Technical Background Document on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Ckd Landfill Design Elements

By Environmental Protection Agency

Book Id: WPLBN0000000472
Format Type: PDF eBook
File Size: 0.3 MB
Reproduction Date: 2007

Title:	Technical Background Document on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Ckd Landfill Design Elements
Author:	Environmental Protection Agency
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Ecology, Natural resource issues, Environemtal protection
Collections:	Environmental Awareness Library Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	United States Environmental Protection Agency


Citation APA MLA Chicago Agency, E. P. (n.d.). Technical Background Document on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Ckd Landfill Design Elements. Retrieved from http://www.self.gutenberg.org/

Description
Excerpt: There are no CKD landfills have been identified with sufficient data for evaluation of the actual performance of the proposed landfill design standards. However, there are many utility coal ash landfills which have been designed to standards similar those under consideration by EPA. As discussed in Section 2, coal fly ash has many physical and chemical similarities to CKD, including an abundance of fine grained particles, relatively low permeability, and elevated levels of toxic metals (e.g., barium, chromium, nickel, and selenium). Therefore, EPA selected to study several coal ash landfills which had incoporated one or more of the landfill design elements considered in the proposed CKD rule. It is noted that other coal utility wastes are often landfilled with the fly ash including coarser grained coal bottom ash, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber sludge (which contains high concentrations of calcium sulfate, calcium sulfite and fly ash), and heavy minerals (referred to as pyrites) recovered from washing of crushed coal prior to burning.

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Background and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Approach/Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 BASIS FOR COMPARING FLY ASH LANDFILLS TO PROPOSED CKD LANDFILL DESIGN ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Coal Ash Waste Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Coal Ash Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 Physical Characteristics of Ash and CKD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4 Chemical Characteristics of Ash and CKD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.0 PROPOSED OPERATING CRITERIA AND DEFAULT TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CKD LANDFILL DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1 Fugitive Dust Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2 Temporary Cap/Cover Material Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3 Run-On/Run-Off Controls and Surface Water Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4 Bottom Liner Requirements for New or Laterally Expanding CKD Landfills . . . 10 3.4.1 Default Technical Standard for Units in Karst Areas (Composite Liner and Leachate Collection System) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.2 Performance-Based Design for Units in Non-Karstic Areas . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5 Ground Water Monitoring and Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6 Closure and Post-Closure Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.0 COAL ASH LANDFILLS SELECTED FOR STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1 Ash Landfill Identification and Screening Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 Candidate Landfills Selected for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3 Environmental Setting and Engineering Characteristics of Selected Landfills . . . 14 4.3.1 Conemaugh Ash Disposal Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3.2 Montour Ash Storage Areas 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3.3 Shawville Ash Disposal Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3.4 Beagle Club Ash Disposal Site/Titus Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED LANDFILL DESIGN ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.1 Fugitive Dust Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.1.1 Fugitive Dust Control Technologies Applied At Fly Ash Landfills . . . . . 19 5.1.2 Effectiveness in Controlling Fugitive Dust Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19