United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
vvEPA
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-071a Oct. 1981
Project Summary
Environmental Assessment:
Source Test and Evaluation
Report - Coal Preparation
Plant No. 1
J. Buroff, A. Jung, L. McGilvray, and J. Strauss
This report gives results and con-
clusions of a Source Test and Evalua-
tion Program conducted at a coal
preparation facility. The major ob-
jective of the test program was to
perform a screening Environmental
Assessment (Level 1) on the discharge
streams and fugitive emissions of the
facility.
Results from the Source Analysis
ModelIA (SAM/IA)evaluation for
the multimedia streams sampled
indicated that all streams, except for
fugitive particulates, contained some
constituents which may have a po-
tentially harmful health or ecological
effect. For streams which showed
potential for ecological effects, man-
ganese was found to be of concern; for
streams which showed a large health-
related value, manganese and chro-
mium were of prime concern. Contrary
to previous studies, high ammonia
concentrations were also observed.
Further investigation of the ammonia
source is warranted. ,
The bioassay test results for all
fugitive particulates were negative.
The fine refuse sedimentation pond
waters, the coarse refuse, and fine
refuse slurry samples indicated a
moderate biological effect. For
leachates, all health-based bioassay
tests showed a low or nondetectable
effect; however, the coal and coarse
refuse leachate composite and the
pond sediment composite produced a
moderate effect on the ecological-
related algae test.
The results of this environmental
assessment and future Level 1
Environmental Assessments per-
formed on other coal preparation
facilities will identify those substances
in a given waste stream that are the
most potentially harmful and will
determine the need for further char-
acterization of the discharge streams
and development of control technol-
ogy.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
Versar Inc., under contract to the U.S.
EPA's Industrial Environmental Re-
search Laboratory at Research Triangle
Park, NC (lERL-RTPf, is performing a
comprehensive environmental assess-
ment of coal preparation technologies.
A significant part of this assessment
involves Source Test and Evaluation
(STE) programs at operating coal
cleaning facilities. The primary objective
of each STE program is to perform a
screening (Level 1) Environmental
Assessment that characterizes multi-
media emissions from the source.
-------
assesses the data on a health and
ecological basis, and evaluates the
effectiveness of pollution control sys-
tems.
The field testing program is designed
to determine the physical, chemical,
and relative toxicological characteristics
of coal preparation plant effluent
streams sampled at their respective
sources. The results of the Level 1
testing and analysis provide the quan-
tities of pollutants in process and
effluent streams and identify those
areas of the process needing additional
control technology development. The
field testing program is not designed to
assess the environmental quality in the
general vicinity of the cleaning plant.
Therefore, results of the present testing
program cannot be used to evaluate
cause/effect relationships between
discharge stream characteristics and
ecological effects observed in the field.
General Plant Description
The coal cleaning plant chosen for
this first assessment is representative
of a group of cleaning plants that
process run-of-mine (ROM) coal with
low pyritic sulfur (< 2 percent) content,
use high technology coal cleaning
processes, and operate in an environ-
ment with high rainfall(>60 cm/yr) and
a low soil neutralization potential (pH
<6.0). The facility is designated as
preparation plant No. 1. The clean coal
from this plant is sent directly to a large
steam electric power plant. Aschematic
flow diagram of coal preparation plant
No. 1 is shown in Figure 1.
Preparation plant No. 1 isa450Mg/h
(500 t/h) coal washing plant. Its yield is
about 250-275 Mg/h (275-300 t/h) of
clean coal (i.e., 55-60 percent yield). The
plant cleans Kentucky No. 9 and No. 11
coals to an average yearly sulfur content
of 2.9 percent (as received) and an
energy content of about 6.1 Meal/kg
(11,000 Btu/lb). Proximate and ultimate
analysis for ROM coal, clean coal, and
coarse refuse are shown in Table 1.
The plant processes the coal by first
sending the stored ROM coal to a raw
coal screen. The overflow from the raw
coal screen is treated in a Baum jig,
which produces two product streams (a
coarse and a middling fraction) and a
refuse stream. The product streams are
dewatered and sent to the clean coal
pile. The underflows from the raw coal
Coarse
Raw
Cnal
\
Fine
/-«-«/
Sump
Baum
Jig
Coal
MiuQlings
Classifying
Classifying
and
Dewatering
i
*Streams Sampled for Source Test and Evaluation Task
Figure 1. Schematic flow diagram of coal preparation plant No. 1.
2
-------
Table 1. Properties of ROM Coal. Clean Coal, and Coarse Refuse
ROM Coal
Proximate Analysis
Clean Coal
Coarse Refuse
As Received Dry Basis As Received Dry Basis As Received Dry Basis
(% Weight)
Moisture
Ash
Volatile
Fixed Carbon
2.72
22.16
34.14
40.98
22.78
35.09
42.13
6.15
12.70
37.21
43.94
13.53
39.65
46.82
1.11
75.69
13.66
9.54
76.54
13.81
9.65
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Btu/lb
Sulfur
Ultimate Analysis
Moisture
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Chlorine
Sulfur
Ash
Oxygen (by difference)
10764
3.93
2.72
59.60
4.09
1.48
0.13
3.93
22.16
5.99
100.00
11065
4.04
61.16
4.20
1.52
0.13
4.04
22.78
6.17
100.00
11808
3.36
6.15
64.82
4.35
1.48
0.11
3.36
12.70
7.03
100.00
12582
3.58
69.07
4.63
1.58
0.12
3.58
13.53
7.49
100.00
2658
9.21
1.11
13.55
1.24
0.40
0.05
9.21
75.69
-1.25
100.00
2688
9.31
13.70
1.25
0.40
0.05
9.31
76.54
-1.25
100.00
stream and dewatering circuit are
combined to recover fine coal. Recovery
is accomplished by centrif ugation of the
fine coal slurry after collection and
initial thickening by classifying cyclones.
Coarse refuse is sent to an onsite
landfill and fine refuse is slurried to a
series of onsite sedimentation ponds.
Test Program Description
Samples of 25 process and waste
streams were obtained to meet the
objectives of this STE program. Because
slurry streams were split into two
samples (solid and liquid states) and
non-fugitive solid samples were an-
alyzed as the solid and a leachate of the
solid, 31 samples were analyzed to
characterize facility waste streams, raw
materials, and product.
Samples collected at the coal prepa-
ration facility included:
Fugitive particulates and gases
from coal and coarse refuse
storage areas.
Fine refuse sedimentation ponds.
Runoff from coal and coarse refuse
storage areas.
ROM coal, clean coal, and coarse
refuse.
Fine refuse slurry.
These samples were selected based on
their potential for pollution.
The following chemical analyses
were performed:
Spark Source/Mass Spectroscopy
for inorganic element determina-
tions (all streams).
Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma
for inorganic element determina-
tions (liquid streams only).
Total Chromatographable Organics
and Gravimetric Analysis for as-
sessing total organic content (all
gaseous, liquid, and sediment
streams).
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
for mercury (all streams).
The following tests were conducted:
AMES test for mutagenesis (all
streams).
A second, suitable biological as-
sessment test for cytotoxicity or
toxicity, such as rabbit alveolar
macrophage (solids), Chinese
hamster ovary assay (liquids),
rodent acute toxicity (liquids), or an
aquatic bioassay on algae, daphnia,
or fathead minnows (all liquid
streams and leachates).
In addition, classical water quality
parameters were measured for each
liquid stream: pH, conductivity, temper-
ature, dissolved oxygen, hardness,
alkalinity, acidity, ammonia, nitrates,
nitrites, cyanide, phosphorus, sulfate,
sulfite, fluoride, and chloride.
Methods for Characterizing
Waste Streams
Three methods were used to evaluate
the characteristics of the coal prepara-
tion plant samples:
Source Assessment Models
(SAM)/IA evaluation for inorganic
constituents.
Water quality parameter compar-
isons with existing standards.
Bioassay screening tests.
Source Assessment Models
The Energy Assessment and Control
Division (EACD) of EPA's IERL-RTP has
developed a standardized methodology
for interpreting the results obtained
from environmental assessment test
programs. This methodology uses the
Source Analysis Model which repre-
sents prototype approaches to multi-
media, multlpollutant problem identi-
fication and control effectiveness
evaluation for complex effluents.
The simplest member of the Source
Analysis Models, SAM/IA, was used for
this STE program. SAM/IA provides a
rapid screening technique for eval-
uating the pollution potential of gaseous
liquid, and solid waste streams. In
performing a SAM/IA evaluation, an
index, the Discharge Severity (DS), is
determined for each substance in a
discharge stream.
-------
The DS is calculated by dividing the
detected concentration of a compound,
or class of compounds, by its Discharge
Multimedia Environmental Goal(DMEG)
value (for both health and ecological
effects) as reported in Multimedia
Environmental Goals for Environmental
Assessment, Volume II.'11
MEG's are concentration levels of
contaminants in air, water or solid
water effluents that will not evoke
significant harmful responses in sur-
rounding populations or ecosystems.
For example, the estimated concen-
tration of aluminum in the fine waste
slurry filtrate sample was 190/ug/l. The
health-based DMEG value for alumi-
num in a liquid discharge is 8.0 x 104
/*/!
ng= 190//g/l = 24 x 10-3
8.0x10Vg/l
Therefore, the DS for aluminum is 2.4 x
10~3 or 2.4 E-3. A DS greater than 1.0
indicates a potential hazard, while a DS
less than 1.0 indicates little or no
potential hazard. A total stream dis-
charge severity (TDS) is calculated by
summing the DS values for all con-
stituents found in a sample.
The total concentration of organic
extractables in each sample was given
as the sum of the gravimetric (Grav) and
total chromatographable organic (TCO)
determinations. These results were not
evaluated using the SAM/IA method-
ology because the MEG values are
specific to individual organic com-
pounds, which are not identified by Grav
and TCO analyses, and most Grav and
TCO values were at or below detection
limits.
Water Quality Comparisons
Water quality tests were performed
on the runoff and filtrate samples. The
test concentrations were compared to
the most stringent state effluent water
regulations for eastern and midwestern
states.121 The applicable water quality
test concentrations for runoff and
leachate samples were also compared
to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Extraction
Procedure-Toxicity Concentrations for
determining hazardous wastes,
although a neutral leachant procedure
was used.131
Bioassay Screening Tests
The use of biological assays in con-
junction with physical and chemical
analyses provides a comprehensive
data base from which to prioritize
streams relative to further study and/or
control technology needs.
Biological test result evaluations are
based on an interpretation of the data in
terms of low, moderate, or high effects
for each test. These interpretations are
based on the biological responses of
highly sensitive cellular and whole-.
organism cultures. Since highly sensi-
tive cells or organisms are tested, a
positive response may not indicate
actual field impacts. "Low or nonde-
tectable effects" means that the mater-
ial will not have any adverse health or
ecological effects. "Moderate or high
effects" means that the material may be
potentially hazardous and more rigorous
testing should be initiated.
Results
Fugitive Emissions
The ambient Total Suspended Par-
ticulates (TSP> values were highest
adjacent to the coal storage piles, as
expected, because of the continuaI truck
activities in those areas. The contri-
bution of plant fugitive emissions to the
ambient air quality can be measured as
the downwind TSP value minus the
upwind TSP value. When the high
ambient air TSP value is subtracted
from the downwind results, the con-
tribution to the ambient air 500 m
downwind from the preparation plant
was found to be 175 //g/m3. Although
500 m downwind is still within the plant
boundary, this value is less than the 24-
hour primary ambient air quality stan-
dard of 260 /ug/m3 for TSP and slightly
higher than the secondary ambient air
quality standard of 150 /ug/m3.
The TCO + Grav analyses of fugitive
vapors were determined to be 120
/jg/m3 after subtracting the upwind
contribution. It can be concluded that
the preparation plant and specific coal
and refuse piles contribute little or no
organic vapors to the environment. The
TDS values for organic vapors were less
than 100 for both health and ecological
criteria. Chromium and nickel were
generally the only elements with a DS
greater than 1.0; however, for four of
the nickel concentrations, the DS value
can be attributed to contamination in
the XAD-2 resin blank. The bioassay
test results for both fugitive particulate
and vapor samples were negative (i.e.,
low or nondetectable effect).
Liquids
The filtrate sample from the fine
waste slurry had health- and ecological-
based TDS values greater than 1.0.
These values indicate potential for
hazard, especially for the ecological-
based criteria with a TDS value greater
than 100. However, the low total
extractable organic concentration
shows that there was very little
dissolved organic material in the fine
coal waste slurry filtrate.
The feedwater to the plant was
obtained from pond No. 3. No element
had a DS value greater than 1.0. The
feedwater results show low inorganic
concentrations, no detectable chroma-
tographable organics, and relatively low
gravimetrically determined organic
concentrations. Also, the health-related
bioassay tests for the feedwater
produced low or nondetectable effects.
The waters from ponds No. 1,2, and 3
exhibited low potential for effect based
on the health-related TDS value and a
relatively higher potential for hazard
based on the ecological-related TDS
value. There were no chromatograph-
able organics detected; however,
gravimetrically determined organic
concentrations were 600 yug/l, 500
/i/g/l, and 1,000 /jg/\ for ponds No. 1, 2,
and 3, respectively. The results of the
bioassays were mixed. One health-
related test (Ames assay) gave negative
results, whereas another health-related
test (Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO)
clonal assay) indicated moderate
effects. The aquatic bioassays on the
composite sample (ponds No. 1, 2, and
3) showed low or nondetectable effects
on fish and invertebrates and moderate
effects on algae.
The results of the inorganic tests for
the runoff samples were similar to the
pond water results; i.e., low potential for
hazard on a health-related basis and
greater potential on an ecological basis.
The total extractable organic concen-
trations were relatively high (3,300
/jg/\) for the ROM coal pile runoff
sample and were reduced to a
nondetectable level in the clean coal
runoff sample. The biological tests
(Ames and CHO clonal assays) showed
negative results for both samples.
Solids and Leachates
The inorganic analyses for the fine
refuse waste solids gave a health-
related TDS value greater than 100 and
an ecological-based TDS value that was
greater than 10,000. The high
ecological-based TDS value was
primarily due to a high phosphorous DS
value. In contrast, the health-related
-------
bioassays and the ecological assay on
fish showed low or nondetectable
effects. However, the bioassays on
invertebrates and algae showed
moderate effects.
The IDS values for the coarse refuse
solids sample were of the same
magnitude as those for the fine refuse.
The coarse refuse leachate TDS values
were considerably lower and contained
no detectable, extractable organic
concentrations. The health-related
bioassays showed mixed results for the
coarse refuse solid; i.e., negative results
for the Ames assay and moderate
effects for the Rabbit Alveolar
Macrophage (RAM) assay. The coarse
refuse leachate produced negative
results for the health-related bioassays.
The TDS values for the ROM coal
leachate were similar to those for the
coarse refuse ieachate (greaterthan 1.0
for the health-based TDS and greater
than 100 for the ecological-based TDS).
Only gravimetrically determined or-
ganics contributed to the relatively
moderate concentration of total ex-
tractable organics (1,500 pg/l). The
health-related bioassays indicated low
or nondetectable effects for the ROM
coal leachate.
The TDS values for the clean coal
leachate samples were of the same
magnitude as the coarse refuse and
ROM coal leachates. The extractable
organic concentrations were below the
detection limit. The results of the
health-related bioassays were negative
for both the clean coal and the clean
coal leachate.
A composite of coarse refuse, ROM,
and clean coal leachates were used for
the aquatic bioassays. The results
showed low or nondetectable effects on
fish and invertebrates and moderate
effects on algae. The major contributors
to the biological results for the solids
and leachates were the high phosphorus
and ammonia concentrations.
The TDS values for the pond sedi-
ments were fairly high (health TDS
>100 and ecological TDS >1,000), with
the highest values for pond No. 1 (health
TDS >1,000 and ecological TDS
>10,000). The TDS values for the pond
sediment leachates were significantly
lower (health TDS >1 and ecological
TDS >10). The concentrations of
chromatographable and gravimetric
organics in the sediments were 864,
199, and 85 mg/g for ponds No. 1, 2,
and 3, respectively, with lower
concentrations detected in the leachates
(2.3 mg/l, <1 mg/l, 1 mg/l, respec-
tively). The leachates from ponds No. 2
and 3 sediments were below the 1 mg/l
detection limit for extractable organics.
The health-based bioassays indicated
low or nondetectable effects for both
sediment and leachates. The aquatic
bioassays 'performed on a composite of
the leachate samples showed no effect
on fish and invertebrates and a moderate
effect on algae.
Summary and Conclusions
A summary of the multimedia chem-
ical and biological stream characteristics
and control strategy recommendations
are provided in Table 2.
For air samples there is a low
potential for hazard from both the
fugitive particulates and fugitive vapors.
Improved dust control measures are
recommended to decrease fugitive
particulate emissions.
For liquid streams the major con-
stituents of concern were manganese
and ammonia. Previous water pollution
studies identified manganese, but not
ammonia, as a problem in coal prepara-
tion plant discharges. The presence of
ammonia may be an artifact of sampling
and analysis procedures. It is recom-
mended that analytical protocols be
changed to better characterize the
presence and concentration of ammon-
ia. Manganese would require control if
the pond waters were discharged or
runoff water was collected and then
discharged.
The solid samples showed the highest
potential for hazard. However, the
leachates from the solids had consid-
erably lower discharge severity values
than the solids themselves. The rec-
ommendation is to retain solids onsite
via sedimentation or filtration.
Table 2. Summary of Environmental Results
Major Contributors
Total Discharge
Severity
Waste Stream
Clean Coal Fugitives
Particulates
Coarse Refuse Fugitive
Particulates
ROM Fugitive
Particulates
Upwind Fugitive
Particulates
Downwind Fugitive
Particulates
Clean Coal Storage
Pile Vapors
Coarse Refuse
Pile Vapors
ROM Storage
Pile Vapors
Upwind Vapors
Downwind Vapors
Health
5E-3
3E-3
1E-2
4E-3
3E-3
3EO
1E1
4EO
3EO
6E1
Ecologi-
cal
9E-3
JE-3
1E-2
3E-3
2E-3
2E-1
3E-1
2E-1
3E-1
2EO
(Discharge Severity
>1O) Biological Results
Ecologi-
Health cat Health
- - LN.
- L.N.
- - LN.
- - LN.
LN.
LN.
LN.
LN.
- LN
Cr LN.
Ecologi-
cal
NC.
NC
IV. C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
NC.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
Conclusions
tow potential for hazard
according to TDS values
and bioassay test results.
High downwind TSP values
for particulates.
Paniculate morphology
shows mostly dust, not
coal in downwind
samples.
Low potential for hazard
according to TDS values
and bioassay test
results.
Recommendations
Improve dust control/
suppression techniques
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Total Discharge
Severity
Waste Stream
Fine Waste Slurry *
Filtrate
Feedwater Filtrate *
Pond Water No. 1 *
Filtrate
Pond Water No. 2 *
Filtrate
Pond Water No. 3 *
Filtrate
ROM Storage Pile
Runoff
Clean Coal Storage
Pile Runoff
Coarse Refuse Pile
Runoff
Filtered Solids from
Fine Waste Slurry
Coarse Refuse
Coarse Refuse
Leachate
ROM Coal Leachate
Clean Coal Leachate
Pond No. 1 Sediment
Pond No. 1 Sediment
Leachate
Pond No. 2 Sediment
Pond No. 2 Sediment
Leachate
Pond No. 3 Sediment
Pond No. 3 Sediment
Leachate
Health
1EJ
7E-1
2EO
7E-1
1EO
2EO
1E1
9EO
6E2
7E2
2EO
JEO
3EO
2E3
2EO
6E2
2EO
8E2
4EO
Eco-
logical
7E1
JE1
3E1
1E1
2E1
3E1
1E2
4E1
1E4
1E4
4E1
3E1
3E1
1E4
2E1
3E3
1E1
3E3
2E1
Major Contributors
(Discharge Severity
>10
Health
/V/3-/V
CR.Mn.Ba.
Be.Cd.Li,
P.Se.V
Cr.MN,As
Ba.Be.Pb.
Li.P.Se.V
Sr.Cr.Mn.
As.Ba,Pb
Li.Ni.P,
Se.V
Ba.Mn.Cr,
Pb.Ni.
P.Se
Mn.As.Ba.
Cd,Cr,Pb.
Li.Ni.P.
V
Eco-
logical
/V/3-/V
NI3-N
NI3-N
Mn.Ni,
Nli-N
Mn
P.Cd
P.Ni
/V/3-/V
/V/3-/V
P.Mn
P
/V/3-/V
P.Mn
Biological Results
Health
N.C.
LN.
M
M
M
LN.
LN.
LN.
M
M
LN.
LN.
LN
LN.
LN.
LN.
LN.
LN.
LN.
Eco-
logical
N.C.
N.C
M
M
M
N.C.
N.C
N.C.
M
N.C.
M
M
M
N.C.
M
M
N.C.
M
Conclusions
Potentially hazardous
according to SAM/I A
evaluation.
Low potential for hazard
according to TDS values
and bioassay test
results.
Potentially hazardous
for ecological-based
SAM/IA evaluation.
Complied with most
stringent state effluent
regulations for states
in Eastern, Midwest and
Northern Appalachian
coal regions.
Low potential hazard
for health-based
criteria.
Potentially hazardous
for ecological-based
criteria.
Water quality results
in compliance with
most stringent state
effluent regulations.
Potentially hazardous
according to SAM/IA
evaluation.
Potentially hazardous
according to SAM/IA
evaluation.
Does not exceed RCRA
EP Toxicity Concentra-
tions.
Potentially hazardous
according to SAM/IA
evaluation.
Does not exceed RCRA
EP Toxicity Concentra-
tions.
Potentially hazardous
according to SAM/IA
evaluation
Does not exceed RCRA
EP Toxicity Concentra-
tions
Recommendations
Should not discharge
directly to offsite
surface waters; should
be treated onsite.
Further characterization
during Level 2 environ-
mental assessment phase
to determine origin of
ammonia.
Collect runoff and treat
for control of
manganese.
Further characterization
during Level 2 environ-
mental assessment phase
to determine origin of
ammonia.
Retain material onsite
via sedimentation or
filtration.
Further characteriza-
tion during Level 2
environmental assess-
ment phase to determine
origin of ammonia.
See runoff recommenda-
tions.
Further characterization
during the Level 2
environmental assessment
phase
N.C. =/Vof conducted
L.N. = Low or Nondetectable
M - Moderate
* Bioassays conducted on the raw material.
EP Toxicity = Extraction Procedure Toxicity.
-------
References
1. Cleland, J.G., and G.L Kingsbury.
Multimedia Environmental Goals for
Environmental Assessment, Volume
II: MEG Charts and Background
Information. EPA-600/7-77-136b
(NTIS PB 276920), U.S. EPA, IERL,
Research Triangle Park, NC, Novem-
ber 1977. p. 449.
2. Bureau of National Affairs. Envi-
ronment Reporter. State Water
Laws.
3. Federal Register. May 19, 1980.
Volume 45 - No. 98.
J. Buroff, A. Jung, L. McGilvray, andJ. Strauss are with Versar, Inc., Springfield,
VA 22151.
D. A. Kirchgessner is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Environmental Assessment: Source Test and
Evaluation ReportCoal Preparation Plant No. 1," (Order No. PB 81 -239 030;
Cost: $21.50. subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I98I/559-092/3332
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Pti 0000 3«?9
U 6 E^v'lK PROTECTION AGENCY
KFGIO'V S LiBKAKY
230 S OfcAWtfuR'-M STREET
CHICAGO IL b()604
------- |