vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/7-79-073g
Laboratory December 1979
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Environmental
Assessment of Coal
Cleaning Processes:
Second Annual Report
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic/
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide'range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-073g
December 1979
Environmental Assessment
of Coal Cleaning Processes:
Second Annual Report
by
A. W. Lemmon, Jr., G. L Robinson,
P. Van Voris, and S. E. Rogers
Battelle Memorial Institute
Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Contract No. 68-02-2163
Program Element No. EHE623A
EPA Project Officer: James D. Kilgroe
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
FOREWORD
Many elements and chemical compounds are known to be toxic to man and
other biological species. However, our knowledge concerning the levels and
conditions under which these substances are toxic is extremely limited.
Little is known concerning the emission of these pollutants from industrial
processes and the mechanisms by which they are transported, transformed,
dispersed, or accumulated in our environment.
Portions of the Federal Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act require the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and regulate hazardous or
toxic substances which result from man's industrial activities. Industrial
pollutants often are identified only after harmful health or ecological
effects are noted. Remedial actions are costly, the damage to human and
other biological populations often is irreversible, and the persistence
of some environmental contaminants may endanger future populations.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is responsible for
health and ecological research, studies concerning the transportation and
fate of pollutants, and the development of technologies for controlling
industrial pollutants. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
(IERL/RTP), an ORD organization, is responsible for development of pollution
control technology and conducts a large environmental assessment program.
The primary objectives of this program are:
• The development of information on the quantities of
toxic pollutants emitted from various industrial
processes—information needed to prioritize health
and ecological research efforts.
• The identification of industrial pollutant emissions
which pose a clearly evident health or ecological
risk and which should be regulated.
• The evaluation and development of technologies for
controlling pollution from these toxic substances.
The coal cleaning environmental assessment program has as its specific
objectives the evaluation of pollution control problems which are unique to
coal preparation, storage, and transportation. This report is a summary of
the work performed on this program during the period of October 1, 1977,
through November 17, 1978.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ii
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi
INTRODUCTION 1
SYSTEMS STUDIES 2
Technology Overview 2
Detailed Process Descriptions 3
Development of Environmental Assessment Criteria 3
Pollution Control Trade-Off Studies Planning 7
DATA ACQUISITION 14
Selection of Test Sites 14
Sampling and Analytical Techniques 17
Source Test Program 18
Site Category 1 Test Plan 20
GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT 21
Homer City Power Complex Testing 23
Modification of Computer Models for
Evaluating Process Technology 25
Coal Cleaning Information Center 27
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
US/USSR Technical Exchange Activity on the
Environmental Consequences of Coal Utilization 29
Coal Cleaning As An SC>2 Emission Control Strategy
and Barriers to Its Commercialization 32
Reserve Processing Assessment Model 46
A Major National Symposium on Coal Cleaning 49
List of Papers at Coal Cleaning Symposium
Prepared by Battelle Staff 51
Reports and Other Documents Prepared or in Preparation
on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract No.
68-02-2163 by Battelle's Columbus Laboratories 52
APPENDIX A. SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM 54
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. COMPARTMENTAL MODEL OF GENERIC ECOSYSTEM AND
DOMINANT PATHWAYS OF POLLUTANT TRANSPORT 6
2. SCOPES OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR TRADE-OFF STUDIES 10
3. BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM OF GENERALIZED COAL PREPARATION PLANT AND
ASSOCIATED FACILITIES SHOWING POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS .... 19
4. GRAB SAMPLING LOCATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INPUT,
PRODUCT, AND WASTE STREAMS FROM THE HOMER CITY COAL
CLEANING PLANT IN ITS FINAL CONFIGURATION 22
5. MAP OF THE HOMER CITY POWER COMPLEX 24
6. INCREASE IN THE QUANTITIES OF SIP-COMPLIANCE
COAL ACHIEVABLE BY COAL CLEANING 35
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. PROPOSED PRIORITY I POLLUTANTS FOR COAL CLEANING PROCESSES .... 4
2. CLASSIFICATION VARIABLES AND ASSOCIATED LEVELS
USED TO DEFINE SITE CATEGORIES 15
3. FACTORIAL LISTING OF SITE CATEGORIES 15
4. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS BY SITE CATEGORY 16
5. PRODUCTION OF ELECTRIC POWER AND THE INSTALLED CAPACITY OF
SOVIET AND U.S. GENERATING PLANTS 30
6. POSTULATED CONDITIONS OF AVAILABILITY 38
7. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR A 500-MW COAL-BURNING POWER PLANT 39
8. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR POWER GENERATION USING VARIOUS CONTROL MODES
USING VARIOUS CONTROL MODES 41
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although this second annual report was primarily written by the stated
authors, major writing contributions were also made by Frederick K. Goodman,
Elton H. Hall, Jane H. McCreery, G. Ray Smithson, Jr., and Duane A. Tolle.
Other researchers have made significant contributions to the program during
the period covered by this report. These include David P- Ambrose, Wayne
E. Ballantyne, Steven A. Barker, Richard E. Barrett, Donald P. Brown,
Bruce E. Buxton, Ronald Clark, Robert L. Gofer, Barney W. Cornaby, Linda
M. Curran, Robert A. Ewing, Henry M. Grotta, R. E. Heffelfinger, Robert D.
Igou, Seongwoo Min, David W. Neuendorf, David A. Sharp, Shirley J. Smith,
Michael R. Taafee, Ralph E. Thomas, Bruce W. Vigon, and Jon C. Zuck of the
Battelle staff. Dr. G. E. Raines, Paul W. Spaite, and Dr. Harold L. Lovell,
consultants to Battelle, also made significant contributions to the program.
Mr. G. Ray Smithson, Jr., is the Program Manager, and Mr. Alexis W. Lemmon,
Jr., is the Deputy Program Manager.
This study was conducted as a part of Battelle's Columbus Laboratories'
program, "Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes", which has
been supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park (IERL/RTP), North
Carolina. The advice and counsel of the EPA Project Officer, Mr. James D.
Kilgroe, and other IERL/RTP staff members were very helpful in performance
of this work.
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories (BCL) is performing an environmental
assessment of coal cleaning processes under Contract No. 68-02-2163 with the
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, (IERL/RTP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The broad objective of Battelle's program with EPA is to perform a comprehen-
sive assessment of the environmental pollution which results from transportation,
storage, cleaning (physical and chemical), and refuse disposal of coal.
A strong base of engineering, ecological, pollution control, and cost
data is being established which can be used in comparing coal cleaning
processes from both an environmental and economic viewpoint. This information
also can be used to identify needs for pollution control technology development.
The program is organized into three major tasks: (1) system studies,
(2) data acquisition, and (3) general program support. This report covers the
period from October 1, 1977, until research activities ceased on November 17,
1978. During that period significant advances were achieved in all three task
categories. Since that time, all activities have been directed at the pre-
paration of reports which are programmed to summarize logically the research
results. Of necessity, in the preparation of the summarizing reports, defi-
ciencies in the research results, when observed, are being corrected. Thus,
even though formal research activities were completed on November 17, 1978,
research progress still is being made through the focus being provided through
report preparation.
Future research efforts on this continuing U.S. EPA technical area will
be conducted by another contractor. Thus, except in generalities, no future
directions for this research have been delineated.
-------
SYSTEMS STUDIES
Systems studies have included: revision of the technology overview
report drafted during the first program year; preparation of a summary
(p_9)*&
of the pollution control technology effort ; continuation of the
development of environmental assessment criteria for pollutants associated
with coal cleaning processes; and initiation of pollution control trade-off
study planning.
Technology Overview
A technology overview report was prepared. This report summarizes the
state of the art of physical coal cleaning with respect to cost, energy
efficiency, applicability, extent of development, and commercialization
prospects. In the report, the various current physical coal cleaning
operations, such as coal pretreatment, coal separation, product conditioning,
and auxiliary processes are described and combined into systems capable of
minimum, intermediate, and maximum coal cleaning efficiencies. The physical
and chemical properties of coal are discussed and the pertinent literature
on washability of many U.S. coals is cited. Technological descriptions are
presented for coal cleaning processes, e.g., size reduction, sizing,
desliming screens, fine coal separation, jigs, dense-medium vessels, air
tables, and wet concentrating tables. Potential pollutants evolved from
these processes and their control are identified.
The revised draft report provides a background against which requirements
for further developments of coal cleaning technology and control techniques
for the associated pollutants can be established. It also provides information
* See pages 52-53.
** See page 51.
-------
on costs of physical coal cleaning and comparative economics with respect to
flue gas desulfurization. It is concluded that physical coal cleaning offers
significant environmental and economic benefits, even when it must be combined
with flue gas desulfurization to reach stringent emission limits. The economic
benefits of coal cleaning more than offset, its cost. Additional details of
these reported results are provided later in this report.*
Detailed Process Descriptions
A preliminary report was prepared in June, 1977, to provide detailed
descriptions of pollution control technology applicable to coal cleaning pro-
(2)
cesses.
Specifically, emissions of potential pollutants from coal preparation
plants, storage, transportation and handling facilities, and solid waste
disposal areas, based on data available in literature were characterized.
Various control technologies for air pollution, water pollution, and solid
waste were described and evaluated.
(P-9)
A technical paper on pollution control technology for coal cleaning
processes, presented at the 1978 EPA symposium on coal cleaning**, represents
a concise summary of this work. Included are the types and quantities of
pollutants resulting from coal cleaning processes and the types and costs of
applicable pollution control technologies currently available.
Development of Environmental
Assessment Criteria
The development of environmental assessment criteria for pollutants asso-
ciated with coal cleaning processes is necessary prior to establishment of
the relative importance which should be placed upon monitoring and controlling
specific pollutants. Pollutants to all three media—air, water, and land—
(3)
were considered. A draft preliminary report on this subtask was submitted
to EPA in April, 1977. Approaches and potential difficulties in (1) estab-
lishing a universe of pollutants of concern, (2) estimating enviornmental con-
centrations, (3) estimating permissible concentrations, (4) preliminary rating
* See pages 36-42.
** See pages 49-51 and Appendix A.
-------
of pollutants, and (5) refining pollutant ratings were presented. A summary
of pollution control regulations related to coal production, cleaning, and
consumption was included.
During the current period, the principal emphasis of the research was
on selection of methods for determining and evaluating estimated permissible
concentrations (EPC's) of pollutants for man and biota. Research was also
continued on selecting pollutants of most concern and selecting methods for
estimating concentrations of pollutants after transport to the environment.
(4)
A draft special report on this subtask was submitted to EPA in January,
1979. A total of 51 elements and 23 substances or groups of substances,
listed in Table 1, are recommended in the report for investigation as Priority
I pollutants related to coal cleaning processes.
TABLE 1. PROPOSED PRIORITY I POLLUTANTS FOR COAL
CLEANING PROCESSES
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbon
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Indium
Elements
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Niobium
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tellurium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Groupings
Alkalinity Hydrocarbons
Ammonia Photochemical
Cyanide Oxidants
Chlorides Oil and Grease
Nitrates Phenols
Organic Sulfur
Sulfides Compounds
Sulfates
SO Organic Nitrogen
NO Compounds
To?al Sus- Polycyclic Organic
pended Materials (POM's)
Solids Carbon Chloroform
Extract (CCE)
Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS)
Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD)
Total Suspended
Particulates (TSP)
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
-------
The fundamental criterion for ranking the importance of any pollutant
is the relationship between its expected environmental concentration and the
maximum concentration which presents no hazard to man or biota on a long-term
basis. Environmental concentrations depend upon emission rates and the
effects of physical transport and dispersion. Ultimately, these data will
come from field measurements but in the interim must be estimated. Methodologies
for these estimations were reviewed; the requisite methodology is well developed
and little further development appears necessary.
Ecological transport and distribution is much less well developed, and
the investigation revealed that there are large gaps in the data for many
elements and many species. For purposes of investigating ecological transport
and distribution, a compartmental model of a generic ecosystem was defined, as
shown in Figure 1, with partitioning into functional compartments which represent
the dominant sinks, biotic groups, and pathways of a typical ecosystem. Illus-
trative data on percentage uptake/retention (on a concentration basis) were
presented for eight Priority I elements, i.e., arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
iron, lead, manganese, mercury, and selenium.
The basic form for the equation for calculating environmental goals, such
as EPC's, may be simply stated as:
EPC = (dose/response) x adjustment factor(s),
where dose/response is expressed as an oral LD > TLV (threshold limit value),
lowest concentration, or some similar form relating the dose of a particular
compound or substance to the response of a particular receptor population. A
variety of factors is used to adjust the dose/response data to yield an EPC.
Adjustment factors include exposure time, elimination rates, bioaccumulation,
method of exposure, and safety factors. Adjustment factors can be used to
correct deficiencies in the dose/response data or to compensate for circum-
stances peculiar to the unknown situation, such as accumulation of the chemical
in tissues that jeopardizes the organism's health.
Twenty formulae for deriving EPC's were identified and considered in this
study. No one formula was found to fulfill all needs; recommendations were
developed for suggested improvements. A major difficulty in all formulae is
the inability to utilize the variety of pertinent toxicological data available.
Improved methods are badly needed for interconversion of toxicological data
-------
SURFACE (STREAM.
POND. OR LAKE)
WATER X,
TERRESTRIAL
AQUATIC
[F-j^ (having components FI_I and P,*) = airborne atmospheric
forcing function, and F2 = aquatic input forcing
function.] Man is shown, but no data are reported.
FIGURE 1. COMPARTMENTAL MODEL OF GENERIC ECOSYSTEM AND
DOMINANT PATHWAYS OF POLLUTANT TRANSPORT
-------
to more useable forms. Equations for conversion of toxicological data for
four non-oral routes of administration to an LD,-n basis were reviewed.
It was concluded that preliminary, working pollutant priority lists can
be derived by comparing the emission concentrations (uncontrolled and con-
trolled) in each stream (air or water) with the concentrations established
by air or water quality criteria or by regulation. These concentration levels
may be health- or ecology-based, or both; or they may reflect available tech-
nology, e.g., "best available control technology" (BACT). Such lists will
provide a working basis for prioritization of R&D efforts while the more
precise and sophisticated environmental goals, such as multimedia environ-
mental goals (MEG's) and minimum acute toxicity effluents (MATE's) are being
developed and improved.
Major accomplishments of this subtask were (1) development of a sound
understanding of the types and forms of environmental assessment criteria
needed in support of the coal cleaning environmental assessment program,
(2) development of conceptual approaches to estimation of environmental
concentrations and development of environmental goals, (3) identification
of data and methodological gaps, and (4) development of recommendations for
further research needed to close these gaps.
It was shown that the problem of an adequate health and toxicological
effects data base equals or exceeds the methodology problem. One of the most
critical information needs to support the derivation of EPC's are dose/response
data on the health and ecological effects of individual pollutants and their
mixtures. Data are sparse on the pollutants of concern in coal cleaning.
Pollution Control Trade-Off Studies Planning
A work effort was initiated in December, 1977, to develop plans and make
computer program modifications in preparation for pollution control trade-off
studies. Two areas were defined as needing trade-off studies:
• Pollution control techniques for coal cleaning processes
• Systems for S0? emission control.
Five individual research components were undertaken as part of this
subtask, each contributing methodologies needed to achieve objectives in the
two trade-off studies areas. Not all objectives were reached because research
efforts were ended on November 17, 1978.
-------
Planning for Trade-Off Studies of
Pollution Control Techniques for~
Co'al Cleaning Plants
These planning and computer modeling activities were planned to provide a
methodology for identifying combinations of pollution control equipment and
techniques which would result in minimum environmental impact and/or pollution
control costs for various types of coal cleaning plants. Extensions were
planned for Coal Preparation Simulation Model Version 4 (CPSM4), as modified
by Battelle, to permit simulation of pollution control techniques for air,
water, and solid waste. In addition, the feasibility and practicality of
various mathematical optimization techniques were investigated as a means of
determining the combination of pollution control processes and the operating
level of each process that would result in the minimum total annual cost of
pollution control for coal cleaning plants in the course of their meeting
emission standards.
To this end, preliminary algorithms were developed for use in simulation
of control techniques for air pollution and solid waste. A review of the
known literature and other data pertaining to the simulation of water pollution
control indicated that sufficient data are available for development and
testing of preliminary algorithms for water pollution control techniques.
Site-specific data, at least in the area of solid waste control, ultimately
will be necessary for proper application.
Also, extensions have been made to Battelle's modified version of Coal
Preparation Simulation Model Version 4 (CPSM4), to incorporate algorithms for
coal size degradation, dewatering devices, water flow streams, dryers, thick-
eners, and a cost component. The expanded computer model, including Battellefs
modified version of CPSM4 is called Coal Cleaning Assessment Model (CCAM).
Cost relationships were developed from articles in the literature for
equipment and techniques in the area of air and water pollution control and
solid waste disposal. The cost relationships were to be factored into the
computer model to permit costs of alternative pollution control techniques for
coal cleaning plants to be compared. Cost functions were developed for neutral-
ization, coarse refuse disposal, scrubbers, cyclones, filters, and screens.
-------
Although significant progress was made in developing methods and computer
programs for pollution control trade-off studies, substantial work remains to
be accomplished. Investigation of mathematical optimization techniques is
discussed in the next section.
Planning for Trade-Off Studies
of Systems for SO,, Emission Control
These planning and computer modeling activities were developed as a means
for providing a methodology for comparing environmental factors and costs for
alternative systems for S09 emission control in utilizing coal as an environ-
mentally acceptable fuel. In addition, approaches for comparing systems with
respect to energy consumption were to be defined. The methodology was intended
to be applied to the following SO,., emission control strategies:
(1) Physical coal cleaning (PCC)
(2) Flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
(3) Use of naturally occurring low sulfur coal
(4) Appropriate combinations of the above strategies.
Approaches for modeling chemical coal cleaning and chemically active
fluidized bed combustion processes were sought. In addition, an investigation
was planned for studying the feasibility and practicality of various mathematical
optimization techniques, to be used as a means of determining the S0_ emission
control system that will result in the minimum total annual cost, or cost per
10 Btu (or kWh), for the coal utilization facility while meeting actual or
projected emission standards.
The preliminary design and initial testing of the overall computer control
system to support the subroutines for the system trade-off studies were com-
pleted. This overall computer program is called "Emission Control Assessment
Model (ECAM)". The scopes of the three computer programs partially developed
on this entire subtask are shown in Figure 2. ECAM represents a generalization
of the techniques used in CPSM4 and CCAM. ECAM was to deal with the entire
coal processing system including transportation, handling, storage, physical
coal cleaning with control technology, and end-use facilities which may use
flue gas desulfurization systems. Preliminary ECAM subroutines were written
for transportation, handling, storage, and boiler operations. The storage
-------
ECAM
ECAM, CCAM, and CPSM4 (modified) are process simulation models.
LEGEND
PCC:
CT:
THS:
ECAM:
CCAM:
CPSM4: Coal Preparation Simulation Model-Version 4 as Modified
Physical Coal Cleaning
Control Technology for Coal Cleaning Plant Pollutants
Transportation, Handling, and Storage
Emission Control Assessment Model
Coal Cleaning Assessment Model
FIGURE 2. SCOPES OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR TRADE-OFF STUDIES
10
-------
subroutine included an algorithm for leachate from coal and refuse storage
piles.
Study of mathematical optimization techniques for coal cleaning plant
pollution control techniques and SO emission control systems resulted in the
selection of geometric programming for intensive investigation. Other tech-
niques considered included sequences of linear programs and gradient methods.
An example was developed to illustrate the application of geometric programming
to the optimization of SO emission control systems; but computer runs of the
example are needed.
Analyzing Sulfur Variability Using
Methods of Geostatistics
Sulfur variability in coal was analyzed using the methods of geostatistics.
Thus, an exploratory application of geostatistics was made of data covering
the entire year of 1970 for daily averages of Ib SO^/IO Btu for the Helen
mine. This application was subject to several qualifications, including the
assumption that successive mining days are equivalent to sampling at uniformly
spaced locations along a straight line in a coal seam. The resulting empirical
variogram was found to be well-fitted by the standard Matheron model. The
variograms and a derived formula were then used to predict the reduction in
the variance of averages based on n successive daily run-of-mine measurements.
In contrast to the simple statistical relation for independent measurements,
the variograms approach gave excellent predictions for the variability of
averages based on different sample sizes. A paper on this research was
(P-l)
presented at the coal cleaning symposium
A number of investigations previously have attempted to sort out the
complexities of the variability associated with coal measurements, and the
results have been subject to much controversy. In this current work, methods
of geostatistics were applied to the analysis of sulfur variability in coal,
with good agreement, for the data examined, between observed and predicted
variances as a function of sample size. These results suggest that the methods
of geostatistics may have important applications to a wide variety of coal
sampling problems.
11
-------
Development and Validation of
a Methodology for Representing
Washability Data by Mathematical
Techniques
An investigation was made of suitable mathematical techniques for inter-
polating and extrapolating limited experimental washability data. It was
found that the weight fractions for washability data for Homer City coal (Feed
No. 1) were well represented by Rosin-Rammler distributions. After the data
were corrected for truncation, excellent fits were obtained for the distribu-
tion of weight according to size, for each of 12 specific gravity fractions.
The characteristic size parameters and dispersion parameters of the Rosin-
Rammler distribution show a discontinuity at a specific gravity of approxi-
mately 1.4. This behavior requires further study to determine how to obtain
a well-behaved surface that can be used as a general basis for interpolating
among limited washability data to obtain more detailed washability data. A
(P-5)
paper on this research was presented at the coal cleaning symposium
The initial results of the washability data study indicate that coarse
washability data can be refined by mathematical interpolation techniques based
on Rosin-Rammler distributions. The use of this technique has the potential
of significantly reducing the cost of obtaining empirical washability data.
Conceptualization of a Model to
Represent Effects of Clean Coal
on Boiler Performance
A conceptual simulation model was desired to represent the relationships
between boiler performance parameters and coal characteristics. In the effort
to conceptualize the model to represent the effects of clean coal on boiler
performance, it became useful to think in terms of three categories of data
and/or information, as follows:
(1) Boiler (plant) performance parameters
(2) Potential problem elements in boiler operation
(that affect performance)
(3) Properties of the coal feedstock.
The major boiler (plant) performance parameters were determined to be as
follows:
12
-------
• Boiler (plant) capacity • Bottom-ash-hopper pluggage
• Boiler (plant) availability • Convection pass fouling
• Unit efficiency • Convection pass corrosion
• Operating costs (other than fuel) • Air preheater corrosion
• Maintenance costs • Others.
The potential problem elements that most relate to coal variables
include:
• Coal handling system capacity • Coal feeder line wear
• Pulverizer capacity • Wall tube slagging
• Pulverizer wear • Wall tube corrosion,.
Coal properties of interest include:
• Ash content • Grindability
• Sulfur content • Moisture content
• Ash analysis • Others.
If adequate data were available, it might be possible to relate coal
properties directly to performance parameters. However, these data are
not available, except for a few instances. Thus, it probably would be
necessary to relate coal properties to potential problem elements in selected
areas (e.g., fouling and slagging) and then to estimate relationships between
potential problem elements and performance parameters. Efforts involved (1)
establishing priorities of the relationships so that initial emphasis could
be placed on the most important areas, and (2) assembling the data and body
of knowledge necessary to understand and document the more important relation-
ships. To the extent justified by available data, quantitative relationships
were to be established. Where available data were inadequate to establish
quantitative relationships, subjective estimates of quantitative relationships
were to be made.
There are strong preliminary indications that the use of clean coal can
have a major beneficial impact on boiler availablity, capacity, efficiency,
and operating and maintenance costs. The greatest economic benefits of coal
cleaning may be due to the effects of clean coal on boiler performance. The
preliminary study in this area has resulted in definitions of the scope and
relevant aspects of the problem and preliminary approaches for estimating
relationships between potential problem elements and performance parameters.
13
-------
DATA ACQUISITION
Data acquisition efforts included (1) selecting final preferred test sites
and making arrangements for testing at five of the ten sites, (2) selecting and
documenting the preferred procedures for sampling and analysis, (3) designing
the overall source test program, and (4) preparing the specific test plan for
Site Category 1. These activities were based generally on a previously
developed plan.
Selection of Test Sites
Coal cleaning facilities were selected for field testing and sampling
programs which will be conducted in support of the overall program directed at
making an environmental assessment of the pollution potential of various coal
cleaning processes. Progress prior to October, 1977, involved the development
of a selection scheme, which was obtained by applying a statistical rationale
for sequential sampling. First, four carefully selected variables, considered
to have the greatest influence on the kinds of pollution controls needed for
coal cleaning operations, were defined. As shown in Table 2, these variables
are: neutralization potential (N), pyritic sulfur (S), annual precipitation
(R), and process technology (T). Based on the low (0) and high (1) potential
pollution levels for each of these variables, 16 types of site categories, as
shown in Table 3, can be defined. But six of these site categories are non-
existent, e.g., the low rainfall condition in the western U.S. does not exist
with high sulfur or acid conditions. Finally, a recommended sequential sampling
design for the ten remaining coal cleaning plant categories was developed.
During the current year, an initial sorting of the more than 400 known
coal cleaning plants was accomplished using information available in the
literature. This sorting produced lists of facilities which corresponded to
each of the ten site categories. For categories which included a large number
of cleaning plants, three secondary constraints were imposed that narrowed the
field.
The strategy used to select the best cleaning plants for sampling purposes
is to (1) select plants cleaning coal from only one seam, (2) select plants
with a production capacity above the mean for the category, and (3) select plants
14
-------
TABLE 2. CLASSIFICATION VARIABLES AND ASSOCIATED
LEVELS USED TO DEFINE SITE CATEGORIES
Variable Low Level(0) High Level (1)
N (Neutralization pH _> 7.5(a) pH <_ 6.0^
potential)
S (Pyritic sulfur) <_ 1.0% >_ 2.0%
R (Average annual <_ 1. :i/yr >_ 25 in/yr
rainfall)
T (Coal cleaning Plant types Plant Types F,
process technology) A : B^°^ G, H, & 1^ '
(a) pH of soil in the receiving environment. As defined, low N
actually refers to a lew pollution potential or high soil alka-
linity which is, in fact, a high ability to neutralize acid streams,
(b) Plant Types A and B are simple configurations.
F, G, H, and I are the most complex types.
TABLE 3. FACTORIAL LISTING OF SITE CATEGORIES
(N,S,R,T)(a)
(HID
(1110)
(1101) (b)
(1100) (b)
(1011)
(1010)
(1001) (b)
(1000) (b)
(N,S,R,T)
(0111)
(0110)
(0101) (b
(0100) (b
(0011)
(0010)
(0001)
(0000)
(a) See Table 2, above, for definitions of low (0) and high (1)
levels of pollution potential as expressed by neutralization
potential, N; pyritic sulfur, S; average annual rainfall, R;
and coal cleaning process technology, T. The combination
(1010), for example, denotes a site category with N and R
at Level 1 and S and T at Level 0.
(b) ie,e site categories are excluded from further consideration,
? nee no cleaning plants exist with these combinations of
variables.
15
-------
not located near coal-fired power plants. However, lists from some plant
categories were already extremely limited in number and the above constraints
were not used to narrow the lists further.
These abbreviated lists include a total of 47 facilities, as shown in
Table 4. Subsequent to the preparation of the abbreviated lists, definite
agreement for cooperation in the sampling and analysis program was reached
with two companies covering two site categories and preliminary, tentative
agreement was reached with two other companies with regard to three additional
site categories. Exploratory discussions were held with a fifth company
covering a sixth site category, but no final resolution of the request for
cooperation was obtained. Homer City was selected for Site Category 1 and a
formal agreement with this management was negotiated.
A draft special report covering these results has been prepared and
is being reviewed by EPA/IERL prior to formal publication.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
BY SITE CATEGORY(&)
Sampling
Option
C
B
A
Total sites
Site
Site Characteristics
Category (N,S,R,T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
to be considered
(HID
(1110)
(1011)
(0111)
(1010)
(0110)
(0011)
(0010)
(0001)
(0000)
further . . .
Number of
Potential
Sites
3
6
11
2
3
4
8
4
3
_3
. . 47
(a) See Tables 2 and 3 for details on site category
and characteristics.
16
-------
Sampling and Analytical Techniques
Applicable methods of sampling and analyses for the purpose of assessing
the environmental effects of coal cleaning plants were developed. The steps
taken to achieve this objective were the following:
• Selection of sampling methods which are appropriate to
anticipated pollutants from the various media
• Recommendation of accepted or new methods of preservation,
storage, transfer, and preparation of samples for analyses
• Identification of analytical methods which possess the
desired detection and sensitivity limits for the expected
pollutants at the required levels of characterization
• Evaluation of the assessment strategy of the phased versus
the direct approach in regard to convenience, cost, and
utility
• Documentation of the overall desired or recommended
procedures of sampling and analysis.
In late 1977, the outline of sampling and analysis methods for
assessing the environmental effects of coal cleaning plants was completed and
approved internally. Then a manual, detailing the guidelines and instructions
for sampling and analysis methods to be followed in this research program, was
written. The strategy and methods presented are consistent with the phased
approach developed by the U.S. EPA, IERL/RTP. Also, the phased approach
described in this manual provides a cost-effective framework for sampling
and analysis of potentially hazardous waste streams from an industrial facility,
with the ultimate goal being the design of the equipment necessary to abate
the pollutants of concern. The Level 1 or screening phase of the assessment
strategy is handled in the greatest depth with both Levels 2 and 3 being dealt
with in less detail.
This manual contains seven major sections: Section 1 - Introduction;
Section 2 - Assessment Strategy; Section 3 - Physical Coal Cleaning Processes
and Related Operations; Section 4 - Level 1 Sampling Methodology; Section 5 -
Level 1 Analytical Methodology; Section 6 - Sampling and Analysis Level 2;
and Section 7 - Quality Assurance. Each of the sampling and analysis sections
deals with the accepted or state-of-the-art techniques necessary to satisfy
17
-------
that portion of the phased approach for each type of sample that is anticipated
—solid, liquid, slurry, or gas.
This document currently contains sufficient detail for all of Level 1 and
a major portion of Level 2 sampling and analyses methods to satisfy the program
objectives. However, additional effort, on the part of the IERL/RTP working
committees on the sampling and analysis method will be necessary in order to
arrive at final procedures for Levels 2 and 3.
Source Test Program
The generalized source test program is designed to ensure that the planning
and testing at specific test sites is performed consistently and effectively
with regard to costs, schedules, and data requirements.
In progress prior to October, 1977, specialists in hydrology, structural
geology, water chemistry, air pollution measurement and modeling, and biological
toxicity identified, for their respective disciplines, those test elements
which are considered site-independent.
/Q\
During the current year, a draft report was completed which presents
the objective and general structure of a field testing program designed for
an environmental assessment of coal cleaning processes. The report is intended
for use in preparation of test plans for individual coal cleaning sites. The
three-phases, source assessment approach developed by IERL/RTP has been util-
ized in the report. Thus, field testing for each of the ten site categories
eventually will involve three distinct levels of sampling and analytical
effort. These three levels are linked such that Level 1 identifies problem
areas that are assessed by the more rigorous Level 2 tests. Level 3 involves
long-term monitoring of "key" indicator parameters which have been identified
in the environmentally hazardous streams tested by Level 2 techniques.
Since the environmental source assessments for each of the selected coal
cleaning plants will be similar, the elements common to all or most of the
test plans for these facilities are presented in this report to facilitate
the planning and preparation of individual test plans for each plant (Figure
3). The elements discussed include potential sample locations, collection
techniques, and analysis techniques.
18
-------
MATERIAL (INPUT, OUTPUT,
OR POLLUTANT)
SOLID SAMPLE POINT
LIQUID (WATER OR
SLURRY) SAMPLE
POINT
GASEOUS SAMPLE POINT
(POINT SOURCE OR
FUGITIVE!
o
FIGURE 3. BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM OF GENERALIZED COAL PREPARATION PLANT
AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES SHOWING POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
Results of the environmental source assessments will provide the
following types of information: (1) a systematic evaluation of the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of selected process streams and all
effluent streams, (2) predictions of the potential effects of those streams
on the environment, (3) ranking of the streams according to their relative
biological toxicity, and (4) identification of pollution control technology
which needs further research and development.
Site Category 1 Test Plan
One portion of Battelle's overall coal cleaning environmental assessment
program includes field tests to be performed at selected coal cleaning facilities.
This testing program will follow the phased approach for sampling and analysis
and the generalized source test program, both previously described.
During the current year, two draft test plans were completed for the
advanced Homer City coal cleaning facility, selected as the first of the ten
field testing sites. The first plan was designed to apply to the interim
configuration of the plant. Later, this plan was revised to include the
sampling points in the final configuration of the plant as construction neared
(9)
completion. The second or revised plan is designed (1) to characterize
grab samples from selected process and effluent streams, using semi-quantita-
tive tests for selected physical, chemical, and biological effects parameters,
(2) to make a crude evaluation of the effectiveness of pollution control
equipment and techniques, and (3) to identify the problem waste streams where
more rigorous sampling and analysis may be needed in the future.
In general, the testing will follow the Level 1 phase of a three-phased
approach developed by the IERL/RTP of EPA. This Level 1 grab sampling and
analysis is intended to show, within broad general limits, the presence or
absence, the approximate concentrations and emission rates of most inorganic
elements and certain anions, and classes of organic compounds. Particulate
matter will be analyzed for size distribution and by microscopic examination.
Biological effects testing emphasizes laboratory tests for human health effects
and ecological toxicity screening. In addition, some Level 2 (more quanti-
tative) analyses will be performed to determine more carefully the concentrations
of some trace elements identified as having higher than expected concentrations
20
-------
during previous testing in the vicinity of the Homer City power generating
station.
Samples will be collected at a total of 48 different locations in and
around the final configuration of the Homer City coal cleaning plant, cleaning
plant refuse disposal area, coal storage pile and desilting ponds, emergency
holding pond, leachate water treatment plant, and industrial waste treatment
plant. Grab sampling locations outside the plant are shown in Figure 4. Types
of samples to be collected include process water, wastewater, leachates,
slurries, bottom sludges, fugitive dust, and stack samples from the thermal
dryer. Stack samples will include both gases and particulates.
Types of analyses planned for Homer City samples vary depending on the
sample type and location. In general, spark source mass spectrometry will be
used on all samples for a broad analytical survey of inorganic elements.
Test plans similar to this one still need to be written for the other nine
site categories. Once sampling and analysis has been completed at facilities
representative of each of the ten site categories, generalization of test
results should be possible.
GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT
Under the general program support task, a variety of research activities
have included (1) activities related to the Homer City demonstration, i.e.,
interpreting the results of the grab-sampling campaigns in light of values for
the EPA's multimedia environmental goals and continuing to modify the computer
programs for simulating this and other facilities; (2) activities of the Coal
Cleaning Information Center; (3) activities on the US/USSR technical exchange;
(4) evaluation of coal cleaning as an S0_ emission control strategy, including
assessing the amounts of coal available to meet various SO emission limits
using the reserve processing assessment model; and (5) conduct of the coal
cleaning symposium.
21
-------
R&P's Leachate
Water Treatment
Plant
Coal Cleaning
Plant for
Units 1, 2.
and 3 (Final
Configuration)
Thickeners
/
N
Storm
< Runoff
Diversion
Uitch
X
Power Plant
Units, 1, 2,
and 3
Legend:
^^ Hater or Slurry Samples
Q Hl-Vol Samples
A Thermal llryer Stack
Samplea
() Reived Dust Sample
Off-Site
Sample at
Stile's Farm
Pond Leachate
to Trthutary
Treated
Affluent
tn Cnmmni
Riwlnr
Joint Stream
In Manhole
FIGURE 4
GRAB SAMPLING LOCATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INPUT,
PRODUCT, AND WASTE STREAMS FROM THE HOMER CITY COAL
CLEANING PLANT IN ITS FINAL CONFIGURATION
Gravel
Underdratn
Temporary
Treatment
l.oc/it Ion
I'nnd l.e;icliate
to Trlhut-arv
-------
Homer City Power Complex Testing
During the period from December, 1976 through April, 1977, a series of
multimedia, grab-sampling campaigns were conducted by Battelle as a preliminary,
pre-operational environmental survey of the Homer City Power Complex. Two coal
mines, coal handling and storage facilities, gob piles, and three independent
power generating units are located within the study area shown in Figure 5.
Within the study area, as shown, is the site of an advanced physical coal
cleaning facility, jointly owned by Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec), a
subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation (GPU), and New York State
Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSEG).
The purpose of this data gathering was to document the abundance or con-
centrations of selected key parameters. These collected data were used to
evaluate the air, water, and biological quality of the study area both through
interpretive techniques and by direct comparison with EPA Multimedia Environ-
mental Goals values. These pre-operational environmental studies, while not
sufficiently long-term to be a true baseline analysis, were conducted prior
to operation of the cleaning plant as a reference point for future, more com-
prehensive, environmental testing which may be undertaken once the plant is
in operation. Results and analysis of these data are presented in a report '
/p_Q\
and paper , both prepared during the current reporting period.
In summary, the ambient environment in the study area appears to be typical
of many western Pennsylvania areas which include coal mining and handling
operations. In many cases, stream water chemistry and biological quality were
adversely affected by pollution sources outside of the study area, especially
by acid mine drainage. Power complex operations had a negative impact on the
chemical and biological quality of a few of the smaller tributaries. Concen-
tration levels of particulates in the air were high in the vicinity of the coal
storage pile, but decreased to levels characteristic of relatively good air
quality at the boundaries of the power station property. Terrestrial vegetation
is presently diverse in the study area. Some of the more sensitive plant
species close to the coal pile, however, may begin to show signs of stress due
to the accumulation of coal dust and other particulates. Estimated permissible
concentration (EPC) values for several elements were found to be exceeded in
either air or water media at the site of the coal cleaning facility, now under
construction.
23
-------
Ash Disposal Area
Mine Drainage Treatment Pond
Helvetia Boney Pile
Coal Cleaning Plant
Coal Storage Pile
Power Plant
Industrial Waste Treatment Plant
Helen Boney Pile
Homer
SIS? City
Coal Cleaning
FIGURE 5. MAP OF THE HOMER CITY POWER COMPLEX
24
-------
Modification of Computer Models
for Evaluating Process Technology
The objective of this portion of the program was to modify existing com-
puter programs for simulating coal preparation operations. The original
computer program upon which this work was based with the U.S. Bureau of Mines
coal preparation simulation model, version 4 (CPSM4), As of September 30,
1977, that program had been greatly improved in the following six aspects:
(1) The core requirements had been reduced and the modeling
algorithms simplified and unified
(2) A notation for specifying coal cleaning configuration
had been developed
(3) Conventions had been introduced to make possible the
simulation of actual coal cleaning facilities, as
opposed to generalized ones
(4) The maximum number of flows and units accepted by
the program had been increased significantly
(5) The program had been written so that it could run
on a variety of computers and had been implemented
at numerous sites
(6) A draft user handbook and documentation had been prepared
and distributed.
In addition to the above, the program had been used to model the Homer
City coal cleaning plant and had reproduced fairly closely the design material
balance for that plant.
All work done in this area, since the previous report took the form
of additional modifications to program CPSM4 as modified. Where data
were available, these additional modifications were tested against the
Homer City plant configuration.
Generally, the modifications made to the program fall into five
areas. These are discussed separately in the following. Each of
these modifications were of course programmed in such a manner that
the transportability of the program was fully maintained.
The first set of modifications allow the program to model the
flow of water through the configuration as well as the flow of solids.
25
-------
This capability allows the user to calculate the water balance for a configur-
ation. This is a difficult calculation to perform by hand. Mathematically,
this modification involved specifying equations for simulating various levels
of moisture in the output flows of units and designing an iterative procedure
for balancing the water flows into and out of a configuration.
The second set of modifications was made possible by the above. These
modifications involve simulating the behavior of dewatering unit operations.
These operations were completely ignored in the original version of
the program since that version was unable to deal with water flows.
The particular aspect of dewatering devices, other than their treat-
ment of water flows, which made them difficult to model was the size
degradation caused by them. Dewatering devices tend to cause changes
in the size distribution of the solids passing through them. To deal
with this resizing phenomenon, a prebreakage algorithm was added to
the system. This algorithm uses the same basic functional form as
was used already by the crusher and rotary breaker unit operations.
This prebreakage algorithm is not only usable to simulate the size
degradation behavior of dewatering devices, but also of other devices
such as washers.
The third set of modification expanded the flow stream description
so that the movement of any element, not just Btu's, sulfur, and ash,
could be traced through the coal cleaning facility. This enhancement
will greatly simplify the description of trace element movement through
the configurations.
The fourth modification consisted of adding a data base capability
to the program. Via this capability flow stream descriptions and con-
figurations may be stored on and retrieved from direct access files.
This capability greatly simplifies the use of the program, especially
when many different feeds are being applied to a given configuration
or vice-versa.
The final modification involved adding a cost component to the
program. Using this component, the analyst can instruct the program
to accumulate the individual capital and operating cost elements into
a time series description of the required cash flows by type. Based
on this cash flow description, the program then calculates the selling
26
-------
price required for the output of the configuration in order to achieve a
specified rate-of-return on investment. A detailed documentation of the
(12)
model, including these modifications, has been prepared.
The major limitation of the work done to date, and the major area where
additional work is needed, has to do with the testing of the simulation results
against actual coal cleaning configuration behavior. Although some work has
been done in this area with the Homer City plant, as discussed below, more
information is needed. The area which is weakest in this regard is the data
for component costs. The program presently contains algorithms which should
be able to accurately simulate coal cleaning configuration behavior; however,
the coefficients for those algorithms are at this point very approximate.
Additional cost and performance data are needed before this deficiency can be
corrected.
Since September 30, 1977, when the program had been used to reproduce the
material balance expected for the Homer City plant, three additional types of
runs have been made and reviewed. The first involved adding the water flow to
the program plant description. The results here agreed closely with those
expected. The second involved testing the impact on the output flows from the
plant assuming various mixes of Helen and Helvetia coals. The third tested
the impacts of imperfect screening and of various different specific gravities
of separation in the washing circuits. In all cases, the results of the
computer simulation seemed to be reasonable. The significance of this work was
that it clearly demonstrated that the computer simulation did seem to have the
same sensitivities as would be expected in the real world.
The major limitation of the work to date is that no comparison has been
made with actual Homer City plant performance. No usable data, either perfor-
mance or cost, are yet available. As soon as such data become available,
they should be compared to the program results.
Coal Cleaning Information Center
The Coal Cleaning Information Center (CCIC) was operated (1) to establish an
information system which provides ready access to available and relevant data
and references for this contract and for EPA and other contractors on its coal
cleaning program and (2) to disseminate coal cleaning information in the
27
-------
monthly Current Events Summary and the quarterly Coal Cleaning Environmental
Review,(14) and (3) to provide a full reference service.
The CCIC consists of a hard-copy file of documents and a computerized
data base containing citations of government and industry reports, reports
prepared by contractors of EPA, DOE, and other government organizations, con-
ference and symposia proceedings, journal articles, patents, books, and other
reference documents. The information content pertains primarily to coal
cleaning processes, related environmental and health effects, and applicable
pollution control technology.
Storage, search and retrieval functions are facilitated by a computerized
data base accessible by remote terminal. The CCIC is capable of providing
information support and responses to technical information inquiries for a
wide user audience.
A total of approximately 1,400 documents were indexed for input to the
(13)
CCIC data base over the period of this contract. A user guide for CCIC,
submitted to EPA in October, 1978, was prepared as an instruction manual for
researchers who are required to make on-line searches of the data base.
The CCIC data base provides a major and easily accessible information
resource on coal cleaning technology and related environmental topics. Such
an information resource is of substantial value in the support of ongoing
coal cleaning research. It should be continued in operation to maintain its
current relevance and to continue to provide a comprehensive information source
to researchers in coal cleaning technology and related environmental topics.
Two thousand copies of each of the first three issues of the Coal Cleaning
Environmental Review were published, and the majority of these copies were
disseminated by EPA, during this report period. This publication provided
descriptions of current research results and new developments related to coal
cleaning processes, related environmental effects, applicable pollution control
technology, and a current events summary. Through the Coal Cleaning Environ-
mental Review, current information related to coal cleaning was widely dissem-
inated to interested parties in government and industry, thus promoting increased
knowledge about and acceptance of coal cleaning as a significant technology
for S02 emission control.
28
-------
US/USSR Technical Exchange Activity on the
Environmental Consequences of Coal Utilization
Both the USA and the USSR are concerned with the environmental conse-
quences of increased consumption of solid and liquid fossil fuels. This
concern is extremely acute with respect to the enormous quantities of fuel
consumed by very large electric generation stations. The rapid growth in
the demand for electrical energy in both the Soviet Union and the United
States has led to commensurate increases in the installed capacities of
generating stations. The growth in the rate of electrical power genera-
tion and in the installed capacities of power generating stations during
1965 to 1975 and forecasts for 1980 are shown in Table 5.
Other available data show the sharp increase in the percentage of
consumption of liquid fuels and natural gas during the period 1960
through 1975. During this period the absolute consumption of natural gas
and liquid fuels in the Soviet Union increased more than tenfold, while coal
consumption increased by a factor of only 1.7. A less pronounced but
similar trend is noted for the United States where the consumption of liquid
fuels and natural gas increased by a factor of about 1.5, while the increase
in the consumption of coal was about the same, about 1.2.
In both nations this trend shifted in about 1975 to a growing use of
coal and other solid fuels. This latter trend is expected to continue during
the 1980's, with additional growth in generating capacity being thermal stations,
in which solid fuels are used, and nuclear plants. In the USA, lack of public
acceptance of sites selected for nuclear plants and recent changes in govern-
mental policies have caused significant decreases in the growth rates projected
for nuclear power stations. This, of course, has increased the projected
growth rate for coal-burning facilities and the concomitant environmental
problems associated with such facilities.
The exchange of information on the environmental consequences of coal
utilization with the USSR began about four years ago, shortly after the
signing of the environmental agreement. The information which has been
exchanged has been in two general areas—coal preparation and the use of coal
in complex advanced energy generation systems.
29
-------
TABLE 5. PRODUCTION OF ELECTRIC POWER AND THE INSTALLED CAPACITY OF
SOVIET AND U.S. GENERATING PLANTS
OJ
o
Production
Type
of
Plant
1965 1970
Bil. Bil.
kWhr % kWhr %
1975
Bil.
kWhr
7
/o
1980
Bil.
kWhr
%
Generating Capacity
1965
Mil.
kWhr
%
1970
Mil.
kWhr
%
1975
Mil.
kWhr
%
1980
Mil.
kWhr
%
Thermal generating
stations:
Soviet
U.S.
Hydroelectric
stations:
Soviet
U.S.
Nuclear power
plants:
Soviet
U.S.
Other:
U.S.
Total:
Soviet
U.S.
423.9 83.7 613.
863.0 81.2 1241.
81.4 16.1 124.
200.0 18.8 257.
1.4 0.3 3.
22.
21.
506.7 100.0 740.
1063.0 100.0 1541.
0
0
4
0
5
0
0
9
0
82.7
80.5
16.8
16.7
0.5
1.4
1.4
100.0
100.0
892.4
1441.0
126.0
301.0
20.2
171.0
3.0
1038.6
1916.0
85.9
75.2
12.1
15.7
1.9
8.9
0.2
100.0
100.0
1103.9
1947.0
197.3
285.0
78.8
380.0
6.0
1380.0
2618.0
80.0
74.4
14.3
10.9
5.7
14.5
0.2
100.0
100.0
80.8
188.0
22.3
44.0
0.4
2.0
4.0
115.0
238.0
70.3
79.0
19.4
18.5
0.3
0.8
1.7
100.0
100.0
121.3
260.0
31.4
55.0
0.9
6.0
20.0
166.1
341.0
73.0
76.2
18.9
16.1
0.5
1.8
5.9
100.0
100.0
162.5
360.0
40.5
64.0
4.7
40.0
47.0
217.5
511.0
74.7
70.5
18.6
12.5
2.2
7.8
9.2
100.0
100.0
203.2
426.0
54.0
78.0
18.4
84.0
52.0
284.0
640.0
71.5
66.6
19.0
12.2
6.5
13.1
8.1
100.0
100.0
-------
Until recently, the coal preparation activities were concerned primarily
with the use of flotation for the removal of pyritic sulfur. The transfer of
that activity to the Energy Agreement led to a shift in emphasis on coal
preparation at the July, 1977, meeting in Moscow. The activity since then
has focused upon the environmental consequences of coal preparation. The
initial exchange of information on this activity took place in September,
1978, when a Soviet delegation participated in the U.S. EPA Coal Cleaning
Symposium which was held at Hollywood, Florida. During that symposium a
paper was presented by the Soviet delegation. Plans have been made for
a US delegation to visit the USSR in 1979 to continue the exchange of
environmental information related to coal cleaning.
The major emphasis during the past year has been given to the use of
coal in complex advanced energy generation systems. It is expected that
the exchange of information in this area will be extremely useful in
comparing the effectivness of various pollution control strategies with
coal cleaning.
The USA and USSR delegations have met on three occasions since last
year to pursue the exchange of information on the utilization of coal in
complex advanced energy generation systems. The principal activity during
these meetings was the exchange of technical material which will be used
in a joint report which will be completed in 1979. The delegations met in
November, 1977, and twice in 1978 to complete the joint report. The most
recent meeting was held in the USA in October, 1978. At that meeting the
Soviet Delegation consisted of representatives from the USSR Academy of
Sciences, from the USSR Ministry of Energy and Electrification and from
the USSR Ministry of Power Machinery Construction. The American Delegation
included representatives from Battelle Columbus Laboratories and from
United Technologies Research Center. The Soviet Delegation was headed by
Mr. V. M. Maslennikov, Department Head, Institute of High Temperatures,
USSR Academy of Sciences. The American Delegation was headed by
Mr. G. R. Smithson, Jr., Manager of the Environmental Control Technology
Program Office, Battelle's Columbus Laboratories.
During the October, 1978, meeting the final exchange of materials for
the joint report took place. These delegations agreed that the materials for the
joint report are prepared in their entirety.
31
-------
In view of the large amount of material and the complexity of
editing it, the following procedure was accepted for the preparation of
the final joint report:
1. The Soviet side will compile the edited Russian version
of the text in its entirety and will submit it to the
American side.
2. The American side will translate the Russian text, will edit
the English version of the text, and will submit a list
of corrections to the Soviet side.
3. The report will be signed during a meeting of specialists
in September, 1979, in Moscow.
Both sides believe that during the period of time before September, 1979,
the research on the performance of combined cycle plants and methods for their
control should be continued, and jointly authored papers prepared for publi-
cation in the USA and USSR.
Coal Cleaning As An S0? Emission Control Strategy
and Barriers to Its Commercialization
An overall evaluation of the potential role for coal cleaning as a means
of controlling S0_ emissions has been conducted. The objectives were to examine
the capabilities of coal cleaning in the light of various existing and proposed
S02 emissions regulations, to determine the application in which the technology
would be most useful, to identify the barriers which exist to prevent wider
application of coal cleaning, and to describe actions which should be taken to
overcome these barriers. Complete results of these evaluations are presented
in two reports ' and a paper
A large amount of information about coal was compiled as resource
data, including data on the coal reserve base, present and projected coal
production, coal cleanability, current and projected coal use by utilities
and industry, size and age distribution of coal-fired facilities, and the
nature of coal contracts. The environmental impacts of coal cleaning were
compared with other sulfur removal strategies such as FGD and the use of
low-sulfur coal, and, similarly, cost comparisons were made among the
various alternatives for SC>2 control. Comparisons were made also between
32
-------
the quantities of coal which could be made available through the use of
various coal cleaning processes to meet different emission standards and
the quantities of coal currently required by utility and industrial facilities
operating under each of the standards. Barriers to the implementation of
coal cleaning were identified in each of several areas: technical, institu-
tional, environmental, economic and social, legislative and regulatory,
and transportation. Consideration of these barriers led to the formulation
of actions needed to overcome the barriers.
Coal Availability
Existing facilities must meet SC>2 emission standards prescribed by
the states in the State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The SIPs for S02
vary widely from state to state and often within a state. An evaluation '
of the usefulness of coal cleaning in providing compliance coal must
consider not only the cleaning characteristics of coal produced in different
regions but also the amounts of coal required by facilities under each of
the various SIP regulations. A procedure was developed for carrying out
such an evaluation. A computer file was developed to store data on
existing utility and industrial energy demand in which each facility was
classified by state, actual SIP requirement, capacity, and fuel. The
location, capacity, and fuel data for utility boilers were obtained from
EPA's Energy Data Systems (EDS) file, and the corresponding information
for industrial facilities was obtained largely from the FEA survey of
"Major Fuel Burning Installations" (MFBI). The assignment of the SIP
regulation applicable to each facility was accomplished through a separately
constructed matrix relating ZIP code and SIP regulations.
A "coal use" model was developed which relates the energy requirement
taken from the facilities file to the quantities of raw coal in the rererve
and of coal that could be made available by application of various coal
cleaning processes to meet the prescribed S02 emission standards. The
coal quantities were obtained from the RPAM model. The analysis was done
by region, with facilities in a region using coal produced in the same
region, and for the entire United States. The model produced, for each
33
-------
SIP range, the ratio of the total amount of compliance coal in the reserve,
either raw or cleaned by one of eight processes, to the current annual
demand. This ratio is, in effect, the years of availability of compliance
coal for each SIP.
As one example of the results obtained, four bar charts are shown in
Figure 6 for facilities in the Northeastern U.S. using coal from the
Northern Appalachian Region. In each chart the ratio of total coal to
annual demand (or years of availability) is plotted against annual demand.
The width of each bar represents the aggregate demand of all facilities
in the region which operate under SIPs in the range shown at the top of
the bar, while the height of the bar represents the number of years that
compliance coal would be available if used at the current rates. The
area of each bar represents the total quantity, in lO1^ Btu, of coal in
the reserves of the Northern Appalachian Region which can satisfy the SIPs
in the indicated range. The horizontal dotted line shows the years of
coal availability, at the current rates, if used without regard to sulfur
content, and the area under the dotted line represents the total Btu's
of coal in the Northern Appalachian reserve.
The four bar charts show the results for raw coal and for coal
produced by three cleaning processes defined as follows:
(A) Physical coal cleaning using 1-1/2-inch mesh coal at 1.6 s.g.
(B) Physical coal cleaning using 3/8-inch mesh coal at 1.6 s.g. if
this produced coal to meet the standard; otherwise, 1.3 s.g.
was used. An operating penalty of 1 percent energy loss
was assumed.
(C) Meyers process: for raw coal with greater than 0.2 percent
pyritic sulfur, the level of pyritic sulfur is reduced to
0.2 percent. No sulfur reduction takes place if the raw
coal pyritic sulfur level is less than 0.2 percent. A
5 percent energy loss was assumed plus an operating penalty
of 2 percent energy loss and a weight loss of 10 percent.
The charts show clearly the usefulness of these coal cleaning processes
in producing coal to satisfy SIPs. The chart for raw coal shows that
no coal in the region could be burned in compliance with a SIP of 0.32
(New Jersey, industrial, metropolitan areas), and only limited quantities
34
-------
(1985)
5.00-9.00
1000
800
•g 600
5.00-9.00
5 400
^
I 20°
o 0
1.20-
1.50
:5of
.^aj
ft °
•?
3
CD
>^
°n
o
'o
3
Q
£
m
851000
3
p800
C ***""
•^600
0)
o400
.32-*
200
n
1
0.5
4 E \
-
-
400
200
.32^
-
"•iO-
f
I
;f ( t
1
.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Coal Demand, I015 Btu/year
i i i i i
Process B
_
1.20 5.00-
.80 1.50 1.60-4.00 4.50 9.00 -
.50-
h
In
* *** ^** N
i
~ ,
t t t
k*
}
-
—
-
-
-
1000
800
600
400
.32*
200
0
1 1 1 1 1
Process C
— __
1.20- 5.00-
- .80 1.50 1.60-4.00 4.50 9.00 -
-
50-
.60
r
..t
.} 1-.. . <
{ ,
-
—
-
-
-
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
15
Coal Demand, 10 Btu/year
Northeast U.S. Utility and Industrial Coal Demand Met
by Coal Produced in the Northern Appalachian Region
FIGURE 6. INCREASE IN THE QUANTITIES OF SIP-COMPLIANCE COAL
ACHIEVABLE BY COAL CLEANING (See text for definition
of processes.)
35
-------
of raw coal are sufficiently low in sulfur content that SIPs of 0.5 to 0.8
could be met. On the other hand, the charts for coal cleaned by Processes
A, B, and C show progressively increasing quantities (increases in the
shaded areas) of coal in compliance with low SIPs which can be produced by
these cleaning processes. Results of this type were produced for eight
real or hypothetical coal cleaning processes, for six regions, and for
the entire United States. The value of coal cleaning as a means of satis-
fying SIP regulations is clear from these results.
Cost Comparisons
An analysis was conducted to compare the costs of the current techno-
logically feasible SOo emission control methods: naturally-occurring
low-sulfur coal, FGD, PCC, and the combined use of FGD and PCC. The
procedure utilized has been (1) to compare and analyze the results of
previous comparative studies; (2) to utilize these results and comparisons
to develop further more accurate, reliable estimates of direct costs and
benefits; and then (3) to go the final step of evaluating the influence
of the performance of complete energy conversion systems on the cost and
attractiveness of the competing control methods.
In addition to the costs associated with each technology which are
traditionally included in a cost analysis, emphasis was placed in this
work on identifying and quantifying the benefits of coal cleaning which in
the past have been ignored in comparative cost analyses. The benefits
attributed to burning clean coal are as follows: (1) transportation costs
are reduced since less coal is shipped due to the increased heating value;
(2) ash disposal costs for the utility are reduced; (3) coal pulverizing
costs are reduced; (4) benefits paid to the mine operations Pension and
Benefit Trust Fund are reduced since fewer tons of coal are shipped from
the mine to equal the same heating value; (5) power plant maintenance costs
are reduced by using coal with lower ash and sulfur content; and (6) for
the situation where FGD and PCC are used in combination, there would be
cost savings for the FGD system. Other indirect benefits to the power plant
associated with burning clean coal result from increased plant efficiencies,
longer plant life, and increased boiler availability.
36
-------
Evaluation of the relative merits of the different approaches for S0~
control requires that they be assessed from the standpoint of their impact
on the cost of boiler output. The cost of power generation is determined
by the capital charges, fuel cost, and O&M costs for the power plant. All
three components are influenced in different ways by the method selected
for sulfur oxide pollution control. Application of FGD increases both
fixed charges and O&M costs but makes it possible to use readily available
fuels. The use of PCC likewise increases both fixed and O&M costs for the
total system but, when used in combination with FGD, reduces costs for the
gas cleaning system. The benefits to the FGD system result from a reduced
quantity of sulfur to be removed and flue gas to be treated. Consequently,
units of smaller size and capacity may be used. Therefore, there will be
reduced costs for energy, labor, chemicals, maintenance, supplies, overhead,
working capital, sludge disposal, and land requirements for both the scrubber
system and sludge disposal systems.
The use of low-sulfur western fuels has no impact as far as increased
fixed costs are concerned. Its use in boilers designed for eastern bitumi-
nous coal is judged, because of lower heating value and other properties,
to reduce boiler availability from 0.8 to 0.7 for purposes of the comparison
made. Some increased boiler maintenance might also be anticipated, but
none is assumed for purposes of this comparison.
Because costs for generation of electricity are greatly dependent upon
the hours the plant is operated, any comparison of sulfur oxide control
methods must consider their effect on plant availability. The differences
in availability reflect differences in coal quality on boiler and scrubber
operation and the effect of scrubber operability on system availability.
The effect of scrubbers was estimated for different degrees of redundancy
as far as spare scrubber modules were concerned. The availabilities
estimated for the study performed are shown in Table 6.
Assumptions made for cost factors for the system configurations shown
in Table 6 are shown in Table 7. The costs and benefits for PCC are
generally consistent with data presented earlier. The relationship for
incremental maintenance and mineral content is based on recent work reported
37
-------
TABLE 6. POSTULATED CONDITIONS OF AVAILABILITY^16^
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
Case Description*
Raw high-sulfur eastern coal, no FGD
Raw low-sulfur western coal, no FGD
Cleaned high-sulfur eastern coal, no
(baseline)
FGD
Raw high-sulfur eastern coal, with FGD
System
Availability
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.627
(4 modules + 1 spare)(Boiler = 0.8,
FGD = 0.65/module)
Cleaned high-sulfur eastern coal, with FGD 0.806
(3 modules + 1 spare)(Boiler = 0.9,
FGD = 0.75/module)
Cleaned high-sulfur eastern coal, with FGD 0.864
(3 modules + 2 spares)(Boiler = 0.9,
FGD = 0.75/module)
* Individual availabilities for boilers and FGD modules are given in
parentheses where applicable.
for TVA boilers*. Other costs are considered reasonable in light of the
latest estimates. The direct benefits shown for PCC include those discussed
earlier such as reduced transportation costs, etc. The indirect benefits
are associated with FGD, e.g., reduced energy requirements for reheat of
stack gases.
According to the TVA study*, power plants can experience incremental
costs from poor coal quality starting at about $1.00 per ton for coal
containing 13 percent minerals (ash + sulfur) and ranging to about $8.00/ton
for coal containing 25 percent minerals. These costs, which could be mini-
mized by reducing the mineral content of the coal, are approximately in the
range of costs for PCC as determined in this current program. Based upon
the TVA study of cost penalties for poor quality coal, pox^er plants using
* Phillips, P- J., and Cole, R. M., "Economic Penalties Attributable to
Ash Content of Steam Coals", Coal Utilization Symposium, AIME Annual
Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana (February, 1979).
38
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR A 500-MW COAL-BURNING
POWER PLANT(16)
Power Plant
Annual Fixed Charges - (0.235)($215,375,000) = $50,663,000
Fuel
Eastern high-sulfur coal - $0.84/106 Btu
Western low-sulfur coal - $1.41/106 Btu
Production - (0.176)(Fuel Costs)/106 Btu
Incremental Maintenance - $0.15 (% ash + % sulfur - 12.5)/ton of coal
Flue Gas Desulfurization System
Annual Fixed Charges
Five modules - (0.235)($45,435,000) = $10,688,000
Four modules - (0.235)($40,485,000) = $9,523,000
Operating and Maintenance - $0.23/10 Btu
Physical Coal Cleaning
Capital Cost - $15,870 per ton/hr
Annual Fixed Charges - (0.235)($6,852,500) = $1,612,000
Operating and Maintenance - $0.089/106 Btu
Direct Benefits - $0.041/10 Btu
Indirect Benefits (when used with FGD) - $0.031/10 Btu
clean coal produced by the PCC plants studied in this program could expect
to realize substantial cost reductions because of the amounts of ash and
sulfur removed from the raw coal. However, accurate estimates of these
cost reductions cannot be made because of insufficient data. Some but not
all of the six benefits listed above were considered in the TVA study, the
most notable exception being savings in cost for control of sulfur oxide
emissions.
39
-------
For this analysis a single-unit power plant, having a nominal capacity
of 500 MW was selected. For each alternative SC>2 control method, the system
performance, availability, and costs were evaluated. The overall comparison
for the six system configurations is shown in Table 8. The results show
that, when all costs and benefits to utilities of using physical coal
cleaning are properly evaluated, a definite economic superiority for
physical coal cleaning exists, even if supplemental application of another
method, FGD, must be used to achieve full compliance with applicable NSPS
or state implementation plans (SIP) emission limits.
Inspection of the total cost column of Table 8 reveals some interesting
specific points. First of all, the systems including coal cleaning provide
the least cost methods of producing electricity. Comparison of the two
systems not providing sufficient control to meet existing New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), Cases 1 and 3, shows that physical coal
cleaning of the fuel provides for an overall lower cost of generation,
about 2.4<:/kWh versus about 2.5c/kWh, than does the use of raw coal. This
is despite the cleaning costs and the loss of some Btu's, because of the
greater, more efficient utilization of the generation facility and a
consequent lower fixed charge per kWh generated.
Second, for the systems which achieve full compliance with NSPS, the
two cases which incorporate physical coal cleaning with FGD are by far more
economical, about 3.0c/kWh for both Cases 5 and 6, than the about 3.5c/kWh
for Case 4 for FGD alone. These results are confirmed by a paper*
discussing a partially completed study being conducted by Bechtel National,
Inc., for the Electric Power Research Institute. The paper concludes that
"from the results obtained so far, it is judged that the cost of coal
cleaning can be offset by savings in transportation costs, power plant
capital costs, and operating and maintenance costs."
Finally, the example shown for the use of low-sulfur western coal
(Case 2) indicates no cost benefit in comparison with any other case except
Case 4, the one for FGD not in combination with physical coal cleaning. The
cost here is about 3.3c/kWh for Case 2 versus about 3.5£/k¥h for Case 4.
Buder, M. K. , Clifford, K. L. , Huettenhain, H., and McGowin, C. R.,
"The Effects of Coal Cleaning on Power Generation Economics", paper
presented at the American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois (April
23-25, 1979).
40
-------
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR POWER GENERATION USING VARIOUS CONTROL MODES
(16)
Operating Power Plant Costs, C/kWh FGD Costs, Coal Cleaning Coal Cleaning
Hours per Incremental C/kHh Costs. C/kWh Savings. C/kWh Total Costs,
Number Case Description Year^ Fixed FuelA ' Production Maintenance Fixed O&M Fixed O&M PCC PCC/FGD C/kWh
L(a)
Raw high-sulfur
eastern coal,
7008
1.
446
0.840
0.
148 0.093
2.
527
no FGD (baseline)
2
3
-------
This result tends to confirm the conclusion made by some utilities that the
use of low-sulfur western coal to achieve compliance with NSPS would be less
costly than the use of FGD.
In the development of those cost comparisons, a number of simplifying
assumptions were made which require that any conclusions reached be substan-
tially qualified. First of all, the analysis applies only to utility boilers
rtiich are required to meet the former NSPS of 1.2 Ib S02/10 Btu or SIP
regulations in this same range. Additional analysis will be needed to
determine definitely that similar conclusions will apply to operation of
commercial/industrial boilers and those utility boilers which will be
subject to the recent NSSPS (June 11, 1979).
Also, at least two areas of uncertainty are evident in the estimates
of costs and benefits. First, the savings estimated for reduced boiler O&M
costs (and associated increases in boiler availability) assume that these
costs are a function of only the amount of ash and sulfur present in the
coal. They are not based on results of operation with run-of-mine coal
versus cleaned coal from the same source. Second, the estimates for the
fixed, operating and maintenance cost for the FGD systems were based on
average conditions and not related specifically to flue gas volumes to be
treated, amount of sulfur oxide to be removed, etc. In any future analyses,
a more rigorous approach based on recent work by Kilgroe* would be possible.
It does not appear, however, that the elimination of uncertainties
would substantially change the results. And the cost advantage for PCC
indicated in Table 8 represents a potential annual savings of $9 million
to $21 million for a 500 MW plant. The magnitude of national savings which
appear to be possible is such that activity to promote the use of PCC would
be in the national interest.
Barriers to Expanded Coal Cleaning
A number of factors which might inhibit expansion of the use of coal
cleaning were examined. The common theme encountered is that of uncertainty.
Kilgroe, J. D., "Combined Coal Cleaning and FGD", unpublished manuscript,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (1979).
42
-------
Investments in coal cleaning facilities may be deferred because of uncertainty
regarding technical details, emission limits or other environmental regula-
tions, or the ultimate profitability of the investment. The general types
of barriers and a brief listing of examples of each will serve to summarize
this work.
(a) Technical
• Lack of data relating washability results with
commercial plant performance.
• Need for improved quality control techniques.
• Need for better techniques for separation of
fine-sized pyrite.
• Need for more extensive data on benefits accruing
to a boiler burning cleaned coal.
(b) Environmental
• Solid waste disposal requires control of leaching,
fugitive dust emissions, and fires.
• Trace elements are concentrated in the refuse, a
benefit with respect to the clean coal product,
but require careful waste disposal.
• Land-use options in the immediate area of the
cleaning plant are restricted.
(c) Transportation
• Increased coal use will place stress on the transpor-
tation system.
• Coal cleaning would help in mitigating the problem
because of the higher Btu content per unit weight of
cleaned coal.
• However, accelerated use of coal cleaning could add
to the problem in certain areas in which cleanable
coals predominate. For example, traffic from the
Appalachian region to the middle Atlantic states
would be expected to increase disproportionally as
coal cleaning expands.
43
-------
(d) Institutional
• PCC benefits may not be fully appreciated by potential
investors.
• Commercial practicality of coal cleaning as a sulfur
removal strategy may not be viewed as adequately
demonstrated.
• Uncertainty regarding the Public Utility Commission's
attitude regarding fuel cost pass-through if a utility
were to invest in coal cleaning facilities.
(e) Economic and Social
• Coal cleaning does not now qualify for tax purposes as
a pollution control investment.
• To increase production of indigenous high-sulfur
coals, SIPs may be made less stringent, thus reducing
the opportunities for coal cleaning.
• Capital may be difficult to raise because of the lack
of information on commercial coal cleaning operations.
(f) Regulatory and Legislative
• Uncertainty regarding enforcement of SIPs, averaging
periods, and variances.
• Uncertainty surrounding the permanence of any S0«
emission standard.
• Uncertainty regarding air and water pollution standards
for coal cleaning plants.
• Uncertainty over legislative incentives for the industrial
use of coal.
Needed Actions to Promote Coal Cleaning
The major conclusion from this work is that coal cleaning is an
attractive method of SC^ emission control, yet it is neither widely accepted
nor used as such. In order to overcome the existing barriers to expanded
use of coal cleaning, the Federal government could adopt one of the following
approaches.
44
-------
(1) Establish policies to insure that PCC is competitive in the
marketplace.
(2) Or, as an alternative, establish a policy to require that
all coal be cleaned physically before it is burned.
Nine technical research and development programs are recommended as necessary
under either policy.
Specific initiatives designed to implement the policy to assure
competitiveness of coal cleaning could include the following:
(1) The removal of the uncertainties regarding both S0?
emission regulations and environmental regulations
pertaining to coal cleaning plants.
(2) The establishment of loan guarantees which can be used
under Section 102 of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) for centralized coal cleaning facilities to
be used for processing the output of many small coal
producers.
(3) The appropriation of funds to construct coal cleaning
plants, after which the operation of these plants could
be turned over to industry on a pay-back-as-run basis.
(4) The establishment of legislative provisions for a lower
income tax rate or for direct subsidies based on the
percent of sulfur removed prior to the sale of the coal.
(5) A reversal of the Internal Revenue Service position
which does not allow coal cleaning plants to qualify
as pollution control investments for tax purposes.
(6) A change in ICC regulations allowing rail shipment
of cleaned coals at unit train rates.
(7) The creation of a public information program to educate
utilities and potential industrial users about the
benefits of burning cleaned coal.
The policy to require that all coal be cleaned has merit on these
general grounds:
• Coal cleaning is the least-cost method for achieving
moderate, but significant, reductions in sulfur emissions
from existing coal-fired boilers.
45
-------
• Cleaned coal could be used immediately in existing facilities.
There are essentially no "retrofit" problems. Thus, reduced
S0? emissions can be achieved as soon as cleaned coal becomes
available. In contrast, the New Source Performance Standards
will not materially affect total S0? emissions until a signifi-
cant fraction of existing boilers are retired and replaced.
• State-of-the-art coal cleaning methods could reduce uncontrolled
emissions of SO,, from coal-burning facilities by an estimated
32 percent if all coal were cleaned physically. Even greater
reductions would be accomplished if advanced processes capable
of removing organic sulfur are developed.
• Scrubbers, operating at 85 percent sulfur-removal efficiency,
would have to be installed on 38 percent of the entire coal-
burning capacity to achieve an equivalent reduction in SO^
emissions.
• The use of cleaned coal is expected to extend boiler life,
improve efficiency, and increase the capacity factor, all
significant conservation benefits.
Congressional action would be necessary to mandate nationwide coal cleaning.
The technology-related research and development recommended must be
completed so that the mandated technology is fully available and demon-
strated. Finally, measures designed to assure that capital is available
for construction of coal cleaning plants will be required. These could
include loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation schedules, product
price supports, or other measures.
Reserve Processing Assessment Model
In the work described in the preceding section, the analysis of coal
availability included only two levels of physical coal cleaning. As there
are many different combinations of coal cleaning operations which might be
employed, it was apparent that an improved method for assessing the cleanability
of the nation's coal reserves by various processes was needed. To accomplish
this, a computer model was developed which combines three sets of coal data and
allows a variety of analyses to be performed on the resultant data base. The
46
-------
model, described and discussed in a report and paper , is called the
Reserve Processing Assessment Model (RPAM).
The data base is composed of an overlay of the reserve base of U.S.
coal, washability data for coal from sample mines, and approximately 50,000
detailed sample coal analyses. All these sets of data were obtained from
the U.S. Bureau of Mines in the form of computer tapes. The resulting
overlay contains 36,000 coal resource records which have the following
information for each:
• Region, state, county, and bed
• Weight in tons of both strip and underground coal
• Mean percent by weight of ash, organic sulfur, and
pyritic sulfur
• Mean heat content expressed in Btu/lb
• The float-sink distribution of the coal characteristics.
From this consolidated data base the effect of a coal cleaning process on
the reserve resources can be calculated. The coal cleaning process specified
can be physical, chemical, real, or hypothetical.
Programs were written to perform various analyses on the combined data
base. A few of these analyses are described briefly as examples.
(1) Four physical and four chemical coal cleaning processes
were defined. The percentage of the coal reserve base
that could be made available to meet various fixed S0~
emission limits by means of each of the processes was
calculated for each of six geographic regions. The
calculations were performed first with the effect of
the variability in the sulfur content ignored, and then
for two different emissions-averaging periods and for
two different sizes of coal-fired facilities to reflect
the effects of sulfur variability. The results were
produced in tabular and in graphical form. The results
can be used to compare the effectiveness of the several
processes when applied to the coals of different regions.
Further, the results show the impact on coal availability
of various fixed-limit SO- emission standards and of
various averaging periods for emissions.
47
-------
(2) The ability of the same eight coal cleaning processes to
produce coal to meet standards which require removal of
a stated percentage of the sulfur in the raw coal was
calculated by region and for various emission-averaging
periods to reflect sulfur variability.
(3) Similar calculations were performed for the combined
technologies of coal cleaning prior to combustion and
flue gas desulfurization (FGD). For the four physical
cleaning processes, the fraction of the reserve, by
region, available to meet sulfur removal standards of
90 percent, 85 percent, and 75 percent was calculated as
a function of the FGD removal efficiency. The results
show, for example, that 25 percent of the coal in the
Northern Appalachian Region, a simple cleaning process
consisting of crushing to 1.5 inch top size and
separation at 1.6 specific gravity would allow the FGD
system to operate at only 75 percent removal efficiency
and still meet an 85 percent removal standard. Such a
reduction in the requirements placed on the FGD system
in actual practice may make the difference between meeting
or violating such a standard.
(4) The combined data base was used to estimate the S0_
reduction which would be achieved if all of the coal
produced annually were cleaned before combustion. The
cleaning process assumed was 3/8-inch top size separated
at 1.3 specific gravity followed by separation of the
refuse at 1.6 specific gravity and combination of the 2
float fractions. The calculations were done on a state-
by-state basis. The results show that a 32.4 percent
reduction in national S02 emission could be achieved, at
Btu loss in cleaning of only 3.04 percent, if all coal
were cleaned by the assumed process.
48
-------
The RPAM model is a powerful tool for evaluating the effectiveness of
various coal cleaning processes, and for assessing the impact of various
emission limits and averaging times on the quantities of coal which can be
made available by cleaning or by combinations of cleaning and by FGD. The
ability to do various analyses on a regional or state level adds to the
usefulness of RPAM.
Work on this model should be continued to update the combined data
base as new washability data and coal analyses are generated, and as
modifications to the coal reserve base are made. Continued updating of
the model would assure its availability for analyses in support of policy
or R and D decisions.
A Major National Symposium on Coal Cleaning
A major participatory review of current coal cleaning programs was
a useful result of the Symposium on Coal Cleaning to Achieve Energy and
Environmental Goals. Approximately 225 participants, including engineers,
environmental scientists, geologists, and managers from the coal industry,
R&D organizations, coal users, planning agencies, and government attended
the conference held in Hollywood, Florida, on September 11-15, 1978.
The Symposium provided a major forum for technical interchange among
engineers and scientists concerned with the development and use of coal
cleaning technology. The 5-day conference included five major sessions at
which papers* were given on coal characteristics, coal cleaning overview,
physical coal cleaning technology, environmental assessment and pollution
control technology, and chemical coal cleaning.
Frank T. Princiotta, Director of the Energy Processes Division, Office
of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, U.S. EPA, addressed the first symposium
luncheon on the "Impacts of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendment". The audience
showed particular interest in his review of the status and substance of the
draft New Source Performance Standards, which were published that week.
The symposium banquet was highlighted by the presentation, "Tomorrow's
Energy Supplies", by Richard J. Anderson, Consultant to Battelle Memorial
Institute, and a brief address by Gennadiy G. Voznyuk, Chief of Nature
* The papers prepared and presented by Battelle authors are listed on
page 51. The final program is reproduced in Appendix A.
49
-------
Protection Directorate, U.S.S.R. Ministry of Coal Industry. The Soviet
representatives to the conference were honored and seated at the head
table at the banquet. They included Viktor Kochetov, General Director,
Donetskugleobogashcheniye, U.S.S.R. Ministry of Coal Industry; Ivan
Nekhoroshiy, Chief of Laboratory of IOTT, U.S.S.R. Ministry of Coal
Industry; and Voznyuk. Simultaneous translation was provided during
all technical sessions as well as social functions of the symposium.
A second symposium luncheon was hosted by Edward Ungar, Director
of Battelle's Columbus Laboratories (BCL), at which conference organizers
James D. Kilgroe of EPA/IERL-RTP and Alexis W. Lemmon, Jr., of BCL were
recognized.
Some technical highlights of the symposium include the paper presented
by Nekhoroshiy of the Soviet delegation and several first-time reports on
major ongoing coal cleaning research programs. "Primary Trends of Works
on Environmental Protection Against the Influence of Coal-Preparation
Plants in the U.S.S.R.", the subject of Nekhoroshiy's presentation, drew
much audience interest. K. Randolph of Versar, Inc., reported in his
paper on "Effluents from Coal Preparation" that proof has been obtained
for the existence of priority pollutants in effluents from coal cleaning.
J. McCreery of Battelle reported that the amount of low-sulfur coals
which can be made available in the United States to meet the 1.2 Ib
SO^/IO Btu NSPS is approximately 41 percent of total reserves as opposed
to an earlier figure reported in the literature of 14 percent. Her
presentation was "An Evaluation of the Desulfurization Potential of U.S.
Coals".
The entire program on Thursday, September 14, provided a detailed
overview of the plans and progress of the environmental assessment of
coal cleaning. The methodological approaches shared will be of use to
many current and future coal cleaning developments. Perhaps the most
useful result of the program was the mutual opportunity to review and
discuss the physical and chemical coal cleaning programs of EPA, DOE,
the Electric Power Research Institute, and numerous industrial organi-
zations, the problems of ongoing operations, and European and Soviet
plans for the future.
Proceedings of the symposium have been prepared and distributed. '
50
-------
List of Papers at
Coal Cleaning Symposium
Prepared by Battelle Staff
p-1 "Interpreting Statistical Variability"
Ralph E. Thomas
p-2 "An Integrated Assessment of Coal Technologies"
Richard Davidson
P-3 "An Evaluation of the Desulfurization Potential of U.S. Coals"
Jane H. McCreery and Fredrick K. Goodman
P-4 "The Use of Coal Cleaning for Complying with SC^ Emission Regulations"
Elton Hall and Gilbert Raines
P-5 "Statistical Correlations on Coal Desulfurization by Crushing and Specific
Gravity Separation"
Ralph E. Thomas
P-6 "Review of Regulations and Standards Influencing Coal Cleaning"
P. Van Voris, R. A. Ewing, and J. W. Harrison
P-7 "Development of Environmental Assessment Criteria for Coal Cleaning Processes"
R. A. Ewing, P- Van Voris, B. Cornaby, and G. E. Raines
P-8 "Methodology Application to Homer City Background Data: Comparison with MEG Values"
D. A. Tolle, D. P. Brown, R. Clark, D. A. Sharp, J. M. Stilwell, and B. W. Vigon
P-9 "An Overview of Control Technology"
Alexis W. Lemmon, Jr., Gerald L. Robinson, and David Sharp
P-10 "Status of Hydrothermal Processing for Chemical Desulfurization of Coal"
E. P. Stambaugh, H. N. Conkle, J. F. Miller, E. J. Mezey, and B. C. Kim
51
-------
Reports and Other Documents
Prepared or in Preparation on
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-02-2163
by Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
(1) Spaite, P., and Min, S., "Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Processes: Technology Overview", special report, in preparation
for review and publication.
(2) Min, S., Ballantyne, W. E., Neuendorf, D. W., and Sharp, D. A.,
"Pollution Control Technology for Coal Cleaning Processes",
draft special report submitted in June 1977 (not to be published).
(3) Ewing, R. A., Tolle, D. A., Min, S., Raines, G. E., and Holoman, V. L.,
"Development of Environmental Assessment Criteria", preliminary
report, April, 1977 (not to be published).
(4) Ewing, R. A., Cornaby, B. W., Van Voris, P., Zuck, J. C., Raines,
G. E., and Min, S., "Development of Criteria for the Assessment
of Environmental Pollutants Associated with Coal Cleaning Processes",
special report, in review prior to publication.
(5) Hale, V. Q., Clark, R., Stilwell, J. M., and Neuendorf, D. W.,
"Development of the Environmental Test Program", draft special report
submitted September 30, 1977 (not to be published).
(6) Tolle, D. A., Thomas R. E., Markarian, R. K. , and Hale, V. Q., "Environ-
mental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: Selection of Test Sites",
special report, in review prior to publication.
(7) Alexander, C. A., Howes, J. E., Heffelfinger, R. E., and Paris, B.,
"Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: Sampling
and Analysis Methods", special report, in review prior to
publication.
(8) Tolle, D. A., Neuendorf, D. W., and Van Voris, P., "Environmental
Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: Source Test Program", special
report, in print by U.S. EPA.
(9) Tolle, D. A., and Van Voris, "Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Processes", "Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: Site
Category I Test Plan", draft special report submitted June 15, 1978
(not to be published).
(10) Rogers, S. E., Tolle, D. A., Brown, D. P., Clark, R., Sharp, D.,
Stilwell, J., and Vigon, B. W., "Environmental Assessment of Coal
Cleaning Processes: Homer City Power Complex", special report, in
review prior to publication.
(11) Rogers, S. E., Tolle, D. A., Brown, D. P., Clark, R., Sharp, D.,
Stilwell, J., and Vigon, B. W., "Supplemental Materials to Environ-
metal assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes", draft special report
submitted May 11, 1979 (not to be published).
52
-------
(12) Goodman, F. K., and McCreery, J. H., "Coal Preparation Plant
Computer Model Users Handbook", special report in preparation for
review and publication.
(13) Igou, R. D., "On-Line User Guide for CCIC", draft special report
(not to be published).
(14) Coal Cleaning Environmental Review. Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 1977; Vol. 2,
No. 1, Summer 1978; Vol. 2, No. 2, Winter 1978-79.
(15) Hall, E. H., Hoffman, L., Hoffman, J., and Schilling, R. A., "Physical
Coal Cleaning for Utility Boiler S02 Emission Control", special report,
EPA-600/7-78-034, February 1978.
(16) Hall, E. H., Lemmon, A. W., Jr., Goodman, F. K., McCreery, J. H., and
Robinson, G. L., Thomas, R. E., Smith, P., and Moore, D. D., "The Use of
Coal Cleaning for Compliance with S02 Emission Regulations", special
report in preparation for review and publication.
(17) Symposium Proceedings; Coal Cleaning to Achieve Energy and Environ-
mental Goals, edited by S. E. Rogers and A. W. Lemmon, Jr., in print
by U.S. EPA.
(18) Lemmon, A. W., Jr., Rogers, S. E., Robinson, G. L., Hale, V. Q., and
Raines, G. E., "Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes:
First Annual Report", in print.
(19) Lemmon, A. W., Jr., Robinson, G. L., Van Voris, P., and Rogers, S. E.,
"Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: Second Annual
Report", in preparation for review and publication.
(20) Lemmon, A. W., Jr., Robinson, G. L., Rogers, S. E., Van Voris, P.,
"Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: Final Report",
in preparation for review and publication.
(21) Lemmon, A. W., Jr., Robinson, G. L., and Rogers, S. E., "Environmental
Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes", monthly progress reports for
July 1976 through June 1979.
53
-------
APPENDIX A
SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM
54
-------
&EPA Symposium on
Coal Cleaning to
Achieve Energy and
Environmental Goals
FINAL PROGRAM
55
-------
4>EPA Symposium on
Coal Cleaning to
Achieve Energy and
Environmental Goals
Symposium Chairman
James D. Kilgroe
U.S. EPA, IERL-RTP
Symposium Cochairman
Alexis W. Lemmon, Jr.
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
Monday. September 11, 1978
1:00—Registration—Mezzanine Lounge
Session 0: Coal Characteristics
2-5 p.m.—Regency West
Chairman: David A. Kirchgessner
U.S. EPA
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL-RTP)
Cochairman: Harold L. Lovell
Pennsylvania State University
2:00 Petrography of Coal
Ron W. Stanton
U.S. Geological Survey
2:20 Mineralogic Affinities of Trace Elements.in Coal
Faith Fiene
Illinois State Geological Survey
2:50 Effects of Coal Cleaning on Elemental Distributions
Charles T. Ford and James F. Boyer, Jr.
Bituminous Coal Research
3:20 Coffee Break
3:30 Particle Size Distribution in Liberation of Pyrite
Harold L. Lovell
Pennsylvania State University
4:00 Contaminants in Coal: Geology
and Size—Gravity Separations
C. Blame Cecil
U.S. Geological Survey
4:30 Interpreting Statistical Variability
Ralph E. Thomas
Battelle's Columbus Laboratr-'es
7-9 Welcome Reception—Regency North
p m.
Tuesday, September 12, 1978
8:00 a.m.—Registration—Mezzanine Lounge
Session 1: Coal Cleaning Overview
Morning Program—9 a.m.-12 Noon
Chairman: James D, Kilgroe
U.S. EPA, IERL-RTP
9:00 Welcome
Norbert Jaworski, Deputy Director
U.S.EPA, IERL-RTP
9:15 Introductory Remarks
James D. Kilgroe, Symposium Chairman
U.S. EPA, IERL-RTP
9:30 Overview of EPA Coal Cleaning Programs
David A. Kirchgessner and James D. Kilgroe
U.S. EPA, IERL-RTP
10:00 Overview of DOE Coal Cleaning Programs
Cyril W. Draffin
Department of Energy (DOE)
10:30 Coffee Break
10:45 Overview of EPRI Coal Cleaning Programs
Kenneth Clifford and Shelton Ehrlich
Electric Power Research Institute
11:15 An Integrated Assessment of Coal Technologies
Roger Hansen
U.S. EPA, IERL-RTP
Richard Davidson
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
12:00
Noon
Luncheon—Les Ambassadeurs Room
Impacts of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendment
Luncheon Speaker: Frank Princiotta
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
56
-------
Afternoon Program — 2-5 p.m.
Chairman: Kenneth Clifford
Electric Power Research Institute
2:00 Environmental Protection Against the Influence of
Coal-Preparation Plants in the USSR
I. S. Blagov, G. G. Vosnyuk, V. V. Kochetov,
I. Ch. Nekhoroshy, and I. E. Cherevko
USSR. Ministry of Coal
2:30 Clean Fuel Supply Requirements for the
OECD Countries
Gary J. Foley
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
Richard Livingston
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3:00 A Technical and Economic Overview of Coal Cleaning
Horst Huettenhain Samuel Wong
Bechtel Corporation Argonne National Laboratory
3:30 Coffee Break
3:45 An Evaluation of Institutional, Economic, Regulatory and
Legislative Barriers to Investment in Physical Coal Cleaning as
an SOa Emission Control Strategy
Karel Fisher and Peter M. Cukor
Teknekron, Inc.
4:15 Economics of Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization for
Compliance with Revised NSPS for Utility Boiler
R. M. Cole
Tennessee Valley Authority
4:45 Impact of Transportation and Beneficiation on the Utilization
of High Sulfur Coal
C. Phillip Baumel, Thomas P. Drinka and John J. Miller
Ames Laboratory, Iowa State University
Wednesday, September 13, 1978
Session 2: Physical Coal Cleaning
Technology
Morning Program — 9 a.m.-12 Noon
Chairman: Richard E. Hucko
Coal Preparation and Analysis Laboratory
U.S. Department of Energy
9:00 An Evaluation of the Desulfurization Potential of U.S. Coals
Jane H. McCreery and Fredrick K. Goodman
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
9:30 The Use of Coal Cleaning for Complying with SO2 Emission
Regulations
Elton Hall Gilbert E. Raines
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories Resource Dynamics, Inc.
10:00 Statistical Correlations on Coal Desulfurization by Crushing
and Specific Gravity Separation
Ralph E. Thomas
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
10:30 Coffee Break
10:45 Dewatering and Drying of Fine Coal: Performance and Costs
Donald Sargent and William Cheng
Versar Inc.
11:15 Homer City Coal Cleaning Demonstration,
Test, and Technology Evaluation Program
James H. Tice
Pennsylvania Electric Company
11:45 Computer Control of Coal Preparation
Gerry Norton, Clive Longden, and George Hambleton
Norton, Hambleton Associates
Afternoon Program — 2-5 p.m.
Chairman. Kenneth Harrison
Heyl & Patterson, Inc.
2:00 Physical and Physicochemical Removal of Sulfur from Coal
Ray W. Fisher and David Birlingmair
Ames Laboratory
Iowa State University
2:30 Cleaning of Eastern Bituminous Coals by Fine Grinding,
Froth Flotation and High Gradient Magnetic Separation
W. L. Freyberger, J. W. Keck, D. W. Spottiswood,
N. D. Solem and Virginia L. Doane
Michigan Technological University
3:00 The Potential of Magnetic Separation in
Coal Preparation
Frederick V. Karlson, Horst Huettenhain, William W. Slaughter
Bechtel National Inc.
Kenneth L. Clifford
EPRI
3:30 Coffee Break
3:45 Testing of Commercial Coal Preparation Plants with a
Mobile Laboratory
William Higgins and Thomas Plouf
Joy Manufacturing Co.
4:15 Chemical Comminution—an Improved Route to Clean
Coal
V. C. Quackenbush, R. R. Maddocks, and G. W. Higginsop
Catalytic, Inc.
4:45 Coal Cleaning by the Otisca Process
Speaker to be announced
6-9 Social Hour and Banquet— Les Ambassadeurs Room
p.m. Tomorrow's Energy Supplies
Banquet Speaker: Richard J. Anderson
Formerly Associate Director, Battelle's
Energy Program; Currently Consultant to
Battelle Memorial Institute
Thursday, September 14, 1978
Session 3: Environmental
Assessment and Pollution
Control Technology
Morning Program—9 a.m.-12 Noon
Chairman- G. Ray Smithson, Jr.
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
9:00 Introduction to the EPA Program
T. K. Janes
EPA, IERL-RTP
9:20 Environmental Assessment Methodologies
for Fossil Energy Processes
R. P. Hangebrauck
EPA, IERL-RTP
J. L. Warren
Research Triangle Institute
57
-------
9.50 Review of Regulations and Standards
Influencing Coal Cleaning
Peter Van Voris
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
J. W. Harrison
Research Triangle Institute
10:20 Coffee Break
10:30 Environmental Impact Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Processes
• Establishing Goals
Barney W. Cornaby
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
• Overall Methodology
Robert A. Ewing
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
• Biological Transport
Peter Van Voris
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
• Physical Transport and Partition Functions
Gilbert E. Raines
Raines Consulting, Inc.
11:30 Methodology Application to Homer City Background
Data: Comparison with MEG Values
D. A. Tolle
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
12:00 Luncheon—Les Ambassadeurs Room
Noon Luncheon Host: Edward W. Ungar, Director
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
Afternoon Program—2 p.m.-5 p.m.
Chairman: C. Grua
U.S. Department of Energy
2:00 An Overview of Control Technology
Alexis W. Lemmon, Jr., Gerald L. Robinson,
and David Sharp
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
2:30 Effluents from Coal Preparation
K. Randolph
Versar, Inc.
3:00 Control of Trace Element Leaching from Coal Prepara-
tion Wastes
E. M. Wewerka
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
3:20 Coffee Break
3:30 Stabilization of Coal Preparation Plant Sludges
David Hoffman
Dravo Lime Company
4:00 Chemical and Biological Characterization of Leachate
from Coal Cleaning Wastes
R. A. Griffin, et al.
Illinois State Geological Survey
Friday, September 15, 1978
Session 4: Chemical Coal Cleaning
Morning Program — 9 a.m.-12 Noon
Chairman: Thomas D. Wheelock
Iowa State University
9:00 Introduction to Chemical Cleaning
R. A. Meyers
TRW Inc.
9:20 Current Status of Chemical Coal Cleaning Processes—
An Overview
Lee C. McCandless and G. Y. Contos
Versar, Inc.
9:50 Status of the Reactor Test Project for Chemical
Removal of Pyritic Sulfur from Coal
L. J. Van Nice and M. J. Santy
TRW Inc.
E. Bobalek and L. D. Tamny
U.S. EPA, IERL-RTP
10:20 Coffee Break
10:30 Status of Hydrothermal Processing for Chemical Desulfuriza-
tion of Coal
E. P. Stambaugh, J. F. Miller. H. N. Conkle, B. C. Kim, and
E. J. Mezey
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
11:00 Survey of Coals Treated by Oxydesulfurization
R. P. Warzinski, S. Friedman, and F. W. Steffgen
Pittsburgh Energy Research Center—DOE
11:30 Coal Desulfurization by Leaching with Alkaline
Solution Containing Oxygen
Richard Markuszewski, K. C. Chuang, and Thomas D. Wheelock
Ames Laboratory, Iowa State University
Afternoon Program — 2-5 p.m.
Chairman: Robin R. Oder
Gulf Research and Development Co.
2:00 Potential for Chemical Coal Cleaning: Reserves. Technology,
and Economics
R. A. Giberti, R. S. Opalanko, and Joachim R. Sinek
Kennecott Copper Corp.
2:20 JPL Coal Desulfurization Process by Low Temperature
Chlorinolysis
John J. Kalvinskas and George Hsu
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
2:40 Oxidative Coal Desulfurization Using Nitrogen Oxides—
the KVB Process
E. D. Guth
KVB, Inc.
3:00 Coffee Break
3:20 The Dry Removal of Pyrite and Ash from Coal by the Magnex
Process—Process Variables and Clean Coal Properties
James K. Kindig and Duane N. Goens
Hazen Research, Inc.
3:40 Panel Discussion on Prospects for Characterization and
Removal of Organic Sulfur from Coal
Chairman: Robin R. Oder
Gulf Research and Development Co.
Panelists: Sidney Friedman
Pittsburgh Energy Research Center—DOE
Amir Attar
University of Houston
Douglas M. Jewell
Gulf Research and Development Co.
Thomas G. Squires
Iowa State University
58
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-073g
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Processes: Second Annual Report
5. REPORT DATE
December 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
A.W.Lemmon, Jr. , G.L.Robinson, P. Van Voris,
and S.E.Rogers
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Battelle Memorial Institute
Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE623A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2163
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Annual; 10/77 - 11/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL_RTP project officer is James D. Kilgroe. Mail Drop 61,
919/541-2851. First annual report was EPA-600/7-79-073b and -073c.
16. ABSTRACT Tne report describes the second year's work for EPA by Battelle's Colum-
bus Laboratories on an environmental assessment of coal cleaning processes. Pro-
gram activities included systems studies, data acquisition, and general program
support. (1) Systems studies have been directed at: updating, refining, and develop-
ing new data on the technology of coal cleaning; summarizing previous efforts on the
study of pollution control technology; continuing the development of environmental
assessment criteria for pollutants associated with coal cleaning processes; and plan-
ning for pollution control trade-off studies. (2) Data acquisition included: selecting
test sites and arranging for testing; selecting and documenting preferred procedures
for sampling and analysis; designing the overall source test program; and preparing
the specific test plan for the first category of sites to be tested. Ten test site cate-
gories were established, prioritized, and candidate sites were narrowed to 47. (3)
General program support included: evaluation of environmental tests at the Homer
City coal cleaning plant site and modification of a computer program for simulating
performance of this and other coal cleaning plants; operation of the Coal Cleaning
Information Center; an exchange of environmental information with the USSR; eval-
uation of coal cleaning to control SO2 emissions; and coordinating a symposium.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Assessments
Coal
Coal Preparation
Industrial Processes
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Coal Cleaning
13B
14B
08G
081
13H
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
55
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
59
------- |