EPA-905/2-82-002
r/J
Do not WEED. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
COAL PREPARATION SURVEY
Final Report
GCA
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, Mass. 01730
-------
ABSTRACT
GCA identified 165 physical coal cleaning plants with a raw coal capacity
of 500 tons/hr or greater. Of these 165 plants, additional information on the
sulfur and ash content of the raw and prepared coals was collected for 49 coal
preparation plants. Calculations were performed to determine the percent
sulfur and ash reduction due to physical coal cleaning processes.
The reduction in sulfur content varied from 0 to 57 percent by weight
while the reduction in ash content varied from 10 to 85 percent by weight.
These values are well within the range of results previously reported in the
literature.
U,S. Envircnr.er.fcl Protection Agency
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
Figures.
Tables .
1.
2.
3.
4.
References
Introduction
Project approach
Industry Description
Conventional physical coal cleaning
Process information
Source Description
Costs and Construction Schedules ....
11
iv
v
1
1
3
3
4
9
33
48
U
ill
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Process for physical coal cleaning systems 8
2 Steam coal preparation plant designs Illinois No. 4 seam coal,
Williamson, IL 37
IV
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Summary of Physical Goal Cleaning Unit Operations.
2 Goal Preparation Plants with Capacities Greater Than
500 tons/hr 10
3 Summary of the Application of Mechanical Coal Cleaning
Methods 22
4 Percent Reduction of Ash and Sulfur from Selected Coal
Preparation Plants 24
5 Summary of Coal Characteristics 29
6 Summary of Coal Cleaning Costs 34
7 Product Specification, Illinois No. 6 Coal—Design No. 9 .... 38
8 Capital Costs for Raw Coal Storage and Handling 39
9 Preparation Plant Equipment Illinois No. 6 Coal—Design No. 9. . 40
10 Capital Cost for Clean Coal and Refuse Equipment Illinois
No. 6 Coal—Design No. 9 41
11 Summary of Capital Costs Illinois No. 6 Coal—Design No. 9 ... 42
12 Annualized Costs Illinois No. 6 Coal—Design No. 9 43
L3 Environmental Factors, Illinois No. 6, Design No. 9 44
14 Energy Factors 45
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In order for the U.S. EPA to more readily evaluate the adequacy of coal
preparation plans proposed by companies with coal burning operations, the
following tasks were undertaken by GCA to provide EPA with a ready reference
on coal cleaning for emission control in the United States:
• Identify coal cleaning plants with a raw coal capacity of 500 ton/hr
or greater
• Specify the type of equipment used at each plant
• Specify the type of coal washed, principal application(s) of coal,
and the ash and sulfur content in the raw and cleaned coal for a
limited number of plants
• Provide a typical construction schedule including milestones and
cost analysis for a 600 ton/hr capacity plant
• Include a discussion of the various types of coal cleaning
techniques, equipment used and their purpose.
PROJECT APPROACH
The 1981 Coal Mine Directory, published by McGraw-Hill, Inc., was
utilized to identify coal cleaning plants, specify the type of equipment used
and to determine the daily capacity. Determination of the hourly capacity
(ton/hr) required more investigation. After discussions with several
preparation plant managers, it was evident that dividing the daily capacity by
8 hours times the number of shifts, when given in the Coal Mine Directory, was
not a reliable indication of the hourly capacity. Therefore, other criteria
were devised following a discussion with a coal preparation plant manager.2
Assuming yearly operation of plants to be 230 days (taking into
consideration 5 day work weeks, holidays, strikes, etc.) and daily operation of
14 hours, gives a yearly total of 3220 hours of operation. By dividing the
annual tonnage figures by this number it was concluded that annual production
of 1,500,000 tons of coal or greater at the mine, could adequately satisfy the
raw coal demands of approximately a 500 ton/hr coal cleaning plant. Values
similar to these are reported in "Cost, Energy, and Environmental Sensitivity
Analysis of Coal Cleaning Technology for Industrial Boiler Applications."-^
-------
The authors used values of 250 operating days per year and 13.3 hours of daily
operation resulting in a total of 3325 hours of operation annually. Plants
where the above determinations could not be used were contacted and the hourly
capacities obtained from the Preparation Managers. Also, "Chronology of Coal
Preparation Plants and Handling Systems built by McNally Pittsburgh Inc.
1921-1981'"* was utilized in some instances to identify the rated hourly
capacity of plants.
Data on the type of coal(s) washed was obtained from Keystone's U.S. Coal
Mine Production By Seam-1976-" and Perry's Handbook. General information
on construction schedules and milestones was obtained from various contractors
as well as from plant managers. Costs were extracted from Cost, Energy, and
Environmental Sensitivity Analysis of Coal Cleaning Technology for Industrial
Boiler Application-* which contains designs, costs, environmental and energy
factors for 13 physical coal cleaning plants designed for 11 selected U.S.
coals.
-------
SECTION 2
INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL COAL CLEANING
Physical coal cleaning is a proven technology for upgrading raw coal by
physical removal of associated impurities. There are over 450 physical coal
cleaning plants located in the U.S. handling over 400 million tons of raw coal
per year. The commercial practice of coal cleaning is currently limited to
the gravity methods together with minor application of the froth flotation
methods. Jigging still handles the largest portion of coal cleaning, but
dense-medium processes and concentrating tables are becoming more popular;
froth flotation is starting to play an important role.
The effectiveness of physical coal cleaning depends on the type of
sulfur. The following discussion from Assessment of Coal Technology: First
Annual Report" (McCandless, L. C. and R. B. Shaver) describes the types of
sulfur found in coal and the best removal strategy.
There are three general forms of sulfur found in coal: organic, pyritic,
and sulfate sulfur. Sulfate sulfur is present in the smallest amount (0.1
percent by weight or less). The sulfate sulfur is usually water soluble,
originating from in-situ pyrite oxidation and can be removed by washing the
coal. Mineral sulfur occurs in either of the two dimorphous forms of ferrous
disulfide (FeS2)—pyrite or marcasite. The two minerals have the same
chemical composition, but have different crystalline forms. Sulfide sulfur
occurs as individual particles (0.1 to 25 cm in diameter) distributed through
the coal matrix. Pyrite is a dense mineral (4.5 g /cnr) compared with
bituminous coal (1.30 g /cm-*); and is quite water-insoluble, thus the best
physical means of removal is by specific gravity separation. The organic
sulfur is chemically bonded to the organic carbon of the coal; and cannot be
removed unless the chemical bonds are broken. The amount of organic sulfur
present, defines the lowest limit to which a coal can be cleaned with respect
to sulfur removal by physical methods. Chemical coal cleaning processes,
currently in the developmental stage, are designed to attack and remove up to
40 percent of organic sulfur.
The various physical cleaning processes employed are based upon physical
or physical-chemical differences between coal and its associated impurities.
Physical cleaning is capable of removing, on the average, about 50 percent of
the pyritic sulfur and 30 percent of total sulfur. The result depends on the
washability of coal, unit processes employed, and separating density.^
-------
PROCESS INFORMATION
Much literature has already been published describing coal preparation
processes as well as types of equipment utilized. The following discussion
taken from Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: First Annual
Report; Volume 1. Executive Summary' (Lemmon, A. W., et al. June 1979)
concisely describes current practices.
The principal coal cleaning processes used today are oriented toward
product standardization and ash reduction, with increased attention being
given to sulfur reduction. Coal preparation in commercial practice is
currently limited to physical processes. In a modern coal cleaning plant, the
coal is typically subjected to (1) size reduction and screening,
(2) separation of coal from its impurities, and (3) dewatering and drying.'
In a modern coal cleaning plant, the crushed coal is often divided into
coarse, intermediate, and fine sizes; and separation of ash and pyrite from
the coal is then accomplished with a variety of devices for the three
individual size groupings. In coarse coal circuits, the coal is cleaned with
one or a combination of gravity separation devices such as jigs, launders, or
heavy-medium vessels. The intermediate—size coals are usually cleaned with
concentration tables or heavy-medium cyclones. In cleaning of fine-size coal,
froth flotation or hydrocyclones are often employed. Following the wet
cleaning process, the product requires dewatering or complete drying depending
on the ultimate use and transporation systems being utilized.
As a result of water pollution regulations and the coal industry's desire
to improve fine coal recovery, recirculation and treatment of wash water are
integral parts of the operation of a modern coal cleaning plant. In
particular, closed water circuits have grown in popularity because they
eliminate discharge to streams, reduce make-up water, and allow for recovery
of coal. Since closing the circuit results in the build-up of slimes, it is
necessary to remove a certain portion of these fine solids. Standard
equipment generally applied in a closed water circuit consists of thickeners,
cyclones, filters, and/or solid bowl centrifuges.
The disposal of coal cleaning plant waste is a worldwide problem of
increasing magnitude. Coal refuse consists of waste coal, slate, carbonaceous
and pyritic shales, and clay associated with a coal seam. It is estimated
that about 25 percent of the raw coal mined is disposed as waste. Coal refuse
disposal involves two quite separate and distinct materials—a coarse refuse
(+28 mesh) and a fine refuse (-28 mesh). The coarse refuse is normally
disposed in an embankment by dumping either from an aerial tramway or from
trucks. The fine refuse is normally removed from the preparation plant water
circuit as a thickener underflow and impounded into nearby settling ponds.'
Transportation of coal from the mines or preparation plants to the point
of consumption is one of the most important factors affecting coal utilization
because transportation costs frequently account for between one-third and
one-half of the delivered price of coal. In conjunction with transportation
-------
and storage of coal, a wide variety of materials handling operations is
needed. These include loading and unloading, stacking and reclaiming, and
transferring coal in a plant. As the amounts of coal to be handled have
grown, the material systems have become more mechanized and equipped with more
automatic and integrated control devices.'
Table 1 summarizes physical coal cleaning unit operations and their
application to removal of sulfur.
Figure 1 presents a schematic of a physical coal cleaning plant capable
of cleaning coarse, medium and fine coal.° Flow and unit operations
necessary for the treatment of various size coals are depicted.
It is not possible to categorize the sulfur content by the size of the
cleaned coal. As previously described, the three sulfur forms can be removed
by various methods. The sulfate sulfur by washing, pyrite sulfur by specific
gravity separation, and sulfide sulfur by chemical processes. If most of the
sulfur is in the form of pyrite, then the amount that can be removed is
dependent on the size of the crystals. If the crystals are relatively large
then they can easily be removed by gravity separation, but if the crystals are
small, it may be harder to remove them. Small crystals may be concentrated in
the larger size coals or the smaller size coals. It is therefore impossible
to draw any conclusions regarding the sulfur content of various size coals.
-------
OO
to
53
O
M
H
Oi
O
H
c
•u
CX
Ci
o
o
o
I (1)
a! —I
3 u >> cu
VJ •- r-l O
O SO -O CU O
-O cu rn cu u cr a-) co
r-l U-l O C t-l 3 N
>^r~* O -r< 4_t -~l
•• C CO -O 0 i-J O C Vj CX i-f T-* r-l r-l -rJ
CO C 100) r-l cOrH-o—ICO
6 C
•rJ - O -O
!U
• r-i u>
li I n)
CO t O
co C U C CO
oo
3 AJ
CD rH O •
•~^ C V- C
&QJ QJ "J—<
C r-< o
cfl a) a) X 4-1 3 -i C/5 -Q ^
OJ'HAJW-i-l
C
V4 CO
3 (D
AJ O CO
e o
CO X cj
CJ
•rJ CS 00
M-l
>, o
-C (X
cfl 3 O
ID i-l >,
H •-< C !-i^-l
VJ > O (D CO
OTO«r-l
CO
TO
"O
QJ
_o
•r-4
r-l
cn
OJ
-o
CO
• I-l
B
CO
-H
d
tfl
QJ
s
tiO
d
• f-t
4J
TO
r-t
QJ
QJ
CO
QJ
H
CO
QJ
r-t ip
•H -r^
AJ AJ
. l-i 0
X TO OJ
QJ Qi U-j
U U-J
r-l >^ QJ CU
> T-I TO cn
> 0
bo TO AJ o
G r4 d V.
Tj I-l M-l
dJ >r-J 3 — 1
O M-l O TO
CO -H tiQ
TO O co 3
OJ -r-l M-l
-C CO 4-) J-l
AJ AJ
3 d d
d o -H cu
•r4 r-l CJ
QJ 13 ^ O
O d TO 4-J •
TO TO 3 d
r— 1 CX T3 O
W -i-J AJ
^jrt •(-! /^Q (j TO
d -d d QJ )-<
• H .H -r-j crj
TO -d O 3 OJ
r- 1
TO
^
•H
£X
CO
CO
O
4J
c
•H
T3
CD
cm
CO
• r4
^
^]
U
3
i— <
CO
l-i
CD
TO
3
1
i—4
s
1
TO
O
-r-l
U-i
•r4
4J
Cfl
^4
AJ
CO
„
T3
l~(
TO
d
O
T3
CO
3
y_l
AJ
•H
CO
**^
-W
•H
3
T3
O
O
)->
QJ
•H
>
CO
QJ
.d
QJ
jC
AJ
_c
4J
5
CO
!_
3
O
O
o
CO
"O
• r-i
i— i
0
CO
OJ
JS
AJ
U*4
o
c
o
CD
5
oo
c
o
r— 4
to
-d
a
CO
•°
to
c
• r4
-^
CD
JJ
CO
j_l
C
CD
y
C
0
o
to
CU
r-l
0
ti
CO
O,
CD
OJ
to
O.
CD
CO
^,
CD
.^1
rH
CX
to
CD
r-l
.O
CO
to
3
•"•"I
T3
tO
C
,
i~-4
to
CX
to
E -a
cu
3
li C
r-l -rJ
tO S iJ
o B c
0 S 0
C I — '
CO |
CU u
r^ II
"
8
CO S
1
i 8
CO fi
u |
o
3
•o
0
CX
4J tO
00
O C
.U -r^
c — <
T3
E -H
§ 6
cu
r< CD
.u x:
CO 4J
cu -a
-c c
-U CO
on
oo
c -a
a) a)
CX
C/3
.e
a.
-------
:
1
en
*
t.
*
B
'Ti
05
1
1
i
.
1 f~)
C"
r^-
-t S3
•o 2 *tc
0) •• CM >
M CO
• M 01 CO 00
d N T3 C
00 H O i-<
° 'n ^ n!
qj QJ 4J
M j g .C
01 *•< • d T3
i-i O /— ^ O O1
Tj DM * -M V-l
me AJ o>
^ rO M -^
rJJ V* f") 03 (—4
do a) -o
CTJ o d, CM
(J) (/I QJ
'4-4 -O 01 r-4 U
O o c3 JD d
n 03 '"-i
i *-* co >-, 4)
B O4-)O.OCTJCXCM
•» 73 y
-LJ 4_( Oj T3 CO O -1-1
CO CO O •(-< 4-1
jX -rJ •« 4J d CD
d "-^ T^ CM 4_i (Q
.^J O 4-1 -d 0)
CO 4J CJ -O 3 4-J -^ O
•H 0 « 0 '> X 2 «
&0 01 "~^ -d ^
CO O CM « d
O l-i C 4) U '-t-4 4W flj
t^ a. i r-j d co
^ "* C O .£ — •
O O w C ° (0 -S
u fly>dt-ta>cj>.
• ^ 01 O -4
—1 M CX* 4J • OJ 4) G
^-^ flj 4) *tt 4) 4J X cQ
°:~5OnJ'2'cM>"'
| _( ^ ^ _c LM ^
» O " *• •!-* i— l T3 °1 V^
O co "-4 }•* >% cfl IQ o
O i— "1 S PW ffl 1-* M -r-l
AJ ^, y
r^ 4_idfO3O-HO)
^ F^"°«-2n3L2
1 O 4-1 fl 4J 4)
C^^SOWiJCl)
W ^n ! M P" "•* S
•2 ^ £ 8 ^ 5 . _
. ^ 1 5 « 8 2 1 1
OW OOO'^'-'CJoC
•MO) UcUCUOOlGO
4-* S tiu V-i >
T3
CU
C
•H
JJ
C
O
1
1
1
1
0
"
0,
^
1-
0
i «
! "
I
1
1
1
!
i
G
0
' i j
ClJ
J.-.
1)
a.
\ o
4J
M
C
II '~-J
« o "o -a ^ a;
CO 0) ^ ij sp'lj D -S ° 15
.C ij jJ CO C l-< 1^ u-j l-i O
l-W 4-J CO r-ICQO . -J qj f>.
O C CU W« <—* Cu '-w u>^
•d •-(! 0 ofl "i d i— i-D v-i— ijj
4) .d i — i ^ o cc yj Qi • i-t
J2 ^ ? CU 4) 0) ctJ UHT)
21 U « «
J^
JjcOria)ry)'iJ ^0)2
"O i" O ^ O< QJ <~^ W
JJ i 1 r-< « r—( O CO 3
O I-* LJ ^3 -t~t C '-M 4)
^ IM 4-J tQ U O O
• — I3O - Dp '!~ fX -L • H "Cl Cfi Cj^j
03 o> ~ to 4-j d d
rj^jnj^j^^'^H^ 4)co
3;O^'jiJ *4_i cj a. 03 CM
n-, vj 4J r. a) tt-4 oj i-« a> o>>ot
^
^
CO
(^
^t
QJ
ex
^
4-> CJ
! -M
^ -U
01 o]
"s i
d u
J Pu
CP d 4)
x: CM 4) co 03 I
^ O 3 n] r-i C 0!
4-J 4-1 Q-> O >r^ CJ
* 0) O X "O '^ G d
C* -d * 4? -rt d 0) 4-1 '"H O
03 Cl r-( (fl 0] S
"i3 01 O J3 4) CO V-4
-d > 4J 4-J ~o 0) 00 ^
4JOU tfl T3 •— < d 0) CO
•-J --I CM cfl X> .M J2
r2 o 5°w"daj'U^
CO QJ OH •!-( CO -M -Q C M-4 ^
•rJ>a 3G -OOO
r-J4Jll) 0)iJ^(tJV^O^
-C X 0 4J -H U
-Ci >— ' 4-J -r-t CO O "O *^ C
O03 SV-i(-.4) 0)0)
'^Scrf co^^cfl .55
tJ T-l d *^ C X
CM -d -1-4 •!-* -H O 41
O > w 4-1 • 0) n]
CMOJtS dO>-«HCO_CO)-c3
>i01 i— t CJ i— 1 -H 4-1 4_) d
^^w ^,^'C^'C^
OJV-.M osrtO'-id'y-i&'o)
CX."O O "ddV-tOllJCC
vj a, c o x-^ -C ^ -1 ^
C
o
• r^
XJ
a!
4J
0
PI,
J.
J_)
o
c
• r-4
U5
(D
^
a.
o
CO
0
CM
'(O
O
CJ
r-i
q)
4->
g
e
^
Oj
w
c
o
'^j
a
Q
tH
0)
60
O •
n .c TN-O o -a
3 E— < F-M ""H 0)
T3 d 4-1 CO
01 ,- -H -q o
4~t TJ "O C ""•
O 4J
J_( (J ^^ JJ
i— 1 01 -p-l r-4
O n3 cU co o C
4) 4) O 4-J T3
4J 4J •-» d £ -0
J3 ^ QJ C CO
•^ &, "ffl "5 X QJ
3 •§ i '»
-------
OESLimNG
L*"" »
HUE COAL
SEPMAriM
(WET SCKEEM
AT 2ft»)
t
CO
g
4J
CO
>v
w
60
c
Q>
iH
O
ni
o
•H
CO
I
CO
CO
CU
o
o
M
PH
3
bO
•H
-------
SECTION 3
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
GCA identified, by the previously described methods, 165 physical coal
cleaning plants with capacities greater than 500 ton/hr of raw coal feed.
These plants are listed in Table 2 along with the capacity in ton/day, ton/hr
or both, as well as the types of equipment utilized at each plant contingent
upon availability of the data. These plants represent a spectrum of physical
coal cleaning technology ranging in complexity from plants that merely use
jigs to process coarse coals to plants that clean all sizes of coals.
Illinois has 27 plants, Ohio has 12 and Indiana has 7. Other states in
EPA Region V do not have any coal cleaning plants larger than 500 ton/hr.
West Virginia, with 44 plants, has more coal cleaning plants than any other
state. Other states with many plants are Kentucky with 25 plants,
Pennsylvania with 17 plants, Virginia with 13 plants and Alabama with 7 plants.
According to the results in Table 2 wet cyclones are the most common type
of coal cleaning equipment with 103 plants using these devices. Heavy media
washers are used at 91 plants and flotation units are used at 80 plants. Jigs
and washing tables are reportedly used by 63 and 48 plants, respectively.
Centrifuges are used at 109 plants for dewatering. About 70 plants report the
use of thermal dryers. The number of plants using the different types of
equipment does not reflect the amount of coal cleaning by each method because
capacities and utilization of each type of equipment can vary.
Table 3 presents the latest data on the total amount of coal that is
mechanically cleaned and the methods that are used.'+O""^ Unfortunately,
197b is the last year that the Federal government collected this type of
data. ^ The data in Table 3 show that jigs and dense media processes are
used to clean the largest amounts of coal. Flotation processes are used to
clean only a small fraction of the total coal produced.
Trends in the use of coal cleaning in the 1970 to 1978 period do not show
the results that might have been anticipated. The total amount of coal
cleaned declined between 1970 and 1974 and between 1974 and 1978. The use of
flotation processes and dense media separators remained relatively constant.
The amount of coal cleaned by jigs and washing tables declined from 1970 to
1978. Startup of new plants since 1978 may have changed the picture presented
in Table 3 but data are not available.
-------
•H
en
O
H
O
O
Z
2
H
Pi
W
H
W
OJ
O
H
$
a
n
TO
a>
lM
7j
u
6
o
[u
rfl
'T1
w 1 S- "„ „
a 3s*
H 1 2- ^
I | |i ,°?
CJ
u
H
M
CO
H
§
o C •-,
TJ O (^
a i-j a
to -^
_,
o
h-3 i »-J '
CM I 3
< °
o
M li
H !
e I
rg
W
(-J
m
1/1
TJ
H
TJ tfl
.tf OJ
cQ Li
O
P «
H D
-) <&
d
0) W
j»: a;
CO V4
S 3
O
a «
"1 Orf
B
0) Wl
W 01
3 3
O
S w
H
-------
TJ
0)
d
o
u
Ol
W
H
iJ
i-* ap
c •-<
U- U
I- 0
n i j
03 i)
> M
O T>
;! PC
C H
T] T: y
u. o a
o
OJ
I-t
^
m
e ff
c
c «-<
e
QJ M
Q c/l
^1 r-* Q) U
C 4-)
C -< 03 a)
e ^
Uj U Q c/l
S g?d g
S r^ (p O
C 'H tO D
S ^
D c5 > V-i
[IH O Q Ul
3
tl
«
R
01
fc
C u 0
rJ 0) O
tf 4J
^
(0 > P
U Q $
g a*-?:
4) tfl >
&
O
0
1-1
03
08
11
-------
o o o o o o
X X O
X X X X
o o ox
o o o ox
7,
0
' J
.0
1
1 "^
5' "r •£
CT o o c
nj ra u
a) g- —
d *
d 1
•H
4-J
_4 -^
o s ST.
CJ mow
\^, fX i-» T)
CM
w
.J
PQ .—i
H !! 2
H m
1 a
3
— i
HJ
§
| d
u
R
Jj
!
1
1 "s-
a)
a.
[
^
| 01
1 ^
1 '/>
X
X
^
o
1
o
o
o
l"-^
*•"*
0)
>
d
<-l
U
nj
J
QJ
d
T"
r-l
O
V5
>.
QJ
V
1>
4-(
C
o
X
"
o
tj d
o
« S
o w
CJ
>, o
01
1-1 •
0) >
c a
0
T: <
,-i
x xxoxoox oox xo ^
x xooox°x xox xx x
o xxooooo oxo xo o
o o^oooox xoo oo o
2 2 2
o o o
i liill li I 1 i m O O | I t
'Xl CN •&
r-7 r-T
r> ooooo ooooooo
0 00000 OOOOOOO
o ^oomo oomoooo
I 1 - „ , An I 1 A.«*...
O i^sOr^\CcN J-oOLTivD^DiA^
CN •-( 'H •-< P-t ^
OJ
d -j
§ u tf •:
•u to KI 3 >d i-coajoj
a) Vj o -Q M cfl 01 « ^ r^
V- O, >, 4J H i-l -g (U H -i-t
a; jjwd3taj dx* y o — < — < N c > r-< >
Q d«3tO(y Ql-i l-i V-i 3^CflCC-'-IJ-iC
—< ajo)tox;k( jjflj 01 01 os^xJCtox
< eacnQ-'c/5U. iyin" a. a- umcauoO^-J
OJ C
C 0
7" a> d *-»
d . i-( flj a)
'^'^'-'^o^:^ d Jf^J 3d« tO H D Q)QO)Ol
^ wo. ai x d d-HCCd — « r4 H33H-H
oo-^^g^^. .H g ^S S^SS^
>> .OHi-tto p^.to uflCatn)
a» ddo^^Ho'-' c — < o J3 jji u tn u — *
u QJO)?T; cnto >H E Ztoo-HUO'-'1— <
oj n3ai ai*-«^^ U u to cj ,co-Coixi'i-<
u a)"— ID i— i 4-) d 4_» oi (uo)dco^4-)>>
d -O-OCW)>.r-(C3rtQ. U dC-iHU-rlSCW
O ^r-JHto-rtO'HOl— ifl) u i-iH.C>sCcU>^O
X ooz:wo;z:3UQ-u co ssu<:o^^ja;
e- e-
0 ....... OO- ...
OrJ OOOOO O- UUO OOO
O'UUUCJOUO O OOO
O^-«XU O^H^-I ...
C tOXd--H^-«^-<^-ir-» ^-4 C! OS G fl) i— < O O o ^ »-< "-t
-' OCOOO OnJ DOoiOo OOO
n-i-UOUUU OO 4J 4J O^-t-J^-iUUO
<>, o< Ototnmw tocflaj
r/1 01 C/5 C C >, X X X U-r<»XX
;ji VJ-T o> OJ-OTJT3 T) <8 SO 3O OlOOO'O'O'O
oi> cncflooo OM x:flx;d'-« ooo
OOC~-»— «O)01O) OlcOCOi-*O-JOlSS901010>
O 3^ •< O O Q &j PJ O-i QJ C/)M w^ t/3>-< cs]
-------
-o o
o o
CN CM
0)
3
C
C
O
a
U4
O WO
o o
u u
O O p. AJ
o "j tr w
O i-> i—*
(U O
13
-------
0)
3
C
o
o
H
O O
o o
o o
o o
a "
rl -ij
E X
s
, y
fr
8
O 1) ••-»
C
U V
nl 3
T) TJ
•i*
CO
S3,
14
-------
•H
4-1
O
U
w
H
o o ±
>•• X X
X X X
o o o
o o
o o
o o
X) O
o o
CO 4J
O ciJ
GO Cfl
S3
_c
W) O
I'l
X o
3
fr
3
_Q
M
• 0)
& c
«^
O M
P 0 n
e> o MI
15
-------
o x x
o o o
o o o o
X X O
XXX
x x o
o o xx
o o ox
x -i- -t
o o ox
00 XX
/ — \
"O
QJ
3
^
•H
•u
C
0
0
CXI
w
PQ
T?
01 -_^
•3
1
0
o
•£>
^
C
O
05
3
^4
i
o
o
o
0
o
J-J
3
0)
•z.
1J
CO
0)
3
T3
-------
13
0)
c
•H
o
o
c^
W
£ U —i .
O 4-1 UJ O
n O
C g ,
H i—<
M -J
2 e- g t;
u n OH 'O a it
17
-------
-a
-H
j-l
C
O
O
^ c u
u 0 c
II £•
04
w
e *j
H CO
pa 8
18
-------
CO
3
a
d
o
o
rsl
W
H
-3S
CN CM
1
p
O
s:
"S
3
O
ffl &
o o>
u, g
C tf -t
O W* W)
r4 ,J> 0)
nj ±J
03 V>
O OJ
u 3:
Cl U
O l-i
^ u
(TJ *J
legion
«fl w
o
-------
O X
0)
3
G
•H
4-1
C
O
O
w
Q i O
-O T\
"• e-
^ o
< a.
i O
u o
<1>
'/> rt
qj 0
e s
S G
U r-4
"O -* X
I s
OJ 1* —i l-i
^ > tl)
20
-------
-a
0)
C
-H
o
a
OJ
W
at o
3 O
4J l-l 4J
21
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION OF MECHANICAL
COAL CLEANING METHODS, 1000 TONS/YR40"42
Mechanical coal cleaning:
Wet methods:
Jigs
Washing tables
Classifiers
Launders
Dense medium processes
Flotation
Pneumatic methods
Total
Crushed or screened
No processing
Total production
Thermal drying
1970
140,457
44,058
3,593
5,199
76,590
10,694
17,855
323,452
264,182
15,298
602,932
64,165
1974
129,302
28,869
2,698
3,577
82,283
10,863
7,557
265,150
293,997
44,372
603,406
36, 045
1978
104,811
23, 549
6,153
1,358
74,512
10,068
4,330
224, 780
332,353
107,994
665,127
23,282
22
-------
More detailed information was collected on the sulfur and ash content of
raw and prepared coals in order to determine the percent reduction by weight
obtained through physical coal cleaning. Numerous plants were contacted and
letters sent requesting information on the sulfur and ash contents of the raw
and prepared coals. Unfortunately, GCA received responses from a limited
number of plants. GCA was informed by many companies that the information is
confidential or proprietary and cannot be released. However GGA was able to
obtain additional information on 49 of the 165 physical coal cleaning plants
with capacities greater than 500 ton/hr.
As previously cited, physical coal cleaning is capable of removing, on
the average, about 50 percent of the pyrite sulfur and 30 percent of the total
sulfur.^ The State of Illinois in publication entitled Sulfur Reduction of
Illinois Goals—Waahability Studies, Part 1, stated that the amount of sulfur
removed from 37 samples taken from 32 Illinois mines; representing 8 different
seams varied from 10 percent to 50 percent and averaged about 25 percent.^
Table 4 presents the percent reduction in ash and sulfur by weight from
49 different coal preparation plants. Percent sulfur reduction varied from 0
to 57 percent and ash reduction varied from 10 to 85 percent. It should be
noted that in some cases the percent sulfur in the prepared coal is greater
than in the raw coal. This occurs because during cleaning much of the mineral
matter which contains little sulfur is removed while, in some cases, little
sulfur is removed from the coal itself, thus increasing the percentage of
sulfur in the cleaned coal. It should be noted that the cleaned coal has a
higher heating value than the raw coal, so the cleaned coal may have a lower
sulfur content per Btu content. Unfortunately, heating values were not
available in most cases, so percent sulfur reduction could not be calculated
based on lb/10" Btu. Calculations were based on the following when Btu
values were not available:
, ,,„ / % total sulfur in product , „„!
100 - I •= —; :-? : L r- X 100 I
I % total sulfur in raw coal j
When Btu values were reported the calculations were based on the following:
100 -1 % total sulfur in product . % total sulfur in raw coal j 1 nf.
\ Btu in product ' Btu in raw coal /
When the sulfur content in the product was equal to or greater than the sulfur
content in the raw coal, calculations on percent sulfur reduction were not
performed unless the Btu values were reported.
It is important to note how the percentage reductions of sulfur and ash
were calculated. When the calculations are not based on Btu content then the
values arrived at are conservative, as they assume the heating value of the
raw coal is equal to the heating value of the cleaned coal. Actually the
heating value of the cleaned coal is always higher than the raw coal.
Calculations based on percent sulfur/Btu content take into consideration the
23
-------
^i
o
o
Q
w
H
O
W
W
CO
S
§
fu
ES
tD
d
CO
p
^i
W
en
<
to
O
W2
Z H
o t?
M <2
H n4
O CM
£3
n ^
w o
a! M
H
H .-: '4 o
J M T3 H ,M'
•<£"
r
r u
-3
1 - -
' 3,
j1
1}
! *
1 •"••
i
1 T> I.
I y .?
ji 3 '
-
l ^
i'
i
i *
I s .
i 3
'1 '"
s
u
' 3
« ^
S K -^
» " •"
J
(j
]
ti
li ~:
' 5
! 3
1 °
ii
i(
S
i!
i 1
\i
( vJ
!
f|
i|
,j
'! ^nj
i! ^
I s
'1 t-t
!! ^
L a.
a
« -3
"1 CN t>J ^M tN
II |T5O| | i 1 | i 1 e""i oO 1 in CT> — i TO
O ^> ^3^iLn'/>inininu™i ^-1^0 | ^_A
r- o O O O
r- ^f | i ( | i ......
rt -t -j- -3- -H -t-*
«-• .-.o r- o o I-H c; w c > >
r^ d > S 3 rj -rJ ctj w o C C i- -el C C G
uj -^Ui J^Jd^j^owaJi-JO CD1JOOOO
Q i3 4J OuoD.3'^'— lOtJ -T3« 3_ i4 -r4 4_i
o rn--^ cQtQEauoLouoO -^i^QjezIS
c-j m ^ m
•^t^r-- .... ^^^^
0 O O O •-'
-• .... ^^^2:0) ooo
oooo d DZT^JS
* D 'J o 0 5 " g1 g1 g" S 2 r- " " . " u u u
f., !fi Q} j^bcdCJi S!ii)rucjjcii
m 'Lir-4 ^-t^,^-, 11 ^ 3 3 3 3O Ul---HWi-< l-i
7J 33, 7i (TQKcQi-J^cClcQcacCZUOttiOOO
"rrt
,' £ t3 0
CXC *ill tUC->^^»
i O Q en -i t>o • H U
X'-'i-'- n> dci-io
(B "U W r- < 3 ^3 >i-( (U U
E3 0 n) U O ^a «SXO
'2
£3
-------
ctf C
O •-< O
O n u
O O
CM
11 4J
O r- i
no oo
t>
OO OO
O CD
4-1
C
O
o
H
g
S
.58
£tf tl)
D CLi
O
r-t O
05 O
k>
U r-*
c a
o
O O
n r)
iis
n . at
o o QJ
O o «
5
S 253
-,-< • -H a
O j3 o u
o> y «
a f-j g . w
•p4 CB -H > jj
M Q -I .* -^
Bi O W D fc
25
-------
e
•H
4J
d
o
u
• V!
a c
26
-------
: t : £•
&3
~* c
N -O
Ij 01
" C
D .
C
O i!
a «
>, e-
? "3 <3
27
-------
gain in Btu value due to removal of ash and other mineral matter during coal
cleaning and are more representative of the effectiveness of coal cleaning.
The type of coal washed, size(s) of coal washed and shipped, as well as
the principal applications of the coal, such as metellurgical or steam, are
presented in Table 5.
28
-------
^ '"
n. o
c o o o
O 3
m
w :;
« :,
H ;
o r-<
0 N -C
C "•< 'r
<3 W v
rr", •>
0 « ~3
^ TJ
n, rtf '/i
H' < > >
.. -:
, ^ (fl
fL r
ft) ^
>, ^
Ol O rd
0. u -0
,-j
O
til
II II
XX XX
o --,--- -^ --
r ii ii
o o *"*• o c
> > "» > ">
~ tj i AJ "" ij ~" i j ~
f .-< f .J 1 ^ 4- r-l f
X f o - o" , - - ro
2 ,! i :: :1
O C^ •"' O O
0 ~> 0 0 0
rj TO '-ft TO TO
_;
o o o
0 O O
"^ O O
'0 ">
* C GO
i< n|) O O
0 •" 1 ^
1
0
X
, 1
1
o
>
iJ """
r-l -+
cC -
-
o
f>
^
^-4
o
**
I I I I
D"
S CO
o
0
ir
7^ c
CNI
O
O
^ E
CM
O
O
iJ rG W -*" AJ
co 3^ o3 r1 co
CN CM
0 0
0 0
O r*--
^
T1
^
O
O
CTi
-W O r-l O
CO > 03 >
-J 3= « •=
""i rO
O O
O 0
CO >
CO !Tl
M
O
O
rJ 0 -H
CO > Cfl
Cfl r^ CO
m
o
O
n)
S
«
3 .
29
-------
N -r '
ri 2 '
^f
—I O
II II II
13
d
•H
O
U
w
I-J
PQ
30
-------
T)
0)
3
C!
•H
4-1
C
O
o
LT>
w
31
-------
00 O
"- X
n: u
+ rW
X ca
+ -H
X to
cj
-------
SECTION 4
COSTS AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
Several reports on the costs of physical coal cleaning plants
encompassing expenses due to raw coal storage and handling, preparation plant
equipment, refuse equipment, labor and overhead, environmental factors, energy
costs, etc. are available. Cost, Energy, and Environmental Sensitivity
Analysis of Coal Cleaning Technology for Industrial Boiler Applications^
analyzed costs for 13 coal cleaning plants with the following design
parameters;
• Plant input in each case is 544 metric tons per hour (600 tons per
hour) ;
• Annual capacity throughput is 1.81 million metric tons (2.0 million
tons) based upon a 13.3 hr operating day and 250 operating days per
year;
• In all cases, the plant is located at the mine mouth, and all
resources such as coal, water, power, etc., are assumed readily
available;
• Coal storage, loading conveyors and product loading equipment is
assumed to be part of the mine and has not been duplicated;
• All process equipment used is commercially available and proven;
• Actual equipment performance partition factors have been used to
adjust raw coal washability characteristics to performance
guaranteed specifications; and
• Design of pollution control facilities is based upon federal new
source performance regulations—EPA standards for air and water
quality, MSHA/OSM regulations for refuse disposal, and MSHA/OSHA
noise limitations.
Table 6 presents a summary of the results of the study. Notice that the
costs are presented two ways; $/ton product and $/10^ Btu product. The
latter method of presenting costs is preferred. The time basis for the costs
is mid-1978 dollars.
33
-------
o
o
o
a
M
w
1-3
ft.
o
o o
^ -^
o o o o
o o
-j .n o cr. .o
~, O —I O O
C> O C5 O O
o « <•-(
^5 J O
o I o o
O r-
o o
^ >i>
O CO
'j ^ V £ sjfi cj fl njji
3 :
O O
CO oc
a) o v
C C C
34
-------
The level of cleaning is defined as follows:
• Level 1—Crushing and Sizing-^—This design uses rotary breakers,
crushers and screens for top size control and for the removal of
coarse refuse.
• Level 2—Coarse Size Coal Beneficiation—Coal is crushed and sized,
followed by dry screening at 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) and wet beneficiation
of the plus 9.5 mm material with a jig or dense medium vessel. The
minus 9.5 mm material is mixed with the coarse product without
washing.
• Level 3—Coarse and Medium Size Coal Beneficiation—Coal is crushed
and separated into three size fractions by wet screening. The plus
9.5 mm material is beneficiated in a coarse coal circuit. The 9.5
mm by 28 mesh material is beneficiated by hydrocyclones,
concentrating tables or dense medium cyclones, and the 28 mesh by 0-
material is dewatered and shipped with the clean coal or discarded
as refuse.
• Level 4—Coarse, Medium and Fine Size Coal Beneficiation—Coal is
crushed and separated into three or more size fractions by wet
screening. All size fractions are beneficiated in individual
circuits. Thermal drying of the minus 6.4 mm fraction may be
necessary to control the moisture content of the product.
• Level 5—"Deep Cleaning" Coal Beneficiation—Level 5 is basically a
level 4 plant in which one size fraction is rigorously cleaned to
meet a low sulfur-low ash product specification. Two or three coal
products are produced to various market specifications. This level
also utilizes a fine coal recovery circuit to increase total plant
recovery.
The following methodology was followed in designing and costing the 13
coal cleaning plants:-^
• Four major coal supply regions were considered. These regions are
Northern Appalachia, Central Appalachia, Midwest and Central West.
• Coals which are representative of each supply region were selected.
The criteria in this selection is that the amount of reserve for
each type of coal should be significant with approximately the same
amount of sulfur content throughout. The coals chosen also provide
a wide range of sulfur contents for the analysis of physical coal
cleaning as a control technology for different regulatory options.
These coals are listed in Table 6.
• For each coal type, a representative level of physical coal cleaning
was determined from the ratio of pyritic to organic sulfur contents
of the coal. These ratios and the percent total sulfur reductions
are shown in Table 6.
35
-------
• Feed properties and detailed washability data were obtained for each
type of coal.
• From the feed properties, washability data and the predetermined
cleaning level, an initial process flow diagram was devised and the
process was computer simulated for each type of coal. This computer
program developed by Battelle Columbus Laboratories is capable of
simulating certain classification and physical cleaning devices
commonly used in coal preparation plants. The dewatering sections
of the designs, however, were hand calculated.
• Equipment selection,, design and costing were carried out upon the
information provided by equipment manufacturers. Open literature
was also used whenever necessary. In each selection, care was
exercised on the availability, commercial acceptance and use of the
equipment.
• Equipment costs were used to estimate capital costs. Annualized
costs were then calculated and presented on a cost for beneficiation
basis (dollars/ton of clean coal and dollars/10" Btu of clean
coal) excluding costs for coal lost to reiuse.
» Environmental factors were estimated for the solid wastes and water
dischargesi and
• Energy factors were calculated and expressed in terms of total
energy consumption per ton of product.
Coal Preparation Plant Design No. 9 located in Williamson, IL is
presented as an example cost analysis of one of the 13 coal preparation
plants. A flow diagram of the processes utilized at the plant is included in
Figure 2. The detailed cost estimates based on mid-1978 dollars are included
in Tables 7 to 14.3
For more detailed information concerning the economic basis of the study,
the reader is referred to the original report.-*
Case studies of physical coal cleaning costs for eight plants are
presented in Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: Technology
Overview.y Tnis analysis based on a study by the Hoffman-Muntner
Corporation examined the costs of a variety of plants ranging in complexity
from simple jig processes to relatively complex circuits involving heavy
medium cyclones, froch flotation cells, and thermal dryers ranging in capacity
from 600 to 1400 tons/hr raw coal feed. Costs for these eight plants ranged
from 0.176 to 0.338 &/106 Btu recovered, based on mid 1977 dollars. These
costs are somewhat higher than those reported in the previously referenced
study. The reader is referred to this report for further details.
36
-------
cfl
o
o
0)
co
•j-
•
o
co
•rl
O
•H
•H
M
CD
T3
J-l
a
rH
O
O
B)
on
CU i-5
M H
(X
Cfl O
o en
S -H
tfl rH
0) H
W -r)
C/3 tS
CN
(1)
5-1
00
37
-------
TABLE 7. PRODUCT SPECIFICATION, ILLINOIS NO. 6 COAL—DESIGN NO. 9'
A. CHEMICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF FEED AND PRODUCT
Feed Product
Ash, %a
Total S, %a
Pyritic S, %a
Heating Value (Btu/lb)a
Moisture, %
Lb S02/106 Btu
29.9
4.35
3.13
9,782
8.0
8.89
11.4
3.30
1.80
12,370
7.3
5.34
B. PLANT PRODUCT FLOW
Coal Water Total
(tons/hr) (tons/hr) (tons/hr)
% moisture
1 1/2 x 3/8"
3/8" x 0
Total
253.0
181.5
434.5
12.6
21.7
34.3
265.6
203.2
468.8
4.7
10.2
7.3
434 5
Weight Yield = x 100 = 72.4%
34. 3
Moisture Content of Product = .-77; — „ x 100
468.8
= 7.3%
BTU Recovery = 91. 6%
aMOiSture i:ree basis
38
-------
TABLE 8. CAPITAL COSTS FOR RAW COAL STORAGE AND HANDLING (MID 1978 $)3
Raw Coal Storage Area (10,000 ton avg.; 20,000 ton max.
capacity, stacking tube, 4 withdrawal areas, 4
reciprocating feeders of tunnel) (40 hp) = $ 463,000
Belt Conveyor from raw coal storage to scalping tower
(42 in. wide, 250 ft center to center, 60 ft elevation,
75 hp motor) $560/ft x 250 ft = 140,000
Scalping Screen (8 x 20 ft, vibrating, double deck,
inclined, 2 x 25 = 50 hp motor) $30,000/1.08 28,000
Rotary Breaker (12 ft 0 x 27 ft long, $165,OOO/
1.08 = 153,000
Scalping Tower, Rotary Breaker Motor (100 hp) and Hopper
Chute and Rock Bin, 28,000 + 153,000 = 181,000
Belt Conveyor from Scalping Tower to Process (42 in.
wide, 250 ft center to center, 60 ft elevation,
75 hp motor) 140,000
Tramp Iron Magnet (Explosion Proof, Self Cleaning) 22,OOP
Total Installed Cost $1,127,000
39
-------
TABLE 9. PREPARATION PLANT EQUIPMENT (MID 1978 $)
ILLINOIS NO. 6 COAL—DESIGN NO. 9
Unit
Raw Coal Sizing Screen
Heavy Media Cyclone
Diester Table
Sieve Bend 1
Sieve Bend 2
Sieve Bend 3
Drain and Rinse Screen 1
Drain and Rinse Screen 2
Centrifuge 1
Filter 1
Filter 2
Magnetic Separator
Raw Coal Sump 1
Haw Coal Sump 2
Heavy Media Sump
Light Media Sump
P. naps
Equipment
Freight (
Number
2 units
4 units
9 units
3 units
3 units
2 units
3 units
1 unit
3 units
1 unit
3 units
2 units
8 units
2 units
5 units
2 units
cost
2% of total
Size and description
7' x 20' , Double Deck,
Vibrating, incl., wet
26"
Double deck, Concenco
88 Table—Model HCPD
60", 7' Wide
30", 7' Wide
30", 7' Wide
6' x 16' , Single Deck,
Vibrating, horiz., wet
7' x 16' , Single Deck,
Vibrating, horiz., wet
Scroll tyupe, GMI —
Model EB36
Vacuum Disc 12' 6"
Disc, 10 discs
Vacuum Disc 12' 6"
Disc, 7 discs
30", 10' long
$1,323,300
equipment cost) 26, 500
Total cost
50,600
40,400
183,600
15,600
12,000
8,000
68,100
23,100
75,000
129,600
388, SCO
19,700
80,000
20,000
50,000
20,000
138,800
Total Equipment Cost (not installed) $1,349,800
40
-------
TABLE 10. CAPITAL COST FOR CLEAN COAL AND REFUSE EQUIPMENT
(MID 1978 $) ILLINOIS NO. 6 COAL—DESIGN NO. 93
Thickener 1 (85 ft diameter) = $ 157,000
Thickener 2 (85 ft diameter) = 157,000
Refuse Belt (36 in. wide, 200 ft) = 104,000
Refuse Bin (2 units, each 450 ton capacity) = 162,000
Coal Sampling System = 324,000
Refuse Handling Equipment
2 Trucks at 80,000 each = 160,000
2 Dozers at 160,000 each = 324,000
TOTAL INSTALLED COST $1,388,000
41
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS (MID 1978 $)
ILLINOIS NO. 6 COAL—DESIGN NO. 93
Raw Coal Storage and Handling $1,127,000
Preparation Plant Equipment Cost 1,349,800
Total Cost of Prep. Plant 3,172,000
(2.35 x Prep. Plant Equipment Cost)
Miscellaneous Facilities and Equipment 1, 388,OOP
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ 5,787,000
INSTALLATION COSTS, INDIRECT
Engineering (10% of direct costs) 569,000
Construction and Field Expense 569,000
(10% of direct costs)
Construction Fees (10% of direct costs) 569,OOP
TOTAt, INDIRECT COSTS 1,707,000
CONTiNGENiCES (25% of direct and indirect costs) 1,849,OQJ
(includes startup and performance tests)
TOTAL TURNKEY' COSTS 9, 243, 000
LAND 264,000
WORK INC CAPITAL (25% of direct operating costs) 571,000
GRAND TOTAL $10,078,000
42
-------
TABLE 12. ANNUALIZED COSTS (MID 1978 $) ILLINOIS NO. 6 COAL—DESIGN NO. 93
Direct Labor (18 man yr x $23,700 man yr) $ 426,600
Supervision (2 man yr x $30,400/man yr) 60,800
Maintenance Labor (8 man yr x $23,700/man yr) 189,600
Maintenance Materials and Replacement Parts 647,000
(% of total turnkey costs)
Electricity ( 25. 8 mils/kWh) 300,300
(3,500 kW x 3.325 h/hr)
Water (fcO.15/103 gal x 5.6 x 106 gal/yr) 900
Waste Disposal ($l/ton x 6.124 x 105 tons/yr) 612,400
Chemicals (magn: 694 tons/yr x $65/ton) 45,700
(floe: 0.2 tons/yr x $3,000/ton)
TOTAL DIRECT COST $2,283,300
Payroll (30% of direct and indirect and 203,100
maintenance labor)
Plant Overhead (26% of direct, indirect and 356,100
maintenance labor and maintenance, and
chemicals
TOTAL OVERHEAD COST 559, 200
Capital Recovery Factor (11.75% of Total 1,086,100
Turnkey Costs
C&A, Taxes and Insurance (4% of Total 369,700
Costs)
Interest on Working Capital (10% of W.C.) 57,100
TOTAL CAPITAL CHARGES 1,512,900
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $4,355,400
Cost per Ton of Moisture Free Product $3.01
Cost per 106 Btu of Product $0.122
43
-------
TABLE 13. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, ILLINOIS NO. 6, DESIGN NO. 9:
From D&R Screen 2
From Disc Filter
TOTAL
Tons of
A. SOLID
Solid
( tons/hr)
107.4
58.1
165.5
Refuse (Dry Basis) /Tons
WASTE
Water
(tons/hr)
4.9
19.4
24.3
165.5
of Product 434.5
Total
(tons/hr)
112.3
77.5
189.8
0.381
B. WATER DISCHARGE PARAMETERS
Assume Effluene Flow Rate = 75 liters/kkg of product
Primary Pollutants
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Volatile Solids
COD
TOG
Major Elemental Pollutants
Gale ium
Magnesium
Sod ium
Trace Element Pollutants
Copper
Iron
Zinc
Manganese
(265 g/kkg of product) =
(7 g/kkg of product) =
37 g/kkg of product) =
(11 g/kkg of product) =
(1.9 g/kkg of product) =
(8.8 g/kkg of product) =
(4.2 g/kkg of product) =
(9.0 g/kkg of product) =
(1.5 mg/kkg of product)
(14 mg/kkg of product) =
(3 mg/kkg of product) =
(1.8 mg/kkg of product =
104,434 g/hr
2,759 g/hr
14,581 g/hr
4,335 g/hr
749 g/hr
3,468 g/hr
1,655 g/hr
3,547 g/hr
591 mg/hr
5,517 mg/hr
1,182 mg/hr
709 mg/hr)
44
-------
TABLE 14. ENERGY FACTORS3
Energy loss in refuse: 2.462 x 10^ Btu/ton Product (MF Basis)
Energy consumption in plant: 0. 017 x 10" Btu/ton Product
Total energy consumption/ton
of product = 2.479 x 106 Btu/ton Product
or; 1,240 Btu/lb Product
45
-------
Construction Schedule
Several manufacturing corporations as well as coal preparation managers
were contacted and asked the following questions concerning the time required
for the following construction milestones;
1. Decision that the plant is needed
2. Preliminary engineering
3. Detailed design
4. Issue bids and award contract
5. Construction
6. Shakedown and startup
7. Commercial operation.
McNally Pittsburg has built over 500 coal preparation plants and handling
systems since 1921. Their contact^ stated that they did not have any
prepared literature on construction milestones but that they did have a
chronology of coal preparation plants and handling systems built by McNally
Pittsburg, Inc. 1921-1981, that he would send.
McNally Pittsburg only becomes involved in the construction of coal
cleaning plants after the bids are issued. From this point to completion of
the project ic dependent on many factors including
9 size of plant
• type of outside equipment necessary such as coal handling and
storage equipment
« whether all the cleaning will occur inside the facility, etc.
For a plant having a capacity of approximately 500 tons/hr raw coal feed, it
could take 2 co 2 1/2 years from the point at which the bids are issued to
commercial operation. An additional 2 to 3 years may be required for the
project participants to get to the point where they are ready to issue bids.
A contactja &-;. Ro>en.s and Lchaefer, another leading builder of coal
preparation plants5 stated the time from the issuance of bids to commercial
operation of a 1000 tons/hr plant could be 18 to 24 months. For a smaller
plant naving a capacity of 300 tons/hr the time could be reduced to II months.
One preparation manager-*9 stated that the total concept, from the time
the decision la &ade that the plant is needed to commercial operation could
take 5 years. Two years may be required for the plant to get through the
initial permitting and design and another 2 to 3 years to complete
construction. GCA sant out several letters to Preparation Managers concerning
construction milestones but did not receive any responses.
46
-------
The concensus of the persons contacted indicate that the time required
from the initial decision that the plant is needed to commercial operation of
a coal cleaning plant with a capacity of 500 tons/hr may be 5 years. Smaller
plants will probably require less time.
47
-------
REFERENCES
1. 1981 Coal Mine Directory, United States and Canada, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York, New York. 1981.
2. Telephone conversation. Charles Porter, Field Director of Preparation
Plant—Quality Control, Araax Coal Co. from Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology
Division. March 1, 1982.
3. Onursal, B., et al. Cost, Energy, and Environmental Sensitivity Analysis
of Coal Cleaning Technology for Industrial Boiler Applications. Prepared
by Versar Inc., Springfield, Virginia under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3136.
June 1980.
4. Chronology of Coal Preparation Plants and Handling Systems Built by
McNally Pittsburgh, Inc. 1921-1981.
5. U.S. Coal Mine Production by Seam—1976. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,
New York. 1977.
6. Perry, Robert H., and Cecil H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers' Handbook.
McGraw-Hill Book Company. Fifth Edition.
7. Lemmon, A. W., et al. Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Processes: First Annual Report; Vol. 1. Executive Summary. Report No.
Ei'A-600/7-79-073b, June 1976.
8. McCandless, Lee C,, and Robert B. Shaver. Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Technology Firs;: Annual Report. Report No. EPA-600/7-78-150, July 1978.
9. Spaite, P. W., et al. Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Processes: Technology Overview. Report No. EPA-600/7-79-073e, September
1979.
10. Telephone conversation. Mr. Musik, Alabama By-Products Corp. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. February 26, 1982.
e.
11. Telephone conversation. Mr. Frazier, Jim Walter Resources, Inc. from
Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. February 26, 1982.
12. Telephone conversation. Mr. Gary Belus, Consolidation Coal Co.,
Midwestern Region from Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 1,
1982.
48
-------
13. Letter from Ted Bean, Freeman United Coal Mining Co. to Sandra Beaton,
GCA/Technology Division. April 16, 1982.
14. Telephone conversation. Mr. Thomas Hightower, Amax Coal Co. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 19, 1982.
I'). Telephone conversation. Mr. Quinton Stultz, American Electric Power Fuel
Supply from Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. April 15, 1982.
16. Telephone Conversation. Mr. Morrison, Consolidation Coal Co., Southern
Appalacia Region from Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 5,
1982.
17. Telephone conversation. Mr. Bob Ratt, Plateau Mining Co. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 15, 1982.
18. Letter from Mr. D. W. Jones, Clinchfied Coal Div. of the Pittston Co. to
Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division.
19. Telephone conversation. Mr. James Shupe, Westmanland Coal Co. from
Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 16, 1982.
20. Telephone conversation. Mr. Dudley Walls, Amherst Coal Co. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 5, 1982.
21. Telephone conversation. Mr. McBee, Badger Coal Co. from Sandra Beaton,
GCA/Technology Division. March 15, 1982.
22. Telepnone conversation. Mr. Doug Epling, Beckley Coal Mining Co. from
Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 15, 1982.
23. Telephone conversation. Mr. Clark Christie, Bishop Coal Co. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 15, 1982.
24. Telephone conversation. Mr. Les Fish, Cannelton Industries, Inc. from
Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 15, 1982.
25. Telephone conversation. Mr. Russ Brown, Carbon Fuel Co. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 15, 1982.
26. Telephone conversation. Mr. Leon Heck, Consolidation Coal Co., Eastern
Region from Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 1, 1982.
27. Telephone conversation. Mr. Hopson, Elkay Mining Co. from Sandra Beaton,
GCA/Technology Division. March 15, 1982.
28. Telephone conversation. Mr. Martin Valeri, Olga Coal Co. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 16, 1982.
29. Telephone conversation. Mr. Roger Lester, Robinson-Phillips Coal Co.
from Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 16, 1982.
49
-------
30. Telephone conversation. Mr. Jones, Royal Coal Co. from Sandra Beaton,
GCA/Technology Division. March 16, 1982.
31. Telephone conversation. Mr. Randall Poff, Semet-Solvay Div. Allied
Chemical Corp. from Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 16,
1972.
32. Telephone conversation. Mr. Olsen, Valley Camp Coal Co. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 16, 1982.
33. Telephone conversation. Mr. Frank Acard, Westmouland Coal Co. from
Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 19, 1982.
34. Helfinstine, R. J., et al. Sulfur Reduction of Illinois
Coals—Washability Studies. Part 1. Illinois State Geological Survey.
1971.
35. Telephone conversation. Mr. Jim Poteet, Consolidated Coal Co.,
Midwestern Region from Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 1,
1982.
36. Burhoff, J., et al. Technology Assessment Report for Industrial Boiler
Applications: Coal Cleaning and Low Sulfur Coal. Report No.
EPA-600/7-79-178c. December 1979.
37. Telephone conversation. Mr. Ernest Draeger, McNally Pittsburg Inc. from
Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 1, 1982.
38. Telephone conversation. Mr. Warren Gerler, Robert and Schaefer from
Sandra Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 1, 1982.
39. Telephone conversation. Mr. Tim Monson, Southeast Coal Co. from Sandra
Beaton, GCA/Technology Division. March 1, 1982.
40. Minerals Yearbook 1970, Volume I, Metals, Minerals and Fuels. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. 1972.
41. Minerals Yearbook 1974, Volume I, Metals, Minerals and Fuels. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. 1976
42. Telephone conversation and letter. Mr. Leonard Westerstrom, U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, and Robert Hall,
GCA/Technology Division. May 18, 1982.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
112ttl
50
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
1. REPORT NO. i.
EPA-905/&-82-002
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
Coal Preparation Survey
August 1982
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Sandra Beaton and Robert R. Hall
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GCA-TR-82-36-G
». PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA/Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA '
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-6421,
Work Assignment No. 006
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
H.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 2/82 - 8/82
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
905/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The EPA/Region V Task Officer is John T. Gaitsklll,
312-886-6797
18. ABSTRACT
GCA identified 165 physical coal cleaning plants with a raw coal capacity
of 500 tons/hr or greater. Of these 165 plants, additional information on the
sulfur and ash content of the raw and prepared coals was collected for 49 coal
preparation plants. Calculations were performed to determine the percent
sulfur and ash reduction due to physical coal cleaning processes.
The reduction in sulfur content varied from 0 to 57 percent by weight
while the reduction in ash content varied from 10 to 85 percent by weight.
These values are well within the range of results previously reported in the
literature.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Coal Preparation
Jigs
Froth Flotation
Wet Classifiers
Cyclone Seperators
Sulfur
Pyrite
Capital Costs
Pollution Control
Coal Cleaning
Desulfurization
13B
08G
07B
21D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
51
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
6PA Farm 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |