United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-071b  Dec. 1981
Project Summary
Environmental  Assessment:
Source  Test  and  Evaluation
Report  —  Coal  Preparation
Plant  No.  2

J. Buroff, A. Jung, L. McGilvray, and J. Strauss
  This Project Summary presents the
results and conclusions of a Source
Test  and Evaluation  Program
conducted  at  a coal  preparation
facility. The major objective 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
Model IA(SAM/IA)evaluation for the
multimedia  streams  sampled
indicated that all streams, except for
fugitive particulates, contained some
constituents which  may have  a
potentially harmful  health  or
ecological  effect. For  streams which
showed potential for ecological
effects, manganese was found to be of
concern; for streams which showed a
large health-related value, manganese
and chromium were of prime concern.
The leachate .results  showed high
ammonia   concentrations.  Further
investigation of the ammonia source is
warranted.
  The Ames assay test results for all
fugitive particulates were negative.
However,  the  health-related RAM
assay produced moderate effects. The
fine  refuse sedimentation pond
waters, 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
performed 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
characterization  of  the  discharge
streams and development of control
technology.
  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 fsee
Project Report ordering information at
back).

Introduction

  Versar, Inc.,  of Springfield, Virginia,
under  contract  to  the   U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency  -
Industrial  Environmental  Research
Laboratory (EPA-IERL)  at Research
Triangle  Park,  North  Carolina,  is
performing  a  comprehensive
environmental  assessment  of coal
preparation technologies. A significant
part of this assessment involves Source

-------
                                                                                 Fine
                                                                                Refuse
                                                                               Desi/tiny
                                                                                  and
                                                  Feedwater  I Transfer
                                                                Pond
                                                                                            Coarse Coal        Coal
                                                                                                           J Storage
                                                                                                               S//o
                                                                                  \28M x 0.28M x 60M
                                                                                  Lj              ^*Y  Disc
                                                                                                        Filter
*Streams sampled for Source Test and Evaluation Task
Figure 1.  Schematic flow diagram of coal preparation Plant No. 2.
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  char-
acterizes multimedia  emissions  from
the source,  assesses  the data  on a
health  and  ecological  basis,   and
evaluates the effectiveness of pollution
control systems.
  The field testing program is designed
to  determine the  physical,  chemical,
and  relative  toxicological  character-
istics of coal preparation plant effluent
streams  sampled  at  their  respective
sources. The results  of the Level 1
testing   and   analysis provide  the
quantities 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 of 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 plantchosenforthe
                                    second assessment is representative of
                                    a  group  of  cleaning  plants  that
                                    processes run-of-mine (ROM) coal with
                                    high pyritic sulfur (>2 percent) content,
                                    uses high  technology coal cleaning
                                    processes, operates in an environment
                                    with high rainfall [> 60 cm/yr  (> 25
                                    in./yr)],and  has   a  low   soil
                                    neutralization potential (pH > 6.0). A
                                    schematic  flow  diagram  of  coal
                                    preparation  plant  No. 2 is shown in
                                    Figure 1.
                                      Preparation plant  No. 2 is  a  1,088
                                    Mg/h (1,200 tph) coal washing plant. Its
                                    yield is approximately 888 to 912 tph of
                                    clean coal (i.e., 74 to 76 percent yield).
                                    The plant cleans Illinois No. 6 coal to a
                                    yield product that has an average sulfur
                                    content of 2.7 percent (as received) and
                                    an  energy  content of about 27,000
                                    kJ/kg (11,600 Btu/lb). Proximate and
                                    ultimate analyses for ROM coal, clean
                                    coal, and coarse refuse are shown in
                                    Table 1.
                                      The plant processes the coal by first
                                    screening the stored ROM coal over a
                                                                                            I
                                                                                          To Fine
                                                                                       Refuse Sump
stationary primary screen. Everything
above 5 in. is sent to the rotary breaker,
and the underflow from the screen is
blended with the product from the rotary
breaker and placed on the incoming raw
coal distribution belt. The 5 in. xOcoal is
then fed to a two-stage Baum Jig for
primary washing. The clean coal from
the Baum Jig is dewatered on a 3/16-
in stationary screen, and the overflow
goes  through  a double-deck washed
coal  screen.  The product  of the  top
screen is 5 x 1-Vi  in. clean coal.The
clean coal is fed to a crusher to produce
a top size of 1-1/2 in. and then fed onto
the clean coal load-out belt, The over-
flow from the bottom screen (1 -Vz x 3/s-
m. coal) is dewatered in centrifuges and
loaded onto the clean coal belt  The
underflow from  the  washed  coal
screens, which is predominantly 3/a-in.
x 0 material, goes to the washed coal
sumps.
  The middlings product from the two-
stage  Baum Jig is sent to a middling
screen for size separation. The overflow
in the middling screen is fed to a crusher
that  reduces the  material to  1-in.  top
size and then blends it back into the feed

-------
to the Baum Jig. The underflow in the
middling screen, which isVi-m.xOcoal,
is then routed  to the fine coal  refuse
slurry sump. The rejects from the two-
stage  Baum Jig are dewatered on a
refuse  screen  and sent to a  refuse
bin container for load-out by truck. The
underflow  from  the  coarse   refuse
screens is combined with other fine coal
refuse products of the plant and sent to
the fine coal slurry sump.
  The  refuse   streams  in  the   plant
consist of:

   •  Coarse refuse from the Baum Jig
      which is  dewatered on screens
      and sent to the  coarse  refuse
      hopper.

   •  Fine refuse collected in a sump
      from  the  underflow  of  the
      polishing  cyclones, froth flotation
      cells, and Baum Jig.

The fine refuse slurry collected  in the
fine coal sump is pumped to a desilting
pond. The pond water overflows into a
transfer pond  from which water is
recycled for makeup in the plant.

Test Program  Description
   Samples of  16  process  and  waste
streams were  obtained to  meet the
objective of this STE program. Because
the  pond waters and  slurry streams
were split into two samples (solid and
liquid states)  and non-fugitive solid
samples were analyzed as the solid and
a leachateof the solid, 30 samples were
analyzed to characterize facility waste
streams, raw materials, and product.
  Samples   collected   at   the   coal
preparation facility included:

  •  Fugitive  particulates  and  gases
     from  coal   and   coarse  refuse
     storage areas.

  •  Fine refuse sedimentation ponds
     and a runoff pond

  •  Runoff from ROM coal storage
     area.

  •  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  Spectro-
     scopy  for  inorganic  element
     determinations (all streams).

  •  Inductively  Coupled Argon
     Plasma   for  inorganic element
     determinations  (liquid streams
     only).
  •  Total  Chromatographable
      Organics  and Gravimetric
      Analysis   for   assessing  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
      assessment 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 algal,
      daphnia, or the  fathead minnow
      (all liquid streams and leachates).
  In addition,  classical water  quality
parameters were measured  for each
liquid  stream:  pH,  conductivity,
temperature,  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
preparation plant samples:
Table 1.    Properties of Rom Coal, Clean Coal, and Coarse Refuse

                       	Rom Coal	   	Clean Coal
 Proximate Analysis      As Received     Dry Basis     As Received
                                                    Coarse Refuse
                               Dry Basis
      As Received
Dry Basis
   (% Weight)
Moisture
Ash
Volatile
Fixed Carbon

Btu/lb
Sulfur
Ultimate Analysis
Moisture
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Chlorine
Sulfur
Ash
Oxygen (by difference)

3.87
28.66
31.68
35.79
J 00.00
9,657
4.35

3.87
53.93
3.79
1.23
0.08
4.35
28.66
4.09
100.00
—
29.81
31.96
37.23
100.00
10,046
4.52

	
56.10
3.94
1.28
0.08
4.52
29.81
4.27
100.00
4.14
12.74
36.62
46.50
100.00
12,120
2.79

4.14
67.61
4.64
1.28
0.08
2.79
12.74
6.72
100.00
—
13.29
38.20
48.51
100.00
12,643
2.91

_
70.53
4.84
1.34
0.08
2.91
13.29
7.01
100.00
2.52
65. SO
19.77
12.21
100.00
4,078
8.03

2.52
22.84
1.64
0.56
0.03
8.03
65.50
-1.12
100.00
—
67.19
20.28
12.53
100.00
4,183
8.24

	
23.43
1.68
0.57
0.03
8.24
67.19
-1.14
100.00

-------
  •  Source  Assessment  Model
     (SAM)/IA evaluations for inorg-
     anic constituents.

  •  Water quality parameter compar-
     isons with existing standards.

  •  Bioassay screening tests.

Source Assessment Models
  The Energy Assessment and Control
Division of  the  EPA's  Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory at
Research Triangle  Park (EACD/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  represents  prototype
approaches to multimedia, multipollut-
ant problem identification 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
evaluating 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 compounds, by its Discharge
Multimedia   Environmental  Goal
(DMEG)  value  (for both  health and
ecological effects)  as  reported  in the
Multimedia Environmental  Goals for
Environmental Assessment, Volume II
(EPA-600/7-77-136b;  NTIS  PB
276920). The MEGs are concentration
levels of contaminants in air, water, or
solid waste effluents that will not evoke
significant  harmful   responses  in
surrounding populations or ecosystems.
  For   example,   the  estimated
concentration of aluminum in the fine
waste slurry  filtrate sample was 190
/i/g/l. The health-based DMEG value for
aluminum in a liquid discharge is 8.0 x
104 yug/l. The discharge  severity for
aluminum is calculated to be:
 DS =
  190/yg/l
8.0 x 104,ug/l
= 2.4x 10~3 /jg/\
  A DS value greater than 1.0 indicates
a potential hazard, while a value less
than 1.0 indicates little or no potential
hazard.  A  total  stream  discharge
severity (TDS) is calculated by summing
the DS values for all constituents 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 organics
(TCO)  determinations.  These  results
were not evaluated using the SAM/IA
methodology because the MEG values
are  specific  to individual   organic
compounds, 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. 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 hazard-
ous wastes, although a neutral leachant
procedure was used.

Bioassay Screening Tests

  The  use  of  biological assays  in
conjunction 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
of each test. These interpretations are
based  on the biological responses of
highly sensitive cellular and  whole-
organism  cultures.  Since  highly-
sensitive cells or organisms are tested,
a positive response may not indicate
actual field impacts. "Lowor nondetect-
able effects" means that the material
will  not  have any adverse  health or
ecological effects. "Moderate or high
effects" means that the material may be
potentially  hazardous  and more rigor-
our testing  should be initiated.

Results

Fugitive  Particulates
and Vapors
   The  ambient Total  Suspended
Particulates (TSP) concentrations and
the concentration of particles less than
15/ug/m3 were highest adjacent to the
ROM  coal storage pile and the  rotary |
breaker. This was expected because of
the continual coal  handling activity in
those areas. The contribution 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 contribution to
the ambient air 600 m downwind from
the preparation plant was found to be 70
fjg/m3. Although 600 m downwind is
still within the  plant  boundary, this
value is significantly less  than the 24-
hour  primary  ambient   air  quality
standard of 260/ug/m3 for TSP and also
considerably less than the secondary
ambient  air quality standard of 150
fjg/m3.  Paniculate morphology tests
showed  that  downwind   particulates
were  primarily  quartz-like  material
rather than coal particles.  However,
downwind particulates show a slightly
higher concentration of coal dust than
the upwind sample.
  The TCO +  GRAV  analyses of the
fugitive  vapors were determined to be
40 fjg/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 A
TDS values for organic vapors were less *
than 10 for health criteria and less than
1.0 for  ecological criteria.  Chromium
and nickel were the only elements with
a DS greater than 1.0;  however, for two
of the chromium  concentrations  and
two of the nickel concentrations, the DS
value   can  be  attributed  to
contamination m the XAD-2 resin blank.
  The  fugitive   particulate  sample
results  indicate  a  low potential for
hazard according to the low TDS values;
however, the results show a potential
hazard  based  on  health-related
bioassay test results (RAM test results
showed moderate effects). The bioassay
test  results  for   the  organic  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. The
health-based TDS of 2 and the ecologi-
cal-based TDS of  10  is largely  due  to
selenium.  The  low  total  extractable
organic concentration shows that there
was  very  little   dissolved  organic
                                                                                                                  4

-------
material in the fine coal waste slurry
filtrate.
  The waters from the desilting, trans-
fer,  and runoff ponds exhibited  low
potential for effect based on the health-
based TDS value and a relatively higher
potential  for   hazard  based  on  the
ecological-based TDS value. There were
no chromatographic organics detected;
however,  gravimetrically  determined
organic concentrations were 300, 400,
and 300pg/l for the desilting, transfer,
and runoff ponds, respectively. The bio-
assay test results for the desilting pond
water were mixed. The Chinese hamster
ovary  clonal  assay and the  aquatic
bioassay with algae produced moderate
effects. However, the Ames assay, the
rodent acute in vivo test, and the aquatic
bioassays with fish  and invertebrates
indicated low or nondetectable effects.
  The  ROM coal storage pile  runoff
sample is  similar to  the pond water
results; i.e., low potential for hazard on
a  health-related basis and a  greater
potential on an ecological-related basis.
The total extractable organic concentra-
tions were relatively low (200jug/l). 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 had a health-based
TDS value of approximately 500 and an
ecological-based TDS value of 10,000.
The  high ecological-based TDS value
     was primarily due to a high phosphorus
     DS value. The results for the health and
     ecological  bioassays were mixed  The
     Ames assay, rodent acute in  vivo test,
     and the aquatic bioassays with fish and
     invertebrates  all  produced  negative
     effects. However, the Chinese hamster
     ovary clonal  assay  produced a  high
     effect,  and the aquatic bioassay with
     algae produced a moderate effect.
       The ecological-based TDS values for
     the coarse refuse solids sample were of
     the  same  magnitude as those for the
     fine refuse (i.e., 10,000). However, the
     health-based  TDS  was an  order of
     magnitude  greater (i.e., 2,000).  The
     health-related   bioassays,    however,
     produced low or nondetectable effects.
     The  coarse refuse leachate  had  a
     health-based   TDS  of   10  and  an
     ecological-based  TDS  of  200.   The
     coarse  refuse  leachate  also  produced
     negative results for the health-related
     bioassays.
       The TDS values for the ROM coal and
     clean coal  leachate are of the  same
     order of magnitude. The health-based
     TDS for ROM and clean coal leachates
     are 4 and 2, respectively. The ecological-
     based  TDS values of  67  and  35,
     respectively, indicate a relatively higher
     potential  for  hazard. The extractable
     organic concentrations  for  both ROM
     and clean  coal leachate samples were
     below the detection limit. The  results of
     the   health-related  bioassays  were
     negative for both the ROM and clean
     coal leachate samples.
       A composite of coarse refuse,  ROM,
     and clean  coal leachates was used for
                    the  aquatic  bioassays.  The  results
                    showed low or nondetectable effects on
                    fish and  invertebrates and moderate
                    effects on algae.
                      The TDS values for the  pond sedi-
                    ments  were  fairly  high (health  TDS
                    values >100 and ecological  TDS values
                    >1,000),  with the highest  health TDS
                    for desilting pond sediment  (2.1 E3) and
                    the  highest ecological TDS for runoff
                    pond sediment (1 .OE4). The  TDS values
                    for the pond sediment leachates were
                    significantly lower (health  TDS >1.0;
                    ecological TDS >10). The  concentra-
                    tions   of  chromatographable  and
                    gravimetric organics in the sediments
                    were  all  20 mg/g.  The  extractable
                    organic concentrations for the sediment
                    leachates were below the detection
                    limit.
                      The pond sediments and sediment
                    leachates  produced  negative  effects
                    when  evaluated by the Ames assay.
                    However, a composite of desilting and
                    transfer pond sediments, and the runoff
                    pond sediment sample produced a high
                    effect  when  evaluated  by  the rabbit
                    alveolar macrophage assay. The aquatic
                    bioassays performed on a composite of
                    the leachate samples showed no effect
                    on fish and invertebrates and a moder-
                    ate effect on algae.
                   Summary and Conclusions

                     A  summary  of  the  multimedia
                   chemical and biological stream charac-
                   teristics and control strategy recom-
                   mendations is provided in Table 2.
Table 2.     Summary of Environmental Results
                                     Major Contributors
                     Total Discharge
                        Severity
(Discharge Severity
                                                       Biological Results
    Waste Stream
                   Health   Ecological Health    Ecological   Health  Ecological
                                        Conclusions
                                                              Recommendations
ROM Coal Storage Pile
Fugitive Particulates    7.35-2   2 OE-3

Rotary Breaker Fugitive
Particulates          1 1E-2   6.05-3
Upwind Fugitive
Particulates
                   1.2E-2   2.05-2
Downwind Fugitive
Particulates          LIE-2   3 OE-3
ROM Coal Storage
Pile Vapors           7.950    3.05-7

Rotary Breaker Vapors  6750    705-7

Upwind Vapors        7750    375-7

Downwind Vapors     7.257    9.05-7
                    M


                    M


                    M


                    M



                   L/N

                   UN

                   L/N

                   L/N
                           NC
                                                                N.C
                                                                NC.
                                                                NC.
NC
      • Low potential for hazard
        according to TDS values;
        however, potentially
        hazardous based on health-
       . related bioassay test
        results.
      • Paniculate morphology shows
        coal in all but upwind samples.
      • TSP values for fugitives
        below primary standard, except
        rotary breaker
Improve techniques for
control of fugitive emissions.
      9 Low potential for hazard
        according to TDS values
N. C     and bioassay test results.

NC.

N.C.

-------
Table 2.      (Continued)
Waste Stream
Fine Waste Slurry Filtrate
(bio. tests conducted on
raw slurry)

Desilting Pond Water
Filtrate (bio. tests
conducted on raw
pond water!
Transfer Pond Water
Filtrate (bio tests
conducted on raw pond
water)

Runoff Pond Water
Filtrate (bio.
tests conducted on
raw pond water)
ROM Coal Storage
Pile Runoff
Major Contributors
Total Discharge (Discharge Seventy
Severity >10/
Health Ecological Health Ecological


2.0EO 1.0E1 — —




1.4EO 8.0EO — —



1.4EO 1.5E1 - —




26EO 1.8E1 - -

2.0EO 1.6E1 — —
Biological Results
Health Ecological Conclusions


H M • Uncertain potential hazard
according to ecological-
based SAM/IA evaluation.
Potentially hazardous based
on bioassay test results
M M



L/N N.C. • Low potential for hazard
according to health-
based criteria.
• Uncertain hazard potential
according to ecological TDS
L/N values.

UN N.C • Low potential for hazard
Recommendations


• Should not discharge directly
to off site surface waters.
should be treated onsite.






• Should not discharge directly
to offsite surface waters;
should be treated onsite.




• Collect runoff for treatment
                                                                                         according to health-based
                                                                                         criteria.
                                                                                         Uncertain hazard potential
                                                                                         according to ecological TDS
                                                                                         values.
Clean Coal Leachate 2.2EO
ROM Coal Leachate 4.0EO
Coarse Refuse Leachate I.OEt
Desilting Pond Sediment
Leachate 4. JEO
Transfer Pond Sediment
Leachate 8.4E-1
Runoff Pond Sediment
Leachate 9.2EO


Desilting Pond Water 6.5EI
Filtered Solids


Transfer Pond Water
Filtered Solids 4.1E2

Runoff Pond Water
Filtered Solids 4.2E1

Desilting Pond
Sediment 1.6E3


Transfer Pond
Sediment 1.2E3


Runoff Pond
Sediment 4.3E2


Coarse Refuse 2. 1E3




3.55?
6.7E1
2.0E-2
2.0E1

1.2E1

33E1


4.1 EJ



6.1 El


3.1 El

3.1 E3



8.1E3



1.0E4


1 OE4




— NH3-N
— NH3-N
- NH3N. Mn. Ni


— —

- Mn


Mn.Hg P



Hg P


Mn.Hg P

Mn.Ba.As. P,Mn.V
Cr.Pb.Li.
Ni.P.V

Cr.Mn,As. P.Mn
Ba.Cd.Pb.
LiMP.V

Ba.As.Co. P.Cd.Ni
Pb.LiM
P,V
Mn.Pb.Se. P.Pb.Mn
As.Ba.Cd.
Cr.Li.Ni.
P.V

L/N
L/N
L/N
L/N

L/N

L/N


M



L/N


L/N

H



H



H


L/N




M
M
M
M

M

M


N.C.



N.C.


N.C.

N.C.



N.C



N.C.


N.C.




• Uncertain hazard potential
according to ecological-based
criteria
• Chemical constituents
are more teachable in
the coarse refuse than
other solids.
• Coarse refuse already
stored in closed system.


• Uncertain hazard potential
according to SAM/IA
evaluation and health-
based bioassay test results.

• Moderate potential for hazard
based on SAM/IA evaluation.
No or low hazard based on
health-related bioassay test
results.
• High potential for hazard
based on SAM/IA evaluation
and health-related bio-
assay test results







• High potential for hazard
based on SAM/IA evaluation.
Low or no hazard based on
health-related bioassay
results.
• Use RCRA's EP Method for
teachability to investigate
leaching potential under
acid conditions.
• Should not discharge pond
waters directly to offsite
surface waters.
• If discharged, treat for
trace metals control
• Check origin of nitrogen
compound in samples
• Retain material onsite via
sedimentation.
• Check forms of phosphorus


• Retain material onsite via
sedimentation
• Check forms of phosphorus


• Retain material onsite
• Check forms of phosphorus
• Further characterization
during level 2 testing







• Store coarse refuse in a
closed system.
• Check forms of phosphorus.


 N.C. = Not conducted.
 L/N = Low or nondetectable effect.
  M  = Moderate effect,
  H  = High effect.

-------
  For  air  samples  there  is a  low
potential  for  hazard from  both the
fugitive participates and fugitive vapors.
Improved  dust control  measures are
recommended  to  decrease   fugitive
particulate emissions.
  For liquid streams the major constitu-
ents of concern were manganese and
nickel. These two metals would require
control  if  the  pond  waters  were
discharged or runoff water was col-
lected and then discharged.
  The solid samples showed the highest
potential  for  hazard.  However,  the
leachates  from the  solids had consider-
ably lower  discharge severity values
than the solids themselves. The recom-
mendation is to retain solids onsite via
sedimentation or filtration.
J. Buroff, A. Jung, L McGilvray, andJ. Strauss are with Versar, Inc., Springfield,
  VA 22151.
David A. Kirchgessner is the EPA Project Officer (see belowj.
The complete report, entitled "Environmental Assessment: Source Test and
  Evaluation Report —Coal Preparation Plant No. 2," {Order No. PB 82-103 5 73;
  Cost: $23.00, 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
                                                                 TfrU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982/559-092/3369

-------
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
        PS   0000329
        U  S  ENVIR  PROTECTION  AGENCY
        REGION  5 LIBRARY
        230  S UEAReQRN  STREEl
        CHICAGO IL 60604

-------