v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/2-78-004m
Laboratory May 1978
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Source Assessment
Water Pollutants
From Coal Storage
Areas
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:'
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-004m
May 1978
SOURCE ASSESSMENT:
WATER POLLUTANTS FROM
COAL STORAGE AREAS
by
R. A. Wachter and T. R. Blackwood
Monsanto Research Corporation
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1874
Project Officer
John F. Martin
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, proc-
essed, converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on
our environment and even on our health often require that new
and increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be
used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating
new and improved methodologies that will meet these needs both
efficiently and economically.
This report contains an assessment of water pollutants from
coal storage areas. This study was conducted to provide a
better understanding of the distribution and characteristics of
water pollutants from coal storage areas. Further information
on this subject may be obtained from the Extraction Technology
Branch, Resource Extraction and Handling Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
-------
PREFACE
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility
for insuring that pollution control technology is available for
stationary sources to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and solid waste legisla-
tion. If control technology is unavailable, inadequate, or
uneconomical, then financial support is provided for the develop-
ment of the needed control techniques for industrial and extrac-
tive process industries. Approaches considered include: process
modifications, feedstock modifications, add-on control devices,
and complete process substitution. The scale of the control
technology programs ranges from bench- to full-scale demonstra-
tion plants.
IERL has the responsibility for developing control technology for
a large number of operations (more than 500) in the chemical and
related industries. As in any technical program, the first step
is to identify the unsolved problems. Each of the industries is
to be examined in detail to determine if there is sufficient
potential environmental risk to justify the development of con-
trol technology by IERL.
Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC) has contracted with EPA to
investigate the environmental impact of various industries that
represent sources of pollutants in accordance with EPA's respon-
sibility. Dr. Robert C. Binning serves as MRC Program Manager in
this overall program, entitled "Source Assessment," which in-
cludes the investigation of sources in each of four categories:
combustion, organic materials, inorganic materials, and open
sources. Dr. Dale A. Denny of the Industrial Processes Division
at Research Triangle Park serves as EPA Project Officer for this
series. Reports prepared in this program are of two types:
Source Assessment Documents, and State-of-the-Art Reports.
Source Assessment Documents contain data on pollutants from spe-
cific industries. Such data are gathered from the literature,
government agencies, and cooperating companies. Sampling and
analysis are also performed by the contractor when the available
information does not adequately characterize the source pollu-
tants. These documents contain all of the information necessary
for IERL to decide whether a need exists to develop additional
control technology for specific industries.
iv
-------
State-of-the-Art Reports include data on pollutants from specific
industries which are also gathered from the literature, govern-
ment agencies and cooperating companies. However, no extensive
sampling is conducted by the contractor for such industries.
Sources in this category are considered by EPA to be of insuf-
ficient priority to warrant complete assessment for control tech-
nology decisionmaking. Therefore, results from such studies are
published as State-of-the-Art Reports for potential utility by
the government, industry, and others having specific needs and
interests.
This State-of-the-Art Report contains data on water pollutants'
from coal storage areas. This study was completed for the Ex-
traction Technology Branch of the Resource Extraction and Han-
dling Division, lERL-Cincinnati. Mr. John F. Martin served as
EPA Project Leader.
v
-------
ABSTRACT
Coal stockpiles maintained outdoors at production and usage sites
emit effluents due to leaching and drainage during and after pre-
cipitation. Aquatic lifeforms are exposed to these effluents as
the runoff flows from the drainage area into waterways. This
report quantifies the effluent levels from these sources by
examining coals (both freshly mined and aged) from six coal
regions of the United States. A representative source is defined
to help characterize the wastewater level from coal storage
areas. Effluent data were obtained by subjecting coals to rain-
fall beneath a simulation apparatus and collecting grab samples
of the wastewater. The samples were analyzed for organic and
inorganic substances and water quality criteria parameters.
Hydrologic relationships were used to estimate the runoff concen-
trations. Water quality criteria concentrations are compared
with these levels to estimate their potential environmental
impact. Applicable and future control techniques are discussed
along with the growth and nature of stockpile quantities retained
at facilities.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No.
68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The study covers
the period November 1976 to December 1977, and the work was
completed as of December 1977.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Preface iv
Abstract vi
Figures viii
Tables ix
Abbreviations and Symbols xii
Conversion Factors and Metric Prefixes xiv
Acknowledgement xv
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 2
3. Source Description 4
Source characteristics 4
Stockpile locations and quantities 5
Geographical distribution 7
Potential pollutants 9
Environmental factors 12
Factors affecting emissions 15
4. Water Discharges 17
Data compilation , 17
Representative source 24
Effluent levels 38
Water quality degradation 55
5. Control Technology 62
Present applications of control technology ... 62
Future applications of control technology ... 62
Control considerations 73
6. Growth and Nature of the Industry 75
Storage growth patterns 75
Mining trends 77
Stockpiling trends 79
References 80
Appendices 86
A. Coal usage and storage statistics 86
B. Rainfall simulator 90
C. Sampling results 93
D. Analytical methodology and results, organics .... 98
Glossary 102
VII
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Breakdown of coal consumption by users, 1975 7
2 Coal usage distribution per state 8
3 Rainfall simulation apparatus 23
4 Production of coal by coal region 26
5 Distribution of coal piles 28
6 Hydrological overview of runoff 31
7 Hydrograph of runoff 32
8 Representative coal storage source area 37
9 Past yearly stocks of coal, 1940 to 1975 76
10 Coal storage and consumption, 1940 to 1975 76
vm
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Diluted and Undiluted Effluent Concentrations
from a Representative Coal Stockpile 3
2 Consumption of Coal by Rank 5
3 Average Days of Supply (Ds) and Average Annual
Days of Operation (Do) for Coal Users 6
4 Amount of Coal Stored Per State, 1975 9
5 Major Inorganic Constituents of Coal,
Ash Portion 10
6 Variations in Coal Ash Composition with
Coal Rank 11
7 Trace Inorganic Elements in Coal 11
8 Hazardous Substances List 18
9 Coal Regions of the United States 24
10 Coal Production by Coal Region 25
11 Average Content (Percent) of Hazardous Inorganic
Elements Within Coals 26
12 Production-Weighted Inorganic Element Content
of Coals 28
13 Survey of Distribution of Distances to Plant
Boundary and Population Density for Coal
Stockpile Locations 29
14 Deviations of Coal Stockpile Inventories,
Per User 30
15 Annual and Weighted Annual Precipitation Levels
Per State 33
16 Days of Precipitation Per State 34
IX
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
17 Arithmetic Mean and Standard Deviation Values of
Effluent Concentration, Coal Leachate,
and Runoff 39
18 Average Effluent Concentration Per Coal
Region 40
19 Representative Effluent Concentrations 41
20 Effluent Concentrations Versus Rainfall
Frequency for Aged and Fresh Coals 42
21 Precision of Concentration Measurements , . 43
22 Worst Case Effluent Concentrations at the
Representative Source 44
23 Organic Effluent Concentrations 45
24 Effluent Rates from the Representative Source . . . .46
25 Leaching Factors Per Coal Region 47
26 Average Effluent Factors Per Coal Region 49
27 Effluent Factors for the Representative Source .... 50
28 Mass Annual Effluent Emissions from Coal
Stockpiles, 1975 50
29 Runoff Concentrations of Inorganics and Water
Quality Parameters from the Representative
Source 51
30 Runoff Concentrations of Organics from the
Representative Source 52
31 Coal Stockpile Effluent Concentrations from
Previous Studies 53
32 Deviations of Effluent Concentrations for a
21-Day Period 54
33 Preliminary Analyses of Trace Metals and TOG
Levels 55
34 Comparison of Runoff Concentration Levels with
Effluent Limitations 58
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
35 Hazardous and Runoff Concentration Levels for
Inorganic Pollutants from Coal Storage Areas .... 60
36 Hazardous and Runoff Concentration Levels for
Water Quality Parameters from Coal Storage
Areas 60
37 Hazardous and Runoff Concentration Levels for
Organic Pollutants from Coal Storage 61
38 Biological Water Treatments for Coal Stockpile
Water Pollutants 63
39 Activated Sludge Modifications and Operational
Characteristics 65
40 Physical/Chemical Treatments for Coal Stockpile
Water Pollutants 66
41 Carbon Adsorption Treatment Results 67
42 Typical Membrane Solute Rejection in
Reverse Osmosis 70
43 Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Methods 72
44 Past Yearly Stocks of Coal Per User 75
45 Coal Resources of the United States by
Rank, 1974 77
46 Western U.S. Coal Reserves 78
xi
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
A
Ad
AMD
AP
BATEA
BOD 5
BODLX
BPCTCA
C
CH
Ck
COD
CR
DiOP
Do
Do
DOC
Doi
DฐM
Dฐ0
DฐS
DฐW
Ds
E>s
Dsi
H
iR
IR
iRP
IE
IW
k
K1
K'2
Appalachian coal
-- area of drainage basin minus pile area
acid mine drainage
sampling pan surface area
best available technology economically achievable
-- 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
BOD at x = 0
BOD loading at distance x
best practicable control technology currently
available
coefficient of runoff
hazardous concentration
concentration levels for each effluent parameter, k
chemical oxygen demand
runoff concentration
Di-iso-octylphthalate
annual days of operation
average days of operation
critical dissolved oxygen deficit
average annual days of operation for user type, i
dissolved oxygen content of the stream and coal
pile runoff mixture
initial dissolved oxygen deficit in the runoff and
stream mixture
saturation concentration of dissolved oxygen
stream oxygen content before receiving runoff
days of supply
average days of supply
average days of supply for user type, i
pile height
rainfall intensity
average rainfall intensity
weight of coal subjected to the simulation rainfall
Interior-eastern coal
Interior-western coal
-- effluent parameter
BOD rate constant
reaeration constant
xn
-------
LC5o lethal concentration to 50% of tested species
LD50 lethal dose to 50% of tested species
Lf, leaching factors
N -- number of sources per user type
NP Great Northern Plains coal
NDL no detectable level
P~, -- average percent of the element i-n coal
Qe -- effluent rates
Qr average rate of runoff
s weight of coal sample in simulator pan
Sp surface area
SW Southwestern coal
Tc total quantity of coal stored in United States
TLV threshold limit value
TOG total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
V stream flow velocity
Vd drainage volumetric rate
V runoff flow rate
Vw waterway flow rate
W Western coal
W, average weight of the element in the coal
,K
x downstream distance
x_ distance at which D0_ occurs
\*> v
X amount of coal stored
Xcij annual coal usage for user type, i, source, j
pB bulk density of coal
Xlll
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND METRIC PREFIXES
To convert from
Centimeter (cm)
Degree Celsius (ฐC)
Gram (g)
Kilogram (kg)
Kilometer2 (km2)
Meter (m)
Meter (m)
Meter2 (m2)
Meter2 (m2)
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3 (m3)
Meter3 (m3)
Metric ton
Pascal (Pa)
Radian (rad)
CONVERSION FACTORS
_ To
Inch
Degree Fahrenheit
Pound-mass (Ib mass
avoirdupois)
Pound-mass (Ib mass
avoirdupois)
mile2
Foot
Inch
Foot2
Inch2
Foot3
Gallon (U.S. liquid)
Inch3
Multiply by
0.394
tฐ = 1.8 tฐ + 32
Liter
Ton (short, 2,000 Ib mass)
Pound-force/inch2 (psi)
Degree (ฐ)
-3
2.204 x 10
2.204
3.860 x 10"1
3.281
3.937 x 101
1.076 x 101
1.550 x 103
3.531 x 103
2.642 x 102
5.907 x 1014
1.000 x 103
1.102
1.450 x lO"4
5.730 x 101
Prefix
Kilo
Micro
Milli
Nano
Symbol
k
m
n
PREFIXES
Multiplication factor
103
10~6
10~3
Example
1 kg
1 yg
1 mm
1 nm
= 1 x 103 grams
= 1 x 10~6 gram
= 1 x 10~3 meter
= 1 x 10~9 meter
Metric Practice Guide. ASTM Designation E 380-74, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
November 1974. 34 pp.
xiv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Monsanto Research Corporation wishes to acknowledge the coopera-
tion of the Purdue University Department of Agricultural Engi-
neering. A special note of appreciation is expressed to
Dr. Lawrence Huggins for his assistance in our research efforts,
This acknowledgement does not convey an endorsement by Purdue
University of our research results.
XV
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report investigates the water pollution levels that result
from leaching, drainage, and runoff of coal stockpiles maintained
outdoors. Geographical locations and coal quantities stored at
user sites throughout the United States are first established. A
representative source is thereafter defined to characterize the
pollution levels. To obtain effluent data, coals were collected
from various coal regions and placed under a rainfall simulator.
Samples of the drainage were collected and analyzed for water
quality parameters, organic and inorganic substances, and pollut-
ants covered by effluent limitations. Coal drainage effluent
concentrations, rates, and factors were determined, and hydro-
logic relationships were used to calculate the diluted concentra-
tions entering a waterway. The ratio of this level to water
quality criteria was determined as an indication of the potential
environmental impact. Applicable controls for coal drainage
effluents are established along with future control considera-
tions. The change in stockpile quantities with time is pro-
jected, and the resultant effect on effluent levels is also
quantified.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
A total of 124 x 106 metric tons3 (137 x 106 tons) of coal were
stockpiled in the United States in 1975. A representative coal
stockpile contains 95,000 metric tons (104,000 tons) of coal.
This mass is subjected to an average rainfall intensity of
1.8 ym/s to 3.5 ym/s (0.25 to 0.50 in./hr) for 1 hr a day, every
2.6 days (139 days/ yr). Approximately 15% of this rainfall
drains through the stockpile and produces the undiluted effluent
concentration levels in Table 1. These effluents combine with
runoff from the surrounding area to reach the nearest waterway
over an average distance of 86 m (282 ft). An average of 629 m3
of runoff flow each hour (22,210 ft3/hr). This flow results in a
dilution of the effluents drained from the stockpile to produce
the diluted effluent concentrations in Table 1 that enter the
nearest waterway.
The diluted values listed in the table are from one to seven
orders of magnitude less than water quality criteria. These
criteria were developed from 1) EPA water quality criteria or
2) data on subacute toxicities or lethal concentrations of sub-
stances as they affect aquatic species. Levels of selected toxic
organic pollutants were from 6 to 11 orders of magnitude less
than the criteria levels, after dilution. The effluent concen-
trations (shown in Table 1) were found to vary an average ฑ211%
between sources and ฑ129% at a source.
At present, control technology is not generally applied at coal
storage areas; however, effluent limitations have been estab-
lished. These limitations are based on application of the best
practicable control technology currently available, which is
collection, neutralization, and sedimentation. Other control
techniques are also available.
The amount of coal stockpiled at user sites has grown from
40.4 x 106 metric tons (44 x 106 tons) in 1940 to the present
level of 124 x 106 metric tons. The current energy shortages and
mining trends of the United States may increase coal storage
1 metric ton equals 106 grams; conversion factors and metric
system prefixes are presented in the prefatory material.
-------
TABLE 1. DILUTED AND UNDILUTED EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COAL STOCKPILE
Concentration, g/m3
Effluent
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
Chloride
Total organic carbon
pHb
2-Chloronaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Fluor an thene
Benzidine
Benzo (ghi) perylene
Undiluted
1,551
754
401
39
0.69
10.1
<0.001
<3.8
1,436
0.31
4.6
15.7
0.002
0.004
0.08
0.06
3.1
19.9
0.8
<0.001
0.27
280
6.78
0.014
0.015
0.014
0.016
0.014
0.044
Diluted
0.16
0.08
0.04
0-007
7 x 10~5
0.001
<1 x 10~7
0.0023
0.002a
3 x 10~5
4 x I0~k
0.001
2 x 10~7
4 x 10~7
7 x 10~6
6 x 10~6
4 x 10~5
0.002
7 x 10~5
1 x 10~7
2 x 10~5
0.003
6.9
2 x 10~5
2 x 10~5
2 x 10~5
2 x 10~5
2 x 10~5
7 x 10~5
Note.Blanks indicate no detectable level.
Dissolved oxygen deficit at critical
distance (BOD5 results questionable).
Logarithm of reciprocal of hydrogen ion
concentration in g/m3.
quantities to 229 x 106 metric tons (252 x 106 tons) in 1985 and
680 x 106 metric tons (750 x 106 tons) in the year 2000.
Increases in stockpile quantities will average 3.8% (by wt) per
year, with a corresponding increase in mass emissions.
-------
SECTION 3
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
Coal is a mineral solid formed by the partial decomposition of
vegetable matter under anaerobic conditions and varying degrees
of temperature and high pressure. It is primarily organic matter
composed essentially of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and
sulfur. Inorganic matter is present partly in the coal and
primarily in the ash (1).
There are four ranks of coal, defined by the American Society for
Testing and Materials as: anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous,
and lignite (2). These classifications are derived from the
ranges of volatile matter content and heating value. Anthracite
has the highest heating value and lowest volatile matter content;
the reverse is true of lignite.
The consumption of coal by rank in the United States is shown in
Table 2 (3, 4).
All of these coals are mined from the earth primarily for use as
fuel, but also for producing coke, coal gas, water gas, and many
coal tar products (3, 4).
(1) Magee, E. M., H. J. Hall, and G- M. Varga, Jr. Potential
Pollutants in Fossil Fuels. EPA-R2-73-249, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, June 1973. 151 pp.
(2) A.S.T.M. Standards on Coal and Coke. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September
1948. pp. 80.
(3) Minerals Yearbook, 1973, Volume I. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1973. pp. 8-36.
(4) Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution, Calendar Year 1975
(Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution Quarterly). Min-
eral Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C., 12 April 1976. 51 pp.
4
-------
TABLE 2. CONSUMPTION OF COAL BY RANK (3, 4)
Rank
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Lignite
Anthracite
TOTAL
Usage,
106 metric tons
289
175.1
8.6
5.8
478.5
Percent
of total
60.4
36.6
1.8
1.2
100.0
At plants that use coal, operating costs are kept at their lowest
level when consumption is constant. However, in order to meet
fluctuations in demand, the extra coal is put into stock. This
factor and other advantages compensate for the expenditures
created in the stockpiling and removal from storage. In general
practice, daily fluctuations in consumption are met by a small
buffer storage pile. An intermediate stockpile is created to
handle holiday or transport difficulties. A strategic reserve
is built in the summer months to handle winter consumption levels
(5). These stockpiles are maintained outdoors to facilitate
handling. The specific method of stroage employed depends upon
the coal rank, facilities available, and the likely length of
storage time.
STOCKPILE LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES
After coal is mined, approximately 50% is cleaned, sized, and
stockpiled at preparation plants near the mine (1). None is
stored at the mine itself because of U.S. Bureau of Mines regu-
lations (6). Coal is transported to the user sites either
directly from the mine, or from the preparation plants after
processing.
The amount of coal placed in storage varies with the type of
user. The three largest users of coal are 1) electric utility
boilers, 2) industrial boilers, and 3) coke production plants.
Stockpile size at these facilities is designated and established
from the days of supply (Ds) available in storage and the annual
(5) Shipley, D. F. Coal Storage. Monthly Bulletin of the
British Coal Utilisation Research Association, XXIII(11-
Part II):433-446, 1959.
(6) Blackwood, T. R., and R. A. Wachter. Source Assessment: '
Coal Storage Piles. Contract 68-02-1874, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. (Final document sub-
mitted to the EPA by Monsanto Research Corporation,
July 1977.) 96 pp.
-------
days of operation (Do). Table 3 (7-9) lists the average days of
supply (Us) and average annual days of operation (Do) for coal
users.
TABLE 3. AVERAGE DAYS OF SUPPLY (Ds) AND AVERAGE ANNUAL
DAYS OF OPERATION (Do) FOR COAL USERS (7-9)
User
Electric utility boilers
Industrial boilers
Coke production plants
Steel and rolling mills
Preparation plants
Average days
of supply, Ds
85 (7)
48 (7)
37 (9)
40 (7)
ioa
Average annual
of operation,
365, (8)
205a
365, (9)
250
250a
days
Do
MRC estimate, based on industrial experience.
The total quantity of coal stored in the United States (Tc) is
computed from the product of the ratio Ds/Do and the annual usage
of coal (Xc) per user type, i, and source, j, from Equation 1:
Xcij (1)
where Dsi = average days of supply for user type, i
Doi = average annual days of operation for user type, i
Xcij = annual coal usage for user type, i, source j
Tc = total quantity of coal stored in the United States
N = number of sources per user type
(7) Production of Coal - Bituminous and Lignite, 1976, Per Week.
Weekly Coal Report No. 3060, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., May 7, 1976. 4 pp.
(8) FPC Issues Electric Fuel Consumption, Stocks. News Release
No. 20499, Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.,
22 July 1974. 3 pp.
(9) Coke and Coal Chemicals in August 1976. Coke and Coal
Chemicals Monthly, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., August 1976. 2 pp.
-------
Using Equation 1, coal usage data (10-13) (updated by Appendix
A), and Table 3, it is determined that over 124 x 106 metric tons
of coal are stockpiled at greater than or equal to 950 coal user
sites (10-13).
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
There were 535 x 106 metric tons of coal produced and 478.5 x 106
metric tons of coal consumed in the United States in 1975 (4).
The percent breakdown of coal consumption by users is presented
in Figure 1.
INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
AND OTHERS
13%
Figure 1. Breakdown of coal consumption by users, 1975 (4) .
The distribution of coal usage and storage per state is illus-
trated in Figure 2. The numerical quantities of coal stored per
state are listed in Table 4 (4, 14, and personal communication
with Ms. Williams, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Division of Fossil
Fuels, Washington, D.C., 6 December 1976). Detailed data per-
taining to coal quantities consumed and stored per user and coal
type are presented in Appendix A.
(10) Keystone Coal Manual, 1973. McGraw-Hill Publications, New
York, New York, 1973. pp. 304-410.
(11) Electric Utility Statistics. Public Power, 32:28-84,
January-February, 1974.
(12) Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1973 Edition. National Coal.
Association, Economics and Statistics Division, Washington,
D.C., December 1973. 110 pp.
(13) Coke Producers in the United States in 1972. Mineral Indus-
try Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., 27 November 1973. pp. 2-5.
(14) Minerals Yearbook, 1972, Volume II. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1972. pp. 372,
-------
CO
Figure 2. Coal usage distribution per state.
-------
TABLE 4. AMOUNT OF COAL STORED PER STATE, 1975 (4, 14)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Coal storage,
10 3 metric tons
6,098
113
837
5
290
1,821
4
212
1,156
3,156
None
84
10,832
9,613
1,372
699
10,189
None
5
1,371
77
5,965
2,177
331
4,033
260
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Unaccounted for
Coal storage,
10 3 metric tons
349
939
221
333
1,550
2,216
4,384
1,167
6,001
98
17
14,776
None
1,140
462
5,941
2,431
686
2
2,501
947
11,253
2,852
1,633
1,848
TOTAL
124,447
Personal communication with Ms. Williams, Bureau of Mines, Divi-
sion of Fossil Fuels, Washington, D.C., 6 December 1976.
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS
Potential pollutants from coal storage piles can be both organic
and inorganic in nature. Inorganic material, or mineral matter,
is always present in coal and falls into two classes: inherent
and extraneous minerals. Inherent minerals are confined within
the coal structure. These elements are primarily iron, phos-
phorus, sulfur, calcium, potassium, and magnesium and comprise
generally less than or equal to 2% (by weight) of the coal (1).
Extraneous coal mineral matter is that portion foreign to the
plant material that formed the coal structure. These minerals
were deposited contemporaneously with the peat (the stage of coal
formation prior to lignite), or through cracks after the peat had
become consolidated. This portion of the coal is referred to as
the ash. The ash content ranges between 3% and 20% (by weight)
9
-------
in coal, with an average of 10%. Ash content is primarily depen-
dent on the care taken in mining and cleaning, and on the quality
of the coal itself (1). A general overview of the probable forms
of major ash constituents within coal is presented in Table 5 (15)
TABLE 5. MAJOR INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS OF COAL, ASH PORTION (15)
Major inorganic constituent
Forms in coal
Silicon
Aluminum
Iron
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium and potassium
Manganese
Sulfur (inorganic)
Phosphorus
Silicates and sand
Alumina in combination with silica
Pyrite and marcasite (sulfide)
Ferrous oxide
Ferrous carbonate
Ferrous sulfate
Ferric oxide
Ferric sulfate
"Organic" iron
Iron silicates
Lime, carbonate, sulfate, silicates
Carbonates, silicates
Silicates, carbonates, chlorides
Carbonates, silicates
Pyrite and marcasite
Ferrous sulfate
Ferric sulfate
Calcium sulfate
Phosphates
In small
quantities
In small
quantities
In small
quantities
These elements are primarily rock constituents. The typical
range and forms of the major materials in ash per coal rank are
shown in Table 6 (16). The quantity of all inorganic elements
varies with the specific coal seam and the region in which the
coal originated. Therefore the specific geographical sources of
the coal stored will affect the concentration of inorganic mater-
ials present in the drainage and runoff from the stockpiled coal.
In addition to the major inorganic constituents listed in Table 5,
a great many trace elements are also found in coal (Table 7).
The existence of these materials in coal indicated their possible
presence in drainage and runoff from the stockpile.
(15) Selvig, W. A., and F. H. Gibson. Analysis of Ash from U.S.
Coals. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 567, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C., 1956. 33 pp.
(16) Mineral Matter and Trace Elements in U.S. Coals. Office of
Coal Research R&D Report No. 61, Interim Report No. 2, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1972. pp. 63.
10
-------
TABLE 6. VARIATIONS IN COAL ASH COMPOSITION WITH COAL RANK (16)
(percent of ash)
Rank
SiO2
A1203
Fe203
TiO2
CaO
MgO
Na2O
K2O
S03
Anthracite
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Lignite
48 to 68
7 to 68
17 to 58
6 to 40
25 to 44
4 to 39
4 to 35
4 to 26
2 to 10
2 to 44
3 to 19
1 to 34
1.0 to
0.5 to
0.6 to
0.0 to
2
4
2
0.8
0.2 to
0.7 to
2.2 to
12.4 to
4
36
52
52
0.2 to
0.1 to
0.5 to
2.8 to
1
4
8
14
0.1
0.2 to 3 0.2 to 4 0.1
3.0
0.2 to 28 0.1 to 1.3 8.3
to 1
to 32
to 16
to 32
Note.Blanks indicate data not available.
TABLE 7. TRACE INORGANIC ELEMENTS IN COAL (1)
Trace inorganic elements
(about 0.1% or less, on ash)
Beryllium
Fluorine
Arsenic
Selenium
Cadmium
Mercury
Lead
Boron
Vanadium
Chromium
Cobalt
Nickel
Copper
Zinc
Gallium
Germanium
Tin
Yttrium
Lanthanum
Uranium
Lithium
Scandium
Manganese
Strontium
Zirconium
Barium
Ytterbium
Bismuth
Information on possible organic pollutants in wastewater from
coal storage areas is sparse. Whereas coal by nature is pri-
marily organic, very little information (except for ultimate
analysis for percent carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur,
ash, and volatiles) exists on specific compounds within coal.
Although no studies were found that measured organic effluents
from drainage and subsequent runoff, such effluents are expected
to occur because of the organic nature of coal.
In addition to specific inorganic and organic pollutants, other
water quality parameters can characterize coal storage waste-
waters. Waste coal fragments can erode as solid sediments from a
coal pile. Suspended sediments may persist downstream of the
site. Adverse impacts on aquatic life and water quality are gen-
erated by increases in suspended sediments and acidity. Minerals
such as calcium and magnesium can produce undesirable alkalinity
and hardness in waters. Ferrous bicarbonate can form, consuming
oxygen, creating a bitter taste, and staining materials.
The most widely recognized water pollution problem associated
with coal is acid mine drainage. The potential for this same
acidity exists for drainage from coal storage; however, the
quantity and quality of the pile wastewater are highly variable
11
-------
(17). Of particular concern are the high concentrations of
sulfates which may enter local streams while still reactive.
Acid mine drainage is primarily a mixture of sulfuric acid, iron
salts, and aluminum salts. These pollutants result from the
oxidation of pyritic materials within the coal. Acid drainage
also poses the potential of leaching heavy metals from the coal.
This can happen through secondary reactions of sulfuric acid with
minerals and organic compounds in the pile and along the runoff
route. These reactions may produce concentrations of aluminum,
manganese, calcium, sodium, and inorganic elements.
Water pollution from coal storage is widespread because sources
are widely distributed, and because iron disulfide minerals (such
as pyrite and marcasite) associated with the strata in which coal
is found are often retained within the stockpiled coal. Oxida-
tion of iron disulfide initiates the formation of the soluble
acidic pollutants. Sulfates from the oxidized pyrite are bal-
anced by an equivalent content of metallic ions (cations) in
solution. This indicates that the mineral constituents are salts
and that free sulfuric acid is only present in trace amounts.
The constituents of concern are 1) sulfates of iron and aluminum
in solution as a consequence of pyritic oxidation, 2) solid
mineral debris and sediment, and 3) dissolved and colloidal
products of geochemical origin. The iron and aluminum sulfates
cause low pH values and high acidity values, and may result in
corrosiveness, and toxicity to aquatic life.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Wastewater from coal stockpiles is generated by drainage and
leachate from the coal pile. Pollution is created by the runoff
into streams. Drainage refers to the volume of wastewater pass-
ing through the coal, including those pollutants leached out of
the coal. A variety of environmental factors affect the quality
and quantity of emitted pollutants.
Atmospheric Reactions
Stockpiled coal deteriorates from air oxidation, causing a change
in chemical composition and heating value. On exposure to the
atmosphere, fresh coal reacts with oxygen to form peroxide groups
on the pile surface. This is followed by the formation of more
stable oxidation compounds and the evolution of oxides of carbon.
The outer layer of a coal pile (to a depth of approximately one-
third of a meter) is subject to slacking. Slacking refers to
(17) Anderson, W. C., and M. P. Youngstrom. Coal Pile Leachate
Quantity and Quality Characteristics. Journal of the Envi-
ronmental Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, 102(EE6):1239-1253, 1976.
12
-------
rapid changes in moisture content brought about by alternating
sun and rain. This causes fresh surfaces to open up and accel-
erates the process of oxidation. Oxidation generally decreases
the volatile matter and carbon content of the coal. The initial
oxidation of coal is rapid, but the rate may fall to one-tenth of
the original value after 30 hours (5).
Moisture and air in contact with coal also cause oxidation" of
metal sulfides to sulfuric acid and the precipitation of ferric
compounds. Further oxidation can lead to the formation of some
simple aromatic acids and oxalic acid (18). When rain falls upon
stored coal, the precipitation trickles or seeps down, washing
the acid out. The acidic wastes result from contact with the
oxidized pyritic materials. These oxidation products are flushed
out and diffused by the continuous adsorption of moisture (19).
The first rainfall on freshly stored coal also washes out the
accumulated minerals retained within the pile. Chemical pollu-
tants and suspended solids are thus transported in coal pile
drainage. Drainage flows from the pile and runs off into water-
ways and underground streams, creating a potential for contamina-
tion.
Drainage
The characteristics of coal pile wastewaters are dependent on the
hydrologic, topographic, and geological features of the drainage
area. The concentration of pollutants varies as a function of
the quantity of water, contact time, and presence of reactive
materials.
Discharge of pollutants is intermittent, occurring during and
after periods of precipitation. Drainage may run off to water-
ways, or be trapped in trenches or pits. Trapped pools may
contain high concentrations of the pollutants. During subsequent
periods of rainfall these pools may run off, releasing concen-
trated "slugs" of pollution to receiving streams. Aquatic life
may be damaged by these doses (20) . The configuration of the
stockpile, terrain within close proximity to the pile, and pile
volume will also affect water volumes discharged.
(18) Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second
Edition, Volume 5. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New
York, 1967. pp. 606-678.
(19) Morth, A. H., E. E. Smith, and K. S. Shumate. Pyritic Sys-
tems: A Mathematical Model. EPA-R2-72-002, U.S. Environ-
emntal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1972.
171 pp.
(20) The Incidence and Formation of Mine Drainage Pollution in
Appalachia. Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington,
D.C., June 1969. 464 pp.
13
-------
The quality of the drainage depends upon the above factors; on
coal type, quality, and size; and on reaction time (which varies
with precipitation conditions).
There are two components of drainage flow from a coal stockpile,
base and surface flow. Base flow consists of the groundwater
which passes through the bottom layer of the stockpile. This
flow is a result of pile site configuration, fluctuations in
groundwater levels, and precipitation which infiltrates the pile
and later emerges during dry periods. Surface flow is attributed
to storm-induced runoff waters from pile drainage (17).
Data inputs required for quantifying runoff from a coal storage
source include: drainage basin area, duration of rainfall, amount
of rainfall, excess rainfall, infiltration rates, and soil type.
Runoff
Runoff from a drainage basin is a product of the hydrologic cycle
which is influenced by climatic and physiographic factors.
Climatic factors include the effects of types of precipitation,
interception, evaporation, and transpiration, all of which exper-
ience seasonal variations. Physiographic factors include size,
shape, and slope of drainage area, permeability and capacity of
groundwater formations, presence of lakes and swamps, land use,
and channel carrying and storage capacities. The relationship
between precipitation and runoff is not direct; factors such as
storm frequency, initial soil moisture condition, storm duration,
and time of year must be determined (21).
The soil moisture condition is the summation of the precipitation
amounts occurring prior to a storm, weighted according to the
time of occurrence. Storm precipitation is the average over the
basin (an arithmetic mean is generally used). The value of storm
duration is derived from six 1-hour precipitation readings and
the sum of those regions with rainfall greater than 5.1 mm/hr
(greater than 0.2 in. rain/hr) plus one-half of those regions
with rain less than 5.1 mm/hr (less than 0.2 in. rain/hr). These
rainfall runoff parameters can thus provide a basis for estab-
lishing an estimate of the volume of water which will run off
from the average storm (21). The largest coal storage regions
(Figure 2) have an approximated average runoff of 51 cm/yr (20.1
in./yr) (22).
(21) Handbook of Applied Hydrology. Yen te Chow, ed. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 1964. pp. 14-1 through
14-54. *
(22) Geraghty, J. J., D. W. Miller, F. Van der Leeden, and
F. Y. Troise. Water Atlas of the United States. Water
Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, New York, 1973.
Plate 21.
14
-------
Water runoff from coal stockpiles can range from 64,000 m3/yr to
320,000 mVyr (17 x 106 gal/yr to 85 x 106 gal/yr) with an aver-
age in the range of 75,000 m3/yr to 100,000 m3/yr (20 x 106
gal/yr to 26 x 106 gal/yr) (23).
FACTORS AFFECTING EMISSIONS
Since acid mine drainage (AMD) reactions are believed to be simi-
lar to those occurring within stockpiled coal, they are presented
below.
As the atmosphere comes in contact with coal during mining, two
processes are initiated: 1) the chemical change of oxidation and
2) the physical change of size degradation. As stated earlier,
the initial rate of oxidation of freshly exposed coal falls off
rapidly with time. This oxidation rate is proportional to the
total surface area, which depends upon the particle size or size
grading of the coal. Fresh surfaces are created within the pile
by rainfall as it removes pyritic oxidation products. The fresh
surfaces permit the regeneration of oxidation products until the
next rain, at which time they are washed out again.
Ferrous sulfite is formed by pyritic oxidation but is slow to
react until oxidized to the ferric state. The acidity produced
by pyritic oxidation is highly concentrated and reactive. It
reacts with rock minerals, forming aluminum sulfate and other
soluble decomposition products (20).
In general, bright coal is more susceptible to oxidation than
hard, dull coal, and low rank coal suffers greater degradation in
storage than does anthracite. A freshly broken surface is more
subject to oxidation, and thus the surface of the coal loses its
lustre on storage. The smallest sizes of coal oxidize most
readily due to their large surface area (18). Temperature also
affects the rate of oxidation. It has been shown that the oxida-
tion rate may double for every 10ฐC to 20ฐC rise.
Chemical changes take place both in the mineral impurities pre-
sent and in the coal substance itself. The changes in minerals
become evident by the rusty appearance that results from inter-
action by oxidation products from the pyrites with any carbonate
present (24). Factors that affect the rate of pyrite oxidation
(23) Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guide-
lines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. EPA-440/
1_73_029, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., March 1974. pp. 128-130.
(24) Hall, D. A. The Storage of Coal. Coke and Gas, December
1956. pp. 498-504.
15
-------
are oxygen concentration, particle size, temperature, moisture,
pK, and electrode potential of the reaction (25). The crystal
size and form of the pyrite also contribute greatly to the rapid
oxidation. The rate of pyrite oxidation, however, is not depend-
ent upon the amount of water present. Pyrite oxidation is for
all purposes continuous, while drainage flow is variable through-
out the year. There is also a strong possibility that various
bacteria catalyze the oxidation of pyrites. The actual mechanism
by which bacteria enter into the oxidation of pyrite has not been
definitely established (26).
Storm runoff from AMD has detrimental effects on aquatic life
when solute concentrations are suddenly increased. Concentra-
tions of solutes are generally highest in the first flush after
dry periods. This occurs after unusually heavy thunderstorms
which produce "slugs" of pollution, primarily in the summer.
Decreased flow in the summer and fall also increases pollutant
concentration. Detrimental effects generally occur less fre-
quently in the winter. Although more dissolved constituents are
produced during the winter and early spring, water quality and
aquatic life are less affected then due to the higher stream
flows and lower water temperatures which reduce the pollutant
concentrations. These factors also retard the oxidation of
ferrous ions and hydrolysis of ferric and aluminum sulfate (20).
A bench-scale study of parameters that alter the biological and
chemical effects of coal storage runoff on water quality is being
conducted under EPA Grant No. NERC-R-803937-01-0 by the Center
for Lake Superior Environmental Studies.3
Nathan A. Coward, Department of Chemistry, University of
Wisconsin at Superior, Wisconsin.
(25) Lorenz, W. C., and R. W. Stephan. The Oxidation of Pyrite
Associated with Coal Mines. U.S. Department of the Inter-
ior, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1967.
21 pp.
(26) Lorenz, W. C., and R. W. Stephan. Factors that Affect the
Formation of Coal Mine Drainage Pollution in Appalachia.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, 1967. 17 pp.
16
-------
SECTION 4
WATER DISCHARGES
DATA COMPILATION
Scope
As described in Section 3, wastewater from a coal storage source
can vary with a large number of factors. However, quantifying
the effect of these variables on effluent levels is beyond the
scope of this project. Instead, data on major effluent parame-
ters are aggregated to define average wastewater levels from all
sources. Since the purpose of examining wastewaters is to estab-
lish the exposure of life forms to pollutants from the source,
the pollutant selected for study were those with known effects on
life.
Coal is composed of a vast quantity of known and unknown elements
and compounds (Tables 5-7). This study, however, is limited to
those effluents 1) defined as hazardous, and/or 2) regulated by
effluent limitations. Other water quality parameters are inves-
tigated to indicate the possible presence of specific materials
and to determine the degree of further analysis required.
Hazardous elements are those materials specified by the toxic
substances law and listed in Table 8 (27). Pesticides on the
list are excluded from this study since their presence in coal
drainage and runoff is unlikely and has not been detected during
sampling. The parameters of pH and total suspended solids (TSS)
and the elements Fe and Mn are included in this study since they
appear in effluent limitations for coal storage areas. The total
organic carbon (TOG) content of effluents is investigated to
establish the need for analysis of the organics in Table 8.
Total chloride levels are included to indicate the possible
presence of carcinogenic organochlorine compounds, especially in
tandem with high TOC results. Nitrate and total phosphorus
levels are determined to measure nutrients, and therein the
possible degree of algae formation. The degree of dissolved
oxygen depletion and the subsequent danger to aquatic life are
established by the levels of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5) and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
(27) Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Survey of Industrial
Effluents for Priority Pollutants. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1977. 180 pp.
17
-------
TABLE 8. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES LIST (27)
Compound name
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Aerylonitrlie
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachlororaethane)
Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes):
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane and hexachloroethane):
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane :.
Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl, chlorethyl and mixed ethers):
Bis(chloromethyl) ether
Bis(2-chlorethyl) ether
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
Chlorinated naphthalene:
2-Chloronaphthalene
Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere; includes
trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols):
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
2-Chlorophenol
Dichlorobenzenes:
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
(continued)
18
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Compound name
Dichlprobenzidine:
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes (1,1-dichloroethylene and 1,2-dichloroethylene):
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane and dichloropropene:
1,2-Dichloropropane
1., 3-Dichloropropylene (1, 3-dichloropropene)
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene:
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere):
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere):
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
Methyl chloride (chloromethane)
Methyl bromide (bormomethane)
Bromoform (tribromomethane)
Dichlorobromemethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(continued)
19
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Compound name
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol and dinitrocresol):
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Nitrosamines:
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalate ethers:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons:
Benz(a)anthracene (1,2-benzathracene)
Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (1,2:5,6-dibenzanthracene)
Indeno (1, 2/3-c,d) pyrene (2, 3-c?-phenylenepyrene)
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
(continued)
20
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Compound name
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Pesticides and metabolites:
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
4DDT and metabolites:
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
4,4'-ODD (p,p'-TDE)
Endosulfan and metabolites:
a-Endosulfan
3-Endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin and metabolites:
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor and metabolites:
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane:
a-BHC
g-BHC
y-BHC (lindane)
6-BHC
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's):
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
(continued)
21
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Compound name
Toxaphene
Elements:
Antimony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Asbestos (Fibrous)
Beryllium (Total)
Cadmium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Copper (Total)
Cyanide (Total)
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Thallium (Total)
Zinc (Total)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Sulfate concentrations are included since they indicate the acid-
forming potential of the wastestream.
Asbestos measurements would have required a large volume of fil-
terable sample and would not have been practicable with the
approach used in this study. Therefore an analysis for free
silica was performed as an indication of the presence of asbestos.
Approach
To assess effluents from coal storage areas the EPA Procedures
Manual (28) recommends direct field sampling methods. In this
instance that would have entailed: 1) .sampling at a number of
different locations throughout the country, 2) setting up each
sampler so as to avoid interference from bulldozers that operate
around the pile, 3) awaiting sufficient rainfall, 4) maintaining
the samplers within the wastewater drainage, 5) measuring spe-
cific parameters immediately after the rainfall, and 6) preserv-
ing and transporting the samples for analysis by standard
(28) Hamersma, J. W., S. L. Reynolds, and R. F. Maddalone. IERL-
RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment.
EPA-600/2-76-160a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1976. pp. 60-64.
22
-------
methods (29). This would have involved excessive amounts of both
the time and money allotted to the project. Laboratory simula-
tion of rainfall and drainage from coal piles was thus undertaken
as a feasible alternative.
A rainfall simulator was utilized to obtain the minute drop size
(less than 5 vim) and low rainfall rates (less than or equal to
50 mm/hr) necessary. These factors allowed complete and uniform
coverage of coal placed under the simulator. The simulator also
permitted an adequate water-coal pile contact time and allowed
the trickling of water through the pile that occurs during actual
rainfalls.
Figure 3 shows the simulator as it was utilized in this study.
The coal samples, each weighing 9.1 kg (20 Ib), were placed in
pans beneath the rainfall modules. The modules were enclosed
plastic containers fed distilled water from a centrifugal pump.
Water flow was controlled by electric valves in line with each
of four pipes connected to each module. Drains were placed
within the bottom of each pan. The drainage was then collected
in bottles and analyzed for the parameters discussed previously.
Further details of the simulation and sampling arrangements are
presented in Appendix B.
DISTILLED WATER
Figure 3. Rainfall simulation apparatus.
(29) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water, 14th Edition. M. A. Franson, ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1976. 1193 pp.
23
-------
REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE
Coal Composition
The coal producing areas of the United States are grouped into
the six regions listed in Table 9, which also identifies the
states included in each region.
TABLE 9. COAL REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES (1)
Region
Abbre-
viation
States included
Appalachian A
Interior-Eastern IE
Interior-Western IW
Western W
Southwestern SW
Great Northern Plains NP
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland,
Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, Tennessee,
Alabama, Georgia
Illinois, Indiana, Western Kentucky, Michigan
Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Texas
Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, Washington
Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota
Production of coal by coal region is presented in Table 10 and
illustrated in Figure 4. Appalachian and Interior Eastern coals
account for more than 80% of coal production in the United
States.
Since data on the specific organic content of coals is sparse,
average coals stored were characterized by considering their
inorganic content. However, only the inorganics appearing in
Table 8 were considered.
\
The composition of U.S. coals was drawn from studies performed by
the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Some data by the Illinois State
Geological Service were also included. Data on coal composition
represented coal samples as delivered, cleaned or uncleaned, or
coal in the mine with no distinctions made. No correlations
between trace element content and coal location were performed.
The average concentrations of the inorganics (Table 8) in coal
throughout the coal regions (Table 9) of the United States are
presented in Table 11. The national average inorganic element
content of coals was determined by weighting these averages by
the production per coal region (Table 10). These weighted values
24
-------
TABLE 10. COAL PRODUCTION BY COAL REGION (4)
Coal production
Region/State
Appalachian:
Western Pennsylvania
Eastern Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
West Virginia
Ohio
West Virginia
North Carolina, Eastern Kentucky,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia
Virginia and West Virginia
Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia
TOTALS
Interior Eastern:
Illinois
Indiana
Western Kentucky
TOTALS
Interior Western:
Iowa
Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas
Arkansas and Oklahoma
TOTALS
Western:
Northern Colorado
Wyoming and Idaho
Utah3
Oregon, Alaska, and Washington
New Mexico, Arizona, and California
TOTALS
Southwestern:
Utah9
Colorado and New Mexico
New Mexico, Arizona, and California
TOTALS
Great Northern Plains:
Montana
South Dakota and North Dakota
TOTALS
U.S. Bureau
of Mines
District
2
1
4
3 and 6
8
7
13
10
11
9
12
15
14
16
19
20a
23
18
20
17
18
22
21
106
metric
tons
36
48
42
38
145
26
21
356
55
23
51
129
0.6
18
0.9
19.5
0.4
22
3
12
14
51.4
3
8
14
25
12
8
20
106
tons
40
53
46
42
160
29
23
393
61
25
56
142
0.7
20
1.0
21.7
0.44
24
3.3
13
15
55.7
3.3
8.8
15
27.1
13
8.8
21.8
Production estimated by dividing production in districts equally
between footnoted states.
25
-------
GREAT NORTHERN PLAINS (3*)
20 x vf metric tons
APPALACHIAN (60%)
357 x 10 metric tons
INTERIOR EASTERN (21.5%)
128 xlO6 metric tons
SOUTHWESTERN (4%)
24 x 106 metric tons
WESTERN I 8.5%)
51 xlO6 metric tons
INTER I OR WESTERN (3%)
19 xlO6 metric tons
Figure 4. Production of coal by coal region (4).
TABLE 11. AVERAGE CONTENT (PERCENT) OF HAZARDOUS
INORGANIC ELEMENTS WITHIN COALS (1)
Coal region
Inorganic
element
Antimony
arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sulfur
Thallium
Silver
zinc
Appalachian
o.ooi3
r
0.0031
N.A.
p
0.0025
N.A.
d
0.0013
d
0.0015
N.A.
c
0.0009
P
0.000015
a
0.0014
p
0.00018
d
0.00018
d
0.00008
r
0.00082
Interior
Eastern
N.A.b
d
0.0011
N.A.
a
0.0025
N.A.
e
0.002
p
0.0011
N.A.
r
0.0011
P
0.000013
P
0.0015
p
0.00034
d
0.00007
N.A.
P
0.0044
Interior
Western
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
r
0.0015
N.A.
c
0.0014
r
0.0012
N.A.
p
0.0004
a
0.000019
a
0.0017
p
0.00029
N.A.
N.A.
H
0.0193
Great
Northern
Plains
N.A.
r
0.08
N.A.
p
0.0015
N.A.
p
0.0007
p
0.0015
N.A.
p
0.0007
p
0.000007
a
0.00072
p
0.00007
N.A.
N.A.
A
0.0059
Southwestern
N.A.
p
0.0073
N.A.
a
0.00006
0. 000003ฐ
a
0.006
r
0.0008
N.A.
d
0.0006
r
0.000013
d
0.0006
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
d
0.0009
Western
N.A.
a
0.0004
N.A.
a
0.0015
N.A.
d
0.00069
d
0.00046
N.A.
r
0.0008
P
0.000007
d
0.00053
P
0.00008
d
0.00005
N.A.
H
0.0025
Product of average of the range of element percentages in ash and average ash
content of coal.
Not available.
Based on average of the ranges of percent of the element in coal.
d
Product of average value of ash content of element in coal and average ash
content of coal.
p
Based on average percent of element in coal as reported.
26
-------
were used to establish those coal regions that best represent
inorganic element content. The national production-weighted
averages per inorganic element are presented in Table 12. Those
coal regions whose average element contents (Table 10) best
approximate the national average are also listed in Table 12.
Every region, except the Great Northern Plains, contains element
contents that approximate the national production-weighted aver-
age concentration. Coals from all coal regions were therefore
studied in characterizing effluent levels from stockpiles. Great
Northern Plains coals were included since these coals account for
a large percent of the U.S. coal reserves and future consumption
and storage quantities (Section 6).
Within each coal region, a variance ratio was available for
numerous elements. This is the ratio of the highest to lowest to
which selection of a coal within a coal region will affect con-
centration of an inorganic element in coal. The variance ratio
was within 2 to 3 for 53% of the elements studied with only one
element (germanium) above 10 (1). This illustrates that the
selection of a coal within a particular coal region will not
affect the inorganic element content by more than one order of
magnitude for the average of analyses. This justifies a random
selection of coal within each coal region to represent the
average inorganic element content (Tables 11 and 12).
The selection of coal from a coal region is accomplished on a
state basis. Because the Appalachian region accounts for
approximately 60% of total U.S. coal production, two states from
that region were chosen for study to provide a better cross sec-
tion of effluent levels. Alabama and Eastern Kentucky coals were
chosen since Alabama coal is close to lignite coals, and Eastern
Kentucky coal is subbituminous, as is most Appalachian coal. For
the Interior Eastern, Interior Western, Great Northern Plains,
Southwestern, and Western coal regions, coals from Illinois,
Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, respectively, were
studied since these states account for the highest coal pro-
duction in those regions (Table 10).
Stockpile Parameters
The distribution of coal stockpile sizes is shown in Figure 5.
The arithmetic mean stockpile size is 95,000 metric tons
(105,000 tons) with a modal value of 49,000 metric tons (52,000
tons) (6). The arithmetic mean value is used to represent
effluent levels from all coal stockpiles.
The surface area (Sp) of the representative coal stockpile is
computed from Equation 2.
27
-------
TABLE 12. PRODUCTION-WEIGHTED INORGANIC ELEMENT CONTENT OF COALS
Element
National production
weighted average,
percent in coal
Representative regions
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sulfur
Thallium
Silver
Zinc
0.001
0.005
N.A.
0.002
0.000003
0.0015
0.0013
N.A.
0.00089
0.000013
0.0013
0.0002
0.00014
0.00008
0.0025
Appalachian
Appalachian
N.A.
Appalachian and Interior Eastern
Southwestern
Interior Western
Interior Western
N.A.
Appalachian
Interior Eastern
Appalachian
Interior Western
Appalachian
Appalachian
Western
Not available.
MEAN = 95,000 metric tons
MODE = 49,000 metric tons
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
SIZE OF COAL PILES, 103 metric tons
Figure 5. Distribution of coal piles.
28
-------
where Sp = surface area, cm2
X = amount of coal stored, g
pB = bulk density, g/cm3
H = pile height, cm
The height of coal stockpiled, H, is generally 4.3 m to 8.8 m
(14 ft to 29 ft), with an average of about 5.8 m (19 ft) (30).
A random survey of 12 coal storage sites (Table 13) indicated a
range of 2.4 m to 11.3 m (8 ft to 37 ft) in height, with an aver-
age of 6 m (19.6 ft). This value is within 3% of the reported
data. The surface area of the representative coal stockpile, Sp,
is calculated from Equation 2 to be 19,792 m2 (212,961 ft2).
TABLE 13..
SURVEY OF DISTRIBUTION OF DISTANCES TO PLANT BOUNDARY
AND POPULATION DENSITY FOR COAL STOCKPILE LOCATIONS (6)
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mean (biased)
Standard deviation
Coal pile
103 metric
tons
2.7
66
58
38
418
254
10
45
530
41
3.6
2.7
122
179
size
10 3 tons
3
73
64
42
461
280
11
50
584
45
4
3
135
198
Distance to
boundary
m
134
46
61
15
152
91
15
244
792 2,
46
30
53
88
72
ft
440
150
200
50
500
300
50
800
600
150
10
175
288
236
Population
persons/
km2
20
409
24
22
1
0.4
4
26
161
16
30
2
60
118
density
persons/
mile2
52
1,060
63
58
3
1
10
68
417
42
78
4
155
306
Mean
122
134
86
282
61
158
The error in computing the representative storage quantity, X,
varies with the type of user facility for the three prime users
the standard deviations listed in Table 14 occur.
The overall weighted variation due to normal storage fluctua-
tions is ฑ61%.
(30) Annual Report of Research and Technologic Work on Coal.
1C 7518, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Washington, D.C., 1949. 39 pp.
29
-------
TABLE 14. DEVIATIONS OF COAL STOCKPILE
INVENTORIES, PER USER (6)
User Days of supply Standard deviation
Coke plants
Boiler plants
Utilities
23
39
93
ฑ43%
ฑ59%
ฑ74%
The overall weighted variation due to normal storage fluctuations
is ฑ61%.
A coal density, pB, of 800 kg/m3 (50 lb/ft3) introduces a varia-
tion of ฑ10%. A pile height of 5.8 m (19 ft) has a variation of
ฑ26%. The overall uncertainty of the surface area computed from
Equation 2 will thus be ฑ97%.
From Table 13, the survey also indicated that the average dis-
tance to the boundary from the coal pile is 86 m (282 ft) (6).
Runoff Levels
Runoff is that part of precipitation and other flow contributions
which appears in waterways perennially or intermittently. It is
flow collected from a drainage basin or watershed as it appears
at the outlet of the basin. The land surrounding a coal stock-
pile is considered the drainage basin in this study. It is
runoff from this area that receives leachate and drainage mater-
ials from a coal stockpile. The outlet of this basin is the
runoff level as it appears at the receiving waterway for the
representative source.
Establishing the pollutant concentrations to which lifeforms are
exposed in these waterways from the representative source, re-
quires a knowledge of these runoff flows. There are three types
of runoff: surface, subsurface, and groundwater.
Surface runoff travels over the ground surface and through chan-
nels to reach the basin outlet. Subsurface runoff is a result of
precipitation that infiltrates the surface soil and moves later-
ally through the upper horizons toward the streams as groundwater
above the main groundwater level. Groundwater flow is caused by
deep percolation of the infiltrated water which has passed into
the ground and has become groundwater. After the flow enters a
stream, it joins with other components of flow to become total
runoff (21).
Total runoff is classified as direct runoff and base flow.
Direct runoff enters the stream promptly after precipitation.
Base flow is the fair weather runoff. From precipitation to"
runoff, the various flows are related as shown in Figure 6.
30
-------
TOTAL PRECIPITATION
PRECIP
EXC
SURFACE
ITATION
ESS
RUNOFF
INFILT
SUBSU
RUN
?ATION OTHER
ABSTRACTIONS
RFACE
OFF
1
PROMPT
SUBSURFACE
RUN
1
DIRECT RUNOFF
1
OFF
oa/
1
DEEP PERCOLATION
WED GROUN
3WATER
SUBSURFACE RUNOFF
RUN
ASSUMPTION
VARIES
OFF
1
BASE RUNOFF
1
TOTAL RUNOFF
Figure 6. Hydrological overview of runoff (21).
Total runoff discharges to streams vary as a function of time.
This relationship is best illustrated through a typical hydro-
graph as shown in Figure 7 (31). In this figure, the segment A-B
reflects the time lag between commencement of rainfall and begin-
ning of runoff. Segment B-D represents the runoff to the peak at
point D. The recession flow, segment D-F, reflects the decreased
runoff after rain has ceased. The shape of the hydrograph
depends upon rainfall quantities, duration, and intensity, and
upon the character of the soil of the drainage basin area. The
area and topography of the drainage basin determine the amount of
liquid discharged to the nearest waterway.
In addition, runoff will vary over long periods of time with the
following factors: 1) rainless periods, 2) initial period of
rain, 3) continuation of rain at variable intensity, 4) con-
tinuation of rain until natural storage has been satisfied, and
5) length of time between termination of rain and a return to a
rainless period. Consideration of an entire year's rainfall over
an area will provide an overview of all these periods.
Runoff levels from the representative coal storage area are
determined by considering the annual arithmetic mean rainfall and
snow levels. These levels, computed in a coal storage per state
(31) Method for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent
of Non-Point Sources of Pollutants. EPA-430/9-73-014, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October
1973. 261 pp.
31
-------
TIME
Figure 7. Hydrograph of runoff (31).
(Table 3) weighted manner, are presented in Table 15 (32). The
weighted annual rainfall is 0.957 m (37.7 in.). A centimeter of
rain is equivalent to 10,000 m3/km2. Therefore, 0.957 m
(37.7 in.) of rain per year represents 957,000 m3/km2-yr (87.5 x
106 ft3/mi2-yr). The number of days of rain (greater than or
equal to 1 mm, or greater than or equal to 4 x 102-in.) in the
United States is computed in Table 16 (32) as a coal storage
weighted national average of 139 days. Therefore the average of
957 x 103 m3/km2-139 days (87.5 x 106 ft3/mi2-139 days), 6,885 m3
(243,000 ft3) of rain fall per square kilometer per day, is
equivalent to a representative rainfall of 0.7 cm (0.3 in.) per
day. The average rainfall duration is found by investigating a
region where the annual rainfall approximates the representative
95.7 cm/yr (37.7 in./yr). In this region rain falls at 0.63 cm/
hr (0.25 in./hr) 50% of the time, and 1.27 cm/hr (0.5 in./hr) 40%
of the time (personal communication with Dr. Lawrence Huggins,
Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Engineering, 7 Jan-
uary 1977). The representative rainfall of 0.7 cm/day (0.27 in./
day) therefore occurs in a 1-hr period. The rainfall intensity
for the representative coal storage source is 0.7 cm/hr
(0.27 in./hr). The area that receives effluents from a coal
storage source includes the pile surface area of 19,792 m2
(212,961 ft2),, and the surrounding area subject to runoff.
Determination of total runoff quantities can be accomplished
through use of an empirical method known as the "Rational Meth-
od". Runoff is related to rainfall intensity by Equation 3 (33):
(32) The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1976. G. E. Delury,
ed. Newspaper Enterprise Association, New York, New York,
1975. 782 pp.
(33) Handbook of Water Resources and Pollution Control.
H. W. Gehm and J. I. Bregman, eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York, New York, 1976. pp. 444-447.
32
-------
TABLE 15. ANNUAL AND WEIGHTED ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
LEVELS PER STATE (32)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Normal annual
precipitation
m in.
1.496
1.389
0.179
1.232
0.426
0.394
1.169
1.022
1.451
1.228
0.582
0.292
0.875
0.984
0.845
0.722
1.095
1.442
1.036
1.028
1.080
0.796
0.659
1.257
0.912
0.289
0.767
0.219
0.919
1.076
0.246
0.952
1.091
0.410
0.953
0.797
0.955
0.985
1.027
1.324
0.464
1.168
0.932
58.9
54.7
7
48.5
16.8
15.5
46
40.2
57.1
48.3
22.9
11.5
34.4
38.7
33.3
28.4
43.1
56.8
40.8
40.5
42.5
31.3
25-9
49.5
35.9
11.4
30.2
8.6
36.2
42.4
9.7
37.5
42.9
16.1
37.5
31.4
37.6
38.8
40.4
52.1
18.3
46
36.7
Coal storage
weighted rainfall
cm
7.4
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.6
<0-1
0.2
1.4
3.1
None
<0.1
7.7
7.7
0.9
0.4
9.1
None
<0.1
1.1
0.1
3.9
1.2
0.3
3.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.7
3.9
0.4
4.7
0.1
<0.1
11.9
None
1.2
0.2
5.7
1.9
in.
2.9
0.04
0.04
<0.04
0.04
0.23
<0.04
0.08
0.55
1.2
None
<0.04
3.0
3.0
0.4
0.16
3.6
None
<0.04
0.4
0.04
1.5
0.5
0.12
1.2
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.67
1.5
0.16
1.8
0.04
<0.04
4.7
None
0.5
0.08
2.2
0.75
(continued)
33
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Normal annual Coal storage
State
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
precipitation weighted
m in. cm
0.385 15.2 0.2
0.827 32.6 <0.1
1.135 44.7 2.3
0.714 28.1 0.6
0.976 38.4 9.0
0.752 29.6 1.8
0.383 15.1 0.5
AVERAGE 95.7
rainfall '
in.
0.08
<0.04
0.9
0.2
3.5
0.7
0.2
37.7
TABLE 16.
DAYS OF PRECIPITATION PER STATE
(32).
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Number of days
rain >0.1 cm (>0.04 in.)
snow >2.5 cm (>1.0 in.)
124
139
38
121
40
105
unknown
116
107
120
118
93
151
150
122
75
141
115
153
124
143
184
140
116
117
83
Weighted
rainfall
days
6.2
0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.1
1.6
<0.1
0.2
1.0
3.1
None
0.1
13.3
11.8
1.4
0.4
11.7
None
<0.1
1.4
0.1
9.0
2.5
0.3
3.8
0.2
(continued)
34
-------
TABLE 16 (continued)
where
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Number of days
rain >0.1 cm (>0.04 in.)
snow >2.5 cm (>1.0 in.)
108
55
147
120
77
179
127
100
168
74
150
145
142
114
85
138
95
83
208
113
139
166
154
90
Weighted
Weighted
rainfall
days
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.0
3.2
4.5
1.0
8.2
0.1
<0.1
17.5
None
1.1
0.3
6.7
1.9
0.5
<0.1
2.3
1.1
15.2
3.6
1.2
139.3
Qr = C iR Ad
i C = coefficient of runoff
iR = average
Ad = area of
Qr = average
rainfall intensity, m/hr
drainage basin minus pile area,
rate of runoff, m3/hr
m2
(3]
The surfaces on which rain falls will govern the amount which
runs off and the rapidity of its travel across such surfaces.
The average coefficient of runoff, C, accounts for this factor.
The selection of this coefficient is the most uncertain element
in using the rational method. The nature and extent of the sur-
face, and the form and timing of the rainfall, are important con-
siderations also. If the average storm is preceded by other
precipitation, absorption and percolation are reduced and areas
35
-------
of surface retention are filled. Therefore, the proportion of
runoff will be greater than the conventional coefficient values.
In addition, the longer the storm lasts, the fewer the ground
losses, and surface saturation and percolation are reduced.
The coefficient of runoff for the coal stockpile area of
19,792 m2 (213,000 ft2) is assumed equal to the average coeffi-
cient for flat, heavy lawns, C equals 0-15 (33). At the repre-
sentative rainfall of 0.007 m/hr (0.27 in./hr), the runoff from
the pile area is computed as:
QF = (19,792 m2)(0.15)(0-gg7 m) (4)
Qr = 21 m3/hr (or 742 ft3/hr)
The average runoff from an entire coal stockpile area is within
the range of 75,000 m3/yr to 100,000 m3/yr (2.6 to 3.5 x 106 ft3/
yr. Using the average value of 87,500 mvyr (3.1 x 106 ft3/yr)
minus the pile area runoff (139 hr/yr x 21 m3/hr = 2,919 m3/hr)
yields a runoff level of 84,581 m3/yr (3,000 ft3/yr) attributed
to the area surrounding the stockpile.
For light-to-heavy industrial occupancy surrounding a coal stor-
age area, a median coefficient of runoff of 0.7 is used. The
runoff rate for this area is obtained by dividing the representa-
tive runoff (84,581 m3/yr), by 139 days per year and one hour per
day, to obtain 608 m3/hr or 0.17 m3/s (6.1 ft3/s), Vr. The total
rainfall volume rate per hour is thus the pile level, 21 m3/hr,
plus the area level, 608 m3/hr, or 629 m3/hr (22,210 ft3/hr).
The area of the drainage basin is found using Equation 3 at the
representative rainfall intensity, iR, of 0.7 cm/hr (0.27 in./
hr), coefficient of runoff of 0.7 (average for industrial areas),
and area runoff of 0-17 m3/s (6.1 ft3/s):
Ad = 0.17 m3/s (3,600 s/hr) * (0.7) (0.007 m/hr)
Ad = 124,898 m2 (or 1.3 x 106 ft2)
where Ad = area of drainage basin minus pile area
The total area of the basin is thus the pile area of 19,792 m2
(213 x 103 ft2) plus 124,898 m2 (1.3 x 106 ft2), or 144,690 m2
(1.6 x 106 ft2).
Runoff levels vary with the topographic features of the area.
However, it is assumed that the stockpile and its surrounding
area are flat since this would ease the storing, transporting,
and handling of the coal aggregate. Therefore, only the areas
directly above and below the stockpile are considered in runoff
computations.
36
-------
Runoff flow would be in the direction of the nearest waterway, as
is true in all drainage basins. It is also assumed that this
waterway exists at the boundary of the coal user. This assump-
tion is considered reasonable since electric utilities, which
account for 75% of coal consumption (Figure 1), are located near
readily available water sources for steam production and power
generation.
The representative distance to the boundary of the coal storage
area is 86 m (282 ft), Table 13. The area of the stockpile was
also calculated previously as 19,792 m2 (213,000 ft2). Assuming
the pile shape is circular, the diameter of the pile is 159 m
(522 ft). With the total runoff area of 144,690 m2 (1.6 x 106
ft2), the representative coal storage source area has the theo-
retical configuration of Figure 8. The total annual pile runoff,
87,500 m3/yr (3.1 x 106 ft3), divided by the area, 144,690 m2
(1.6 x 106 ft2), is equivalent to an annual runoff of 0.60 m
(1.9 ft) or 60 cm/yr (24 in./yr). This value is within 20% of
the 51 cm/yr (20 in./yr) figure estimated in Section 3 (22).
667m (2,187 ft)
TOTAL RUNOFF AREA
144,690m2
<1.6xl06ft2)
WATERWAY
Figure 8. Representative coal storage source area,
37
-------
EFFLUENT LEVELS
Concentration
Sampling Results
The simulation apparatus of Figure 3 was employed to acquire con-
centration values for the pollutants of Table 8 and other water
quality parameters studied. These data were compiled through
application of the representative rainfall rate (iRP), 0.7 cm/hr
(0.27 in./hr), to 9.1-kg (20-lb) coal samples. The pan area
(AP) is 1,296.5 cm2 (201 in.2), yielding a drainage volumetric
rate (Vd) of:
Vd = iRP AP (5)
Vd = (ฐ'7hrCm) (1,296.5 cm2)
= 907.5 cm3/hr
= 907.5 mฃ/hr (or 0.24 gal/hr)
For each coal and effluent parameter analyzed, average effluent
concentrations are required to determine the representative
concentration levels. Coals recently mined (fresh), retained in
storage for a long period of time (aged or weathered), and mois-
tened from previous rainfalls were studied to obtain average
effluent concentrations. In this manner, a random sample re-
flects the distribution of coal storage effluent concentrations
versus time. The sampling results are presented in Appendix C.
Average and Standard Deviation of Effluent Concentrations
The arithmetic mean and standard deviation effluent concentration
levels computed are presented in Table 17. No detectable level
(NDL) values were calculated as zero values. All less than
values were computed as maximum (possible) values. The back-
ground concentrations were subtracted from each effluent concen-
tration level per run. This negates the quantities present in
the rainfall water.
The standard deviations of effluent concentrations in Table 17
indicate the variation that can occur due to differences in coals
from different coal regions. The average standard deviation of
Table 17 is ฑ211%. This indicates that there is an average
deviation of greater than 200% in effluent concentrations from
pollutants leached and drained from various coals throughout the
United States.
The average effluent concentrations per coal region were calcu-
lated and are presented in Table 18. In this table, the Kentucky
and Alabama effluent concentrations were averaged to represent
the Appalachian coal region. The coal production-weighted efflu-
ent concentrations computed are presented in Table 19. These
38
-------
TABLE 17. ARITHMETIC MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES OF
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION, COAL LEACHATE, AND RUNOFF
Effluent parameter
Effluent concentrations, g/m3a
Arithmetic
mean Standard deviation
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
PHC
Chloride
Total organic carbon
1,651
1,710
1,505
236
6.7
26
0.5
4.5
1,303
0.3
NDL&
6.1
11.5
NDL
0.07
0.01
0.6
0.1
2.5
21.3
NDL
8.5
0.005
NDL
5.43C
0.7
234
ฑ1,506 (91%)
ฑ3,756 (220%)
ฑ3,353 (223%)
ฑ742 (314%)
ฑ15.9 (236%)
ฑ99 (381%)
ฑ2.4 (446%)
ฑ7.2 (160%)
ฑ1,096 (84%)
ฑ0.7 (235%)
NDL
ฑ10.6 (170%)
ฑ31.1 (270%)
NDL
ฑ0.2 (288%)
ฑ0.025 (250%)
ฑ1.6 (284%)
ฑ0.15 (124%)
ฑ7.6 (303%)
ฑ31.3 (156%)
NDL
ฑ25.0 (294%)
ฑ0.009 (193%)
NDL .
ฑ2.14 (39%)
ฑ2.0 (286%)
ฑ200 (85%)
g/m3 = mg/ฃ = ppm.
5No detectable level.
^
'Negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration.
39
-------
TABLE 18. AVERAGE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS PER COAL REGION
Effluent concentration , g/m3
Effluent parameter
Total suspended solids-
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganes e
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
PHb
Chloride
Total organic carbon
Appalachian
1,521
259
66
3.1
0.03
12.3
<0.001
<5.0
1,407
0.12
NDL
2.1
23
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.02
0.05
0.06
23.8
NDL
0.008
<0.001
NDL
6.28b
0.33
251.7
Great
Northern
Plains
1,282
430
1,598
1.5
0.14
NDLa
NDL
<7.5
1,324
0.14
NDL
NDL
1.8
NDL
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.05
0.02
NDL
NDL
0.17
0.003
NDL
6.93b
NDL
373.2
Interior
Eastern
1,264
1,136
648
9.1
0.44
0.8
0.002
NDL
1,556
0.33
NDL
7.5
4.1
NDL
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.06
0.09
12.5
NDL
0.14
NDL
NDL
7.62b
NDL
380.1
Interior
Western
1,853
5,539
4,860
1,131
17.9
86.3
NDL
<1.2
1,053
0.09
NDL
10.3
10.1
NDL
0.05
0.03
2.2
0.33
10.2
25.2
NDL
25.0
0.004
NDL
2.81b
2.3
90.5
Western
2,486
1,900
240
8.2
0.4
NDL
NDL
<2.5
1,826
1.8
NDL
14.0
5.6
NDL
0.005
0.04
NDL
0.07
0.05
15.0
NDL
0.15
0.005
NDL
7.24b
NDL
318.4
Southwestern
1,538
356
190
5.5
0.04
NDL
NDL
<7.5
769
0.16
NDL
6.5
4.1
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.02
0.05
0.03
21.5
NDL
0.04
0.002
NDL
6.60b
NDL
158.7
No detectable level. Negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration.
-------
TABLE 19. REPRESENTATIVE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
Concentration,
Effluent parameter g/m3
Total suspended solids 1,551
Total dissolved solids 754
Sulfate 401
Iron 39
Manganese 0.69
Free silica 10.1
Cyanide <0.001
BOD5 <3.8
COD 1,436
Nitrate 0.31
Total phosphate NDLa
Antimony 4.6
Arsenic 15.7
Beryllium NDL
Cadmium 0.002
Chromium 0.004 .
Copper 0.08
Lead 0.06
Nickel 3.1
Selenium 19.9
Silver NDL
Zinc 0.80
Mercury <0.001
Thallium NDL .
pH 6.78D
Chloride 0-27
Total organic carbon 280
No detectable level.
Negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration.
values represent undiluted effluent concentrations due to drain-
age from the representative source. These effluent levels are
used in computing runoff concentrations from this source.
Effects of Coal Age and Rainfall Frequency
The average effluent concentrations for the fresh Kentucky and
aged Missouri coals were calculated per simulation run to compare
results between fresh and aged coals. The effect of rainfall
frequency from each run was also observed. These average values
are presented in Table 20.
Table 20 shows a general trend for fresh coals: increasing
rainfall frequency increases the effluent concentrations. Aged
coal, however, has consistently higher levels than fresh coal.
The highest effluent concentrations therefore tend to occur near
41
-------
TABLE 20. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS RAINFALL FREQUENCY FOR AGED AND FRESH COALS
IN3
Effluent concentration, g/m^
First run Third run
last rainfall ฃ30 days last rainfall 14 days
Effluent parameter
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
pH
Chloride
Total organic carbon
Fresh
coal
724
200
67
0.4
NDLa
NDL
NDL
<5
591
0.04
NDL
NDL
0.14
NDL
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.07
0.06
0.08
NDL
NDL
0.02
NDL .
6.4
NDL
174
Aged
coal
1,656
16,372
14,472
3,099
55
436
NDL
NDL
1,092
NDL
NDL
11
26
NDL
0.9
NDL
7.0
0.5
33
59
NDL
107
0.009
NDL .
2.4
8.9
39.2
Fresh
coal
1,206
375
58
2.6
0.05
0.6
0.006
NDL
1,079
0.2
NDL
NDL
0.02
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.06
0.05
0.05
NDL
NDL
0.05
NDL
NDL .
5.9
NDL
397
Aged
coal
1,943
4,836
3,899
1,400
13
3.3
0.006
NDL
988
0.14
NDL
0.009
0.016
NDL
0.3
0.08
2.0
0.5
6.5
NDL
NDL
31
NDL
NDL .
2.7
1.8
306
Second run
last rainfall 1 day
Fresh
coal
5,396
336
121.5
7.7
0.01
94.7
NDL
<25
4.6
0.14
NDL
15
3.4
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.17
0.11
0.14
87
NDL
0.04
NDL
NDL .
6.4ฐ
2.3
63.2
Aged
coal
5,176
5,488
4,896
990
16
NDL
0.01
<15
2,876
0.16
NDL
37
10.3
NDL
0.3
NDL
2.2
0.3
9.7
67
NDL
31
NDL
NDL .
2.6
1.0
3.1
No detectable level.
Negative logarithm of H concentration.
-------
stockpiles of aged coals in regions of frequent rainfall. The
quantitative effect of these parameters was not established since
it was beyond the scope of this study.
Sampling, Analytical, and Quality Control Effects
During the third simulation run, three coal drainage samples were
taken from the same coal (Kentucky) and analyzed. These results
provide data on the deviation of results due to sampling, analy-
sis, and quality control factors. The arithmetic mean and stand-
ard deviation of the results of Table C-4, Appendix C, for
Kentucky coal are presented in Table 21. The average deviation
of the measurement values of Table 21 is ฑ29%. Deviations for
solids and iron are high. However, drains were placed in dif-
ferent areas of the pan (Figure 3) for different samples.
Greater quantities of solids may be present in one area of the
pan versus another, thus explaining the differences in concen-
tration values.
TABLE 21. PRECISION OF CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS
Effluent parameter
Arithmetic mean,
g/m3
Standard deviation,
g/m3
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
pH
Chloride
Total organic carbon
1,209
407
61
2.9
0.08
2.3
0.006
<5
1,083
0.21
NDLb
0.0005
0.023
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.002
NDL
0.14
NDL
NDL
5.89C
NDL
401
ฑ803 (66%)
ฑ379 (93%)
ฑ8.5 (14%)
ฑ1.4 (48%)
ฑ0.02 (33%)
ฑ0.23 (10%)
_a
ฑ0
ฑ866 (80%)
0.006 (3%)
NDL
ฑ0
0.004 (15%)
NDL
NDL
NDL
ฑ0.004 (15%)
ฑ0.006 (8%)
ฑ0.006 (10%)
ฑ0
NDL
ฑ0.017 (12%)
NDL
NDL
ฑ0.02C (3%)
NDL
ฑ267 (67%)
aOnly one value detected in three samples.
No detectable level.
cNegative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration.
43
-------
Worst Case Levels
The deviation for each effluent (Table 21) can be used to adjust
the undiluted effluent concentrations applied to the representa-
tive source (Table 19). The upper standard deviation level was
applied to each effluent to skew the levels on the higher side.
These adjusted effluent concentrations are presented in Table 22,
TABLE 22. WORST CASE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
AT THE REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE
j-
Effluent concentration,
Effluent parameter g/m3
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
pH
Chloride
Total- organic carbon
2,575
1,455
457
58
0.92
11.1
<0.001
<3.8
2,185
0.32
NDLa
4.6
18.0
NDL
0.002
0.004
0.11
0.06
3.4
19.9
NDL
1.1
<0.001
NDL .
6.78b
0.27
468
No detectable level.
Negative log (H ).
Organic Effluents
From the results of runs 1 and 2, the sample with the highest
total organic carbon (TOO content (sample A-l, Appendix C) was
analyzed for the species listed in Table 8. Results from run 3
were not used since they were obtained late in the study. The
44
-------
highest TOG level was chosen to increase the probability of de-
tecting these species. The results of these analyses yielded the
effluent concentrations in Table 23. These levels indicate the
drainage directly from the coal pan. The background concentra-
tion levels are also listed in Table 23, along with the resultant
concentration levels attributed to coal stockpile drainage
(source levels).
TABLE 23. ORGANIC EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
Compound
2-Chloronaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Benzidine
Di-iso-octylphthalate (DiOP)
Benzo (ghi) perylene
Concentration, 10~3
Coal
leachate
16
22
21
24
18
95
52
Background
2
7
7
8
4
405
8
g/m3
Source
level
14
15
14
16
14
-310b
44
10~3g/m3 = yg/ฃ = ppb.
Negative level due to higher concentration in the background
sample, believed due to contact with plastic for longer
period of time than leachate sample; DiOP is a plasticizer.
Only those substances on the EPA toxic substances list (Table 8)
were analyzed (27). Other organics were present in the analyses.
A discussion of the analytical methodology and results is pre-
sented in Appendix D. No phenolic compounds were observed at
greater than or equal to 10~3g/m3. The background level of di-
iso-octylphthalate (DiOP) was higher than the level drained
through the coal sample. This is assumed to have resulted from
DiOP contact with the plastic liner used in the sample pans. In
the background pan this liner was in contact with the rainfall
for longer periods of time. This is believed to have caused the
higher levels of di-iso-octylphthalate since it is a plasticizer.
The concentrations of all these effluents as they enter the
nearest waterway are determined in the following discussion.
These values are computed for the representative stockpile size
of 95,000 metric tons (104,720 tons) at a runoff distance of 87 m
(282' ft) and runoff rate of 629 m3/hr (2,221 ft3/hr).
Rates, Factors, and Runoff Concentrations
The effluent rates (Qe) from coal leachate and drainage are the
product of the simulated rainfall volume (Vd) and the concentra-
tion levels for each effluent parameter (Ck) (Table 22).
45
-------
Rainfall intensity (iR) adjusted to the representative level of
0.7 cm/hr (0.27 in./hr), resulted in Vd equals 907.5 mฃ of rain-
fall per hour (0.24 gal/hr). Effluent rates are determined for
each parameter (k) of Table 19, except pH, as
Qe = Vd C
(6)
and are listed in Table 24.
TABLE 24. EFFLUENT RATES FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE
Effluent rate
Effluent parameter
mg/hr
10~3 Ib/hr
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
pH
Chloride
Total organic carbon
1,408
685
364
35
0.63
5.1
<0.001
<3.5
1,304
0.3a
NDLS
4.2
14.3
NDL
0.002
0.004
0.07
0.05
2.8
18.1
NDL
0.73
0.0009
NDL .
6.58b
0.24
254
2.8
1.4
0.73
0.07
0.001
0.01
2 x 10"
0.007
2.6
6 x 10"
NDL
0.008
0.03
NDL
4 x 10"
8 x 10"
1.4 x 10"
1 x 10"
0.006
0.04
NDL
0.001
1.8 x 10"
NDL.
6.58b
0.0005
0.5
6
k
6
6
k
*+
6
No detectable level.
Remains the same.
Leaching factors (Lf^) computed per coal region per element (k)
are the percentage of each kth element present in the coal that
is leached out per hour of rainfall. These factors are the pro-
duct of effluent concentration, Cj, (Table 17) , and applied
46
-------
in the coal (Wk), such that:
divided t>Y the average weight of the element
fk
Ck ' Vd
W,
(7)
The average weight of the kth element in coal, is the product of
the average percent of the element in coal, Pk (Table 11), and
the weight of the coal subjected to the simulation rainfall, iRP,
which was 9,072 grams (s equals 20 pounds where s_ is the weight
of coal sample in simulator pan). The value of W^ is computed
as:
iRP
(8)
Leaching factors (Lfk), computed from Equation 7 for each coal
region, are presented in Table 25. Specific chemical analyses of
each coal placed under the simulator were beyond the scope 'and
finances of this study. Lack of data on element content or non-
detectable wastewater levels prohibited computation of greater
than 50% of the leaching factors for Table 25.
TABLE 25. LEACHING FACTORS PER COAL REGION
Leaching factor,
percent of element leached per hour of average rainfall
Great
Interior Interior Northern
Element Appalachian Eastern Western Plains Southwestern Western
Antimony
Arsenic
Free silica
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
2.1
0.74
a
b
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.013
_a
0.055
0.066
0.04
NDL
NDL
a
3.7
_a
NDL
NDL
NDL
NDL
_a
0.054
NDL
0.06
NDL
NDL
a
~a
NDL
_a
0.02
18.3
_a
0.82
0.20
6.0
NDL
NDL
a
0.02
_a
NDL
NDL
NDL
NDL
_a
0.07
0.43
0.03
NDL
NDL
a
0.56
_a
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.002
_a
0.08
0.15
0.05
NDL
NDL
a
14.0
_a
NDL
_a
- 0.06
NDL
_a
0.09
0.71
0.09
NDL
NDL
a
No data available on average element content.
No detectable levels in wastewater.
47
-------
Leaching factors are useful in studying the removal of inorganics
within coal versus time. This study allowed the examination of
one data point versus time; a more detailed study may indicate
the relationship that exists and allow analysis of the coal
tested. Such analysis may explain the anomalies in leaching fac-
tors in coals from various coal regions (Table 25) . However,
there is consistency in lead, mercury, and nickel leaching fac-
tors . It was for these elements that the greatest amount of
information on trace element content was available, which may be
the reason for this consistency.
Effluent factors (Efj,) from coal storage areas are essentially
unrelated to production quantities. Emission rates are utilized
to compute these values as :
However, during a rainfall, only 15% of the water volume striking
the stockpile is actually drained from the coal. Each factor is
therefore adjusted to reflect this mass retention. The average
effluent factors per coal region were calculated from Equation 9
and are presented in Table 26 .
The effluent factors, rates, and concentration levels presented
in this section represent levels at the source. The coal produc-
tion-weighted effluent factors computed for each element are
listed in Table 27. These factors are used in computing concen-
trations downstream from the representative source.
Average mass emission quantities were computed for each effluent
parameter by considering the product of the representative efflu-
ent factors (Table 26) , hours of rain per year (139) , and the
total amount of coal stockpiled per year. These values are pre-
sented in Table 28. A total of 690.7 x 103 metric tons (76 x 103
tons) of effluents are emitted, which represents 0.58% of the
total coal stockpiled per year.
Runoff concentrations for the representative source were computed
at the representative distance of 86 m. In Section 4, the runoff
quantity from the stockpile was determined to be 21 m3/hr
(742 ftVhr) fฐr the representative source (Figure 8) . The run-
off level from the entire drainage basin (minus pile area) was
610 m3/hr (21,436 ft3/hr) . Therefore the effluent factors of
Table 27 were applied to a representative stockpile of 95,000
metric tons (105,000 tons, Section 3 to obtain the weighted
effluent rate. This quantity was divided by the runoff volume of
the stockpile (21 m3/hr) to obtain the concentration at the
source. This concentration level was then diluted by the rain-
fall from the entire drainage basin (608 m3/hr) to obtain the
runoff concentration levels for the representative source,
Table 29.
48
-------
TABLE 26. AVERAGE EFFLUENT FACTORS PER COAL REGION
vo
Effluent factors, mg/kg-hr (10~3 Ib/ton-hr)
Appalachian
Effluent parameter
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
Chloride
Total organic carbon
pH {log 1/H+)
mg/kg-hr
23
4
1
0.04
0.0004
0.2
<0. 00001
<0.08
21
O.D02
NDL
0.03
0.3
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.0003
0.0008
0.0009
0.4
NDL
0.0001
0.00002
NDL
0.004
4
6.3
10-"3 lb/
ton-hr
46
8
2
0.08
0.0008
0.4
<0. 00002
<0.16
42
0.004
0.06
0.6
0.0006
0.0016
0.0018
0.8
0.0002
0.00004
0.008
8
Interior
mg/kg-hr
19
17
10
0.1
0.006
0.01
0.00003
NDL
23
0.004
NDL
0.1
0.06
NDL
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.0009
0.001
0.2
NDL
0.002
NDL
NDL
NDL
6
7.6
Eastern
10-3 lb/
ton-hr
38
34
20
0.2
0.012
0.02
0.00006
46
0.008
0.2
0.12
0.0018
0.002
0.4
0.004
12
Interior Western
mg/kg-hr
28
83
73
17
0.3
1.4
NDL
<0.02
16
0.001
NDL
0.2
0.2
NDL
0.0008
0.0004
0.03
0.004
0.2
0.4
NDL
0.4
0.00006
NDL
0.03
1
2.8
10" 3 lb/
ton-hr
56
166
446
34
0.6
2.8
<0.04
32
0.002
0.4
0.4
0.0016
0.0008
0.06
0.008
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.00012
0.06
2
Great
Northern Plains
10" 3 lb/
mg/kg-hr ton-hr
19 38
6 12
24 48
*
0.03 0.06
0.002 0.004
a
NDL
NDL
0.1 0.2
20 40
0.002 0.004
NDL
NDL
0.03 0.06
NDL
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.0008 0.0016
0.0003 0.0006
NDL
NDL
0.003 0.006
0.00004 0.00008
NDL '
NDL
6 12
6.9
Southwestern
mg/kg-hr
23
5
3
0.09
0.0006
NDL
NDL
0.1
12
0.003
NDL
0.09
0.06
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.0003
0.0008
0.0004
0.3
NDL
0.006
0.00003
NDL
NDL
2
6.6
10"3 lb/
ton-hr
46
10
6
0.18
0.0012
0.2
24
0.006
0.18
0.12
0.0006
0.0016
0.0008
0.6
0.0012
0.00006
4
Western
mg/kg-hr
37
28
4
0.1
0.006
NDL
NDL
<0.03
27
0.03
NDL
0.2
0.09
NDL
0.00007
0.0006
NDL
0.001
0.0008
0.2
NDL
0.003
0.00008
NDL
NDL
5
7.2
10~3 lb/
ton-hr
74
56
8
0.2
0.012
<0.06
54
0.06
0.4
0.18
0.00014
0.0012
0.002
0.0016
0.4
0.006
0.00016
10
No detectable level.
NOTE: Blanks indicate no data applicable.
-------
TABLE 27. EFFLUENT FACTORS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE
Coal production-
weighted effluent factor
Effluent parameter
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
Total organic carbon
pH
Chloride
mg/kg-hr
23
11
6
1
0.01
0.2
<0. 00002
<0.06
22
0.004
NDLa
0.06
0.2
NDL
0.00003
0.00006
0.001
0.0009
0.006
0.3
NDL
0.01
0.00002
SDL
0.4b
6.6ฐ
0.003
lb/103 ton-hr
46
22
12
2
0.02
0.4
<0. 00004
<0.12
44
0.008
NDL
0.12
0.4
NDL
0.00006
0.00012
0.002
0.0018
0.012
0.6
NDL
0.02
0.00004
NDL
0.8b
6.6
0.006
aNo detectable level.
Log l/H4", remains the
same.
TABLE 28. MASS ANNUAL EFFLUENT EMISSIONS
FROM COAL STOCKPILES, 1975
Mass emissions
Effluent parameter
103 metric tons/yr
tons/yr
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
Total organic carbon
Chloride
377
180
98
16
0.2
3.3
<0.0003
0.06
NDLa
1.0
3.3
NDL
0.005
0.0019
0.02
0.01
0.1
4.9
NDL
0.2
0.0003
NDL
6.6
0.05
415,571
198,416
108,027
17,637
220
3,638
0
66
NDL
1,102
3,638
NDL
0
1
22
11
110
5,401
NDL
220
0
NDL
7,275
55
.3
.6
.1
.3
TOTAL
a
No detectable level.
690.7
761,366
50
-------
TABLE 29. RUNOFF CONCENTRATIONS OF INORGANICS AND WATER
QUALITY PARAMETERS FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE
Concentration
entering waterways,
Effluent parameter g/m3
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
Nitrate
Total phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
Chloride
Total organic carbon
0.16
0.08
0.04
0.007
7 x 10~5
0.001
<1 x 10"7
3 x 10~5
NDLa
4 x lO"4
0.001
NDL
2 x 10~7
4 X 10'7
7 x 10~6
6 x 10"6
4 x 10~5
0.002
NDL
7 x 10~5
1 X 10~7
NDL
2 X 10~5
0.003
aNo detectable level.
For pH values, the representative level at the source was 6.6.
Assuming rainfall has a pH of 7, a runoff pH level is computed by
weighting these two pH values by their respective rainfall vol-
umes. The pile receives 2,919 m3/yr (700 ft3/yr) of rainfall,
which is 139 hr/yr x 21 m3/hr. The surrounding area receives
87,479 m3/yr (3,100 ft3/yr). The pH level at runoff to the
stream is thus a weighted value of greater than 6.9.
The BOD level as it leaves the coal stockpile is less than
3.8 g/m3; however, it is believed that the wastewater may have
been toxic to the BOD test seed. Since high levels for COD and
TOC were obtained, the BOD levels obtained from the test coals
are not consistant with these data. Regardless of this consider-
ation, oxygen depletion due to the leachate is insignificant.
51
-------
The low levels of effluents (Table 29) result from the fact that
those elements concentrated within coal are associated primarily
with the organic portion. Elements tend to be associated with
the coal and not with the waste from cleaning (1). In addition,
the coal stockpile itself acts as an absorption and filtration
medium. Absorption of the water reduces the level of effluent
runoff by an estimated 85%. Filtration of solids with coal is a
current wastewater treatment method (33). The values computed
for Table 29 also assumed a complete mixing of runoff waters
prior to discharge to the waterway. This is considered valid
since runoff from areas upstream of the stockpile have time to
reach and mix with the pile drainage. This occurs because of the
time lag from onset of rainfall to pile drainage (see Figure 7)
caused by retention of rainfall within the coal pile structure.
The runoff concentrations of organics were computed directly from
the dilution by 629 m3/hr (22,210 ft3/hr) of precipitation. The
levels at the representative source (Table 22) were thus diluted
to produce the calculated concentrations that run off into water-
ways listed in Table 30. These values are used for comparison
with the hazardous concentration levels.
TABLE 30. RUNOFF CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANICS
FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE
Runoff concentration
entering waterways,
Effluent 10~6g/m3a
2-Chloronaphthalene 0.02
Acenaphthene 0.02
Fluorene 0.02
Fluoranthene 0.02
Benzidine 0.02
Di-iso-octylphthalate -"
Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.07
alO~6g/m3 = ng/SL = ppt.
Assumed to be within the background water
(Table 23).
Previous Studies
Previous studies of coal pile leachate and runoff were performed
by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (personal communication
with D. M. Cox, Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Environ-
mental Planning, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 10 January 1977), the
Pickard and Anderson Company (17), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (23). The arithmetic mean and range values for
these studies are presented in Table 31.
52
-------
TABLE 31. COAL STOCKPILE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES (17, 23, a)
(g/m3)
in
CO
Parameter
b
PH
TSSd
TSD
Sulfate
Acidity
Iron
Manganese
Magnesium
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cromium
Copper
Cyanides
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Gold
Thallium
Zinc
Aluminum
Calcium
Ammonia
Alkalinity
Biochemical oxygen demand
Chemical oxygen demand
Nitrate
Phosphorus
Turbidity
Total hardness
Chloride
Sodium
Arithmetic mean
Pickard-
TVA study Anderson
2.8
470
11,745 12,
5,200 6,
2,562 9,
940 490 10,
2,900 17.1
220
0.17
_e
e
> 2.6
0.86 1.69
e
2.6
0.006
6.7 5.9
260 1,
300
EPA
4.4
699
607
879
908
856
131.5
2.71
2.1
5.89
012.5
0.7
20
3
830
1.31
0.72
205.5
805
127.8
893
TVA Study
2.3 to 3.1
8 to 2,300
1,800 to 9,600
240 to 1,800
9 to 4,500
1 to 480
0.01 to 0.6
_e
~e
~e
0.3 to 1.4
e
0.7 to 4.3
0.001 to 0.03
2 to 16
66 to 440
31 to 490
Range
Pickard-
Anderson EPA
2.2 to 5.8 2.1 to 7.8
22 to 3,302
9,332 to 14,948 247 to 44,050
133 to 21,920
375 to 8,250 8.68 to 27,810
139 to 850 0.06 to 93,000
4.5 to 72.0
89 to 174
0.1 to 7.5 0 to 15.7
0.1 to 6.1 1.6 to 3.4
2.4 to 26 0.006 to 23
825 to 1,200
0 to 1.77
0 to 82
0 to 10
85 to 1,099
0.3 to 2.25
0.23 to 1.2
2.77 to 505
130 to 1,850
3.6 to 481
160 to 1,260
Personal communication with D. M. Cox.
pH; reciprocal of log (H ).
Total suspended solids.
Total dissolved solids.
Less than the detection limit per EPA methodology.
Note.Blanks indicate data not available.
-------
Results of the Pickard and Anderson study covered a 21-day moni-
toring period. For the eight parameters monitored, the devia-
tions of values shown in Table 32 were observed. From Table 31
it can be seen that these effluent concentrations can vary up to
129% over 21 days. Effluent concentrations therefore vary ฑ129%
at the source and average a ฑ211% deviation (Table 17) between
sources. Therefore, defining a representative source is justi-
fied considering the possible variability of results.
TABLE 32. DEVIATIONS OF EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
OVER A 21-DAY PERIOD
Parameter
PH*
Total iron
Acidityb
TDS
Copper
Manganese
Chromium
Zinc
Number of
values
146
137
45
7
22
22
21
21
Effluent concentration, g/m3
Arithmetic mean
3.3
1,828
6,408
15,588
2.4
21.8
3.2
8.7
Standard deviation
0.97 (29%)
2,362 (129%)
8,090 (126%)
10,498 (67%)
2.8 (116%)
26.5 (122%)
2.8 (90%)
11 (126%)
pH; reciprocal of log (H ).
g/m3 of CaC03.
MRC performed two preliminary analyses of coal pile runoff. One
was based on physically sampling the drainage from a coal pile
and the other on coal submerged in distilled water for a period
of 2 weeks. This was accomplished on coal that was later used
for the rainfall simulation studies. Results indicated the
order-of-magnitude presence of trace metals and TOC within the
filtered leachate. These values are presented in Table 33. The
resultant TOC level of 254 g/m3 was high enough to justify fur-
ther TOC analyses of leachate and drainage from the simulation
studies. The trace metal studies indicated low concentrations
of metals (except aluminum, calcium, and magnesium) within the
leachate. However, the wide disparity in metal content for coals
from different regions would not justify the exclusion of trace
metal analyses from our study. If a number of the metals were
not detected then further analyses may not have been warranted.
The runoff concentrations from the study (Table 29) are from one
to seven orders of magnitude less than the concentrations reported
in Table 31. This disparity is accounted for by the fact that
Monsanto Research Corporation.
54
-------
the previous studies were conducted directly at the source (that
is, samples were obtained on or near the pile in the drainage
ditches). These values therefore do not account for the dilution
that occurs as the runoff approaches the nearest waterway. This
dilution results from the rainfall in the entire drainage area,
not just at the pile surface. However, the diluted values
(Table 29) as they enter the nearest waterway are of prime con-
cern since these levels affect the health of aquatic lifeforms.
If the values of Table 22 were computed only for the runoff from
the stockpile surface area, the concentrations would increase by
six orders of magnitude. The results of this study would then
compare well with those of previous studies. A numerical compari-
son cannot be performed since previous studies failed to record
the actual distance from the source at which sampling occurred.
In addition, since the effluent concentrations are site-specific,
a comparison of the hypothetical representative source with par-
ticular stockpile studies is futile.
TABLE 33. PRELIMINARY ANALYSES OF TRACE METALS AND TOC LEVELS
Concentration, g/nr
Concentration,
Component
Silver
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Selenium
Arsenic
Submerged
None
18.3
None
-------
rules in the 17 October 1975 Federal Register (34). Rules were
proposed for BPCTCA (best practicable control technology cur-
rently available, BATEA (best available technology economically
achievable), and for new sources in 1976 (35). These limitations
applied to coal storage areas at preparation plants with any dis-
charges pumped, siphoned, or drained. They include any pollutants
1) frequently present in concentrations deleterious to aquatic.
life, 2) for which technology existed for reduction or removal,
and 3) for which research indicated capabilities of disrupting
aquatic systems (35). Interim final rules were first established
in 1975 for permit purposes.
The 1976 proposals for BPCTCA were established in April of 1977
(36). The fact that inclusion of pollutants was based on their
effect on aquatic life further justifies the use of runoff con-
centrations into waterways for observing hazard potential. Final
effluent limitations and guidelines for BATEA and new sources are
slated to be published in September of 1978 (37). Best practic-
able control technology currently available for coal storage
areas at preparation plants are discussed in the development
document for the coal mining source and Section 5 of this report
(38). Effluent limitations guidelines for runoff from material
storage piles at steam electric power generating sources are the
same for BPCTCA, BATEA, and new stockpile sources (39).
A comparison of the calculated runoff concentration levels of
Table 29 with the existing and proposed standards for coal storage
(34) Part IV: Environmental Protection Agency - Coal Mining
Point Source Category - Interim Final Rules. Federal
Register, 40 (202):48830-48840, 1975.
(35) Chapter 1 - Environmental Protection Agency - Part 434 -
Coal Mining Point Source Category - Effluent Guidelines and
Standards. Federal Register, 41 (94) :19832-19843, 1976.
(36) Environmental Protection Agency - Coal Mining Point Source
Category - Effluent Guidelines and Standards. Federal
Register, 42 (80):21379, 1977.
(37) Calendar of EPA Regulations Under Consideration. Pollution
Engineering, Yearbook and Product Reference Guide,
28 February 1977. pp. 16-18.
(38) Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Coal
Mining Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-76/057-a. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May 1976.
pp. 95-96.
(39) Environmental Protection Agency - Part 423 - Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category - Effluent Guidelines
and Standards. Federal Register, 39 (196):36206-36207 , 1974.
56
-------
areas is presented in Table 34 (37, 40). The computed runoff
levels from the representative source are all two to five orders
of magnitude less than the effluent limitations. If samples were
taken at the source, the concentration levels for iron and TSS
from the representative source would exceed these limitations.
Runoff concentration levels are used for comparison instead,
because the effluent limitations, as stated, are concerned with
effects on aquatic organisms. Therefore, the representative
source would comply with the regulations.
Toxicity
To establish whether the runoff concentrations entering a water-
way are detrimental to aquatic life, hazardous concentration
levels must be established for each effluent. Since a standard-
ized methodology or reference of hazardous levels does not exist,
a number of sources are used to obtain these values.
"Hazardous" is a general term which is applied in this context to
specific detrimental effects observed on the life of tested
organisms. These concentration levels are reported in drinking
water standards and water quality criteria, or are calculated
from test data. Ideally, information on a large percent of all
aquatic species would show community responses to a range of con-
centrations over a long period of time. However, this informa-
tion is not available. Therefore, hazardous concentrations are
calculated from several equations relating the results of speci-
fic tests (40-42). Tests record the lethal doses (LD50) and
concentrations (LCsg) lethal to 50% of the test species (43).
These data are used to represent the expected effects on all
other organisms. Test species are chosen on the basis of their
availability, importance to man, and physiological responses to
the laboratory environment.
(40) Walden, C. C., and T. E. Howard. Toxicity: Research and
Regulation. In: Proceedings of 1976 TAPPI Environmental
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, April 26-28, 1976. pp. 93-99.
(41) Handy, R. W., and M. Samfield. Estimation of Permissible
Concentrations of Pollutants for Continuous Exposure; Part
II: Permissible Water Concentrations. Contract 68-02-1325,
Task 34, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1975. 76 pp.
(42) TLVsฎ Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1975. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 97 pp.
(43) The Toxic Substances List - 1974. HSM 99-73-45, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Rockville,
Maryland, June 1974. 904 pp.
57
-------
00
TABLE 34. COMPARISON OF RUNOFF CONCENTRATION LEVELS WITH EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (38, 39)
(g/m3)
Coal
mining point sources
Proposed,
Based on BPCTCA
Effluent parameter
Total iron
Total manganese
TSS
pH
Maximum
for
1 day
7.0
4.0
70
Within
6 to 9
range
Average
of
30 days
3.5
2.0
35
Within
6 to 9
range
based on BATEA
Maximum
for
1 day
3.5
4.0
40
Within
6 to 9
range
Average
of
30 days
3
2
20
Within
6 to 9
range
Proposed,
new sources
Maximum
for
1 day
3.5
4
70
Within
6 to 9
range
Average
of
30 days
3.0
2
35
Within
6 to 9
range
Steam
electric
power
generating
based on
BPCTCA,
BATEA,
and for
new sources
a
a
<50
Within
6 to 9
range
Runoff
concentration
0.007
0.00007
0.16
6.9
No limitation promulgated at present.
-------
The most preferred equation is the result of an effluent concen-
tration, below, which exerted no stress on aquatic organisms.
This concentration is about 5% to 10% of the 96-hr LC50 value
(40). However, LC50 values for 48 hr may be used in the absence
of LC50 (96-hr) data. Assuming a human consumes 2 ฃ (0.53 gal)
of water per day, 0.2% of LD50 (oral/rat) values may be used to
represent the maximum concentration that has no effect on human
health. This same percentage may be applied to LD50 other than
oral/rat or other toxicity indicators (41). Threshold limit
values (TLVsฎ) are used to determine hazardous water concentra-
tions by assuming 10 m3 (353 ft3) of air in 8 hr will contain the
amount of contaminant in 2 ฃ (0.53 gal) of water, and multiplying
the TLV by 0.77% (42). However, most toxicity tests are not
conducted for the purpose of industrial effluent assessment, and
practically no information exists on the hazardous properties of
complex effluents or mixtures. The above relationships provide a
methodology for computing hazardous concentrations for specific
pollutants.
The hazardous concentration values computed for the inorganic
effluents emitted from coal stockpiles are compiled in Table 35
(40, 41, 43, 44). The ratio of the runoff concentration to the
hazardous concentration for each effluent is presented in the
third column. The runoff concentration ranges from one to seven
orders of magnitude less than the hazardous value. The highest
ratio, 0.2, is for selenium. All but three of the hazardous con-
centration values are obtained directly from EPA water quality
criteria (44) . No ratios exceed those for the representative
source.
Hazardous concentrations and ratios for other pollutants not
listed in Table 35 or covered by effluent regulations are listed
in Table 36. The ratio of runoff concentration, CR, to hazardous
concentration shows levels four to six orders of magnitude less
than hazardous levels. These water quality parameters also do
not exceed a ratio (CR/CH) of one.
Within the organic toxic substance list, the pesticides were
excluded from study (due to the improbability of their occurrence
within coal). The organics found in the coal pile wastewater
(Table 23) are compared to hazardous concentration levels or
standards. Hazardous concentrations are determined from the same
equations used to generage the levels for inorganics listed in
Table 35. A comparison of the hazardous concentrations (CH) with
the runoff concentrations (CR) is presented in Table 37. The
runoff concentrations are from 6 to 11 orders of magnitude less
than the hazardous levels.
(44) Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/9-76-023, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1976.
501 pp.
59
-------
TABLE 35. HAZARDOUS AND RUNOFF CONCENTRATION LEVELS FOR
INORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM COAL STORAGE AREAS
Effluent
Runoff
concentration,
g/m3
Hazardous
concentration,
g/m3
CR/CH ratio
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanides
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
0.0004
0.0013
0.001
NDLb
2 x 10~7
4 x 10~7
<7 x 10~6
7 x 10~7
6 x 10~6
1 x 10~7
4 x 10~5
0.002
NDLK
NDLb
7 x 10~5
0.225 (40, 43)
0.05 (44)
0.63 (40, 43)
0.011 (44)
0.01 (44)
0.05 (44)
1.0 (44)
0.005 (44)
0.05 (44)
0.002 (44)
0.0013 (44)
0.01 (44)
0.05 (44)
0.008 (41, 43)
5.0 (44)
0.0018
0.02
0.0016
_C
0.00002
0.000008
0.000007
0.00014
0.00012
0.00005
0.031
0.2
c
_c
0.000014
Free silica concentration.
No detectable level.
*
'Not calculated.
TABLE 36. HAZARDOUS AND RUNOFF CONCENTRATION LEVELS FOR WATER
QUALITY PARAMETERS FROM COAL STORAGE AREAS
Effluent
parameter
Total phosphate
Sulfate
Nitrate
TDS
Runoff
concentration
entering waterway ,
g/m3
NDLa
0.04
3 x 10"5
0.08
Hazardous
concentration ,
g/m3
1 x 10-7b
250 (44)
10 (44)
250 (44)
CR/C
2
3
3.2
ratio
n
_C
x 10"4
x 10"6
x lQ~k
No detectable level.
Phosphorus standard.
ป
'Not calculated.
60
-------
TABLE 37. HAZARDOUS AND RUNOFF CONCENTRATION LEVELS
FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM COAL STORAGE
Effluent
Runoff
concentration
(CR), lO-6 g/m3
Hazardous
concentration
(CH) , g/m3
CR/CH ratio
Acenaphthene
Benzidene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.02
1,350
0.695
0.054
4.68
4.5
33.8
1.5 x lO"11
2.9 x 10~8
1.3 x ID"6
4.3 x 10~9
4.4 x 10~9
5.9 x 10~10
61
-------
SECTION 5
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
PRESENT APPLICATIONS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
No methods of water pollution control are presently applied to
leachate and runoff from coal stockpiles maintained at coal usage
sites. However, present regulations established for effluents
from coal storage areas may require control to be used at some
facilities. This will require future applications of control
technology. For drainage from stockpiles at steam electric
plants, collection, neutralization, and settling by gravity are
presented as the best practicable control technology currently
available (31) . Other methods of control currently practiced
include: 1) construction of collection ditches around the area,
2) installation of a hard surface over the area to direct drain-
age to a sump, 3) storage of coal in bins and hoppers with runoff
collected in trenches, and 4) establishment of vegetative covers
around the stockpile to control erosion and sedimentation (39).
FUTURE APPLICATIONS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
There are two types of control technologies available for pollu-
tants from coal pile drainage; biological, and chemical/physical
treatment. Treatment methods applicable to the pollutants in-
cluded within the scope of this study are discussed below.
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment utilizes biochemical reactions and adsorp-
tion characteristics of living microorganisms to reduce BOD, COD,
TOC, and TSS levels. The organics are converted to C02, NO3, and
NO2. The life and growth of these microorganisms depend on
availability of carbon and nitrogen. Table 38 lists the biologi-
cal treatment methods applicable to water pollutants from coal
stockpiles.
The activated sludge process is a wastewater treatment in which a
mixture of sewage and activated sludge is agitated, aerated, and
stabilized in a reactor under aerobic conditions. The activated
sludge consists of a gelatinous matrix in which filamentous and
unicellular bacteria are imbedded and on which protozoa feed
62
-------
TABLE 38. BIOLOGICAL WATER TREATMENTS FOR COAL
STOCKPILE WATER POLLUTANTS
Treatment technique
Aerobic:
Activated sludge
Trickling filters
Aerated lagoons
Aerated ponds
Activated sludge modifications
Anaerobic:
Sludge digestion
Contact process
Aerobic filter
Anaerobic ponds
Anaerobic-aerobic ponds
Pollutant
BOD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
COD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TOC
X
X
X
X
X
X
TSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nitrate
X
X
X
X
X
(45) . This system has a BOD removal efficiency of 75% to 95%
(46). Total removal of organic materials by a typical activated
sludge process is from 90% to 95% (45) .
Trickling filters are fixed-bed reactors and sedimentation tanks
utilizing rocks or plastic media as a growth surface for bacter-
ial slime to effect the biological reactions. The filter func-
tions to remove finely divided, suspended, colloidal and dis-
solved organics. Removal efficiencies for trickling filters are
60% to 85% for BOD5, 30% to 70% for COD, and 60% to 85% for TSS
(47, 48).
Aerated lagoons are similar to the activated sludge process, but
wastewater is treated on a flow-through basis in lagoons. Oxygen
is supplied in a lagoon by surface or diffused aeration units to
keep the lagoon contents in suspension. The essential function
of the lagoon is waste conversion. BOD5 removal can reach 60% to
70%. Solids are removed in a settling tank, a normal component
of most lagoon systems. If the solids are returned to the lagoon,
this process is the same as the activated sludge process (46).
(45) Cheremisinoff, P. N. Biological Wastewater Treatment.
Pollution Engineering, September 1976. pp. 32-38.
(46) Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, New York, 1972. 782 pp.
(47) Bush, K. E. Refinery Wastewater Treatment and Reuse.
Chemical Engineering, 83 (8):113, 1976.
(48) Nemerow, N. Y. Liquid Waste of Industry Theories, Prac-
tices, and Treatment. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
Reading, Massachusetts, 1971. 584 pp.
63
-------
An aerobic pond contains bacteria and algae in suspension, and
aerobic conditions prevail throughout its depth. Oxygen enters
the pond from algae production and atmospheric diffusion. The
pond is mixed periodically with pumps or aerators. The BODs
removal efficiency in these ponds can range up to 95%, but it is
generally about 50% (45).
Activated sludge modifications are alterations of the activated
sludge treatment process. They consist of different flow models,
aeration systems, loadings, and applications. Table 39 illus-
trates the activated sludge modification processes and operation-
al characteristics. Flow models refer to the types of reactors
used for biological waste treatment based on their hydraulic flow
characteristics (46).
The major application of anaerobic waste treatment is in the
digestion of concentrated sewage sludges. However, dilute or-
ganic wastes can be treated anaerobically with the anaerobic
contact process or anaerobic filter. Anaerobic digestion con-
sists of receiving concentrated sludge in a complete-mix reactor
system that uses microorganisms to decompose the organic matter.
High BOD wastes can be handled efficiently by the anaerobic con-
tact process in which raw wastes are mixed with recycled sludge
and digested in a mixed digestion chamber. The mixture is then
separated with a clarifier or flotation unit, and the supernatant
liquid is discharged.
The anaerobic filter is a column filled with various solid media.
Waste flows upward through the column in which the anaerobic
bacteria grow.
Anaerobic ponds are anaerobic throughout their depth except for a
shallow surface zone. Stabilization is brought about by a combi-
nation of precipitation and anaerobic conversion of organics.
BOD5 conversion efficiencies of 70% are routine with 85% levels
achievable (46).
The anaerobic-aerobic ponds have three zones: 1) an aerobic
surface layer to support photosynthetic algae and bacteria, 2) an
anaerobic bottom zone that consists of accumulating solids decom-
posed by anaerobic bacteria, and 3) an intermediate anaerobic-
aerobic layer of facultative bacteria decomposing organic wastes.
Physical/Chemical Treatment
The physical/chemical treatment processes possibly applicable to
water pollutants from coal stockpiles are listed in Table 40.
These processes are discussed below.
64
-------
TABLE 39. ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODIFICATIONS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (46)
cn
Process modification
Conventional
Complete-mix
Step-aeration
Modified-aeration
Contact-stabilization
Extended-aeration
Kraus process
High-rate aeration
Flow model
Plug- flow
Complete-mix
Plug-flow
Plug-flow
Plug- flow
Complete-mix
Plug- flow
Complete-mix
Aeration system
Diffused-air,
mechanical aerators
Diffused-air,
mechanical aerators
Diffused-air
Diffused-air
Diffused-air,
mechanical aerators
Diffused-air,
mechanical aerators
Diffused-air
Mechanical aerators
BOD removal
efficiency, '
85
85
85
60
80
75
85
75
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
95
95
95
75
90
95
95
90
ฃ Application
Low-strength domestic wastes, susceptible to
shock loads .
General application, resistant to shock
loads, surface aerators.
General application to wide range of wastes.
Intermediate degree of treatment where cell
tissue in the effluent is not objectionable
Expansion of existing systems, packaged
plants , flexible .
Small communities, package plants, flexible
surface aerators .
Low-nitrogen, high-strength wastes.
Use with turbine aerators to transfer oxygen
Pure-oxygen systems Complete-mix Mechanical aerators
reactors
in series
and control the floe size, general appli-
cation.
85 to 95 General application, use where limited vol-
ume is available, use near economical
source of oxygen, turbine or surface
aerators.
-------
TABLE 40. PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENTS FOR COAL STOCKPILE WATER POLLUTANTS
en
cr>
Treatment techniques
Coagulation, floccula-
tion, precipitation
Carbon adsorption
Filtration
Sedimentation
Chemical oxidation
reduction
Chlorination
Ozonation
Reverse osmosis
Ion exchange
Electrodialysis
Dissolved air, flo-
tation and foam
separation
Neutralization
Magnetic separation
Wet air combustion
Evapor at ion
Freezing
Pollutant
0) 0) W
P 6 tfi 0)
fti (U >i iG Si ( 1 (U JH -H
cnMHfO ^T^rM O (U U U ฃ5 C O D^Q)>rd ftO fi
QPUtOWOH-HiJfd O & W fl!-irO OiHfl Gfd-P ftrH (d
OOOCOQX! 3 U-H (U-Hil M-H 0) rd ^ rd (d 0)0)0) OX! >i
PQUEHEHEHPjCO^SJlZOiJBNSOHUSOXigOCJU
XXX XXX XXXXXX X X
X X X X X X
XX XXX
X X X X X
X XX
XX X XX XX
XX XXX
XX XXX XXXXXX XXXX X XX
XX XXX XXXXXXXXX X X X
XXX XXXXXXXXXX X XX
XXX XX
X
XXXX X
XXX
X XX X
X
-------
Coagulation refers to the reduction of surface charges on sus-
pended colloids and the formation of complex hydrous oxides.
Flocculation is the bonding together of the coagulated materials
to form settleable or filtrable solids by agglomeration and
chemical bridging (49).
Carbon adsorption is generally a tertiary treatment for water
treated by normal biological processes. A carbon adsorption col-
umn is used to contact wastewater with granular carbon for re-
moval of dissolved organics. Particulate matter may also be
removed. Removal efficiencies of carbon adsorption and biologi-
cal treatment processes applied alone and in tandem are presented
in Table 41 (50).
TABLE 41. CARBON ADSORPTION TREATMENT RESULTS (50)
Pollutant
parameter
BOD 5
COD
TOC
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Sulfide
Cyanides
Removal
Biological
treatment only
92.8
58.1
46.4
59.1
80.0,
_a
42.9
99.4
20
efficiencies, i
Carbon
treatment only
50.5
56.0
75.0
90.9
94.0
86. 4D
a
88.6
a
20
S;
Biocarbon
treated
96.9
88.9
87.5
90.9
90.0
59.1
_a
78.6
99.4"
20
Treatment not effective.
Filtration is the passing of water through a porous material to
separate suspended and colloidal matter. The materials are re-
moved by both physical and chemical actions occurring within the
filter bed. Following secondary treatment and addition of coagu-
lants, removal efficiencies are 99% for TSS, 97% for BOD, 85% for
COD, 95% for total phosphates, and 10% for TDS (51).
(49) Gulp, R. L., and G. L. Gulp. Advanced Wastewater Treatment.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing Company, New York, New
York, 1971. 310 pp.
(50) Eckenfelder, W. W., P. A. Krenkel, and C. A. Adams.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment. American Institute of Chemi-
cal Engineers, New York, New York, 1974. 380 pp.
(51) Barnhart, E. L. The Treatment of Chemical Wastes in Aerated
Lagoons, Water - 1968. Chemical Engineering Progress Sym-
posium Series, 64(90):111, 1968.
67
-------
Sedimentation is a process that separates suspended solid materi-
als by gravitational forces. It is applied either as presedimen-
tation, or as sedimentation after coagulation and flocculation or
softening. In the latter application, efficiencies of 90% to 95%
for TSS, 60% to 80% for COD, 90% for total phosphate, and 90% to
99% for most metals are achievable (52).
Chemical reduction is a process in which the oxidation state is
reduced. Nitrate may be reduced using various reducing agents
and catalysts. These methods are limited by the cost of the
chemicals and the possible creation of toxic wastes due to use of
the catalyst (46).
Chemical oxidation is a treatment process in which the oxidation
state of a substance is increased. It is used to convert harmful
or toxic substances to materials that can be precipitated out of
solution, decomposed (or made inert), or converted to less toxic
species.
Chlorine is an oxidizing agent used extensively in wastewater
treatment, primarily as a disinfectant since its strong oxidizing
power kills bacteria. However, it is also used to reduce BOD5
levels and to prevent slim growths in treatment systems.
Ozone is also a strong oxidizing and disinfecting agent. It is
finding wide use in wastewater treatment because it costs less
than chlorination. It effectively and economically oxidizes iron
and manganese to insoluble forms for filtration (53).
Because of their economics, these oxidation treatments are lim-
ited to application to specialized industrial waste treatment and
to high level tertiary treatment. Ozone or impoundment oxidation
is the primary method used in acid mine drainage treatment pro-
cesses. Removal of iron by ozonation is accomplished when ferric
sulfate is oxidized to ferric sulfite. The sulfite is then
completely hydrolyzed to the insoluble hydroxide and precipitated
out of solution.
Ozone oxidation of ferrous iron in an acid solution with hydroly-
sis is shown in Equation 6.
+ xH20 + 03 -ป Fe(OH)3 + H2S04 + xH20 (6)
(52) Earth, E. F., and J. M. Cohen. Physical/Chemical or Biolog-
ical, Which Will You Choose? Water and Wastes Engineering,
11(11):20, 1974.
(53) Furgason, R. R., and R. 0. Day. Iron and Manganese Removal
with Ozone, Part I. Water and Sewage Works, 122(6):42,
1975.
68
-------
Impoundment oxidation consists of retaining the acidic wastes in
a mechanically aerated basin. The reaction is shown in Equation
/ *
+ 02 + xH20 + Fe(OH)3 + E2SOk (7)
The overflow sulfuric acid can then be neutralized prior to
entering a stream (54) . The acid neutralization is achieved with
calcareous shale or limestone according to Equation 8:
+ CaC03 -* CaSO4 + C02 + H20 (8)
Alkalinity is desirable for reducing the potential acidity due
to ferrous sulfate in the drainage. The carbon dioxide plays an
important role in producing calcium bicarbonate in the water as
shown in Equations 9 and 10.
CO2 + H20.t H2C03 (9)
H2C03 + CaC03 -* Ca(HC03)2 (10)
However, the solubility and retention of carbon dioxide is ad-
versely affected by aeration. When drainage with calcium bicar-
bonate is aerated it does not become acidic even though it still
carries its original content of ferrous sulfate. The iron and
bicarbonate ions become unstable on exposure to the atmosphere
and the iron is precipitated. This is expressed, in Equation 11,
as :
+ Ca(HC03)2 -ป CaSO^ + Fe(HC03)2 (11)
and the iron is then eliminated by aeration, Equation 12:
4Fe(HC03)2 + 02 + 2H20 -> 4Fe(OH)34- + 8C02t (12)
Iron is thus eliminated by oxidation and precipitation as ferric
hydroxide, and bicarbonate is dissipated by the evolution and
loss of carbon dioxide from the drainage into the air (20) .
Reverse osmosis is a treatment operation that separates inorganic
ions and dissolved and suspended solids in solution. In osmosis,
solutions of different concentrations are separated by a semi-
permeable membrane, and solution flows through the membrane to
equalize concentration levels. In reverse osmosis a pressure
(54) Lorenz, W. C., and R. W. Stephan. A Review of Current
Research on Coal Mine Drainage in Appalachia. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 1967. 12 pp.
69
-------
greater than the osmotic level is exerted, forcing the solvent in
the opposite direction and thereby separating the dissolved
solids. Efficiency of reverse osmosis in wastewater treatment
depends on the rejection characteristics of the membrane. Typi-
cal rejection characteristics are shown in Table 42 (55).
Reverse osmosis techniques are improving and efficiency is in-
creasing. This process is currently favored over electrodialysis
and ion exchange because of its greater efficiency and added
removal of organics (56). However, in acid mine drainage appli-
cations, the problem of disposing of the acidic wastes exists.
Although deep well injection has been utilized for disposal of
acid mine wastes, only a limited quantity can be disposed of in
this fashion.
TABLE 42. TYPICAL MEMBRANE SOLUTE REJECTION
IN REVERSE OSMOSIS (55)
Solute
Rejection, %
Maximum Minimum Average
Calcium, Ca2+
Magnesium, Mg2+
Iron, Fe2+ and Fe3 +
Manganese, Mn2 +
Aluminum, A13+
Chromium, Cr6+ pH 2 . 6
4.2
7.6
Sulfate, S0k2~
Chloride, Cl~
Nitrate, N03~
Silica (at pH5)
Orthophosphate, PO^3~
Polyphosphate
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
COD - secondary effluent
- sulfite liquor
BOD - secondary effluent
- sulfite liquor
99.7
99.9
vlOO
'vlOO
99.9
_C
_c
_c
\.100
97
86
95
-vlOO
^100
99
97
97.5
94
92.2
96.3
93
99.9
_a
97.3
_c
_c
_c
99+
86
58
80
_a
_a
89
94
94.9
81
85.8
>99
>99
^100
'vlOO
>99
92.
97.
98.
>99
"
_b
K
_u
>99
>9?
_b
_
_
_
..
6
2
6
No minimum; ^100% rejection.
Unknown.
PN
"Insufficient data for determining minimum and maximum.
(55) Weber, W. J. Physicochemical Processes for Water Pollution
Control. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1972.
596 pp.
(56) Monti, R. P., and P. T. Silbermann. Wastewater System Alter-
nates: What Are They...and What Cost?, Part IV. Water and
Wastes Engineering, 11(6):52, 1974.
70
-------
Ion exchange is a sorption process in which ions attached to an
exchange medium are replaced by ions passing through it in solu-
tion. The exchange resin is insoluble, and the ion exchange
takes place on its surface. There are many factors affecting the
efficiency and application of ion exchange. Solids in the efflu-
ent should not exceed 400 g/m3 (56). Generally removal effi-
ciencies are 97% for total phosphate, 90% for nitrates, 100% for
sulfates, and 45% for COD (55).
Electrodialysis is a treatment operation that separates solutes
on the basis of diffusion rate differences through porous mem-
branes. This process is accelerated by an electrical potential
imposed across the membrane. This process is primarily applied
in water desalination but is also used for water demineraliza-
tion. Cost and operating problems are currently limiting its use
in wastewater treatment (57).
With dissolved air flotation, a process that removes suspended
solids, wastestreams are saturated with pressurized gas. The
waste then flows to a retention tank, out through a reducing
valve, and into a flotation tank/ When pressure is reduced the
gas comes out of solution forming bubbles which adhere to the
suspended particles. Foam formation occurs naturally or is in-
duced by the addition of chemicals. A sludge collector then
removes the surface layer. Removal efficiencies for coagulation
and flocculation followed by flotation are, conservatively: 50%
to 85% for TSS, 20% to 70% for BOD5, and 10% to 60% for COD (47).
Neutralization is a chemical process in which equimolar quanti-
ties of acid and base react to form salts and water that is
chemically neutral. This is accomplished by mixing wastes with
bases such as limestone, lime slurry, caustic soda, or soda ash,
and alkaline wastes with sulfuric acid. Mineral acidity is
neutralized in acid mine drainage with an alkali, usually hy-
drated lime, which removes iron, manganese, and other soluble
metals through the formation of their insoluble hydroxides (34).
Total iron reduction is generally representative of the overall
effectiveness of the neutralization process. The basic reaction
is listed in Equation 13 (54):
Ferrous sulfate + alkali > ferrous hydroxide + alkali sulfate (13)
Alkali materials under investigation for acid mine drainage
applications include oxides, hydroxides, and carbonates of cal-
cium, sodium, magnesium, manganese, and ammonia. The activity
(rate of reaction) is especially high for sodium hydroxide,
(57) young, R. A., P. N. Cheremisinoff, and S. M. Feller.
Tertiary Treatment: Advanced Wastewater Techniques. Pol-
lution Engineering, 7 (4):26, 1975.
71
-------
sodium carbonate (soda ash), and ammonia. These materials are
expensive in comparison to limes and limestone. However, lime
neutralization imparts a permanent hardness to the treated water
(58) .
Acid treatment techniques have not been specifically developed
for wastes from coal storage areas. Therefore, treatment studies
and processes conducted on acid mine drainage (AMD) can be
applied to the wastes from coal storage areas. However, the
wastes from these areas are less acidic as compared to mine
drainage, and there is less volume of waste to treat.
The treatment methods that have been developed and tested for AMD
are listed in Table 43.
TABLE 43. ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT METHODS (58)
Treatment method
Developer
Lime-limestone treatment
Limestone treatment
Iron-oxidation-limestone
neutralization
Biological-limestone
treatment process
Biological treatment
Neutrolysis
Demineralization
Foam separation
Electrochemical oxidation
Partial freezing
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bituminous Coal Research Institute
Penn State University
Consolidation Coal Company
Syracuse University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Culligan International Company
Horizons, Inc.
Tyco Corporation
Applied Science Labs, Inc.
Treatment costs for these processes normally range between $0.10
and $1.32 per 5,000 liters (1,321 gal) of water, depending on the
quality and quantity of water to be treated. Waters containing a
high percentage of ferrous iron are difficult or impossible to
treat. The least costly treatment system appears to be an iron-
oxidation-limestone neutralization process. It is applicable to
all kinds of acid waters including those containing large quan-
tities of ferrous iron (58).
Another treatment is magnetic separation, in which a filter
matrix is magnetized. As the wastewater passes through it the
magnetized materials are trapped. In pilot plant studies, re-
moval efficiencies of 95% for TSS and 92% for BOD5 were obtained
(56) .
(58)
Boyer, J. F. Status of Coal Mine Drainage Technology,
Coal Mining and Processing, 9(l):56-59, 1972.
72
-------
Wet air combustion oxidizes organic wastes under high temperature
and pressure. It is mainly used in sludge destruction.
Evaporation is used in concentrating liquid wastes. It simply
involves boiling off liquid and leaving a concentrated solids
fraction that can be disposed of easily. It is generally appli-
cable to materials with negligible vapor pressures (59) .
Freezing is the opposite of evaporation and is used mainly for
concentrating wastes in salt waters. Waste is cooled until crys-
tallization, then the ice is separated from the waste and washed
to remove the brine (60).
CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
Stockpiling Techniques
The prime control technology consideration for any pollution
source is control at the source through process alteration. In
acidic runoff from coal stockpiles this involves prevention of
the mechanisms of acid formation. Pyritic oxidation only re-
quires a small quantity of air and water. The moisture content
of air is sufficient for the stoichiometric reaction. Shielding
the coal stockpile to avoid oxidation can be achieved. The
following methods have proven satisfactory in practice (18):
Use of sealed bins or bunkers which provide airtight
storage suitable for long-term retention of small
quantities of coal.
Sealing the sides and tops of large, compacted piles
with asphalt or tar.
Underwater storage in concrete pits; these are ideal
for preventing deterioration, but expensive.
Surface storage in piles of compacted layers with sides
sloping at 0.17 to 0.26 radian (10ฐ to 15ฐ) and the
surface covered with fine coal.
Compacted layer storage in open pits with airtight sides.
In compacting coal piles, each layer is consolidated with bull-
dozers as it is laid down. The top of the pile is flattened, and
(59) Minor, P. S. Organic Chemical Industry's Wastewaters -
Environmental Science & Technology, 8(7):620, 1974.
(60) Clark, J. W., W. Viessman, Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water
Supply and Pollution Control, Second Edition. International
Textbook Company, Scranton, Pennsylvania, 1971. 661 pp.
73
-------
the height is not great. Coal is removed in layers, and the top
remaining layer is again smoothed and compacted. Coals of dif-
ferent rank are not stored together.
Another consideration for effluent reduction is removal of the
pyrite from coal. Pyritic sulfur is removed through coal flota-
tion. The resulting clean coal froth is repulped and treated
with a coal depressant, a pyrite collector, and a frother to
selectively float the remaining pyrite in a second stage. Re-
sults on a pilot plant scale produced a 70% and 90% removal of
pyrite in two cases (61) .
Tough, permeable fabrics can be used under coal stockpile areas
as a filter for solids containment in the drainage system. These
fabrics stabilize and reinforce the earth while halting erosion.
Design Considerations
Control of effluents from coal pile drainage requires monitoring
of site conditions to develop hydrographs (Figure 7) of flow and
to determine base flow rates and pollutant concentrations.
Anderson and Youngstrom (17) recommended the use of Izzard's
method for developing a hydrograph. In this method, the coal
pile configuration is defined and the pile is segmented into
,component strips of unit width with constant slopes and distances
of overland flow to a collection point. This permits integration
of the "flush phenomenon" into equal time intervals. Each time
will be greater than the frequency of the monitoring data, which
enables integration of the flow hydrograph to determine volume of
coal pile drainage. The average concentration is determined for
each time interval, and the mass of pollutant emitted is then the
product of this concentration and the volume of pile drainage.
This procedure enables a mass-volume relationship to be deter-
mined at any time for a treatment system. This relationship is
termed the design volume mass curve.
(61) Miller, K. J. Flotation of Pyrite from Coal: Pilot Plant
Study. RI 7822, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1973. 15 pp.
74
-------
SECTION 6
GROWTH AND NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY
STORAGE GROWTH PATTERNS
Past quantities of coal maintained in stock by various coal users
are shown in Table 44 and illustrated in Figure 9 (4, 62). In
1940 electric utilities accounted for 20% of the coal stockpiled
in the United States. By 1975 utilities stored 85% of the coal
inventories. During this period the stockpile quantities of the
other coal users dropped from a high of 62% of the coal inventory
in 1940 to a low of 8% in 1975. These inventory shifts reflect
the coal consumption trends of these users. The growth rate of
coal stored was 5,380 metric tons/yr (5,926 tons/yr). For the
preceding 5 years (1965-1970), coal stockpile quantities had
grown at 930 metric tons/yr (1,025 tons/yr). However, when
compared to the consumption of coal during these periods, Figure
10 illustrates that coal storage amounted to 20%, 17%, and 20% of
the consumption levels in 1960, 1970, and 1975, respectively (7,
(62). Thus, coal storage closely and consistently follows the
consumption quantities. It was therefore reasonable to use
consumption data in Section 3 to estimate storage quantities.
TABLE 44. PAST YEARLY STOCKS OF COAL PER USER (4, 62) 9
[106 metric tons(106 tons)]
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1975
Electric
utilities
8.3(9.0)
16.1(17.7)
45.4(50)
55.0(60.6)
84.9(93.6)
Coke
plants
7.2(7.9)
9.0(9.9)
10.4(11.5)
8.1(8.9)
7.5(8.3)
Others'3
24.9(27)
15.8(17.4)
13.2(14.6)
9.9(10.9)
7.5(8.3)
Total
40.4 (44.5)
40.9 (45.1)
69.1(76.2)
73.0(80.5)
99.9(110)
Excludes preparation plants and anthracite storage.
Railroads, steel and rolling mills, cement mills,
other manufacturing and mining industries, and retail
dealers.
(62) Bituminous Coal Data, 1970 Edition (21st Edition). National
Coal Association, Washington, D.C., 1970. pp. 73-80.
75
-------
1940
1950
1960
1970 1975
YEAR
Figure 9, Past yearly stocks of coal, 1940 to 1975 (4, 62)
400
300
200
o
i
Q_
o
o
o
0 100
v
,X STORAGE
r
X
100
75
50
25
ง
o
1940
1950
1960
YEAR
1970 1975
Figure 10. Coal storage and consumption, 1940 to 1975 (7, 62)
76
-------
The projections for U.S. use of coal as an energy source by the
years 1985 and 2000 are 907 x 106 metric tons (999 x 10$ tons)
and 816 x 106 to 2,721 x 106 metric tons (899 x 106 to
2,999 x 106 tons), respectively (63). coal storage quantities
will increase to approximately 227 x 106 metric tons (250 x 106
tons) in 1985 and from 204 x 106 to 680 x 106 metric tons
(225 x 106 to 750 x 106 tons) in 2000.
MINING TRENDS
Total coal reserves in the United States have been estimated at
1.6 x lO1^ metric tons (1,763 x 109 tons). The amount of coal in
place as of 1 January 1974 by coal rank is shown in Table 45
(64) . Over 50% of this reserve is low rank subbituminous and
lignite coal. The amount of low rank coal that can be economi-
cally mined is approximately 172 x 109 metric tons (18.9 x 1010
tons). Over 90% of this coal is located in the Great Northern
Plains and Rocky Mountain areas. The current energy situation
and need to control sulfur oxide emissions has greatly increased
the present and planned use of these coals.
TABLE 45. COAL RESOURCES OF THE UNITED
STATES BY RANK, 1974 (64)
Resources
109 metric Percent
Coal rank tons 10 10 tons of total
Anthracite 18.1 2.0 1.2
Bituminous 677.7 74.7 43.1
Subbituminous 440.9 48.6 28.1
Lignite 433.6 47.8 27.6
TOTALS 1,570.2 173.1 100
The present production of low rank coals is 68 x 106 metric
tons/yr (75 x 106 tons/yr). By 1985 greater demand for power
production is expected to increase the output of low rank coal to
272 x 106 metric tons/yr (300 x 106 tons/yr) (64). Future coals
stored will tend to be low rank from the Western and Great
Northern Plains regions.
(63) Falkie, T. V. Coal production & consumption in 1985. Coal
Mining and Processing, 13(1):51 and 76, 1976.
(64) Grouhovd, G. H., and E. A. Sordreal. Technology and Use of
Low-Rank Coals in the U.S.A. In: Seminar on Technologies
for the Utilization of Low Calorie Fuels, Varna, Bulgaria,
April 20-22, 1976. pp. 40.
77
-------
The demonstrated coal reserve base of the Western United States
is shown in Table 46 (65) .
TABLE 46. WESTERN U.S. COAL RESERVES (65)
Coal reserves
State
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
New Mexico
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
TOTALS
10 6 metric
tons
317
_a
13,489
_a
3,986
3,667
1,773
46,473
69,705
10 6 tons
349
_a
14,838
_a
4,385
4,034
1,950
51,120
76,676
Percent of
Western
total
<0.01
_a
19
_a
6
5
3
67
100
Negligible quantities.
Wyoming represents two-thirds of the potentially minable coal of
the Western states. In the Great Northern Plains, Montana repre-
sents a reserve of 97,728 x 106 metric tons (107 x 109 tons) of
potentially minable coal, which is over twice the coal reserve
base of Wyoming (65).
The total Western and Great Northern Plains deposits have been
estimated at 170,550 x 106 metric tons (188 x 109 tons). Much of
this coal lies in beds less than 300 m (984 ft) deep and is
attractive for mining on an economic basis. At the present U.S.
consumption rate of 509 x 106 metric tons/yr (560 x 106 tons/yr),
these coal reserves alone represent a 300-yr supply (66).
According to the recently appointed Secretary of Energy, the
United States has enough coal for 400 years, but some experts
put the figure at 50 to 90 years. The new energy package will
compel power plants using natural gas to switch to coal. The
energy plan may allow relaxation of antipollution laws to speed
up the transition to coal (67).
(65) Ctvrtnicek, T. E., S. J. Rusek, and C. W. Sandy. Evaluation
of Low-Sulfur Western Coal Characteristics, Utilization, and
Combustion Experience. EPA-650/2-75-046, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
May 1975. 570 pp.
(66) Environmental Impact of Future Energy Sources. Chemical
Engineering/Deskbook Issue, 21 October 1974. p. 48.
(67) Superbrains1 Superproblem. Time Magazine, 107(4):58-67,
1977.
78
-------
Most of the coal used in the future will come from the Western
states. Transportation will therefore become a big factor. If
used for coal transport, slurry pipelines will create vast
amounts of effluent water with pollutant concentration similar to
those obtained in this coal drainage and runoff study. However,
water shortages in the West may preclude slurry pipeline
transport.
STOCKPILING TRENDS
Legislation has been proposed that would require utilities to
maintain a constant 90-day stockpile of coal. Another proposal
would require maintenance of a national coal stockpile equivalent
to 6 months' consumption. Passage of this legislation would
increase both the size of future stockpiles of coal and the mass
pollutants from coal storage as a source of emissions (68) .
Utilities will tend to build new facilities near mines, water
supplies, and on large plots of land. Coal storage piles will
thus be located in areas of lower population and will be farther
from local communities. With more land available, future coal
piles can be expected to be larger to meet the growing energy
needs of the country. Coke plants and industrial boiler facili-
ties are expected to follow the general trends of the utilities
because they face similar energy situations and propose similar
solutions.
Coal will continue to be stored outdoors to facilitate the load-
ing and/or unloading operations. Outdoor storage inhibits spon-
taneous combustion by dissipating the heat generated by the
oxidation of the coal. However, coal is coated in some regions
to prevent the oxidation and resultant spontaneous combustion.
This is particularly true in areas of warm climates and low wind
speeds.
Coal will therefore continue to be exposed to all meteorological
conditions, including precipitation which results in leachate and
runoff.
As coal production increases, the number of coal stockpiles and
the amount stored and consumed will increase. Coal consumption
is anticipated to increase by 7% per year over the next 10 years
(69) . Coal inventory (days of supply) is expected to increase by
3.8% per year. This will result in a corresponding increase in
mass effluent levels.
(68) Lethi, M. T., J. Elliott, and E. P. Krajeski. Analysis of
Steam Coal Sales and Purchases. FEA/G-75/348, Federal
Energy Administration, Washington, D.C., April 1975. 139 pp
(69) Rieber, M., and R. Halcrow. U.S. Energy and Fuel Demand to
1985. CAC No. 108R, National Science Foundation, Washing-
ton, D.C., May 1974. 44 pp.
79
-------
REFERENCES
1. Magee, E. M. , H. J. Hall, and G- M. Varga, Jr. Potential
Pollutants in Fossil Fuels- EPA-R2-73-249, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, June 1973. 151 pp.
2. A.S.T.M. Standards on Coal and Coke. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September
1948. pp. 80.
3. Minerals Yearbook, 1973, Volume I. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. , 1973.
pp. 8-36.
4. Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution, Calendar Year 1975
(Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution Quarterly) .
Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C., 12 April 1976. 51 pp.
5. Shipley, D. F. Coal Storage. Monthly Bulletin of the
British Coal Utilisation Research Association, XXIII (11-
Part II):433-446, 1959.
6. Blackwood, T. R. , and R. A. Wachter. Source Assessment:
Coal Storage Piles. Contract 68-02-1874, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. (Final docu-
ment submitted to the EPA by Monsanto Research Corporation,
July 1977.) 96 pp.
7. Production of Coal - Bituminous and Lignite, 1976, Per Week.
Weekly Coal Report No- 3060, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. , 7 May 1976.
4 pp.
8. FPC Issues Electric Fuel Consumption, Stocks. News Release
No. 20499, Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C.,
22 July 1974. 3 pp.
9. Coke and Coal Chemicals in August 1976. Coke and Coal
Chemicals Monthly, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., August 1976. 2 pp.
10. Keystone Coal Manual, 1973. McGraw-Hill Publications, New
York, New York, 1973. pp. 304-410.
80
-------
11. Electric Utility Statistics. Public Power, 32:28-84,
January-February, 1974.
12. Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1973 Edition. National Coal
Association, Economics and Statistics Division, Washington,
D.C., December 1973. 110 pp.
13. Coke Producers in the United States in 1972. Mineral Indus-
try Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., 27 November 1973. pp. 2-5.
14. Minerals Yearbook, 1972, Volume II. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1972. p. 372.
15. Selvig, W. A., and F. H. Gibson. Analysis of Ash from U.S.
Coals. Bureau or Mines Bulletin 567, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C., 1956. 33 pp.
16. Mineral Matter and Trace Elements in U.S. Coals. Office of
Coal Research R&D Report No. 61, Interim Report No. 2, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1972. p. 63.
17. Anderson, W. C., and M. P. Youngstrom. Coal Pile Leachate
Quantity and Quality Characteristics. Journal of the Envi-
ronmental Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, 102(EE6):1239-1253, 1976.
18. Kirk-Othmer Encylopedia of Chemical Technology, Second
Edition, Volume 5. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
New York, 1967. pp. 606-678.
19. Morth/ A. H., E. E. Smith, and K. S. Shumate. Pyritic Sys-
tems: A Mathematical Model. EPA-R2-72-002, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., November 1972.
171 pp.
20. The Incidence and Formation of Mine Drainage Pollution in
Appalachia. Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington,
D.C., June 1969. 464 pp.
21. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. Ven te Chow, ed. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, New York, 1964. pp. 14-1 through
14-54.
22. Geraghty, J. J. , D. W. Miller, F. Van der Leeden, and
F. Y. Troise. Water Atlas of the United States. Water
Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, New York, 1973.
Plate 21.
81
-------
23. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guide-
lines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. EPA-440/
1-73-029, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., March 1974. pp. 128-130.
24. Hall, D. A. The Storage of Coal. Coke and Gas, December
1956. pp. 498-504.
25. Lorenz, W. C., and R. W. Stephan. The Oxidation of Pyrite
Associated .with Coal Mines. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1967. 21 pp.
26. Lorenz, W. C., and R. W. Stephan. Factors that Affect the
Formation of Coal Mine Drainage Pollution in Appalachia.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, 1967. 17 pp.
27. Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Survey of Industrial
Effluents for Priority Pollutants. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1977. 180 pp.
28. Hamersma, J. W., S. L. Reynolds, and R. F. Maddalone. IERL-
RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment.
EPA-600/2-76-160a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1976. pp 60-64.
29. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water, 14th Edition. M. A. Franson, ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1976. 1193 pp.
30. Annual Report of Research and Technologic Work on Coal.
1C 7518, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Washington, D.C., 1949. 39 pp.
31. Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent
of Non-Point Sources of Pollutants. EPA-430/9-73-014, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October
1973. 261 pp.
32. The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1976. G. E. Delury,
ed. Newspaper Enterprise Association, New York, New York,
1975. pp. 790.
33. Handbook of Water Resources and Pollution Control.
H. W, Gehm and J. I. Bregman, eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York, New York, 1976. pp. 444-447.
34. Part IV: Environmental Protection Agency - Coal Mining
Point Source Category - Interim Final Rules. Federal
Register, 40 (202):48830-48840, 1975.
82
-------
35. Chapter 1 - Environmental Protection Agency - Part 434 -
Coal Mining Point Source Category - Effluent Guidelines and
Standards. Federal Register, 41 (94) .-19832-19843 , 1976.
36. Environmental Protection Agency - Coal Mining Point Source
Category - Effluent Guidelines and Standards. Federal
Register, 42(80):21379, 1977.
37. Calendar of EPA Regulations Under Consideration. Pollution
Engineering, Yearbook and Product Reference Guide,
28 February 1977. pp. 16-18.
38. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Coal
Mining Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-76/057-a. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May 1976
pp. 95-96.
39. Environmental Protection Agency - Part 423 - Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category - Effluent Guidelines
and Standards. Federal Register, 39 (196) : 36206-36207, 1974.
40. Walden, C. C., and T. E. Howard. Toxicity: Research and
Regulation. In: Proceedings of 1976 TAPPI Environmental
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, April 26-28, 1976. pp. 93-99.
41. Handy, R. W., and M. Samfield. Estimation of Permissible
Concentrations of Pollutants for Continuous Exposure; Part
II: Permissible Water Concentrations. Contract 68-02-1325,
Task 34, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1975. 76 pp.
42. TLVsฎ Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1975. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. 97 pp.
43. The Toxic Substances List - 1974. HSM 99-73-45, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Rockville,
Maryland, June 1974. 904 pp.
44. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/9-76-023, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1976.
501 pp.
45. Cheremisinoff, P. N. Biological Wastewater Treatment.
Pollution Engineering, September 1976. pp. 32-38.
46. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
New York, 1972. 782 pp.
83
-------
47. Bush, K. E. Refinery Wastewater Treatment and Reuse.
Chemical Engineering, 83(8):113, 1976.
48. Nemerow, N. Y. Liquid Waste of Industry Theories, Practices,
and Treatment. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading,
Massachusetts, 1971. 584 pp.
49. Gulp, R. L., and G. L. Gulp. Advanced Wastewater Treatment.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing Company, New York, New,
York, 1971. 310 pp.
50. Eckenfelder, W. W., P. A. Krenkel, and C. A. Adams.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment. American Institute of Chemi-
cal Engineers, New York, New York, 1974. 380 pp.
51. Barnhart, E. L. The Treatment of Chemical Wastes in Aerated
Lagoons, Water - 1968. Chemical Engineering Progress Sym-
posium Series, 64(90):111, 1968.
52. Barth, E. F., and J. M. Cohen. Physical/Chemical or Biolog-
ical, Which Will You Choose? Water and Wastes Engineering,
11(11):20, 1974.
53. Furgason, R. R., and R. O. Day. Iron and Manganese Removal
with Ozone, Part I. Water and Sewage Works, 122(6) :42, 1975.
54. Lorenz, W. C., and R. W. Stephan. A Review of Current
Research on Coal Mine Drainage in Appalachia. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 1967. 12 pp.
55. Weber, W. J. Physicochemical Processes for Water Pollution
Control. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1972.
596 pp.
56. Monti, R. P., and P. T. Silbermann. Wastewater System Alter-
nates: What Are They....and What Cost?, Part IV. Water and
Wastes Engineering, 11(6):52, 1974.
57. Young, R. A., P. N. Cheremisinoff, and S. M. Feller. Ter-
tiary Treatment: Advanced Wastewater Techniques. Pollution
Engineering, 7(4):26, 1975.
58. Boyer, J. F. Status of Coal Mine Drainage Technology. Coal
Mining and Processing, 9(l):56-59, 1972.
59. Minor, P. S. Organic Chemical Industry's Wastewaters -
Environmental Science & Technology, 8(7):620, 1974.
60. Clark, J. W., W. Viessman, Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water
Supply and Pollution Control, Second Edition. International
Textbook Company, Scranton, Pennsylvania, 1971. 661 pp.
84
-------
61. Miller, K. J. Flotation of Pyrite from Coal: Pilot Plant
Study. RI 7822, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1973. 15 pp.
62. Bituminous Coal Data, 1970 Edition (21st Edition). National
Coal Association, Washington, D.C.,'1970. pp. 73-80.
63. Falkie, T. V. Coal production & consumption in 1985. Coal
Mining and Processing, 13(1):51 and 76, 1976.
64. Grouhovd, G. H., and E. A. Sordreal. Technology and Use of
Low-Rank Coals in the U.S.A. In: Seminar on Technologies
for the Utilization of Low Calorie Fuels, Varna, Bulgaria,
April 20-22, 1976. pp. 40.
65. Ctvrtnicek, T. E., S. J. Rusek, and C. W. Sandy. Evaluation
of Low-Sulfur Western Coal Characteristics, Utilization, and
Combustion Experience. EPA-650/2-75-046, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
May 1975. 570 pp.
66. Environmental Impact of Fugure Energy Sources. Chemical
Engineering/Deskbook Issue, 21 October 1974. pp. 48.
67. Superbrains' Superproblem. Time Magazine, 107(4):58-67,
1977.
68. Lethi, M. T., J. Elliott, and E. P. Krajeski. Analysis of
Steam Coal Sales and Purchases. FEA/G-75/348, Federal
Energy Administration, Washington, D.C., April 1975.
139 pp.
69. Rieber, M., and R. Halcrow. U.S. Energy and Fuel Demand to
1985. CAC No. 108R, National Science Foundation, Washing-
ton, D.C., May 1974. 44 pp.
85
-------
APPENDIX A
COAL USAGE AND STORAGE STATISTICS
Bituminous and lignite coal usage and storage quantities per
state and per user site are listed in Table A-l. Anthracite
usage per user site is listed in Table A-2. The distribution of
anthracite, computed proportionally from the 1972 distribution
data, is presented in Table A-3. The storage of anthracite per
state is computed from a usage-weighted ratio (Ds/Do) of 0.18,
from Table A-2.
At preparation plants a 10-day supply of coal is estimated to
exist. In addition, it is assumed that these plants operate 250
days per year. Using the weighted ratio of 0.04 for (Ds/Do),
the storage quantities per preparation plant per state of Table
A-4 are obtained.
The total amount of coal stored per state is thus the sum of each
state's values in Tables A-l, A-3, and A-4. Total values are
presented in the text in Table 4.
86
-------
TABLE A-l.
BITUMINOUS AND LIGNITE USAGE AND STORAGE
PER USER SITE, PER STATE, 1975 (4)
(103 tons)
Usage
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hamphsire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Electric
utilities
19,246
257
3,873
6,431
972
5,451
14,619
34,853
28,715
5,560
3,220
25,724
3,979
288
21,802
8,782
1,573
17,858
1,203
1,468
4,444
1,054
1,367
7,422
6,155
19,825
5,069
12,528
35,778
4,497
2,134
Coke
plants
6,783
1,861
1,085
3,094
14,072
1,241
3,574
5,343
957
278
14
3,491
22,796
Others3
2,176
511
112
34
225
694
24
22
18
399
511
4,001
4,141
1,181
113
1,515
29
308
102
4,145
1,294
20
1,605
51
265
68
4
137
2,198
1,490
581
9,079
19
107
4,815
1,154
66
Storage
5,884
98
922
6
320
1,785
4
230
1,273
3,476
92
9,301
9,543
1,507
770
6,375
5
1,507
85
6,562
2,396
365
4,438
286
385
1,034
243
*% M "1
341
1,707
2,335
4,828
1,285
4,552
3
19
12,618
1,255
509
(continued)
87
-------
TOTALS
TABLE A-l (continued).
Usage
State
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Electric
utilities
24,659
9,070
1,996
8
3,987
3,718
26,336
11,598
7,283
Coke
plants
170
975
4,481
253
Others3
1,804
2,325
547
2
2,574
403
3,543
2,224
572
Storage
6,093
2,677
563
2
1,392
938
7,443
3,139
1,799
394,802
70,468
57,209 112,390
Except preparation plants.
Note.Blank areas indicate no coal used.
TABLE A-2. ANTHRACITE USAGE, 1975
Days of
User operation (Do)
Electric
utilities
365
Days of Usage,
supply (Ds) 10 3 tons
85
1,482
Residential and commercial
heating
Colliery5
Sintering
and pelletizing
Other uses
365
250
250
250
60
10
40
44
2,128
10
237
925
Personal communication with Ms. Williams, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Division of Fossil Fuels, 6 December 1976.
Assumed values.
88
-------
TABLE A-3. DISTRIBUTION OF ANTHRACITE
USAGE PER STATEa
(103 tons)
State UsageStorage
Delaware
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin
Other states
14
38
33
24
19
38
10
24
143
588
100
3,433
5
10
253
3
7
6
4
3
7
2
4
26
106
18
618
1
2
46
TOTALS 4,732 853
Personal communication with
Ms. Williams, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Division of Fossil Fuels,
6 December 1976.
TABLE A-4. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF COAL PRODUC-
TION AT PREPARATION PLANTS, 1972
Stockpiled
production, Number quantity,
State _ 10 3 tons _ of plants _ 10 3 tons
Alabama 20,814 20 832
Alaska 668 1 27
Colorado 5,522 3 221
Illinois 65,523 38 2,621
Indiana 25,949 11 1,038
Kentucky 121,187 50 4,847
Ohio 50,967 21 2,039
Oklahoma 2,624 6 105
Pennsylvania 75,939 71 3,037
Tennessee 11,260 2 450
Utah 4,802 7 192
Virginia 34,028 31 1,361
Washington 2,634 2 105
West Virginia 123,743 136 4,950
Other states3 49,725 9 1,989
TOTAL 23,814
aArizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming
89
-------
APPENDIX B
RAINFALL SIMULATOR
Drainage from coal stockpiles was studied using the rainfall
simulator arrangement shown in Figure 3 in the text. Use of this
unit allowed a number of coals from various regions to be studied
at minimum cost and time. The simulator enabled the control of
otherwise uncontrollable factors such as rainfall intensity,
duration, and frequency. In addition, interferences with sam-
pling were avoided.
The simulator consists of a tank, pump, and valve assembly which
feeds water to a manifold. Water proceeds through piping, elec-
tric valves, and nozzle arrangements into an array of modules
suspended in the air on a frame above a platform.
The 0.189-m3 (50-gal) plastic tank was cleaned prior to each run.
The centrifugal cast iron pump was bolted directly to the tank.
Cast iron was used because a pressure of 158.6 kPa (23 psi) was
required to operate the nozzles and achieve the pressure load
necessary to reach the modules. Pump pressure was controlled by
an in-line valve and a bypass valve which fed back into the tank.
Valves were constructed of brass. The pump and valves were
flushed prior to each run to remove any metal contamination. The
pump and valve arrangement was connected to a manifold with
rubber hosing.
The plastic manifold was connected to four piping branches
through electric valves which were shut on-off at the contact
panel. In this manner, the flow rate to each module was estab-
lished, since each piping branch connected to a manifold which
led piping to each module. A schematic of the piping arrangement
is shown in Figure B-l.
Each module was 0-37 m2 (2 ft2) and about 25 mm (1 in.) high.
They were completely enclosed and constructed of plastic. The
top of each module was fed by four nozzles connected by rubber
hosing to the piping (Figure B-l). From the bottom of each
module extended 400 24 mm (1-in.) pieces of plastic surgical
tubing. Water flowed through the tubing and exited as a droplet,
under the nozzle pressure. Each nozzle operated at 69 kPa
(10 psi), and a vacuum was drawn on each module to equalize
pressures.
90
-------
NOZZLES
FROM PUMP
Figure B-l. Piping arrangement of rainfall simulator, top view.
The coal samples were placed in plastic-covered metal pans on a
wooden frame structure as shown in Figure 3 . A rain gage was
attached to the sides of the supporting structure. The rainfall
intensity of this unit is normally altered by switches at a
remote control panel calibrated to the entire module array.
However, it was not necessary to use all the modules of Figure Bl
to rain upon the coal. Therefore, to minimize the distilled
water requirement, a number of the modules were closed off by
plugging the rubber tubing leading to them. The old system had
an area of 18.2 m2 (196 ft2) which at 13 mm/hr (1/2 in./hr) of
rain would have required 0.22 m2/hr (58.6 gal/hr) . With the
adjusted system the module area was 3 m2 (32 ft2), requiring
0.038 m3/hr (10 gal/hr) for 13 mm/hr (1/2 in./hr) of rain.
Within the bottom of each coal pan were four specially construc-
ted Teflonฎ drains which were flush with the bottom of the pan
with their ends protruding through the pan and connected to
6.4 mm (1/4 in.) Tygonฎ tubing. A plastic screen supported by
rubber stoppers was placed above the drains to keep the coal from
clogging the drains. A 9.1-kg (20-lb) sample of coal was then
placed within each pair.
The drains connected with the tubing into HNO s/t^SO^ -cleaned and
distilled-water-rinsed 0.0019 m3 (1/2 gal) glass jars. The jars
were placed beneath the pans to keep rainfall from diluting the
samples. In addition, each, jar top was protected with saran wrap
91
-------
to further avoid dilution. Each simulation was run until a vol-
ume of drainage equivalent to 13 mm/hr (1/2 in./hr) of rainfall
was collected.
The rainfall simulator was flushed with distilled water prior to
every run. In addition, a background sample was collected during
each run, through an empty plastic-covered pan. This sample was
then analyzed to determine the background levels.
The analysis of the distilled water used in the rainfall simu-
lator is presented in Table B-l. These values represent the
level prior to processing through the simulation apparatus. Dis-
tilled water was required to avoid the treatment chemicals pres-
ent in conventional tap supplies.
TABLE B-l. ANALYSIS OF RAINFALL WATER
Parameter/component Concentration, g/m3
Jackson turbidity units <0.1
Color units <5
Threshold odor number <1
Arsenic <0.01
Barium <0.1
Cadmium <0.001
Chloride <0.1
Chromium <0.001
Copper 0.035
Cyanide <0.01
Iron <0.001
Lead <0.013
Manganese <0.001
Nitrate <0.1
Phenols <0.001
Selenium 0.01
Silver <0.001
Sulfate <1.0
Total dissolved solids <1.0
Zinc 0.002
Fluoride <0.01
Samples collected in the battles were refrigerated and trans-
ported immediately for analysis. The pH was measured in the
field and all analyses were conducted using standard methods for
the examination of water and wastewater (29). The organic
materials were analyzed using a gas chromatograph mass
spectrometer.
92
-------
APPENDIX C
SAMPLING RESULTS
Fresh, aged, and aged and moistened coal samples from six coal
regions were placed under the rainfall simulator. A background
sample was also obtained of each simulated rainfall. Analyzing
fresh, aged, and aged and moistened coal enabled observation of
effluent concentration deviation with these factors. This devia-
tion versus time reflects the variation for all coal regions.
The deviation of average effluent concentration within a single
coal region was observed with an Interior Western coal. Both a
fresh and an aged coal were obtained from the same mine in this
region.
Representative coal samples from seven states (two samples from
Appalachia) were obtained fresh from the mines. The eighth coal
sample was the aged Interior Western coal mentioned above. Three
simulation runs were undertaken. The first run was used to ob-
serve the effluent concentration levels from coals unexposed to
rainfall for at least 30 days. A second run was performed on an
aged and a fresh coal after they remained moist following rain-
fall the previous day. The third run followed 15 days without
rainfall. The coals studied and their sample labels are listed
in Table C-l. These runs provide the conditions and sample popu-
lation necessary for obtaining average effluent concentrations.
A background sample from each run was also analyzed for all the
effluents under study.
TABLE C-l. COAL SAMPLES STUDIED UNDER RAINFALL SIMULATOR
Sample labels per simulation run
Coal region
Appalachian
Great Northern Plains
Western
Interior Western
Interior Eastern
Southwestern
Background
State
Alabama
Eastern Kentucky
Montana
Wyoming
Missouri
Missouri (weathered)
Illinois
New Mexico
Run 1
Dl
Cl
Al
El
HI
Fl
Gl
Bl
BK1
Run 2
C2
F2
BK2
Run 3
D3
C3a, C3b, C3c
A3
E3
H3
F3
G3
B3
BK3
93
-------
The results of the analysis performed for each labeled coal
sample (Table C-l) for runs 1, 2, and 3 are presented in Tables
C-2, C-3, and C-4, respectively. The detection limits for those
inorganic materials listed in these tables as not detected (i.e.,
NDL) are as follows:
Detection
Material limit
Total phosphate as P, g/m3 0.03
Beryllium, mg/m3 2
Cadmium, mg/m3 0.6
Chromium, mg/m3 10
Silver, mg/m3 3
Thallium, mg/m3 100
Mercury, mg/m3 0.01
Cyanide, g/m3 0.02
94
-------
TABLE C-2. COAL STORAGE AREA EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS, RUN 1
Ul
Effluent parameter
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate as N
Total phosphate as P
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
pH
Chloride
Total organic carbon
Units
g/m3
g/m
g/m3
mg/m
mg/m
g/m3
mg/m
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
g/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
g/m3
g/m3
Montana
coal Al
316
2,960
600
160
3.65
NDL3
<20
909
0.24
0.06
<1
8.9
NDL
NDL
NDL
30
75
10
<3
NDL
110
30.8
NDL
7.3
273.8
New Mexico
coal Bl
2,608
472
275
2,900
70
<0.05
NDL
<20
1,137
0.14
NDL
14
13.4
NDL
NDL
NDL
50
85
55
46
NDL
135
2.3
NDL
6.7
167.7
Kentucky
coal cl
736
272
95
750
10
<2.46
NDL
<10
596
0.15
NDL
<1
146
NDL
NDL
NDL
10
80
65
83
NDL
75
1.5
NDL
6.4
177.1
Alabama
coal Dl
376
140
58
750
15
1.51
NDL
<10
580
0.06
NDL
1
<10.3
NDL
NDL
NDL
50
10
5
<3
NDL
75
2.3
NDL
7.0
113.3
Wyoming
coal El
3,384
356
360
1,500
480
<0.05
NDL
<10
2,211
3.45
NDL
29
16.4
NDL
NDL
NDL
30
75
40
33
NDL
95
10
NDL
7.3
245.1
Missouri
weathered
coal Fl
1,668
16,444
14,500
3,100,000
55,000
433
NDL
<5
1,100
0.06
NDL
12
31
NDL
875
NDL
6,750
530
33,200
62
NDL
107,000
9.2
NDL
2.4
8.90
43.1
Illinois
coal Gl
564
1,356
800
1,000
270
4.78
NDL
<5
694
0.44
0.06
16
13.4
NDL
NDL
NDL
35
65
60
28
NDL
165
NDL
NDL
7.7
76.5
Missouri ,
fresh
coal HI
276
504
650
40,000
840
1.7
NDL
<10
149
0.08
NDL
4.4
19.4
NDL
NDL
NDL
65
260
1,480
<3
NDL
170
11.5
NDL
3.1
55.8
Background
BK1
12
72
28
350
20
6.5
NDL
<5
8
0.11
0.08
<1
5.2
NDL
NDL
NDL
80
<10
<10
<3
NDL
175
NDL
NDL
7.4
3.9
No detectable level.
-------
TABLE C-3. COAL STORAGE AREA EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS, RUN 2
CTi
Effluent parameter
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate as N
Total phosphate as P
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
pH
Chloride
Total organic carbon
Units
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
g/m3
mg/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
g/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
g/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
g/m3
g/m3
Missouri
weathered
coal F2
5,188
5,500
4,900
990,000
16,000
1.3
11
<20
2,880
0.18
NDL
38
12.4
NDL
280
NDL
2,240
310
9,600
70
NDL
31,000
NDL
NDL
2.59
3.20
6.5
Kentucky
coal C2
5,408
348
125
7,750
20
98.5
NDLa
<30
4,625
0.16
NDL
16
5.5
NDL
NDL
NDL
180
120
150
90
NDL
110
NDL
NDL
6.38
4.50
65.6
Background
BK2
12
12
4
70
<10
3.78
NDL
<5
4
0.02
NDL
<1
2.1
NDL
NDL
NDL
10
<10
<10
<3
NDL
70
NDL
NDL
6.79
2.20
2.4
No detectable level.
-------
TABLE C-4. COAL STORAGE AREA EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS, RUN 3
to
Effluent
parameter
Total suspended
solids
Total dissolved
solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free silica
Cyanide
BOD 5
COD
Nitrate as N
Total phosphate
as p
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
PH
Chloride
Total organic
carbon
No detectable
Units
9/m3
g/m3
9/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
9/m3
9/m3
9/m3
9/m3
9/m3
9/m3
g/m3
g/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
g/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
g/m3
g/m3
level.
Montana
coal A3
1,048
648
265
2,810
170
3.03
a
NDL
5
1,750
0.15
HDL
<0.0005
0.016
NDL
NDL
HDL
40
60
40
<0.002
NDL
150
25
NDL
6.6
481
New Mexico Background
coal B3 BK3
484
344
133
8,560
60
2.08
NDL
<5
413
0.30
0.03
<0.0005
0.016
HDL
NDL
NDL
120
45
30
<0.002
NDL
205
1.9
NDL
6.5
158
3
32
1
90
30
1.72
HDL
<5
4
NDL
0.04
<0.0005
0.002
SDL
NDL
NDL
60
25
10
<0.002
NDL
90
NDL
NDL
6.4
4.4
Kentucky
coal C3a
2,044
844
58
4,290
100
2.50
NDL
<5
2,059
0.21
NDL
0.0005
0.027
NDL
NDL
NDL
145
70
60
<0.002
NDL
160
NDL
NDL
5.9
700
Kentucky
coal C3b
1,140
180
55
2,730
50
2.05
NDL
<5
784
0.21
HDL
<0.0005
0.023
HDL
NDL
NDL
140
80
70
<0.002
NDL
125
NDL
NDL
5.9
318
Kentucky
coal C3c
442
196
71
1,560
80
2.32
0.018
<5
406
0.22
NDL
<0.0005
0.020
NDL
HDL
NDL
80
80
60
0.002
NDL
145
HDL
NDL
5.9
185
Alabama
coal D3
522
120
64
5,020
100
2.28
NDL
<5
838
0.08
NDL
<0.0005
0.014
NDL
NDL
NDL
75
50
90
<0.002
NDL
145
2.0
HDL
6.6
231
Wyoming
coal E3
1,602
520
148
15,300
360
4.38
NDL
5
1,454
0/25
0.05
<0.0005
0.006
NDL
10
70
75
100
80
<0.002
NDL
475
NDL
NDL
7.2
400
Missouri
weathered
coal F3
1,946
4,868
3,900
1,400,000
13,000
5.0
0.006
<5
992
0.14
0.03
0.114
0.018
NDL
260
80
2,100
530
6,500
<0.002
NDL
31,000
NDL
NDL
2.7
1.8
310
Illinois
coal G3
1,978
1,020
525
17,700
650
3.54
HDL
5
2,430
0.34
NDL
0.050
0.005
NDL
NDL
NDL
100
85
140
<0.002
NDL
390
NDL
HDL
7.5
692
Missouri
fresh
coal H3
228
600
410
124,000
4,800
0.58
NDL
<5
171
0.22
0.04
<0.0005
0.011
NDL
10
50
85
100
350
<0.002
NDL
610
NDL
NDL
3.2
56
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS, ORGANICS
The highest TOC level (sample Al) from simulation run 1 was used
to determine the presence and level of toxic organics. The back-
ground sample for run 1 was also analyzed to determine the or-
ganic levels in rainfall water. Both samples were extracted with
methylene chloride to form two fractions. The first fraction
contained basic and neutral compounds and the second, acidic
compounds (mainly phenolics). The procedures utilized followed
the protocols of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory which advises and aids the Water Effluent Guidelines Divi-
sion of EPA (27) . Organic components were characterized by a gas
chromatograph-mass spectrometer (GC-MS). Primary emphasis was
given to identifying those toxic compounds on the EPA Toxic
Substances List as per the consent decree (27). Although other
compounds were observed, neither time nor funding was available
for their identification. The consent decree list contains
representative toxic substances, but is not a comprehensive list.
The results of the analyses were reported in the text in Table
23. No phenolic compounds were observed at the greater than or
equal to 10-mg/m3 (greater than or equal to 10-ug/& [ppb])level.
Other components of the chromatogram were observed with retention
times greater than or equal to 29 min. These components are Cjg
hydrocarbons. In addition, components not on the toxic sub-
stances list but possibly present include CQ hydrocarbons, highly
blanched adipates, di-n-butyl peroxide, and isobutylisobutyrate.
The presence of the peroxide is considered possible expecially
because of the coal-oxygen reaction on the pile surface discussed
in Section 3.
The spectra display of the GC-MS analysis is presented in Figure
D-l. In this display each toxic substance is identified and cor-
responds to a particular spectrum and mass/charge ratio per com-
pound. Using acenaphthene from a coal drainage sample as an
example, Figure D-2 illustrates spectrum 151. In Figure D-2, the
mass/charge ratio of 154 for acenaphthene is observed. Other
peaks for compounds with different mass/charge values (dissoci-
ation fragments) are observed. The 154 mass/charge ratio of
spectrum 151 is established by EPA to represent the level of
acenaphthene. The display of mass/charge 154 is presented in
Figure D-3. The area of 154 is computed and printed on this
figure. This area (1577) is compared with an acenaphthene pres-
ent. The bottom graph of Figure D-3 is the spectra display.
98
-------
z
o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10
15 20
TIME, min
25
30
35
40
Figure D-l. Spectra displayed of toxic organics
' within coal leachate and drainage.
~
OL
oe.
Z3
o
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
n
FRN 21010
LARGST4:
LAST 4 :
-
-
-
-
-
1 1 1
20
-
-
-
-
i i i
SPECTRUM 151
152.9, 100.0
174.8, .9
i illl II
' 1 1
40
i i
RETENTION TIME 15.1
153.9,87.3 151.9,57.1 56.9,31.1
191.0, 23.3 206.1, 3.4 207.0, 2.8
I 1, i III
1 1
1
, , , I, ,
1 1 t I 1 I I 1 1
60 80 100 120 140 160
MASS /CHARGE (M/C)
i i
Illl
180
Figure D-2,
200 220 240 260
MASS / CHARGE (M/C )
280
300
320
Mass/charge levels for spectrum 151,
(M/C - 154) .
99
-------
152.0
o
o
^ 153.0
to
154.0
J L
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
TIME, min
Figure D-3. Ion current levels per mass/charge.
This same analysis was performed on the rainwater and subtracted
from this coal drainage value.
The highest TOC level from simulation run 1 was for Montana coal
(274 g/m3). To check the conclusions drawn from these results,
another coal area was evaluated using sample C, Kentucky coal.
This coal represents the region of Eastern Ohio, West Virginia,
and Eastern Kentucky. Three parallel samples were taken for this
coal during run 3. The TOC levels were 700 g/m3, 318 g/m3, and
185 g/m3. All three samples were combined and analyzed for toxic
organics. The results of the analysis are given in Figure D-4.
The highest peak is for di-iso-octylphthalate. Although several
organic species were detected, no toxic organics were found at
levels above the background level. In addition, some of the
toxic species identified at very low levels in the Montana coal
leachate were not found in the Kentucky sample.
For the acid fraction of the leachate, no obvious compounds could
be identified much less separated. The spectrum is characteris-
tic of a general hydrocarbon oil. Since the internal standard
was buried in the spectra, no conclusions could be drawn from
these results.
100
-------
a
Q_
co
o
o
10 15 20 25 30 35
TIME, min
40
Figure D-4. Spectra display of toxic organics
within Kentucky coal leachate.
101
-------
GLOSSARY
acid mine drainage: Pyritic oxidation and production of an
acidic waste in mines which drains in rainwater and runoff
into waterways.
activated sludge: Sludge that has been aerated and subjected to
bacterial action, used to remove organic matter from waste-
water.
aerobic: Able to live or grow only where free oxygen is present.
aged coal: Weathered coal maintained in intermediate and long-
term stockpiles.
anaerobic: Able to live and grow in the absence of free oxygen.
anthracite: Highest coal rank; a very hard coal of low volatile
content.
aromatic acids: Acidic benzene ring compounds.
base flow: Groundwater flow that passes through the bottom layer
of a coal stockpile.
biochemical oxygen demand: Measure of the amount of oxygen con-
sumed in the biological processes that break down organic
matter in water.
bituminous: Coal rank just below anthracite; coal of medium
volatility.
carbon adsorption: Treatment of liquid organic wastes through
a column of activated carbon which adsorbs the organics.
chemical oxygen demand: Measure of the amount of oxygen required
to oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic compounds in
wastewater expressed as the amount of oxidant used in a
test.
chlorination: Application of chlorine to wastewater for disin-
fection or oxidation of undesirable compounds.
coagulation: Clumping of particles in order to settle out
impurities and produce a soft, semisolid mass of sludge.
102
-------
coefficient of runoff: Variable used to represent the infiltra-
tion/transpiration and other runoff characteristics of
various drainage basin terrains.
colloidal particles: Small insoluble nondiffusible particles
larger than molecules but small enough to remain suspended
in liquid without settling.
dissolved oxygen deficit: Loss of oxygen dissolved in wastewater
due to BOD loading from a source.
drainage: Precipitation waters that seep through a coal
stockpile.
drainage basin: Watershed catchment area drained by river
systems.
electrodialysis: Separation of soluble materials from water by
means of their unequal diffusion through permeable membranes
enhanced by the application of electrical current.
facultative bacteria: Bacteria capable of living under more than
one set of conditions (i.e., conditions other than those
usually encountered).
filamentous: Threadlike in structure.
flocculation: Agglomeration of colloidal or suspended matter
after coagulation by stirring and collection into small
masses or floes.
flotation: Clarification of wastewater accomplished by using air
to float suspended matter to the surface.
free silica: Crystalline silica defined as silicon dioxide
(Si02) arranged in a fixed pattern (as opposed to an
amorphous arrangement).
fresh coal: Coal recently mined and put into storage.
gelatinous: Very viscous; having the consistency of gelatin
(jelly).
hydrograph: Chart of runoff levels versus precipitation.
hydrologic: Pertaining to the study and description of the
water cycle.
infiltration: Rainfall runoff water that passes through the
soil.
103
-------
interception: Runoff water that is stopped or interrupted in
its flow.
ion exchange: Wastewater treatment in which ions of a given
species are displaced from an insoluble exchange material
by ions of a different species.
Izzard's method: A method consisting of defining a coal pile
configuration, dividing it into strips of equal width and
slope, and integrating to determine the runoff volume.
leachate: Liquid resulting from water percolating through the
coal pile and extracting dissolved materials from it.
lignite: Soft, brown-black coal of high volatility which is very
close to peat in structure.
marcasite: Crystallized iron pyrites (FeS2).
mode: Value that occurs most frequently in a given series.
neutralization: Destruction of the active properties of a waste-
water by counteracting the ionic activity, either with a
base or acid.
oxalic acid: Colorless, crystalline acid (COOH)2 formed from the
oxalis plant.
ozonation: Oxidizing a wastewater with ozone, an allotropic form
of oxygen (03).
physiographic: Pertaining to the features and phenomena of
nature.
protozoa: One-celled animals from the lowest division of the
animal kingdom, the phylum of protozoans.
pyrite: Iron sulfide (FeS2); a lustrous, yellow mineral or any
of various metallic sulfides.
pyritic oxidation: Chemical reaction of pyrite with oxygen.
rational method: Hydrologic technique for determining the runoff
rate from a drainage basin.
reverse osmosis: Wastewater treatment in which the contaminated
liquid is pressurized through a semipermeable membrane to
separate water from pollutants.
runoff: Rainfall that flows from and out of the drainage basin.
sedimentation: Settling out of solids by gravity.
104
-------
slacking: Rapid changes in coal pile moisture content caused by
alternating sun and rain.
subbituminous: Brown-black coal of low to medium volatility.
surface flow: Storm-induced runoff waters.
total organic carbon (TOG): Level of carbon (excluding car-
bonates) within a wastewater.
transpiration: Process by which rainfall water gives off
moisture to the atmosphere.
trickling filter: Device for the biological or secondary treat-
ment of wastewater consisting of a bed of rocks or stones
that support bacterial growth; wastewater is trickled over
the bed enabling the bacteria to break down organic wastes.
unicellular: Having or consisting of a single cell, such as
protozoa.
variance ratio: Ratio of the highest to lowest average value of
coal analyses.
water quality criteria: Levels of pollutants that affect the
suitability of water for a given use.
105
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read /nitructiont on the revent before completing}
V REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-004m
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SOURCE ASSESSMENT: WATER POLLUTANTS
FROM COAL STORAGE AREAS
6. REPORT DATE
May 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. A. Wachter and T. R. Blackwood
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
MRC-DA-748
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
IBB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1874
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab-Cinn., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final, 11/76-12/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
lERL-Ci project leader for this report is John F. Martin (513/684-4417)
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes a study of water pollution levels that result
from coal stockpiles maintained outdoors. A representative source was
defined to characterize the pollution levels. Effluent data was obtained
by placing coals, collected from various regions in the U.S., under a
rainfall simulator. Drainage samples were analyzed for water quality
parameters, organic and inorganic substances, and pollutants covered by
effluent limitations. Coal drainage effluent concentrations, rates, and
factors were determined. Hydrologic relationships were used to calculate
the diluted concentrations entering a waterway. The ratio of this level
to water quality criteria was determined as an indication of the poten-
tial environmental impact.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Water pollution
Leachinq
Runoff
Water quality
Water pollution control
Stationary sources
Coal piles
68D
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
122
20 SECURITY CLASS (TM,page>
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (t-73)
106
4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTO6 OFFICE; 1978 757-140 /132 7
------- |