f/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Researc
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-086 Sept. 1981
Project Summary
Coal Resources and Sulfur
Emissions Regulations:
A Summary of Eight
Eastern and Midwestern States
R. A. Chapman, M. A. Wells, and L. McGilvray
Increasing demand for electric
power and the national mandate to
become less dependent on expensive
imported petroleum will result in the
increased use of coal for power
generation. Accompanying the changes
in fuel mix will be revisions to envi-
ronmental regulations and legislation
and legislation affecting the use of
coal. This report analyzes coal re-
sources, current coal use, and the
effectiveness of SO2 control strategies
for use by coal users, regulators, and
administrators in future coal-related
decisions.
The report focuses on an analysis of
eight major eastern and midwestern
coal-producing states: Alabama, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia. Each state
analysis includes a general overview
of the coal industry, an overview of
coal properties, a description of major
coal seams, an evaluation* of the
quality of coal available to meet
various SOz emissions regulations,
and information regarding the sulfur
content of coals used by utilities in
1979. The report focuses primarily on
physical coal cleaning (PCC) and the
use of low-sulfur coal as viable
emission control strategies. Flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) is discussed to a
lesser extent.
Data on coal resources, coal proper-
ties, coal production, and coal deliveries
to utilities were compiled from several
sources and organized into computer
data bases. The Coal Assessment
Processor (CAP) model was developed
to operate on these data bases to
determine the quantity of coal that
would be available in each state to
meet various SO2 emission regula-
tions using one or a combination of
alternative SO2 control technologies.
With this information, decision makers
can examine the situation from state
to state to identify the appropriate
strategies for controlling SO2 emis-
sions from coal combustion.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by CPA's Industrial Environmen-
tal 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
In the next several years, an increas-
ing amount of coal will be used for
electric power generation in the U.S.
This is in response to both an increased
demand for electric power and the
national mandate to become less
dependent on expensive imported
petroleum. Accompanying the changes
in fuel mix are revisions to environ men-
tal regulations and legislation affecting
the use of coal.
-------
These regulatory considerations
include a growing realization that
accelerated coal use may make it more
difficult to meet State Implementation
Plans (SIPs), to meet Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) require-
ments while still permitting growth, to
find sufficient offsets in nonattainment
areas, and to find cost-effective ways to
control emissions for small boilers.
There is also an emerging awareness of
the acid rain/acid deposition problem
and its potential impact, and of the fact
that fuel sulfur variability and temporal
variations in the efficiency of flue gas
scrubbers are significant considerations
in determining whether any given
source will exceed air quality standards.
To respond to these events, regulators
and administrators must have extensive
information on coal resources, current
coal use, SOz control technologies, and
alternative SOz emission regulatory
strategies. The overall purpose of this
study was to supply regulators and
administrators with information on
current coal use and on the effectiveness
and costs of SO2 control technologies
for the eight major eastern and mid-
western coal producing states: Alabama,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Penn-
sylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. An
analysis of each state includes a general
overview of the coal industry, an over-
view of coal properties, a description of
major coal seams, an evaluation of the
quantity of coal available to meet
various S02 emission regulations, and
information regarding the sulfur content
of coals used by utilities in 1979. The
report focuses primarily on physical coal
cleaning (PCC) as a method of controlling
SOz emissions. Limited comparative
data are presented on chemical coal
cleaning (CCC) and flue gas desulfuriza-
tion (FGD).
Methodology
Each state analysis is organized to
supply the following information:
A general overview of the state's
coal industry, including the location
of coal fields, coal production and
employment for major counties,
and current coal washing practices.
An overview of the properties of
the coal in the state, with emphasis
on coal sulfur content.
A description of the major coal
seams in the state.
The quantity of coal able to meet
various S02 emission ceilings,
floors, and percentage removal
standards using PCC and FGD.
The extent of coal movements
between states and the coal blend-
ing strategies used by the state's
major utility plants to comply with
the SIP SOz standard.
The information presented in this report
was compiled from a number of existing
sources (as documented in the refer-
ences) and from simulations using the
Coal Assessment Processor (CAP)
model. The CAP model was developed
under EPA's Coal Cleaning Program to
determine the quantity of coal available
to meet various SOz emission control
technologies. Five coal data bases and a
washability data base were compiled to
interface with the model. The coal data
bases include reserves data, 1976
production data, 1985 planned produc-
tion data, and utility delivery data for
1977/1978 and 1979. The washability
data give theoretical sulfur and ash
reductions for over 500 coals. The S02
control technologies simulated by the
CAP model include various PCC and
CCC processes, FGD, fluidized-bed
combustion (FBC), low- and medium-
Btu gasification, and PCC + FGD.
Performance models for each of these
control technologies determine poten-
tial S02 reduction and energy penalties.
Only PCC, CCC, and FGD were con-
sidered in this study.
Coal Data Bases
Reserves Data Base
The coal reserves data base contains
52,986 records, each specifying coal
location, quantity, and properties. Coal
quantities were derived from 3,167
resource records representing the
demonstrated coal reserve base as
summarized in Bureau of Mines (BOM)
Reports 1C 8680 and 1C 8693.'1'2' Coal
properties and locations from nearly
269,000 sample analyses recorded in
the "historical coals file" archived by
the BOM in Denver, CO, were matched
geographically with the 3,167 resource
records to produce the 52,986-record
reserves data base. Coal properties
currently specified in the reserves data
base include heating value, sulfur
content, ash content (on a moisture-free
basis), and moisture content. Sulfur
content is divided into pyritic and
organic sulfur in proportion to their ratio
in the washability data base. Other coal
properties available from the BOM
"historical coals file," but not included
in the reserves data base, are: (1)
proximate analysis, (2) ultimate analy-
sis, (3) ash softening temperature, (4)
free swelling index, (5) Hardgrove
grindability index, and (6) preparation
code (i.e., washed or not washed).
Figure 1 shows information which is
summarized on the reserve, production,
and delivery data bases for each state.
1976 Production Data Base
The data base for 1976 production
contains 3,074 records, each including
coal location, quantity, and properties.
Information on the location andquantity
of coal produced in 1976 was obtained
primarily from annual state coal produc-
tion reports, a 1979 Ohio River Basin
Energy Study (ORBES) report,131 and
various Keystone manuals.14'51 Coal
properties were assigned to the 1976
production sources using the BOM
"historical coals file." As a result,
emission histograms for 1976 produc-
tion data are similar to those for the
reserves data.
1985 Planned Production
Data Base
The data base for production planned
for 1985 was developed from individual
mine-expansion plans reported by the
National Coal Association (NCA)'6' and
the Department of Energy's Western
Coal Development Monitoring System
(WCD).(7) The NCA data were combined
with the 1976 production data for the
eastern states and the WCD data were
combined with the 1976 production
data for the western states to form the
4,328-record data base for projected
1985 production. Like the reserves and
1976 production data bases, this data
base uses BOM "historical coals file"
coal properties. The 1985 emission
histogram is essentially an expansion of
the 1976 emission histogram.
Deliveries-to- Utilities
Data Base
The deliveries-to-utilities data base
includes information on the quantity,
cost, and properties (sulfur, ash, heating
value) of all coal delivered to utilities
from September 1977 to September
1978 and from January through
December 1979, as reported to the
Department of Energy on EIA Form 423.
The Form 423 data for September 1977
to December 1978 were obtained from
NCA, while the January through
December 1979 data were obtained
from Coal Outlook. Unlike the other data
bases, this one does not take coal
properties from the BOM "historical.
coals file," since the data are available
-------
" Reserves: 21,055 mi/lion tons, 509 quadrillion Btu
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12.780
907
8,571
14,256
Sulfur
Content
(%)
3.45
1.40
0.50
9.40
^25-1
c
Ash 020'
Content £
(%) :: 15-
$io-
11.78 1.
5.39 £ b'
2.20 '§
37.40 § 0
Q Co
12345678910
al Sulfur Content (Ib S02/ 1 O6 Btu)
1976 Production: 45.80 million tons, 1.11 Quadrillion Btu
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12.921
489
9,750
14,230
Sulfur
Content
3.62
1.02
0.60
8.70
Ash §20'
Contents
(%) J 75-
j£ 70-
77.07 s
2.76 i- 5"
5.20 £
23.40 § 0
0 Cc
rf flri I I
7234
al Sulfur Conl
a
i irfilrfirini
5678 916
ent(lbSO2/10BBtu)
Projected 1985 Production: 54.54 million tons, 1.34 quadrillion Btu
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12,937
481
9,750
14.230
Sulfur
Content
(%)
3.62
1.00
0.60
8.70
?25n
Q)
Ash £20-
Content £
(%) $ 75-
70.95 -
2.03 f 5"
5.20 g
n ,n
J(
n rrrm
23.40 SO ) 2 3 4
I ill
r
I i rflrnnrn
5 6 7 8 9 10
a Coal Sulfur Content (Ib S02/ / O6 Btu)
7973 Deliveries to Utilities: 38.31 million tons, 0.86 quadrillion Btu
Ash |20-
Heating Sulfur
Value Content Content $
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) £
15-
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
11.183
838
8.564
14.436
3.48
0.95
0.67
6.58
15.00
4.12
3.00
25.10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
Coal Sulfur Content (Ib S02/706 Btu)
from Form 423. \n addition to coa\
quantities and properties, this data base
identifies coals that were physically
cleaned before delivery in 1979. This
feature allows the CAP model to
simulate cleaning only for coals not
cleaned prior to delivery. The reserve
and production histograms of coal
sulfur content are not identical with
those of coal delivered to utilities. The
delivery histograms exclude metallurgi-
cal coals and some coal delivered to
utilities has been cleaned.
Coal Washability
The coal washability data base
contains information on the composition
and washability characteristics of 587
coal samples as reported by BOM
Report Rl 8118I8> and later unpublished
supplements.
The location of samples in the
washability data base is given by state,
county, and coal bed. For each sample,
the results of laboratory float-sink tests
were included for samples crushed to
pass through 1.5 in.,* 3.8 in., and 14-
mesh screens. The following informa-
tion was included for the total sample
and for products floating at 1.3,1.4,1.6,
and sometimes 1.9 specific gravity:
weight recovery, Btu recovery, heating
value, pyritic sulfur percentage, total
sulfur percentage, ash percentage, and
the theoretical pounds of SOz per
million Btu.
In the CAP model, each data base coal
at the county-seam level was assigned
the washability characteristics of one or
more of the 587 coal samples. Wash-
ability was assigned on a geographical
basis in the following order of priority:
(1) county bed, (2) state bed, (3) state
county, (4) out-of-state bed, and (5)
closest out-of-state sample. Coals from
Appalachia (Alabama, Georgia, eastern
Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsyl-
vania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia) and from the eastern Midwest
(Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky)
were represented by 380 and 98
washability samples, respectively, and
in most cases county-bed or state-bed
matching was possible. For the remain-
ing coal regions, represented by only
109 washability samples, matching is
often more tenuous. Figure 2 illustrates
the summary of coal washability data
given for each state.
Figure 1. Ohio coal properties fact sheet.
''Certain nonmetric units are used in this
Summary for the reader's convenience Readers
more familiar with metric units are asked to use the
conversion table provided with this Summary
-------
Raw Coal: 90 Samples
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12,494
930
8,571
14,256
Sulfur
Content
3.55
1.39
0.67
6.55
Ash |20-
Content^
c
270-
73.67 a! ,-
5.56 £
3.57 |
37.43 § °
a
««JK
Ooal Sulfur Content (Ib SOz/106Btu)
PCC I: 7-7/2 in., 1.6 sp. gr., 90 Samples _
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
13,212
586
1 1.689
14.325
Sulfur
Content
2.77
7.76
0.66
5.46
Q.
Ash |20-
Content^
c
S '0-
^
S.65 <£ ,-.
3.08 £
3.10 '§
77.50 * °
a <
rffcfc
7 2 3 45. 6 78 9 10
?oal Sulfur Content (lbSO2/106 Btu)
PCC II: 3/8 in.. 1.3 sp. gr., 90 Samples
3T25!
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
13,952
329
12,871
14,578
Sulfur
Content
1.81
0.89
0.51
4.26
Ash m20-
Content^
c
£70-
W
7.07 ~ 5'
7.50 -g
8.50 g 0
a Ct
_ _F
Ml
\ \\l\ri\ rn\ n
7 23456/'i$701
>al Sulfur Content (Ib SO*/ JO6 Btu)
Emission Reduction vs. Energy Recovery:
Emission Reduction
Btu Recovery
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC I
25.9
12.7
8.0
63.0
PCC II
53.4
13.7
16.0
81.0
PCC I
95.2
2.9
82.4
99.6
PCC II
45.7
22.2
5.4
90.0
Figure 2. Ohio coal washability data sheet.
4
SO2 Emission Control
Technologies
Physical Coal Cleaning
The PCC processes that can be
simulated by the CAP model include any
combination of top size (i.e., 1.5 in., 3/8-
in., 14 mesh) and specific gravity (i.e.,
1.3, 1.4, 1.6). For these state analyses,
only two combinations were chosen:
1.5 in. top size, 1.6 specific gravity; and
3/8-in. top size, 1.3 specific gravity. The
first combination is called PCC I; and the
second, PCC II. The PCC I simulation
corresponds better to moderate clean-
ing by commercial processes. The PCC II
simulation slightly overestimates SO2
emission reductions from most existing
plants, but can be regarded as the S02
reduction which can be achieved by
advanced PCC processes.
Flue Gas Desulfurization
The performance of FGD systems is
simulated in the CAP model by assuming
the use of wet lime/limestone systems
having a 90 percent SO2 removal
efficiency (30-day averaging time).
Partial scrubbing is assumed in cases
where the emission limit can be met by
removing less than 90 percent of the
SO2, thereby allowing part or all of the
flue gas reheat to be achieved by mixing
the scrubbed gas with the bypassed
unscrubbed gas. Energy penalties
assigned to FGD systems vary between
5 percent, where all of the flue gas is
scrubbed, and 1 percent, where all of
the reheat is provided by the bypassed
gas.
SO2 Emissions Regulations
The CAP model can evaluate the
effect of different S02 emission require-
ments on actual emissions. The emission
requirements include emission ceilings,
required percentage S02 removal,
emission floors, and minimum required
percentage S02 removal. For example,
as shown in Figure 3, the CAP model
can determine the amount of Ohio coal
that can meet a given emission limit.
Figure 4 illustrates the effect that S02
reduction requirements and S02 emis-
sion limits will have on the availability of
cleaned compliance from Ohio. Or, as
provided in Table 1, the amount of SO2
reduction and costs of cleaning for Ohio
coals can be calculated by the CAP
model. Similar figures and tables are
presented in the report for the eight
states studied.
-------
- ioo-
90-
_
~g70-|
-------
/OO-i
O Emission Ceiling in Ib SOz/10e Btu
10
20
30
40
50
70
80
90
100
Btu's Able to Meet Emission Standard (%)
Figure 4.
Percentage of projected 1985 Ohio coal production able to meet various
SOz emission standards defined by an emission ceiling and percentage
SOz reduction using PCC at 1-1 /2 in., 1.6 sp. gr.
percenta low price compared with
that of other SOz control strategies.
Another measure of the cost of pollution
control is the cost-effectiveness of the
process, which is calculated as the cost
per ton of S02 removed. Clearly, PCC is
more cost-effective for western Kentucky
coals than for southern West Virginia
coals ($310/ton versus $4,100/ton of
SO2 removed). Fortunately, coal clean-
ing is most cost-effective with those
coals that have the greatest potential
S02 reduction.
In considering air pollution control
strategies, it is important to keep in
mind the local coal market and its
impact on local employment. Each state
analysis in this report includes employ-
ment and production data for 1977. The
labor requirements in the different
states vary depending primarily on coal
mining methods. The most labor inten-
sive mining occurs in West Virginia,
Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
because of the heavy reliance on under-
ground mining. Accordingly, regulations
affecting coal production could affect
workers in these states more than those
in other, less labor intensive, areas.
References
1. Thompson, Robert D., and York,
Harold F. The Reserve Base of U.S.
Coals by Sulfur Content, Vol. 1, The
Eastern States. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular 1C 8680. Wash-
Table 2. Average Emission Parameters and Emission Reductions in Coal from Eight States
Region
and
State
Number of
Washability
Samples
Average
Emission Parameter
(Ib SOZ/10* Btu)
Average Emission
Reduction
Using PCC I*
Northern Appalachia
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Northern West Virginia
Southern Appalachia
Southern West Virginia
Virginia
Eastern Kentucky
Eastern Midwest
Western Kentucky
Indiana
Illinois
Alabama
Alabama
170
90
30
16
8
13
37
21
40
10
3.9
5.7
4.8
1.4
1.1
2.2
6.7
5.9
6.5
1.9
33.2
25.9
28.6
10.1
7.6
15.9
31.5
26.4
29.3
10.8
*PCC I is equivalent to coal crushed to 1-1/2 in. top size and separated at 1.60 specific gravity.
6
-------
- Table 3. Current (1979) S02 Reduction Achieved by Cleaning Utility Coal from Eight States
Region and
State in
Which Coal
Was Mined
Coal Delivered
to Utilities
in 1979
(103 Tons)
Utility Coal
Cleaned in
1979
(Percent)
SO2 Content of Coal
As Mined As Delivered
(103 Tons) (103 Tons)
Average S02
Reduction by Coal
Cleaning in 1979
(Percent/
Northern Appalachia
Pennsylvania 47,400
Ohio 38,300
Northern West Virginia 31,300
Southern Appalachia
Southern West Virginia 17,500
Virginia 13,400
Eastern Kentucky 68,600
Eastern Midwest
Western Kentucky 38,100
Indiana 25,300
Illinois 49,500
30
11
23
9
7
22
34
52
72
2,100
2,750
1,760
300
280
1,630
2,880
1,620
3,570
1,860
2,670
1,690
290
270
1.570
2,600
1,410
2.780
12
3
4
1
1
4
10
13
22
Alabama
Alabama
Eight-State Total
14,600
344,000
32
33
460
17,340
440
15,570
5
10
Table 4. Additional SO2 Reduction That Could Have Been Achieved if All the 1979 Utility Coal from Eight States Had Been Cleaned
Region and
State in
Which Coal
Was Mined
Additional SOz Reduction*
by Washing AH Coal
(103 Tons) (Percent)
Level ized Cost of Cleaning
the Additional Coals
($/Ton**j (Mills/ kWh***)
Cost-Effectiveness
of Coal Cleaning
($/Ton S02 Removed)
Northern Appalachia
Pennsylvania 470
Ohio 740
Northern West Virginia 280
Southern Appalachia
Southern West Virginia 30
Virginia 30
Eastern Kentucky 260
Eastern Midwest
Western Kentucky 530
Indiana 180
Illinois 230
Alabama
25
28
16
11
10
16
21
13
8
9.10
9.30
8.00
7.90
8.30
10.00
6.50
4.60
6.60
4.0
4,4
3.5
3.4
3.5
4.4
3.1
2.2
3.3
670
430
720
4,100
3.700
2,200
310
310
430
Alabama
Eight-State Total
70
2,850
17
18
8.60
8.40
3.8
3.8
1,200
710
*Over current practice (see Table 3).
**Of raw coal.
***For a generating unit with a heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh.
ington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Mines,
1975.
Hamilton, Patrick A., White, D.H. Jr.,
and Matson, Thomas K. The Reserve
Base of U.S. Coals by Sulfur Content.
Vol. 2., The Western States. Bureau
of Mines Information Circular 1C
8693. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau
of Mines, 1975.
Walls, David S. et al. A Baseline
Assessment of Coal Industry Struc-
ture in the Ohio River Basin Energy
Study Region. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Re-
search and Development, subcon-
tract under prime contract R805588-
01-0. Washington, D.C. 1979.
4. McGraw-Hill, Inc. U.S. Coal Mine
Production by Seam - 1976. New
York, 1978.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I98I/559-092/3308
-------
5. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1978 Keystone
Coal Industry Manual. New York,
1978.
6. National Coal Association. Planned
New and Expanded Coal Mines
1978-1987. Washington, D.C., 1979.
7. U.S. Department of Energy, Division
of Coal Production Technology.
Western Coal Development Moni-
toring System: A Survey of Coal
Mining Capacity in the West. Wash-
ington, D.C., April 1979.
8. Cavallaro, J.A., Johnston, M.T., and
Deurbrouk, A.W. Sulfur Reduction
Potential of the Coals of the United
States. Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigation Rl 8118. Washington,
D.C.. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1976.
Conversion Factors
ton = 0.907 metric tons
Ib = 0.436 kg
Btu = 1055.6 Joule
Btu/lb = 2326 Joule/kg
in. = 2.54 cm
°C = 5/9 x (°F-32)
Ib/in.2 = 0.07 kg/cm2
Ib SOz/106 Btu = 430 ng S02/Joule
R. A. Chapman and M. A. Wells are with Teknekron Research, Inc., 2118 Milvia
Street, Berkeley, CA 94704; L McGilvray is with Versar. Inc.. 6621 Electronic
Drive, Springfield. VA 22151.
James D. Kilgroe is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Coal Resources and Sulfur Emissions Regula-
tions: A Summary of Eight Eastern and Midwestern States," (Order No.
PB 81 -240 319; Cost: $11.00, 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
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 000042V
U S tMtfIR PROTECTION
NEGICH 5 LlBRAKY
230 S DEArtdOHN STREtT
CHICAGO IL
------- |