United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-80-022
December 1980
Air
A Review of Standards
of Performance for New
Stationary Sources - Coal
Preparation Plants
-------
EPA-450/3-80-022
A Review of Standards
of Performance for New
Stationary Sources -
Coal Preparation Plants
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Contract No 68-02-3174
EPA Project Officer Thomas Bibb
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1980
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air, Noise,
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement
by EPA. Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees , and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit
from the Library Services Office, MD-35, Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; or may be obtained, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-80-022
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Best Demonstrated Control Technology 1-1
1.2 Industrial Trends 1-2
1.3 Current Particulate Matter Levels with Best
Demonstrated Control Technology 1-3
1.4 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Thermal Dryers 1-3
1.5 Revisions to NSPS 1-4
1.6 Future Additions to the Standard 1-4
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Background Information 2-1
2.2 The Preparation Process 2-3
2.2.1 Plant Feed Preparation 2-3
2.2.2 Raw Coal Size Reduction and Screening 2-5
2.2.3 Raw Coal Cleaning 2-6
2.2.4 Product Dewatering and/or Drying 2-6
2.2.5 Product Storage and Shipping 2-12
2.3 References for Chapter 2 2-13
3.0 CURRENT STANDARDS FOR COAL PREPARATION 3-1
3.1 Affected Facilities 3-1
3.2 Controlled Pollutants and Emission Levels 3-1
in
-------
Section
3.3 State Regulations 3-2
3.4 PSD Regulations 3-4
3.5 References for Chapter 3 3-6
4.0 STATUS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 4-1
4.1 Coal Preparation Industry Statistics 4-1
4.1.1 Number of Plants and Geographic Distribution .... 4-1
4.1.2 Industrial Trends 4-1
4.1.3 Preparation of Nonbituminous Coals 4-9
4.2 Emissions from Coal Preparation Plants 4-10
4.2.1 NSPS Control Techniques 4-15
4.2.2 Controls which Exceed NSPS 4-17
4.3 References for Chapter 4 4-23
5.0 COMPLIANCE TEST RESULTS 5-1
5.1 Analysis of NSPS Test Results 5-1
5.2 Sulfur Dioxide (503) Emissions from Thermal
Dryers 5-5
5.3 References for Chapter 5 5-7
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1
6.1 New Source Performance Standard Revisions 6-1
6.1.1 Pneumatic Coal Cleaning Processes 6-1
6.1.2 Thermal Dryers 6-1
6.1.3 Other Affected Facilities 6-3
6.2 Findings and Conclusions 6-4
6.3 Recommendations 6-5
6.4 References for Chapter 6 6-6
Appendix A List of Domestic Coal Preparation Plants A-l
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Flow diagram and material balance of a typical
concentrating table and hydrocyclone plant handling
1,000 tph of raw coal 2-4
4-1 Coal production in the United States 4-3
4-2 Coal cleaning plants in the United States 4-4
4-3 Potential S02 emissions kg/GJ (lbs/106 Btu) for
29,055 J/g (12,500 Btu/lb) coal 4-15
4-4 Best demonstrated emission control for thermal
dryers and pneumatic cleaning operations 4-18
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Common Commercial Sizes of Bituminous Coal 2-7
2-2 Summary of Physical Coal Cleaning Unit Operations. . . 2-8
2-3 Typical Moisture Content of Products by Equipment
or Process 2-11
3-1 State Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation
Plants 3-3
4-1 Number of Coal Preparation Plants by State 4-5
4-2 Coal Preparation Industry Statistics 4-6
4-3 Typical Characteristics of Dust from Emission Sources. 4-11
4-4 Combustion Product Emissions from Well-Controlled
Thermal Dryers 4-14
4-5 Fugitive Emissions from Coal Preparation Plants. . . . 4-20
4-6 Estimated Costs of Air Pollution Control Equipment
for Coal Cleaning Plants 4-22
5-1 Coal Preparation Compliance Test Results 5-2
5-2 Coal Preparation S02 Emissions 5-6
VI
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the coal preparation
industry were promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
on January 15, 1976. These standards affect thermal dryers, pneumatic
coal cleaning equipment, coal processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage systems, and coal transfer and loading facilities. Affected
facilities are those facilities which commenced construction or modifi-
cation after October 24, 1974.
The objective of this report is to review and determine the need
for revision of the NSPS for coal preparation plants. The review
includes new developments in control technology, coal preparation process
technology, projected growth, and other considerations affecting air
emissions in the industry.
1.1 BEST DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The current NSPS specifies emission limits for tSiermal dryers and
pneumatic coal cleaning equipment based on concentration loadings.
Emissions from thermal dryers are not to contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.070 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.031 grains per dry
standard cubic foot) and shall not exhibit 20 percent or greater opacity.
Emissions from pneumatic coal cleaning equipment are not to contain par-
ticulate matter in excess of 0.040 grams per dry standard cubic meter
(0.018 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and shall not exhibit 10 percent
or greater opacity.
No changes have occurred in control technology for thermal dryers
and pneumatic cleaning equipment since promulgation of the standards of
performance. The best available control technology (BACT) for thermal
dryers consists of primary control using centrifugal collectors. Secondary
-------
control is accomplished by the use of high-efficiency venturi wet
scrubbers. BACT for pneumatic coal cleaning equipment consists of
primary contro1 using centrifugal collectors and secondary control
using fabric filtration.
Control of fugitive emissions within the coal preparation process is
accomplished by prevention and not by the utilization of control devices.
The current NSPS regulates fugitive emissions from coal processing and
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal transfer and loading
systems. Emissions from these sources shall not exhibit 20 percent or
greater opacity. Methods of control include wet suppression and enclosing
sources of potential fugitive particulate emissions.
1.2 INDUSTRIAL TRENDS
In 1979 there were approximately 488 coal preparation plants operating
in the United States. It is estimated that by 1985 there will be approx-
imately 40 new or modified facilities to accommodate the projected increase
in the production of domestic coal.
The use of pneumatic coal cleaning is diminishing due to low cleaning
efficiencies (as compared to wet cleaning processes) and problems associ-
ated with high moisture content in raw coal. The number of pneumatic
cleaning facilities in the United States decreased from 37 facilities in
1972 to 30 in 1979. Three pneumatic cleaning facilities have been con-
structed since the NSPS became effective in October 1974. It is projected
that 2 additional pneumatic cleaning facilities could be constructed by
1985.
The number of thermal dryers in the United States has declined since
1972. In 1972 there were 184 thermal dryers in operation. This decreased
to 114 in 1977. Seventeen thermal dryers have been constructed since the
standards of performance became effective. This represents approximately a
3 percent annual growth rate in new facilities. Based on this growth rate,
24 additional new thermal dryers are expected to become operational by 1985.
1-2
-------
1.3 CURRENT PARTICULATE MATTER LEVELS WITH BEST DEMONSTRATED CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
There has been general compliance with the NSPS fugitive emission
standard for coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage
systems, and coal transfer and loading systems.
Three pneumatic coal cleaning operations have been constructed since
the NSPS became effective. The three facilities utilized BACT and all
were found to be in compliance with standards of performance, with
particulate emissions ranging from 0.011 to 0.022 grams per dry standard
cubic meter (0.005 to 0.010 grains per dry standard cubic foot).
Seventeen thermal dryers have been constructed since the NSPS
became effective. All thermal dryers have controlled emissions using
BACT. Thirteen of the NSPS-affected thermal dryers achieved compliance
with the standards of performance, with particulate emissions ranging
from 0.016 to 0.070 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.007 to 0.031
grains per dry standard cubic foot). Of the 4 facilities not within com-
pliance, one was able to comply with the NSPS during a subsequent
performance test. Venturi pressure drops for the thermal dryers in
compliance ranged from 5.5 to 10.4 kilopascals (22 to 42 inches H20),
with an average of 8.5 kilopascals (34.2 inches H20).
1.4 SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM THERMAL DRYERS
Sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions are produced from the combustion
of coal in thermal dryer furnaces. The emissions of S02 are a function
of the sulfur content of coal burned in the combustion furnace.
Performance tests have been conducted on 3 thermal dryers to
determine S02 emission rates. S02 emissions ranged from 0.57 to 4.3
grams per second (4.54 to 34.5 pounds per hour) with estimated annual
emissions ranging from 6.2 to 46.9 megagrams per year (6.81 to 51.75 tons
per year). These emissions are well under the emission limitation of 90.7
megagrams per year (100 tons per year) stated in the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments for major sources. As a result, these emissions do not indicate
the need to control S02 emissions in standards of performance. However,
any future attempt to include S02 emissions in standards of performance
must include a detailed assessment of the associated costs of S0? control
technology for thermal dryers.
1-3
-------
1.5 REVISIONS TO NSPS
There has been general compliance with the current MSPS for thermal
dryers and pneumatic coal cleaning equipment with achievability of
existing standards adequately demonstrated. It is recommended that
standards of performance for pneumatic coal cleaning equipment and
thermal dryers remain unchanged.
1.6 FUTURE ADDITIONS TO THE STANDARD
The current NSPS governing fugitive emissions was developed to
include contained coal storage systems, specifically exempting open
coal storage piles. Open storage piles are potential sources of
significant fugitive emissions. Research is needed to quantify the
impact of fugitive emissions from open coal storage piles to assess the
need for future regulation.
A significant source of potential fugitive emissions not regulated
by current HSPS are coal "unloading" or "receiving" systems. These
systems are considered to be in a category other than coal preparation,
and EPA is considering whether to list them as a source category.
Chemical coal cleaning will become a commercial industry in the next
5 to 10 years. Potential pollutants from the chemical coal cleaning
processes need to be assessed to determine the need for future standards
of performance.
1-4
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
On October 24, 1974 (39 FR 37922), under Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed standards of
performance for new and modified coal preparation plants. In accordance
with Section 111 of the Act, as amended, these regulations were promulgated
on January 15, 1976, prescribing standards of performance for coal
preparation plants. The regulations applied to thermal dryers, pneumatic
coal cleaners, coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage
systems, and coal transfer and loading systems, the construction or
modification of which commenced after October 24, 1974.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require the Administrator of
the EPA to review and, if appropriate, revise established standards of
performance for new stationary sources at least every 4 years. The
purpose of this report is to review and assess the need for revision of
the existing standards for coal preparation plants based on developments
that have occurred or are expected to occur within the coal preparation
industry. The information presented in this report was obtained from
reference literature, discussions with industry representatives, trade
associations, control equipment vendors, EPA regional offices, and state
agencies.
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Coal preparation is a beneficiation process. The purpose of the
coal preparation industry is to improve the characteristics of mined
coal to meet market demands of industry. The degree of preparation
varies widely, and the processes used range from simple mechanical
removal of rock and dirt to complex coal beneficiation plants for the
removal of potential pollutants. The type of cleaning process and the
extent of cleaning depends of the type of coal, the method of mining,
-------
and the end use of the coal. The specific characteristics of coal which
may be altered by coal preparation include the following:
Size reduction
t Ash removal
t Sulfur content reduction
Foreign materials removal
Surface moisture reduction.
The relative amount of contaminants, the manner in which they are part
of the coal structure, and the degree to which they can be removed, vary
widely with different coals.
It is estimated that at least 55 percent of the coal mined in the
United States is subject to some type of preparation process. Presently,
all domestic commercial coal preparation plants use physical coal cleaning
techniques which are primarily designed to remove mineral matter and
mining residue. These physical coal cleaning techniques also increase
the energy content of the coal on a dry basis and reduce the ash content.
Coal is physically cleaned by crushing run-of-the-mine (ROM) coal to the
point at which a portion of the mineral impurities are removed from the
coal structure. The mineral and coal fragments are then separated by
techniques which utilize the differences in the specific gravity or
2
surface properties of the particles.
The existence of state and Federal sulfur dioxide (SCL) emission
regulations has created interest in the sulfur reduction potential of
the coal preparation process. The only sulfur removal coal preparation
2 3
plant presently operating is located in Homer City, Pennsylvania. '
It was designed to provide low-sulfur (2.24 percent sulfur) coal to
fuel 2 existing 600 megawatt generating units at the adjacent power
plant as well as ultra-low-sulfur (0.88 percent sulfur) coal for a new
650 megawatt unit. The selected design utilizes a broad spectrum of con-
ventionally applied coal cleaning equipment, working to its best advantage
on a preprocessed feedstock. This system is known as the Multi-Stream
Coal Cleaning System (MCCS). This process selectively removes the pyrite
sulfur from the coal stream, dramatically reducing the sulfur content of
P
the coal. Two additional sulfur removal preparation plants are being
o
planned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
2-2
-------
Chemical coal cleaning processes are also being developed to provide
improved techniques for desulfurizing coal employed for steam generation
and metallurgical purposes. Chemical coal cleaning processes vary sub-
stantially due to the different chemical reactions which can be used to
remove the sulfur and other contaminants from the coal. Chemical coal
processes usually entail grinding the coal into small particles followed
by treatment using acid, alkaline, and oxidation reaction methods. It
has been estimated that several chemical processes could be ready for
commercial demonstration in 5 to 10 years. The specific intent of
chemical coal cleaning is to produce desulfurized coals for use in
complying with SCL emission standards. If inexpensive processes can be
developed that reduce sulfur content as well as achieve high Btu yields,
the vast eastern coal reserves would hold greater potential use to
industry because compliance with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
could be more readily and economically achieved. Because chemical
cleaning is still in the development stage, it is uncertain which processes
will prove commercially viable. This report deals exclusively with the
available technology of physical coal preparation.
2.2 THE PREPARATION PROCESS
The physical preparation of coal may be categorized into 5 general
processes:
1. Plant feed preparation.
2. Raw coal size reduction and screening.
3. Raw coal cleaning (removal of impurities, including ash and
pyrite)
4. Product dewatering and/or drying.
5. Product storage and shipping.
The processing sequence of a typical coal preparation plant is illustrated
in Figure 2-1.
2.2.1 Plant Feed Preparation
The first step in the coal preparation process is the delivery of
ROM coal to the plant site. Coal is transported by railroad cars,
trucks, or conveyors from both surface and underground mines.5 When ROM
coal is delivered to the preparation site, it is dumped into a surge bin
2-3
-------
ROM coal
1000 tph1
ro
i
Crushing and
sizing circuit
I
Wet screen
at 3/8 in
Wet screen
at 28 Mesh
Recycled
water ^
Refuse
(10 tph)
Water
3450 gpm
Water
2800 gpm
Coarse-size coal
circuit
4 ,
t
Refuse
(170 tph)
Concentrating
table circuit
t
Refuse
(50 tph)
Clean
coa 1
'product
740 tph
dewatering
Thickener under flow (30 tph)
Figure 2-1. Flow diagram and material balance of typical concentrating table
and hydrocyclone plant handling 1,000 tons per hour of raw coal.6
-------
or surge feeder. The coal is then processed by a ROM scalper to remove
large pieces of coal and rock. The method of mining affects the material
size analysis of the feed to the ROM scalper. The ROM scalper is usually
3 /
a heavy-duty, mechanically vibrated, single deck, inclined-type screen.
In the second step, the ROM coal is reduced in size to render it
suitable for further processing. There are two fundamental objectives
for the reduction of the size of coal: to reduce it to sizes suitable
for cleaning, and to meet market specifications for certain sizes. The
production of fines is considered undesirable; hence, crushers are
designed to produce minimal amounts of undersize material. ROM coal is
broken into increasingly smaller sizes by staged reduction. The first
stage, primary breaking, reduces the raw coal to 100 to 200 millimeters
(4 to 8 inches). The various sizes are then screened and sent to washing
units or to secondary crushers. The secondary crushers reduce the product
to a top size of 45 millimeters (1.75 inches). The final step in the
plant feed preparation process entails storage of the raw coal. The
storage of raw coal has become an increasingly important operation in new,
large preparation facilities because it:
limits interruptions of feedstock to the preparation plant;
improves efficiency by allowing a controlled feed rate; and
facilitates in blending various ROM coals to produce the
desired properties of the feedstock.
Raw coal can be stored either in open areas or closed bins. Open
outside storage is usually chosen; however, there are drawbacks to this
method. Outside coal storage is a potential environmental problem due
to wind and rainfall erosion. Prevailing winds remove particulate matter
from the storage pile, and rainfall can also leach pollutants from this
pile which end up in "run-off" water. The storage of coal in closed bins,
however, minimizes the potential for airborne pollutants and run-off.
Various types of bunkers, silos, and bins are also available. Storage
bins are usually cylindrical in shape and constructed of steel or concrete.5
2.2.2 Raw Coal Size Reduction and Screening
Raw coal sizing consists of a primary and secondary size check,
causing separation of the product into coarse, intermediate, or fine sizes.
2-5
-------
Primary sizing, typically accomplished by screens, separates coal into
coarse and intermediate sizes. The coarse fraction is reduced in size as
necessary and returned to the sizing operation. The second size check,
generally a wet or dry vibrating screen, separates the intermediate sizes
from the fines and directs the product to the raw coal cleaning stage.
2.2.3 Raw Coal Cleaning
The raw coal cleaning stage determines product quality. Although
many different coal cleaning techniques exist, most processes are based
upon gravity separation methods. The decision concerning which separation
process should be utilized is generally based on the size grouping (fine,
intermediate, coarse) of the raw coal. Table 2-1 shows size ranges of
a
1
o
coal. Table 2-2 summarizes the types of equipment used for raw coal
cleaning.
2.2.4 Product Dewatering and/or Drying
The wet types of coal cleaning operations require some type of
product dewatering and/or drying stage. Removal of excess moisture from
coal decreases shipping costs, increases the heating value of the coal,
and prevents freezing problems in cold climates. Moisture reduction can
be accomplished by either mechanical or thermal drying processes. Table
2-3 summarizes the product coal moisture ranges which can be achieved by
various dewatering and drying methods on coal which is 9.5 x 0 millimeters
(0.375 x 0 inch) in size.
The decision of which moisture reduction scheme to utilize is
primarily dependent on coal particle size. Coarse particles greater than
6.4 millimeters (0.25 inch) offer comparatively small surface areas for
moisture adhesion and can be dewatered by mechanical means to 5 percent
moisture content or less. Fine coals, 12.7 x 0.09 millimeters (0.5 inch x
28 mesh), have a considerably larger surface area in proportion to weight
and require more sophisticated mechanical dewatering techniques to reduce
moisture content to below 10 percent. Advanced dewatering techniques
include processes such as high performance centrifuges and vacuum filters.
Very fine coals, 6.4 x 0.09 millimeters (0.25 inch x 28 mesh), represent
the greatest problem, and often may only be adequately dryed by thermal
(evaporative) means. The energy requirements of dewatering and drying
2-6
-------
Table 2-1. COMMON COMMERCIAL SIZES OF BITUMINOUS COAL
8
Type
Size
inches
Usage
Run-of-the-mi ne
(ROM)
Run-of-the-mine
(ROM)
Lump
Egg
Nut
Stoker coal
Slack
203.2
127.0
127.0 x 50.8
50.8 x 31.75
<19.05
(8)
(5)
(5 x 2)
(2 x 1.25)
31.75 x 19.05 (1.25 x 0.75)
(<0.75)
Shipped without
screening. Used for
both domestic heating
as wel1 as steam pro-
duction.
Overside lumps are
crushed.
Used for hand firing
and domestic purposes.
Will not go through
a round (5-inch) hole.
Used for hand firing,
gas producers, and
domestic firing. Goes
through a round (5-
inch) hole but is
retained on round
(2-inch) hole screens.
Used for small indus-
trial stokers, gas
producers, and hand
firing.
Used for small indus-
trial stokers and
domestic firing.
Used for pulverizers,
cyclone furnaces, and
industrial stokers.
2-7
-------
Table 2-2. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL COAL CLEANING UNIT OPERATIONS
1
Unit operation
Description
Remarks
Jigging
Tables
ISJ
I
oo
Dense media
A pulsating fluid stratifies coal
particles in increasing density
from top to bottom. The cleaned
coal is overflowed at the top.
Pulverized coal and water are
floated over a table vibrating in
a reciprocating motion. The
lighter coal particles are
separated to the bottom of the
table, while the heavier, larger,
impure particles move to the
sides.
Coal is slurried in a medium with
a specific gravity close to that
at which the separation is to be
made. The lighter, purer coal
floats to the top and is continu-
ously skimmed off.
Most popular and least expensive
oal washer available, but may
not produce the desired separation
Sizes: 3.4 to 76 mm (6 mesh to
3 inches).
Sizes: 0.15 to 6.4
to 0.25 inches).
mm (100 mesh
Advantages: Ability to make sharp
separations at any specific gravity
within the range normally required;
ability to handle wide range of
sizes; relatively low capital and
operating costs when considered in
terms of high capacity and small
space requirements; ability to
handle fluctuations in feed quan-
tity and quality. Sizes: 0.59 to
200 mm (28 mesh to 8 inches).
(continued)
-------
Table 2-2. Continued
Unit operation
Description
Remarks
Hydrocyclones
Humphrey spiral
ro
i
10
Launder-type coal
The separating mechanism is des-
cribed as taking place in the
ascending vortex. The high and
low specific gravity particles
moving upward in this current are
subjected to centrifugal forces
effecting separation.
Coal-water slurry is fed into a
spiral conduit. As it flows down-
ward, stratification of the solids
occurs with the heavier particles
concentrated in a band along the
spiral. An adjustable splitter
separates the stream into 2 pro-
ductsa clean coal and the
middlings.
Raw coal is fed into the high end of
a trough with a stream of water. As
the stream of coal and water flows
down the incline, particles having
the highest settling rate settle in-
to the lower strata of the stream.
These are the middling or refuse
particles. The clean coal particles
gravitate into the upper strata
before separation.
If maximum pyrite reduction and
maximum clean coal yield are to
be obtained, supplemental pro-
cesses such as cyclone classifying,
fine mesh screening and froth flota-
tion are necessary (on stream pro-
cess). Hydrocyclones are presently
used in the United States to clean
flotation-sized coal, but can be
used for coal as coarse as 64 x
0 mm (0.25 x 0 inches).
Has shown significant ash and
sulfur reduction on 0.42 x 0 mm
(35 x 0 mesh) Middle Kittanning
coal.
Three types of launders are rec-
ognized based upon mode of trans-
port. Sizes: 4.76 x 76 mm (4 mesh
to 3 inches).
(continued)
-------
Table 2-2. Concluded
Unit operation
Description
Remarks
Pneumatic
Froth flotation
ro
t'
o
Coal and refuse particles are stra-
tified by means of pulsating air.
The layer of refuse formed travels
forward into pickets or wells from
which it is withdrawn. The upper
layer of coal travels over the
refuse and is removed at the oppo-
site end.
A coal slurry is mixed with a
collector to make certain fractions
of the mixture hydrophilic. A
frother is added and finely dissem-
inated air bubbles are passed through
the mix. Air-adhering particles
float tc the top of the remaining
slurry and then removed as a concen-
trate.
Most acceptable preparation method
from the standpoint of delivered
heating value cost. Sizes: up to
6.4 mm (0.25 inches).
Froth flotation is used to reduce
pyrite in English coals; the
flotation of coal refuse to obtain
salable pyrite is uneconomical in
view of today's poor sulfur market;
if ethylxanthate is used as the
collector, it is absorbed onto coal
pyrite in such a manner as to make
it ineffective for flotation.
Sizes: 1.17 to 0.044 mm (14 to
325 mesh).
-------
Table 2-3. TYPICAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF PRODUCTS BY EQUIPMENT OR PROCESS
1
Type of equipment/process
Discharge product
Dewatering screens
Centrifuges
Filters
Hydraulic cyclones
Static thickeners
Thermal dryers
Oil agglomeration processes
8 to 20 percent moisture
10 to 20 percent moisture
20 to 50 percent moisture
40 to 60 percent solids
30 to 40 percent solids
6 to 7.5 percent moisture
8 to 12 percent moisture
2-11
-------
are directly related to the size of the feed and the percent moisture
reduction desired.
2.2.5 Product Storage and Shipping
Coal preparation plants must be capable of providing specific
quantities of cleaned coal at specified times. Sometimes it is not
feasible to load clean coal at the rate of production of the coal prepa-
ration plant. As a result, clean coal storage has become an economic
5
necessity. Several important reasons for storing clean coal are:
to quickly and economically load unit trains, barges, and
other intermittent bulk transport conveyances;
to facilitate the attainment of maximum product uniformity;
and
t to eliminate the dependency on preparation plant production.
Cleaned coal may be stored in open, uncontrolled storage piles or
in enclosed silos or bins. In contrast to open storage facilities,
enclosed storage facilities eliminate blowing dust and wind losses as
5
well as protect the clean coal from the elements.
2-12
-------
2.3 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
1. McCandless, L. C. and R. B. Shaver. Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Technology: First Annual Report. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-600/7-78-150.
July 1978. p. 22-65, 104-135.
2. Kilgroe, J. and R. Hucko. Interagency Coal Cleaning Technology
Developments. In: Energy/Environment III. Office of Energy,
Minerals, and Industry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-600/9-78-022. October 1978.
p. 221-251.
3. Tice, J. Homer City Coal Cleaning Demonstration, Test, and Technol-
ogy Evaluation Program. Symposium on Coal Cleaning to Achieve
Energy and Environmental Goals (September 1978, Hollywood, Florida),
Volume I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Publication No. EPA-600/7-79-098a. April 1979. p. 488.
4. Contos, 6. Y., I. F. Frankel, and L. C. McCandless. Assessment of
Coal Cleaning Technology: An Evaluation of Chemical Coal Cleaning
Processes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Publication No. EPA-600/7-78-173a. August 1978. p. 22.
5. Nunenkamp, D. Coal Preparation Environmental Engineering Manual.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Publication
No. EPA-600/2-76-138. May 1976.
6. Rogers, S. E. and A. W. Lemmon, Jr. An Overview of Control Technol-
ogy. Proceedings: Symposium on Coal Cleaning to Achieve Energy
and Environmental Goals (September 1978, Hollywood, Florida),
Volume II. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Publication No. EPA-600/7-79-098b. Aoril 1979. p. 793.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inspection Manual for
Enforcement of New Source Performance Standards: Coal Preparation
Plants. Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-340/1-77-022.
November 1977.
8. The Babcock & Mil cox Company. Steam, Its Generation and Use.
New York, New York. 1963. p. 2-12.
2-13
-------
3. CURRENT STANDARDS FOR COAL PREPARATION
3.1 AFFECTED FACILITIES
The existing standards of performance apply to coal preparation
plants processing more than 181.4 megagrams (200 tons) of coal per day.
The specific processes affected by the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) are thermal dryers, pneumatic coal cleaning equipment (air tables),
coal processing and conveying equipment (including breakers and crushers),
coal storage systems, and coal transfer and loading facilities. The
standards governing thermal dryers and pneumatic coal cleaning equipment
apply only to facilities processing bituminous coal. The regulation
limiting emissions from coal processing and conveying equipment, coal
storage systems and coal transfer and loading facilities, however,
applies to bituminous as well as nonbituminous coal. Coal storage and
transfer operations are governed by the NSPS only if they form a part of
the coal preparation facility; isolated coal storage and transfer stations
are excluded. Open coal storage piles are currently excluded from the
123
definition of coal storage systems. ' '
3.2 CONTROLLED POLLUTANTS AND EMISSION LEVELS
The coal preparation plant pollutant controlled by the NSPS is
particulate matter. The standards are as follows:
Thermal dryer. Exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere shall
not contain particulate matter in excess of 0.070 grams per dry
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) or 0.031 grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf), and shall not exhibit 20 percent or greater
opacity.
Pneumatic coal cleaning equipment (air tables). The gases emitted
to the atmosphere shall not contain particulate matter in excess of
0.040 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.018 grains per dry
-------
standard cubic foot), and shall not exhibit 10 percent or greater
opacity.
Other facilities. Gases emitted into the atmosphere from any
coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage system, or
coal transfer and loading facility shall not exhibit 20 percent
or greater opacity.
3.3 STATE REGULATIONS
A survey was conducted of current state air quality regulations
controlling coal preparation plants. State standards governing existing
coal preparation plants are generally less stringent than the Federal
NSPS. An exception is large capacity thermal dryers in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania. State opacity standards are also less stringent.
State regulations have been developed in accordance with State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) governing existing as well as new and modified
4
facilities. The intent of the state regulations survey was to compare
control levels specified by the states with the current NSPS of 0.070
grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.031 grains per dry standard cubic
foot) for thermal dryers and 0.040 grams per dry standard cubic meter
(0.018 grains per dry standard cubic foot) for pneumatic coal cleaning
equipment.
Most states do not have separate emission regulations for coal
preparation plants. Coal preparation facilities are usually regulated
3
by general process emission regulations. Some states have fugitive
emission regulations which are based upon particulate loadings compiled
by high-volume samplers. Of the 25 coal producing states surveyed, 7
states have adopted their own regulations for coal preparation plants.
A comparison of these standards of performance for coal preparation
plants is presented in Table 3-1.
West Virginia and Pennsylvania have adopted emission standards
based on the particulate loading (gr/dscf) at the stack exit, which vary
according to plant volumetric flow rate as expressed in standard cubic
feet per minute (scfm). ' Arizona, Illinois, and Oklahoma have emission
standards derived from an allowable emission formula based on processing
rate. The State of Virginia has both a standard based on processing
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. STATE STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR COAL PREPARATION PLANTS
CO
CO
Description of
State plants or process affected
Arizona Existing plants outside of Phoenix/
Tuscon region (all processes)
Existing plants in Phoenix/Tucson
region (all processes)
Illinois General state paniculate standard
Oklahoma General state paniculate standard
Pennsylvania Thermal dryers and air tables
Virginia Thermal dryers
West Virginia Thermal dryers installed before
March 1. 1970
Thermal dryers Installed after
March 1, 1970
NJW fexico All processes
NSPS Thermal dryers
Air tables
Plant rate or plant flow rate
<30 tons coal per hour
>30 tons coal per hour
<30 tons coal per hour
>30 tons coal per hour
N/Aa
<30 tons coal per hour
>30 tons coal per hour
< 150. 000 scfm
> 300, 000 scfm
150,000 scfm 200 tons coal per hour
150,000 500 ,000 scfm
< 75 .000 scfm
111,000 scfm
163,000 scfm
> 240 .000 scfm
N/A
>200 tons coal per day
>200 tons coal per day
Allowable
emissions Definition of terms
E = 4.10 P^'n E - maximum allowable paniculate
i = 55.0 Pu-" rate (Ib/hr)
E = 3.59 P°A6L F s process weight rate (tons/hr)
E = 16.31 P°'16
E * 2.54 P°'S34
E - 4.10 P°-?(
E » 55.0 Pu' "
0.04 gr/dscf
0.04 gr/Jscf
linear inter pola-
tion between above
paniculate con-
centrators
45 Ibs/hour
105 Ib/hour
linear inter pola-
tion between above
emissions rates
0.12 gr/dscf
0.11 gr/dscf
0.10 gr/dscf
0.09 gr/dscf
0.03 gr/dscf
0.10 gr/dscf
0.09 gr/dscf
0.08 gr/dscf
0.07 gr/dscf
No qualitative
1 im1 ts
0.031 gr/dscf
0.018 gr/dscf
*N/A - Not applicable.
-------
rate (for thermal dryers) and a standard based on particulate loading
8 9
(for air tables). flew Mexico regulations require good control of
coal processing and conveying operations, however, do not specify quanti-
tative limits.^
State standards governing existing preparation plants are generally
less stringent than the Federal NSPS. The only possible exceptions are
for plants with very large capacities. In Arizona, for instance, using
the allowable emissions formula for existing plants inside the Phoenix/
Tucson Region, a 454 megagrams per hour (500 tons per hour) thermal dryer
would have a maximum allowable particulate emission rate of 21.21 kilograms
per hour (46.78 pounds per hour). Based on average emission factors for
fluidbed dryers with high efficiency venturi-type wet scrubbers for secondary
control, the corresponding particulate concentration would be 0.063 grams
per dry standard cubic meter (0.028 grains per dry standard cubic foot). This
is slightly less than the thermal dryer NSPS.
As shown in Table 3-1, the only other instance where a state standard
is more restrictive than the NSPS is with large capacity thermal dryers
in Pennsylvania. A thermal dryer with a plant flow rate exceeding 142
standard cubic meters per second (300,000 standard cubic feet per minute)
must comply with a 0.45 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.02 grains
per dry standard cubic foot) particulate standard.
State opacity standards have not been identified which are more
stringent than the NSPS opacity limits.
3.4 PSD REGULATIONS
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations define a
major source as a stationary source of air pollutant which emits, or has
the potential to emit, (a) 90.7 megagrams per year (mg/yr) (100 tons per year)
of any pollutant regulated under the Act for any source on a list of 28
categories, or (b) 226.7 Mg/yr (250 tons/yr) for any other source type.
Air pollutants regulated under the act are: (a) sulfur dioxide (S02),
particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrocarbons (HC); (b) hazardous pollutants, and, (c) hydrogen sulfide (HS),
3-4
-------
total reduced sulfur (TRS), fluorides, and sulfuric acid mist. The
preconstruction review and BACT requirements of PSD apply to coal cleaning
plants with thermal dryers - included in the above list of 28 sources.
BACT controls may not be less stringent than either state SIP emissions
requirements, NSPS, or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants
(NESHAP). Both new stationary sources and modifications to existing sources
are subject to the review requirements. As a result of a 1979 court decision,
applicability is based on sources of emissions calculated with control
equipment in place. In addition, modifications will be subject to review
only if the sum of contemporaneous increases and decreases occurring at
the source exceed a specified amount. Thus, a source may offset increased
emissions with reductions achieved elsewhere at the plant. There are
several important elements to a PSD review:
1. a case-by-case determination of controls required by BACT;
2. an ambient impact analysis to determine whether the source
might violate applicable increments or air quality standards;
3. an essessment of effects on visibility, soils, and vegetation;
4. submission of monitoring data; and
5. full public review.
An important aspect of the PSD program involves protection of Class I
areas. A Class I area designation permits only limited industrial growth in
vicinities considered "pristine". These areas include: (1) existing inter-
national parks, (2) national parks over 24.3 square kilometers (6,000 acres),
(3) national wilderness areas, and (4) memorial parks over 20.2 square
kilometers (5,000 acres).
Sources must be able to demonstrate that they will not violate the
relatively stringent Class I increments, or convince the Federal Land
Manager responsible for administering the area that the air quality related
values of the area will not be adversely affected.
3-5
-------
3.5 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 40, part 60. Washington, D.C. Office of the
Federal Register. October 24, 1974.
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 40, part 60. Washington, D.C. Office of the
Federal Register. January 15, 1976.
3. Burke, J. R., N. J. Kulugian, and Y. M. Shah. Inspection Manual for
Enforcement of New Source Performance Standards: Coal Preparation
Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Publication No. EPA-340/1-77-022. November 1977. p. 156.
4. National Environmental Development Association. Air Pollution Control:
Growth and Clean Air, Assessment of Federal Law. 1978.
5. Environmental Reporter. State Air Laws. The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. Washington, D.C. 1979.
6. Telecon. Newman, Robert, TRW with Benedict, J., State of West Virginia.
January 18, 1980. Coal preparation plant air pollution regulations.
7. Telecon. Newman, Robert, TRW with Lesher, D., State of Pennsylvania.
January 18, 1980. Coal Preparation Plants in Pennsylvania.
8. Telecon. Newman, Robert, TRW with Buckholtz, Norman, State of
Virginia. January 24, 1980. Coal preparation plant and air pollution
regulations in Virginia.
9. Commonwealth of Virginia. Regulations for the Control and Abatement
of Air Pollutants. State Air Pollution Control Board. Richmond,
Virginia. 1979. p. 82.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information for
Standards of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants Volume I:
Proposed Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No.
EPA-450/2-74-021a. October 1974. p. 9.
11. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 40, part 50. Washington, D.C. Office of the
Federal Register. June 19, 1978.
3-6
-------
4. STATUS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
4.1 COAL PREPARATION INDUSTRY STATISTICS
4.1.1 Number of Plants and Geographic Distribution
It has been estimated that there are approximately 488 existing
coal preparation plants operating in the United States. The locations
of these plants are widely distributed; however, the majority are
situated in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Virginia.
Over 75 percent of the domestic plants are located in these 5 states.
Large coal preparation plants are located in mining areas to
accomodate one or more mines. They are concentrated near the highest
quality coals because of process economics and marketing factors.
Washing plants are located near river loading sites and are supplied
with raw coal by railroads. Coal screening and crushing plants are
sited at such locations as coke plants, coal yards, power plants,
industrial plants, and synthetic fuel conversion plants.
A comprehensive list of existing coal preparation plants in the
United States is provided in Appendix A of this report.
4.1.2 Industrial Trends
By 1985, it is projected approximately 40 new or modified facilities
will be in operation. New thermal drying units are estimated at 24
facilities while air tables will be utilized at 2 new facilities. The
remaining units would be replacements. These estimates reflect the
trends of the previous 8 years.
The annual domestic coal production in 1979 was nearly 658 teragrams
(725 million tons). By 1985, it has been estimated that annual production
q
will increase to greater than 942 teragrams (1 billion tons) of coal.
Because Congress passed the 1978 Fuel Use Act to phase out utilization of
oil and natural gas as industrial fuels by 1990, coal production is
-------
expected to increase to support the fuel demands. Coal demand is expected
to be 1,200 teragrams (1.3 billion tons) by 1990.4 With an estimated 271
new coal-fired power plants planned to go on-line in the next ten years,
utilities alone will consume approximately 1,000 teragrams (1.1 billion
tons) of coal annually. Such increases in national production will have
a direct impact on the coal preparation industry.
A comparison between total domestic coal production and production
from the amount of coal cleaned at coal preparation plants is shown in
Figure 4-1. Historically, nearly half of the nation's coal output has
undergone some type of preparation process. In 1979, approximately 306
teragrams (337 million tons) of mined coal were cleaned. By 1985, it is
projected that 438 teragrams (483 million tons) of mined coal will be
3
cleaned. Such an increase in production will require significant finan-
cial investments in new plant construction and alterations of existing
facilities.
Figure 4-2 illustrates trends in the number of coal preparation
plants which have existed in the United States since 1964. A conservative
projection has also been made of the number of new and modified facilities
which will be required through 1985. The 1977 percentage of total coal
production mechanically cleaned was used to project the number of prepa-
ration plants through 1985. This is a conservative estimate as trends
indicate that there will be growth in the coal preparation industry.
Table 4-1 lists specific numbers of coal preparation plants by state
2
together with estimates for future construction. Approximately 40 new
or modified facilities will be constructed between 1977 and 1985 to
accommodate the increased production of domestic coal.
Table 4-2 provides specific information concerning production and
cleaning within the coal preparation industry. Present coal preparation
methods only involve mechanical coal cleaning processes. There is no
existing commercial chemical coal cleaning industry. Mechanical cleaning
may be accomplished by wet or pneumatic cleaning methods. As shown in
Table 4-2, most processed coal is cleaned utilizing wet methods. In
1974, for instance, less than 2 percent of all domestic coal was cleaned
2
by pneumatic processes.
4-2
-------
1000
900
800
700
600
cr
400
3 300
<_>
200
100
TOTAL COAL PRODUCTION
CLEANED COAL
1
1
ACTUAL
ESTIMATED
I
J
1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ' 78 79
YEAR OF PRODUCTION
80
81
82
83
84 85
Figure 4-1. Coal production in the United States.
-------
CO
-------
Table 4-1. NUMBER OF COAL PREPARATION PLANTS BY STATE1'2
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Missouri
Nan tana
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
OklahoN
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Uest Virgin: a
Hyowl n?
TOT;.;.
1970
22
1
-
1
3
39
\i
-
3
49
-
4
-
1
1
18
4
74
4
-
;
33
.
136
i
i.-:
1971
22
1
-
-
3
JC
11
?
50
-
4
-
1
1
20
4
68
2
-
>
30
2
142
'
.n
1972
20
1
1
-
3
38
n
'
i
so
i
i
i
i
i
21
6
71
2
1
7
31
2
'. Vj
;_-.
1973
19
1
1
-
3
36
50
1
1
51
1
1
1
1
1
17
3
68
i
1
7
32
C
12i
1
?S5
1974
22
-
1
1
3
36
11
1
1
62
1
1
1
1
1
17
2
68
2
1
6
19
2
126
;
~A.
1975
21
-
1
1
3
34
11
\
1
62
1
1
1
1
1
19
3
64
2
1
6
23
2
124
Jc5
1976
29
-
1
1
4
37
14
1
1
64
1
1
1
1
1
18
3
66
2
1
7
24
2
135
1
416
1977
38
-
1
i
4
39
16
1
1
78
1
1
1
1
1
20
3
64
2
1
10
27
2
151
1
465
1978
38
-
2
1
4
40
16
1
1
78
1
1
1
2
1
21
3
65
2
1
11
28
2
153
1
474
1979
39
-
2
1
4
44
ie
i
2
79
1
1
1
2
1
21
4
65
2
2
12
28
2
156
2
488
I960
40
-
2
't
5
47
16
1
2
79
1
1
1
2
1
21
t
65
2
2
IS
28
2
158
2
498
1961
40
-
2
1
6
50
!7
:
2
79
1
1
2
3
1
22
4
66
2
2
17
28
2
159
2
510
1982
40
-
2
:
6
52
17
1
2
79
1
1
2
3
1
22
4
66
2
3
17
28
2
159
2
513
1983
40
-
2
1
7
54
17
1
2
79
1
1
2
3
2
22
4
66
2
3
18
28
2
159
3
515
1984
41
-
2
1
7
55
18
1
2
79
1
1
2
4
2
22
4
66
2
4
19
28
2
159
3
525
1985
41
-
2
1
8
57
18
1
2
80
1
1
2
4
2
22
4
66
2
4
19
28
2
159
3
529
-------
Table 4-2. COAL PREPARATION INDUSTRY STATISTICS 1>2»3'7'8
-pa
I
Percentage of
total production
Year
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980*
1981*
1982*
1983*
1984*
1985*
Production
(106 metric tons)
372
374
377
366
383
416
442
464
484
501
495
508
547
501
540
537
547
588
616
627
593
658
706
753
800
848
895
942
Mechanical cleaning
(106 metric tons)
235
245
248
240
246
263
281
301
309
317
309
304
293
246
266
262
240
242
244
292
275
306
328
350
372
394
416
438
mechanically
cleaned
63.1
65.5
65.7
65.7
64.3
63.1
63.7
64.9
63.8
63.2
62.5
59.7
53.6
49.1
49.2
48.8
43.9
41.2
39.6
46.5
46.5
46.5
46.5
46.5
46.5
46.5
46.5
46.5
thermally
dried
7.7
8.7
9.1
9.8
11.1
11.0
12.1
12.8
NA
13.5
13.4
12.0
10.6
8.7
8.9
7.8
6.0
5.2
5.5
No. of
cleaning
plants
573
555
535
503
508
499
495
497
NA
471
454
435
415
411
409
385
387
385
416
465
474
488
498
510
513
519
525
529
With
thermal
dryers
100
104
108
110
117
122
128
133
NA
132
125
119
in
103
184
162
106
119
115
Mechanical cleaning
(106 metric tons)
by wet
methods
218
228
231
224
229
244
262
278
287
298
294
286
277
233
255
253
234
by pneumatic
methods
17.1
16.6
16.5
16.0
17.0
18.1
19.4
23.0
22.0
19.3
15.2
17.4
16.2
13.2
10.6
9.5
6.9
No. of
mines
8,264
7,719
7,865
7,648
7,740
7,940
7,630
7,228
6,749
5,873
5,327
5,118
5,601
5,149
4,879
4,744
5,247
6,168
6.161
6.180
6.237
6,317
6,384
6.428
6,464
6,494
6.520
6.544
Figures for these years have been estimated.
NA - not available
-------
Pneumatic processes are generally utilized to handle coal of 25.4
millimeters (0.5 inch) or less in size. Raw coal is often screened
ahead of the cleaning plant so that oversize coal may be cleaned by a
wet process and undersize coal by pneumatic means. For successful
results by pneumatic means, the feed coal should have a uniformly low
surface-moisture (3 to 6 percent) content. The use of pneumatic
cleaning methods is expected to diminish due to both low process
efficiencies and the problems associated with high moisture content in
raw coal. The number of pneumatic cleaning operations in the United
States decreased from 37 facilities in 1972 to 30 in 1979.
Thermal dryers are used for fine coal to reduce surface moisture
content to low percentages which are unattainable by mechanical de-
watering methods. Drying in a thermal dryer is achieved by direct
contact between wet coal and hot combustion gases from a coal-fired
furnace. A multitude of factors affect the performance capability of a
thermal coal dryer: drying temperature, furnace fuel, combustion gas,
inlet temperature, air volume flowrate and dryer size. However, the
greatest single factor affecting performance is temperature. Drying
zone temperatures need to be as high as safety permits. Lower temperatures
mean reduced thermal efficiency, higher fuel and power requirements,
and increased amounts of dust carryout.
The survey of new thermal dryers outlined in Section 5 has indicated
that 17 units have been constructed since standards of performance
became effective in October 1974. This is equivalent to approximately 3
new facilities being constructed annually. Based on the number of
thermal dryers in operation in 1977, this represents a 3 percent average
annual growth rate in new facilities. In 1974, the EPA projected a
growth rate of 9 thermal dryers per year. The actual growth has been
substantially less than those original projections of 5 dryers per year
in 1977 and 1978.5
As is documented in Table 4-2 (also see Figure 4-2), the total
number of thermal dryers in the country has been declining since 1972.
The number of dryers being shutdown has exceeded the 3 percent average
annual growth rate for new facilities. Because the historical rate of
4-7
-------
replacement for thermal dryers has been 4 to 5 percent per year, in many
cases old units may not have been replaced.
One reason behind the general reduction in thermal dryers is that
the energy costs associated with thermal drying are high. Energy savings
associated with the elimination of thermal dryers are on the order of 1
percent of the coal production per day. That is, for a facility
processing 454 megagrams (500 tons) of coal per hour, the equivalent of
4.5 megagrams (5 tons) of coal is necessary to operate the dryers. Another
reason for this declining trend may be the current ambient air quality
standards and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Regulations.
Most new dryers are situated at mine-mouth preparation plants usually
located in valleys of mountainous regions. The proposed thermal drying
7 8
units may thus become precluded by stringent ambient standards. ' If
the proposed thermal drying unit is located in an area where the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is not being met for total suspended
particulate (TSP) emissions, modelling is used to account for the increases
in ambient air concentration from this proposed source. The modelling
also shows the offsetting decreases in ambient air concentrations being
proposed for this source. Air quality modelling is also used in attainment
areas to show that emissions from the new (or modified) source will not
cause ambient air quality to exceed either the increment concentration
or the NAAQS for TSP.
Declining use of thermal drying has led to a greater dependence on
mechanical dewatering. Over the past few years, several sophisticated
mechanical drying processes have been introduced to the industry. The
new processes are able to achieve greater reduction in surface moisture
content than previously possible by mechanical methods. This provides a
significant advantage because the energy benefits of removing excess
moisture, in terms of avoiding transportation and evaporation penalties,
are much greater than the energy requirements for mechanical dewatering.
The trend towards improving this technology is expected to continue,
with emphasis being placed on reducing the surface moisture of fine size
coal particles. *
4-8
-------
With the increased demand on the nation to use coal instead of oil
or natural gas for fuel, the number of synthetic coal fuel plants will
be increasing. Synthetic fuel conversion plants may use coal preparation
techniques to prepare their feed coal for processing. Equipment selection
differs somewhat from that used in conventional plants as particle size
distribution must be closely controlled. Particle size control also
Q
requires close coordination between the mine and the synfuel plant.
Another significant processing trend has been in the area of chemical
cleaning technology. As many processes are still in the pilot plant or
development stage, performance and cost comparisons are relatively
uncertain at this time. These processes vary greatly in their approach
because of the possible reactions which can be used to effectively
remove sulfur and other reactive impurities in the coal. Most chemical
processes under development remove over 90 percent of the pyrite sulfur
and several also are reported to remove up to 40 percent of the organic
sulfur. These new processes have been developed to maximize the
reduction of sulfur content (pyrite) in metallurgical coals and boiler
fuels which must comply with sulfur dioxide (SO^) emission regulations.
4.1.3 Preparation of Nonbituminous Coals
Coal preparation and beneficiation in the United States is practiced
almost exclusively on bituminous coals. The following, however, is a
5
brief discussion on nonbituminous coal preparation.
Anthracite production in the United States was less than 5.4 teragrams
(6 million tons) in 1975. This represents less than 1 percent of the total
United States annual coal production. The preparation process for anthracite
is comparable to that of bituminous coal preparation. The principle
consumer of anthracite is the metallurgical industry.
Lignite production in 1975 was approximately 181.4 teragrams (200
million tons). All lignite is strip mined from seams and is relatively free
of extraneous rock, shale, and similar impurities. Due to the physical
properties of lignite, crushing is the only preparation process normally
practiced. Most lignite is consumed by power generating plants at mine-
mouth locations.
4-9
-------
The largest deposits of subbituminous coals are found in Montana,
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. As with lignite, most subbitu-
minous coal seams are relatively free of gross impurities. Preparation
generally consists of crushing to the extent necessary to facilitate
transportation and handling. Because the moisture content is mostly
inherent, subbituminous coals appear very dry and dusty during handling
and transportation. Because of the potential that exists for the
utilization of subbituminous coal, fugitive emissions from the prepa-
ration of the coal may increase in significance.
4.2 EMISSIONS FROM COAL PREPARATION PLANTS
There are 4 principle sources of air pollution existing within the
coal preparation process. These sources are the following:
1. crushing and sizing;
2. pneumatic cleaning;
3. coal storage, transportation, and handling; and
4. thermal drying.
The emissions from each of these sources vary somewhat, but certain
generalizations can be made regarding their characteristics, as indicated
in Table 4-3.
Crushing and sizing operations produce dry, small particulates (0.5
to 6.0 micrometers) at ambient temperatures. The quantity of particulate
generated depends on the coal type, moisture level, and type of sizing
and screening operations.
Of the coal cleaning (separation) processes, only pneumatic cleaning
operations contribute to air pollution. Emissions from pneumatic cleaning
consist of particulates only, because ambient air is used to separate
coal from refuse. The quantity and pressure of the air used depends on
the size of coal to be cleaned. For pneumatic cleaning of coal less
than 9.37 millimeters (0.375 inch), an average volume of exhaust air is
about 435 cubic meters per metric ton of feed coal (14,100 cubic feet
per ton of feed coal). The exhaust air usually picks up about 65 to 70
percent of the less than 0.52 millimeter (48 mesh) material in the feed
coal, and about 20 percent of the less than 9.37 millimeters (0.375
inch) coal is smaller than 0.52 millimeter (48 mesh). Therefore, the
4-10
-------
Table 4-3. TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
DUST FROM EMISSION SOURCES11
Typical
Emission source characteristics of dust
Crushing and sizing Dry, submicron up to about 6 microns
operations in size; light dust load, ambient
temperature.
Pneumatic cleaners Dry, submicron up to 48 mesh in size,
heavy dust load (>100 gr/dscf), ambient
temperature.
Thermal dryer High humidity, submicron up to about
100 microns in size, heavy loadings up
to 200 gr/dscf, temperature 200 F to
250°F.
4-11
-------
uncontrolled exhaust air contains 130 to 140 kilograms of dust per metric
ton of coal feed (260 to 280 pounds of dust per ton of coal feed) treated
or 292 to 316 grams of dust per dry cubic meter (128 to 138 grains of
12
dust per dry cubic foot). For a representative air table having a
design capacity of 11.3 kilograms per second (50 tons per hour), uncon-
trolled particulate emissions could be as high as 1.75 kilograms per
second (14,000 pounds per hour). * Annual uncontrolled particulate
emissions (based on a 3,000 hour operating year) would be 19 megagrams
per year (21,000 tons per year).
Particulate matter in the form of fugitive coal dust is emitted
from storage, transportation, and handling operations. The amount of
particulate generated varies widely, depending on such factors as
climate, topography, and coal characteristics including moisture content.
For example, the handling of thermally dried coal results in more
particulate than undried coal because the moisture content has been lowered.
It has been estimated that 36 kilograms of coal per metric ton (80 pounds of
coal per ton) are lost as fugitive particulate during transportation and
handling operations. A particulate emission factor from coal storage
piles has been estimated at 0.41 milligrams per kilogram per year
12
(0.0018 pounds per ton per year).
Air emissions from thermal dryers include particulates from the
drying process as well as particulates from the coal-fired furnace that
supplies the drying gases. Uncontrolled particulate emissions from
thermal dryers range from 111 to 444 grams per dry standard cubic
meter (50 to 200 grains per dry standard cubic foot). An uncontrolled
particulate emissions factor for fluidbed thermal dryers has been
estimated to be 10 kilograms per metric ton (20 pounds per ton) of coal
dried. Based on this factor, a 126 kilograms per second (500 tons per
hour) furnace would have an uncontrolled emission rate of 1.3 kilograms
per second (10,000 pounds per hour). For a 3,000 hour operating year,
uncontrolled annual particulate emissions would be 13.6 megagrams per
year (15,000 tons per year).
Gaseous emissions from thermal dryers include carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (C02), hydrocarbons (HC), sulfur dioxide (S02), and
4-12
-------
12
nitrogen oxides (NO ). All of these are furnace combustion products.
A
Table 4-4 shows typical uncontrolled emission ranges of some of the
. . 5
gaseous emissions.
The emissions of SCL from thermal dryers are a function of the
sulfur content of the coal burned in the combustion furnace. Figure 4-3
illustrates this relationship for bituminous coal rated at 29,055 joules
per gram (12,500 Btu per pound). Using this figure, potential emissions
of SOp may be calculated for thermal dryer furnaces. For example,
a typical furnace using coal with 1 percent sulfur has a sulfur
dioxide emission factor of 0.69 kilogram per gigajoule (1.6 pounds
S0? per million Btu). Based on this estimate, a 106 gigajoule per hour
(100 million Btu per hour) furnace has the potential for emitting 73
kilograms (160 pounds) of S02 per hour. Annual emissions (based on a
3,000 hour operating year) of S02 would be 218 megagrams per year
(240 tons per year).
It should be noted that in actuality, S02 emission levels from
thermal dryers are not as high as these calculated levels indicate.
Source tests conducted by the EPA have reported emission rates from
thermal dryers in the range of 0 to 0.04 kilograms per gigajoule (0 to
0.09 pounds SOp per million Btu). Based on this factor, a 106 gigajoule
per hour (100 million Btu per hour) furnace, would have a maximum SO,
'2
emission of 4.1 kilograms of S02 per hour (9 pounds of S02 per hour).
Corresponding maximum annual emissions (based on a 3,000 hour operating
year) would be 12.2 megagrams per year (13.5 tons per year). This represents
less than 6 percent of the S02 emission estimate using calculated values
based on emission factors for thermal dryers. Further source test data on
S02 emissions are reported in Section 5.
At this time, the reason for the disparity between actual and
calculated S0« emission levels is unclear. It appears that S0« is being
removed during the thermal drying process, possibly during the secondary
wet scrubbing process. In the case of fluidbed thermal dryers, a
percentage of S02 may be adsorbed by the coal due to the reaction of S02
with flue gas oxygen and water which forms sulfuric acid in the coal
pores. ' ' Incomplete combustion of coal in the dryer furnace may
4-13
-------
Table 4-4. COMBUSTION PRODUCT EMISSIONS FROM
WELL-CONTROLLED THERMAL DRYERS11
Emission rate Concentration
Pollutant Kg/GJ (lb/106 Btu) ppm
NO 0.17 to 0.30 (0.39 to 0.68) 40 to 70
^
CO <0.13 (<0.30) <50
HC (as methane) 0.03 to 0.16 (0.07 to 0.35) 20 to 100
4-14
-------
2.0
1.8
-E
CD
to
o
oo
(->
c
QJ
U
0)
a.
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.09 .17 .26 .34 .43 .52 .60 .69 .77 .86 .95 1.03 1.12 1.20 1.29 1.38
(.?) (,4) (.6) (.8) (1.0) (1.2)(i.4j (1.6) (1.8) (2.0) (?..?) (;'.4J (?.6) (/-.K) H.Ol ('.?)
Potential S02 emissions kg/GJ (lbs/106 Btu)
Figure 4-3. Potential S02 emissions kg/GJ (lbs/106 Btu) for 29,055 J/g (12,500 Btu/lb) coal
-------
also account for the difference in actual and calculated SCL emission
levels.
4.2.1 NSPS Control Techniques
Several types of air pollution control devices are available to coal
cleaning facilities. The choice of control device is dependent upon the
pollutant, the properties of the pollutant, and the properties of the
conveying medium. Particulate control devices are broadly classified as
dry inertia! collectors, filters, and wet scrubbers. Dry inertial collectors
(cyclones) are characterized by moderate removal efficiencies, low energy
requirements, low capital and operating costs, and an ability to accommodate
high inlet particulate loadings, and operate at high temperatures. The major
disadvantage of cyclone utilization is the low collection efficiencies of
minus 10 micrometer (0.39 inch) particles. Fabric filters are regarded
as one of the simplest and most reliable high efficiency dry collector
devices, capable of 99.9 percent removal of submicrometer-size particles.
Fabric filters are suitable for a wide variety of dry particulate removal
applications, although excessive moisture tends to blind the fabric. The
advantages of wet scrubbers are the high removal efficiencies, ability
to remove gaseous pollutants, tolerance of moisture in the gas, and the
relatively low capital costs. The major disadvantage of wet scrubbers is
the high energy requirements.
4.2.1.1 Thermal drying. Exhaust air from thermal dryers has high
moisture content and temperatures up to 367 K (200°F). Particulate levels
are characteristically high due to the entrainment of fine coal particles
20
during the drying process. Fabric filters are not used as control devices
on thermal dryers due to the high moisture content of the exhaust air.
Excessive moisture blinds the fabric filter, i.e. excessive particulate is
irreversibly retained within the fabric pores making the gas flow resistance
prohibitively high.
The primary control device for thermal dryers is a dry centrifugal
collector. Centrifugal collectors collect up to 95 percent of entrained
particulate matter which is returned to the coal product. These devices
have low collection efficiencies with particles smaller than 10 micro-
meters (0.39 inch).20
4-16
-------
Secondary participate emission control for thermal dryers is accom-
plished with high efficiency venturi type wet scrubbers. The venturi
collector can be fabricated in a number of shapes and designs with great
flexibility of operating pressure drops and efficiency. Venturi type wet
scrubbers associated with thermal dryers normally operate at pressure
differentials of 3.7 to 8.0 kilopascals (15 to 32 inches water gauge). The
equipment requires 11.3 to 37.8 liters (3 to 10 gallons) of water per 0.47
cubic meters per second (1,000 cubic feet per minute) of gas cleaned. Water
entrained by exhaust gases from the scrubbers is removed using mist elimin-
ators.5'11'20 This is illustrated in Figure 4-4.
Approximately 75 percent of the thermal dryers in operation are the
fluidbed type. An average emission for fluidbed dryers without secondary
control is 6.9 grams per dry standard cubic meter (3.0 grains per dry
standard cubic foot). Well-controlled thermal dryers with high efficiency
venturi type wet scrubbers, reduce particulate emissions to less than or
equal to the standard of performance, which is 0.070 grams per dry standard
cubic meter (0.031 grains per dry standard cubic foot). This value is
equivalent to a 99 percent control efficiency.
4.2.1.2 Pneumatic cleaning. Emissions from pneumatic coal cleaning
equipment consist entirely of particulate matter. As depicted in Figure 4-4,
the commonly used air emission control strategy includes centrifugal col-
lection as primary control, and secondary treatment using fabric filtration.
In tests conducted by the EPA, particulate emissions from representative
pneumatic cleaning operations having primary and secondary control ranges
from 0.009 to 0.025 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.004 to 0.011 grains
per dry standard cubic foot). The existing standard of performance for pneu-
matic coal cleaning equipment is 0.040 grams per dry standard cubic meter
21
(0.018 grains per dry standard cubic foot).
4.2.1.3 Storage, transportation and handling. Coal processing and
conveying equipment, storage systems, and transfer and loading facilities
are subject to the general opacity standard. Fugitive emissions from these
sources may not exhibit 20 percent or greater opacity. Normally, the prac-
tical way of controlling fugitive emissions is prevention and not by the
utilization of control devices. Table 4-5 describes the probable sources of
20
fugitive emissions together with methods for potential control.
4-17
-------
Coal Input
I
To atmosphere
Thermal
dryer
Exhaust
air
Cyclone
High efficiency
venturl wet
scrubber
M1st
elimlnator
i
oo
Dried coal
Coal Input
Pneumatic
cleaning
(air table)
Exhaust
air
Cyclone
Fabric
filter
10 atmospnere
l i
i 1
t t
m coal Refuse
Figure 4-4. Best demonstrated emission control for thermal
dryers and pneumatic cleaning operations.
-------
4.2.2 Controls Which Exceed NSPS
Several control techniques have been identified which have the
potential for surpassing the NSPS for affected facilities:
Indirect thermal drying.
Venturi wet scrubber operation with greater pressure drops.
Lime scrubbing for SCL removal.
Improved wet suppression for fugitive emission control.
For indirect thermal drying, the coal being processed does not come
in contact with the hot furnace gases. Heat is transferred to the moist
coal through contact with previously heated elements, such as screws,
fins, paddles, steel balls and chains. The principle advantages of
indirect thermal drying is its potential for reducing particulate emissions.
There are several disadvantages of indirect thermal drying, including high
operating costs and limited feed capacities, as well as combustion products
10 11 22
emitted by the dryer furnace (usually oil-fired). ' ' No domestic,
commercial, indirect thermal dryers were found presently in operation, thus
operating characteristics could not be quantified.
Operating wet scrubbers at increased levels of pressure loss would
provide a further reduction of particulate emissions. The highest
pressure loss which has been demonstrated for achieving the standards of
performance (0.070 grams per dry standard cubic meter) on a thermal dryer is
23
10.4 kilopascals (42 inches water gauge). Lowering the standards would
require a greater pressure drop and hence would be imprudent because energy
consumption would be excessive. This is because the energy requirements for
air pollution control equipment are exponentially related to control level
such that a level of diminishing return is reached. Additionally, at the
existing level of particulate control required by standards of performance,
the trade-off between control of emissions at the thermal dryer versus the
increase of emissions at the power plant supplying the energy is favorable
even though the mass increments of all air pollutants emitted by the power
plant (S0«, NOV and particulate matter) are compared only to the reduction
21
in thermal dryer particulate matter emissions.
As mentioned in Section 4.2, gaseous emissions from thermal dryers
include sulfur dioxide (S02). These emissions are not regulated by
4-19
-------
Table 4-5. FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM COAL PREPARATION PLANTS15
Probable source
Potential control methods
Coal transport to and from plant
Coal storage piles
Stack/reclaimer
Coal conveyors
Crushing and screening
building
Waste fines transfer
Waste storage
Cover rail cars, trucks or
conveyors.
Use silos, wet suppression,
build windbreakers.
Cover conveyor, hood reclaim.
Cover conveyors, hood transfer.
Enclose and treat building vents,
hood transfer points.
Cover conveyors, hood transfer
points.
Use silos, wet suppression,
build windbreakers, use vegetative
cover.
4-20
-------
standards of performance. Removal of SCL can be accomplished by a
process of wet absorption, such as with a lime/limestone based scrubbing
system. Removal efficiencies range from 70 to 90 percent S00 in inlet
11
gas. Although these operations have achieved commercial status in flue
gas desulfurization for utility and industrial boilers, installation and
operating costs are high. Table 4-6 compares the relative costs of
current control for the existing particulate standard to that of SO,
ip ?A e-
control. '^
New types of wet suppression techniques have been developed which
eliminate fugitive particulate emissions on conveyor systems and
stockpile areas without greatly increasing the moisture content of
the coal product. Chemicals effectively reduce the surface tension of
water to increase wetting power to control particulates with as little
as 0.5 to 1 percent moisture. These operations allow for compliance
with the existing NSPS fugitive emission standard without the deterioration
25
of product quality.
4-21
-------
Table 4-6. ESTIMATED COSTS OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR COAL CLEANING PLANTS
12
Plant type
and emission
Applicable
control equipment
Installed cost of
control equipment,
dollars (1977)/tph
of coal processed
500 tons/hr 1000 tons/nr
Annual operating
cost of control
equipment,^3)
cents/ton
of coal processed
500 tons/nr 1000 tons/nr
IVJ
ro
Thermal dryers
associated
with fine
size coal
beneficiation
Primary cyclones
with high
efficiency
wet scrubbers
Primary cyclones
with high
efficiency
wet scrubbers
followed by
limestone
scrubbers for
S00 control.
270
250
12.5
12.2
9,450
9,250
93.8
93.8
(a)
Excludes capitalization, depreciation, and interest. Based on 180 (2-shift) days
-------
4.3 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
1. Mining Informational Services of the McGraw-Hill Mining Publications.
1979 Keystone Coal Industry Manual. New York, N.Y. 1979. p. 1311.
2. National Coal Association. Coal Data 1977. Washington, D.C. 1979.
p. 90.
3. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Mineral Year Book. Washington, D.C. 1978.
4. Coal Surge. Industry Week (U.S.). January 1980. p. 23.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information for
Standards of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants Volume I: Proposed
Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/
2-74-021a.
6. McCandless, L. C., and R. B. Shaver. Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Technology: First Annual Report. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-600/7-78-150.
July 1978. p. 154.
7. Buroff, J., B. Hylton, S. Keith, J. Stauss, and L. McCandless.
Technology Assessment Report for Industrial Boiler Applications:
Coal Cleaning and Low Sulfur Coal (Draft). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA Contract No.
68-02-2199. July 1979. p. 5-53.
8. Telecon: Newman, Robert, TRW with Buckholtz, Norman, State of
Virginia. January 24, 1980. Coal preparation plants and air pollution
regulations in Virginia.
9. Merritt, P. C. Coal Age Operating Handbook of Coal Preparation.
McGraw-Hill Inc. 1978. p. 218.
10. Phillips, P. J. Coal Preparation for Combustion and Conversion.
Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, California.
May 1978. p. 2-100.
11. Lemmon, A. W. Jr., S. E. Rogers, G. L. Robinson, V. Q. Hale, and
G. E. Raines. Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes:
First Annual Report Volume II. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. 600/7-79-073c. June 1979,
p. 104-120.
12. Lemmon, A. W. Jr., G. L. Robinson, and D. A. Sharp. An Overview of
Control Technology. Proceedings: Symposium on Coal Cleaning to
Achieve Energy and Environmental Goals Volume II. (September 1978,
Hollywood, Fl). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-600/7-79-098b. April 1979.
p. 794-823.
4-23
-------
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information for
Standards of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants Volume II:
Test Data Summary. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No.
EPA-450/2-74-021b. p. 2-3.
14. Letter and attachments from Spruiell, S., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6, to Newman, R. P., TRW. February 8, 1980. Response
to inquiry for compliance test data.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. Compilation of Air
Pollution Emission Factors, Third Edition, AP-42. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
16. Telecon. Newman, Robert, TRW with Morris, James, Heyl and Patterson,
Inc. March 13, 1980. Thermal dryers.
17. Brown, G. N., S. C. Torrence, A. J. Repik, J. C. Stryker, and
F. J. Ball. S0? Recovery via Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering
Progress. Vol. 68, No. 8. August 1972. p. 55.
18. Lovett, W. D., and F. T. Cunniff. Air Pollution Control by Activated
Carbon. Chemical Engineering Progress. Vol. 70, No. 5. May 1974.
p. 43.
19. Telecon. Newman, Robert, TRW with Cunniff, Frank, Calgon Corp.
April 18, 1980. S02 removal by dried coal in thermal dryers.
20. Nunenkamp, D. Coal Preparation Environmental Engineering Manual.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Publication No. EPA-600/2-76-138. May 1978. p. 547.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations.
Title 40, part 60. Washington, D.C. Office of the Federal Register.
January 15, 1976.
22. Charmbury, H. B. The Bearce Dryer goes Commercial. Coal Mining and
Processing. October 1977. p. 72.
23. Letter and attachments from Chaurushiya, S., Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources, to Newman, R. P.,
TRW. February 21, 1980. p. 3. Response to inquiry for compliance
test data.
24. Telecon. Newman, Robert, TRW with Soderberg, Harold, American Air
Filter Co., Inc. January 4, 1980. Air pollution control for the
coal preparation industry.
25. Davis, H. How to Install New Dust Collectors Without Shutting
Down the Plant. Coal Age. February 1977. p. 111.
4-24
-------
5. COMPLIANCE TEST RESULTS
EPA regional offices, state agencies, and affected facilities were
contacted to obtain compliance testing information for new, modified or
reconstructed coal preparation plants. Test data for thermal dryers and
air tables were specifically requested. These are the only processes
currently regulated by mass concentration standards under the standards
of performance.
The compliance test survey data supported information found in the
reference literature concerning process trends. According to the survey,
there have been only 3 new air table facilities and 17 new thermal dryers
constructed since the standards of performance became effective in
October 1974. EPA estimated in 1974 that 9 new thermal dryers would be
constructed per year. The reasons behind this decrease in new con-
struction have been outlined in Section 4.1.2.
5.1 ANALYSIS OF NSPS TEST RESULTS
The results of recent compliance tests, obtained from new, modified
or reconstructed coal preparation plants with thermal dryers or air
2-7
tables, are summarized in Table 5-1. The recent compliance test results
from 3 air table facilities indicate compliance with NSPS, with particulate
emissions ranging from 0.011 to 0.022 grams per dry standard cubic meter
(0.005 to 0.010 grains per dry standard cubic foot). ' Thirteen of the
17 thermal drying facilities indicated compliance with the NSPS, with
particulate emissions ranging from 0.016 to 0.070 grams per dry standard
cubic meter (0.007 to 0.031 grains per dry standard cubic foot). From the
test data it can be seen that 3 Oneida Mining Company facilities (Armagh,
Brush Valley and Dryer No. 1 at Seward) and an Island Creek Coal Company
facility, all located in Pennsylvania, exceeded the emission limits
of 0.070 grams per dry standard cubic meter allowable under the current
-------
Table 5-1. COAL PREPARATION COMPLIANCE TEST RESULTS
2-7
Plant name
U.S. Steel
Concord Mine
Providence
Producers, Inc.
Island Creek
Coal Company
Delta Coal Sales
Doverspike
Brothers Coal
Company
One ida Mining
Company
Oneida Mining
Company
Oneida Mining
Company
Oneida Mining
Company
Island Creek
Coal Company
N/A - not applicable
Location
Hueytown,
Al abama
Van Buren,
Arkansas
Turkey
Creek,
Kentucky
Meyer sdale,
Pennsylvania
Dora,
Pennsylvania
Armagh,
Pennsylvania
Dryer #2
Brush Valley,
Pennsylvania
Dryer #1
Seward,
Pennsylvania
Dryer »2
Seward,
Pennsylvania
Johnstown ,
Pennsylvania
Date of test
April 1978
October 1977
September 1977
August 1979
September 1977
January 1976
July 1978
March 1977
March 1977
May 1975
Particulate emissions
Process tested (g/dscm [gr/dscf])
Thermal dryers 0.045
(fluidbed)
Air table 0.022
Thermal dryer 0.042
(fluidbed)
Air table 0.011
Thermal dryer 0.042
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer 0.118
Thermal dryer 0.096
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer 0.080
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer 0.055
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer 0.053
(fluidbed)
(continued)
(0.020)
(0.010)
(0.019)
(0.005)
(0.019)
(0.053)
(0.042)
(0.035)
(0.024)
(0.024)
Process Rate Venturi pressure
(kg/s [tons/hr]) drop (kPa [in. H20])
217.3 (770) Unknown
4.5 ( 16) N/A
43.2 (153) 9.2 (37)
Unknown N/A
114.0 (404) N/A
87.5 (310) 8.2 (33)
95.9 (340) 7.7 (31)
88.0 (312) 8.5 (34)
88.0 (312) 8.5 (34)
51.6 (183) 5.5 (22)
-------
Table 5-1. Concluded
Plant name
Island Creek
Coal Company
Pittson Coal
Company
Bethlehem
Mines
PA Mines Corp.
Oneida Mining
Company
Mine *4
Delta Coal Sales
Sales
Consolidated
en Coal Co.
00 Island Creek
Coal Co.
Ranger Fuel Co.
Island Creek
Coal Company
Location
Tire Hill,
Pennsylvania
Dante,
Virginia
Van,
West Virginia
Ebensburg,
Pennsylvania
Dryer #1
Seward,
Pennsylvania
Meyersdale,
Pennsylvania
Amonate,
West Virginia
Bob White,
West Virginia
Beck ley,
West Virginia
Johnstown,
Pennsylvania
Date of test
January 1979
February 1978
September 1977
December 1977
April 1975
September 1979
November 1978
April 1979
August 1979
January 1975
Process tested
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Air table
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal dryer
(fluidbed)
Particulate emissions
(g/Oscm [gr/dscf])
0.032
0.059
0.016
0.051
0.070
0.015
0.049
0.049
0.016
0.111
(0.014)
(0.025)
(0.007)
(0.023)
(0.031)
(0.007)
(0.022)
(O.C22)
(0.007)
(0.050)
Process Rate Venturi pressure
(kg/s [tons/hr]) drop (kPa [in. H20])
47.7 (169) 10.4 (42)
Unknown Unknown
40.9 (145) 9.4 (36)
160.0 (567) 8.2 (33)
101.3 (359) 8.7 (35)
Unknown N/A
98.8 (350) 8.0 (32)
38.1 (135) 8.2 (33)
Unknown 9.5 (38)
79.6 (282) 6.8 (27.5)
N/A - not applicable
-------
3
NSPS for thermal dryers. It is uncertain why the Oneida Mining Company
dryers were unable to comply with standards of performance. In the case
of the Island Creek Coal Company facility, a second performance test was
conducted in May 1975, in which the facility complied with NSPS. During
the first test the dryer feed rate was 71.1 kilograms per second (282 tons
per hour), substantially greater than the feed rate of 34.8 kilograms per
second (138 tons per hour) that occurred during the second source test.
The greater processing rate may have attributed to increased particulate
emissions which resulted in exceeding standards of performance.
The venturi pressure drops for the thermal dryers listed in Table
5-1 ranged from 5.5 to 10.4 kilopascals (22 to 42 inches H20). It may be
concluded that the higher pressure drops resulted in the best control of
particulate emissions. It is difficult to derive further conclusions
concerning the emission data due to apparent variations in processing para-
meters of the facilities. For instance, information concerning the particle
size of processed coal is in many cases either unavailable or nonspecific.
This is an important factor because the percentage of fines will directly
impact particulate emission concentrations. The surface moisture content
of the coal was also not specified in a majority of the compliance test
reports. Higher moisture percentages resulted in reduced emission rates
of particulates. In some of the tests actual feed rates were below
design operating rates. The thermal dryer at the Island Creek Coal
Company, Turkey Creek, Kentucky plant had a design maximum feed rate of
253 megagrams per hour (279 tons per hour). During compliance testing the
dryer was operating at 139 megagrams per hour (153 tons per hour) due to the
large amount of reject in the ROM feed to the preparation plant.7 Operating
below design rate may result in lower emission rates being unrepresentative
o
of normal plant operation.
Although opacity data was not submitted with the compliance test
data, the general consensus of all parties surveyed was that compliance
with the mass concentration standard for air tables and thermal dryers
results in compliance with corresponding opacity standards.2'7 The
NSPS for opacity for air tables is 10 percent and for thermal dryers, 20
percent.
5-4
-------
For coal conveying, processing, storage, transfer and loading
facilities the only applicable NSPS is a general opacity standard of 20
percent governing fugitive emissions. For these cases, this particular
opacity standard is the only means of requiring control of the emission
sources and has been established at a level consistent with the application
of best control technology for those sources. According to state agency
officials, regional EPA personnel, and industrial representatives contacted,
general compliance has been achieved with this opacity regulation. However,
reference was made that enforcing fugitive emissions regulations is diffi-
cult when using an opacity standard.
A review of the compliance test reports indicated that no significant
problems were encountered during source testing. It is important, however,
that the cyclonic flow of exhaust gases be adequately eliminated during
performance testing with either temporary or permanent flow straightening
devices. The cyclonic flow patterns common to all cylindrical mist elimi-
nators make measurements of particulate emissions difficult without such
advice. In spite of these possible inherent source testing difficulties,
no problems were reported.
5.2 SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM THERMAL DRYERS
Sulfur dioxide (SO^} emission tests were conducted at 4 of the
thermal dryer facilities listed in Table 5-1. The emission rates
were measured to assist in the computation of expected ambient SOp
concentrations in accordance with state or Federal ambient air quality
357
regulations. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 5-2. ' *
Sulfur dioxide emissions from thermal dryers ranged from 0.57 to 4.3
357
grams per second (4.54 to 34.5 pounds per hour). ' For the Island
Creek Coal Company dryer, the emission rate for S0« was not reported.
Instead there is an EPA-PSD requirement stipulating that the sulfur content
3
of coal consumed in the furnace/stoker should be 1 percent or less.
Based on a typical 3,000 hour operating year, annual S0« emissions
from these dryers ranges from 6.2 to 46.9 megagrams per year (6.81 to
51.75 tons per year). The range of calculated values derived from emission
factors provided in Section 4.2 are 0.02 to 1.22 kilograms per gigajoule
g
(0.05 to 2.84 pounds per million Btu).
5-5
-------
Table 5-2. COAL PREPARATION S02 EMISSIONS3'5'7
Plant
name
Location
Test
date
SO, Process sulfur
Process emissions rate in
tested g/s (Ib/hr) kg/s (ton/hr) coal
en
Island Creek
Coal Company
Doverspike Brothers
Coal Company
Consolidated Coal
Company
Island Creek
Coal Company
Turkey Creek, Sept. 1977
Kentucky
Dora, Sept. 1977
Pennsylvania
Amonate, Nov. 1978
West Virginia
Bob White, April 1979
West Virginia
Thermal
dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal
dryer
(fluidbed)
Thermal
dryer
Thermal
dryer
NAC
32.8 (130) 0.67
4.3 (34.5) 101.8 (404) 1.80
0.57 (4.54) 88.2 (350) 1.0
3.58(28.43)
24.9 (99) NA
Not applicable.
-------
5.3 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information for
Standards of Performance: Coal Preparation Plants Volume I:
Proposed Standards. Publication No. EPA-450/2-74-021a.
October 1974. p. 33.
2. Letter and attachments from Chaurushiya, S., Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources, to Newman, R. P.,
TRW. February 21, 1980. p. 3. Response to inquiry for compliance
test data.
3. Letter and attachments from McCann, R. B., Commonwealth of Kentucky
Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, to
Newman, R. P., TRW. February 12, 1980. Response to inquiry for
compliance test data.
4. Letter and attachments from Spruiell, S., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region VI, to Newman, R. P., TRW. February 8, 1980.
Response to inquiry for compliance test data.
5. Letter and attachments from Grasso, C., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region III, to Newman, R. P., TRW. February 6, 1980.
Response to inquiry for compliance test data.
6. Telecon. Newman, Robert, TRW with Robertson, Susan, State of Alabama.
February 6, 1980. Compliance testing in Alabama.
7. Letter and attachments from Beard, C. G., West Virginia Air Pollution
Control Association, to Newman, R. P., TRW. February 26, 1980.
Response to inquiry for compliance test data.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inspection Manual for
Enforcement of New Source Performance Standards: Coal Preparation
Plants. Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-340/1-77-022.
9. Merritt, P. C. Coal Age Operating Handbook of Coal Preparation.
McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1978. p. 218.
5-7
-------
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD REVISIONS
6.1.1 Pneumatic Coal Cleaning Processes
Emissions of participate matter from pneumatic coal cleaning operations
(air tables) are currently regulated by standards of performance. The
emissions from these facilities are not to contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.040 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.018 grains per dry
standard cubic foot) and shall not exhibit 10 percent or greater opacity.
The use of pneumatic coal cleaning is diminishing due to low
cleaning efficiencies (as compared to wet cleaning processes) and problems
associated with high moisture content in raw coal. The number of pneumatic
cleaning facilities in the United States declined from 37 facilities in
2
1972 to 30 in 1979. According to the compliance test survey, however, 3
pneumatic cleaning facilities have been constructed since the NSPS
became effective. There is still a need, therefore, for an emission
standard for this process. All 3 of the pneumatic cleaning operations were
in compliance with the current NSPS, with particulate emissions ranging
from 0.011 to 0.022 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.005 to 0.010 grains
per dry standard cubic foot). These 3 facilities processed bituminous coal.
Because the utilization of pneumatic cleaning has declined and the
available compliance test data indicates that facilities are in accordance
with the existing particulate matter standard, it is recommended that the
existing NSPS for pneumatic coal cleaning remain unchanged.
6.1.2 Thermal Dryers
Particulate matter from thermal coal drying operations are currently
regulated by standards of performance. Emissions from these facilities
are not to contain particulate matter in excess of 0.070 grams per dry
standard cubic meter (0.031 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and shall
not exhibit 20 percent or greater opacity.
-------
Since 1972, the number of thermal dryers in the United States has
declined. In 1972, there were 184 thermal dryers in operation, the number
dropping to 114 in 1977 with no indications of a subsequent increase. The
compliance survey indicated 17 thermal dryers have been constructed since
standards of performance became effective. This represents an average of
3 percent annual growth rate in the number of facilities affected by the
NSPS.3
The compliance survey indicated 13 of the NSPS-affected thermal dryers
achieved compliance with the current standards of performance, with partic-
ulate emissions ranging from 0.016 to 0.070 grams per dry standard cubic
meter (0.007 to 0.031 grains per dry standard cubic foot). Of the 4
facilities not within compliance, one was able to comply with NSPS during
a subsequent performance test. No significant problems were encountered
with test methods and procedures used during the source testing of any of
these facilities.
Emissions of sulfur dioxide (S0?) are produced from the combustion
of coal in thermal dryer furnaces. S02 emissions are currently not
regulated by standards of performance, however, S02 emission data were
available on 4 of the NSPS-affected thermal dryers. S0? emission levels
ranged from 0.57 to 4.3 grams per second (4.54 to 34.5 pounds per hour).
Corresponding annual emissions were projected to range from 6.2 to 46.9
megagrams per year (6.81 to 51.75 tons per year).
Because growth rate of NSPS-affected thermal dryers has been below
projections made when existing standards of performance were promulgated,
and since compliance data have indicated the achievability of existing
standards, it is recommended the existing NSPS for particulate matter remain
unchanged. Based on existing SOp emission data there is no justification to
support changing the standards of performance to include emissions of S02
from thermal dryers. Any future attempt to regulate SOp under standards of
performance would have to include a detailed assessment on costs of S0«
control technology for thermal dryers.
All NSPS-affected thermal dryers processed only bituminous coal and
there are no indications of a change in this trend, therefore, there is
no need to expand the standards to include facilities processing nonbituminous
coals.
6-2
-------
6.1.3 Other Affected Facilities
The existing standards of performance govern fugitive particulate
emissions from coal processing and conveying equipment, coal storage
systems, and coal transfer and loading systems. Fugitive emissions from
these sources are not to exhibit 20 percent or greater opacity.
The compliance survey indicated there have been no significant
problems reported concerning NSPS compliance. However, the standards of
performance do not regulate all potential sources of fugitive emissions
within the coal preparation process. One of the unregulated sources of
4
potential significant fugitive emissions are open coal storage piles.
Because existing standards were developed for contained coal
storage systems, research is needed to quantify the impact of fugitive
particulate emissions from open coal storage piles.
Another unregulated source of fugitive emissions is coal unloading
or receiving stations. Although loading systems are included in
standards of performance, coal unloading systems were not mentioned
as affected facilities. Unloading stations may be significant sources
of fugitive dust emissions because of the large volumes of coal handled,
often without adequate controls. Many coal preparation plants are
served by conveyors from mine mouths, and coal unloading is considered
to be in another source category.
Because of the potential for growth within the coal preparation
industry, it may prove useful to evaluate the adequacy of opacity
standards for enforcing fugitive particulate emissions. The adequacy of
the opacity standard could be evaluated by performing a study which
involves upwind and downwind high volume (hi-vol) sampling versus
opacity readings. The recommended hi-vol sampler should be the modified
(two-stage) cascade impactor type which provides for 3 size fractions.
These size fractions include greater than 7.0 micrometers, 1.1 to 7.0
micrometers, and cascade impactor. Size classification of particulates
would be an important indication as to whether fugitive emissions from
the coal preparation industry constitute a potential health hazard.
6-3
-------
6.2 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In 1979, there were approximately 488 coal preparation plants
operating in the United States. By 1985, it is estimated there should be
approximately 40 new or modified facilities to accommodate the projected
1 2
increase in production of domestic coal. Of these 40 facilities, it
is estimated that 24 facilities will employ new thermal drying units and
2 facilities will employ air tables. The remaining facilities would
utilize replacement units. These estimates reflect the apparent trends
of the previous 8 years.
At this time, the coal preparation industry is based exclusively on
physical coal cleaning processes. The degree of preparation widely varies,
and the processes used range from simple mechanical removal of rock and
dirt to complex beneficiation plants for the removal of potential
pollutants. The type of cleaning process and the extent of cleaning
depends on the type of coal, the method of mining, and the end use of
the coal. It is estimated that approximately 50 percent of the coal
r c
mined in the United States is subjected to some type of preparation process. '
There has been general compliance with the current NSPS for the
coal preparation industry and the achievability of existing standards is
adequately demonstrated. Additional sources of fugitive emissions exist
which should be regulated by standards of performance.
The current cutoff limit of 181 megagrams per day (200 tons per day)
remains appropriate for this industry. As new control technologies are not
economically feasible for this small percentage of facilities (less than 2
percent), this limit still is appropriate. As coal conversion technology
progresses, however, it may be necessary, during a future review, to re-
evaluate this cutoff limit in order to cover coal preparation which may take
place at the conversion plants.
There have been several process changes which have occurred within
the coal preparation industry over the past few years. Air tables have
decreased in number and in 1979, less than 2 percent of domestically
2
cleaned coal was cleaned by pneumatic processes. Thermal drying has
been reduced in scope due primarily to economic considerations and air
pollution constraints. Technological advances have been in the areas of
wet cleaning processes and mechanical dewatering techniques.
6-4
-------
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made regarding the NSPS for the
coal preparation industry:
The standards of performance for pneumatic cleaning
equipment (air tables) and thermal dryers remain unchanged
because the best demonstrated control technologies for this
industry have not changed.
6-5
-------
6.4 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations.
Title 40, Part 60. Washington, D.C. Office of the Federal Register.
January 15, 1976.
2. Mining Information Services of the McGraw-Hill Mining Publications.
1979 Keystone Coal Industry Manual. New York, N.Y. 1979.
3. National Coal Association. Coal Data 1977, Washington, D.C. 1979.
p. 90.
4. Personal Communication. R. Newman from L. Jones, OAQPS. March 16, 1980.
Changes to the existing standards of performance for the coal
preparation industry.
5. McCandless, L. C., and R. B. Shaver. Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Technology: First Annual Report. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-600/7-78-150.
6. Lemmon, A. W. Jr., G. L. Robinson, V. Q. Hale, and G. E. Raines.
Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: First
Annual Report, Volume II. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. 600/7-79-073c.
June 1979. p. 104-120.
6-6
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF DOMESTIC COAL PREPARATION PLANTS
-------
Table A-1. LIST OF DOMESTIC COAL PREPARATION PLANTS
Plant name
Bradford Preparation Plant
Chetopa Mine
Maxine Mine
Gorgas America No. 7
Mary Lee No. 1
SEGCO No. 1
Mary Lee No. 2
Cobb Mine
i Blocton 11 Mine
ro
Black Diamond 3 Mine
Brilliant Mines
Boothton
Berry Mt. Mines
County Line Mine
ArkadelpMa Mine
Kellerman Mine
Natural Bridge Mine
Empire Mine
Mine No. 702
Mulga Mine
Concord Mine
Operating/managing company Owners
Alabama By-Products Corp.
Alabama By-Products Corp.
Alabama By-Products Corp.
Alabama By-Products Corp.
Alabama By-Products Corp.
Alabama By-Products Corp.
Alabama By-Products Corp.
Bankhead Mining Co., Inc. Northern Energy Resources Co.
Black Diamond Coal Mining Co.
Black Diamond Coal Mining Co.
Brilliant Coal Co. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.
Burgess Mining & Construction
Corp.
Calvert & Marsh Coal Co., Inc.
Calvert & Youngblood Coal Co.
Inc.
Drummond Coal Co.
Drummond Coal Co.
Drummond Coal Co.
Empire Coke Co. McWane Cast Iron Pipe Co.
Hoover, Inc.
Mulga Coal Co. The Mead Corp.
US Steel Corp.
Location
Dixiana ALABAMA
Grays vi lie
Quinton
Goodsprings
Goodsprings
Goodsprings
Goodsprings
Jasper
W. Blocton
Bessemer
Glen Allen
Birmingham
Oneonta
Pinson
Bremen
Brookwood
Lynn
Empire
Nashville
Mulga
Hueytown
Capacity
tons/day
1,000
5,000
2,250
2,100
4,000
3,045
1,300
900
2,000
1,200
800
1,000
1,000
12,500
2
Process
J
H-CY-W
"-W
J-F-CY
J-F-CY
J
J-F-CY
H-A-W
J
J
J-CY
H-CY-W
W
H-W
H-W
J
H-W
H-CY
H-F-CY-T
F-CY-T-W
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables, CT-Centrifuges, CY-Cyclones, F-Flotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-JIgs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Bessie Mine
NEBO Mine
Blue Creek No. 3
Blue Creek No. 4
Sugarloaf Mine
Eagle Mine
Coal Basin Preparation Plant
Sun Spot Mine
Leahy Mine
Delta Mine
Hallldayboro Preparation Plant
Norrls Mine
Burning Star No. 2 Mine
Burning Star No. 3 Mine
Burning Star No. 4 Mine
Burning Star No. 5 Mine
Buckheart Mine 17
Orient Mine 3
Orient Mine 6
Crown II Mine
Fidelity Mine 11
Operating/managing company
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.
Jim Walter Resources. Inc.
National Mines Corp.
The Imperial Coal Co.
Mid-Continent Coal & Coke
Amax Coal Co.
Amax Coal Co.
Amax Coal Co.
Coal Conversion, Ltd.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Freeman United Coal Mining Co.
Freeman United Coal Mining Co.
Freeman United Coal Mining Co.
Freeman United Coal Mining Co.
Freeman United Coal Mining Co.
Owners
Jim Walter Corp.
J1m Walter Corp.
Jim Walter Corp.
Jim Walter Corp.
National Steel Corp.
Amax, Inc.
Amax, Inc.
Amax, Inc.
Continental Oil Co.
Continental Oil Co.
Continental 011 Co.
Continental Oil Co.
Continental Oil Co.
General Dynamics Corp.
General Dynamics Corp.
General Dynamics Corp.
General Dynamics Corp.
General Dynamics Corp.
Location
Birmingham ALABAMA
Birmingham
Adger
Brookwood
Ft. Smith ARKANSAS
Erie COLORADO
Carbondale
Vermont ILLINOIS
Campbell Hill
Marlon
Nashville
Norrls
DuQuoin
Sparta
Cutler
DeSoto
Canton
Waltonville
Waltonville
Virden
DuQuoin
Capacity
tons/day
2,600
3,000
10,600
10,000
600
400
3,500
12,000
4,750
1,000
5,000
6,500
6,500
7.500
7.000
7.000
14.000
6,000
7,500
Process
H-F-CY-W
J-F-W
H-F-CT-T-W
H-F-CT-T-W
H-CY-CT-W
H-CT
H-F
H-CY-CT
J-CY-CT
J-F-CY-CT
H
J
J
J
J
H
H-CT
H-J-F
H-F
J-CT
J-CT
1
Tables, IT-Cer.trifuces, CY-Cyclones, F-Flotation Units,
H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thlckeners. W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Operating/managing company
Owners
Location
Capacity
tons/day
Process
Orient Mine 4
Harrisburg Mine
Inland Mine No. 1
Rapatee Mine
Mecco Mine
Elm Mine
Monterey No. 1 Mine
Monterey No. 2 Mine
Wayne Mine
Morris No. 5
Old Ben No. 21
Old Ben No. 26
Mine No. 10
Eagle Surface
Will Scarlet Mine
Central Preparation Plant
Streamline Mine
Murdock Mine
Spartan Mine
Mine No. 4
Mine No. 11
Freeman United Coal Mining Co.
Harrisburg Coal Co., Inc.
Inland Steel Coal Co.
Midland Coal Co.
Midland Coal Co.
Midland Coal Co.
Monterey Coal Co.
Monterey Coal Co.
Monterey Coal Co.
Morris Coal, Inc.
Old Ben Coal Co.
Old Ben Coal Co.
Peabody Coal Co.
Peabody Coal Co.
Peabody Coal Co.
Sahara Coal Co., Inc.
Southwestern Illinois Coal Corp.
Zelgler Coal Co.
Zeigler Coal Co.
Zelgler Coal Co.
Zelgler Coal Co.
ASARCO, Inc.
ASARCO, Inc.
ASARCO, Inc.
The Carter Oil Co.
The Carter Oil Co.
The Carter Oil Co.
Ada Mining Corp.
Sohio Natural Res.
Co.
Sohio Natural Res. Co.
Arch Mineral Corp.
Houston Natural Gas Corp.
Houston Natrual Gas Corp.
Houston Natural Gas Corp.
Houston Natural Gas Corp.
Marion
Marion
Sesser
Middlegrove
Victoria
Trivoli
Carllnville
Albers
East Lynn
Marion
Sesser
Sesser
Pawnee
Shawneetown
Stonefort
Harrisburg
Percy
Murdock
Sparta
Johnston City
Coultervllle
ILLINOIS
7,000
7,000
7,000
12.000
1,500
5,000
15,500
2.700
6.500
12.000
2,600
4,000
6,000
H-J-CT
H
H-F-CY-T
J-CY-CT
J-CY-CT
J-CY-CT
J-CY-CT
J-CY-CT
H-F-CY-CT-
J-CY
H-J-F-CY
J-A
J
J-CT
J
H-CY-CT
H-CY
J-CT
J-CY-CT
J-CY-CT-U
J-F-CY-CT
Same as operatinc/manjc,ing company unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables. CT-Centrif'j;;es, CY-Cyclones, F-Flotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Tnickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
01
Plant name
Chinook Mine
Mlnnehaha Mine
Ayrshire Mine
Lynnvllle Mine
Squaw Creek Mine
Chetopa Mine
Ft. Scott, Kansas Mine
Clemens Mine 22
Golden Eagle Mine
Mine No. 1
Stone No. 2, Hignite No. 3,
Poplar L1ck 4 & Red
Springs No. 6
Mines Nos. 2A, 4D & IE
Damron Mine No. 29
Hendrix Mine No. 22
Elkhorn D1v. & Jenkins
Preparation Plant
Pike Mine No. 26
Leather-wood Mine 1
No. 7 Mine
Operating/managing company Owners
Arnax Coal Co. Amax, Inc.
Amax Coal Co. Amax, Inc.
Amax Coal Co. Amax, inc.
Peabody Coal Co.
Peabody Coal Co.
Bill's Coal Co., Inc.
Cherokee Coal Co.
Clemens Coal Co.
Fuel Dynamics, Inc.
Apache Coal Co.
Bell County Coal Corp. General Energy Corp.
Benham Coal Inc.
Beth-El khorn Corp. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Beth-El khorn Corp. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Beth-El khorn Corp. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Beth-El khorn Corp. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Blue Diamond Mining Blue Diamond Coal Co.
Broecker, Norris, Rakios Coal
Corp. D/B/G, Kentucky
Mountain Coal Co.
Location
Staunton INDIANA
Sullivan
Chandler
Lynnville
Boonville
Chetopa KANSAS
Ft. Scott
Plttsburg
Cherokee
Grundy KENTUCKY
Middlesboro
Benham
Jenkins
Jenkins
Jenkins
Jenkins
Leatherwood
Woo ton
Capacity
tons/day
5,500
8,000
16,000
7,000
6,000
600
2,000
1,800
800
1,300
3,000
1,000
2,000
6,000
200
Process
J-Cv-CI
J-CV-CT
J-F-CV-CT
J-W
H
H
J
J
H
J
H
J-F-CT-T-W
H-J-F-CT-T
J-CT-W
H-CT-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-J-F-CT-T
H
Same as operaring/r-anaging conpany unless otherwise noted
' A-Air Tables. C'-le-tri'uge-), Cv rvc1ci-e':, F-F'ototion Units, H-Heavy Media Hasher, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Operating/managing company
Owners
No. 8 Mine
Hance Mine
Tejay No. 1 Mine
Bevins Branch Tipple
Mine No. 2
Hytemp Mine
Chapperal No. 2 Mine
f, Volunteer Mine
cri Levlsa River Plant
Mine No. 1
Baker No. 1 Mine
Darby No. 4 Mine
Brookside No. 3 Mine
Sapphire Mine
Elkhorn Preparation Plant
Gibraltar Mine
Mine No. 2
Harlan No. 1
Guaranty Mine
Mine No. 1 (Darby)
Harlan Mines
Broecker, Norris, Rakios Coal
Corp. D/B/G, Kentucky
Mountain Coal Co.
Brownies Creek Collieries, Inc.
Brownies Creek Collieries, Inc.
Call & Ramsey Coal Co., Inc.
Canada Coal Co., Inc.
Carr Creek Fuel Co.
Chapperal Coal Corp.
Cimmaron Coal Corp.
Clintwood Coal Co.
Crescent Industries Inc.
Eastover Mining Co.
Eastover Mining Co.
Eastover Mining Co.
Elkhorn & Jellied Coal Co.
Elkhorn Processing Corporation
Gibraltar Coal Corp.
Golden Glow Coals Inc.
Grays Knob Coal Co.
Guaranty Mines.Corp.
Harlan Central Coal Co.
Harlan Fuel Co.
NewEra Resources, Inc.
Location
Manchester KENTUCKY
Balken
Balken
Meta
Pikeville
Whitesburg
Pikeville
Madisonville
Mouthcard
Elkhorn City
Arjay
Highsplint
Brookside
Whitesburg
Whitesburg
Central City
Harlan
Grays Knob
Drift
Grays Knob
Harlan
Capacity
tons/day
1,000
Process
4,000
4,000
1,500
3,000
6,500
1,200
3,600
9,600
4,000
1.500
12.000
1,500
1,600
2,500
5,760
J-CY-CT
H-CY-CT
H-CY-CT
CT
J-CY-CT
H
J-F-CT-T-W
J-CY-CT-T-W
J-CY-T
J-CY-CT
H-J-CY
H-CY
J
J-CY
H-CY-T-W
H-CT-W
H-CY-T-W
H-F-CY-CT
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-A1r Tables, CT-Centrifuges, CY-Cyclones, r-Flotafion, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Operating/managing company
Owners
Location
Capacity
tons/day
Process
Harold Tipple 1
Mine No. 3
No. 1 Mine
Calora Mine
Mine No. 7
Spurlock Mine
Wheelwright Mine
Pevler Mine
Big Creek Mine Nos. 1 & 2
Gund Mine
Fies Mine
Mine No. 9
Crescent Mine
Hamilton Mine No. 1
Hamilton Mine No. 2
Ohio Mine No. 11
Providence No. 1 Mine
Glenbrook Mine (No. 12)
Glenbrook Darby Mine
Kenmont Tipple
Feds Creek Preparation Plant
Kencar No. 1 & Preparation
Plant & Bedcor
Harold Fuel Co., Inc.
Howard Enterprises
Ikerd & Bandy Co., Inc.
Imperial Elkhorn Coal Co.
Indian Head Mining Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Jerlcol Mining, Inc.
Jerlcol Mining, Inc.
Kenmont Coals Inc.
Kentland-Elkhorn Coal Corp.
Kentucky Carbon Corp.
Kaneb Services. Inc.
Pro-Land,
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Occidental
Inc.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleur- Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Petroleum Corp.
Carbon Fuel Co.
Harold
Pikeville
Somerset
Drift
Hazard
Spurlock
Wheelwright
Paintsville
Turkey Creek
Turkey Creek
Fies
F1es
Central City
Morganfield
Morganfield
Uniontown
Providence
Holmes Mill
Holmes Mill
Hazard
Mouthcard
Phelps
KENTUCKY
1,000
1,000
3,000
3,000
5,000
13,000
6,000
7,000
5,800
5,000
9,200
8,400
4,200
6.500
650
2,500
10,000
H
CY-CT
A
H-W
J
H
J-W
H-CT-H
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T
J-CT
CY-CT
J-CT
H-CY-CT
H-CY-CT
H-CT
H-CY-CT
J-CY-CT
J-CY-CT-T
H
H-F-CT
H-CY-CT-T-W
1
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-A1r Tables, CT-Cer.tnfjges, CY-fyclones, F-FTotation, H-Heav.v Media Washer, J-J1gs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
I
00
Table A-l . Continued
Plant name
Penny Plant Preparation
Chester Preparation Plant
Leslie Mine
Loftls Plant 2
Martlkl Mine Nos. 1,2,3 & 4
Martin County Mines (1-C, l-S(d)
l-S(C), 2-S 2-C & 5-B) l-S(c)
Mary Helen Preparation Plant
Beaver Creek D1v., (Stlnson Mines)
Ken Mine
Rlvervlew Mine
IMsholm Mine
Colonial Mine
Paradise Mine
Pont1k1 Mine
Raccoon Preparation Plant
Republic Mine
Richland Preparation Plant
Preparation Plant
Scotia, Smith Creek, Uoper Taggart
& No. 3 Mines
Scotts Branch Mine
Operating managing company
Kentucky Elkhorn Coals, Inc.
Kodak Mining
Leslie Coal Mining Co.
Loftis Coal Co. , Inc.
Marti ki Coal Corp.
Martin County Coal Corp.
Mary Helen Coal Co. , Inc.
National Mines Corp.
Peabody Coal Co.
Peabody Coal Co.
Pikeville Coal Co.
The Pittsburg & Midway Coal
Mining Co.
The Pittsburg & Midway Coal
Mining Co.
Pontikl Coal Corp.
Raccoon Elkhorn Coal Co.
Republic Steel Co-p.
Richland Coal Co.
Russell Fork Coal Co., Inc.
Scotia Coal Co.
Scotts Branch Co.
Owners' Location
Virqie KENTUCKY
Airco Coals, Inc. Vicco
Sidney
Toler
Mapco, Inc. Lovely
Inez
Basic American Industries, Inc. Belfry
National Steel Corp. Wayland
Beaver Dam
Hartford
Phelps
Gulf Oil Corp. Madisonville
Gulf 011 Corp. Drakesboro
Mapco, Inc. Lovely
Plkeville
Elkhorn City
Barbourville
Elkhorn City
Blue Diamond Coal Co. Cumberland
Pikeville
Capacity
tons/day
1,200
2,100
8,700
1,400
13,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
7,000
6,500
3,500
600
4,500
5.000
1,800
Process
J-F-CT-A-W
H-CY-T
H-F-CY-CT
MY-CT-U
H-F-CY-CT-T-W-D
H-F-CY-CT-T-W-D
CY
H-F-CY-CT-T-H-D
H
J
H-F-CY-CT-T
J-CY-W
1
f
H-F-CT-T-W
F
H-CY-T-W
H
W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-A1r Tables. CT-Centrifuges, CY-C/clones, F-Motation, H-Heavy Media Washer, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables, J-Jigs
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Shamrock Nos. 18, 18-1, 18-3
Preparation Plant
Mine No. 1
Mine No. 1
Hazard Operations
Corbin Cleaning Plan*
Shamrock Mine
rlettiki Mine
Bee Vee Mine
Mine Nos. 1,2,3 2. *
Tebo Mine
Bee Vee Mine
York Canyon Mine
Muskingur* Mine
Georgetown Preparation Fljr.t
No. 19
Vail Mine (Northern Div.
Freeport
Operating/managing company Owners
Shamrock Coal Co.
South East Coal Co.
Southern Elkhorn Coal Corp.
Sovereign Coal Co.
Tesoro Coal Co. Tesoro Petroleum Corp.
US Steel Corp.
Weirs Creek Coal Co.
Mettiki Coal Co. Mapco, Inc.
Associated Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
American Industries &
Missouri Mining, Inc. Resources Corp.
Pea body Coal Co.
Peabody Coal Co.
Kaiser Steel Corp.
Central Onio Coal Co. Ohio Power Co. (AEP)
Consolidation Coal Co. Continental Oil Co.
Island Creek Coal Co. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Location
Beverly KENTUCKY
Irvine
Elkhorn City
Phelos
Hazard
Corbin
Providence
Oeer Park MARYLAND
Macon MISSOURI
Unionville
Calhoun
Macon
Raton NEW MEXICO
Cumberland OHIO
Cadiz
Freeport
Capacity
tons/dav
7,000
15,000
3,000
14,000
8,000
3,500
3,000
3,500
6,000
11,000
12,000-
14.000
Process
H-W
H-J-F-CY-CT
J-F-CT-T-W
J-CY-CT-T-W
H-CT
H-F-CT-T-W
J
F-CY-CT-T
\J
r-CY-CT
1
U
1
U
H-F-CY-CT-T
J-CT-T
J-CY-CT-W
H-CT-T
Same as operating/ mdnegin^ coirpany unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables. CT-Centr
, CY-Cvclones, F-Fl?tation Units, n-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Operating/r.anaging company
Location
Capacity
tons/day
Process
I
o
Powhatan No. 6
Powhatan No. 1 Mine
Powhatan No. 3 Mine
Powhatan No. 5 Mine
Saginaw Mining Co. Mine
Sunnyhill Mine
Powhatan No. 4 Mine
Powhatan No. 7 Mine
Meigs Mine No. 1
Raccoon Mine No. 3
Allison Nine
Nelms Mine No. 1
Porum Mine
Welch Mine
Black Diamond
Mine No. 1
Nacco Mining Co.
North American Coal Corp.
North American Coal Corp.
North American Coal Corp.
Oglebay Norton Co.
Peabody Coal Co.
Quarto Mining Co.
Quarto Mining Co.
Southern Ohio Coal Co.
Southern Ohio Coal Co.
Younglogheny & Ohio Coal Co.
Young!ogheny & Ohio Coal Co.
Carbonex Coal Co.
Cherokee Coal Co.
Fuel Dynamics, Inc.
Pel ton Resources, Inc.
North American Coal Corp.
North American Coal Corp.
Ohio Power Co. (AEP)
Ohio Power Co. (AEP)
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co.
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co.
Petroleum Reserve Corp.
Pel ton Enterprises, Inc.
Alledonia
Powhatan Point
Powhatan Point
Powhatan Point
St. Clairsville
New Lexington
Powhatan Point
Powhatan Point
Athens
Athens
Beallsville
Cadiz
OHIO
Porum
Welch
Chelsea
Tulsa
OKLAHOMA
11,000
4,500
6.000
7,500
a, 400
18,850
7,000
10,000
7,000
500
600
2,000
J-CY-CT-T
H
H
J-T
H
J
J-CY-CT-T
J-CY-CT-T
H-CT-T
J-CY-CT-T
J
J
H-CY
J
H
H-J-F-CY-T
Cadogan Preparation Plant
Russell 2 Mine
Allegheny River Mining Co.
Aloe Coal Co.
Arthur T. Walker Estate Corp. Kittanning PENNSYLVANIA 2.000 H-CY-CT-T
Imperial 1,400 H-CY-CT-W
Van
Cook
Tipple
's Run Tipple
A very Coal Co.
Virginia
Coke Co.
Avery Coal Co.
Virginia
Coke Co.
Inc.
Iron,
Inc.
Iron,
, AffH.
Coal &
, Affil.
Coal &
Bates
Bates
Manufacturing,
Manufacturing,
Inc.
Inc.
Philipsburg
Phlllpsburg
7
7
,000
,000
J-CT
J-CY-CT
' Same as operating/nanaging company unless otherwise noted
" A-Air Tables. CT-Cc-trifuges, Cr-C/clones, F-Flotatien Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name Operating/managing company
Lancashire 20 Mine & Preparation
Plant
Lancashire 24 B & D Mine J
Preparation Plant
Lancashire 25 Mine & Preparation
Plant
Preparation Plant No. 3
Preparation Plant No. 6
Brookdale No. 77 Mine
Cambria Slope No. 3i Mine
Butler No. 91 Mine
Ellsworth No. 51 Mine
Marl anna No. 58 Mine
Somerset No. 60 Mine
Bigler Refinery Plant
Bull' Run Mine Nos. 1164-3,4,5
Piney Run Tipple
Rimersburg Tipple
Fallentimber Tipple
David Mine & Canterourv
Cleaning Plant
DiAnne Mine & Cleaning
Plant
Barnes 4 Tucker Co.
Barnes & Tucker Co.
Barnes & Tucker Co.
Benjamin Ccal Co.
Benjamin Coal Co
Bethleher; ''lines Corp.
Bethlehem Mines Corp.
Bethlehem Mines Corp.
Bethlehem Mines Corp.
Bethlehem Mines Corp.
Bethlehem Mines Corp.
Bradford Coal Co. , Inc.
Bull Run Coal Co.
C & K Coal Co.
C & K Coal Co.
Cambria Coal Co.
Canterbury Coal Co.
Canterbury Coal Co.
Owners
Alco Standard Corp.
Alco Standard Corp.
Alco Standard Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Gulf Resources & Chemicals
Corp.
Gulf Resources & Chemicals
Corp.
Location Capacity
tons/da/
Barnesboro
Barnesboro
Barnesboro
LaJose
La-Jose
M'inerai Point
Ebensbjrg
SaxoiiDurg
Eighty Four
Eighty Four
Eighty Four
Bigler
Clearfield
Clarion
Clarion
Clarion
Avonmore
Avonmore
PENNSYLVANIA 3,500
4,000
3,500
3,500
3,500
JrOO
5.005
700
2,300
2,800
2,100
2,500
2,000
7,000
7.000
7,000
5.000
175
Process
H-F-CY-CT-T
J-'-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-A
A
F-O-CT-T
F-CY-CT-T
h-CT-W
H-F-CT-T
J-P-CT-T
J-F-CT-T
H
CY
J-CT
J-CT
J
H-J-F-CY-CT-T
H-J-F-CY-CT-T
Same as operating, manage;, company unless otherwise noted
* A-Air Tables, C~-Centnf'jgei», CV-Cyclones, F-Flotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, w-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Strip Mine No. 618-6
Mahoning Creek Mines
Rockwood Tipple
Mine Nos. 343-19, 20, 24, 25 i
1403-3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,
12, 15, 17 & 20
Mine Nos. 1423-1 4 2
Mine Nos. 45-12. 13, 14, 16 & 17
Renton Mine
Champion 1 Plant
Sugar Camp Mines
Warwick Mine Nos. 2 & 3
Colver Mine & Plant
Oelmont Plant
Strip Mine No. 1
Plant No. 1
Plant No. 3
Florence Mine No. 1
Florence Mine No. 2
Glacial Mine 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
& Washing Facility
North & South Mines
Operating/managing company Owners
The Cardinal Mining Co.
Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. Sharm Steel Co.
Casselman Coal Sales Co.
Champion Coal Co. , Inc.
Chernicky Coal Co., Inc.
Coal Junction Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co. Continental Oil Co.
Consolidation Coal Co. Continental Oil Co.
Doverspike Bros. Coal Co.
Ouquesne Light Co.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Adam Eidemiller, Inc.
M. F. Fetterolf Coal Co., Inc. M. F. Land Co., Inc.
M. F. Fetterolf Coal Co., Inc. M. F. Land Co., Inc.
Florence Mining Co. North American Coal Corp.
Florence Mining Co. North American Coal Corp.
Glacial Minerals, Inc.
Greenwick Collieries Pennsylvania Mines Corp.
Location
Friedens PENNSYLVANIA
Temple ton
RocKwood
Punxsutawney
Shippenvi 1 le
^riedens
Renton
Imperial
Punxsutawney
Greensboro
Colver
Hunker
Greensburg
Boswell
Boswell
Seward
Seward
Clarion
Ebensbury
Capacity
tons/day
2,500
1,000
1,100
1 ,200
3,000
350
2,200
5.000
18,000
3,000
2,000
3,000
5,600
7,000
2,800
800
4,800
13.000
Process
CY-CT-T-W
H
F-CY-CT-T
H
J-CT
J-CY
H-J-F-CY-T-W
J-W
H-F-CT-T
H-CY-CT-T
H-CY-A
J-A
J-CY-CT-T-W
H-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
A
A
H-CY-CT
J-CY-CT-T
Harmar Mine & Preparation
Plant
Harmar Coal Co.
Pittsburg
700
H-F-A-W
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables, CT-Centrifuges. CY-Cyrlones. F-Flotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Operating/managing company
Owners
Location
Homer City Mine
Homer City Coal Cleaning Plant
Bird No. 2 & 3 Mines
Glenslde Preparation Plant
Eureka Mine No. 40
Mine Nos. 1, 2 & Preparation
Plant
Vesta Preparation Plant
Nemacolin Mine & Preparation
Plant
Emerald Mine No. 1 & Preparation
Plant
Shannopin Mine
Margaret Refuse Recovery
Reesedale Preparation Plant
Stott No. 1 Mine
Foster 65 Mine
Mathies Mine
Mine Nos. 210-4A2, 8, 4, 10
Hears Preparation Flan-
Isabella Mine
Laurel Mine
Conemaugh No. 1 Mine
Helen Mining Co.
Iselln Preparation Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
James Coal Mining Co.
Jandy Coal Co., Inc.
Johnstown Coal 4 Coke Co.
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Kent Coal Mining Co.
Kitt Coal Co., Inc.
Lady Jane Collieries, Inc.
Leechburg Mining Co.
Mathies Coal Co.
Mays Coal Co.
Mears Coal Co.
National Mines Corp.
National Mines Corp.
North American Coal Corp.
North American Coal Co.
Occidental Petroleum Corp.
LTV Corp.
LTV Corp.
LTV Corp.
LTV Corp.
Zapata Fuels, Inc.
National Steel Corp.
National Steel Corp.
Capacity
tons/day
Process
Homer City
Homer City
Tire Hill
Starford
Scalp Level
Glen Campbell
La Belle
Nemacolin
Waynesburg
Bobtown
Indiana
Adrian
Philipsburg
Leechburg
Washington
Clarion
Dixonville
Isabella
Library
Seward
PENNSYLVANIA
2,400
20.000
4.700
1,500
3,000
16.000
5.800
1.700
1.200
300
2,500
1,400
2,450
4.500
150
4,000
4.000
1,640
2.500
H-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
A
H-CY-CT-T-W
H-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F
CY-CT-T
J
J-CY-CT
J-CY
J-CY-CT-T
H-CY-CT-W
J-F-W
J
H-CY-T-A-W
J-CT
H-F-CY-CT-T
CY-T-A-W
1
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables, CT-Cer:,"f-jges. C>-Cyclone-.,, F-F1otaticr> 'Jnits, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners. W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Oneida 4 Mine
Peggs Run Mine No. 2 S
Cleaning Plant
Allegheny No. 2 £
Cleaning Plane
Mine Nos. 651-1, 3, 5, 6, 8,
10, 11 & Cleaning Plant
Reitz Cleaning Plant No. 4
Reitz Cleaning Plant Mo. 11
Russell ton Mine & Plant
Clyde Mine & Plant
Banning No. 4 & Plant
Rushton Mine
Shannon Tipple
Que Mahoning Coal Processing Co.
Stahlman Washery
Mine Nos. 278-1 6A2. 17A, 20
Mine Nos. 179-37, 179-31 i'A2).
179-30
Mine Nos. 553-9 (A2 i. A3). 10,
12, 15
Nan-Lee Mine
Marion Mine & Cleaning Plant
Operating/managing company
Trie Oneida Mining Co.
Peggs Run Coal Co. , Inc.
Denn Allegh Coal Co., Inc.
Penn Pocahontas Coal Co.
Reitz Coal Co.
Reitz Coal Co.
Republic Steel Corp.
Republic Steel Corp.
Republic Steel Corp.
Rushton Mining Co.
Shannon Coal Co.
Solar Fuel Co.
W. P. Stahlman Coal Co.
James Stott Coal Co., Inc.
Sunbeam Coal Corp.
Svonavec, Inc.
Tesone Coal Co.
Tunnel ton Mining Co.
Owners Location
Pennsylvania Mines Corp. Ebensburg PENNSYLVANIA
Shippingport
Tarenton
Garrett
Windber
Windber
Russel 1 ton
Frederic ktown
West Newton
Pennsylvania Mines Corp. Philipsburg
Gulf Resources and Chemicai
Corp. Clarion
Somerset
Gulf Resources and Chemical
Corp. Clarion
Phil ipsburg
Boyers
Rockwood
Petrol la
Pennsylvania Mines Corp. Ebensburg
Capacity
tons/dav
5,000
1,300
1,600
2,400
2,500
2,500
3,000
6,000
4,000
3,500
7.000
3,000
7,000
3,500
7,000
1,920
400
3,000
Process
CY-CT-T-J
H-CY
H-F-CT-W
J
H-CY-CT-T-A-W
H-CY-CT-T-A-W
A
H-F-CT-W
H-F-CT-W
H-CY-CT-T-A
J
CY-CT-T
J
H-CY-CT-T-W
J-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
H
A
i
Same as operating/nariiQing company unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables, CT-Cen:r<'.,jes, Ci-C/oiones, F-rlotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
CJl
Plant name
Rooena Mine Nos . i , _, 3
Maple Creek Mine Noi. 1 i '.
Jones Mine Nos. 130-6, t
Mine No. 2
Matthews Mine
Marthann Preparation Plant
Mine No. 1
Mine No. 1
John Henry Mine
Central Preparation Plant
Star Point Mine Nos. 1 & 2
Gordon Creek Nos. 2 & 3
King Mine
Wellington Preparation Plant E
Noralla Preparation Plant
Banner Mine
Beatrice Mine
Mine No. 1
Mine No. 1
Operating/managing company Owners
U.S. Steel
U.S. Steel
Universal Minor?!?. Ire.
K'illowbfook Mining Co.
Clear Creek Coal Co., Inc Anchor Coal Co.
Consolidated Coal Co. Continental Oil Co.
Marthann Coal Co., Inc.
S. A. M. Coal Co.
James Spur Coal Co., Inc.
5M Corporation
Kaiser Steel Corp.
Plateau Mining Co. United Nuclear Corp.
Swisher Coal Co. General Exploration Co.
United States Fuel Co.
US Steel Corp.
Alia Ohio Valley Coals, In:.
Banner Splashdam Coal Co., Inc.
Beatrice Pocahontas Co.
Black Nugget Coal Co., Inc.
Black Match/Black Diamond
Coal Co.
Location
Greensboro PENNSYLVANIA
New Eagle
Portage
Grove City
Monterey TENNESSEE
Middlesboro
Clairfield
Middlesboro
Pruden
Hurricane UTAH
Sunny side
Price
Price
Hiawatha
Wellington
Wise VIRGINIA
Cincinnati
Keen Mountain
Grundy
Grundy
Capacity
tons/dav
20,000
15,000
7,000
1,000
500
6,000
220
3,000
9.000
5,200
3,200
3,800
7,500
6,000
1,250
8,000
3,000
2
Process
H-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-CY-CT-W
A
A
H-CY-CT-T
1
F
A
J-CY-A
J-F-CT-T
H-CY-CT-T
J-CY-T
J
H-F-CY-CT
CY-CT
J
H-J-F-W
H
J-CY-CT-T-W
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
2 A-Air Tables, CT-Centrifuyes, CY-Cyclones, F-Flotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
on
Plant name
Moss Preparation Plant. 1
Moss Mine No. 2
Moss Preparation Plam C.
Virginia No 1 Mine
Mine No. 3
Harman Mine Nos. 5, GA & 5B
Kennedy Mine
Virginia Pocahnntas io. 1 Mine
Virginia Pocahontas No. 3 Mine
Virginia Pocahontas No. 4 Mine
Coronet No. 2
Jewell No. 11 Preparation Plant
Jewell No. 12 Preparation Plant
Jewell No. 18 Preparation Plant
Mine No. 3
Premier Mine
Ramsey Plant
Permac Mine No. 3
Raven Anchor Preparation Plant
Wolf pen Mine
Virginia Coal Division
Wellmore No. 4 Plant,
Mine No. 1505
Gperating/iranaging company
Clinchfield Coal Co.
Clinchfield Coal Co.
Cl incnfield Coal Co.
Eastover '':)- r-,T "o.
Harnan Mining Corp.
Harnan Mining Corp.
«0l?ti-n C3.-3.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Island Creek Coal Co.
Jewell Coal & Coke Co.
Jewell Ridge Coal Corp.
Jewell Ridge Coal Corp.
Jewell Ridge Coal Corp.
Lester Coal Co.
New Garden Coal Corp.
Paramont Mining Corp.
Permac, Inc.
Raven Anchor Coal Co.
Southwestern Virginia Coal Corp.
United Coal Companies
United Coal Companies
Owners
Pittston Co.
"ittston To.
Pittston Co.
Occidental PetroleuT Corp.
Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Pittston Co.
Pittston Co
Pittston Co.
South Atlantic
Barber Paramont Coal
:oca,,o,
Clintwood VIRGINIA
Dante
Dante
St. Paul
Harman
Harman
Swords Creek
Keen Mountain
Keen Mountain
Keen Mountair
Vansant
Jewell Valley
Jewell Valley
Jewell Valley
Hurley
Red Ash
Wi SP
Oakv/ood
Oakwood
Grundy
Grundy
Lee town
Lapaci t -
tons/day
9,000
5,000
17.500
900
3,500
8,000
3,000
8,000
7,500
1,000
3,000
3,000
2.000
600
12,000
5, CO"
1,500
1,800
1,400
2,000
Process2
H
H-W
H-F-W
H-F-CY-T
H-F-CY-CT-f-W
H-CT-T-W
J
H-F-CT-W
H-F-CT-W
H-F-CT-W
H-F-A
H-F-CY-CT-T
H
H-F-CY
J-W
J-A
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-J-F-CY-CT-W
H
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
h
' Same as operating/nana^nq company unless otr-erv/ise noted
* A-Air Tables, CT-Centri*uge», I'-'yclones, ^-Flotation 'jnits. *.Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, '/.'-Wash'^; Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Wellmore No. 7 Plant,
Mine No. 1225
Wellmore No. 8 Plant,
Mine No. 1225
Wellmore No. 11 Plant,
Mine No. 1934
Wellmore No. 14 Plant,
Mine No. 1465
V. P. No. 5 Mine
Dale Ridge Mine
flora Mine
Virginia Pocahontas No. 2
ftichlands Coal Operation
Bullitt Mine
Pine Branch Mine Nos. 1 & 2
Pine Branch Mine
Wentz Mine Nos. 1 41-6
Wentz No. 2 Mine
Landsburg Strip
Central ia Mine
Keystone No. 5 Mine
Amherst No. 1 Cleaning Plant
Operating/managing company Owners
United Coal Companies
United Coal Companies
l>,iteu Coal Companies
United Coal Companies
V. r -5 Min'ng Comoany
Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Co. Bates Manufacturing, Inc.
Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Co. Bates Manufacturing, Inc.
Virginia Pocahontas Co.
Westbury Development Corp. Westbury Resources, Ir.c.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
VJestmorelana Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Palmer Coking Coal Co., nc.
Washington Irrigation &
Development Co. Washington Water Power
Affinity Mining Co. Eastern Associated Coal Corp.
Amherst Coal Co.
Location
Big Rock VIRGINIA
Big Rock
Richards
Conaway
Keen Mountain
Coeburn
Coeburr.
Keen Mountain
Richlands
Big Stone Gap
Big Stone Gap
Big Stone Gap
Big Stone Gap
Big Stone Gap
Black Diamond WASHINGTON
Centralia
Sophia WEST VIRGINIA
Lundale
Capacity
tons/day
1.600
5.600
1,000
2,500
;>,c~c
7,000
2.5UO
8,000
5,250
8,000
2.000
2,000
4,000
4,000
50
20,000
5,000
4,000
Process'1
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-A
H
H-F-CT-T-W
J-CT-W
\f
H-F-CT-W
J
H-F-CY-CT-T-w
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H
J-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY
H-J-F-CY-CT-T-W
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
2 A-Air Tables, C7-Centri<"'is°s, f'-Cyclones. F-Flo:ation Units, ri-rieavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
00
Plant name
McGregor Cleaning Plant
Tralee Preparation F'iai.t
Preparation Plant
Robin Hood Oiv.
Preparation Plant
Halhonde Oiv. Montcoal
Preparation Plant
Walhonde Oiv. Mine No.
10A & B
Walhonde Div. Sundial
Preparation Plant
Badger Preparation Plant
Grand Badger Mine
Bolair Mine
Beckley Mine
No. 5-F Mine
Boone No. 131 Mine
Shamrock Central Cleaning Plant
Jelly Fork No. 81 Mine
Barrack ville No. 41
Prenter Preparation Plant
Bishop Mines
Pickens Cleaning Plant
Operating/managing company Owners
Amherst Coal Co.
Amigo Smokeless Coal Co. Pittston Co.
Appalachian Pocahontas Coal Co.
Armco, Inc.
Armco, Int.
Armco, Inc.
Armco, Inc.
Badger Coal Co. , Inc.
Badger Coal Co. , Inc.
Beasley Energy Inc., Beasley
Mineral Surveys
Beckley Coal Mining Co.
Reading & Bates Offshore
Belva Coal Co., Inc. Drilling Co.
Bethlehem Mines Corp. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Mines Corp. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Mines Corp. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Mines Corp. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Big Mountain Coals, Inc. Armco, Inc.
Bishop Coal Co. Inland Steel Co./Consol
Boden Mining Corp.
Location
Yolyn WEST VIRGINIA
Wyco
Flat Top
Twilight
Montcoal
Sundial
Sundial
Philippi
Philippi
Webster Springs
Glen Daniel
Van
Van
Kay ford
Drennen
Barrackville
Prenter
Bishop
Pickens
Capaci ty
tons/day
4,200
2,500
4,800
6.000
6,000
6,000
6,000
5,000
1,500
6,500
1,200
600
900
4,000
6,500
1,200
Process
H-J-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-J-F-W
H-CY
H-F-CT-T
H-F-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-CT-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
J
H-F-T-W
J
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T
J-CT-T
J-F-CY-CT
h-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-CY
Same as operating.'ranaging conpany unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables, CT-CentHfjqes, C^-C/clones, F-Flotation jnits, H-neavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners. W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Mine No. 5
Mine No. 8
Bronco Mine & Preparation
Plant
Lorado Preparation Plant
Nark Mine
K & M Mine
Lady Dunn Preparation Plant
Kanawha Oiv.
Pocahontas Div. Preparation
Plant
Morton Mine, Eagle Plant and
No. 43 Mine
Winifrede Nos. 6, 31, & 49,
Betty Lou & Crimson Plant
Carbon Nos. 9, 20A, 27, 36, 46
and Central Cleaning Plant
Coal burg No. 2
Mine No. 2A
Mine No. 1
Arkwright Mine,
Humphrey No. 7 Mine (Mt. Morris &
Bowers Portals)
Blacksville No. 1 Mine
Blacksville No. 2 Mine
Operating/managing company
Brady Cline Coal Co.
Brady Cline Coal Co.
Bronco Mining Co. , Inc.
Buffalo Mining Co., Inc.
Buffalo Mining Co. , Inc.
Burdettes Creek Coal Corp.
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Carbon Fuel Co.
Carbon Fuel Co.
Carbon Fuel Co.
Central Appalachian Coal Co.
Chafin Coal Co.
Clear Creek Fuel Corp.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Owners
Pittston Co.
Pittston Co.
Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd
Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd
Appalachian Power Co.
Continental Oil Co.
Continental Oil Co.
Continental Oil Co.
Continental Oil Co.
Location
Summersville WEST
Summers ville
Ki ngwood
Lorado
Lyburn
Rupert
Gunnel ton
Superior
Winifrede
Winifrede
Decota
Montgomery
Logan
Rupert
Osage
Osage
Wana
Wana
Capaci ty
tons/day
VIRGINIA 150
50
9.100
4.500
200
7,000
2,500
5,500
5,300
7.500
2,175
17,200
15,700
3.100
1,000
2
Process
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
F-CY-CT-T
J
H-CY
A
H-F-A
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-CY-CT-T-W
H-CT
H-CY-CT-W
A
H
H
H-CT-T
H-CT-T
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
2 A-Air Tables, CT-Cenmf.jges, CY-Cyclones, F-Flotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Wasning Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Operating/managing company
Owners
Location
Capacity
tons/day
Process
ro
o
Mine No. 95-Robinson Run
Loveridge Mine Mo. 22
Mine No. 9
Mine No. 20-0'Donnell
Will lams-Mine No. 98
Ireland Mine
McElroy Mine
Shoemaker Mine
Jenkinjones Mine
Pageton Preparation Plant
Crane Creek Mines
Turkey Gap Mine
Rowland Mine
Amonate Mine
Sycamore Mine
Crystalee Mine & Preparation
Plant
Homer Ho. 1
Mine Nos. 46-76S & 219-74S
Harris Mine Nos. 1 & 2
Wharton No. 2 Mine
Vtharton No. 4 Mine
Federal Mine 1
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Consolidation Coal Co.
Crystal Alma Corp.
Crystalee Coal Co.
D L M Coal Corp.
Eagle Coal Dock Co.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Continental
Oil Co.
Oil Co.
011 Co.
Oil Co.
Oil Co.
011 Co.
Oil Co.
Oil Co.
Oil Co.
011 Co.
Oil Co.
011 Co.
Oil Co.
Oil Co.
General Energy Corp.
Shinnston WEST VIRGINIA 12,000 H-F-CT-7-.J
Fairview 13,000 J-CT-T-W
Farmington 500 J-CT-T-W
Four States 4,200 J-CT-T-W
Worthington 2,500 H-CT-T-W
Moundsville 7,500 H-F-CY-T
Moundsville 3,500 H-F-CY-CT-T
Moundsville 5,000 H-F-CY-CT-T
Jenkinjones 5,000 H-F-CY-CT-T
Pageton 3,700 H-CT-W
McComas 4,500 H-F-CY-CT-T-W
Dott 3,000 H-F-CY-CT-T-W
Beckley 6,300 H-F-CY-CT-T-w
Amonate 6,600 H-F-CY-CT-T
Williamson 1,800 H
Sarah Ann 1,000 H-CY
Buckhannon 1,600 J-CY-CT
Stickney H-CY-CT
Bald Knob 10,000 H
Barrett 6,000 H-J-F
Barrett F-CY-CT-T
Grant Town 12,500 H-J-F-W
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables, C'-'Jerurifjges, CY-C>c'ores, ^-Flotation Units, H-Heav> Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
ro
Plant name
Joanne Mine
Keystone Mine 1
Federal Mine 2
Keystone Mine 4
Sterling Smokeless Mine 4
Preparation Plant
Keystone Mine 2
Kopperston Mine 1 >>
Cleaning Plant
Rum Creek Preparation Plant
Elkay Preparation Plant
Mine 2
Lyburn Mine
Mine No. 52-77S
Blue Boy Opers. -Preparation
Plant
Empire Opers. -Preparation
Plant
Raleigh Preparation Plant
Imperial Mine 19
Imperial Mine 11
Pond Fork Mine
Elk Creek No. 10
Guy an Mine No. 5
Operating/managing company Owners
eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp.
Elkay Mining Co. Pittston Co.
Elkay Mining Co. Pittston Co.
Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc.
Guyan Eagle Mining Co., Inc.
John B. Harris, Inc.
Hawley Coal Mining Corp.
Hawley Coal Mining Corp.
Hawley Coal Mining Corp.
Imperial Colliery Co.
Imperial Colliery Co.
Island Creek Coal Co. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Island Creek Coal Co. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Island Creek Coal Co. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Location
Rachel WEST VIRGINIA
Keystone
Fairview
Stotesbury
Whitby
Herndon
Kopperston
Lyburn
Lyburn
Gilbert
Huntington
Quinwood
Bradshaw
Keystone
Beck ley
Burnwel 1
Eskdale
Bob White
Emmett
Amherstdale
Capacity
tons/day
6,500
5,000
12,500
4,000
4.000
4,500
12,000
2,000
800
s.OOO
200
1,500
60
150
5,000
2 ,000
4,000
Process
J-F-W
H-CY-CT
H-CT
H-F-CY-CT
H
H-F-CY-CT
H-J-F-CT-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
J
J
J-CY
H-CY-CT-W
H-J-CT-T-W
H-A-W
J-CT-W
H-CY-CT
H-F-CY-CT-T-W-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H.CY-CT-T-W
J-CY-CT
Same as operating/nianajing company unless otherwise noted
2 A-Air Tables, C'-Cent-i'uges, CY-Cyclones, F-Flotation units, H-Heavy Media dasher, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
ro
ro
Plant name
Coal Mountain Mine Si-
Coal Mountain Mine 12
Mine No. 29
Alpine Mine Nos. 1 42
Donegan No. 1 Plant
Gauley Eagle Plant No. 4
North Branch Mine
Tioga Mine
Itmann Mines
01 ga M
-------
Table A-l. Continued
Plant name
Operating/managing company
Owners
Location
Capacity
tons/day
Process
ro
CO
Valley Mining Co. Mine
Mine No. 3
Mllburn Mine 4
National Pocahontas Mine
Cheat Bridge Preparation Plant
Preparation Plant No. 1
Preparation Plant No. 2
Chesterfield Mine Nos. 1, 3, 4,
5, 6
16Kingwood
Preparation Plant
Jane Ann Mines 11, 17, 25 & 31
Jane Ann Mines 7b, ISa
Beckley No. 1
Beckley No. 2
Bolt Preparation Plant
Red Jacket Mine
Kanes Creek Mines
Nos. 55 & 64 & Ace Mines
Royal Mine No. 5
Royal Mines 3, 6, 10
Mine No. 7 & 7B
Mine No. 8
Premier Preparation Plant
Mercury Coal & Coke, Inc.
Metco Mining Corp.
Mil burn Colliery Co.
National Mines Corp.
NewEra Resources, Inc.
The New River Co.
The New River Co.
Omar Mining Co.
Patriot Mining Co., Inc.
Pocahontas Red Ash Mining Co.
The Powell ton Co.
The Powell ton Co.
Ranger Fuel Corp.
Ranger Fuel Corp.
Ranger Fuel Corp.
Red Jacket Coal Co., Inc.
Reliable Coal Corp.
Robinson Phillips Coal Co.
Royal Coal Co.
Royal Coal Co.
Royal Coal Co.
Royal Coal Co.
Royalty Smokeless Coal
National Steel Corp.
Pittston Co.
Pittston Co.
Pittston Co.
A. T. Massey Coal Co.
United Pocahor.tas Coal Co.
United Pocahontas Coal Co.
United Pocahontas Coal Co.
United Pocahontas Coal Co.
Morgantown WEST VIRGINIA 500
Logan 2.00C
Burnwel1
Pineville 5,000
Elkms 2,500
Mt. Hope 2,000
Mt. Hope 2,000
Madison
Kingwood
laeger
Mallory
Mai lory
Beckley
Beckley
Bolt
Red Jacket
Reedsville
Pineville
Layland
Beckley
Beckley
Beckley
Premier
1.000
2,600
200
2,500
2,500
3,500
3.000
5,000
2.00C
1.500
5,000
5.000
3,500
F-CY-CT-T-W
J-CY-CT-T
J-CY-CT
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-CY-CT-T
H-CY-CT
J
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
F-CY-CT-T
J
H
H
H-F-CY
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY
J-CY-H
H
J
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-J-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
J-F-CY-CT-W
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
2 A-Air Tables, CT-Centrifuges, Cy-Cyclones, F-Flotation I'ni'.s, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washirvj Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued
3>
ro
Plant name
Harewood Mine
Shannon Branch Mine
Meadow River Mine & Plant
Sewell No. 1 Preparation Plant
Sewell No. 2 Tipple
Sewell No. 4 Preparation Plant
Central Cleaning Plant
Slab Fork Mine No. 8
Slab Fork Mine No. 1C
Gaston Mine 2
Smith No. 1 Mine
Hunter Mine
Bull Creek No. 1
Blue Creek Mine 7
Blue Creek Mine 7C
Algoma Preparation Plant
Indian Ridge Central
Preparation Plant
Alpheus Cleaning Plant
Grapevine Cleaning Plant
Pinnacle Cleaning Plant
Adrian Mine
Valley Capp No. 1
Operating/managing company Owners
Semet-Sol vay Allied Chemical Corp.
Semet-Solvay Allied Chemical Corp.
Sewell Coal Co.
Sewell Coal Co.
Sewell Coal Co.
Sewell Coal Co.
Sharpies Coal Corporation
Slab Fork Coal Co.
Slab Fork Coal Co.
Slab Fork Coal Co.
Smith Bros. Construction Co.,
Inc.
Smith & Stover Coal Co.
Southern Appalachian Coal Co. Appalachian Power Co.
Union Carbide Corp.
Union Carbide Corp.
United Pocahontas Coal Co.
United Pocahontas Coal Co.
US Steel Corp.
US Steel Corp.
US Steel Corp.
Upshur Coals Corp.
Valley Camp Coal Co.
Location
Longacre WEST VIRGINIA
Capels
Lookout
Nettie
Nettie
Nettie
Sharpies
Slab Fork
Slab Fork
A1 poca
Matewan
Beck ley
Marmet
Clendenin
Clendenin
Beckley
Beck ley
Gary
Thacker
Pineville
Buckhannon
Short Creek
Capacity
tons/day
12,000
11,000
6,000
3,000
1.000
3.000
6.000
5.600
5,600
1,800
1,800
600
10.400
1.400
700
2,000
2,500
4,000
3. 000
2,000
2,500
2
Process
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY
H-F-CT-T-W
H-CY
H
H-A
H-J-CT-T
H-F-CT-T
H-F-CT-T-W
H-F-CT-W
J
H
J-F-CY-CT
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
J-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-J-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CT-T-W
J-CT
Same operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables, CT-Centrifuges, C''-Cyclones, F-Flotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thlckeners, W-Washing Tables
(continued)
-------
Table A-l. Concluded
Plant name
Valley Camp No. 3
Alexander Mine
Preparation Plant No. C
Donaldson Mine Co./
Donaldson Prep. ?lant
Mine No. 4
Mine No. 2
Blueco No. 2 Mine
Omar Division/Omar Mine
Hampton 01 v. Mine No. J
i Hampton D1v. Mine No. 4
ro
tn Ferrell Mine
East Gulf Mine
Eccles Mine No. 5
Eccles Mine No. 6
MacAlpin Mine
Quinwood No. 2 Mine
Clifftop Preparation Dlint
Mine No. 290-71S
Beach Bottom Mine
Operating/managing company Owners
Valley Camp Coal Co.
Valley Camp Coal Co.
Valley Camp Coal Co.
Valley Camp Coal Co.
Virginia Crews Coal Co.
Virginia Crews Coal Co.
Virginia Crews Coal Co.
W-P Coal Co. Consumers Mining Corp.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
Westmoreland Coal Co.
'.Jesimoreland Coal Co.
White Rio;e Coal Co., Inc.
Windsor Power house Coal Co. Ohio Power Co.
Location
THadelphia WEST
Mounds vi lie
Shrewsbury
Shrewsbury
Welch
Welch
Welch
Omar
Clothier
Clothier
Clothier
Eastgulf
Eccles
Eccles
MacAlpin
Quinwood
Quinwood
Shady Spring
Windsor Heights
Capacity
tons/day
VIRGINIA 1,500
800
6,500
8,000
400
400
400
4,000
5,900
600
8,000
2,200
2,000
1,800
5.000
2,500
1,500
2,400
2
Process
J-T-W
J
J
J-CY-CT-T
J-F-CY-CT-T-A-W
J-F-CY-CT-T-W
J-F-CY-CT-T-A-W
H-F-CY-CT-T
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
J-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-F-CY-CT-T-W
H-J
H-W
H-W
H-CY
H-J-F-CY-T-W
H-F-CY-W
J-CT-W
H-J-T
Vanguard No. 2
Energy Development Co.
Iowa Public Service Co.
Hanna WYOMING
K-CY-CT
1
Same as operating/managing company unless otherwise noted
A-Air Tables, C~-Cer,f; foges, CY-Cyclones, F-Flotation Units, H-Heavy Media Washer, J-Jigs, T-Thickeners, W-Washing Tables
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 450/3-80-022
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A Review of Standards of Performance for New Stationar.
Sources - Coal Preparation Plants
5. REPORT DATE
December 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
TRW Energy Systems Group
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
90278
Contract No. 68-02-3174
Assignment 3
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 2/711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This study has reviewed and assessed the need to revise the new source performance
standards (NSPS) for coal preparation plants. These standards limited particulate
emissions or opacities from pneumatic coal cleaning equipment, coal dryers, coal
processing and conveying, coal storage, and coal transfer and loading.
Control device performances have not changed enough to justify changing the
particulate standards. Emissions of S0? are too small to justify setting standards
for this pollutant. EPA plans to investigate coal storage piles and unloading stations
as unregulated sources of potential particulate fugitive emissions.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Air Pollution
Pollution Control
Standards of Performance
Coal Cleaning
Particulates
Air Pollution Control
13B
is. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
90
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pagel
22. PRICE
Unclassified
r ?A Form 2229-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EC'TOr: IS OBSOLETE
------- |