cd Co Cr
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Mo Pb Sb Se
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected together)
Sub-bituminous
Facility V
Facility Y
VSD
YSD
Fabric F.
Fabric F.
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
58900
51100
22
11
272
511
1.0
0.98
16
18
51
48
7.1
9.6
25
23
2.2
0.10
16
6.3
BML - below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
D-5
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Tl
Hg Hg
(7470) (7473)
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Bituminous, Low S (Class F)
Brayton Point
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Salem Harbor
Facility L
Facility L
Facility C
Facility C
BPB
BPT
SHE
SHT
LAB
LAT
GAB
GAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
Hb bbP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
SOFA
None
None
None
PAC
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
PAC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.65
1.5
0.53
0.41
0.01
0.04
0.02
1.2
0.58
1.4
0.57
0.45
NA
NA
0.01
1.1
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
Pleasant Prairie
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
St. Clair
PPB
PPT
JAB
JAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.16
1.2
0.11
1.2
0.15
1.2
NA
NA
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba
BaFA
Lb bbK W/
COHPAC
Ammonia
Inj.
PAC None
1.2 0.48
0.69
BML - below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
Facility
Sample
ID
PM
Capture
NOx
Control
Hg
Sorbent SO3
Injection Control
Hg
Tl (7470)
mg/kg mg/kg
Hg
(7473)
mg/kg
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected tog<
Sub-bituminous
Facility V
Facility Y
VSD
YSD
Fabric F.
Fabric F.
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
0.60
0.45
0.18
0.32
0.35
0.47
BML - below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
D-6
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Al
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, LowS
[Facility U |UAU |Gyp-U |CS ESP |SCR [Forced Ox. [Limestone [None
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
!AU
!AW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
bCK &
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
None
None
None
None
2108
1836
335
411
959
951
950
12700
3.8
3.5
0.95
0.97
5.8
6.1
10
2.6
47
53
2.4
2.4
8.7
8.8
9.3
53
0.61
0.40
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.30
2.0
4.2
4.4
4.2
1.7
1.9
1.5
3.5
13
7.8
1.5
1.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
5.7
5.6
5.4
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
2.4
1.4
1.6
0.63
0.73
0.89
0.72
0.75
3.3
3.1
1.9
0.57
0.58
0.21
0.64
0.32
2.6
4.9
4.5
11
12
33
31
35
19
1.1
1.1
0.29
0.50
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.60
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA- not analyzed.
Facility
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control Al
mg/kg
As
mg/kg
Ba
mg/kg
Cd
mg/kg
Co
mg/kg
Cr
mg/kg
Mo
mg/kg
Pb
mg/kg
Sb
mg/kg
Se
mg/kg
Tl
mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility O
Facility O
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
8030
9836
1691
2176
456
11600
^..J
3.5
3.0
3.4
1.6
3.8
57
53
19
14
3.2
52
U.JU
0.40
0.56
0.43
0.30
0.40
t-.l
2.6
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.3
y.J.
18
9.8
20
17
8.3
H.U
3.7
4.8
8.1
3.1
4.6
^..H
5.5
3.0
3.4
0.90
12
^..H
2.1
5.1
3.0
1.6
1.9
Z..O
2.6
3.7
2.9
2.3
2.3
u./u
0.70
1.2
1.0
0.60
0.60
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
HSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
1270 2.1 67 0.50 2.1 5.8 5.0 2.6 8.2 3.2 1.0
3187
472
398
1.8
1.1
1.0
56
10
14
0.30
0.12
0.31
1.1
1.4
0.77
8.7
3.4
2.5
12
1.2
3.1
2.4
0.87
0.51
5.8
0.14
0.50
28.2
16
9.8
2.3
0.28
0.60
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gyp-U
CSESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
4595
3.1
19
0.12
2.5
7.7
3.7
3.3
0.46
46
0.28
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA- not analyzed.
D-7
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
S03 Control Hg (7470) Hg (7473)
mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, Low S
[Facility U
UAU
|Gyp-U
CS ESP SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone None
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
!AU
!AW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
bCK &
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
None
None
None
None
0.80
0.89
0.77
0.79
0.53
0.37
0.45
0.01
0.51
0.66
0.62
NA
0.63
0.49
0.43
NA
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA- not analyzed.
Facility
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control Hg(7470) Hg(7473)
mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility O
Facility O
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
U.JH
0.05
0.31
0.30
0.39
0.04
NA
NA
0.26
0.26
NA
NA
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
HSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
0.26 0.23
0.51
1.2
0.82
NA
2.0
0.94
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gyp-U
CSESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
1.8
3.1
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
-------
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
Facility ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control Al As Ba Cd Co Cr Mo Pb Sb Se Tl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, LowS
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BCD
AGO
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
scrubber
sludge
scrubber
sludge
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
12700
7969
198100
12700
10
3.6
23
7.3
76
82
2426
147
0.60
0.30
1.5
0.40
1.5
1.0
42
3.4
21
9.2
343
12
14
8.9
27
19
11
2.5
13
4.8
8.8
3.9
7.8
9.4
1.8
2.1
2.9
3.0
3.5
2.4
12
3.7
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
scrubber
sludge
CSESP
None
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
None
40300
41
243
0.8
13
49
26
26
13
4.2
4.6
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA- not analyzed.
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
Facility ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control Al As Ba Cd Co Cr Mo Pb Sb Se Tl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, LowS
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
HA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
HA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
35100
106500
29400
114000
16
72
4.3
56
370
1065
100
713
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.2
6.4
40
2.4
45
53
119
35
130
8.6
11
26
14
9.7
55
5.7
64
4.7
5.7
14
9.7
2.0
23
2.4
20
0.8
2.5
6.4
3.4
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
Facility M
Facility M
KCC
MAD
MAS
HA+SCS+
lime
HA+SCS+
lime
HA+SCS+
lime
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
Natural Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
30600
46500
44900
3.3
44
42
77
232
262
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.7
20
22
39
54
53
31
22
18
3.7
68
95
17
6.0
9.6
3.9
2.0
3.9
7.9
4.2
3.3
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA- not analyzed.
D-9
-------
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
Facility ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control Hg(7470) Hg(7473)
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BCD
AGO
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
scrubber
sludge
scrubber
sludge
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
mg/kg mg/kg
0.30
0.43
0.61
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
scrubber
sludge
CSESP
None
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
None
0.57
NA
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
Facility ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control Hg(7470) Hg(7473)
mg/kg mg/kg
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, LowS
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
HA+SCS+
ime
FA+ScS
HA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
0.20
0.39
0.41
0.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
Facility M
Facility M
KCC
MAD
MAS
HA+SCS+
lime
HA+SCS+
lime
HA+SCS+
lime
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
Natural Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
1.0
0.23
0.36
NA
NA
NA
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
D-10
-------
Facility
Sample
ID
Residue
type
PM
Capture
NOx
Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive SO3 Control Al As Ba Cd Co Cr Mo Pb Sb Se Tl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed)
Bituminous, LowS
Facility U
Filter Cake
Bituminous,
Facility!
Facility W
Facility Da
UGF
MedS
TFC
WFC
DaFC
Other
Other
Other
Other
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
None
SCR-BP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone None 13800 5.9 525 1.1
Limestone None 41700 89 867 3.4
Limestone Duct Sorbent in 4530 8.1 40 0.92
Limestone None 36100 230 406 1.1
11 46 9.9 6.4 1.5 2.6 0.98
29 118 22 24 8.2 168 2.5
10 15 7.5 13 2.0 215 0.62
31 105 15 52 5.2 1800 0.47
Sub-bituminous
Facility X
XFC
Other
CSESP
SCR
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA- not analyzed.
Forced Ox.
Limestone |None 22800 19 455 2.8
22 138 33 39 0.21 1127 1.6
D-ll
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet FGD
Scrubber Scrubber
type additive SO3 Control Hg (7470) Hg (7473)
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
mg/kg mg/kg
[Facility U
UGF
Forced Ox. Limestone
Filter Cake
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility W
Facility Da
TFC
WFC
DaFC
Other
Other
Other
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Duct Sorbent in
None
27
9.2
37
8.6
10
34
Sub-bituminous
[Facility X
XFC
lOther
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
BML- below method limit (not detected); NA - not analyzed.
D-12
-------
Appendix E
Total Content by XRF
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection E-l
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs E-7
Spray Dryer with Fabric Filter (Fly Ash and FGD collected together) E-10
Gypsum, Unwashed and Washed E-13
Scrubber Sludge E-19
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed) E-22
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed) E-25
Filter Cake E-25
E-i
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control Al
mg/kg
Ba
mg/kg
C
mg/kg
Ca
mg/kg
Cl
mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
Brayton Point
Facility F
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Salem Harbor
Facility G
Facility A
Facility L
Facility C
BPB
FFA
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
SHE
GFA
AFA
LAB
GAB
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
150450
150450
109975
128125
108433
114850
120250
152717
114425
131900
122475
755
1145
1223
1240
1280
2130
812
1031
956
652
2058
22500
41500
14600
36900
19300
1100
78000
27400
91500
122800
180000
46870
6004
31075
36050
34050
33450
12265
5848
35275
3283
20700
184
191
295
6103
440
295
660
262
5418
389
373
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility E
Facility W
Facility E
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
EFB
WFA
EFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
DaFA
AaFC
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
-Troana
None
None
None
None
None
None
134025
150775
140950
136300
124250
138800
133600
148400
156300
1010
1630
741
1285
582
1111
1061
1366
1281
83300
25200
67400
76900
2100
84200
134300
55600
42200
14293
6523
9692
6948
14150
5682
6032
6835
14265
344
132
2120
758
BML
1538
391
163
611
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-l
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control F
mg/kg
Fe
mg/kg
K
mg/kg
Mg
mg/kg
Na
mg/kg
P
mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
Brayton Point
Facility F
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Salem Harbor
Facility G
Facility A
Facility L
Facility C
BPB
FFA
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
SHE
GFA
AFA
LAB
GAB
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
32185
32653
111000
52025
107817
98965
42935
29617
46750
23850
74325
12930
21750
18700
20950
19600
26605
10415
21213
16700
22650
18400
7339
5061
7735
9313
8688
6392
7330
4919
8345
5838
6790
9736
1898
6625
3617
7242
7592
5299
1849
3753
1335
3743
1513
517
1703
1373
2353
2725
940
451
1223
262
3028
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility E
Facility W
Facility E
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
EFB
WFA
EFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
DaFA
AaFC
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
-Troana
None
None
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
98210
41425
47520
56200
161175
29870
29840
31995
62910
16053
24700
17138
21500
15800
17020
15425
21625
19570
4085
6248
3545
4948
5898
3655
3579
4657
4733
4030
2418
18945
2348
2588
2193
1802
2379
4811
1416
731
880
768
1083
532
613
1074
723
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-2
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control S
mg/kg
Si
mg/kg
Sr
mg/kg
Ti
mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
Brayton Point
Facility F
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Salem Harbor
Facility G
Facility A
Facility L
Facility C
BPB
FFA
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
SHE
GFA
AFA
LAB
GAB
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
3985
2938
5115
3935
7110
9071
4345
2093
3638
2275
5435
239350
259550
211650
230825
212333
231650
262500
267717
195000
247525
174825
850
594
991
1158
1112
344
384
563
922
322
1433
6683
8454
5700
9308
BML
6306
3673
8571
7665
8820
7093
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility E
Facility W
Facility E
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
EFB
WFA
EFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
DaFA
AaFC
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
-Troana
None
None
None
None
None
None
7512
2265
9403
7743
2980
2720
4602
2134
3654
202850
254625
228450
236375
213325
255450
235900
254850
226900
824
672
582
695
512
661
691
639
1063
6814
9060
7788
8550
6208
8008
7782
8470
7587
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-3
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Al
Ba
Ca
Cl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, High S
Facility E
Facility H
EFC
HFA
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
151650
111250
826
570
22000
9400
7298
44645
361
159
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
Facility!
Facility Z
Facility X
PPB
JAB
ZFA
ZFB
XFA
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
119450
106475
100750
104800
107800
4579
12000
7342
7219
5864
2500
1600
10000
10600
1600
138400
120875
184900
174450
163025
57
156
160
194
173
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
132500
1151
5900
62875
236
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-4
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Fe
K
Mg
Na
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, High S
Facility E
Facility H
EFC
HFA
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
49800
132750
19675
19810
4970
4816
1945
2378
111
1574
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
Facility!
Facility Z
Facility X
PPB
JAB
ZFA
ZFB
XFA
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
1195
1322
BML
29530
53625
39180
40395
38250
2626
7968
4084
4394
4837
37265
30725
32375
31125
23903
30965
46675
20595
21240
16330
5301
2195
6548
7656
5092
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
BML
31290
7698
8318
1800
533
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-5
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Si
Sr
Ti
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, High S
Facility E
Facility H
EFC
HFA
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
2555
6259
254200
200950
554
365
9328
22879
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
Facility!
Facility Z
Facility X
PPB
JAB
ZFA
ZFB
XFA
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
7528
12275
8838
8522
13660
177100
166875
155650
157850
174075
2570
5665
2949
3050
3209
6197
7610
8655
8239
8389
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
2050
262600
733
8167
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-6
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control Al
mg/kg
Ba
mg/kg
C
mg/kg
Ca
mg/kg
Cl
mg/kg
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Bituminous, Low S (Class F)
Brayton Point
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Salem Harbor
Facility L
Facility L
Facility C
Facility C
BPB
BPT
SHE
SHT
LAB
LAT
GAB
GAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
SOFA
None
None
None
PAC
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
PAC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
150450
133250
120250
97595
131900
131450
122475
89600
755
736
812
827
652
632
2058
1475
22500
130000
78000
112000
122800
123800
180000
362600
46870
13390
12265
7480
3283
3185
20700
19150
184
2387
660
1007
389
339
373
790
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
Pleasant Prairie
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
St. Clair
PPB
PPT
JAB
JAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
None
None
None
119450
120800
106475
102125
4579
4261
12000
10075
2500
36000
1600
26500
138400
124600
120875
114150
57
233
156
414
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba
BaFA
CS ESP W/
COHPAC
Ammonia
Inj.
PAC
None
105650
2973
5700
105950
310
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-7
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control F
mg/kg
Fe
mg/kg
K
mg/kg
Mg
mg/kg
Na
mg/kg
P
mg/kg
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Bituminous, Low S (Class F)
Brayton Point
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Salem Harbor
Facility L
Facility L
Facility C
Facility C
BPB
BPT
SHE
SHT
LAB
LAT
GAB
GAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
SOFA
None
None
None
PAC
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
PAC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
BML
39730
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
32185
15895
42935
32835
23850
23625
74325
59025
12930
9259
10415
8519
22650
22225
18400
13400
7339
5553
7330
4011
5838
5795
6790
5863
9736
4309
5299
6266
1335
1320
3743
2865
1513
337
940
668
262
240
3028
1840
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
Pleasant Prairie
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
St. Clair
PPB
PPT
JAB
JAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
BML
BML
29530
29300
53625
55550
2626
3283
7968
7723
37265
31605
30725
29325
30965
24615
46675
41075
5301
4974
2195
1705
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba
BaFA
CS ESP W/
COHPAC
Ammonia
Inj.
PAC
None
BML
33890
8963
17175
9310
1450
BML - below method limit (not detected)
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control S
mg/kg
Si
mg/kg
Sr
mg/kg
Ti
mg/kg
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Bituminous, Low S (Class F)
Brayton Point
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Salem Harbor
Facility L
Facility L
Facility C
Facility C
BPB
BPT
SHE
SHT
LAB
LAT
GAB
GAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
HSESP
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
HS ESP w/
COHPAC
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
SOFA
None
None
None
PAC
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
PAC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
3985
6444
4345
5183
2275
2245
5435
11825
239350
223450
262500
279450
247525
248000
174825
129150
850
520
384
300
322
322
1433
1040
6683
6073
3673
3493
8820
8775
7093
5740
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
Pleasant Prairie
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
St. Clair
PPB
PPT
JAB
JAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
None
None
None
7528
12155
12275
10300
177100
172750
166875
170875
2570
2382
5665
5205
6197
6011
7610
7178
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba
BaFA
CS ESP W/
COHPAC
Ammonia
Inj.
PAC
None
4717
239050
2533
6651
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-9
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Al
Ba
Ca
Cl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected together)
Sub-bituminous
Facility V
Facility Y
VSD
YSD
Fabric F.
Fabric F.
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
57035
57588
5705
4150
4500
42500
255050
252800
836
16403
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-10
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Fe
K
Mg
Na
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected together)
Sub-bituminous
Facility V
Facility Y
VSD
YSD
Fabric F.
Fabric F.
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
30975
27000
2531
4214
21885
16300
9440
31635
3545
3122
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-ll
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
Si
Sr
Ti
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected together)
Sub-bituminous
Facility V
Facility Y
VSD
YSD
Fabric F.
Fabric F.
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
83575
52880
91475
97668
3083
1949
6068
5571
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-12
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Al
Ba
Ca
Cl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, Low S
|Facility U
UAU
|Gyp-U
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone None
3532
BML
26900
309650
414
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
!AU
!AW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR &
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
None
None
None
None
1661
2099
388
404
1705
1140
1281
1470
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
16400
43000
23400
31600
49500
27400
12800
1200
292950
288750
303800
298525
281400
288700
296900
306650
4816
415
2805
275
1270
571
215
368
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-13
-------
Facility
Sample Residue
ID type
Wet
PM NOx Scrubber
Capture Control type
FGD
Scrubber
additive SO3 Control F
mg/kg
Fe K Mg Na P
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous,
| Facility U
LowS
UAU |Gyp-U
CS ESP SCR
Forced Ox.
Limestone None
BML
5881
906 4553
204 78
Bituminous, Med S
Facility T
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
TAU
TAW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CS ESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CS ESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR &
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
1273
956
1124
1386
1040
925
1610
1830
1004
887
1252
1160
1287
1783
440
401
128
138
391
352
380
376
1927
399
1710
989
370
304
512
264
897
197
167
BML
593
775
241
BML
88
100
42
40
38
37
38
199
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-14
-------
Facility
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control S
mg/kg
Si
mg/kg
Sr
mg/kg
Ti
mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, Low S
|Facility U
UAU
|Gyp-U
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone None
198200
9024
359
281
Bituminous, Med S
Facility T
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
TAU
TAW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CS ESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CS ESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR &
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
None
None
None
None
219725
213675
216000
217700
216500
222400
223550
222600
4173
4882
1138
1061
3054
2427
3105
2821
397
382
145
133
146
144
148
122
BML
129
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-15
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Al
Ba
Ca
Cl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility O
Facility O
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
729
672
2976
3228
1419
1133
BML
BML
BML
BML
227
BML
5500
5100
19900
12100
29300
23500
309050
306350
290200
292500
299000
301100
1639
284
2506
257
869
222
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CS ESP
HS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
1862
4623
1002
449
BML
BML
BML
BML
29800
9100
36500
23400
293200
305800
278900
293800
272
1205
1341
174
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gyp-U
CS ESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
3933
BML
16400
291550
1255
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-16
-------
Facility
Sample Residue
ID type
PM NOx
Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO3 Control
Fe
K
Mg
Na
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility O
Facility O
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CS ESP
CSESP
CSESP
CS ESP
CSESP
CS ESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
BML
1690
1583
1916
2025
2202
2114
BML
BML
706
710
380
320
201
58
3390
1998
1601
1219
178
BML
558
220
138
BML
389
367
88
101
BML
BML
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CS ESP
HSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
BML
3775
1724
BML
1393
1679
1257
747
453
468
326
122
1411
7054
5861
1164
174
1093
520
BML
67
366
65
40
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gyp-U
CS ESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
1365
1667
370
4134
565
50
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-17
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO3 Control
Si
Sr
Ti
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility O
Facility O
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CS ESP
CSESP
CSESP
CS ESP
CSESP
CS ESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
219100
222000
213600
215800
212900
215200
3641
3190
10095
11705
4698
4415
281
289
331
331
534
527
BML
BML
184
232
BML
BML
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CS ESP
HSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
215800
201800
218800
223450
5473
13035
4146
1451
147
177
151
160
BML
207
BML
BML
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gyp-U
CS ESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
214900
8342
222
158
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-18
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Al
Ba
Ca
Cl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BCD
AGO
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
CS ESP
Fabric F.
CS ESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
2168
4392
19075
7380
BML
150
382
161
4400
3900
11500
4500
309600
272867
263450
278500
4580
6320
3665
7253
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
Scrubber
sludge
CS ESP
None
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
None
24950
213
7100
249725
1900
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-19
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Fe
Mg
Na
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BCD
AGO
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
CS ESP
Fabric F.
CS ESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
BML
2687
BML
1670
3070
2803
32450
5348
486
1147
4008
2093
14475
2943
10625
8400
522
711
1605
1335
79
307
355
397
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
Scrubber
sludge
CS ESP
None
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
None
BML
36100
3745
11575
62
238
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-20
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Si
Sr
Ti
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BCD
AGO
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
CS ESP
Fabric F.
CS ESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
168475
138650
135375
144250
6533
9775
38350
20700
168
136
405
215
191
202
1485
301
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
Scrubber
sludge
CS ESP
None
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
None
178225
32100
324
1558
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-21
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Al
Ba
Ca
Cl
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
CS ESP
Fabric F.
CS ESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
15825
105550
4263
97525
311
1088
136
917
10800
39800
6600
93000
286100
74300
281425
78125
5853
5138
3815
7428
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
Facility M
Facility M
KCC
MAD
MAS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
Natural Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
1628
31470
29445
BML
266
331
8500
13000
7500
291100
206600
234550
812
2088
703
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-22
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Fe
K
Mg
Na
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
CS ESP
Fabric F.
CS ESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
BML
BML
BML
BML
16100
44225
9193
42575
3655
17225
908
15275
14500
8590
9943
9773
1400
3348
656
3260
257
1110
96
1010
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
Facility M
Facility M
KCC
MAD
MAS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
Natural Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
BML
BML
BML
938
67660
63570
165
7495
6954
9933
4829
2953
355
944
4344
BML
271
202
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-23
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Si
Sr
Ti
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
CS ESP
Fabric F.
CS ESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
148425
32725
157725
36975
30975
185575
10053
162950
378
999
196
763
1255
7875
380
6683
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
Facility M
Facility M
KCC
MAD
MAS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
Natural Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
220400
149650
180050
5075
66170
61595
231
314
330
79
2303
2504
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-24
-------
Facility
Sample
ID
Residue
type
PM
Capture
NOx
Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive SO3 Control Al Ba C
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Mixed Fly Ash and
Bituminous,
Facility U
LowS
UGF
Ca
mg/kg
Cl
mg/kg
Gypsum (as managed)
Other
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Limestone None
12408
738 43200
351700
701
Filter Cake
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility W
Facility Da
TFC
WFC
DaFC
Other
Other
Other
CS ESP
CS ESP
CS ESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
None
46055
5870
44050
884
BML
581
34600
100500
24100
157600
306367
198150
16348
3877
8267
Sub-bituminous
Facility X
XFC
Other
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
None
28450
649
71300
109400
9140
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-25
-------
Sample
Facility ID
Mixed Fly Ash and
Bituminous, Low S
Facility U UGF
Residue
type
PM NOx
Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive SO3 Control F
mg/kg
Fe K Mg Na P
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Gypsum (as managed)
Other
CS ESP SCR
Forced Ox.
Limestone None
BML
99953 2385
9883 572 545
Filter Cake
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility W
Facility Da
TFC
WFC
DaFC
Other
Other
Other
CS ESP
CSESP
CS ESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
None
10157
15923
47385
55558
16083
42215
12138
2808
13070
13168
17620
13205
2355
454
1308
1769
629
1572
Sub-bituminous
Facility X
XFC
Other
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
None
27640
68475
11720
77370
3387
2181
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-26
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
SO, Control
Si
Sr
Ti
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed)
Bituminous, Low S
Facility U
UGF
Other
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
None
85198
27858
540
1328
Filter Cake
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility W
Facility Da
TFC
WFC
DaFC
Other
Other
Other
CS ESP
CSESP
CS ESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
None
109750
135167
93545
101175
18807
98485
358
164
202
2008
429
3051
Sub-bituminous
Facility X
XFC
Other
CS ESP
SCR
Forced Ox. Limestone
None
96640
80960
156
2088
BML - below method limit (not detected)
E-27
-------
Appendix F
Leaching Test Results
SR002 - Concentration as a Function of pH and
SR003 - Concentration as a Function of LS
Elements Reported: Al, As, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Hg, Mo, Pb, Sb, Se, and Tl
Brayton Point - Fly ash without and with ACI (Samples BPB, BPT) F-l
Pleasant Prairie - Fly ash without and with ACI (Samples PPB, PPT) F-5
Salem Harbor - Fly ash without and with ACI (Samples SHB, SHT) F-9
Facility A - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge -SNCR-BP
(Samples CFA, CGD, CCC) F-13
Facility A - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge -SNCR on
(Samples AFA, AGD, ACC) F-17
Facility B - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge -
SCR-BP (Samples BFA, BCD, BCC) F-21
Facility B - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge -
SCR on (Samples DFA, DGD, DCC) F-25
Facility C - Fly ash without and with ACI (Samples GAB, GAT) F-29
Facility E - Fly ash, SCR on and SCR-BP (Samples EFA, EFC, EFB) F-33
Facilities F, G, and H - Fly ash (Samples FFA, GFA, HFA) F-37
Facility J - Fly ash without and with Br-ACI (Samples JAB, JAT) F-41
Facility K - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge
(Samples KFA, KGD, KCC) F-45
Facility L - Fly ash without and with Br-ACI (Samples LAB, LAT) F-49
Facility M - Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge, SCR-BP and SCR on
(Samples MAD, MAS) F-53
Facility N - Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples NAD, NAW) F-57
F-i
-------
Facility O - Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples OAU, OAW) F-61
Facilities P, Q, and R - Gypsum, unwashed (Samples PAD, QAU, RAU) F-65
Facility S - Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples SAD, SAW) F-69
Facility T - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed and washed; Filter Cake (Samples
TFA, TAU, TAW, TFC) F-73
Facility U - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed; Mixed fly ash and gypsum
(Samples UFA, UAU, UGF) F-77
Facility V - Spray dryer ash (Sample VSD) F-81
Facility W - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed and washed; Filter Cake (Samples
WFA, WAU, WAW, WFC) F-85
Facility X - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed and washed; Filter Cake (Samples
XFA, XAU, XAW, XFC) F-89
Facility Y - Spray dryer ash (Sample YSD) F-93
Facility Z-Fly ash (Sample ZFA) F-97
Facility Aa - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples AaFA, AaFB,
AaFC, AaAU, AaAW) F-101
Facility Ba - Fly ash (Samples BaFA) F-105
Facility Ca - Fly ash; Gypsum, washed (Samples CaFA, CaAW) F-109
Facility Da - Fly ash; Gypsum, washed; Filter Cake (Samples DaFA, DaAW, DaFC) F-113
F-ii
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
mg/
+3
ra
i
V
g
3
100
10
*er
T38
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
o BPB(P,1,1)
BPB(P,1,2)
O BPB(P,1,3)
o BPT(P,1,1)
ป-BPT(P,l,2)
O BPT(P,1,3)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction of L/S
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration as function of L/S
ntrati
S
...
1 3 5 7 9
PH
2 4 6
L/S(L/kg)
8 10
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
tion
g o.oi
"a
f ฐ
B
IB
g 0.01
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Brayton Point (East-Bit., CS-ESP). BPB - fly ash without ACI; BPT - fly ash with ACI.
F-l
-------
pH dependent Concentration
^
^
Concentratio
| o
1 1
**
T5V
of Cd
^s^^ee.
/
...
13579
pH
pH dependent Concentration
^
f
IB
V
u
s o.ooi -
u
^_
1^
^
e^.s
-^
^
11 13
of Co
^vฐ ฐ
VNr
\
V
V \
_T __ .^
)
13579
pH
pH dependent Concentration
Concentration (mg/L
1 1 S
s
\
&^^^ f.
i@
I 0)
11 13
of Cr
_ u o^o-aL,
J$B)
^'"T'
1 (.
13579
pH
0.01
i o.ooi
u
c
B 0.0001
IB
ง
ง 0.00001
u
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration
0 ฐ
fHซปซ-
' + ฐ
r
11 13
of Hg
Cฎ0
o'""o"c'""I
^5Wi ^,
ฉ
-=
n nn
^SN JT-ป^.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
f "1
c
o
ra
ง
u
Q _...._..._...._..._...._
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
"a
ra
u
c
3
5 -*
c
^1
P
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
'a
oncentration (r
o
1 [
u
*
.,
^
'^xd
?
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
ncentration (mg/L)
i 1 ง ฐ
1 O O O
U
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
o c
>
ป
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Brayton Point (East-Bit., CS-ESP). BPB - fly ash without ACI; BPT - fly ash with ACI.
f-2
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
4 6
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
g
I I I I
1
02468
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
"a
Brayton Point (East-Bit., CS-ESP). BPB - fly ash without ACI; BPT - fly ash with ACI.
F-3
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
+3 0.01
Brayton Point (East-Bit., CS-ESP). BPB - fly ash without ACI; BPT - fly ash with ACI.
F-4
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
sntration (mg/L)
- - S i
|
Oo
^
^Sk
_^_
'
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 10
I1
c 1
o
1 ...
o
j
b^=
=5=
'--*--"
15!=-.
~'^.^
<
'"'
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
ง 1 t, P ^ S
l-il-il-il-il-iOO
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
^
-ซ>- 1--*^-
"i" t
:~ ~~~~~ .. " :""""
(
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pleasant Prairie (PRB, CS-ESP). PPB - fly ash without ACI; PPT - fly ash with ACI.
F-5
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
mg/
Cd concentration as function of L/S
"a
E o.ooi
0
.._vซ
s
y
/'
'J
^
/
^
-_-^_-4
.....T
1
>
2 4 6
L/S (L/kg)
8 10
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
"a
7
B
4 6 8
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
centrati
"a
^r
4 6 8
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
o.ooi
B 0.0001
0.00001 - j
/ q
oo
*~^-^
cr*5*^
-.ฉ-.4-.-.!
@ioo
0.01 3
7 9
pH
L/S (L/kg)
Pleasant Prairie (PRB, CS-ESP). PPB - fly ash without ACI; PPT - fly ash with ACI.
F-6
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
"a
g 0.01
g
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
I
+3 0.01
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pleasant Prairie (PRB, CS-ESP). PPB - fly ash without ACI; PPT - fly ash with ACI.
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
sntration (mg/L)
- - S i
1
C*^s
^i
A
\N
^5.-^>
no
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
pH dependent Concentration of As
\
I
t
L
^
o
| |
t^r^
**~ ~*^e^
-^
&
f
t
....
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
1 I S
ฃ^
-ซ--
u
r'-^fe^iW5Vr^^
jM -
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง g f o
0 0 0 P
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
|
j-a
^
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
o SHB(
SHB(
O SHB(
0 SHT(
ป-SHT(
0 SHT(
5%
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
D,l,l)
3,1,2)
D,l,3)
U,D
U,2)
U,3)
or DWEL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
As concentration asfunction of L/S
9 <
1 | |
^ , o
+ t-
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 10
I1
c 1
o
1 ...
o
1
(
^-..
--ซ-..
*
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
B=^fc S
f I--*--
1
L
&
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Salem Harbor (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). SHB - fly ash without ACI; SHT - fly ash with
ACI.
F-9
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
E o.oi
c
o
+3
ra
i
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
1 3
a 01
O 0.001
u
-I111h-
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/ kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.01 3-
pH
Salem Harbor (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). SHB - fly ash without ACI; SHT - fly ash with
ACI.
F-10
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
1 01
6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
I
1357
pH
46
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
1
O 0.0001 i -._
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
g 0.01
Salem Harbor (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). SHB - fly ash without ACI; SHT - fly ash with
ACI.
F-ll
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
a
E o.oi
g 0.001
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Salem Harbor (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). SHB - fly ash without ACI; SHT - fly ash with
ACI.
F-12
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
a
7
B
IB
i
v
8
a CCC(P,1,1)
.CCC(P,1,2)
D CCC(P,1,3)
o CFA(P,1,1)
CFA(P,1,2)
O CFA(P,1,3)
A CGD(P,1,1)
-i -CGD(P,1,2)
A CGD(P,1,3)
5%
MCLorDWEL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
-ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction ofL/S
ฃ
g 0.001
J
9^
5
ft^-
h-
A
^T'~---
j
~ ~ -j
i
t
\
i.
1 3 5 7 9 11
pH
4 6
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration asfunction of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
tion
* 0.01
tion (mg/
* 0.01
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR-BP.
CFA - fly ash; CGD - scrubber sludge; CCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-13
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1357
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
+5 0.01
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
0.1
_o
g 0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.01 3
IP 0.0001
ra
i
s
I I I I
-iIIIiIIIiIIII-
1357
pH
246
L/S (L/kg)
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR-BP.
CFA - fly ash; CGD - scrubber sludge; CCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-14
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
:p o.oi
1
O 0.001
I Q
pH
0246
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
g 0.001
O 0.0001
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
fฑ-
-Iiii*-
pH
0246
L/S (L/kg)
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR-BP.
CFA - fly ash; CGD - scrubber sludge; CCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-15
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR-BP.
CFA - fly ash; CGD - scrubber sludge; CCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-16
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
^ 100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
D ACC(P,1,1)
-ACC(P,1,2)
D ACC(P,1,3)
o AFA(P,1,1)
-AFA(P,1,2)
O AFA(P,1,3)
A AGD(P,1,1)
-*AGD(P,1,2)
A AGD(P,1,3)
95%
ML
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction of L/S
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration asfunction of L/S
10 ;
1 :
0.1
0.01
0.001
pH
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
i
B
g 0.01
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR on.
AFA - fly ash; AGO - scrubber sludge; ACC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-17
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
0.01 ,
B 0.001
Cd concentration as function of L/S
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
a
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
2
ra
g 0.01
ซMj
ป--,__
1
B-K? =4
|
5
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 g
1
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR on.
AFA - fly ash; AGO - scrubber sludge; ACC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-18
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
1 01
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
4 6
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
O 0.0001
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
1
o o.oooi : -_---- :
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
1
E o.oi
pH
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR on.
AFA - fly ash; AGO - scrubber sludge; ACC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-19
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR on.
AFA - fly ash; AGO - scrubber sludge; ACC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-20
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
mg/
+3
ra
i
V
2
S
a BCC(P,1,1)
BCC(P,1,2)
D BCC(P,1,3)
o BFA(P,1,1)
BFA(P,1,2)
O BFA(P,1,3)
A BGD(P,1,1)
--*BGD(P,1,2)
A BGD(P,1,3)
5%
MCLorDWEL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
-ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction ofL/S
Concent
g
0
-As;
I |
pH
246
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration asfunction of L/S
2468
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
tion
g 0.01
"a
f '
B
IB
g 0.01
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR-BP.
BFA - fly ash; BGD - scrubber sludge; BCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-21
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
B 0.001
1357
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
0.1 3
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
i
B
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
1
0.1
_o
g 0.01
1357
pH
0246
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
a
0.0001 -:
O 0.00001 ; -j
0.01 3
1357
pH
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR-BP.
BFA - fly ash; BGD - scrubber sludge; BCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-22
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
1 01
6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
O 0.0001
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
1
I I I I
2468
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
1
pH
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR-BP.
BFA - fly ash; BGD - scrubber sludge; BCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-23
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR-BP.
BFA - fly ash; BGD - scrubber sludge; BCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-24
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
mg/
+3
ra
i
V
2
s
n DCC(P,1,1)
DCC(P,1,2)
D DCC(P,1,3)
o DFA(P,1,1)
DFA(P,1,2)
O DFA(P,1,3)
A DGD(P,1,1)
--*DGD(P,1,2)
A DGD(P,1,3)
5%
MCLorDWEL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
-ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction of L/S
Concent
g
0
-^^ ____
-ฑ- '-^-*'-*-.
-*-
246
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration as function of L/S
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
tion
* 0.01
"a
f ฐ
B
IB
* 0.01
-=-4
pH
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR on.
DFA - fly ash; DGD - scrubber sludge; DCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-25
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
B 0.001
1357
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
0.1 a
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
g
3
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
1
g 0.01
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
a
O 0.00001 ; ---
0.01 3
1357
pH
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR on.
DFA - fly ash; DGD - scrubber sludge; DCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-26
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
pH
0246
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
O 0.0001 -.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
E o.ooi
1
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
1
1357
pH
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR on.
DFA - fly ash; DGD - scrubber sludge; DCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-27
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR on.
DFA - fly ash; DGD - scrubber sludge; DCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-28
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
sntration (mg/L)
- - S i
i
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
OK
ปH
3
ฃ&
V*
s
5
iV_
\
5 oS
"*ฎ^r^ (a)
*&ฐ
j
i i
i
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
1
t
I
1
j K
O
3 5
| |
-A~/b@5-
,e-
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
a ฐ'01
O 0.0001
u
135
Cd concentration as function of L/S
i
O 0.0001 i
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
g 0.01
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
1
ซ
c
lv
\
\
^Jj
-**
C
}
4 6
L/S (L/kg)
Facility C (Low S East-Bit., HS-ESP w/ COHPAC). GAB - fly ash without ACI; GAT fly ash with
ACI.
F-30
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
^
Concentration (mg
g P
crS
O N
X
o w^^A
jLf*^**
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
;ntration (mg/L)
D O
D O !
O
(J
cฃ
1
p
i\
10 ^
L
0
1 /',
Jy i-r"
m ^n^v^^fTrvJ^/T* i^a
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
1 1 1 1 ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
,g>
&S^
.....
- M3^ j^jjffig ^ .
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
i
"m
c
o
+3 0.1 :
1
C
o
rj
0.001
0^|
r**^
^Jj^^^^
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 10
"a
O :
|
o
(J
" h~;-s
i
i
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
;ntration (mg/L)
1 1 ฃ
o
(J
"
x\
X
* ป--'
^**
j
--'*'
i
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง 1 g p
0 0 0 0 P
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
I
i '~Lf^^I 1
ฃ 9r^
. L L
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 l
"a
8
0 0.001
\A ฅ^
... .4
.
^=ป^
j
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility C (Low S East-Bit., HS-ESP w/ COHPAC). GAB - fly ash without ACI; GAT fly ash with
ACI.
F-31
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
? ,
entration (mg;
o
o !
"
s o.ooi -
u
ฐ8S!
Q__-
^
?--
ft
r
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
? ,
entration (mg;
o
o !
"
s o.ooi
u
0.0001
o
jป T...K^
^
^
246
L/S (L/kg)
^
ป
10
Facility C (Low S East-Bit., HS-ESP w/ COHPAC). GAB - fly ash without ACI; GAT fly ash with
ACI.
F-32
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
^ 100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
o EFA(P,1,1)
EFA(P,1,2)
o EFB(P,1,1)
~ป--EFB(P,l,2)
o EFC(P,1,1)
EFC(P,1,2)
0 EFC(P,1,3)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
0 own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction of L/S
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration asfunction of L/S
B 0.1
1
O 0.01
1357
pH
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
i
B
IB
g 0.01
"a
B
IB
g 0.01
7 9
pH
468
L/S (L/kg)
Facility E (Med. S East-Bit.). EFA, EFC - fly ash SCR on; EFB - fly ash SCR-BP.
F-33
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
mg/
Cd concentration as function of L/S
1 3
1 "
O 0.001
u
-I111h-
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (U kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
|
g
3
ncentration (mg/
g g
J 1 __ __
!="ปWS|>-
1 3 5 7 9 11
pH
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
centrati
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
o.ooi
B 0.0001
0.00001 - -sc- -~^~J
oo
.
..... P---O--
-O--O
-I-
-_}ฃ
0.01 a
135
7 9 11 13
PH
Facility E (Med. S East-Bit.). EFA, EFC - fly ash SCR on; EFB - fly ash SCR-BP.
F-34
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
g 0.001 : ' >-'-
o
-I111*-
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
7 9 11 13
0246
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
g 0.001
O 0.0001
1
O 0.0001 - -._
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
g 0.01
pH
Facility E (Med. S East-Bit.). EFA, EFC - fly ash SCR on; EFB - fly ash SCR-BP.
F-35
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
V 0.01
Facility E (Med. S East-Bit.). EFA, EFC - fly ash SCR on; EFB - fly ash SCR-BP.
F-36
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
sntration (mg/L)
- - S i
|
ฃ3
%
งJฃ?3r^
-^r
^T ^^JQ*'
Tyf
1 1
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
pH dependent Concentration of As
c*
\
r
t
L
X
L-
^
1 |
U^3^
oJ
^^K
r*
,M
,:-_-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
I1
Concentration
i 1 s
*.
-*
^
""^
*sป
gฃasj8^--aป
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง g p
0 0 0 P
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
V
;*5*
wfiiffi*^
p*
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
o FFA(P
FFA(P
0 GFA(
GFA(
0 HFA(
-- HFA(
5%
Concentration (mg/L
1 g ฐ 0
0 0 0 P
1,1)
1,2)
U,l)
U,2)
U,l)
U,2)
or DWEL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
As concentration asfunction of L/S
Q
e^=^-__
| | |
4- r-
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
,_ 100
Concentration (mg
D
3 P g
-*----1
V^
^ซ.____
. ^^
8
=^*^i
1
I
i
I
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
*t=*- -*-
- )
|_
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility F (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP). FFA - fly ash.
Facility G (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). GFA - fly ash.
Facility H (High S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). HFA - fly ash.
F-37
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
Cd concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
a
0246
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.01 3-
pH
Facility F (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP). FFA - fly ash.
Facility G (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). GFA - fly ash.
Facility H (High S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). HFA - fly ash.
F-38
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
Concentration (mg/
1 ฐ
l
O
*
v-
1
V
I
3
C
^-@p
5
oปปna ป" J-*
X*^-
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
I '
c
o
1
o o 001 -
(J
ฐ\
\ฐ
."_:2s
t * j"
ป
^ ^IR
~\
135
Concentration (mg/L)
i ง p o
1 1 1 1 ฐ
i^iSs^z
7 9 11
pH
13
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
~~~tiSr
131 t j n i n If
OD ^'Tgji'o
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
"m
g
0 0.001 i
\
ปป
t>SBSf.
'"^.
135
^ ^
aj^%
^ ._._,.T*_
+*$?
._._._ 4. . .
7 9 11 13
pH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 10
"a
O :
|
o
u
0
v^
""-^
*-ปv
"% E
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
;ntration (mg/L)
1 1 ฃ
o
u
T^^^
.-"
' e
i
1
--"*
i
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง 1 g p
0 0 0 0 P
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
; ** * L 9 1 J j
ฐ T
(
:
. L L
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
G1
"a
Concentration (n
1 1 |
'-i-.;..;;
1 =_J
!
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility F (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP). FFA - fly ash.
Facility G (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). GFA - fly ash.
Facility H (High S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). HFA - fly ash.
F-39
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
a
V 0.01
Facility F (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP). FFA - fly ash.
Facility G (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). GFA - fly ash.
Facility H (High S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). HFA - fly ash.
F-40
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
sntration (mg/L)
- - S i
1
i
Concentration (mg/L)
1 1 g
3
o
ot-l
V*
5
) ^
^
-J&
xss2s*ฎ'
^y
ojgrV^
f- -
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of As
--
l
O
1 \ *
\f
0~
3 5
If
o ID
.>, o<4*"" ' -ML
^-^% W
7\^
-e^ > eป dc oo W^ 0(0
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
1 I ฐ
1 3
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง g f o
0 0 0 P
fcfcn
ZSWJ.
5
ja^4
^^
\
ป
9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
i
&1*"
3 5
n jrJlJMH^'rfTf i '"N"
c| @
o ^^
j
_.
7 9 11 13
PH
0 JAB(P,1,1)
JAB(P,1,2)
o JAT(P,1,1)
JAT(P,1,2)
MCLorDWEL
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
As concentration asfunction ofL/S
\
^v
0
*%S
S.
I | |
^^_ 1 1 1
x>ง~^^
'^---^^-t^^
o>
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 10
I1
c 1
o
1 ...
o
0
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
o
-ซ
1
2
~^^~
4
:>ป^
*-
--^
' ^i
i
6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
___^.^___==i_3sM
0246
L/S (L/kg)
c
J 10
Facility J (PRB/Low S Bit mix., CS-ESP). JAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; JAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
F-41
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
E o.oi
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
ฃ 0.01
B 0.001
_v
135
02468
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
1357
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.01 3-
1357
pH
Facility J (PRB/Low S Bit mix., CS-ESP). JAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; JAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
F-42
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
m
s
1
g 0.01
PH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
a
8 10
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
itrati
ซBป,^ tป ,9H
(*
1 3 5 7 9 11
pH
0 2 4 6 8
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction ofL/S
mg/
1 3 5 7 9 11
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
"a
pH
Facility J (PRB/Low S Bit mix., CS-ESP). JAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; JAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
F-43
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
pH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
"a
B 0.001
246
L/S (L/kg)
8 10
Facility J (PRB/Low S Bit mix., CS-ESP). JAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; JAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
F-44
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
sntration (mg/L)
' ^ S i
1
i
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
DlNv
1
A
3
* V
i\ V
5
n
^>
*ฐJ
i ^*0*J A
s?*^
i i
3
i
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
A
r
t
1
i
ป_^
N\
i-.
L
Vff-cj
3 5
| |
. ... . j 4. . ...
= n V ฃ< -ซ- ,- -7*-
-^t" ^""
jjwi--^-
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
1 I ฐ
l
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง ง p
0 0 0 P
3
ป*fif=3&
5
v&d
L^
in"0 ^*l'l
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
B 0.001
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
0.1 3
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
i
B
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
1
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
-. 0.001
B 0.0001
IB
ง
ฃ o.ooooi
o i
0 '
r*^
u.
NT
V
"** ^K" ***
^,
^
^r
^^
****
.--'
--"
:
I
k
3
pH
6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility K (East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation).
KFA - fly ash; KGD - scrubber sludge; KCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-46
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
9 11 13
PH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
E o.oi
nce
g
O
o.oooi I f f . j
, I , , ^3=
0 2 4 6
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction ofL/S
ntrati
tK;
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
2 4 6 8
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
ntrati
i i
PH
0 2 4 6 8
L/S (L/kg)
Facility K (East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation).
KFA - fly ash; KGD - scrubber sludge; KCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-47
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility K (East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation).
KFA - fly ash; KGD - scrubber sludge; KCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-48
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
tration (mg/L)
J. l-L O
C
V
(J 0.01
**
\
\\
i \
<#
u^ป
^^
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
pH dependent Concentration of As
\
r
t
L
v^
__jtrsa
| |
^f*^^
?m
B a
,:-_-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
ncentration (mg/L)
| o
(J
.....**
E g^.
S^
.i.
- -*1 "**^
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง ง f o
0 0 0 P
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
^l
^
i ^oฃฐ*
"fc^sr-^Sfc
^"t"1"^ TT"*
=i
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
0 LAB(P,1,1)
LAB(P,1,2)
o LAT(P,1,1)
LAT(P,1,2)
MCLorDWEL
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
0 0 0 P
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
As concentration asfunction of L/S
^
I | |
1 i i
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/ kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
^
ncentration (m<
-, O
(J
*s
1
"H
i
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility L (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit.; SOFA, HS-ESP).
LAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; LAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
F-49
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
oi
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
"a
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
E o.oi
g o.ooi
J
4 6 8
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3-
0.01 3-
O 0.00001 : n o ' +/
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
L/S (L/kg)
Facility L (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit.; SOFA, HS-ESP).
LAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; LAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
F-50
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
sntration (mg/L)
1 P
c
o
U
O
\
"T^
y
y
135
jป ฐSป m * i ft
9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
mtration (mg/L)
D O
D O !
O
U
\
?
V
0 ff
y
^
ฐ;A ~/
^ oro"SNJ^Z_.
135
Concentration (mg/L)
i ง p o
1 1 1 1 ฐ
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
@^
~ ~___Pr ~"
s^ap^S,
135
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
2 nt ration (mg/L)
i P
D O
C
o
U
S
V
ct> ^
j j
^
^i^^^ft -^^W
135
7 9 11 13
PH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
"a
c
o
c
o
U
N^_
-=7^===
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
E o.oi
c
o
I
o
(J
0
n
\ ,^--
^_YX^ _^^
^S
-^-H
C
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง 1 g p
0 0 0 0 P
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
ffl
..._\^j. ^_^-ir*ซ*!::i
-V *^
. L L
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
^
E o.oi
c
o
I
c
o
(J
1 \
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility L (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit.; SOFA, HS-ESP).
LAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; LAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
F-51
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
entration (mg/L)
= p
zi o !
3
S^
u
>s
ฐi
^
ป
o
.
^%Vฐ ฐ *'/
^^^^_ ** .x
^C-_W~^f.
- -
-
3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
? ,
entration (mg;
o
o !
"
s o.ooi
u
0.0001
o
tl
t=--=*=--rr-r=J=irซrrr
.
246
L/S (L/kg)
-^ J
)
10
Facility L (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit.; SOFA, HS-ESP).
LAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; LAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
F-52
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
n MAD(P,1,1)
-m MAD(P,1,2)
D MAD(P,1,3)
D MAS(P,1,1)
-MAS(P,1,2)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
0 own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction of L/S
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration asfunction of L/S
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
B 0.1
0.001
0.0001
1 -,
1 3 5 7 9
pH
Facility M (Illinois Basin Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Inhibited Oxidation).
MAD - SCR-BP; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
MAS - SCR on; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-53
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1357
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
0.1 -3
O 0.0001
u
B--l
*-^
I
..III:::
*
= Bm~
-m^
**^ . .-
4
^
i
\
6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
a
468
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
E o.oi
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
-. 0.001
B 0.0001
:
:-'
]
k
X
n
>
'-V-:
:
.,
]
i
pH
L/S (L/kg)
Facility M (Illinois Basin Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Inhibited Oxidation).
MAD - SCR-BP; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
MAS - SCR on; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-54
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
O 0.0001
B
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
1
o o.oooi : -_---- :
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
1
_.
--
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
7 9 11 13
pH
Facility M (Illinois Basin Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Inhibited Oxidation).
MAD - SCR-BP; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
MAS - SCR on; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-55
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility M (Illinois Basin Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Inhibited Oxidation).
MAD - SCR-BP; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
MAS - SCR on; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
F-56
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
^
Concentration (mg;
1 I S
s
1 3
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills
^
5
\N
./$
V
1 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of As
S
1
^
3 5
5
1 1
i
r\ ,
fS? i
wr*ซ
_pii" *
1
*
rTY(7) jijiim:
|
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
ncentration (mg/L)
| o
(J
*-.
1 3
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง g p
0 0 0 P
*
5
{
*"^
T) n
^
Ir**"
9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
l
i^^S;
3 5
M.^4,
_.
7 9 11 13
pH
A NAU(P,1,1)
* NAU(P,1,2)
NAW(P,1,1)
~*--NAW(P,l,2)
MCLorDWEL
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
1 g ฐ 0
0 0 0 P
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
As concentration asfunction of L/S
i
/
0
I | |
T
,
L
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 10
1
Concentration
-i ฐ
i o P
0
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
^
*"]
2
***"ป
4
-*
^
""""-,
6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
^=ง
0246
L/S (L/kg)
[
3 10
Facility N (High S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
NAD - unwashed gypsum; NAW - washed gypsum.
F-57
-------
Concentration (mg/L)
i ง p
I I 1 1 ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
"
*s,+::
s
' j.\ป
7 Tซ,
Jk<~\v/i
1 _k^i
/'
/
/
^
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
on (mg/L)
ra
i
0)
s
3
-XT"
3J ^
"*MP.
%^w i^
^...^ซn,..;..*;r...*...
---
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
2 01 '-.
^ Uil
c
a o.oi -
1
g
O 0 001 -
u ;
*s
\>
^
/x
Wt-idcii A
\i::
*f ji^
\i_ /
~"~$ "
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
0.01
^ 0.001
C
ฃ 0.0001
ra
i
g
ง 0.00001
u
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
K '
jl-jj** *(
/C
.,/^X,-
>-^-*
^
-^
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
1 1 ง
o o o o
Cd concentration as function of L/S
V
-SL
^
Vi~
f
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
G1
"a
ra
i
0)
ฃ
3
N
>-.-=^-.r.rr 1 ฑ
.--->jป j
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
G1
"a
c
o
I
ซ 0.001
c :
U
^ i '
^ --*,,.
^
?.-._.
--~
.-^^^.
""**
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
ncentration (mg/L)
3 1 ง P
1 O O O
U
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
.... r_ _.j.._. .. ._ ... ...
7^
^
r\,
^''^sj
\ ^^ """"1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility N (High S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
NAD - unwashed gypsum; NAW - washed gypsum.
F-58
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
ซ o.oi
1357
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
0246
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
O 0.0001 -.
E o.ooi
1
I
u
*
4.
A
*
*.^^
*^^
"**"J
i
6 8
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
1
Facility N (High S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
NAD - unwashed gypsum; NAW - washed gypsum.
F-59
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
"a
*_-
g
ra
i :
g
3
*
......
-*-^-S^
A ^
^
^ * *^
3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
"a
i
ra
g
J
* * *
"^
^* * i..
0246
L/S (L/kg)
~~~-i
10
Facility N (High S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
NAD - unwashed gypsum; NAW - washed gypsum.
F-60
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
PH
A OAU(P,1,1)
*OAU(P,1,2)
OAW(P,1,1)
* OAW(P,1,2)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
O own pH
own pH
own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction of L/S
Concentr
I
PH
4 6
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration as function of L/S
ntratio
o
o o.oi
1 3 5 7 9 11
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
|
IB
g 0.01
tion (mg/
7 9
PH
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility O (Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
OAU - unwashed gypsum; OAW - washed gypsum.
F-61
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
mg/
B 0.001
1357
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
a
E o.oi
g o.ooi
J
a
B 0.001
1 3 5 7 9
pH
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
"a
E o.oi
4 6 8
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.001
g o.ooooi ;
0.01 3
mg/
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
L/S (L/kg)
Facility O (Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
OAU - unwashed gypsum; OAW - washed gypsum.
F-62
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
E o.i
g o.oi
1357
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
1357
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
E o.ooi
E 0.001 :
1
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
j, L^I 1
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
1 ,
a o.oi
1
S
ฃ o.ooi
--
1357
pH
Facility O (Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
OAU - unwashed gypsum; OAW - washed gypsum.
F-63
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
pH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility O (Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
OAU - unwashed gypsum; OAW - washed gypsum.
F-64
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
A PAD(P,1,1)
-*PAD(P,1,2)
o QAU(P,1,1)
ซ- QAU(P,1,2)
D RAU(P,1,1)
---RAU(P,1,2)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction of L/S
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration asfunction of L/S
B 0.1
1
7 9 11 13
pH
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
i
B
IB
g 0.01
__.
"a
f ฐ
B
IB
g 0.01
fc-*-
7 9
pH
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility P (Med. S East-Bit., SCR&SNCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Ox.). PAD - unwashed gyp.
Facility Q (PRB, HS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). QAU - unwashed gypsum.
Facility R (PRB, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). RAD - unwashed gypsum.
F-65
-------
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
1 1 1 1 ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
Oป jป.-Q41-
^ "*ซNป^
i ซ
\
jji ^
^ \
rffiT) *
\ ^^'B -Q" ป!
I-^tL
*"-ปii
t
h Lf
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
'S
B
ra
g 0.001 ;
J
X
\ '"
^
ป
r\
^$>-
^*^ u ^*^T*T! *
~^&
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
2 01
c
& o.oi -.
1
g
o o 001 -
u ;
<*
*
*<0
HI
s
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
0.01
^ 0.001
C
5 o.oooi
ra
8
g 0.00001
u
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
...._..
'"F 0
t
^M o
^Ta)
*>^-
A
-fo
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
ง 1 g P
0 0 0 0 P
Cd concentration as function of L/S
* A
rtr-t" h 1 1~ ===f
">,.- ^
A, ;: a
5 ^
~ i _
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
^
|
ra
g 0.001
o
* ....
"*"ป
~ - i
r
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
^
ncentration (n
o
I 1
u
.
n^ft"-: r^"*"^ -ป^
""""-K 0
""-i.--^
e
.....
. 4
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
ncentration (mg/L)
1 1 g P
1 O O O
U
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
^ I
osx
"x;h c
**ป
|.
...h ^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility P (Med. S East-Bit., SCR&SNCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Ox.). PAD - unwashed gyp.
Facility Q (PRB, HS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). QAU - unwashed gypsum.
Facility R (PRB, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). RAD - unwashed gypsum.
F-66
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
G1
Concentration (mg/
I g P
D 0 0 F
ป.,
""
v.
-^s
1 3
ซ
c
.^-^-,*
D jik""A ~^"t^^
^s~ i
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
s
1 \
c
o
1
s
o o.ooi -.
(J
^
Vi
^f
t
^v i
\s\
-y 1
\
1 3
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
I I 1 1 ฐ
r
I
. ,,
7 9 11
pH
13
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
ฐป ป-a_ฐ
i _V-!-- "-"^J
dv\
: A
AA^ ^Sr^S
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
"a
c
o
8
0 0.001
*"
-*-=*
ป^.e.
1 3
.
X 0
^rr-*"*^
._.^...._, ...*.
._._._ 4. . .
.4
7 9 11 13
PH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
"a
E o.i
c
o
c
o
u
0
x*
*""**"--.
v...._
-..._
~--2-_
'---..._
r~___,
)
I -
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
centration (mg/L)
o
I g f
O
(J
J *
-^-~ a- "
f. I^SK
---B
^
i
x. . .
^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง i ง p o
0 0 0 0 P
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
: *^.mB J .Q
~~~~~1:
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
O1 1
"a
c
o
8
0 0.001
--..-.
"^T^tT"^---*^
1 +
... .4
^^^^-^^
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility P (Med. S East-Bit., SCR&SNCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Ox.). PAD - unwashed gyp.
Facility Q (PRB, HS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). QAU - unwashed gypsum.
Facility R (PRB, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). RAD - unwashed gypsum.
F-67
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
^
*_-
g
ra
1
u
o
u
"_CS
ro.
"TT 4
- -ป
[
D
0
v!? 1 ^Wr*-
-n /-N . ^*r^t
v^f
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
^
i
*-.
*^4---^ D
g 0.001
u
i~~i~""' *""^^
ซ^5_
0246
L/S (L/kg)
-i-i-i---~^
^
i
10
Facility P (Med. S East-Bit., SCR&SNCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Ox.). PAD - unwashed gyp.
Facility Q (PRB, HS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). QAU - unwashed gypsum.
Facility R (PRB, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). RAD - unwashed gypsum.
F-68
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
tration (mg/L)
J. l-L O
C
V
(J 0.01
jv^t
1 3
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
5
3vC
3ฎ~T r**ik.
s\ X*"W
v
V
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of As
\
i
^Si
3 5
| |
^
-^?
t2;cr^
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
1
Concentration
1 I ฐ
l
Concentration (mg/L)
o
S g ฐ 0
0 0 0 P
A*~.
^~i
3
1 iป
-*-"'
5
^4
--*
g).*..^-^! 4
9ฎ,-^^-*--"
9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
^
i
^5014-H
3 5
" ^"4^4===*
_.
7 9 11 13
PH
A SAU(P,1,1)
--* SAU(P,1,2)
SAW(P,1,1)
* SAW(P,1,2)
MCLorDWEL
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง f o
0 0 0 P
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
As concentration asfunction of L/S
^
0
r
" **""^
I | |
y^f- -, n -If
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
,_ 100
Concentration (
D
2 2
0
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
A,^
2
,,-
4
4
6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
i
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility S (Illinois Basin High S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
SAL) - unwashed gypsum; SAW - washed gypsum.
F-69
-------
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
1 1 1 1 ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
-ป--.ป--.*
A..
ซ*>
-^
\^5*
\
"\
A._.L\_._^
\
------
A
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
'S
V
to
8
'--
-,
Ik
%
\
.-.*
A
"f
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
^
E_
c
B 0.01 -
1
S
o o 001 -
%
"v.
J^Tj
*
_v
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
0.01
i o.ooi
c
B 0.0001
IB
ง
ง 0.00001
u
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
A ^/
\ ^*-\
. . .-,|.,. A.
V
'' |
4
i j,
(^ -
A J
t*-*4fcM
_A
---A
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
ง 1 g P
0 0 0 0 P
Cd concentration as function of L/S
A,.^
-----*-
"*"-' *,
"**>ซ,
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
^
V
ra
o
31
=ปป^-
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
^
c
o
I
ซ 0.001
c :
U
^ht"h
A
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
0.01
~~~, 0.001
c
5 o.oooi
ra
ง
ง 0.00001
u
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
h
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility S (Illinois Basin High S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
SAL) - unwashed gypsum; SAW - washed gypsum.
F-70
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
sntration (mg/L)
I s
c
o
u
..-ป,..
V
.-3,--"
,,^
****
135
ฃ*ป--<
9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
I '
c
IP 0.01 :
1
O 0 001 -
u
^
I
A i-
s
v
" \X
135
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
I I 1 1 ฐ
S
/
t
ฃ
fo" J i
fe% ^i-//"
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
- -^N i
: 1
-ปvH
135
1
_&
f
1 #
, ty
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
oncentration (mg/L)
1 1 s
^x
>-ป*-..
-^
^;
^ -
g^-p^
H
135
7 9 11 13
PH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
ff^
E_
o
a o.i
1
S
0 0.01
u
4>
i^ """..
"4
"--^L ^__,
_
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
intration (mg/L)
1 1 I
O
u
i -i
**ป,
i
...:x:....
**%^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง 1 g p
0 0 0 0 P
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
^
: rt^'ii^i-N ~~r" :r=r=:>.
: *,(f. J. A
.,...
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 l
"a
8
0 0.001
4_
"'' J
i^
1 ,
... .4
i
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility S (Illinois Basin High S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
SAL) - unwashed gypsum; SAW - washed gypsum.
F-71
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
sntration (mg/L)
D O
D O !
J
-It...
L A
k-*^
Nซ
-t _j ---*
v :/
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
E o.oi
I
V
ra
c
J
^
^ A
*-t~ a
5
0246
L/S (L/kg)
10
Facility S (Illinois Basin High S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
SAL) - unwashed gypsum; SAW - washed gypsum.
F-72
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
100
G1
1
S3
a
i 0.1
0)
o o 01
3
s
S*
:v^
JI
r
z
^ L ^^da^-1*0!.
'v
'^?
(
Ur
s^ >
b.?:_v_ .'
F ' r
\ m
'%
It/'jCTi'N v^V *J . ,
f vJHy rr w T
1 3 5
1 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
\
^
V
\ -^
^i ^
i'
1 |
.i^^r**
S
te^i i
1 *ป*tป4*J' 4 \ A ^
_, -
(M*--*4"*-
135
^**
*
r* -!
......
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
Concentration (mg/L)
IP , E
l-i l-i 0 C
1 1 1 t"\ I
ft
tf-
to^tokAi
_^^/^
AJ%>
135
*=ifL-*-^
9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
5 1
"5
ง "-1
V
ra
u
U 0.001
0.0001
ซL
1^+)^
-*3"<
^^
i 5^=*^
ttSOX. ..
V
ซv"'^ggป-s!t,- , iป^
1 3 5
_.
7 9 11 13
pH
A TAU(
--* TAU(
TAWI
A TAWI
0 TFA(F
TFAJF
+ TFC(F
^<- -TFCJF
5%
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
3,1,1)
3,1,2)
P,l,l)
P,l,2)
1,1)
1,2)
,1,1)
,1,2)
or DWEL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
As concentration asfunction of L/S
^
v*-
A jt--
**
* *.
! s
o
A
--------i
\~
-A
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/ kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
1 10
Concentration (
D
2 ฃ
*-*-
*
. __
~..Jป.. .-i
ซ
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
8
4_*jfe? --a^*^;,
~~*
j
j
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility T (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
TFA - fly ash; TAD - unwashed gypsum; TAW - washed gypsum; TFC - filter cake.
F-73
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
a
B
IB
* 0.001
O 0.0001
'-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
ntrati
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
ntrati
Ik
i
6 8
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
"a
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.001 *-
%
"S. . j
\
7" V^F
/\-i-
' i
! t
, .^ . , 1
<1
^
f (kftfe. (ft
^ฃJ^ff- \3%
+
V
\
^JtMB
+ -1-
A
ncentrati
-I* *I *
13579
pH
6 8
L/S (L/kg)
Facility T (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
TFA - fly ash; TAD - unwashed gypsum; TAW - washed gypsum; TFC - filter cake.
F-74
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
g o.oi
S
O 0.001
-*--ซ
-'.. *?
V"
\ 1i 1 1 1 1i 1 r
7 9 11 13
pH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
*.
02468
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction ofL/S
mg/
B 0.001
1
1-
ntrati
ง
0
I I I I
iซ4te-?~
5*Ffe^
1 --------- 1
1 3 5 7 9 11
PH
6 8
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
"a
g o.oi
S
^~^eฑ-
-iiii*-
PH
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility T (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
TFA - fly ash; TAD - unwashed gypsum; TAW - washed gypsum; TFC - filter cake.
F-75
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility T (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
TFA - fly ash; TAD - unwashed gypsum; TAW - washed gypsum; TFC - filter cake.
F-76
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
mg/
+3
ra
i
V
2
S
-*UAU(P,1,1)
- UFA(P,1,1)
-m UGF(P,1,1)
5%
MCLorDWEL
MDL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
ML
pH dependent Concentration of As
As concentration asfunction of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of B
B concentration asfunction of L/S
ntrati
4 I*~t-t4. --- 4
..
7 9 11
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
i
B
IB
g 0.01
"a
f ฐ
B
IB
g 0.01
7 9
pH
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility L) (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
UFA - fly ash; UAL) - unwashed gypsum; UGF - gypsum/flyash.
F-77
-------
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง F"
ง ง ง g ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
FV^ i *
. (_^ f ,
^A
(r-**
ra
.:!:.*
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
^
f
ra
u
o
5 o.ooi -.
u
ง ,
^"ซ
*-*.
X
"""S
V^^
^L_ZSbtt
::..::iVf ::-::-:: ===== ---_-_---_
\L
V'
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
^ 10 -
"a
Concentration (n
1 1 s
'1 i 1 L 1
i
"""v
L . .
\
^=~t<*^*~~ฎ
_-*t-l 1 1
Bs.d^--=ป*r*nr*t--=i
"I
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
0.01
i o.ooi
c
B 0.0001
IB
8
g 0.00001
u
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
T * ^
,_
\
,\
L \
1 **\
$t
1
4
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
ง i S P
0 0 0 0 P
Cd concentration as function of L/S
""^^ ^ +
^* f r T T T
~*~.
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
^
ra
u
c
3
"< ^ ^
^--^^
s
/
/
f
*
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
G1 l
"a
Concentration
1 1 g F
f~- 1 4
"^~* s*- -i
^^^^-^^.
<
ซ
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
0.01
^ 0.001
c
B 0.0001
IB
ง
ง 0.00001
u
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
-^^^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility U (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
UFA - fly ash; UAL) - unwashed gypsum; UGF - gypsum/flyash.
F-78
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
9 11 13
pH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
^ 100
'a
E 10
0.1
0.01 ]
0.001
6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
1
A
1.
.._
1357
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
mg/
: 1. V
^^IL. !t_:l7_:i_7i.7-7-:
.-!
ntrati
o o.oooi : ~~~ -
1 3 5 7 9 11
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration as function of L/S
1 3
"a
-iiii*-
==*-
pH
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility U (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
UFA - fly ash; UAL) - unwashed gypsum; UGF - gypsum/flyash.
F-79
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
0.1 :
V 0.01
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility U (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
UFA - fly ash; UAL) - unwashed gypsum; UGF - gypsum/flyash.
F-80
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
1000
10
B
a
i '
u
o n H .
3
1
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
J
3
\
t
t
*
t
5
,*"""
^*' " H\
1''' ^ฃ
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
r
t
1
k
\
A \
3 5
| |
A
**' " "''^ffir
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
i 1 ฐ
1
Concentration (mg/L)
i ฃ p o
O O O V l-i O
l-i l-i l-i l-i l-i O O
i
3
"~~1 r
5
*ป-*
\
"^s
m
9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
,
1
If ~
3 5
>(??
- .*-*-* L-4***
!~ ~i ^
:^ = ==r
-
7 9 11 13
pH
A VSD(P,1,1)
--*VSD(P,l,2)
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง g ฐ
o o o
or DWEL
O own pH
0 own pH
As concentration asfunction of L/S
A
**
0
j
H
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
ncentration (mg/L)
-, O
U
0
Concentration (mg/L)
ง 1 t, P ^ S
l-il-il-il-il-iOO
i
2
4
=,-ffdnwwHnฃ
6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
*~~4 i
^ t
^
0246
L/S (L/kg)
t
3 10
Facility V (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime). VSD - spray dryer ash.
F-81
-------
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง p 0
1 1 1 1 ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
Jk
\
,
i V
3- '
_._._.L._. *,
A
*
AO).
*%
"i
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
oncentration (mg/L
o
o P
j
**--.
,
V
V
*~~~~~"&
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
"a
c
o
1
g 0.01 :
C
o
fl
\
>---^i^
r^~J"-3
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
0.1
^ 0.01
Di
^ 0.001
o
B
IB
g 0.0001
g
0 0.00001
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
-- \
V
\
\
-V
r
1
. 4, H
A
*' V
V
ฃ A
3
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
^
c
o
Concentrat
| fc
i> ^'/' *>ซ^ ^L
sz :
v ^-ป
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
^
ra
u
J
S***
.,*
-~~-^--
'''
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
^
ncentration (mgy
1 1 ฃ
u
*-^
t
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
0.01
i o.ooi
c
B 0.0001
IB
ง
ง 0.00001
u
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
_^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility V (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime). VSD - spray dryer ash.
F-82
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
sntration (mg/L)
1 P
C
O
U
1
k ซ
A
^^""^H-^^^
^S
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
I '
c
o
1
o o 001 -
u
t
A
"_T_< f
i
%
t
%
ป
t
i
\ ^X;
fc4-
__
i
/
v
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
I I 1 1 ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
' > '""
: J ".
^K-ii-A-.i
1
1
1
^
_/
^'
_
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
"5
8
0 0.001 i
A
*s\(
x^
!*- -
^^s
._._._ 4
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
"a
E o.i
c
o
c
o
u
* + -^
*"TI
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
;ntration (mg/L)
1 1 ฃ
O
u
**.
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
1 i ง P
o o o o
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
; j j J. J. J.
_ __ _^_,_
: r , T ,
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
G1
"a
Concentration (n
\ 1 1
* j
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility V (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime). VSD - spray dryer ash.
F-83
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
ntration (mg/L)
o
o !
J
4
^
A
k*
....i:<4- ua
5o
.. _ฃ.
*
3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Concentration (mg/L)
D O
1 1 I
A. 4
^
*%%
**"*.
0246
L/S (L/kg)
j
10
Facility V (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime). VSD - spray dryer ash.
F-84
-------
100
Zf
1
S3
| 0.1
V
o o 01
3
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
pH dependent Concentration of Al
^.
.... +2L.
V
*
\_
S
fe^-Ns
^
1 3 5
!,_a
"v /^i
^^vT^ ^ i
'C^'^" ~lf^
^^ A ^/^|-Sv
@->*Tฃ^A i A
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of As
.....\
V
...
^^
tu~--^
<- u
N
^5t
135
.>^
V ' A/- *
A ''Ll>.v^'.:t
K ,- * + ฑ +
f^fe*^
1T:~-
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
1 I S
1 ' ! 1 1
1
5 1
"5
i
V
ra
V
U 0.001
0.0001
+~
^
3
+^*_
-^MA
5
*"""" " ^^ Xl !" *w
BS^g^_Bte-|K_s_g(i_s
B^-^a^*
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
A A
=U K>*.
1 3 5
^sWfca^^X
^^* v ' ~~^H^P"^*ปi\
_.
7 9 11 13
pH
A WAU
4 WAU
WAW
A WAW
0 WFAI
WFAI
+ WFC
K- -WFC
5%
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
i S p o
2 2 S ฐ ^ S
P,1,D
P,l,2)
(P,l,l)
P,l,l)
P,l,2)
P,l,l)
P,l,2)
or DWEL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
As concentration asfunction of L/S
.^
is
0
__
i.
| | |
-- T ^ *
i-^"~-ป .^-^
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
*-*, 100 -
Concentration (
D
2 2
0
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
^
^
2
^^
_^*^-,
4
"-- -
" _
-*--
--4
4
6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
._._*ซ=! -=--|f-r.-^_,
^T
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility W (Med. S East-Bit., SCR-BP, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation, Duct Sorbent Inj.
Troana). WFA - fly ash; WAD - unwashed gypsum; WAW - washed gypsum; WFC - filter cake.
F-85
-------
Concentration (mg/L)
i g p o
I I 1 1 ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
"
:;:XTJt~-
^\ a-ซ
* \ *?
'--ฎ%v-
+ %^
iฎ-1
j tjigr
^
-dt-ป
~Jb-i
2
+ j_
[-*
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
oncentration (mg/L
o
o P
+
^
M-
*^i
\ 4_
\
,V .... _..._
'^ฉW.TV-1'*^
1==^ฃ= ^--.:....
ฉ -i P^ฎ-!^^
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
"5
Concentration
g p
o o ^
\v
*"'-i^(
/fSj gi O
-tf***^
^~m*-
&4d&*t
+
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
0.01
i o.ooi
u
c
B 0.0001
IB
8
g 0.00001
u
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
+**--%
\
A
>v
\v
ol*
-t
A
.; _^-^tN__. .
+'
^
+ 1
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
^
Concentratior
I g
1 O
........
....*,s..i.^'.: s~_
^-ป3*
- 1
~~ ' ~. L^
^r-**-
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
5
V
ra
0
V
**iv
***" ^ ^
-A
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
Concentration (mg/L
ills.
^u_
^s
_^j^h -rrafei-Biis=^
.
.-
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
ncentration (mg/L)
i 1 ง ฐ
1 O O O
U
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
~*^ซ
^
A
X
hx
_L Sป
-j,^"1"
X
0 2
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility W (Med. S East-Bit., SCR-BP, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation, Duct Sorbent Inj.
Troana). WFA - fly ash; WAD - unwashed gypsum; WAW - washed gypsum; WFC - filter cake.
F-86
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
468
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction ofL/S
1
0.1 i
0.01 :
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
6 8
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
g 0.01
S
U*-H@^
iiiiiiiii
7 9 11
pH
.4
-----
*-s 10 =
Facility W (Med. S East-Bit., SCR-BP, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation, Duct Sorbent Inj.
Troana). WFA - fly ash; WAD - unwashed gypsum; WAW - washed gypsum; WFC - filter cake.
F-87
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
tion (mg/
Facility W (Med. S East-Bit., SCR-BP, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation, Duct Sorbent Inj.
Troana). WFA - fly ash; WAD - unwashed gypsum; WAW - washed gypsum; WFC - filter cake.
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
100
1
B
| 0.1
V
o o 01
3
0.0001
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
*-.
^
'^>s
*=i^
S~*^
fc. . |@,
^?^s
'A^I'XXS. ^*
V^^S^X
j '. ^L
' \ N>
i- ^..x-.^jP N
1 3 5
^
^
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of As
\
0
N
^
v'x
C^:
i i
/'
x'
\
J^f -7- T^X^-
135
i ^ j (5>.i
-
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
i 1 ฐ
1 ' ! 1 1
X f
*-,k
X .;
7-^
135
*x.
\7
(Ti ฑ "
/
^.*-1*-*-t "
)ฃ_
9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
100
1
B
V
U
0.001
0.0001
r~"
t-*^"
,___^ป ^r
> ^^*
<"*<~->S-s>C2l
= ====
1 3 5
<
f :^
7 9 11 13
PH
* XAU(P,1,1)
~i XAW(P,1,1)
XFA(P,1,1)
MCLorDWEL
--MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
i S p
0 0 0 P
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
ML
As concentration asfunction of L/S
-^
*-.
rrr^
| | |
1 i i
X^ ^ *-i^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/ kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 10
I1
Concentration
T ฐ
i o P
^
^
A
^ซ. .
^-*_
*
__ _
^^^
*
^ S
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
ง 1 b p ^ S
l-il-il-il-il-iOO
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
^=B < .
"1" t
*
^
~"
c
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility X (PRB, SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
XFA - fly ash; XAU - unwashed gypsum; XAW - washed gypsum; XFC - filter cake.
F-89
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
B
IB
g 0.001
1357
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
a
E o.ooi
B
IB
i
g 0.0001
.: Sk.__
\:
*
^*
1
-=*
-..
-ป
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 -3
-. 0.001
j ป
-iiiiiiiiiiii1-
pH
246
L/S(L/kg)
Facility X (PRB, SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
XFA - fly ash; XAU - unwashed gypsum; XAW - washed gypsum; XFC - filter cake.
F-90
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
0.01 -U--
O 0.0001
1
o o.oooi : -_---- :
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
1
10
1
0.1 ]
0.01 i
0.001 i
0.0001
0246
L/S (L/kg)
Facility X (PRB, SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
XFA - fly ash; XAU - unwashed gypsum; XAW - washed gypsum; XFC - filter cake.
F-91
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
01
E o.oi
g 0.001
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility X (PRB, SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
XFA - fly ash; XAU - unwashed gypsum; XAW - washed gypsum; XFC - filter cake.
F-92
-------
ration (mg/L)
, o
V
(J 0.001
0.0001
Concentration (mg/L)
1 1 g g
pH dependent Concentration of Al
A
1 3 5
y;^
X , i(
" \ ~r.
\
\
\
^
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
A *-
A
135
| |
"ป
'..I...
1
A
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
i 1 ฐ
1 ' ! 1 1
1
m
sntration (mg/L
-, O
rj
0.001
0.0001
3
AA*---
5
-*kฑ
^T
A ^
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
A*"<-
1 3 5
- '^ A-4 --*A ^ A'^
"'^-""^v.-^
,
_.
7 9 11 13
pH
A YSD(P,1,1)
~*YSD(P,l,2)
5%
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
1 g f o
0 0 0 P
or DWEL
O own pH
0 own pH
95%
As concentration asfunction of L/S
v
0
^^^
I | |
1 i i
*
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
ncentration (mg/L)
-, O
(J
0
"a
1 01
IB
g 0.01
0!
0 0.001
0.0001
2
4
6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
J--J* =--;+
....
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Y (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime, Natural Oxidation). YSD - spray dryer
ash.
F-93
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
f "1
c
ฃ 0.01
ง
u
t
A*
^JU**'
-@
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
oncentration (mg/L
o
o P
A
A*
'*ป
\N
I
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Concentration (mg/L
1 1 s
A *"
-.
@
> V''
^^-3-*^S?
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
0.01
i o.ooi
_!
c
B 0.0001
IB
ง
g 0.00001
(J
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
<
A
^N ^
^ - N
AV*Su ^*
A
-s
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
^
^
Concentratio
I g
1 O
*.,
X^*ป
*~**Mซซ
- -t 4
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
1
ra
u
J
X
x'
X
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
"a
Concentration
1 1 g F
t A. J
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
ncentration (mg/L)
i 1 ง ฐ
1 O O O
(J
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
^ 1^ ,
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Y (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime, Natural Oxidation). YSD - spray dryer
ash.
F-94
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
ff^
Concentration (mg/
g P
l
3
-i
**-L
5
^
7*
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
;ntration (mg/L)
D O
D O !
O
(J
A* -
135
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
I I 1 1 ฐ
"'* A*^-*-*"
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
V"
: 1 1
**- ^T~*L^ j_
i
ป
ป
* A
ฉ
3fc, .
""^Y^
_
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
"5
8
0 0.001 i
-i ,*___
135
. f^.
J*^-4 -4
._._._ 4. . .
7 9 11 13
pH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
^^
"a 1
0
1
s
u
0
ป,
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
mtration (mg/L)
1 1 ฃ
O
(J
^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
1 i ง P
o o o o
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
; j j J. J. J.
i
\
\
A \ A,
\ A
: r ,.^. T ,
\
* + + n
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
G1
"a
Concentration (n
1 1 1
* +
f-.----.-.^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Y (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime, Natural Oxidation). YSD - spray dryer
ash.
F-95
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
d
oi
E o.oi
i
V
ra
i
s ' ;
0
A .
* A "^-A.**t4*$
V j 1
""" % 1
t 1
3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
^
E o.oi
g
ys
ra
J
0246
L/S(L/kg)
"*~*~'Ai
10
Facility Y (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime, Natural Oxidation). YSD - spray dryer
ash.
F-96
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
tration (mg/L)
-i l-i O
C
V
U 0.01
1 3
Concentration (mg/L)
1 1 g
%- /
V
5
V
^^v
^/
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of As
l
_.^._.
3 5
| |
1
\ (T*
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
ncentration (mg/L)
| o
U
1 3
Concentration (mg/L)
i ง p o
o o o y 1-1 o
l-i l-i l-i l-i l-i O O
*"* ป
5
*
-.-ป**,*'V". ';;
\ /
9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
l
3 5
<ฎ
S~*^S^
Y f-
!~ ~i ^
:^ = ==r
-
7 9 11 13
PH
ZFA(P,1,1)
MCLorDWEL
MDL
0.01
1
C
V
8
0.0001
O own pH
ML
As concentration asfunction of L/S
0
j
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/ kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
^
ncentration (mg;
-, O
U
0
Concentration (mg/L)
ง 1 t, P ^ S
l-il-il-il-il-iOO
2
4
6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
"i" t
^_
.(
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility Z (PRB, CS-ESP). ZFA - fly ash.
F-97
-------
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
1 1 1 1 ฐ
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
V
N
,
(
C~
. .^
\
\-
3^ ^
ft\
w
...
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Co
oncentration (mg/L
o
o P
**-n
V
^~.
IZZ3I
---
-V
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Concentration (mg/L
1 1 s
F
/
-f
1
sS*\
y^" \
"^
1 j.
r
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
0.01
i o.ooi
c
B 0.0001
IB
i
g
ง 0.00001
u
0.000001
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
(Tk
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
1 1 ง
o o o o
Cd concentration as function of L/S
_i .._._._._._.
f
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Co concentration as function of L/S
G1
"a
ra
i
0)
ฃ
3
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Cr concentration as function of L/S
G1
"a
oncentration (r
o
1 [
u
X
-^
/^
X
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
ncentration (mg/L)
i 1 ง ฐ
1 O O O
(J
0.000001
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility 7. (PRB, CS-ESP). ZFA - fly ash.
F-98
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
E o.i
1
g 0.01
Mo concentration as function of L/S
"a
E o.i
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
,ป,
1357
pH
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
E o.ooi
1
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
"a
E o.oi
i i
pH
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Z (PRB, CS-ESP). ZFA - fly ash.
F-99
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
V 0.001
ra
i
0)
g
3
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Z (PRB, CS-ESP). ZFA - fly ash.
F-100
-------
100
G1
1
B
| 0.1
V
o o 01
3
0.0001
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
pH dependent Concentration of Al
^
^ป V
5
^ \*
i,_..:-r.^
V v;
4- }
\
r fc4
1 3 5
^j5^[SX
;. Sfe-j
"--fgp^ \r,
Jjr vซ
1 X^ |\V
_v^....+ LV
1' , [ *x
k-
=^
ปx
-3sk
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
\
^\
^
^tsl
, v V*
**&P
^N^
135
| |
m^rm f
_-^*-H
> 1 e#T _rsrซ
^.^ ^27
ป J^^^
-^St - ^*ป
^^-^ .'
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
O 0.0001
u
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
i
B
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
1
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.01 3
B 0.0001
~*vl.
pH
L/S(L/kg)
Facility Aa (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
AaFA, AaFB - fly ash (CS-ESP); AaFC - fly ash (HS-ESP);
AaAU - unwashed gypsum; AaAW - washed gypsum.
F-102
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
G* l i
"S
c
*=* Oil '
o
g
o
0^
Ss
\
\
*
p
ซT
^-- J
135
gN
^a"
f*"^-"" L"
-A
7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
I '
c
o
1
o o 001 -
u
i
'
\
k ?Sy "~~
ง
C|
135
Concentration (mg/L)
1 ง ฐ 0
1 1 1 1 ฐ
i
^x^L I -ja
7? :\ F;^9*
si Vi-v
* o L ปti (ซ^ c/
if
t
4-
t.
/ 1
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
"^^
\
***
-^
v- ^.^v-
/
4*
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
"a
*=* Oil i
i
0 0.001 ;
s.
V>
^
^^^e
^" ^ta
135
-J*^~*~A~*
^^>r *| '
** L^5** "&fc jy-x e
._._._ 4. . .
-4-4
'T
"'-"
7 9 11 13
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
"a
o
'E
|
o
0
aX^--
" ^Ha
^
MiB-lฃ^
~~" *~
:;--
2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Pb concentration as function of L/S
ntration (mg/L)
i g i
O
u
"^__
GL^
t"*^"
^s
^^^
*s
A
rซ=. ^
<
~^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง 1 g p
0 0 0 0 P
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
i *^l ^" ^^^^ f
: ................ .......^^ ......................
: ^4^,
-~~^-
^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 1
"a
g
0 0.001
it-
^^^*=51 i^L~
\
^ . -~ ^
... .4
" .,
- - __ _
. .4
<
"' 1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Aa (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
AaFA, AaFB - fly ash (CS-ESP); AaFC - fly ash (HS-ESP);
AaAU - unwashed gypsum; AaAW - washed gypsum.
F-103
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
a
7
B
Facility Aa (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
AaFA, AaFB - fly ash (CS-ESP); AaFC - fly ash (HS-ESP);
AaAU - unwashed gypsum; AaAW - washed gypsum.
F-104
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
1000
10
B
ra
i '
0)
o n H .
3
^
N
\
\
s
gr
/
^^*
-
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
pH dependent Concentration of As
\
r
t
L
\
1 1
\_
V
,
__
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
1 1 ฐ
- _.
'
" \
+_
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง g P o
0 0 0 P I-L
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
_^__
">*>>ซL. ^*
,
_.
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
BaFA(P,l,l)
MCLorDWEL
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง g ฐ
o o o
O own pH
As concentration asfunction of L/S
>
Z-
r
i
/^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/ kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
ncentration (mg/L)
-, O
u
H
^
^~-~
-~_.
-,
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
1 1 1 ฐ , s
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
* *^^_
................. .........
r
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility Ba (PRB-Lignite Blend, CS-ESP w/ COHPAC Ammonia Inj.). BaFA - fly ash.
F-105
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1357
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
-Iii 1h-
4 6
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
i
B
01
a o.ooi
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
1357
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.01 3-
I I I
-IiiiIiiiIiiiIiii[-
1357
pH
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Ba (PRB-Lignite Blend, CS-ESP w/ COHPAC Ammonia Inj.). BaFA - fly ash.
F-106
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
1357
pH
Mo concentration as function of L/S
"a
E o.i
6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Pb
Pb concentration as function of L/S
1
\
7
1357
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction of L/S
O 0.0001
E o.ooi
1
2468
L/S(L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
Facility Ba (PRB-Lignite Blend, CS-ESP w/ COHPAC Ammonia Inj.). BaFA - fly ash.
F-107
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
Facility Ba (PRB-Lignite Blend, CS-ESP w/ COHPAC Ammonia Inj.). BaFA - fly ash.
F-108
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Al
1000
10
S3
a
i '
V
o n H .
S
^
s
-
v
v -
X
\
A
\
\
b^^
r*Q
7
~^^s~^/ ^
"*
^
...
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
pH dependent Concentration of As
V
X
r
t
L
N
\
| |
*^^~~~~ -,
^4>^*sL
^
jr
" *
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
G1 10
1
Concentration
i 1 s
-
iฎ--
*Hป
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
o
ง g P o
0 0 0 P
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
"~~
^^,
TS*^
-
x '^^^^^
^...
.
_.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH
CaAW(P,l,l) 0 own pH
CaFA(P,l,l) O own pH
MDL
Concentration (mg/L)
1 g ฐ 0
0 0 0 P
or DWEL
As concentration asfunction of L/S
r ' 1-*~
--^r^-; ___
1 1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/ kg)
B concentration asfunction of L/S
G1 10
I1
c 1
o
1 ...
o
"=n
^^^. *
~ _
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
Ba concentration asfunction of L/S
t !
+. +
^^_^_^
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Ca (Gulf Coast Lignite, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
CaFA - fly ash; CaAW - washed gypsum.
F-109
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
1357
Cd concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
i
B
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
o.i , -f-
1
oi
0.1
_o
g 0.01
pH
0 2 4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
0.01 3
-. 0.001
1357
pH
Facility Ca (Gulf Coast Lignite, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
CaFA - fly ash; CaAW - washed gypsum.
F-110
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
Mo concentration as function of L/S
g o.i
u
g
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
Tl concentration as function of L/S
a
E o.oi
i
g 0.001
J
^
'
4 6 8 10
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Ca (Gulf Coast Lignite, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
CaFA - fly ash; CaAW - washed gypsum.
F-112
-------
100
1
B
| 0.1
V
3
0.0001
Concentration (mg/L)
Ills,
pH dependent Concentration of Al
***
^
*%
V
^A
"
1 3 5
^-^~"~*~
\ /_
'i^ ^-'*'"-iee -A
\ ' &'
. .\ฃ
_->
\
\
;
"
1 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of As
K
....
^x
135
l i
j-^T-'
^^^
'--^
Vx "^-~.^
"~'~M~ A~~
^
*
.*'*
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of B
1 ,n
Concentration (
I s
i
a i
"5
ง Oil
V
ra
V
U 0.001
0.0001
3
5
^.-~-.^
X
7 9 11 13
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Ba
^
*
NปV
1 3 5
l^ff
_.
1 9 11 13
pH
--*-- DaAV
DaFA
ป<--DaFC
5%
MDL
Concentration (mg/L
1 g ฐ 0
0 0 0 P
;p,i,i)
!R 1,1)
or DWEL
O own pH
O own pH
O own pH
95%
As concentration asfunction of L/S
x
0
*
x .
I | |
4. |_
\t
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Cd
O 0.0001
1357
pH
Cd concentration as function of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Co
Co concentration as function of L/S
a
pH dependent Concentration of Cr
Cr concentration as function of L/S
E 0.01
pH
pH dependent Concentration of Hg
Hg concentration as function of L/S
0.01 3
a ฐ'001
ง 0.00001 ;
\
. I Vฎ I - ^
0.01 3
^ 0.001
1357
pH
IiiiIiiiIiiiIiiiI
2 4 6 8 10
L/S(L/kg)
Facility Da (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
DaFA - fly ash; DaAW - washed gypsum; DaFC - filter cake.
F-114
-------
pH dependent Concentration of Mo
5 7 9 11
PH
Mo concentration asfunction of L/S
pH dependent Concentration ofPb
Pb concentration asfunction of L/S
pH dependent Concentration of Sb
Sb concentration asfunction ofL/S
mg/
ntrati
p
1
1 3 5 7 9 11
PH
ntrati
o 0.0001 ; -_-----
pH dependent Concentration ofSe
Se concentration asfunction of L/S
mg/
468
L/S (L/kg)
Facility Da (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
DaFA - fly ash; DaAW - washed gypsum; DaFC - filter cake.
F-115
-------
pH dependent Concentration ofTI
? ,
entration (mg;
o
o !
"
s o.ooi -
u
^
i.
--@-
"S. _
>
^-3x
l---^cp
_.__+_ ^_J hJ^i_
^fjf)
,.
^
x
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
PH
Tl concentration as function of L/S
d 1
a
i Oil
B
IB
0!
0 0.001
0.0001
.. x. ....
*S
\
-V jf
Nl ! ./
^, /
T^
'ป
246
L/S (L/kg)
^
X
10
Facility Da (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
DaFA - fly ash; DaAW - washed gypsum; DaFC - filter cake.
F-116
-------
Appendix G
CCR pHTitration Curves
Brayton Point - Fly ash without and with ACI (Samples BPB, BPT) G-l
Pleasant Prairie - Fly ash without and with ACI (Samples PPB, PPT) G-2
Salem Harbor - Fly ash without and with ACI (Samples SHB, SHT) G-3
Facility A - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge -SNCR-BP
(Samples CFA, CGD, CCC) G-4
Facility A - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge -SNCR on
(Samples AFA, AGD, ACC) G-6
Facility B - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge -
SCR-BP (Samples BFA, BCD, BCC) G-8
Facility B - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge -
SCR on (Samples DFA, DGD, DCC) G-10
Facility C - Fly ash without and with ACI (Samples GAB, GAT) G-12
Facility E - Fly ash, SCR on and SCR-BP (Samples EFA, EFC, EFB) G-13
Facilities F, G, and H - Fly ash (Samples FFA, GFA, HFA) G-14
Facility J - Fly ash without and with Br-ACI (Samples JAB, JAT) G-16
Facility K - Fly ash; Scrubber sludge; Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge
(Samples KFA, KGD, KCC) G-17
Facility L - Fly ash without and with Br-ACI (Samples LAB, LAT) G-19
Facility M - Mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge, SCR-BP and SCR on
(Samples MAD, MAS) G-20
Facility N - Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples NAD, NAW) G-21
Facility O - Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples OAU, OAW) G-22
Facilities P, Q, and R - Gypsum, unwashed (Samples PAD, QAU, RAU) G-23
Facility S - Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples SAD, SAW) G-25
G-i
-------
Facility T - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples TFA, TAD, TAW) G-26
Facility U - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed; Mixed fly ash and gypsum
(Samples UFA, UAU, UGF) G-28
Facility V - Spray dryer ash (Sample VSD) G-29
Facility W - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples WFA, WAU, WAW) G-30
Facility X - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples XFA, XAU, XAW) G-32
Facility Y - Spray dryer ash (Sample YSD) G-34
Facility Z-Fly ash (Sample ZFA) G-34
Facility Aa - Fly ash; Gypsum, unwashed and washed (Samples AaFA, AaFB,
AaFC, AaAU, AaAW) G-35
Facility Ba - Fly ash (Samples BaFA) G-38
Facility Ca - Fly ash; Gypsum, washed (Samples CaFA, CaAW) G-39
Facility Da - Fly ash; Gypsum, washed (Samples DaFA, DaAW) G-40
G-ii
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8 .
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
Own |DH _
r
r
i-
h
1
-4.0 -3
- r-
ง
r - ^_ ป-Q
1~ *
r 7
1 ซ
r
i
:
-*-
1
1
L _L
-44
4
4
i I i | i
- ^
-
1
BPB
-
L 4
J~
-
4
4
1 h
1 I ' I
.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
0 4
o
14
13-
12-
11 -
10-
Q
I 8
ฐ- -7
1
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
"BPT^
4- ^"r4 4 4 4 4
4 ^ ^' ^ ^ ^ ^
T T T งJ T T T
Own rjHT _Jm ~ m^_ J_~ ^~. t " T T T
T
It
!
i .1 _ i
^ a a _j_-Sa a a
4444444
444 41 4 4
1 f 1 1
I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1
3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Brayton Point (East-Bit., CS-ESP). BPB - fly ash without ACI; BPT - fly ash with ACI.
G-l
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8 .
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
-
4
Own ph . _1
r ~~
T
-^
h
h
i.
i
:
i
_L
L - - 4
,
4
L
i
-
-
-
*
- -
" r
h
h - -
r
r "
L _!_! _!_ _,
L _ _
h
'-.,
I I 1
, "-i-ป-i
h
,
-
-2-101 2 3 4 5 6 7 ฃ
h
PPB
h - -
r
r ~
-
_ _ i
_ _ a
- -
h
^
~ ~\
3 9 10
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
" 7 "
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
_._
j
_Dwn_pH_ ง
. i . . .^>
-
i ,r
~i
!
I
-
L
r
~w
._ .
-i
i
h
Tซ^: 5
-
ป
PPT
T
T
M
4-
J
-
4
I i i | i | i i | i i |
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Pleasant Prairie (PRB, CS-ESP). PPB - fly ash without ACI; PPT - fly ash with ACI.
G-2
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8 .
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
Gw^rjH
r
r
_
^ _".
- H
_ . J . _ti
^
1
!
r t
i
: Y
^
I "
-
_ J . _L L
*
-J- - J I - i - J- _ i- _
L - -
h
i
-2.0 -1
-j
-
J
i
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
,
5 1
,
SHB
-
_ 1
-
4
1 h
i I I
0 1.5 2.0 2
5 3
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14
13-
12-
11 -
10-
Q
I 8
ฐ- 7
i
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
~SHT^
-+ -| 4 4 4 4
-t -f -f -f^ -f -t -f
Own ฃH . _' . _ .~_ ~J~_~ _~. i
>
:
[
i it i
a. a a 4i- a a a
4- 1 L J- ^0 ^ ^ ^
4 4 4 4 4. 4 4
tit t
I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1
3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Salem Harbor (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). SHB - fly ash without ACI; SHT - fly ash with
ACI.
G-3
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
f
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
- H
- *]
%
Own phT
^ "
L - -
-
.1"
i^^ ^^" ^^ ^H|
.
1 -
r .
1 .
:
1
_ _
^i
ซ~ ~
"
_ J . _L%_ L
i-
-i-
I
-2.0 -1
ji -
i
_ _
CFA
J 1
_
-I - - -
- J- t - r -
i I I
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
5 1
a
1 h
i I I
0 1.5 2.0 2
5 3
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14
13-
12-
11 -
-lo-
g-
in
6-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
- H +
P- ^
r - i
~ 1'~trr
- -
- " " ~i ' T r
ซ.
Own p_hj _ _
L
i
f
i ^
IS
I
I
4
1
1 i '
-2.0 -1
1
-
CGD
T
~1 T
ง
r
^ - - -
4
4
i i i i i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
1 h
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR-BP.
CFA - fly ash; CGD - scrubber sludge.
G-4
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
Q
I 8
ฐ- 7
/
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
cccf
4444444
t ^ ~i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
T T r T T T T
Own oH .
| T T T
r i
I
11 11111
_L L i_ -! L L L
4- 4 4 -*--tl 1 1
4 4 - 4 4 t- 4 4
1 1 1 1
I ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1 ' I ' 1
2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR-BP.
CCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
G-5
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I ซ-
Q.
7-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
OwTTgH
r
\-
h
1
t- ii - -
P-
^i
i*
r
i i
:
i
2
- - - -
- - - -
AFA
1 _ _L J J l_l
I
-2.0 -1
-i
j
-
-.-
- J- t - r -
i I I
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
5 1
|-
a
-
1 h
i I I
0 1.5 2.0 2
5 3
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
lo-
g-
in
6-
-
5 -
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r - i
'***
i
i - -
^ _ .
- H +
~ ~l t ^
- -i T r r
i - งT - r -
.-^-
*
i~ ~^" ^~- O
*-
+-
1 i '
-2.0 -1
1
4
- -i
-
-
AGO
T
~1 T
r.
- H 4 f-
4
i i i i i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
-
-
H 4
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR on.
AFA - fly ash; AGO - scrubber sludge.
G-6
-------
14-
13-
-
12-
-
11 -
10-
9-
Q
I
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4 4 4 4 -
8
4444
(
4444
ACC
h 4 4
1- 4 4
r r r
444 444
^
Own pH ป
_. ._._._._._. .
T1
i
*
_L _L _L '_,
a -1 4
4444
t L L
4 4
444-4 4
t--|
I ' I ' 1 ' 1 '
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1
1 I ' 1
0 2.0 3.0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility A (Low S East-Bit., Fabric F., Limestone, Natural Oxidation). SNCR on.
ACC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
G-7
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8 .
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
- -
- H
Own_ghi __
- -
L - -
-
-V-
rt::
*
it
:
i
- -
_ J . _ 1L L L
i--ป-
H--
I
-2.0 -1
ji -
^
BFA
-
-
_i i
-
-, - - -
- J- t - r -
i I I
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
5 1
a
1 1
I I I
0 1.5 2.0 2
5 3
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14
13-
12-
11 -
lo-
g-
in
" 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
-
T- .
OwnrJhT
T " r
- -
_
i
=---
i
. _ _ _ _
ป
S-
I
I
1
-
- -
r
r
.
**.
- -
BCD
T
T
-
4- ]-.--- ' 4- ^j - -\ 4-
1
-2.0 -1
H -
- -ซ - + - ^ -
i 1
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
5 1
-4-
i i i
0 1.5 2.0 2
5 3
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR-BP.
BFA - fly ash; BGD - scrubber sludge.
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
CL
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r
Own_gH
1- - -
h
- H 4
- - * -I - -t - -
i .-
~ ~~ ~ " n T
^^m
_
V
1
1
-
- - - -
_ J _L _ L
1 4
i
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
4
4
i 1 i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
_^ _ . l_
BCC
-
J 1
-
J i
, ,
1
a
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR-BP.
BCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
G-9
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
ฐ" 7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
OwrTeH
J
1
f- -1 - -
-*l
T r
L - -
h
- - - -
- - - -
J^
_J3
1 V
!
DFA
-
i _ :L _ i i i _ 4
_ _ _ _j 5
:
-
I J_ . l_
t^
J ^ ^
'-
-
4
\ i iii ii
2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
o
14
13-
12-
11 -
10-
a
Q
I 8
ฐ- 7
/
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
DGD^
+ + + + + + +
t h -*-t^ h h h h
T T ~^T T T T T
OwnrjH i
1
, h
! i
i I _I i
_L a 4 __ ^ a a
^4J^4|44
44 .4444
1 1 1 1
I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1
2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR on.
DFA - fly ash; DGD - scrubber sludge.
G-10
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8~
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
-i-
_ _
_ _
-
- -
-
-
X)wn pH ซ
T - - -- - -I 4 4 - - - - 4 4
T
t
t
_|_
I
|
1 _ .
t
+
1
.
~
IS
1 _f J_
. _ _ _
- - - -
-1 - t- -
1 ' 1 '
0.0 0
1
-
- -
-J
. l_
J 1
-
4
1 h 9]
h - 1
1
i i i i i
4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2
J_
1 1
1 1 ' 1 ' 1
4 2.8 3.2 3
6 4
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility B (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation). SCR on.
DCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
G-ll
-------
1/1
13-
12-
-\ -1
1 1
10-
ฃ
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4 4
"Own rjhf_ _ _
T 4
4 r
L
4
4
\
- 4 4 4
^\ 4 t-
IV
_ii
1 J
ft
I _'_L _ L _
J- + - ^ -
_
::
GAB
-
_ 4
j 4
-J 4
H 4
n i ill ii
2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
0
14
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8J
CL
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h - -
- 4
4
T r ~ ,~i 4 r - r - -
r
Own pjh
L
V
;n 4 4
._.
- --
-V
T
L
J V
iป -
4 - -
I
-2.0 -1
j
- -
- -I - 4
-
. _ _ _
_ _ _
- J- t - r -
i i i
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
5 1
GAT
4
4
-
4 4
i i i
0 1.5 2.0 2
5 3
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility C (Low S East-Bit., HS-ESP w/ COHPAC). GAB - fly ash without ACI; GAT fly ash with
ACI.
G-12
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8 .
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r
- H 4
- -I *- -t
- t^-
" ~~ ~ " n T
j
m
X
1
Own rohJ _ _ _
L - -
h
- -
-
-
- ~ ~ ~
---^ -S
- J . -tl- L - I-
1 .
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
4
4
i 1 i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
-
-
J _L
-
- - - -
, ,
1
a
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
^ 7 "
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4
4
j
- H
A
-
T r ~ - - i งT r - - - -
T r " ~ " " ~\ "V
A
-Qwn-rjhL _ _
4 L
4 ^
4 1-
_ . _
J
j
. __ . _ . -A
4
-EFC-
T
- - - - -\ T
^ -1l^
- H 4 1- - 1-
1
L -
: :
-\ 4-
H 4
I i i i i i | i | i | i i | i | i
2.0 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
o
Facility E (Med. S East-Bit.). EFA, EFC - fly ash SCR on.
G-13
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
-
I
7 -
6-
5 -
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r
_
Own p_H
- H
- -)-
1 - -
V
9
I
-
-
- - - -
_ J _ %L L . L
^ =_ = -_n _d -=_ *
r ~
-
-
1 _ _L
_
a
+ - \ 1 - -j-\ } \ - 4-
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
+
1
1 i
L -
>
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility E (Med. S East-Bit.). EFB - fly ash SCR-BP.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
CL
7
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
-2
h -
h
h
r
r
- H
~ ~i ~i
1
" ~ ~ " n
9
"
i
*
Own pH . __
-
-
- - - -
1 1
-
1-
h
1 1 '
.0 -1
- -
i
- H
_ _| _ J
1 i '
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0
- ,-
r -
1
0 0
,
1
-\ 4-
1 1
1 1 ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility F (Low S East-Bit., CS-ESP). FFA - fly ash.
G-14
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
^ 7 "
5 -
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
- -
r -
- 4
i m-
l
1 --
- -
GFA
-
-
-
4 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ *T 4~~~~4 4
_
Own gH
.____! . 1 L . L _ _ J 1
-- = -J--J--f - i-
-
4
4 - J 1 - -j-"j J 1 - 4
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
4
I
1 i
L -
1
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility G (Low S East-Bit., SNCR, CS-ESP). GFA- fly ash.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10 -
9 -
CL "
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
-2
h -
h
h
r
r
_wrrrJ_
L _ .
-
- 4 4
- 4 ' 4
i -r -
r :_t
_._._._. ^
1.
1
*
4.
1 1 '
.0 -1
4 -
_i_
i
4
- 4- 4 - -
1 1 1 1 1
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
-
J
,
1
"HFA
-
4
-
1 1
1 I ' I ' I
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility H (High S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). HFA-fly ash.
G-15
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8 .
7 -
-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
-
h -
Own pH ~
T
1 ^
-
h
h - -
r " -
- -
- -
h
h - -
r " -
4 " I" 4
JAB
h -
h - -
r " "
~ 4
4
i
t
i
:
i
ซ
- t-
1
<
ป
>
^
1 _L L L _ _ 4 L L
4
1 1
,
4
L
i
-
L
-
L - -
h
- t- I- ,
- -
I I 1
r -
- -
h
,
-
-2-101 2 3 4 5 6 7 ฃ
_ _ 4
L - -
h
^
~ H
3 9 10
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
-
z:
" 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
Own pH .ซ.
^ " T " ^W
T
-
-
-
" ~
T " ~ 1 ~i r " ~ 4
T
4
ซ
1
-
I
4
1 1
,
-lf-
L
t
i
r ~
JAT
r ~
~4 r r
*! "i"
L
"
- -'
'-8-
L _ _
-
L _ _
^ --4 4-4 --4 --4
h -
h -
h -
1 1 ^
\ \ \
h -
-
-2-101 234567?
^
~ H
h
3 9 10
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility J (PRB/Low S Bit mix., CS-ESP). JAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; JAT - fly ash with Br-
ACI.
G-16
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
lo-
g-
in
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
Own rjH _ _
L - -
h
- H 4
- - - 4 r 4
_ . _
- ~l ' ' f
k
F1
T.
-
-
H-
-j A L
i
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
4
4
i 1 i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
KFA
_ 4
J 4
ฅ
, ,
1
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
Q
I ^ .
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4 4 H
4 4 -- 1
Own rjH ._._._.
T r |
4
- ^ -
^ 4
r 4
I
1 L
-L |
h
4
4444
t -\
\ ' 1 '
-2.0 -1.0 0
L - - t -
1 1
0 1.0
KGD^
444
- ^ -|- _ -f-
4 T 4
r r r
^ _!
T
% 4
4 ฑm- 4 4
4 -ซ-J 4 4
444
1 I ' I ' I
2.0 3.0 4.0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility K (East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation).
KFA - fly ash; KGD - scrubber sludge.
G-17
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
Q
I 8
ฐ- 7
/
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
~KCCT
4444444
t ^ ^ ^ ^ "t -t -t
T T T T T T T
TT^TTTTT
Own ^H ^
T
! " .
1 L L .1 L L L
-L -L j -9-L a a
4- 4 4-%4 4^.4 4
44 -4444
1 1 1 1
I ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' 1 ' I ' 1
2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility K (East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Mg Lime, Natural Oxidation).
KCC - mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
G-18
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
zi:
7 -
6-
c
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r
- H -f
- -I* h
T - -
~ ~~ ~ " n F
-
- - - -
J
*
Qwn-rjH
L - -
h
I
1 "I 1 .
9
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
-i.
- ^ - i .- -
- H . -
4
i 1 i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
LAB
-
. L
, ,
1
a
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14
13-
12-
11 -
-lo-
g-
in
" 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h - -
- H +
- -I* h
T ~ 1 1 ~ J ~ 1 I
T-1 ! _ ^ _ 1
OwrLEH
L
^
*
1
~ป
_ i ^ .ฉ
i
i .
1-
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
-
- - - -
4 - +-
4
i i i i i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
LAT
T
T
-
1 h
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility L (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit.; SOFA, HS-ESP).
LAB - fly ash without Br-ACI; LAT - fly ash with Br-ACI.
G-19
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8~
7 -
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
i
4 - -
MAD
-
(jpwnp^ 1-4-1 1 - 4
T
t^
-
T E !: Et ' 1 1 1 E ~ T
t
t
i _ .
t
^
i
i '
0.0 0
"*
.*
*~ ^^^
*
?
1
1
1
_ _ I I I _ 4
4 . 4
- -
h - 1
1
i i i i i
4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2
4
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 2.8 3.2 3
6 4
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
lo-
g-
in
" 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4 4
T r
T - I
L
I
-
j
- 4
^4
- - - f r
7.
&
!
_ i
-i
j
- H -
_ ^ .
-^ -
. _
L _
j - + ^
-
"MAS
4
4
4
4 4
1 h
\ i ii ii
2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3
o
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility M (Illinois Basin Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Inhibited Oxidation).
MAD - SCR-BP; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
MAS - SCR on; mixed fly ash and scrubber sludge (as managed).
G-20
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
zi:
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r
Own roH
L - -
h
- H 4
- -I ซ- 4
- g^
" ~ ~ " n
= .J^-^^. 4_
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
-
- - - -
_ J _L ^ L
- J - 4 - J
- -I j- f-
- H - -* -
4
i I i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
NAU
-
J _L
-
a
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14
13-
12-
11 -
10-
i
" 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h - -
- H 4
- -| -^
T r - - i V r - r - -
r
Own pjh
L
L
1 t r
4
j*
V
g
_L*_
4
1V
4
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
-
4
4
i i i i i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
NAW
T
T
-
1 h
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility N (High S East-Bit., CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
NAU - unwashed gypsum; NAW - washed gypsum.
G-21
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
T_
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r
- 4 4
1 t- 4 - -
- 4 4
H *
"Own pHT~
_ . L_| . _ .
\- - -
h
I
_-_._._..$>
| ^
'
- - - -
OAU
I.^.L1! _4
1 - 4 - J
'-4-
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
1 1- - -
4- -
i | i j i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
^ _
- - - -
-
, ,
1
4
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
lo-
g-
in
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4 4
4 4
T r
T - I
Own p_h| _ _
L
j
- 4 4
1 -. 4 - -
~ " " ~l ' 4
T
1 ^
V
J^
- -
4
4
4
:-
^ 4 ^
- H 4 f-
4
\ ' I ' ' ' I ' I '
2.0 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
-f
-
-
OAW"
4
4
4 4
4 4
1 h
i i | i | i
4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
o
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility O (Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
OAU - unwashed gypsum; OAW -washed gypsum.
G-22
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
^ 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
+ f-
t t-
T r
T r
Own rjH
_
j
- H
- -1 i-
i
- n v r
i
, 4
.____! _
IV
-
::
_L L . _ _ _ J . 4 _ L - -
L - -
h
- H *^
1
L -
PAD
-
_ _L
a
1 h
\ ' i ' ' ' i ' i ' i ' ' i ' i '
2.0 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
o
Facility P (Med. S East-Bit., SCR&SNCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Ox.). PAD - unwashed
gyp.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
0
I 3 .
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r '
- -
-
r
m
0
Own roH _ _
1- -
h
^H m~^m
~
J
_
I
-2.0 -1
P
'
1
~ ~
_ .
- -
-
- '-i -
-j-^-^-
r
-
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1
^
-|
QAU"
~
-
~
j a
-
1 h
l I !
0 1.5 2.0 2
5 3
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility Q (PRB, HS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). QAU - unwashed gypsum.
G-23
-------
14 _
13-
12-
11 -
10-
I
" 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4
4
4
- H 4
- -t] -f
r
4 - I
-
- -
" ~\ ' j r ' r
Own pH
~^H ~M~EH ^mm
4 _ .
4 _ _
.-ป
J
_.!
T i
A
J^
1 - 4 -.-
4 1-
4
4-1
I ' 1 '
-2.0 -1
i
- -1 " t
~
- _ _ -
- -1 4 1
- H- 4 - -
i i i i i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
,
1
1
RAU
T
-
-\ 4-
1 1
1 I ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility R (PRB, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation). RAU - unwashed gypsum.
G-24
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
I
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
i 7
/
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4 4 - - - - 4 4 4 - -
4 4 - - - - 4 4 4 - ~
T r~~~~n~|T r ~ ~
T 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 4 4""
9
Own rjH X
. -^ --}----
1 _.____! . _L J? . L
4 L . _ _ _ J . 4 +-I- -
4 - ^ 1 _ i _ ^_ _
4 <---- H ^ -
--r I-T--
i i | i i i | i | i | i
2.0 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
I- -i I-
4 4 - - - - 4 4 4 - -
4 4 - -! 4 44-
T:r::::n:{:r:i
.
~GwtrpH "A
_ . ^ ._._._._._. ^)
|
|
4_J 1 1 Lt
4 - \ ' ~ i ~ ^~ l~
4 4 - - - - 4 4 - -
4-] ^~"f^1
I i I i i i | i | i | i
2.0 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
~SAlT
- - 4 4
- - 4 4
- - 4 4
~ ~ H 4
I _ 4
- - 4 4
- - 4 4
1 I ' 1 ' 1
1.2 1.6 2.0
I i
SAW
- - 4 4
- - 4 4
- - 4 4
~ ~ 4 4
_ _ 4 4
- - 4 4
- - 4 4
1 1
i i | i |
1.2 1.6 2.0
Facility S (Illinois Basin High S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
SAL) - unwashed gypsum; SAW - washed gypsum.
G-25
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
lo-
g-
in
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
r -
r "
Own r_>H
~ ~~
L_ ^ _.
- H 4
-* -I 4
- ^ - tT - -
~~ ~n ~~ 8r ~~ ~
k
p1
m
T
f.
- -
Jซ
j 4*,-
- -1 4 1
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
J-
i i i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
- -
~ ~
-
1
. _
-
1
-TFA
~~ ~
-
~
J 1
-
-
J_
4
1 1 ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility T (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
TFA-fly ash.
G-26
-------
1/1
13-
12-
-
11 -
10-
9-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r ~~
Own rjH
\- - -
-
- H 4
' 1 h
*
1 -*T - -
- - -i V
^
A
_
- - - -
TAU
~~ ~
-
"
1 _ J* _ 1 1 1 _ _L
-J 41-
r
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
4 i
4
i 1 i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
- - - -
, ,
1
a
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
z:
" 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h - -
- H 4
--I 4
T r - - - ~i "r r - r - -
r
OWTLFJH
- -
L
I
~ ~ ~ ~\ ' t r
t
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
Jซ
J ^
- H 4
4
i 1 i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
-
r ~ ~
, ,
1
::
TAW
T
T
-
-
H 4
1 1 ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility T (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
TAU - unwashed gypsum; TAW - washed gypsum.
G-27
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
zi:
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
Own-rjH
r
r
L - -
h
. .^~.
- H
- --^ ^-^>
i .
1 : .
f ซ
>
I A
i
'
_ J
i
I
-2.0 -1
-j
-
- - - -
- ~ ~ ~
^_ I I
-.- -
--
- J- t - r -
i I I
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
5 1
UFA
-
J 4
-
4
I I I
0 1.5 2.0 2
5 3
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
I
CL
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
-
r
h
-t h h-
-
-
t
i
r ~
~ 4
l
DwrtrjhL _
I
-
L
,
S>
L ._ _
i ^
1
r
L
ซ
h
h - -
r ~
4 4" 4
- -
i- -
>
- 4
-
-
- 4
-
h
UAU
h - -
r ~
" 4
L
L
4
1 1 h~
I I I
-
4
_ _ _
L _
I
- 4
-
-2-101 234567?
^
~ "1
4
3 9 10
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility L) (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
UFA - fly ash; UAL) - unwashed gypsum.
G-28
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
zi:
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
r ~
4
- ปf
1
$
Own rjh _ .1.
T
h
h
r
r
i r_* i
L - - 4 -
,
4
L
i
-
-
h
~~ ~
h
h
r
r "
1 _l_ _L
-
-
_ 1-
j_
I I 1
L
L
h
,
h
h
r
r ~
UGF
_ A.
-
-
-
-2-101 2 3 4 5 6 7 ฃ
L _
L -
h
-
~ ~\
-
1
4
3 9 10
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility L) (Southern Appalachian Low S Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
UGF - gypsum/flyash.
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
0
I 3 .
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
H
4
1
i
-
-
^wn_
_
u *
_
pH_
|
J_
-H-1---
H
r
-
1 -1 - -
i
4 -
h
h
r
r
L
_
h
h
r
r
-
-
L J
- -
r -
h
h
r
r
L 4 J
4 1 -Jป- * 444 - -
- -1 h 4 -
! !
0 2 4 6 f
-444-
VSD
-
_ J L
-
~^t^ ^ ^
! ! l l l 1 !
3 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility V (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime). VSD - spray dryer ash.
G-29
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
ฐ" 7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
- H 4
- -t| ^
.~.~.-7-?~.*L
T r
I
f
,
i
. *
w
-
- - - -
_L * L
1- 4-t
- -
WFA
-
_ 1
-
a
4- ^ . _ _ _ _| . f_ . _ _ _ ^ 4-
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
4
4
i 1 i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
-
, ,
1
-
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility W (Med. S East-Bit., SCR-BP, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation, Duct Sorbent Inj.
Troana). WFA - fly ash.
G-30
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
zi:
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r ~~ "
Own roH
L - -
h
- H 4
--I 4
4
- - - - - ^~
_
L_
= .-^
J
V
.____! _L
4
i
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
4
4
i I i | i
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
-
~ "~ "~ ~~ ~~ "~
WAU
~~ ~
-
"
._
-^ -
, ,
1
Q
a
1 h
1 i ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14
13-
12-
11 -
10-
I
CL
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
-f
4
- H
- -)-
T r - - - ~i ^ r - r - -
T - i
- - - -|
t "
1
Own |DH
3 .
f::<
-
L
WAW
T
T
^ L . _ _ _ j . 4 L* - - J a
4-^ I--J-J
4 4
I ' I '
-2.0 -1
1
-
1
1 i
- - - -
Li-
L 7
1
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
1 h
1 I ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility W (Med. S East-Bit., SCR-BP, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation, Duct Sorbent Inj.
Troana). WAU - unwashed gypsum; WAW - washed gypsum.
G-31
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8 .
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
-
-+
Own gk^
-
J " ^S>
r
T
-f-
-
h
-
r
r
-
h
r
T "r T
h
h
XFA
-
r "
~ T
-
T
i _
t
i
:
1
1 _ _ _L _ _ 1 _ _ 1 _L _ _ _L _ _ _L
4
,
4
L
i
-
-
L
h
_i_
I I 1
L _ _
L -
h
,
-
-2-101 2 3 4 5 6 7 ฃ
_ _ a
L -
h
^
~ ~i
3 9 10
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility X (PRB, SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
XFA-fly ash.
G-32
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
CL
7-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
A
_
~ ~
Own-rjH-_ _
" "
. _ . _ .
4
_ _ 4
,
h
h
r
r " ~
" r
-i r~i
_ 4 _
-
-
L
[
h
h
h
r
- 4
-*4 -
r -
XAU
r " ~ T ~ ~
i
ฅ
-
_ 4 _l_ 1 _
-
-
_ I-
L
L
h
1 1 1 1 1
ซ
_ _P_
- 4.-
- j
- 4 ^~
ฑ
i
-
_ 4
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3-2-101 2
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
Q
I ^ .
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h - -
- 4
- -| ^-
T r - - - - i
r
OWILEH
- -
_ _ _ ^
^^,^H ^^ H^^^ , ^^ ^ ^^ , ^s
r - r - -
r
J^ _. .
-
XAW
4
4
4 L . _ _ _ j . 4 _ซL . _ _ _ J a
4 - J 1 1 9\ 1 L
1 1 '
-2.0 -1
1
-
1
1 1 '
f-.-
L -
1
.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0
, ,
1
1 h
1 1 ' 1 ' 1
4 0.8 1.2 1
6 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility X (PRB, SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
XAU - unwashed gypsum; XAW - washed gypsum.
G-33
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8~
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
i
4 - -
YSD
-
*W-PH4 ----4 4 4 - - - - 4 4
T
t
t
_i_
I
!
i _ .
t
4
1
i
~4~ " "
ซ
* .
V A
1 . _L _ J 1
. _ _ _
- - - -
1
--
. _
J 4
-
- - - -
h - 1
1
i i i i i
4
1 1
1 I ' 1 ' 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility Y (PRB, SCR, Fabric F., Spray Dryer, Slaked Lime, Natural Oxidation). YSD - spray
dryer ash.
1 A
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
ฐ" 7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4 -
Own ซy
r - -
4 j |
1
1
4 l_
-
- -
\ - \
- - 4 4
- - 4 4
4 4
_
4 4
ZFA
1 1
1 1
i
1
4 . j 4__4.ซ4__4 4
+ \
4
|^
I I
i
I 1
4 4
4 4
! I
4
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility Z (PRB, CS-ESP). ZFA - fly ash.
G-34
-------
14 _
13-
12-
11 -
10-
I
" 7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
h
r
r - i
-3
Own roh
- -*
-
-
-
-*
-
- ~\ ' T r ' r
. _ .
1-
h
1
.0 -2
- - J
-
-
-
AaFA
"
H T
I
TL- ^'^^
- H - 4 - p-
.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1
.0 -0
- *
.5 0
L
-\ 4-
-
1 1
I !
0 0.5 1.0 1
5 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8~
7 -
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
3
h
h
r
r
ow^
T
- -
" ~
_B ^ m
l-
f-
-
-
-*-
~9
- I-
9
l^_j L^ -
-^-^-f--
- H 4 ^
i
.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1,5 -1
.0 -0
- >
.5 0
L
-
-
AaFB
-[-
-\ 4-
-\ 4
I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2
0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility Aa (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
AaFA, AaFB - fly ash (CS-ESP).
G-35
-------
1/1
13-
12-
1 -1
1 1
10-
/
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
3
h
OWTTEH
r
i- - -
h
,
.0 -2
.5 -2
^
. _
I
.0 -1
- H -+ +-
T r
" n T ]~
r
iซ
_ _l _ 1 _ U _
- -J - -L - U-
_ -1 . 4 j
- H 4
-4- L
1 1 1
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
_
_
4
I
5 1
-
>
~
0 1
AaFC
,
5 2
0
Facility Aa (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
AaFC - fly ash (HS-ESP).
G-36
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
I
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
4 4*- 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 - ซt
T 4 4 4
T 4 4 4
_*.
I
Own [j>H _ _._._._. . ._._
'
1
1 4 4 4 _U_
4__4__4__4__4.
4 4 4 4 j
4444- -.-
t t - - t - - 1
I i I i I i I i I i
4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
AaAU
h 4
h 4
r 4
r 4
L
4
\- 4
h 4
1 1
0 2.0
14-
13-
12-
11 -
lo-
g-
in
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
" ~
-
h
h
" " 4
T r r~
Ow^k _
__
-
h
h
h
4 4~4 ~ T " " 4
4
4 _ _ 4 _ _ 4
\-
4
4
- 4
- 4
4 " " 4 " " 4
A
4
4
4
4 _ _ _
4
4
*
r
i
--$-
J
L
-
4
4
\ i i i i i i i i
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3-2-101 2
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility Aa (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
AaAU - unwashed gypsum; AaAW - washed gypsum.
G-37
-------
1/1
12-
\ -i
i i
10
i
/
Q
H
I
-O_w
i ii
D
h
r
r j T
~
i
.
L
n r
L
BaFA
i
i
i
-
I I I I I I III
-20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility Ba (PRB-Lignite Blend., CS-ESP w/ COHPAC Ammonia Inj.). BaFA - fly ash.
G-38
-------
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
f
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
-1- -4
Own_eH_ 1 ^
nซ
r ~~ ~~
j
i ซ_
t
I
1
1
_ 1
h
h
r ~ "
r
_
_
-L I -.- I
H
1
if
1
1 1 '
\- - -
-
1
*
CaFA
- -
~
-
_
L
a
- -
1 i '
1
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8~
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
h
c
h 1-
-4 +-
-t -*t-
r ~ r ~ ~ "t r
r i
-Qwn-pH
^^m m ^^m m ^m
L
I
~ " ~i r
:aAW
m
i
-------- -p ^
|
~-~ m
|
h f-
1
-10
'
^-
- - 4 J
4 *-
^ -L__
i i i 1 i i i
1
3-6-4-20 2
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility Ca (Gulf Coast Lignite., CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
CaFA - fly ash; CaAW - washed gypsum.
G-39
-------
1/1
13-
12-
11 -
10-
ฃ
5 -
4-
3-
2-
1 -
3
h
h
r
r
_
Own roh
L - -
h
,
.0 -2
_! T_'
.5 -2
I
.0 -1
-H 4 4
- 4 4 - 4
- n 4 -ปr
" n 4
J.
_l 4 T_
^_-J^_- ^-^^
- 4 4 j-
- 4 4
t - I- -
I I I
.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
I
5 1
-
-
-
_
-
0 1
DaFA
,
5 2
0
14-
13-
12-
11 -
10-
9-
I 8~
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
444
444
T 4 4
DaAV\T
444
t 4 4
444
T 4 4 4 4 T 4
A
^^ ^^ ^^m m ^^m m ^^m m ^^m m ^^m m ^^ ^ ^Sr
I
444
(i
r i
4 -L
4444 j 4 4
4 4 4 4 - - - 4 4
t 1 1 1 1
I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I
4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
Acid/Base Added [mEq/g dry]
Facility Da (Med. S East-Bit., SCR, CS-ESP, Limestone, Forced Oxidation).
DaFA - fly ash; DaAW - washed gypsum.
G-40
-------
Appendix H
Hexavalent Chromium and Total Chromium Analyses
by Arcadis and ERG
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection H-l
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs H-3
Spray Dryer with Fabric Filter (Fly Ash and FGD collected together) H-3
Filter Cake H-3
H-i
-------
Facility
Sample
ID
PM
Capture
NOx
Control
Hg
Sorbent
Injection
S03
Control
Solid Phase
Cr(VI)
Eluate Total
pH Cr
% mg/L
Eluate Cr (VI)
Cone.
mg/L
Eluate Cr (VI)
Eluate Total Eluate Cr (VI)
pH Cr Cone.
% mg/L mg/L
Eluate Cr (VI)
%
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Facility A
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
AFA
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
2.3
5.4
1.7
7.6
2.3
7.67
7.67
7.11
7.47
7.13
7.26
NA
7.29
7.42
575
349
605
521
83.2
80.6
NA
621
542
565
381
614
522
72.9
79.5
NA
606
535
98
109
101
100
88
99
NA
98
99
9.09
9.14
8.22
8.46
8.37
8.42
NA
8.44
8.80
363
397
377
377
60.5
603
NA
529
512
355
399
328
362
48.1
52.6
NA
579
499
98
101
87
96
79
87
NA
109
97
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility W
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
WFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
Da FA
AaFC
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HS ESP
None
SCR-BP
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
None
None
None
None
None
8.4
4.2
3.0
1.2
1.8
1.8
2.2
NA
NA
7.59
7.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.33
2.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.89
3.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
124
133
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.20
9.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
302
349
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.6
23.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
65
66
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
St. Clair
JAB
CSESP
None
None
None
19.7
7.03
7.17
1041
918
1140
945
109
103
9.93
10.16
1031
978
1100
1100
107
112
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
16.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA- not analyzed
H-l
-------
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control
PH
Eluate Total EluateCr(VI)
Cr Cone. Eluate Cr (VI)
mg/L
mg/L
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, Low S
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Facility A
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
AFA
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
10.06
10.06
10.59
10.74
10.32
10.39
NA
10.42
10.54
304
359
356
266
61.2
60.5
NA
460
496
305
361
367
269
53.2
54.0
NA
463
490
100
101
103
101
87
89
NA
101
99
Bituminous, Med S
Facility!
Facility W
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
WFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
Da FA
AaFC
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HS ESP
None
SCR-BP
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
None
None
None
None
None
NA
NA
10.02
10.64
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.3
35.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30.1
40.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
110
115
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
St. Clair
JAB
CSESP
None
None
None
12.10
12.35
1072
1062
1080
1130
101
106
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
- Troana
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA- not analyzed
H-2
-------
Facility
Sample
ID
PM
Capture
NOx
Control
Hg
Sorbent
Injection
S03
Control
Solid Phase
Cr(VI)
pH Total Cr Cr (VI) Cone.
Cr(VI)
pH Total Cr Cr (VI) Cone.
Cr(VI)
mg/L rng/L
mg/L rng/L
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
St. Clair
JAB
CSESP
None
None
None
19.7
7.03
7.17
1041
918
1140
945
109
103
9.93
10.16
1031
978
1100
1100
107
112
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba
BaFA
Cb hbP w/
COHPAC
Ammonia
Inj.
PAC
None
27.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected together)
Sub-bituminous
[Facility V |VSD [Fabric F. |SCR [None [None | 17.4J NA
NA
I NA I
NA
NA
NA
I NA I
NA
Filter Cake
Bituminous, Med S
| Facility T |lFC | CSESP \
None None None
NA
NA
I NA I
NA
NA
NA
I NA I
NA
NA- not analyzed
H-3
-------
Sample PM
Facility ID Capture
Hg
NOx Sorbent SO3
Control Injection Control pH
Total Cr Cr (VI) Cone. Cr (VI)
mg/L mg/L %
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
St. Clair JAB
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba BaFA
CSESP
Cb hbP w/
COHPAC
None None None 12.10
12.35
Ammonia
Inj. PAC None NA
1072 1080 101
1062 1130 106
NA NA NA
Spray dryer with Fabric Filter (fly ash and FGD collected togc
Sub-bituminous
| Facility V
Filter Cake
Bituminous, Med
| Facility!
|VSD | Fabric F. |SCR
None
None | NA | NA
NA | NA |
S
|TFC ICSESP |None
None
None NA | NA
NA | NA |
NA- not analyzed
H-4
-------
Appendix I
Summary of Statistics (Min/Max/Own pH Values)
Fly Ash - Bituminous 1-1
Fly Ash - Sub-bituminous 1-1
Fly Ash-with and without ACI 1-8
Spray Dryer with Fabric Filter (Fly Ash and FGD collected together) 1-8
Gypsum, Unwashed and Washed 1-15
Scrubber Sludge 1-15
Blended CCRs 1-15
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -
Bituminous
Brayton Point (BPB)
Facility F (FFA)
Facility B (DFA)
Facility A (CFA)
Facility B (BFA)
Facility U (UFA)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Facility G (GFA)
Facility A (AFA)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility T(TFA)
Facility E (EFB)
Facility W(WFA)
Facility E (EFA)
Facility K (KFA)
Facility Aa(AaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFB)
Facility Da (DaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFC)
Facility E (EFC)
Facility H (HFA)
Fly Ash - Sub-
bituminous
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility Z(ZFA)
Facility X(XFA)
Facility Ca(CaFA)
Al
Al max Val
6400 00
29484 90
3583 35
7794 04
197000
7751.76
210492
25156.10
24600 00
2091924
34209 60
25605.70
9136920
49019.40
27515.10
3124600
23751.70
29740 20
20581 30
1534800
76844.40
54623 00
97500 00
51491786
41067.40
28448.10
301293
As
Al min Val Al ownpHVal Al pH at Max Al pH at Min Al ownph As max Val As min Val As ownpHVal As pH at Max As pH at Min As ownph
3810.00 4110.00 12.18 12.14 12.24 3530 5.40 6.67 9.19 12.14 12.24
25.00 29673.35 920 6.70 4.25 2007.10 22.97 53.70 1160 6.70 4.25
157.97 825.69 1233 6.46 10.26 26155 33.79 46.83 795 11.35 10.26
35.71 1804.46 1220 7.07 10.28 11138 9.31 14.06 900 11.21 10.28
826.00 1245.00 9.45 12.02 10.06 99.40 23.20 28.95 824 11.76 10.06
10.00 21.45 1054 12.32 11.81 77363 21.04 40.97 636 12.19 11.81
331.03 1996.89 11.76 8.59 11.68 10500 18.00 19.30 859 11.76 11.68
33.47 10673.80 1150 6.20 4.35 186205 20.77 34.41 1150 6.20 4.35
1310.00 13426.67 1235 8.00 10.52 17300 7.20 39.83 569 8.09 10.52
30.15 1087.32 12.10 6.40 5.75 168699 23.49 25.95 12.10 6.30 5.75
58.09 13419.61 1120 6.60 11.27 1113.43 123.96 237.37 830 11.60 11.27
113.17 7085.60 10.46 5.71 8.88 172059 288.05 500.57 12.11 6.71 8.88
32.02 29776.20 1200 5.70 4.30 128389 12.04 56.28 1200 6.30 4.30
186.79 10015.98 1033 7.67 10.25 1819707 117.01 3236.78 1033 6.21 10.25
42.45 572.40 12.10 6.40 4.80 761 57 5.48 16.28 12.10 6.50 4.80
44.42 17159.46 1187 6.10 9.15 130.14 22.02 68.42 695 9.27 9.15
6517.90 12337.40 12.13 8.72 4.36 115251 373.74 167.75 12.13 8.72 4.36
12.51 29843.30 12.19 5.73 3.92 118789 97.21 757.91 12.19 5.73 3.92
45.92 4795.10 1191 7.11 4.32 190937 228.88 331.13 1096 5.52 4.32
53.52 15348.00 1152 6.55 11.52 42523 29.95 254.56 1232 11.47 11.52
7.03 769.59 1199 6.33 4.80 747.46 1.14 9.52 1207 6.33 4.80
164.46 2339.03 1160 7.30 8.55 7658 32.22 36.47 1160 9.30 8.55
98.46 26700.00 12.10 5.71 11.22 1280 3.26 4.00 1202 10.51 11.22
702.07 102345.42 1220 6.40 12.10 5806 0.32 0.92 1220 9.60 12.10
189.46 10105.60 1098 6.34| 11.98 032 0.32 0.32 734 7.34 11.98
1847.26 28448.10 1150 6.80 11.50 1.10 0.32 0.32 990 12.02 11.50
10.00 3012.93 1200 12.06 12.00 101.48 15.79 33.68 9.15 12.06 12.00
l-l
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -
Bituminous
Brayton Point (BPB)
Facility F (FFA)
Facility B (DFA)
Facility A (CFA)
Facility B (BFA)
Facility U (UFA)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Facility G (GFA)
Facility A (AFA)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility T(TFA)
Facility E (EFB)
Facility W(WFA)
Facility E (EFA)
Facility K (KFA)
Facility Aa(AaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFB)
Facility Da (DaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFC)
Facility E (EFC)
Facility H (HFA)
Fly Ash - Sub-
bituminous
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility Z(ZFA)
Facility X(XFA)
Facility Ca(CaFA)
B
B max Val
30871.40
2705 59
25805 59
1181488
57359 05
39415.70
20534.10
2178.18
11267.41
2586.70
12929.40
4714920
3397 55
34753 90
2894 30
272943.76
213405
2374 35
1554.14
1213780
5995 09
17344400
29226 20
1760890
8602 85
11142.70
65990 90
Ba
B min Val B ownpHVal B pH at Max B pH at Min B ownph Ba max Val Ba min Val Ba ownpHVal Ba pH at Max Ba pH at Min Ba ownph
2430.60 2267.98 12.39 12.18 1288 1830.00 301.00 1810.00 12.14 8.02 1224
2206.58 2910.91 9.20 8.40 425 322.77 97.47 115.67 9.20 5.50 425
757.79 3551.28 6.89 12.33 1026 276.80 129.78 192.38 10.88 8.42 1026
412.26 1480.31 7.07 7.72 1028 2950.67 194.14 625.42 7.88 10.22 1028
2486.02 7216.20 9.29 11.91 1006 205.00 87.20 143.00 11.91 9.57 1006
1466.22 10835.70 6.36 12.32 1181 1176.38 331.45 881.70 10.54 12.32 1181
1484.62 4886.93 9.45 11.67 1164 1000.00 138.00 778.00 11.99 7.74 1168
1539.05 1987.25 11.00 8.60 435 297.36 75.36 95.36 9.80 6.20 435
209.68 320.43 5.69 12.24 1052 3720.00 218.00 349.00 7.69 7.52 1052
480.50 590.78 6.50 7.60 5.75 219.28 63.59 125.13 8.20 6.50 5.75
1148.41 5449.60 7.30 11.60 1127 1007.89 59.60 569.83 11.70 7.80 1127
7469.63 8229.03 9.00 9.70 888 818.44 189.20 373.88 10.46 5.71 888
1998.64 2565.79 12.00 6.30 430 177.43 84.71 92.91 10.50 6.30 430
2777.40 3139.63 10.33 12.10 1025 231.52 59.82 69.00 7.67 10.31 1025
2157.44 2644.94 12.10 8.50 480 377.10 79.26 80.61 12.10 6.40 480
28095.68 32484.17 9.27 11.96 9.15 442.29 81.14 170.90 9.27 6.95 9.15
2099.99 2336.11 12.13 10.88 436 610.93 388.83 220.54 12.13 8.72 436
2214.50 2729.65 5.73 9.19 392 652.94 177.28 220.66 9.19 5.73 392
1416.36 1529.28 5.52 10.96 432 1229.51 314.48 349.89 11.91 5.52 432
5341.71 7386.50 11.31 12.32 1152 2121.59 314.20 1700.87 11.39 6.55 1152
2994.29 4298.65 11.99 9.90 480 518.96 50.64 77.63 11.99 9.59 480
14348.10 20722.25 8.90 11.60 855 223.03 49.84 80.71 11.60 7.30 855
3846.36 9495.67 8.36 12.10 1132 101000.00 1030.00 22933.33 12.09 5.56 1122
235.65 295.95 9.20 12.10 12.10 4801.77 246.26 853.55 11.70 9.60 12.10
524.54 3360.89 9.47 10.98 1198 671282.99 6961.94 219461.96 12.37 6.34 1198
761.61 761.61 9.06 11.50 1150 160764.25 6498.60 32923.08 12.02 6.80 1150
17626.20 17626.20 12.06 12.00 1200 4946.58 690.49 2732.22 12.06 9.15 1200
I-2
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -
Bituminous
Brayton Point (BPB)
Facility F (FFA)
Facility B (DFA)
Facility A (CFA)
Facility B (BFA)
Facility U (UFA)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Facility G (GFA)
Facility A (AFA)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility T(TFA)
Facility E (EFB)
Facility W(WFA)
Facility E (EFA)
Facility K (KFA)
Facility Aa(AaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFB)
Facility Da (DaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFC)
Facility E (EFC)
Facility H (HFA)
Fly Ash - Sub-
bituminous
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility Z(ZFA)
Facility X(XFA)
Facility Ca(CaFA)
Cd
Cd max Val
7060
468
1506
11 05
2220
14932
3650
3.49
23.10
1 86
3489
37.71
239
2225
084
27.77
396
956
2781
4404
084
78.19
1700
359
0.70
267
10600
Co
Cd min Val Cd ownpHVal Cd pH at Max Cd pH at Min Cd ownph Co max Val Co min Val Co ownpHVal Co pH at Max Co pH at Min Co ownph
22.70 24.07 12.37 12.14 12.24 22300 0.50 0.86 9.19 12.06 12.24
1.01 10.19 5.90 9.20 4.25 61 68 0.21 96.86 5.90 8.20 4.25
0.66 0.79 5.43 11.34 10.26 3235 0.21 0.21 5.43 9.84 10.26
0.09 0.29 5.84 8.45 10.28 14507 0.21 0.21 5.84 10.17 10.28
0.96 1.03 9.45 11.43 10.06 17.10 0.94 5.51 9.37 11.30 10.06
18.30 23.48 12.32 9.45 11.81 1993 0.21 2.89 6.36 12.19 11.81
2.37 3.85 12.03 11.53 11.68 4220 0.21 0.21 7.01 8.15 11.68
1.26 5.34 5.70 7.60 4.35 5203 0.21 65.43 5.70 11.80 4.35
0.09 0.73 5.69 11.76 10.52 15700 1.38 7.72 5.69 12.24 10.52
0.33 0.46 6.50 7.60 5.75 3080 0.21 6.25 6.50 7.60 5.75
0.09 0.09 11.20 6.60 11.27 78.16 0.21 0.21 5.60 9.30 11.27
4.67 4.97 9.00 10.04 8.88 1109 0.21 0.98 5.71 10.46 8.88
0.38 10.42 5.70 6.30 4.30 3723 0.21 108.20 5.70 10.50 4.30
1.83 2.24 6.21 9.06 10.25 8330 0.21 0.21 6.21 10.33 10.25
0.40 4.54 6.40 8.50 4.80 10606 0.21 186.30 6.50 12.10 5.40
0.09 0.09 9.27 11.96 9.15 234 0.21 0.21 9.21 9.80 9.15
3.81 30.04 12.13 8.72 4.36 021 0.21 189.39 12.13 12.13 4.36
5.92 49.14 5.73 10.41 3.92 7599 0.21 248.74 5.73 12.19 3.92
3.72 38.55 5.52 9.28 4.32 100.17 0.21 109.99 5.52 11.91 4.32
4.08 4.69 11.47 9.04 11.52 5832 0.21 0.21 6.55 12.32 11.52
0.09 10.03 11.99 5.57 4.70 4025 0.21 77.47 6.33 11.62 4.80
6.22 6.36 8.60 8.60 8.55 3.11 0.21 0.52 7.30 8.90 8.55
0.09 0.15 5.56 12.02 11.22 50300 0.21 0.66 5.56 12.02 11.22
0.46 0.58 12.20 11.60 12.10 74.78 0.21 0.21 5.50 11.80 12.10
0.09 0.09 6.34 8.63 11.98 37529 0.21 0.21 6.34 12.37 11.98
0.09 0.09 9.90 12.02 11.50 2356 0.21 0.21 6.80 12.02 11.50
3.39 3.43 5.54 9.15 12.00 221.77 0.96 0.96 5.54 12.00 12.00
I-3
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -
Bituminous
Brayton Point (BPB)
Facility F (FFA)
Facility B (DFA)
Facility A (CFA)
Facility B (BFA)
Facility U (UFA)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Facility G (GFA)
Facility A (AFA)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility T(TFA)
Facility E (EFB)
Facility W(WFA)
Facility E (EFA)
Facility K (KFA)
Facility Aa(AaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFB)
Facility Da (DaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFC)
Facility E (EFC)
Facility H (HFA)
Fly Ash - Sub-
bituminous
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility Z(ZFA)
Facility X(XFA)
Facility Ca(CaFA)
Cr
Cr max Val
42.70
96.45
171802
135851
3680 00
7369 95
52700
9632
187000
1896
8657
258.75
5521
2552.40
46.77
137.43
108.77
561.43
107.40
1850.47
141 21
9564
140000
5457 59
192035
3442 95
2323.45
Hg
Cr min Val Cr ownpHVal Cr pH at Max Cr pH at Min Cr ownph Hg max Val Hg min Val Hg ownpHVal Hg pH at Max Hg pH at Min Hg ownph
2.56 27.38 9.19 12.39 12.24 0.12 0.00 0.04 11.71 1206 12.24
4.32 27.59 1160 5.90 4.25 0.19 0.02 0.08 9.50 8.40 4.25
13.79 131.54 10.43 7.80 10.26 0.42 0.01 0.02 10.43 795 10.26
119.56 186.77 8.17 11.21 10.28 007 0.01 0.04 10.78 7.72 10.28
757.00 850.50 9.45 8.24 10.06 007 0.01 0.03 11.18 868 10.06
117.36 1883.17 1232 6.36 11.81 003 0.00 0.00 12.32 783 11.81
0.25 451.67 1191 7.01 11.68 008 0.01 0.04 8.27 8.15 11.68
3.31 8.77 1180 6.20 4.35 006 0.01 0.02 11.00 850 4.35
835.00 1104.67 10.73 5.44 10.52 0.49 0.03 0.12 8.04 1235 10.52
0.25 1.29 12.10 5.70 5.75 0.12 0.00 0.01 6.70 1030 5.75
0.25 0.25 1120 7.30 11.27 005 0.00 0.02 9.90 880 11.27
22.22 62.10 900 5.71 8.88 000 0.00 0.00 6.71 6.71 8.88
6.58 18.82 1200 5.70 4.30 004 0.00 0.01 9.90 1050 4.30
8.77 290.01 1033 6.21 10.25 000 0.00 0.00 10.33 1033 10.25
0.91 0.85 12.10 8.50 4.80 006 0.00 0.02 12.10 7.70 4.80
0.99 21.47 927 6.10 9.15 0.14 0.02 0.02 9.27 927 9.15
44.07 33.91 12.13 8.72 4.36 001 0.00 0.01 12.13 1088 4.36
12.48 225.20 12.19 5.73 3.92 000 0.00 0.00 10.41 10.41 3.92
0.25 32.32 1191 5.52 4.32 000 0.00 0.00 5.52 552 4.32
7.05 233.26 11.47 6.55 11.52 001 0.00 0.00 11.47 1139 11.52
10.07 13.39 1199 5.57 4.80 003 0.01 0.02 10.66 990 4.80
7.50 20.47 1160 7.30 8.55 004 0.00 0.02 11.60 800 8.55
1.27 2.93 5.40 11.60 11.22 021 0.00 0.01 11.40 1209 11.22
269.56 612.45 1220 11.60 12.10 005 0.00 0.03 12.10 1190 12.10
0.25 6.30 9.47 12.37 11.98 000 0.00 0.00 12.37 1237 11.98
0.25 187.15 906 11.99 11.50 004 0.02 0.04 9.06 1202 11.50
5.63 625.64 1206 5.54 12.00 001 0.00 0.00 12.06 1184 12.00
I-4
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -
Bituminous
Brayton Point (BPB)
Facility F (FFA)
Facility B (DFA)
Facility A (CFA)
Facility B (BFA)
Facility U (UFA)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Facility G (GFA)
Facility A (AFA)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility T(TFA)
Facility E (EFB)
Facility W(WFA)
Facility E (EFA)
Facility K (KFA)
Facility Aa(AaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFB)
Facility Da (DaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFC)
Facility E (EFC)
Facility H (HFA)
Fly Ash - Sub-
bituminous
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility Z(ZFA)
Facility X(XFA)
Facility Ca(CaFA)
Mo
Mo max Val
241909
195624
7401 59
2161.70
1143606
12585880
1312920
1259.13
9075 50
78802
1465890
8488 54
2587 56
17928.47
1864.79
36054 07
2838 53
3211 31
3538.43
45509 56
201 1 85
55235 80
774.44
4009.77
70587
2403 83
1094590
Mo min Val
859.01
464.94
131.58
428.15
1282.45
10096.31
1119.47
369.35
230.67
221.80
1317.36
853.99
382.59
1255.17
853.87
1262.83
2731.47
2300.23
1736.08
2932.69
281.89
3954.03
0.50
171.91
4.32
7.45
1098.29
Mo ownpHVal
772.19
38.00
1955.66
521.47
1822.15
14391.59
1826.51
57.78
586.85
243.18
3009.33
1024.63
9.36
1970.54
47.18
2297.47
135.71
68.81
356.49
3853.29
163.59
0.50
666.50
8.62
546.12
1985.31
Mo pH at Max
12.39
9.50
10.32
6.91
9.45
12.32
12.10
11.80
7.52
6.50
11.60
8.81
12.00
10.29
12.10
9.27
12.13
12.19
11.91
11.47
11.99
8.90
8.36
12.20
7.99
9.90
12.06
Mo pH at Min
12.18
590
5.43
1006
988
636
7.10
5.70
569
650
6.40
564
5.70
621
6.40
6.10
8.72
5.73
552
655
633
8.10
11 60
550
1237
11 99
554
Mo ownph
12.88
4.25
10.26
10.28
10.06
11.81
11.64
4.35
10.52
5.75
11.27
8.88
4.30
10.25
4.80
9.15
4.36
3.92
4.32
11.52
4.80
8.55
11.32
12.10
11.98
11.50
12.00
Pb
Pb max Val
8.65
0.87
0.57
1.28
0.73
3.20
3.48
0.28
1.83
0.71
0.12
4.14
0.94
7.01
0.59
0.45
2.17
0.87
0.88
5.00
0.26
2.12
4.82
2.42
4.06
1.02
35.34
Pb min Val
0.29
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.24
0.12
0.31
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.33
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.71
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.37
Pb ownpHVal
5.20
1.44
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.71
0.46
0.46
0.34
0.32
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.83
0.12
0.12
3.27
11.46
4.60
0.12
0.12
0.23
3.74
0.12
0.12
0.12
2.56
Pb pH at Max
12.18
830
780
10.78
937
1232
11.75
760
1224
650
11 20
1223
980
1029
650
9.16
8.72
12.19
11 91
1232
11 99
780
12.17
1220
1237
1202
1206
Pb pH at Min Pb ownph
12.39 12.24
8.40 4.25
6.46 10.26
8.09 10.28
11.13 10.06
9.45 11.81
9.45 11.68
11.80 4.35
8.50 10.52
6.40 5.75
11.20 11.27
5.64 8.88
10.50 4.30
7.67 10.25
12.10 4.80
9.27 9.15
12.13 4.36
10.41 3.92
5.52 4.32
11.52 11.52
11.62 4.80
8.90 8.55
5.71 11.22
11.80 12.10
6.34 11.98
9.06 11.50
9.15 12.00
I-5
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -
Bituminous
Brayton Point (BPB)
Facility F (FFA)
Facility B (DFA)
Facility A (CFA)
Facility B (BFA)
Facility U (UFA)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Facility G (GFA)
Facility A (AFA)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility T(TFA)
Facility E (EFB)
Facility W(WFA)
Facility E (EFA)
Facility K (KFA)
Facility Aa(AaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFB)
Facility Da (DaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFC)
Facility E (EFC)
Facility H (HFA)
Fly Ash - Sub-
bituminous
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility Z(ZFA)
Facility X(XFA)
Facility Ca(CaFA)
PH
PH max Val
1239
11.70
1238
1220
1202
1232
12.10
11 80
1235
1220
11 80
1223
1200
12.10
12.10
11 96
12.13
12.19
11 91
1232
12.10
11 60
1220
1220
1237
1202
1206
Sb
PH min Val PH ownpHVal PH pH at Max PH pH at Min PH ownph Sb max Val Sb min Val Sb ownpHVal Sb pH at Max Sb pH at Min Sb ownph
6.86 12.24 12.39 686 12.24 3328.38 1.94 6.94 7.01 12.18 12.88
5.50 4.25 11.70 550 4.25 194.86 102.04 50.13 11.70 590 4.25
5.43 10.26 12.38 5.43 10.26 58.44 0.04 6.43 7.09 1238 10.26
5.84 10.28 12.20 584 10.28 223.69 6.57 20.67 6.91 788 10.28
7.97 10.06 12.02 797 10.06 49.20 0.97 5.71 7.97 11.43 10.06
6.36 11.81 12.32 636 11.81 59.12 0.27 0.63 7.83 1195 11.81
7.01 11.68 12.10 701 11.68 162.22 4.00 13.03 8.08 1193 11.64
5.70 4.35 11.80 5.70 4.35 99.48 16.68 29.46 11.80 660 4.35
5.44 10.52 12.35 5.44 10.52 165.98 5.29 12.96 8.04 11.76 10.52
5.70 5.75 12.20 5.70 5.75 148.50 4.00 57.62 12.10 6.40 5.75
5.60 11.27 11.80 560 11.27 129.52 4.00 30.86 8.30 1160 11.27
5.64 8.88 12.23 564 8.88 168.50 42.62 70.97 8.81 12.11 8.88
5.70 4.30 12.00 5.70 4.30 108.52 48.57 29.24 12.00 5.70 4.30
5.96 10.25 12.10 596 10.25 1166.10 119.68 131.76 10.33 621 10.25
6.40 4.80 12.10 6.40 4.80 82.25 43.18 21.09 12.10 6.40 4.80
6.10 9.15 11.96 6.10 9.15 54.20 12.06 30.07 9.16 1196 9.15
8.72 4.36 12.13 8.72 4.36 145.09 134.26 51.56 8.72 1088 4.36
5.73 3.92 12.19 5.73 3.92 168.44 157.79 59.92 7.21 9.19 3.92
5.52 4.32 11.91 552 4.32 243.74 173.10 130.12 7.11 552 4.32
6.55 11.52 12.32 655 11.52 144.94 2.86 73.59 9.04 11.47 11.52
5.57 4.80 12.10 557 4.80 114.32 42.58 46.99 11.62 633 4.80
7.30 8.55 11.60 730 8.55 86.37 15.50 42.70 7.80 9.70 8.55
5.40 11.22 12.20 5.40 11.22 399.86 4.00 8.83 8.36 1160 11.32
5.50 12.10 12.20 550 12.10 56.64 2.26 7.45 11.80 960 12.10
6.34 11.98 12.37 634 11.98 5.23 0.04 0.56 7.99 863 11.98
6.80 11.50 12.02 680 11.50 1.96 0.04 1.96 11.50 680 11.50
5.54 12.00 12.06 554 12.00 75.30 0.20 4.96 10.90 1206 12.00
I-6
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -
Bituminous
Brayton Point (BPB)
Facility F (FFA)
Facility B (DFA)
Facility A (CFA)
Facility B (BFA)
Facility U (UFA)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Facility G (GFA)
Facility A (AFA)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility T(TFA)
Facility E (EFB)
Facility W(WFA)
Facility E (EFA)
Facility K (KFA)
Facility Aa(AaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFB)
Facility Da (DaFA)
Facility Aa(AaFC)
Facility E (EFC)
Facility H (HFA)
Fly Ash - Sub-
bituminous
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility Z(ZFA)
Facility X(XFA)
Facility Ca(CaFA)
Se
Se max Val
45800
168238
74.75
32359
9750
21698
2070 00
130384
24900
45.79
3810.78
1520.72
859.15
28827 86
143329
41758
3641 64
7386.75
2436 67
77356
2968.48
120.17
36900
31292
434.46
197.14
54801
Tl
Se min Val Se ownpHVal Se pH at Max Se pH at Min Se ownph Tl max Val Tl min Val Tl ownpHVal Tl pH at Max Tl pH at Min Tl ownph
43.50 57.03 12.18 12.14 12.24 786.71 12.44 1450 7.01 12.18 1288
121.82 50.51 11.60 5.90 4.25 5.70 0.68 883 5.90 11.60 425
6.79 9.27 8.92 11.35 10.26 132.14 0.26 0.73 5.43 9.36 1026
10.01 23.61 7.96 11.21 10.28 55.07 3.21 481 6.43 11.41 1028
10.80 15.25 9.45 11.76 10.06 14.74 1.35 1.41 8.32 10.02 1006
39.92 51.97 12.32 11.95 11.81 563.84 118.81 11881 12.32 11.81 1181
96.20 1716.67 11.99 12.07 11.68 16.95 0.26 058 11.67 11.75 1164
123.88 61.01 11.80 5.70 4.35 20.78 0.26 33.17 5.70 9.20 435
25.10 25.67 8.00 9.88 10.52 43.00 1.96 288 5.67 12.24 1052
8.90 8.29 12.10 6.30 5.75 446.79 1.59 630 6.50 8.80 5.75
991.02 3079.77 11.20 11.60 11.27 327.44 2.50 5089 8.50 11.60 1127
156.42 539.47 12.11 5.71 8.88 17.10 0.99 500 6.71 10.46 888
23.56 36.28 12.00 5.70 4.30 69.82 2.59 9223 5.70 12.00 430
1224.33 2855.94 10.33 6.21 10.25 38.81 3.63 4.16 5.96 11.15 1025
77.57 63.49 12.10 6.50 4.80 7.27 1.07 14.74 6.40 12.10 480
17.45 122.54 9.27 6.10 9.15 256.81 34.65 3801 9.27 9.17 9.15
2443.87 213.82 10.88 8.72 4.36 3.56 0.85 33.74 8.72 12.13 436
1299.44 496.06 10.41 5.73 3.92 14.15 0.95 3828 5.73 12.19 392
371.00 250.89 11.91 5.52 4.32 144.46 5.17 193.12 5.52 11.91 432
42.76 47.79 11.47 9.04 11.52 29.58 0.26 498 6.55 12.32 1152
65.45 51.97 12.07 6.33 4.80 34.04 1.63 2651 6.33 11.64 480
9.13 17.91 11.60 7.30 8.55 176.34 11.40 3561 7.80 9.70 855
35.10 110.90 12.09 11.71 11.22 182.32 0.66 558 5.71 8.95 1132
42.75 50.80 12.20 11.60 12.10 22.08 2.50 582 5.50 11.90 12.10
16.51 16.51 6.34 11.98 11.98 7.31 0.26 026 6.34 11.98 1198
15.31 22.44 7.60 11.99 11.50 1.54 0.26 026 11.99 12.02 1150
141.22 338.64 10.90 6.64 12.00 16.10 0.26 026 5.54 12.00 1200
I-7
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -With and
without ACI
Brayton Point (BPB)
Brayton Point (BPT)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Salem Harbor (SHT)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility L (LAT)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility C (GAT)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPT)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility J (JAT)
Facility Ba (BaFA)
SDA
Facility V(VSD)
Facility Y(YSD)
Al
Al max Val
6400 00
10300000
210492
93268
2091924
2140223
34209 60
23475 20
97500 00
12500000
51491786
189069.46
15999.70
13131 50
7179.46
As
Al min Val Al ownpHVal Al pH at Max Al pH at Min Al ownph As max Val As min Val As ownpHVal As pH at Max As pH at Min As ownph
3810.00 4110.00 12.18 12.14 12.24 3530 5.40 6.67 9.19 12.14 12.24
1540.00 5966.67 550 8.89 9.49 4290 2.26 4.84 1235 9.04 9.49
331.03 1996.89 11.76 8.59 11.68 10500 18.00 19.30 859 11.76 11.68
188.44 532.11 5.72 8.38 10.31 18800 83.30 156.00 933 5.72 10.31
30.15 1087.32 12.10 6.40 5.75 168699 23.49 25.95 12.10 6.30 5.75
16.62 1373.00 12.10 6.50 5.00 1312.12 24.58 24.96 12.10 6.50 5.00
58.09 13419.61 1120 6.60 11.27 1113.43 123.96 237.37 830 11.60 11.27
1202.04 2045.14 980 8.40 8.10 273.72 69.64 119.67 1150 8.60 8.10
98.46 26700.00 12.10 5.71 11.22 1280 3.26 4.00 1202 10.51 11.22
138.92 118666.67 1195 6.86 11.86 1450 2.99 4.15 1139 8.25 11.86
702.07 102345.42 1220 6.40 12.10 5806 0.32 0.92 1220 9.60 12.10
158.38 92444.21 12.10 5.80 12.20 289 0.32 0.54 12.10 10.40 12.20
35.55 15999.70 11.70 6.88 11.70 3669 0.85 5.82 895 11.82 11.70
10.00 172.89 909 12.18 11.99 32.16 0.87 1.80 5.74 11.63 11.99
0.50 16.14 903 12.11 12.10 2796 0.32 2.23 5.79 9.18 12.10
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -With and
without ACI
Brayton Point (BPB)
Brayton Point (BPT)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Salem Harbor (SHT)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility L (LAT)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility C (GAT)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPT)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility J (JAT)
Facility Ba (BaFA)
SDA
Facility V(VSD)
Facility Y(YSD)
B
B max Val
30871.40
391 63 60
20534.10
56140.40
2586.70
2105.44
12929.40
11228.10
29226 20
25901 80
1760890
17023.70
26354.10
23657 20
1274350
B min Val
2430.60
1129.79
1484.62
7111.69
480.50
398.66
1148.41
2993.11
3846.36
348.38
235.65
237.33
1473.61
78.66
143.17
B ownpHVal
2267.98
38865.80
4886.93
9115.11
590.78
517.82
5449.60
7460.41
9495.67
565.16
295.95
256.48
1867.05
90.94
144.02
B pH at Max
12.39
9.04
9.45
9.72
6.50
5.50
7.30
5.50
8.36
11.46
9.20
8.50
6.88
6.00
5.98
B pH at Min
12.18
8.28
11.67
11.87
7.60
7.50
11.60
11.70
12.10
12.35
12.10
12.20
11.82
11.63
12.11
B ownph
1288
939
11 64
1027
5.75
500
11 27
8.10
11 32
11 96
12.10
1220
11.70
11 99
12.10
Ba
Ba max Val
1830.00
270.00
1000.00
1000.00
219.28
168.04
1007.89
369.71
101000.00
11000.00
4801.77
3197.81
53382.66
451497.14
6304.27
Ba min Val
301.00
105.00
138.00
164.00
63.59
59.36
59.60
50.60
1030.00
662.00
246.26
1787.19
1347.63
3758.26
465.49
Ba ownpHVal
1810.00
120.33
778.00
567.67
125.13
116.33
569.83
69.29
22933.33
10766.67
853.55
2453.01
11059.18
167632.20
1271.34
Ba pH at Max
12.14
12.34
11.99
12.39
8.20
7.30
11.70
10.50
12.09
11.95
11.70
10.40
11.91
12.18
8.73
Ba pH at Min Ba ownph
8.02 1224
8.28 9.49
7.74 1168
6.44 1031
6.50 5.75
6.70 5 00
7.80 1127
8.40 8.10
5.56 1122
8.13 1186
9.60 12.10
9.70 1220
8.95 11.70
8.19 1199
12.33 12.10
I-9
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -With and
without ACI
Brayton Point (BPB)
Brayton Point (BPT)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Salem Harbor (SHT)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility L (LAT)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility C (GAT)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPT)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility J (JAT)
Facility Ba (BaFA)
SDA
Facility V(VSD)
Facility Y(YSD)
Cd
Cd max Val
7060
12600
3650
32300
1 86
1 29
3489
1098
1700
15.40
359
1 24
833
1005
39.70
Co
Cd min Val Cd ownpHVal Cd pH at Max Cd pH at Min Cd ownph Co max Val Co min Val Co ownpHVal Co pH at Max Co pH at Min Co ownph
22.70 24.07 12.37 12.14 12.24 22300 0.50 0.86 9.19 12.06 12.24
3.20 42.77 7.91 5.48 9.49 10600 0.21 0.29 5.60 11.24 9.49
2.37 3.85 12.03 11.53 11.68 4220 0.21 0.21 7.01 8.15 11.68
54.50 75.77 9.72 6.44 10.31 31.10 0.21 0.21 5.72 10.20 10.31
0.33 0.46 6.50 7.60 5.75 3080 0.21 6.25 6.50 7.60 5.75
0.29 0.33 5.50 6.70 5.00 21 37 0.21 5.08 5.50 12.10 5.00
0.09 0.09 11.20 6.60 11.27 78.16 0.21 0.21 5.60 9.30 11.27
0.58 0.64 5.50 8.30 8.10 13590 0.21 1.19 5.50 9.60 8.10
0.09 0.15 5.56 12.02 11.22 50300 0.21 0.66 5.56 12.02 11.22
0.09 4.21 7.91 11.92 11.86 15300 0.21 0.32 5.57 12.19 11.86
0.46 0.58 12.20 11.60 12.10 74.78 0.21 0.21 5.50 11.80 12.10
0.45 0.45 12.10 12.20 12.20 6500 0.21 0.21 5.80 12.10 12.20
0.42 0.98 6.88 11.82 11.70 282.10 0.61 0.68 6.88 11.77 11.70
0.09 0.82 5.74 9.09 11.99 146194 0.21 5.26 6.00 12.18 11.99
1.67 1.83 5.79 12.11 12.10 268806 0.21 4.40 5.79 12.33 12.10
I-10
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -With and
without ACI
Brayton Point (BPB)
Brayton Point (BPT)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Salem Harbor (SHT)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility L (LAT)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility C (GAT)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPT)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility J (JAT)
Facility Ba (BaFA)
SDA
Facility V(VSD)
Facility Y(YSD)
Cr
Cr max Val
42.70
7460
52700
26000
1896
2767
8657
6559
140000
709.48
5457 59
2602 54
83405
434.79
911893
Hg
Cr min Val Cr ownpHVal Cr pH at Max Cr pH at Min Cr ownph Hg max Val Hg min Val Hg ownpHVal Hg pH at Max Hg pH at Min Hg ownph
2.56 27.38 9.19 12.39 12.24 0.12 0.00 0.04 11.71 1206 12.24
2.07 15.27 1134 7.65 9.49 002 0.00 0.01 9.52 791 9.49
0.25 451.67 1191 7.01 11.68 008 0.01 0.04 8.27 8.15 11.68
3.25 76.57 968 7.62 10.31 003 0.00 0.01 11.82 968 10.31
0.25 1.29 12.10 5.70 5.75 0.12 0.00 0.01 6.70 1030 5.75
0.25 0.50 12.10 5.50 5.00 0.16 0.00 0.01 10.40 12.10 5.00
0.25 0.25 1120 7.30 11.27 005 0.00 0.02 9.90 880 11.27
0.25 29.32 860 5.50 8.10 0.13 0.00 0.02 8.60 11.70 8.10
1.27 2.93 5.40 11.60 11.22 021 0.00 0.01 11.40 1209 11.22
57.60 80.73 11.46 5.57 11.86 003 0.00 0.01 7.91 1235 11.86
269.56 612.45 1220 11.60 12.10 005 0.00 0.03 12.10 1190 12.10
67.03 631.98 12.10 5.80 12.20 005 0.00 0.02 8.50 7.10 12.20
23.48 425.46 1067 11.91 11.70 002 0.00 0.01 6.88 1191 11.70
16.17 252.31 10.40 6.76 11.99 197 0.01 0.02 7.09 1127 11.99
25.52 1741.96 1233 5.79 12.10 0.70 0.00 0.02 6.59 9.18 12.10
l-ll
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -With and
without ACI
Brayton Point (BPB)
Brayton Point (BPT)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Salem Harbor (SHT)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility L (LAT)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility C (GAT)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPT)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility J (JAT)
Facility Ba (BaFA)
SDA
Facility V(VSD)
Facility Y(YSD)
Mo
Mo max Val
241909
2548 90
1312920
26762 60
78802
651 82
1465890
2046.71
774.44
3290 24
4009.77
154868
81827
76404
9202 95
Mo min Val
859.01
14.38
1119.47
1679.90
221.80
172.05
1317.36
350.10
0.50
0.50
171.91
234.50
100.83
182.96
354.13
Mo ownpHVal
772.19
2548.90
1826.51
3111.61
243.18
202.57
3009.33
1387.32
0.50
94.61
666.50
687.16
533.35
188.12
1231.90
Mo pH at Max
12.39
9.39
12.10
9.72
6.50
5.50
11.60
11.50
8.36
11.46
12.20
12.20
8.95
9.09
12.33
Mo pH at Min
12.18
5.48
7.10
6.44
650
6.40
6.40
550
11 60
11 34
550
580
11 91
12.13
5.79
Mo ownph
12.88
9.39
11.64
10.27
5.75
5.00
11.27
8.10
11.32
11.96
12.10
12.20
11.70
11.99
12.10
Pb
Pb max Val
8.65
3.37
3.48
1.72
0.71
2.28
0.12
4.03
4.82
5.78
2.42
12.16
2.73
26.58
58.99
Pb min Val
0.29
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.71
0.63
0.12
0.37
0.26
0.12
5.81
Pb ownpHVal
5.20
1.81
0.46
0.76
0.32
0.49
0.12
0.51
3.74
3.49
0.12
3.50
0.61
6.89
10.42
Pb pH at Max
12.18
956
11.75
1239
650
6.40
11 20
6.10
12.17
11 92
1220
580
11 82
1239
1233
Pb pH at Min Pb ownph
12.39 12.24
8.89 9.49
9.45 11.68
10.53 10.31
6.40 5.75
5.50 5.00
11.20 11.27
8.70 8.10
5.71 11.22
6.86 11.86
11.80 12.10
12.20 12.20
8.95 11.70
8.19 11.99
10.23 12.10
I-12
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -With and
without ACI
Brayton Point (BPB)
Brayton Point (BPT)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Salem Harbor (SHT)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility L (LAT)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility C (GAT)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPT)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility J (JAT)
Facility Ba (BaFA)
SDA
Facility V(VSD)
Facility Y(YSD)
PH
PH max Val
1239
1235
12.10
1239
1220
1220
11 80
11.70
1220
1235
1220
1220
11 91
1239
1233
Sb
PH min Val PH ownpHVal PH pH at Max PH pH at Min PH ownph Sb max Val Sb min Val Sb ownpHVal Sb pH at Max Sb pH at Min Sb ownph
6.86 12.24 12.39 686 12.24 3328.38 1.94 6.94 7.01 12.18 12.88
5.48 9.49 12.35 5.48 9.49 4317.57 4.00 548.04 9.04 892 9.39
7.01 11.68 12.10 701 11.68 162.22 4.00 13.03 8.08 1193 11.64
5.72 10.31 12.39 5.72 10.31 11145.85 26.78 392.68 5.72 1020 10.27
5.70 5.75 12.20 5.70 5.75 148.50 4.00 57.62 12.10 6.40 5.75
5.50 5.00 12.20 550 5.00 135.74 4.00 54.48 12.10 550 5.00
5.60 11.27 11.80 560 11.27 129.52 4.00 30.86 8.30 1160 11.27
5.50 8.10 11.70 550 8.10 96.40 8.31 53.42 6.10 11.70 8.10
5.40 11.22 12.20 5.40 11.22 399.86 4.00 8.83 8.36 1160 11.32
5.57 11.86 12.35 557 11.86 361.64 4.00 5.71 5.57 11.46 11.96
5.50 12.10 12.20 550 12.10 56.64 2.26 7.45 11.80 960 12.10
5.80 12.20 12.20 580 12.20 17.14 2.45 5.86 12.20 10.40 12.20
6.88 11.70 11.91 688 11.70 22.80 2.53 5.13 8.95 1191 11.70
5.74 11.99 12.39 5.74 11.99 15.63 0.04 0.67 5.74 1130 11.99
5.79 12.10 12.33 5.79 12.10 13.60 0.04 0.22 5.79 1200 12.10
I-13
-------
Facility
Fly Ash -With and
without ACI
Brayton Point (BPB)
Brayton Point (BPT)
Salem Harbor (SHB)
Salem Harbor (SHT)
Facility L (LAB)
Facility L (LAT)
Facility C (GAB)
Facility C (GAT)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPB)
Pleasant Prairie
(PPT)
Facility J (JAB)
Facility J (JAT)
Facility Ba (BaFA)
SDA
Facility V(VSD)
Facility Y(YSD)
Se
Se max Val
45800
2700 00
2070 00
301000
45.79
41 57
3810.78
12091.11
36900
85.70
31292
17057
720.15
1142.48
951.76
Tl
Se min Val Se ownpHVal Se pH at Max Se pH at Min Se ownph Tl max Val Tl min Val Tl ownpHVal Tl pH at Max Tl pH at Min Tl ownph
43.50 57.03 12.18 12.14 12.24 786.71 12.44 1450 7.01 12.18 1288
91.50 164.33 12.35 8.28 9.49 184.82 23.83 54.40 9.04 9.84 939
96.20 1716.67 11.99 12.07 11.68 16.95 0.26 058 11.67 11.75 1164
153.00 1496.67 9.68 6.44 10.31 143.98 0.91 1.40 5.72 10.66 1027
8.90 8.29 12.10 6.30 5.75 446.79 1.59 630 6.50 8.80 5.75
5.70 5.85 12.20 5.90 5.00 216.56 1.83 684 6.40 9.70 500
991.02 3079.77 11.20 11.60 11.27 327.44 2.50 5089 8.50 11.60 1127
1035.91 3288.09 11.50 5.80 8.10 319.97 41.30 9894 8.90 11.50 8.10
35.10 110.90 12.09 11.71 11.22 182.32 0.66 558 5.71 8.95 1132
10.50 25.27 9.78 11.86 11.86 406.21 2.08 460 5.57 12.35 1196
42.75 50.80 12.20 11.60 12.10 22.08 2.50 582 5.50 11.90 12.10
48.49 58.85 9.90 12.20 12.20 6.39 1.78 237 5.80 8.60 1220
40.05 133.22 8.95 11.91 11.70 4.98 0.26 026 6.88 11.70 11.70
73.96 83.14 5.74 11.63 11.99 12.03 0.26 169 5.74 7.09 1199
108.99 116.03 5.79 12.11 12.10 15.06 0.26 361 12.27 8.45 12.10
I-14
-------
Facility
Gypsum
Facility U (UAU)
Facility T(TAU)
Facility! (TAW)
Facility W(WAU)
Facility W(WAW)
Facility Aa(AaAU)
Facility Aa(AaAW)
Facility Da (DaAW)
Facility P (PAD)
Facility N (NAU)
Facility N (NAW)
Facility S(SAU)
Facility S (SAW)
Facility O(OAU)
Facility O(OAW)
Facility R (RAU)
Facility Q(QAU)
Facility X(XAU)
Facility X(XAW)
Facility Ca(CaAW)
Scrubber Sludge
Facility B (DGD)
Facility A (CGD)
Facility B (BCD)
Facility A (AGO)
Facility K (KGD)
Blended CCRs
Facility B (DCC)
Facility A (CCC)
Facility B (BCC)
Facility A (ACC)
Facility K (KCC)
Facility M (MAD)
Facility M (MAS)
Facility U (UGF)
Al
Al max Val
89065
731.77
405.44
4795
203.43
162305
2876 07
467.43
571 25
214962
3442.44
2762 65
1801.48
215536
2440 99
2029.43
44837
74233
89262
10282.40
3254 94
2156505
1440000
317000
1386001
321.40
1001003
3270 00
1540000
3751 09
92034
15319.17
2309 30
As
Al min Val Al ownpHVal Al pH at Max Al pH at Min Al ownph As max Val As min Val As ownpHVal As pH at Max As pH at Min As ownph
76.79 181.84 1065 12.13 5.85 582 4.82 5.21 702 5.65 5.85
0.50 12.59 5.71 9.12 7.11 393 0.32 2.68 728 8.96 7.11
0.50 28.43 1097 12.16 6.02 465 0.32 0.32 12.16 5.64 6.02
0.50 3.70 553 8.92 6.84 19750 0.95 1.38 595 7.35 6.84
0.50 6.04 822 12.00 6.33 299 0.32 0.32 594 10.41 6.33
4.38 384.78 1023 11.95 7.14 132 0.32 1.04 1195 10.23 7.14
0.50 384.78 1091 12.00 7.14 2.11 0.32 0.69 550 10.91 6.86
10.00 170.63 903 5.81 7.74 121397 1.05 1.05 554 7.74 7.74
50.05 62.70 568 11.76 6.66 6.12 0.32 0.32 582 6.05 6.66
65.51 340.84 1082 7.20 7.18 594 0.32 0.32 626 7.18 7.18
65.37 324.86 565 7.18 7.13 10.16 0.32 5.24 725 6.87 7.13
10.00 437.11 5.42 7.42 7.13 63.73 7.03 12.03 7.42 12.11 7.13
10.00 1800.98 727 5.60 7.61 4354 7.60 42.26 727 6.49 7.61
0.48 414.70 5.49 10.22 7.53 656 0.32 1.29 729 9.53 7.53
507.95 823.80 583 7.44 7.33 901 0.32 2.12 705 9.17 7.33
16.53 119.18 557 12.05 6.92 596 0.32 1.18 1104 9.45 6.92
0.48 176.41 8.12 10.49 6.89 1069 0.32 0.88 585 6.95 6.89
0.50 58.48 567 12.25 7.73 901 0.32 0.32 720 5.67 7.73
11.64 437.43 685 12.25 6.03 302 0.72 0.80 637 6.85 6.03
5.97 79.31 581 9.05 7.75 2100 1.83 5.00 695 12.13 7.75
33.17 36.97 586 8.52 9.13 22.72 0.32 0.32 586 9.03 9.13
260.83 495.95 5.74 7.28 7.30 307 0.32 0.46 1086 6.70 7.30
455.00 2340.00 1221 7.23 10.11 6390 5.54 5.80 703 10.70 10.11
217.00 913.33 5.48 9.35 6.78 794 2.81 6.38 7.74 8.09 6.78
71.91 2812.52 1202 5.69 10.99 10500 10.84 18.62 1202 7.07 10.99
9.33 9.51 12.17 12.26 12.19 18453 0.32 2.09 631 12.17 12.19
106.20 584.06 587 11.52 10.00 83.71 4.75 18.81 9.16 11.52 10.00
250.00 551.00 1204 8.10 8.00 4060 7.26 16.60 703 12.04 8.00
530.00 1920.00 583 8.88 8.43 7660 21.20 41.30 791 11.39 8.43
644.75 711.03 627 8.24 8.18 698 0.32 0.32 627 8.30 8.18
0.50 366.25 1187 6.88 11.93 2818.75 1.20 7.20 5.74 12.05 11.93
3.31 4048.82 11.14 7.13 11.58 3664.46 77.19 205.37 1194 8.02 11.58
12.69 82.20 561 12.07 7.12 4425 4.73 12.98 561 12.07 7.12
I-15
-------
Facility
Gypsum
Facility U (UAU)
Facility T(TAU)
Facility! (TAW)
Facility W(WAU)
Facility W(WAW)
Facility Aa(AaAU)
Facility Aa(AaAW)
Facility Da (DaAW)
Facility P (PAD)
Facility N (NAU)
Facility N (NAW)
Facility S(SAU)
Facility S (SAW)
Facility O(OAU)
Facility O(OAW)
Facility R (RAU)
Facility Q(QAU)
Facility X(XAU)
Facility X(XAW)
Facility Ca(CaAW)
Scrubber Sludge
Facility B (DGD)
Facility A (CGD)
Facility B (BCD)
Facility A (AGO)
Facility K (KGD)
Blended CCRs
Facility B (DCC)
Facility A (CCC)
Facility B (BCC)
Facility A (ACC)
Facility K (KCC)
Facility M (MAD)
Facility M (MAS)
Facility U (UGF)
B
B max Val
126887
94758 60
5435 68
11387900
1437.11
4142.44
13402
170284
151804
1649002
97834
268491 00
78839
49574.17
371322
2664 52
65034 94
5903 89
39580
7719690
62361.43
431 49 82
1416699
213447.79
20929 26
13903.42
7950 30
223287 90
1088392
44446 01
32923 84
28731 07
338321
Ba
B min Val B ownpHVal B pH at Max B pH at Min B ownph Ba max Val Ba min Val Ba ownpHVal Ba pH at Max Ba pH at Min Ba ownph
541.87 574.10 5.65 8.21 585 141.07 106.49 123.66 5.65 12.13 585
9374.62 10908.75 7.47 9.40 7.11 105.24 56.16 75.52 7.42 12.16 7.11
638.86 701.25 5.52 9.93 602 71.86 58.54 69.65 6.39 12.15 602
7479.40 9094.99 6.83 9.86 684 198.65 36.89 96.64 6.83 12.07 684
208.82 210.72 5.99 8.22 633 99.45 29.99 59.39 5.75 12.00 633
695.22 716.07 5.86 11.95 7.14 86.82 70.81 76.03 5.86 11.95 7.14
101.01 101.01 5.50 6.86 686 87.39 69.74 69.74 5.50 6.86 686
158.04 158.04 5.54 7.74 7.74 257.40 95.11 95.11 5.81 7.74 7.74
260.68 285.95 11.76 6.71 666 77.15 37.63 45.02 5.68 11.74 666
1469.68 2214.49 7.16 7.65 7.18 148.02 50.43 67.00 7.20 11.96 7.18
42.83 48.63 7.18 7.25 7.13 80.49 46.26 58.38 7.31 11.31 7.13
18975.00 21801.20 7.42 10.55 7.13 158.96 40.67 101.42 6.10 12.11 7.13
355.86 387.72 5.60 6.02 761 84.35 31.09 32.43 5.60 9.83 761
4979.84 5234.54 7.44 7.50 753 159.25 75.59 83.52 5.49 12.01 753
327.62 344.99 8.05 6.91 733 144.91 40.70 80.01 5.83 8.93 733
58.48 59.72 11.95 6.98 692 123.62 62.00 81.77 5.57 12.05 692
2737.33 3592.31 6.41 9.31 689 421.86 114.93 128.93 5.81 6.41 689
531.69 569.55 7.20 7.01 7.73 107.64 80.61 99.30 5.67 12.25 7.73
11.81 11.81 12.25 6.03 603 95.96 80.35 91.49 11.29 12.25 603
7034.84 7521.65 6.95 9.05 7.75 564.84 124.95 164.15 5.81 12.13 7.75
3120.08 3331.06 8.77 9.05 9.13 401.77 118.07 127.96 7.06 11.59 9.13
4059.68 5373.95 7.28 12.13 730 82.67 21.75 30.43 7.25 10.79 730
18.23 726.43 6.39 9.39 10.11 1760.00 156.00 176.00 7.03 9.51 10.11
4750.32 6270.42 7.74 9.35 6.78 118.00 33.60 43.57 7.70 6.49 6.78
1574.03 1845.13 6.03 11.00 1099 2313.82 99.12 112.52 6.03 12.02 1099
6.28 818.70 6.31 11.97 12.19 5991.09 624.94 2250.24 12.12 9.38 12.19
7.57 112.32 6.08 11.52 1000 1590.77 149.99 162.39 8.69 9.91 1000
1841.01 5616.40 7.93 10.85 800 178.00 46.70 49.70 7.93 7.91 800
529.50 3215.59 7.10 11.39 8.43 494.00 122.00 130.00 8.88 8.72 8.43
7827.50 10851.50 8.24 9.24 8.18 154.08 7.63 15.23 6.27 11.54 8.18
172.30 305.35 6.55 11.87 1193 10158.06 516.86 2227.47 7.87 9.13 1193
357.08 794.72 6.73 11.95 1158 1180.41 32.33 67.28 6.73 11.60 1158
122.74 284.52 5.61 10.55 7.12 962.81 185.00 190.25 5.61 10.55 7.12
I-16
-------
Facility
Gypsum
Facility U (UAU)
Facility T(TAU)
Facility! (TAW)
Facility W(WAU)
Facility W(WAW)
Facility Aa(AaAU)
Facility Aa(AaAW)
Facility Da (DaAW)
Facility P (PAD)
Facility N (NAU)
Facility N (NAW)
Facility S(SAU)
Facility S (SAW)
Facility O(OAU)
Facility O(OAW)
Facility R (RAU)
Facility Q(QAU)
Facility X(XAU)
Facility X(XAW)
Facility Ca(CaAW)
Scrubber Sludge
Facility B (DGD)
Facility A (CGD)
Facility B (BCD)
Facility A (AGO)
Facility K (KGD)
Blended CCRs
Facility B (DCC)
Facility A (CCC)
Facility B (BCC)
Facility A (ACC)
Facility K (KCC)
Facility M (MAD)
Facility M (MAS)
Facility U (UGF)
Cd
Cd max Val
1 37
1528
089
1 97
2.19
009
009
371.15
050
726
791
3299
0.71
1223
669
235
51 26
3.11
1 93
5.77
068
1.17
1.44
1 59
4.11
1 09
9.12
11 80
895
1 08
11 00
20.15
31 99
Co
Cd min Val Cd ownpHVal Cd pH at Max Cd pH at Min Cd ownph Co max Val Co min Val Co ownpHVal Co pH at Max Co pH at Min Co ownph
0.62 1.37 5.85 7.02 5.85 2.40 0.21 1.93 12.13 5.65 5.85
0.09 0.84 6.02 7.95 7.11 103.12 1.43 17.11 7.42 11.33 7.11
0.09 0.15 6.20 7.33 6.02 11.45 1.30 2.25 7.95 7.20 6.02
0.09 0.56 6.97 8.92 6.84 41 62 0.21 2.15 6.97 8.39 6.84
0.09 0.25 5.49 10.16 6.33 10.70 1.97 2.64 5.49 10.91 6.33
0.09 0.09 11.95 11.95 7.14 021 0.21 0.21 11.95 11.95 7.14
0.09 0.09 12.00 12.00 6.86 6.79 0.21 0.21 5.50 12.00 6.86
0.09 0.09 5.54 9.03 7.74 114729 0.21 0.21 5.54 9.03 7.74
0.09 0.09 5.68 6.37 6.66 259 1.12 1.16 5.68 6.71 6.66
0.09 0.17 7.16 10.98 7.18 4.15 1.36 1.83 6.26 8.19 7.18
0.09 0.09 5.70 8.15 7.13 408 1.00 2.31 5.70 10.08 7.13
0.09 4.91 7.42 12.11 7.13 6354 0.21 11.78 7.47 12.11 7.13
0.09 0.09 5.60 9.83 7.61 2.11 1.33 1.41 12.08 10.92 7.61
0.09 1.08 5.49 9.51 7.53 1732 1.19 1.65 5.49 7.16 7.53
0.09 0.09 5.83 8.42 7.33 14.43 0.57 1.52 5.83 8.93 7.33
0.09 0.57 5.57 10.28 6.92 3029 1.68 3.28 5.57 10.90 6.92
0.09 6.03 5.81 10.49 6.89 50.74 1.99 8.69 6.68 10.49 6.89
0.09 0.39 7.20 12.25 7.73 6328 1.35 9.24 7.20 12.25 7.73
0.39 1.08 6.37 7.98 6.03 358 2.34 2.89 6.37 11.29 6.03
0.09 0.56 5.81 9.05 7.75 6920 0.21 1.28 5.81 12.13 7.75
0.09 0.09 7.06 9.29 9.13 6.46 0.21 0.21 5.86 12.09 9.13
0.09 0.09 8.98 9.21 7.30 8.71 0.59 0.87 7.25 9.21 7.30
0.09 0.09 6.43 12.24 10.11 4030 0.21 0.21 7.03 9.11 10.11
0.09 1.01 5.48 11.69 6.78 9200 0.93 51.23 6.30 11.69 6.78
0.18 0.19 8.34 11.00 10.99 24508 0.21 0.21 5.69 11.00 10.99
0.09 0.09 6.31 12.12 12.19 4704 0.78 0.94 6.25 12.12 12.19
0.21 0.28 6.08 10.81 10.00 12487 0.21 0.49 6.08 10.75 10.00
0.34 2.08 7.06 8.10 8.00 9300 2.31 5.06 6.34 12.04 8.00
0.55 0.63 5.70 11.39 8.43 11100 3.33 4.15 5.70 11.39 8.43
0.09 0.09 8.30 7.98 8.18 782 0.21 0.21 6.27 8.30 8.18
0.09 1.49 7.37 12.03 11.93 14982 0.21 1.78 6.16 12.03 11.93
3.02 3.30 11.94 11.50 11.58 11794 0.45 1.40 6.73 11.76 11.58
0.09 0.09 5.61 10.21 7.12 48.46 0.21 0.21 5.61 6.77 7.12
I-17
-------
Facility
Gypsum
Facility U (UAU)
Facility T(TAU)
Facility! (TAW)
Facility W(WAU)
Facility W(WAW)
Facility Aa(AaAU)
Facility Aa(AaAW)
Facility Da (DaAW)
Facility P (PAD)
Facility N (NAU)
Facility N (NAW)
Facility S(SAU)
Facility S (SAW)
Facility O(OAU)
Facility O(OAW)
Facility R (RAU)
Facility Q(QAU)
Facility X(XAU)
Facility X(XAW)
Facility Ca(CaAW)
Scrubber Sludge
Facility B (DGD)
Facility A (CGD)
Facility B (BCD)
Facility A (AGO)
Facility K (KGD)
Blended CCRs
Facility B (DCC)
Facility A (CCC)
Facility B (BCC)
Facility A (ACC)
Facility K (KCC)
Facility M (MAD)
Facility M (MAS)
Facility U (UGF)
Cr
Cr max Val
23.16
3896
241.17
2083
2789
9.41
1757
8587
2423
5263
18.71
2093
1695
6.11
12.47
21 23
1729
3503
3487
5624
2428
985
79400
831 00
1685
21 95
2259 67
95200
2290 00
8.70
6.49
3084
81 98
Hg
Cr min Val Cr ownpHVal Cr pH at Max Cr pH at Min Cr ownph Hg max Val Hg min Val Hg ownpHVal Hg pH at Max Hg pH at Min Hg ownph
11.88 11.88 565 5.85 5.85 002 0.00 0.00 5.65 1065 5.85
8.21 8.36 9.40 7.24 7.11 003 0.00 0.00 10.98 724 7.11
6.92 15.36 795 12.16 6.02 002 0.00 0.01 8.63 552 6.02
4.10 9.37 697 9.86 6.84 002 0.00 0.00 12.09 9.16 6.84
8.23 15.94 5.75 5.94 6.33 001 0.00 0.00 5.87 1200 6.33
5.04 5.69 1195 6.06 7.14 001 0.00 0.00 6.06 9.14 7.14
10.04 10.04 1200 6.86 6.86 002 0.01 0.01 5.50 1200 6.86
18.64 24.21 581 5.65 7.74 009 0.00 0.01 5.54 903 7.74
0.75 4.18 637 9.83 6.66 008 0.00 0.03 7.35 660 6.66
1.87 2.87 1082 7.18 7.18 003 0.00 0.00 11.96 703 7.18
0.25 0.25 11.45 6.87 7.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 7.28 10.72 7.13
0.25 13.77 5.42 12.11 7.02 0.11 0.00 0.00 6.10 800 7.13
7.01 12.34 560 12.08 7.61 001 0.00 0.00 12.08 560 7.61
0.25 1.13 11.77 8.87 7.53 002 0.00 0.00 7.47 7.16 7.53
0.25 0.25 767 5.83 7.33 009 0.00 0.00 7.67 7.44 7.33
7.90 13.77 760 10.28 6.92 000 0.00 0.00 12.05 1205 6.92
1.21 4.20 1062 6.42 6.89 066 0.00 0.00 5.81 6.42 6.89
11.17 17.21 6.42 5.67 7.73 006 0.00 0.00 5.67 8.70 7.73
27.33 34.42 1129 6.37 6.03 004 0.01 0.02 7.98 1129 6.03
11.56 13.51 695 5.81 7.75 020 0.01 0.03 6.95 581 7.75
0.80 10.08 903 11.49 9.13 899 0.02 0.04 5.86 653 9.13
2.91 4.33 1199 9.21 7.30 0.10 0.02 0.03 12.13 620 7.30
203.00 228.00 899 7.31 10.11 530 0.01 0.03 7.02 9.40 10.11
574.00 592.33 7.70 7.39 6.78 008 0.00 0.02 7.37 7.13 6.78
3.54 10.55 569 9.70 10.99 158 0.00 0.06 8.00 1058 10.99
0.25 13.90 1221 6.31 12.19 1.47 0.01 0.02 6.61 1220 12.19
88.38 211.16 896 5.87 10.00 022 0.01 0.10 10.03 794 10.00
680.00 714.67 734 12.14 8.00 550 0.01 0.02 7.06 833 8.00
677.00 960.33 9.45 5.83 8.43 0.14 0.00 0.08 7.85 888 8.43
3.14 6.00 830 7.55 8.18 28.15 0.00 0.35 6.27 1023 8.18
0.50 3.36 962 6.71 11.93 902 0.00 0.00 6.56 1187 11.93
0.62 2.34 1199 7.13 11.58 7.49 0.00 0.02 6.73 11.14 11.58
17.09 33.81 6.76 10.55 7.12 064 0.00 0.00 5.61 6.77 7.12
I-18
-------
Facility
Gypsum
Facility U (UAU)
Facility T(TAU)
Facility! (TAW)
Facility W(WAU)
Facility W(WAW)
Facility Aa(AaAU)
Facility Aa(AaAW)
Facility Da (DaAW)
Facility P (PAD)
Facility N (NAU)
Facility N (NAW)
Facility S(SAU)
Facility S (SAW)
Facility O(OAU)
Facility O(OAW)
Facility R (RAU)
Facility Q(QAU)
Facility X(XAU)
Facility X(XAW)
Facility Ca(CaAW)
Scrubber Sludge
Facility B (DGD)
Facility A (CGD)
Facility B (BCD)
Facility A (AGO)
Facility K (KGD)
Blended CCRs
Facility B (DCC)
Facility A (CCC)
Facility B (BCC)
Facility A (ACC)
Facility K (KCC)
Facility M (MAD)
Facility M (MAS)
Facility U (UGF)
Mo
Mo max Val
50582
5850
8488
5369
21 57
11 67
13.41
125460
12.73
154.11
110.17
194408
13521
17494
130.12
2732
39232
16756
1659
96752
131398
11531
41823
74981
1076.43
45835
1554455
1717.79
38083 83
235.43
1082.17
1107383
119924
Pb
Mo min Val Mo ownpHVal Mo pH at Max Mo pH at Min Mo ownph Pb max Val Pb min Val Pb ownpHVal Pb pH at Max Pb pH at Min Pb ownph
52.79 61.43 5.65 1065 5.85 1.24 0.37 0.49 12.13 9.19 5.85
0.98 11.30 7.42 625 7.11 16.85 0.12 0.53 7.47 7.24 7.11
0.38 9.09 7.95 7.19 6.02 6.03 0.12 0.12 552 11.07 6.02
4.89 7.75 6.83 595 6.84 16.33 1.55 4.04 1207 7.74 6.84
3.40 4.52 12.00 5.75 6.33 2.26 0.12 0.12 587 10.41 6.33
1.84 1.84 5.86 7.14 7.14 4.83 2.03 2.03 586 7.14 7.14
2.45 3.47 12.00 550 6.86 1.48 0.12 0.12 1200 5.50 6.86
5.26 6.25 5.54 565 7.74 9.70 0.12 0.12 554 12.03 7.74
1.04 2.75 11.76 568 6.66 0.12 0.12 0.12 568 5.68 6.66
13.72 15.15 7.20 605 7.18 5.35 0.12 0.12 720 11.91 7.18
7.65 9.54 7.18 687 7.13 0.50 0.12 0.12 10.72 5.65 7.13
119.16 187.31 7.42 5.42 7.13 14.40 0.12 0.27 12.11 9.02 7.13
65.28 79.45 5.60 602 7.61 1.28 0.12 0.12 1209 5.60 7.61
3.37 18.76 7.44 5.49 7.53 0.48 0.12 0.19 584 7.44 7.53
2.19 12.29 8.05 583 7.33 0.47 0.12 0.12 731 7.44 7.33
2.05 5.36 11.95 557 6.92 2.40 0.93 1.35 557 11.04 6.92
12.16 14.28 6.68 8.12 6.89 12.05 0.12 0.68 6.41 10.49 6.89
10.13 15.05 7.20 567 7.73 14.91 1.94 2.10 720 7.01 7.73
7.23 7.23 6.37 603 6.03 1.32 0.44 0.53 637 10.14 6.03
58.72 91.55 6.95 581 7.75 12.67 2.60 2.60 695 7.75 7.75
58.82 134.74 8.24 1159 9.13 2.01 0.12 0.32 851 7.75 9.13
2.11 10.24 7.28 5.74 7.30 0.93 0.12 0.12 898 7.23 7.30
52.77 61.93 9.40 1006 10.11 1.64 0.12 0.33 1221 7.19 10.11
0.38 36.53 7.70 5.48 6.78 0.50 0.28 0.35 7.13 11.67 6.78
148.41 159.77 7.85 1100 10.99 24.98 0.12 0.57 834 5.69 10.99
136.56 138.36 12.12 1226 12.19 7.20 0.12 3.69 1221 9.49 12.19
520.48 647.65 8.45 1081 10.00 0.65 0.12 0.12 896 9.61 10.00
74.39 116.15 5.84 1083 8.00 1.24 0.35 0.56 734 8.89 8.00
137.98 241.33 9.45 560 8.43 0.68 0.30 0.57 8.72 6.77 8.43
11.51 12.06 8.24 867 8.18 2.03 0.41 0.45 7.79 8.67 8.18
159.62 574.76 7.90 1209 11.93 46.53 0.12 35.06 1228 6.16 11.93
852.04 1164.91 11.94 7.13 11.58 5.40 0.12 1.14 1199 10.26 11.58
112.34 116.63 6.76 1021 7.12 1.85 0.12 0.12 6.76 6.77 7.12
I-19
-------
Facility
Gypsum
Facility U (UAU)
Facility T(TAU)
Facility! (TAW)
Facility W(WAU)
Facility W(WAW)
Facility Aa(AaAU)
Facility Aa(AaAW)
Facility Da (DaAW)
Facility P (PAD)
Facility N (NAU)
Facility N (NAW)
Facility S(SAU)
Facility S (SAW)
Facility O(OAU)
Facility O(OAW)
Facility R (RAU)
Facility Q(QAU)
Facility X(XAU)
Facility X(XAW)
Facility Ca(CaAW)
Scrubber Sludge
Facility B (DGD)
Facility A (CGD)
Facility B (BCD)
Facility A (AGO)
Facility K (KGD)
Blended CCRs
Facility B (DCC)
Facility A (CCC)
Facility B (BCC)
Facility A (ACC)
Facility K (KCC)
Facility M (MAD)
Facility M (MAS)
Facility U (UGF)
PH
PH max Val
12.13
1226
12.16
1209
1200
11 95
1200
1203
11.76
11 96
11.45
12.16
1209
1201
11 66
1205
11 92
1225
1225
12.13
12.16
12.14
1224
1204
1202
1233
11 52
12.14
11 39
11 54
1228
1206
1207
Sb
PH min Val PH ownpHVal PH pH at Max PH pH at Min PH ownph Sb max Val Sb min Val Sb ownpHVal Sb pH at Max Sb pH at Min Sb ownph
5.65 5.85 12.13 565 5.85 5.31 0.25 2.63 5.65 12.13 5.85
5.42 7.11 12.26 5.42 7.11 2.67 0.52 1.39 7.47 5.42 7.11
5.43 6.02 12.16 5.43 6.02 2.71 0.46 1.44 5.52 564 6.02
5.53 6.84 12.09 553 6.84 5.26 0.98 1.13 6.84 595 6.84
5.49 6.33 12.00 5.49 6.33 2.85 0.60 0.91 10.16 1200 6.33
5.86 7.14 11.95 586 7.14 0.86 0.04 0.04 5.86 1195 7.14
5.50 6.86 12.00 550 6.86 0.37 0.04 0.04 5.50 1200 6.86
5.54 7.74 12.03 554 7.74 332.39 0.24 0.55 5.54 1203 7.74
5.68 6.66 11.76 568 6.66 1.45 0.45 0.55 7.35 9.75 6.66
6.05 7.18 11.96 605 7.18 7.10 0.04 0.04 7.18 7.18 7.18
5.65 7.13 11.45 565 7.13 3.81 0.04 0.21 7.28 565 7.13
5.42 7.13 12.16 5.42 7.13 54.20 4.85 5.34 7.47 795 7.13
5.60 7.61 12.09 560 7.61 5.48 0.04 4.36 10.29 1092 7.61
5.49 7.53 12.01 5.49 7.53 7.05 0.04 0.95 7.16 733 7.53
5.83 7.33 11.66 583 7.33 6.82 0.32 0.64 7.95 691 7.33
5.57 6.92 12.05 557 6.92 2.96 0.85 1.07 9.45 658 6.92
5.75 6.89 11.92 5.75 6.89 11.75 2.48 2.53 6.41 682 6.89
5.67 7.73 12.25 567 7.73 13.29 1.16 1.16 7.20 7.73 7.73
6.03 6.03 12.25 603 6.03 2.72 0.75 0.75 11.29 603 6.03
5.81 7.75 12.13 581 7.75 18.38 2.32 2.32 6.95 7.75 7.75
5.86 9.13 12.16 586 9.13 12.91 0.99 5.44 8.00 1209 9.13
5.74 7.30 12.14 5.74 7.30 95.15 0.86 1.41 7.19 899 7.30
6.39 10.11 12.24 639 10.11 12.79 0.48 3.05 7.19 9.40 10.11
5.48 6.78 12.04 5.48 6.78 9.44 1.21 2.94 7.70 1169 6.78
5.69 10.99 12.02 569 10.99 10.72 1.21 1.25 8.00 1100 10.99
6.25 12.19 12.33 625 12.19 15.13 0.15 1.76 6.57 1233 12.19
5.87 10.00 11.52 587 10.00 199.42 0.71 10.00 8.07 1081 10.00
5.84 8.00 12.14 584 8.00 13.60 3.57 4.52 5.84 683 8.00
5.60 8.43 11.39 560 8.43 144.88 0.04 56.25 7.85 1139 8.43
6.27 8.18 11.54 627 8.18 4.49 0.94 1.13 8.30 798 8.18
5.42 11.93 12.28 5.42 11.93 107.86 0.31 1.65 7.54 1203 11.93
6.73 11.58 12.06 6.73 11.58 91.72 2.16 5.52 7.26 11.12 11.58
5.61 7.12 12.07 561 7.12 10.82 0.04 0.73 5.61 1021 7.12
I-20
-------
Facility
Gypsum
Facility U (UAU)
Facility T(TAU)
Facility! (TAW)
Facility W(WAU)
Facility W(WAW)
Facility Aa(AaAU)
Facility Aa(AaAW)
Facility Da (DaAW)
Facility P (PAD)
Facility N (NAU)
Facility N (NAW)
Facility S(SAU)
Facility S (SAW)
Facility O(OAU)
Facility O(OAW)
Facility R (RAU)
Facility Q(QAU)
Facility X(XAU)
Facility X(XAW)
Facility Ca(CaAW)
Scrubber Sludge
Facility B (DGD)
Facility A (CGD)
Facility B (BCD)
Facility A (AGO)
Facility K (KGD)
Blended CCRs
Facility B (DCC)
Facility A (CCC)
Facility B (BCC)
Facility A (ACC)
Facility K (KCC)
Facility M (MAD)
Facility M (MAS)
Facility U (UGF)
Se
Se max Val
9250
20594
174.71
91352
217.78
795.77
1514.72
80554
23555
151 30
16063
1682.45
9951
67062
151 38
13781
2995.47
3226 90
29309
1552331
197.70
16294
5420
27.70
276.73
146.13
39537
11500
28600
33499
96720
47353
11357
Tl
Se min Val Se ownpHVal Se pH at Max Se pH at Min Se ownph Tl max Val Tl min Val Tl ownpHVal Tl pH at Max Tl pH at Min Tl ownph
52.90 57.17 12.13 9.19 5.85 11.13 3.62 362 12.13 5.85 585
32.97 48.17 12.16 7.95 7.11 12.03 3.60 4.43 5.71 7.24 7.11
17.40 17.57 12.16 6.39 6.02 11.02 0.26 1.72 5.52 8.63 602
23.17 27.27 5.95 7.11 6.84 30.12 3.58 14.79 5.95 7.35 684
20.41 22.27 12.00 5.78 6.33 4.45 0.81 1.11 5.99 5.78 633
248.42 251.48 5.86 9.14 7.14 10.20 5.33 533 5.86 7.14 7.14
183.63 183.63 12.00 6.86 6.86 0.26 0.26 026 12.00 12.00 686
37.98 38.44 5.54 9.03 7.74 1099.26 0.26 026 5.54 7.74 7.74
184.40 193.08 5.82 8.10 6.66 0.26 0.26 026 5.68 5.68 666
3.63 18.51 6.26 6.92 7.18 16.14 3.44 364 7.20 11.96 7.18
10.51 13.53 5.70 7.24 7.13 1.53 0.26 026 7.18 5.65 7.13
139.09 254.59 7.47 6.10 7.13 18.16 1.62 1084 7.47 12.11 7.13
18.05 19.81 10.89 9.02 7.61 3.68 0.26 1.48 9.46 6.49 761
83.43 88.76 7.33 8.49 7.53 11.99 1.24 1.44 7.33 7.50 753
23.31 26.08 8.05 8.93 7.33 1.35 0.26 026 8.05 6.91 733
71.64 71.78 11.04 6.86 6.92 3.30 0.71 083 9.45 6.86 692
292.96 324.89 6.68 8.12 6.89 3.99 1.00 160 8.12 9.35 689
397.48 712.19 7.20 12.25 7.73 14.61 8.85 1102 7.20 6.42 7.73
55.45 71.65 11.29 6.85 6.03 3.34 0.58 081 6.37 11.29 603
1670.10 2063.86 6.95 7.32 7.75 16.44 10.28 1028 6.95 7.75 7.75
19.01 21.89 8.24 9.29 9.13 25.63 4.10 490 7.06 10.32 9.13
6.99 7.54 5.74 7.03 7.30 19.85 0.26 2.44 7.25 6.21 730
2.22 2.31 7.03 11.54 10.11 34.32 4.20 4.46 9.50 10.70 10.11
7.01 18.20 5.48 8.09 6.78 87.59 4.39 6.75 8.15 11.67 6.78
5.54 7.21 5.69 10.97 10.99 109.92 14.02 14.48 6.03 11.00 1099
13.96 16.27 6.25 12.20 12.19 25.81 1.98 1563 12.20 12.33 1223
10.02 16.24 7.93 10.75 10.00 36.83 3.21 498 6.62 11.52 1000
13.00 32.10 8.54 7.90 8.00 14.01 3.02 423 7.34 12.04 800
16.20 83.00 7.91 11.39 8.43 35.27 4.15 7.10 5.60 11.39 8.43
5.72 22.63 8.24 9.19 8.18 4.44 2.84 298 8.24 8.67 8.18
8.83 10.39 5.74 12.28 11.93 103.19 8.11 1037 5.74 12.28 1193
27.48 43.52 11.99 11.65 11.58 41.31 6.14 720 6.73 11.50 1158
9.96 17.63 5.61 10.55 7.12 23.82 2.57 484 5.61 8.67 7.12
I-21
-------
Appendix J
Summary of Statistics (Percentiles)
Aluminum
J-l
Arsenic
J-l
Boron
J-l
Barium
J-l
Cadmium
J-2
Cobalt
J-2
Chromium
J-2
Mercury
J-2
Molybdenum
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
J-3
J-3
J-3
J-3
J-4
-------
Max Eluate
Al
Max. Cone.
95th percentile
90th percentile
75th percentile
50th percentile
25th percentile
10th percentile
5th percentile
Min. Cone.
Fly Ash
515000
271 000
114000
50400
25400
13500
2560
1710
933
Concentrations for 5.4
SDA
13100
7180
Gypsum
10300
9940
3390
2370
1260
493
224
55.7
48
-------
Max Eluate
Cd
Max. Cone.
95th percentile
90th percentile
75th percentile
50th percentile
25th percentile
10th percentile
5th percentile
Min. Cone.
Fly Ash
323
193
116
36.8
15.2
3.28
1.04
0.803
0.698
Concentrations for 5.4
SDA
39.7
10
Gypsum
371
355
49.4
11.2
2.73
1.01
0.127
0.085
0.085
-------
Max Eluate
Mo
Max. Cone.
95th percentile
90th percentile
75th percentile
50th percentile
25th percentile
10th percentile
5th percentile
Min. Cone.
Fly Ash
126000
72900
40800
11900
3020
1930
781
692
652
Concentrations for 5.4
SDA
9200
764
Gypsum
1940
1910
1230
338
120
23
12.8
11.7
11.7
-------
Max Eluate
Tl
Max. Cone.
95th percentile
90th percentile
75th percentile
50th percentile
25th percentile
10th percentile
5th percentile
Min. Cone.
Fly Ash
787
620
426
193
40.9
14.6
5.34
3.05
1.54
Concentrations for 5.4
SDA
15.1
12
Gypsum
1100
1050
28.9
15.8
10.6
3.31
0.365
0.255
0.255
-------
Appendix K
Outliers
K-i
-------
Eluate Observations Outliers
Material
CFA
CFA
CGD
CGD
FFA
FFA
FFA
FFA
FFA
GAT
GAT
GAT
GAT
GAT
GAT
GAT
JAB
JAB
JAT
JAT
JAT
KFA
KFA
PPB
QAU
TAW
WFC
WFC
Leaching Test
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR03
SR03
SR03
SR03
SR03
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR03
SR03
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
Replicate Code
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
Constituent
Cd
Co
Mo
Sb
Ba
Cd
Co
Pb
Se
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Pb
Pb
Tl
Cd
Pb
Cd
Cd
Cd
As
Se
Sb
Al
Cr
Co
Cr
Concentration [|jg/L]
22.3
0.73
9.42
11.1
1180
306
0.205
708
2380
1370
194
5.62
51.6
11.9
211
15.8
507
134
129
595
458
2710
15800
2.35
47200
292
12.4
36.5
K-l
-------
pH Outlier Observations
Material
AFA
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
BCC
BCC
BFA
BCD
BPB
BPB
BPB
EFA
KFA
MAD
NAU
VSD
Leaching Test
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
Replicate Code
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
A
B
C
B
B
C
B
B
pH
8.401
1.849
2.578
2.029
2.322
1.651
1.345
3.761
2.713
3.742
8.358
7.614
14.319
14.191
13.497
5.3
5.05
3.63
4.12
2.88
K-2
-------
Eluate Concentration Outliers Due to pH Outliers
Material
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AFA
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
Leaching Test
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
Replicate Code
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Constituent
Al
As
B
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Al
Al
Al
Al
Al
Al
Al
As
As
As
As
As
As
As
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ba
Ba
Ba
Ba
Ba
Ba
Ba
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Co
Concentration [|jg/L]
7570
57.9
557
312
0.608
8.43
1310
0.213
877
0.494
31.4
83
3.33
34800
24700
22000
43800
9580
52800
39700
13.3
243
6.11
6.12
129
7.16
9.26
6630
7650
7270
8150
7100
7860
7190
80
69.7
70.4
83.8
37.2
93.7
61.8
1.7
1.97
1.66
1.93
1.77
1.75
1.96
79
K-3
-------
Eluate Concentration Outliers Due to pH Outliers
Material
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
Leaching Test
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
Replicate Code
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Constituent
Co
Co
Co
Co
Co
Co
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Sb
Sb
Sb
Sb
Sb
Sb
Sb
Se
Se
Se
Se
Se
Se
Se
Tl
Concentration [|jg/L]
77
63.2
106.00
90.3
85
81.9
719
787
732
882
848
900
869
0.025
0.0281
0.0125
0.0094
0.0094
0.0188
0.0063
61.9
117
21.6
0.38
7.91
4.09
0.38
64.4
8.28
0.338
0.475
3.28
0.463
35.2
5.01
9.55
3.65
4.15
61.3
16.1
20.6
119
19.7
68
25.3
21.1
37
20.1
6.56
K-4
-------
Eluate Concentration Outliers Due to pH Outliers
Material
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
AGO
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BCC
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BFA
BCD
BCD
BCD
BCD
Leaching Test
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
Replicate Code
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
Constituent
Tl
Tl
Tl
Tl
Tl
Tl
Al
Al
As
As
B
B
Ba
Ba
Cd
Cd
Co
Co
Cr
Cr
Hg
Hg
Mo
Mo
Pb
Pb
Sb
Sb
Se
Se
Tl
Tl
Al
As
B
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Al
As
B
Ba
Concentration [|jg/L]
7.96
8.65
7.15
7.38
6.5
7.45
3780
808
28.4
69.1
7120
8430
83.8
188
7.36
9.41
168
83.8
712
703
1.52
1.3
77.4
103
0.691
0.604
4.73
6.02
47.4
60.6
7.07
9.91
1210
29.3
7530
142
1.19
6.96
873
0.0125
1870
0.265
6.17
14.1
1.94
2440
5.54
583
162
K-5
-------
Eluate Concentration Outliers Due to pH Outliers
Material
BCD
BCD
BCD
BCD
BCD
BCD
BCD
BCD
BCD
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
BPB
EFA
EFA
EFA
EFA
EFA
EFA
EFA
EFA
EFA
Leaching Test
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
Replicate Code
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Constituent
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Al
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Pb
Se
Al
As
B
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Al
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Pb
Se
Al
As
B
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Mo
Concentration [|jg/L]
0.085
0.205
220
0.0219
61.4
0.345
2.79
2.54
4.15
15.4
2190
432
43.4
0.775
0.5
0.104
161
3230
14.4
2260
14.8
398
42.1
0.752
0.5
0.0018
1.13
159
4360
3060
189
9.04
2770
413
48.8
0.422
0.5
0.0018
189
2550
1.62
20.3
2.46
83.4
0.482
1.31
4.45
0.0018
1480
K-6
-------
Eluate Concentration Outliers Due to pH Outliers
Material
EFA
EFA
EFA
EFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
KFA
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
MAD
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
NAU
VSD
VSD
VSD
VSD
VSD
VSD
Leaching Test
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
Replicate Code
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Constituent
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Al
As
B
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Al
As
B
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Al
As
B
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Hg
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Al
As
B
Ba
Cd
Co
Concentration [|jg/L]
0.115
57.1
332
3.25
359
114
37700
87.4
0.085
1.78
6.21
0.0156
2070
0.115
34.9
40.9
87.9
73.5
4320
26300
2730
4.81
190
0.5
7.16
0.5
8.33
75.6
873
182
341
0.32
2160
65.9
0.359
1.44
6.04
0.0018
14.5
0.435
0.971
17
4.36
3.92
37.4
27.9
8890
62.4
2850
K-7
-------
Eluate Concentration Outliers Due to pH Outliers
Material
VSD
VSD
VSD
VSD
VSD
VSD
VSD
Leaching Test
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
SR02
Replicate Code
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Constituent
Cr
Hg
Mo
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Concentration [|jg/L]
91.1
9.58
129
5.08
7.34
1800
8.56
K-8
-------
Appendix L
Minimum Attenuation Factors
Minimum attenuation factor needed for the maximum eluate concentration
(5.4
-------
Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own eluate concentration to be reduced to less
than the MCL for Spray Dryer with Fabric Filter (Fly Ash and FGD collected together) L-35
Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own eluate concentration to be reduced to less
than the MCL for Gypsum, Unwashed and Washed L-36
Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own eluate concentration to be reduced to less
than the MCL for Scrubber Sludge L-38
Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own eluate concentration to be reduced to less
than the MCL for Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (blended CCRs) L-39
Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own eluate concentration to be reduced to less
than the MCL for Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (blended CCRs) L-40
-------
Individual COPCs
Minimum attenuation factor needed for the maximum eluate concentration (5.4
-------
w
<
10-
10-
io
10 -
10'
-=
-=
E
-
_
r-i
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
~
if
Sub-Bit .E
111
r-
-
7
t
t
' 1
t
t t
t
t
t n
t *,
'taB
"7 '
" i
" i
" ni
" i
H" r - '
*4 *
** *
ft '
*t i
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
n v\
v\
n v\
v\
n u
v\
Hashin
._.
n r-i
<
/ithout NOx control
/ith NOx control
/ithout ACI
/ith ACI
nwashed
/ashed
g = with COHPAC
Attenuation F
based on ma
concentrator
and MCL
-
T
r-i
Gypsum
w Bituminous
i JiiiiiniiiiLuiJiJii
Sub-Bit 5
111
I
r-i
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
As...
"actor needed
ximum eluate
T, 5.4
-------
_
UJ
00
10'
-=
-=
E
-
-
r-i
-i
i-
-
r-i
-
-
r-i
-
-
r-i
i-
i-i
r-
-
J
:
I
t
r-i
*
;
;
*
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S Medium
S Hlฑ
Sub-Bit
111
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
I-I
Q
W
III
[
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
i
-
-
-
B...
Attenuation Factor needed
based on maximum eluate
concentration, 5.4
-------
o
X 1
CD -in
CO
DO
,-2
10 -=
10"
-1
-1
E
ffl
~
-
-
i-
fl
n
\l
i-i
-
-1
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S 1 1 1
Medium
S
EG
Sub-Bit
111
-
-1
In
i
n
t
t
1 1
1 1
7
t
t
t
t
*
t
t
t
t
t
J
t
s With and Without ACI
Bituminous S
ub-Bit
.E
1-1
-
- <
Q
W
III
With NC
Without
With AC
Washec
Hashing = wi
NOx control
)x control
ACI
1
ed
h COHPAC
/
t
c
6
r-i
fin fin Ml
u i ii i inn ini IF
fUtl
0
Gypsum
Bituminous
JIllllllllL ILIUM
n i E
Sub-Bit 5
111
1
Attenuation F
ased on ma
oncentratior
ndMCL
n
I
. Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Ba.
"actor needed
ximum eluate
T, 5.4t-ln ^-
r- 9 "o "o o 'o -p
ฐฃMIฃIฃ
Figure L-3. Barium - Minimum attenuation factor needed for the maximum eluate concentration (5.4
-------
102-E
O =
X Q
T3 -
o -
I U z
I
-
1Q-3
-
pi
-
i-i
-i
-
-i
i-i
i-i
r-
r-i
t
t
r-i
-
7
t
*
t
t
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit .s
111
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
5
Q
W
III
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
-
|-|
-ir
I
r-i
Gypsum
Bituminous
JI.IIllJI.IillJIJU
ysMsysUsysy ysysMsy^y y< 'sy^y y ypypypypstypy yg ysysyystysys
D_ u_ u_ u_ u_ u_ x LL LL ^ ^ u_ u_ ^L. u_ u_ u_ u_ u_ u_ u_u_ Q_^LJ_LL- u_ Q_O-II^^^^Q_Q_^^LI_ ww ^^S^5^5rf^^rf^
iltlSJit i IS t !i
11 J4I f 11
CL ECL
r-.
""Attenuation
based on m
concentratic
and MCL
-i
Sub-
111
Bit .2
1
nfl"
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Cd
Factor needed
aximum eluate
n, 5.4
-------
_
0
10
10 -
10'
-=
-=
E
-
i-i
r-
i-i
-i
-i
-
-
__
-i
-
-
PI
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit
111
c
-
r-i
n R
7
nil '''
- 1 j - 1
V '
V '
. ' t . . . . *
; i
With and Without ACI
Bituminous Sub-Bit- |
n wit
Wit
Wit
Wit
D Urn
Wa
Hashing
iout NOx cont
h NOx control
hout ACI
hACI
washed
shed
= with COHPA
rol -
C
pi
n nfl
-
f
PI
-|p
< Gypsum
w Bituminous
ii JiiiiiniiiiLuiJiJii
Sub-Bit
111
Cr...
Attenuation Factor needed
based on maximum eluate
concentration, 5.4
-------
X .1
10 -
O)
-2
-1
E
p.
nn
-
-i
PI
-
I-I
"
1
1
-1
_
i-i
i
-
-
-
i-i
i-i
a
J
F
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S Medium
S
1 G
Sub-Bit
111
%
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
S
i-i
a
w
III
D Without NOx control --
D With NOx control Attenuat
Without ACI based ฐ
With ACI concentr
D Unwashed and MCL
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
r-i
I-,
in nr
In
PI
1
Gypsum - Scrub
Bituminous Sub-Bit^
11111.11.1110111 JI.IJ =
Hg.
on Factor needed
T maximum eluate
ation, 5.4
-------
10-E
_
LJJ
Q
10 -=
10'
-=
-=
z
I
-
-
n
PI
PI
i
-
-
r-i
-
-
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
0
-
.-
?
t
t
t
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit
111
c
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-E
iitjj
-
Q
W
III
l-
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
-l
-
11
-I
i_.
""Attenuation Factor ne
based on maximum e
concentration, 5.4
-------
co 10 -
10'
-=
-=
E
-
-
nf
-
i-i
i-i
i-i
-
-
i-i
__
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
I-I
Sub-Bit 5
111
i-i
i-i
n
~
-
t
;
;
F
i
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
1-1
i-i
Q
W
III
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
nn
r-|
i-
Attenuation F
based on ma
concentrator
and MCL
-|
Gypsum
Bituminous
JllllllilllJll
r-
_
r-i
i-i
Sub-Bit^
111
1
|-,
-
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Sb...
"actor needed
ximum eluate
T, 5.4
-------
10-E
10'-
CO
10 -
10
-
-
-
_
-
-
r-i
p
-
-
~
-1
pi
-
P
t
t
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit
111
d
1
!
!
*
-
\
f
t
t
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
1-1
._.
Q
W
III
pi
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
pi
pi
pi
pi
-
l_l
-|p
~
""
-ft
b
c
na
Gypsum
Bituminous
JllllllilllJl
Sub-Bit
111
1
c
ttenuation F
ased on ma
oncentratior
ndMCL
r-i
r-i
-i
i-
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Se
actor needed -
ximum eluate
, 5.4
-------
10
-
-
-
r-i
-i
r-i
r-i
-
-
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
r-i
Sub-Bit 5
111
i-
r-i
HP
!
n
r-.
r-i
^
F
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
Q
W
III
~|i-
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
-i
--A
b
c
a
Gypsum
Bituminous
JllllllilllJl
l_l
Sub-
111
Bit .2
1
ttenuation F
ased on ma
oncentratior
ndMCL
-i
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Tl
"actor needed -
ximum eluate
1, 5.4
-------
Individual COPCs
Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own eluate concentration to be reduced to less than
the MCL for each CCR evaluated in this study.
-------
* 10ฐ
10'
-=
-=
E
-
-
r-i"
r-i
-i
r-i
-i
r-i
-
i-
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
L
111.
Sub-Bit .E
III
-
r-i
n
-
II
7
t
t
t
t
t
t
f
t
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
-
Q
W
III
D Without NOx control
D With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
p
-
n
vn
PI
PI
Gypsum
Bituminous
iiiiniiiuiiiii
Sub-Bit 5
111
I
Attenuatior
based on o
concentrati
1
nF
" Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
As...
Factor needed
wn pH eluate
on and MCL
p.
-.
Blended OCRs
Bituminous
II 111 III
Figure L-ll. Arsenic - Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be reduced to less than the MCL for each
CCR evaluated in this study.
-------
10 -=
DO
-=
-1
E
-
-
i-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
-
-
1-1
_.
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit
111
|~
-
r
~\t
t
t
t
t
t
i-
r
t
t
t
t
t
t
;
'
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
1
Q
W
111
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
-
-
r-i
-i
-
-i
n
Gypsum
Bituminous
JllllllilllJl
Sub-Bit 5
1 111
1
B
Attenuation Factor needed
based on own pH eluate
concentration and DWEL
1-1
-i
. Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
i-
-i r-i
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
II 11 111
OOOOO
ay-e-is- o,y,as&'
ca
-------
_
o
10"
10 -=
1
-
-i
In
PI
p.
^
m
r~
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S 1 1 1
Medium
s HI"
Sub-Bit
111
pi
p.
"
*
t
%
It
3fc
-
pi
n
t
4
4
*
5 With and Without ACI
Bituminous S
Jb-Bit
.3
"
w
11
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
f~
nftnftnJUni
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II
Gypsum
Bituminous
iiiiniiiuiiiii
"
I
Sub-
III
Bit .2
I
Ba...
Attenuation Factor needed
based on own pH eluate
concentration and MCL
n
Scr
-i
ubber
jdge
Bituminous
In
M
I
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
11 111 III
CL CL H ซ ซ CL CL ซ U-
& &n
-------
O
T3
O
10ฐ-
10 -
,-2
10"
=
=
:
-= -
I
-
PI
PI
1-1
1
r-i
-
in
PI
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S
Medium S 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit 2
111
L
JE
"
F
t
t
t
t
t
t
r
i
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.5
i-i
<
Q
W
III
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
l-
. .rnn.r
-
Gypsum
Bituminous
JllllllilllJll
-
Sub-
111
Bit .2
1
Attenuatior
based on o
concentrat
inr
-i
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Cd
Factor needed"
wn pH eluate
on and MCL
-
Jl
I
Blended
1-1
OCRs
Bituminous
1U1111U
i-. - <=^a-t-in ^-
llti
'
r- 9 "o "o o 'o -p
ฐฃMIฃIฃ
Figure L-14. Cadmium - Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be reduced to less than the MCL for
each CCR evaluated in this study.
-------
o
-=
-1
E
_
i-
n
"
__
I-I
"
-
-
I-I
l_l
"
"
_
i-
-
;
H
.... f
t
t
t
]'
n!
"
7
f
f
t
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit
III
c
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
Q
W
III
D Without NOx co
With NOx centre
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHF
,1 Atteni
basec
co nee
>AC
r-i
-
-i
n
Gypsum
r-i
Jn
n n
. Scrub
Bituminous
jiiiiiniiiiLuiJiJii
Sub-Bit j?
Bitumi
Cr.
ation Factor needed
on own pH eluate
ntration and MCL
i-i
-
In
ber Blended CCRs
Bituminous
lous 11 II III
Figure L-15. Chromium - Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be reduced to less than the MCL for
each CCR evaluated in this study.
-------
o
10ฐ-=
10 n
,-2
10 -=
-1
E
-
-
r-i
-
P
-
fl
PI
r-.
"
~
r
t
t
t
t
Fly Ash
Bituminous
Low S 1 1 1
Medium
S Hlฑ
Sub-Bit
111
o
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
t
t
t
t
t
t
- < -
w
III
D Without NOx control
D With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
-
PP
1.
TjiTjlfj If
Gypsum
Bituminous Sub-Bit^
JIlllllllllIJII IT
Hg-
Attenuation Factor needed
based on own pH eluate
concentration and MCL
_
r-i
. Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
-
-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
II 11 III
>-. - <=^a-t-in ^-
ilttt
'
r- 9 "o "o o 'o -p
ฐฃMIฃIฃ
Figure L-16. Mercury - Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be reduced to less than the MCL for
each CCR evaluated in this study.
-------
103-|
102-|
LJJ
ง ino
Q 10 =
c
O
io-2-J
10 E
-
.4
-
_
i-i
r-
-
__
|-
-
-
1
i-i
-
-|
p
H>
,
t
t
i
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
-
~t
F
f
1*
;
F
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit
111
c
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
"
Q
W
III
D Without NOx control
D With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
|-|
-I
-
In [If
i
Gypsum
Bituminous Sub-Bit^
JIlllHlllllIJll IT
Us'gwS'sUs'sys' *s?5f&5hh?Gf&& 'd< 'aws's' M UpypsUsUstyps? ys 's's'g's's's'g'g's
CL U- LJ-LJ- U- LJ-I U- U- ซ U_ U_ n U_ U_ U_ U_ U_ U_ U_ U. CL < U- ^. U_ CL CL X I ซ ซ CL CL ซ U_ 0505 ซ5<5<33<
iltlSJit i IS I !i
11 J4I f 11
E ECL
Mo.
Attenuation Factor needed
based on own pH eluate
concentration and DWEL
-
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
i-i
-
T
1
-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
|| II HI
-------
,0
_
o
1-1 r-1
n n
=
-
=
jj Fly Ash
Bituminous S
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
D Without NOx control
"1 With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
fi n Hashing = with COHPAC
PH-
i t
n i n
n 'M L
* t t fin
.. f f - J - n
it t
1 1 J
it t
i-i
n
-
-1
< Gypsum
Jb-Bit 5 With and Without ACI w Bituminous
Bituminous Sub-Bit-
Sub-
111
Bit .2
1
'Attenuation
based on o
concentrat
-
r-.
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Sb
Factor needed"
wn pH eluate
on and MCL
i-i
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
11 111 III
Figure L-18. Antimony - Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be reduced to less than the MCL for
each CCR evaluated in this study.
-------
10-E
_
o
10'
-=
-=
z
I
-
i-i
i-i
.-
i-i
i-i
i-i
-
i-i
-
i-i
i-i
1
!
\
'
Fly Ash
Bituminous
LowS Mediums 1 ฑ
Sub-Bit
111
-
F
f
;
F
i
With and Without ACI
Bituminous
Sub-Bit
.E
-
Q
W
III
D Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
D Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
-
i-i
-
-
-i
-
-i
-i
-
Gypsum
Bituminous
JllllllilllJll
Sub-
111
Bit .2
1
Attenuatior
based on o
concentrat
I-,
-
Scrubber
Sludge
Bituminous
Se
Factor needed"
wn pH eluate
on and MCL
i-
Blended CCRs
Bituminous
11 111 III
Figure L-19. Selenium - Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be reduced to less than the MCL for
each CCR evaluated in this study.
-------
o
o
Without NOx control
With NOx control
Without ACI
With ACI
Unwashed
Washed
Hashing = with COHPAC
Attenuation Factor needed
based on own pH eluate
concentration and MCL
Scrubber
Sludge
With and Without ACI
Usk&tested
>-. - <=^a-t-in ^-
10
-2
m
Figure L-20. Thallium - Minimum attenuation factor needed for the own pH eluate concentration to be reduced to less than the MCL for
each CCR evaluated in this study.
-------
Attenuation factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on maximum eluate concentration, 5.4
-------
Attenuation factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
Facility
Hg
Sample PM NOx Sorbent SO3
ID Capture Control Injection Control Hg As B
Maximum
Attenuation Controlling
Ba Cd Cr Mo Se Sb Tl Factor COPC
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, LowS
Brayton Point
Facility F
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility U
Salem Harbor
Facility G
Facility A
Facility L
Facility C
BPB
FFA
DFA
CFA
BFA
UFA
SHE
GFA
AFA
LAB
GAB
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
Fabric F.
HSESP
HS ESP w/
CO HP AC
None
None
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.020
0.039
0.011
0.022
0.013
0.00090
0.018
0.0086
0.058
0.0058
0.0081
0.67
5.4
4.7
1.4
2.9
4.1
1.9
3.4
4.0
2.6
24
0.32
0.42
0.51
0.21
1.0
1.5
0.70
0.28
0.046
0.084
0.78
0.91
0.058
0.096
0.31
0.072
0.44
0.39
0.048
0.17
0.063
0.28
4.8
2.0
0.16
0.058
0.21
4.7
0.77
1.1
0.15
0.092
0.017
0.27
0.28
1.3
1.9
8.5
19
4.5
0.088
11
0.013
0.0025
3.9
0.19
9.8
2.6
9.1
72
9.1
0.29
2.9
1.2
15
1.1
1.0
0.19
0.47
0.31
1.0
34
1.2
0.51
0.17
62
1.2
8.4
1.1
3.4
0.95
0.10
2.2
4.9
2.2
9.6
5.1
7.2
4.4
0.37
2.4
0.71
59
0.29
17
1.4
3.2
25
7.2
8.4
4.7
3.4
8.5
59
34
17
11
9.6
62
Tl
Sb
As
Sb
Cr
Tl
Se
Tl
Cr
Sb
Se
Bituminous, Med S
Facility T
Facility E
Facility W
Facility E
Facility K
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility Aa
TFA
EFB
WFA
EFA
KFA
AaFA
AaFB
DaFA
AaFC
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
-Troana
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.00090
0.0058
0.00090
0.010
0.012
0.0031
0.00090
0.00090
0.00090
50
5.6
320
1.6
6.8
17
76
33
25
1.2
0.37
0.45
0.38
4.6
0.33
0.39
0.22
1.1
0.19
0.046
0.035
0.040
0.085
0.11
0.11
0.17
0.85
0.99
2.1
0.45
0.91
0.017
6.0
9.8
7.7
0.94
0.62
0.19
2.9
0.0085
0.21
0.34
2.3
0.32
2.3
5.1
0.047
9.9
0.24
11
0.68
0.34
1.8
19
11
0.73
57
1.3
2.5
4.3
9.9
5.0
0.96
12
4.9
22
3.5
5.0
8.6
10
22
12
2.5
46
2.1
7.4
19
17
19
97
2.5
AF < 1 AF = Attenuation Factor
1
-------
Attenuation factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
Sample PM
Facility ID Capture
NOx
Control
Hg
Sorbent
Injection
S03
Control
Hg
As
B
Ba
Cd
Cr
Mo
Se Sb
Maximum
Attenuation
Tl Factor
Controlling
COPC
Fly Ash without Hg Sorbent Injection
Bituminous, High S
Facility E EFC
Facility H HFA
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR
None
None
None
None
0.0076
0.0094
0.95
3.6
0.61
3.0
0.039
0.040
2.0
1.3
0.13
0.20
0.82
0.0
1.0 7.8
0.36 7.1
13 13
18 18
Tl
Tl
Sub-Bituminous & Sub-bit/bituminous mix
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
Facility!
Facility X
PPB
JAB
ZFA
XFA
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
SCR
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.0062
0.017
0.00090
0.019
0.40
0.092
0.032
0.032
1.4
0.042
0.48
0.11
11
0.43
110
16
0.030
0.12
0.017
0.017
0.029
6.1
0.063
1.9
0.0025
3.3
0.043
2.7
2.2
1.0
0.33
0.45
1.5
1.2
0.094
0.33
2.8
2.9
0.13
0.13
11
6.1
110
16
Ba
Cr
Ba
Ba
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaFA
CSESP
None
None
Duct
Sorbent inj.
-Troana
0.00090
3.4
2.5
1.4
0.69
6.3
9.9
6.8
0.83
0.13
AF < 1 AF = Attenuation Factor
6.8
Se
1
-------
Attenuation factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
Facility
Sample PM
ID Capture
Hg
NOx Sorbent SO3
Control Injection Control
Hg
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Mo
Se
Sb
Tl
Maximum
Attenuation Controlling
Factor COPC
Fly Ash without and with Hg Sorbent Injection Pairs
Bituminous, LowS (Class F)
Brayton Point
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Salem Harbor
Facility L
Facility L
Facility C
Mixed Fly Ash and Scr
BPB
BPT
SHE
SHT
LAB
LAT
GAB
GAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
HSESP
HSESP
HS ESP w/
CO HP AC
HS ESP w/
CO HP AC
None
None
SNCR
SNCR
SOFA
SOFA
None
None
None
PAC
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
PAC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.020
0.0033
0.018
0.0062
0.0058
0.0049
0.0081
0.0090
0.67
0.48
1.9
16
2.6
2.5
24
12
0.32
5.6
0.70
1.3
0.084
0.074
0.78
1.1
0.91
0.060
0.39
0.28
0.063
0.058
0.28
0.035
4.8
8.6
0.77
15
0.092
0.067
0.017
0.13
0.27
0.15
4.5
0.77
0.013
0.0050
0.0025
0.29
3.9
13
9.1
16
1.2
1.0
15
6.9
1.1
3.3
34
30
0.17
0.12
62
66
1.2
91
2.2
65
9.6
9.1
5.1
8.9
7.2
27
0.29
0.70
3.2
3.4
25
49
7.2
91
34
65
9.6
9.1
62
66
Tl
Sb
Se
Sb
Sb
Sb
Se
Se
Sub-bituminous (Class C)
Pleasant Prairie
Pleasant Prairie
St. Clair
St. Clair
PPB
PPT
JAB
JAT
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
None
None
None
PAC
None
Br-PAC
None
None
None
None
0.0062
0.0064
0.017
0.012
0.40
0.42
0.092
0.054
1.4
0.081
0.042
0.037
11
5.4
0.43
1.2
0.030
0.84
0.12
0.090
0.029
0.81
6.1
6.3
0.0025
0.47
3.3
3.4
2.2
0.51
1.0
1.2
1.5
0.95
1.2
0.98
2.8
2.3
2.9
1.2
11
5.4
6.1
6.3
Ba
Ba
Cr
Cr
Lignite (Class C)
Facility Ba
BaFA
CS ESP w/
CO HP AC
Ammonia
Inj.
PAC
None
0.0045
0.58
0.27
5.5
0.20
4.3
2.7
2.7
0.85
0.13
AF < 1 AF = Attenuation Factor
1
-------
Attenuation factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
Facility
Sample
ID
PM
Capture
NOx
Control
Hg
Sorbent
Injection
S03
Control
Hg
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Mo
Se
Sb
Tl
Maximum
Attenuation Controlling
Factor COPC
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed)
Sub-bituminous
Facility V
Facility Y
VSD
YSD
Fabric F. SCR
Fabric F. SCR
None None 0.010 0.18 0.013 84 0.16
None None 0.0094 0.22 0.021 0.64 0.37 1
2.5 0.94 1.7 0.11 0.85 84 Ba
7 6.2 2.3 0.037 1.8 17 Cr
AF < 1 AF = Attenuation Factor
1
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
Facility
Sample Residue
ID type
Wet
PM NOx Scrubber
Capture Control type
FGD
Scrubber
additive SO3 Control Hg As B Ba
Maximum
Attenuation
Cd Cr Mo Se Sb Tl Factor
Controlling
COPC
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous,
Facility U
LowS
UAU |Gyp-U
CS ESP SCR
Forced Ox.
Limestone None 0.00090 0.52 0.082 0.062
0.27 0.12 0.31 1.1 0.44 1.8 || 1.8
Tl
Bituminous. Med S
Facility!
Facility!
Facility W
Facility W
Facility Aa
Facility Aa
Facility Da
Facility P
!AU
!AW
WAU
WAW
AaAU
AaAW
DaAW
PAD
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR-BP
SCR-BP
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR&
SNCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
Duct Sorbent
inj. -!roana
None
None
None
None
0.00090
0.0044
0.00090
0.00090
0.00090
0.0065
0.0030
0.014
0.27
0.032
0.14
0.032
0.10
0.069
0.10
0.032
1.6
0.10
1.3
0.030
0.10
0.014
0.023
0.041
0.038
0.035
0.048
0.030
0.038
0.035
0.048
0.023
0.17
0.029
0.11
0.050
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.084
0.15
0.094
0.16
0.057
0.10
0.24
0.042
0.057
0.045
0.039
0.023
0.0092
0.017
0.031
0.014
0.96
0.35
0.55
0.45
5.0
3.7
0.77
3.9
0.23
0.24
0.19
0.15
0.0067
0.0067
0.092
0.092
2.2
0.86
7.4
0.56
2.7
0.13
0.13
0.13
AF < 1 AF = Attenuation Factor
1
-------
Facility
Sample Residue PM NOx
ID type Capture Control
Wet
Scrubber
type
FGD
Scrubber
additive
Attenuation Factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
SO, Control
Hg
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Mo
Se
Sb
Maximum
Attenuation Controlling
Factor COPC
Gypsum, unwashed and washed
Bituminous, High S
Facility N
Facility N
Facility S
Facility S
Facility 0
Facility 0
NAU
NAW
SAU
SAW
OAU
OAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
None
None
0.00090
0.00090
0.00090
0.00090
0.0022
0.00090
0.032
0.52
1.2
4.2
0.13
0.21
0.32
0.0069
3.1
0.055
0.75
0.049
0.033
0.029
0.051
0.016
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.017
0.98
0.017
0.22
0.017
0.029
0.0025
0.14
0.12
0.011
0.0025
0.076
0.048
0.94
0.40
0.094
0.061
0.37
0.27
5.1
0.40
1.8
0.52
0.0067
0.035
0.89
0.73
0.16
0.11
1.8
0.13
5.4
0.74
0.72
0.13
Sub-bituminous
Facility R
Facility Q
Facility X
Facility X
RAU
QAU
XAU
XAW
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-U
Gyp-W
CSESP
HSESP
CSESP
CSESP
None
None
SCR
SCR
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
Other
None
None
0.00090
0.0022
0.00090
0.0094
0.12
O.OSS
0.032
0.080
0.0085
0.51
0.081
0.0017
0.041
0.064
0.050
0.046
0.11
1.2
0.077
0.22
0.14
0.042
0.17
0.34
0.027
0.071
0.075
0.036
1.4
6.5
14
1.4
0.18
0.42
0.19
0.12
0.41
0.80
5.5
0.41
1.8
0.52
5.4
4.2
1.8
0.52
Tl
As
Tl
As
Se
Se
1.4
6.5
14
1.4
Se
Se
Se
Se
Lignite
Facility Ca
CaAW
Gyp-U
CSESP
None
Forced Ox.
Limestone
Duct Sorbent
inj. -Troana
0.013
0.50
1.1
0.082
0.11
0.14
0.46
41
0.39
5.1
AF<1 AF= Attenuation Factor
1
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
Wet FGD Maximum
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber Attenuation Controlling
Facility ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control Hg As B Ba Cd Cr Mo Se Sb Tl Factor COPC
Scrubber Sludge
Bituminous, LowS
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DGD
CGD
BGD
AGO
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
Scrubber
sludge
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
0.020
0.017
0.013
0.0084
0.032
0.046
0.58
0.64
0.48
0.77
0.10
0.90
0.064
0.015
O.OSS
0.022
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.20
0.10
0.043
2.3
5.9
0.67
0.051
0.31
0.18
0.44
0.15
0.046
0.36
0.91
0.23
0.51
0.49
2.5
1.2
2.2
3.4
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
KGD
Scrubber
sludge
CSESP
None
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
None
0.031
1.9
0.26
0.056
0.038
0.11
0.80
0.14
0.21
7.2
AF < 1 AF = Attenuation Factor
2.5
1.2
2.3
5.9
Tl
Tl
Cr
Cr
7.2
Tl
1
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
Facility ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control
Hg
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Mo
Se
Sb
Maximum
Attenuation Controlling
Factor COPC
Mixed Fly Ash and Scrubber Sludge (as managed)
Bituminous, LowS
Facility B
Facility A
Facility B
Facility A
DCC
CCC
BCC
ACC
FA+ScSt
lime
FA+ScS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS
CSESP
Fabric F.
CSESP
Fabric F.
SCR-BP
SNCR-BP
SCR
SNCR
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Natural Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Mg lime
Limestone
None
None
None
None
0.012
0.050
0.0096
0.038
0.21
1.9
1.7
4.1
0.12
0.016
0.80
0.46
1.1
0.081
0.025
0.065
0.017
0.056
0.42
0.13
0.14
2.1
7.1
9.6
0.69
3.2
0.58
1.2
0.33
0.32
0.64
1.7
0.29
1.7
0.75
9.4
7.8
2.5
2.1
3.6
7.8
2.5
7.1
9.6
Tl
Tl
Cr
Cr
Bituminous, Med S
Facility K
Facility M
Facility M
KCC
MAD
MAS
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+SCS+
lime
FA+ScS+
lime
CSESP
CSESP
CSESP
SCR
SCR-BP
SCR
Natural Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Inhibited Ox.
Mg lime
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
0.17
0.00090
0.0085
0.032
0.72
21
1.6
0.044
0.11
0.0076
1.1
0.034
0.017
0.30
0.66
0.060
0.034
0.023
0.060
2.9
5.8
0.45
0.21
0.87
0.19
0.27
0.92
1.5
5.2
3.6
AF < 1 AF = Attenuation Factor
1.5
5.2
21
Tl
Tl
As
1
-------
Attenuation Factor needed based on own pH eluate concentration and MCL or DWEL
Wet FGD
Sample Residue PM NOx Scrubber Scrubber
Facility ID type Capture Control type additive SO3 Control Hg As B Ba Cd Cr Mo
Sb Tl
Maximum
Attenuation Controlling
Factor COPC
Mixed Fly Ash and Gypsum (as managed)
Bituminous, LowS
Facility U
UGF Other CS ESP SCR Forced Ox. Limestone None 0.00090 1.3 0.041 0.095 0.017 0.34 0.58 0.35 0.12 2.4 | | 2.4 Tl
AF<1 AF = Attenuation Factor
1
------- |