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.
percent—a 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

-------