vvEPA
United States Industrial Environmental Research EPA 600 7 79 073a
Environmental Protection Laboratory February 1979
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1
Environmental
Assessment of Coal
Cleaning Processes:
Master Test Plan
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series Tnese nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of. and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide-range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield. Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-073a
February 197S
Environmental Assessment of
Coal Cleaning Processes:
Master Test Plan
by
D.A. Tolle, D.W. Neuendorf, and P. Van Voris
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus. Ohio 43201
Contract No. 68-02-2163
Task No. 451
Program Element No. EHE623A
EPA Project Officer: James D. Kilgroe
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
FOREWORD
Many elements and chemical compounds are known to be toxic to man and
other biological species, but our knowledge concerning the levels and con-
ditions under which these substances are toxic is extremely limited. Little
is known concerning the emission of these pollutants from industrial processes
and the mechanism by which they are transported, transformed, dispersed or
accumulated in our environment.
Portions of the Federal Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery
Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act require EPA to identify and
regulate hazardous or toxic substances which result from man's industrial
activities. Industrial pollutants are often identified only after harmful
health or ecological effects are noted. Remedial actions are costly, the
damage to human and other biological populations is often irreversible and
the persistence of some environmental contaminants may endanger future
populations.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is responsible for health
and ecological research, studies concerning the transportation and fate of
pollutants, and the development of technologies for controlling industrial
pollutants. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, an ORD organi-
zation, is responsible for development of pollution control technology and
conducts a large environmental assessment program. The primary objectives of
this program are:
1. The development of information on the quantities of
toxic pollutants emitted from various industrial
processes—Information needed to prioritize health
and ecological research efforts.
2. The identification of industrial pollutant emissions
which pose a clearly evident health or ecological
risk and which should be regulated.
3. The evaluation and development of technologies for
controlling pollution from these toxic substances.
The coal cleaning environmental assessment program has as its specific
objectives the evaluation of pollution control problems which are unique to
coal preparation, storage and transportation. The coal preparation industry
is a mature, yet changing industry and in recent years significant achieve-
ments have been made in pollution abatement. The environmental assessment
work will document existing environmental regulations, characterize pollu-
tants, and evaluate the adequacy of commercial pollution control techniques.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This plan for source testing presents the objectives and general structure
of a field testing program designed for an environmental assessment of coal
cleaning processes. The document is intended for use in preparation of test
plans for individual coal cleaning sites and as a means of showing the reader
the common thread which runs through a series of tests at various sites.
Included in this report is a section on the background and objectives of
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories' overall program for EPA entitled "Environ-
mental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes". The report's major emphasis
is on the philosophy of the field testing program and the elements of sampling
and sample analysis which are common to all test sites.
The specific objectives of the field testing program are (1) to produce
supporting data for the overall assessment program by characterizing process
and effluent streams at selected coal cleaning plants, (2) to support trade-
off studies with field data that will help evaluate and compare the effec-
tiveness of pollution control equipment and waste management techniques
used at various types of coal cleaning plants and their associated
facilities, and (3) to make environmental source assessments of process
and effluent streams using a three-phased approach developed by IERL/RTP.
The phased approach for coal cleaning facilities selected in each
of ten site categories will eventually involve three distinct levels of
sampling and analytical effort. These three levels are linked such that
Level 1 identifies problem areas that are assessed by the more rigorous
Level 2 tests. Level 3 involves long-term monitoring of "key" indicator
parameters which have been identified in the environmentally hazardous
streams tested by Level 2 techniques.
Results of the environmental source assessments will provide the
following types of information: (1) a systematic evaluation of the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of selected process
streams and all effluent streams, (2) predictions of the potential
effects of those streams on the environment, (3) ranking of the streams
iii
-------
according to their relative biological toxicity, and (4) identification
of pollution control technology which needs further research and de-
velopment .
Since the environmental source assessments for each of the selected
coal cleaning plants will be similar, the elements common to all or most
of the test plans for these facilities are presented in this report to
facilitate the planning and preparation of individual test plans for
each plant. The elements discussed include potential sample locations,
collection techniques, and analysis techniques.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ii
ABSTRACT iii
CONTENTS v
FIGURES vii
TABLES viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix
INTRODUCTION 1
General Objectives of the Field Testing Program 2
Specific Objectives of the Source Test Program 4
Testing Philosophy: The Phased Approach 4
Level 1 Sampling and Analysis 6
Level 2 Sampling and Analysis 8
Level 3 Sampling and Analysis 11
Benefits of the Field Testing Program to the Coal Preparation
Industry 12
Benefits of Site Sampling to Cooperating Facility Owners ... 13
ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL FIELD TEST PLANS 15
Potential Sampling Locations 15
Water and Slurry Filtrate Quality Program 23
Process Water and Slurry Sampling 30
Surface Runoff and Leachate Sampling 31
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Groundwater Sampling 31
Analytical Techniques 32
Air Quality Program 34
Fugitive Dust Sampling 35
Stack Sampling 35
Analytical Techniques 37
Coal, Refuse, and Slurry Solids Quality Program 40
Coal Sampling 40
Siurry Solids Sampling 41
Refuse '»i£,,>osal Evaluation 41
Analytical Techniques 42
REFERENCE? 44
APPENDIX A. TEST PLANNING AND CONDUCT GUIDELINES 46
APPENDIX B. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL 1 PHYSICAL
AND CHEMICAL TFSTS 54
APPENDIX C. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL 1 HEALTH
AND ECOLOGICAL TESTS 61
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number page
1 Overview of potential sample types and their sources at
coal cleaning plants 16
2 Potential air sampling locations 17
3 Potential water sampling locations 18
4 Potential slurry sampling locations 19
5 Potential solid sampling locations ^0
6 Block flow diagram of generalized coal preparation plant and
associated facilities showing potential sampling locations . 22
7 Flow diagram of a Type A crushing and sizing plant showing
potential sampling locations 24
8 Flow diagram of a Type B coarse-size coal beneficiation
plant showing potential sampling locations 25
9 Flow diagram of a Type F concentrating table and hydrocy-
clone plant showing potential sampling locations 26
10 Flow diagram of a Type G concentrating table and froth-
flotation plant showing potential sampling locations .... 27
11 Flow diagram of a Type H dense-medium cyclone and hydrocy-
clone plant showing potential sampling locations 28
12 Flow diagram of a Type I dense-medium cyclone and froth-
flotation plant showing potential sampling locations .... 29
A-l Process wastewater sampling 47
A-2 Surface runoff and leachate sampling 48
A-3 Groundwater sampling ^9
A-4 Fugitive dust sampling 50
A-5 Stack sampling 51
A-6 Coal and slurry solids sampling 52
A-7 Refuse disposal evaluation 53
vii
-------
TABLES
Number ' Page
1 Generalized coal cleaning plant Level 1 sampling points ... 21
2 Potential Level 1 water and slurry filtrate analysis
techniques 33
3 Potential Level 1 analysis techniques for fugitive dust and
stack samples 38
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted as a part of the Battelle's Columbus
Laboratories' ongoing program, "Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Processes", which is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park
(IERL/RTP), North Carolina. The contributions of the Program Manager,
Mr. G. Ray Smithson, Jr., and the Deputy Program Manager, Mr. Alexis W.
Lemmon, Jr., are gratefully acknowledged.
The authors would also like to express their thanks for critical
review and editing of this report to Mrs. Dorothy J. Wallace.
The advice and counsel of the EPA Project Officer, Mr. James D.
Kilgroe, and other IERL/RTP staff members were invaluable in performance
of this work.
ix
-------
INTRODUCTION
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories (BCL) is performing an environmental
source assessment of coal cleaning processes under Contract No. 68-02-2163
with the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park
(IERL/RTP), North Carolina, of the Office of Research and Development of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The broad objective of Battelle's
program with EPA is to perform a comprehensive assessment of the environmental
consequences of coal cleaning (physical and chemical) and the disposal of
refuse from coal cleaning processes. In addition, combined techniques to
achieve environmental goals, such as coal cleaning combined with stack gas
scrubbing to reduce the pollution ootential of coal-fired power plants, will
be reviewed. Increased use of both physical and chemical coal cleaning
techniques for the removal of sulfur and ash-forming constituents is extremely
important in an era of growing dependence on coal as a major domestic source
of energy. The advantage of coal cleaning processes is the removal of sulfur,
ash, and a variety of other unwanted materials from the raw coal prior to any
oxidation or reduction reactions.
In order to optimize the overall control of emissions from plants that
use coal, it is necessary to assess the pollution potential of coal cleaning
processes, allied operations, and—in certain cases—the end uses of coal.
This optimization process will also include an economic evaluation of the
benefits derived from coal cleaning, e.g., reduced cost of ash transportation,
simplified boiler design, reduced boiler downtime, smaller dust collectors and
ash-disposal systems, and reduced costs for SO- control.
The broad goals of this program are to establish a strong base of
engineering, ecological, pollution control, and cost data which can be used
to determine which coal cleaning processes are most acceptable from both an
environmental and an economic viewpoint. This information can also be used
to identify areas where development of pollution control technology is needed.
-------
General Objectives of the Field Testing Program
A field testing program is being planned at selected coal cleaning
facilities throughout the United States with the objective of supplying
information on the pollutants associated with effluents from a variety of
such facilities and their associated coal transportation, storage,
and refuse disposal areas. Sampling sites will be located upstream and
downstream of pollution control equipment and points of application of
waste treatment techniques to determine the effectiveness of these pieces
of equipment or techniques in reducing the potential pollution loading
on the environment. Effluents of interest include leachate and runoff
from coal storage and refuse disposal piles; leachate from slurry holding
and disposal ponds; and fugitive dust or gases from coal transportation
and handling, storage piles, refuse piles, and plant operations. Thermal
dryer gases and participates will be sampled at selected plants where the
clean coal is dried. In summary, the objectives of the field testing
program are:
• to produce supporting data for the overall assessment pro-
gram from coal cleaning plants in a variety of environmental
and technological situations, specifically data on effluent
streams which may impact the environment;
• to support trade-off studies with field data that will help
evaluate and compare the effectiveness of pollution control
equipment and waste management techniques used at various types
of coal cleaning plants and their associated facilities; and
• to make environmental source assessments of process and
effluent streams using a three-phased approach developed
by IERL/RTP (see the following section on Testing Philo-
sophy: The Phased Approach).
In order to understand the scope of the field testing program, it is
important to discuss a similar, but more comprehensive, approach that is
not part of the current plan. "Environmental impact assessment" has been
widely used to determine the effects of industrial operations ever since the
enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act. This "broad brush"
approach frequently includes—among other topics—a comprehensive character!-
-------
zation of air, water, and biological quality in the general vicinity of the
facility under study. """ abnormal conditions exist in these areas, field
experiments may be conducted to determine which pollutants from specified
effluent streams are causing the ecological effect.
The current field testing program is intended to determine the physical,
chemical, and relative toxic characteristics of effluent streams sampled at
their respective sources, rather than to assess the environmental quality in
the general vicinity of the cleaning plant. Therefore, results of the present
testing program cannot be used to evaluate cause/effect relationships between
effluent streams and ecological effects observed in the field. Laboratory
tests, however, will provide information on the relative toxicity of effluents
to aquatic and terrestrial biota. In addition, long-term objectives include
those directed at the detailed analysis of cause/effect relationships in the
field. Future field studies of this type will require an analysis of effluent
streams after they have had a chance to disperse, degrade, biomagnify, and
intermix with other effluents in the surrounding environment.
In order to select coal cleaning plants for the field testing program,
a site selection scheme has been devised which will assist in the selection
of plants in ten site categories. The site categories are based on four
variables considered to be of prime importance in determining the pollution
potential of any given coal cleaning plant: (1) acid neutralization
potential of the soil in the plant area, (2) pyritic sulfur content of the
raw coal, (3) average annual precipitation, and (4) the relative
sophistication of coal cleaning technology. Although there are 16
possible combinations of these four variables, coal cleaning plants
presently exist only in situations corresponding to ten of the possible
combinations.
Within each of the ten site categories, site selection is being accom-
plished by imposing a series of constraints to assure that specific kinds
of questions are answered about pollution potential and pollution control
for the coal cleaning processes. For example, one of the most important
constraints relates to the type of pollution control technology employed at
coal cleaning plants and their associated facilities. Plants using relatively
high-efficiency pollution control technology are considered to be the first
choice for a field testing location in a particular site category. Sampling
upstream and downstream of these high-efficiency control devices should give
-------
an idea of both the "best" and "worst" case effluent streams likely to be
emitted by coal cleaning plants in that site category. In addition, extrapo-
lation to plants with less sophisticated pollution control technology will
require testing of process equipment on streams in a high technology facility
because in a less sophisticated plant this same equipment might represent
pollution control equipment.
Specific Objectives of the Source Test Program
The source test program describe'd in this document is intended to facilitate
the planning and preparation of site-specific field tests at coal cleaning
plants selected in each of ten site categories. As such, it identifies the
potential pollution sources associated with a generalized coal cleaning plant
and suggests the media likely to be impacted by the effluents from these
sources. This information will simplify the process of selecting sampling
locations critical to an environmental source assessment of each of the
chosen coal cleaning plants and their associated facilities. At the same
time, this master plan will ensure that each of the site-specific field tests
conforms to the overall EPA program needs and objectives.
Since the site-specific test plans are all parts of a unified data acquisi-
tion program, most of the steps involved in planning and executing tests at each
facility are the same. Also, many of the sampling locations, techniques, and
equipment will be common to most of the site-specific tests. This document
identifies these common elements and describes how they fit into the overall
thrust and direction of the test program. A compilation of these common
elements in one reference source will expedite the preparation of site-specific
test plans by providing a generalized testing framework that can be modified
to fit each facility chosen for sampling.
Testing Philosophy; The Phased Approach
The approach for the field testing program is to follow the three-phased
sampling and analytical strategy developed by the Process Measurement Branch
of IERL/RTP. Separate manuals are available from EPA for the chemical
sampling and analysis techniques'1' and the bioassay sampling and analysis
techniques(2). An overview of the development of the strategy, the concepts
employed, the suggested measurement techniques, and the estimated costs for
-------
implementation of the tests are presented in a third EPA document. In all
three of these EPA reports, the first phase (Level 1 testing) is explained in
the greatest detail. The Level 1 techniques described in these reports have
(4)
been revised and a second edition of the Level 1 manual is in press and
should be available soon. A Level 2 manual describing inorganic and
organic sampling and analysis techniques is also in draft form. An interim re-
port on Level 2 organic sampling and analysis procedures was recently
released by EPA.
The three-phased environmental source assessment strategy has been
designed to obtain the following information: (1) a systematic inventory
of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of selected
process streams and all effluent streams, (2) predictions of the potential
effects of those streams on the environment, (3) ranking of the streams
according to their relative biological toxicity, and (4) identification of
(3)
pollution control technology which needs further research and development.
Studies by EPA have shown that the most cost-effective source assessment
strategy is one in which statistically rigorous sampling and highly quantita-
tive analysis are performed only on streams demonstrated to be potentially
hazardous by a generalized survey program. Also, it is not sound practice
to plan a detailed sampling program until (1) the general characteristics of
process and waste streams are known, and (2) the nature of unfavorable reactions
within samples is considered (e.g., chemical reaction, volatility loss).
Thus, each of the source assessments planned for coal cleaning plants will
involve a series of iterative tests where each additional test focuses
resources and efforts on the pollutants and streams of greatest concern.
The phased approach planned for coal cleaning facilities selected in
each of the ten site categories will ultimately involve three separate levels
of sampling and analytical effort. These three levels are linked such that
Level 1 identifies the questions and problem areas that must be assessed by
the more rigorous Level 2 tests and Level 3 uses long-term monitoring of
the "key" indicator parameters identified in the environmentally-hazardous
streams measured by Level 2 techniques. The Level 3 results are then used for
control device design and development. A more detailed discussion of each
level is provided in the following sections.
-------
Level 1 Sampling and Analysis
Level 1 sampling involves the collection of grab samples at all potential
effluent locations. Although some precautions- are taken to ensure that
samples are not biased, the techniques of multiple point, isokinetic or
flow proportional sampling are not rigorously applied. Usually a single
sample of each stream is collected under average process operating conditions
or under each condition of interest. When a series of separate samples are
taken at one location, they are combined to produce a single "average" sample
(3)
for analysis.
Certain modifications appear desirable in the application of the normal
Level 1 approach to the design of test plans for each of the coal cleaning
plants selected. The four modifications described below will fit better the
needs of the coal cleaning program and will increase the effectiveness of the
three-phased strategy by decreasing the cost of Level 1 sampling and analysis
and by reducing the time required to obtain Level 2 data.
•
These modifications are based on the premise that sequential sampling and
analysis will take place at a series of coal cleaning plants. In other words,
data from Level 1 testing at the first facility will be used to design the
test plan for the second facility, and data from the second facility will be
used to design the test plan for the third facility, etc. A similar se-
quential sampling and test design approach will be followed for Level 2
sampling, although Level 2 sampling at the first facility will begin before
all plants have been tested by the Level 1 approach. Thus, after the first
plant has been tested using a Level 1 approach, plus Level 2 analyses of
selected parameters, future sampling plans of similar facilities can be
modified based on the analytical results.
The four modifications recommended are:
(1) Since one of the goals of the field sampling program is to
make comparisons among cleaning plants, it will be necessary
to sample some pieces of equipment which are considered pro-
cess equipment in certain closed-loop plants but are considered
pollution control equipment in other open-loop plants.
(2) The results of Level 1 tests from previous tests on similar
plant(s) by the environmental assessment program or from the
6
-------
same plant for compliance testing may permit the elimination
of tests foi. ^articular types of pollutants or effluent streams.
This type of modification would only be made if the data character-
ize a particular type of pollutant or effluent stream well enough
to give them a low priority classification. Similarly, some
Level 2 sampling and analysis may be performed during the first
phase of testing, where previous data indicate that high priority
pollutants exist in a particular effluent stream. The high priority
designation for pollutants may result from the environmental assess-
ment criteria studies conducted as part of the overall coal cleaning
environmental assessment program, or they may result from environ-
mental assessment studies on other coal using or handling facilities.
This modification would cut costs by decreasing the amount of Level
1 sampling and analysis required, and would reduce the time required
to obtain Level 2 data.
(3) Some pollutants may be eliminated from consideration because they
have been demonstrated to be of minimal importance in tests by
Federal and state agencies or test results by other EPA contractors
doing environmental assessments.
(4) Since one of the goals of the Level 1 field sampling program for
coal cleaning plants is to make a crude evaluation of the effective-
ness of pollution control equipment and techniques in reducing the
pollution load to the environment, samples will be taken from all
input and output streams associated with each control device or
application of control technology.
Level 1 analytical techniques are designed to make a broad spectrum
survey of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of a liquid,
gaseous, slurry, or solid sample in a quantitative manner and with a target
accuracy factor of plus or minus two or three. More specifically, the analysis
is designed to show the presence or absence, the approximate concentrations,
and the emission rate of inorganic elements and classes of organic compounds.
Samples of particulate matter will be further analyzed by size distribution,
microscopic examination, and gross physical characteristics. The biological
analysis will involve laboratory tests for human health effects and ecological
toxicity screening.
-------
Each of the above types of analyses is included in the Level 1 phase
because it provides some unique information on the behavior, control approach,
and/or potential toxicity of effluent streams. Particle size and shape, for
example, has a major effect on particle behavior in process streams,
control equipment, atmospheric dispersion, and animal respiratory systems.
Chemical analyses can be used to predict control approaches, atmospheric
dispersion/transformation, and potential toxicity. Finally, only the
biological tests can provide a reliable measure of the potential biological
response to an effluent stream. These biological tests can detect complex
biological effects such as synergism and antagonism that cannot be easily
(1 2 3)
predicted by physical and chemical tests. ' '
Level 2 Sampling and Analysis
Level 2 sampling involves a statistically representative sample collec-
tion scheme at priority streams identified by Level 1 sampling and analysis
as having a potentially significant level of environmental impact. In addi-
tion, Level 2 sampling usually is designed to collect information on specific
compounds or classes of compounds that are considered toxic and are known to
occur in the streams sampled. This may require the modification of Level 1
sampling equipment or in some cases the use of entirely new types of sampling
equipment in order to isolate the compounds of special interest. At the
same time, stream flow rates are measured accurately instead of using estimates
as in Level I.*1*3*
The Level 2 requirement for obtaining a statistically representative
sample may require several changes in the Level 1 technique. Sampling
location(s) within a stream will need to be carefully determined; this may
require collection of several samples across a traverse of the stream. Time-
integrated samples will need to be obtained, frequently by using automatic
sampling equipment. Sample collection over an extended time period and under
a variety of environmental conditions will be necessary, due to the extreme
variability of the coal cleaned and the variability of effluent streams
(1 3)
exposed to weather-caused modifications. '
In some cases, Level 2 sampling techniques have already been identified.
For example, preferred Level 2 sampling and sample treatment methods for
.»
8
-------
various organic chemical categories are presented in a recent EPA report.
Similar lists of Level 2 sampling and sample treatment methods for inorganic
compounds and for health and ecological testing are not yet available.
Although Level 2 sampling may require the use of complex sampling
equipment and repetitive sample collection, it aay not require more manpower
than the Level 1 sampling. Sampling locations should be considerably
reduced, since oply the potentially hazardous streams will be sampled in the
Level 2 effort. Similarly, the isolation during Level 1 of specific elements,
particle sizes, or organic fractions of environmental concern will reduce
the individual sample volume and multitude of preservation techniques
required during Level 2 sampling, as compared to the Level 1 sampling which is
designed to handle collection of all potential pollutants. '
In some cases, Level 1 samples may be used for Level 2 analyses.
However, in order to be useful, Level 1 samples must be reasonably represen-
tative, properly preserved, and analyzed only for stable compounds or elements.
For example, some of the organics collected by stack sampling are preserved
as extracts in methylene chloride solution. These extracts could be used for
Level 2 analyses that would confirm the presence of a specific toxic organic
compound; the presence of such a compound may have been suspected on the basis
of a Level 1 analysis that identified the class for that compound.
Decision criteria for the selection of streams and pollutants requiring
Level 2 sampling will be based on a number of factors. The decision to sample
a particular stream by Level 2 techniques will be based primarily on the
results of ecological and health bioassay tests, since these data may be
the only information on possible synergistic effects of the complex mixture
of pollutants found in that stream. Decision criteria for Level 2 sampling
of specific parameters within a stream will be based on such threshold concen-
o
trations as (1) the 0.5 mg/m Level 1 value for gas emissions obtained by Source
Assessment Sampling System (SASS) sampling '; (2) minimum acute toxicity effluent
(MATE) values from the multimedia environmental goals (MEG) studies^ ' ' ;
(3) estimated permissible concentration (EPC) values from the MEG studies^ ' ' ;
(A) threshold limit values (TLV's) developed by the American Conference of
(9)
Governmental Industrial Hygienistsv '; and (5) recently published acute and
chronic toxicity data and biomagnification data not included in the development
of the previously listed values. Methodologies for applying these values in the
planning for Level 2 sampling have been described in several EPA reports. ' '
-------
In most cases, Level 2 analytical techniques will be more sophisticated
and have the capability for a more precise identification and quantification
of selected parameters than was possible using Level 1 techniques. In
some cases, however, Level 2 analyses may be extensions of Level 1 procedures
used on samples that are much more representative than those obtained by
Level 1 sampling. Expanded biological testing on the more toxic streams will be
used to obtain a more detailed characterization of the biological effects. ' '
Because Level 2 analyses must positively identify pollutants in the most
toxic streams and provide a valid estimate of this toxicity, these analyses
are extremely critical. The analyses, however, must be conducted in a cost-
and information-effective manner. Due to the multiplicity of analytical
techniques which could be used for a Level 2 analysis, the selection of
techniques and interpretation of results should be managed by experienced
analytical personnel working in well-equipped laboratories. These personnel
should be fully aware of the goals and requirements of the field program
for an environmental source assessment of coal cleaning processes. '
It is fairly obvious from the preceding comments that not all Level 2
analyses can be conducted using a prescribed series of tests. The following
examples, however, might help to clarify the types of tests appropriate for
Level 2. Spark-source mass spectrometry, which is used for elemental analysis
in Level 1, might be replaced by neutron activation analysis or atomic
absorption spectroscopy for a Level 2 analysis. Level 2 analysis of certain
water quality parameters, such as nitrates, phosphates, or ammonia, is
likely to be done using carefully controlled, wet chemical, laboratory tech-
niques, instead of using test kits in the field as suggested for a Level 1
analysis. Health effects bioassays used in Level 2 might include in vitro
tests to confirm possible toxicity or mutagenicity suspected from the results
of Level 1 assays. Level 2 ecological bioassays might involve studies of
bioaccumulation and persistence, which are not evaluated at all during
Level 1 testing.(1'2'3)
Level 2 analysis techniques have been recommended for certain organic
and inorganic compounds. Techniques for Level 2 analysis of classes of
organic compounds are listed in a recent EPA report. In addition, a
draft report containing recommended Level 2 analysis techniques for selected
10
-------
inorganic compounds and ~-tions for organic analysis of stack samples is in
review. Neither of these reports, however, contains recommended analytical
procedures for all of the compounds which may be encountered in the various
process and effluent streams from coal cleaning facilities. In addition,
no manual is available yet which lists recommended Level 2 analytical
techniques for either health or ecological tests.
Level 3 Sampling and Analysis
Level 3 sampling is designed to monitor a limited number of "key" ele-
ments, compounds, or compound classes over an extended period of time. The
goal is to determine the variability of stream composition with time, and
as a function of weather, and process or control system parameters ("set
points"). Once it has been established that a stream is hazardous to the
environment and the pollutant(s) has been specifically identified by the
first two phases, Level 3 testing should be designed to accurately quantify
the range of values to be expected and the effectiveness of control equipment
or processes in limiting the release of the pollutant(s) to the environment.
To be cost-effective, the Level 3 sampling should be tailor-made for each
high priority stream selected for monitoring. Where possible, this sampling
plan should involve the use of continuous, in-stream monitoring devices.
Level 2 sampling should be periodically used to check the accuracy of
the Level 3, "key indicator", approach. The Level 2 check may determine that
it is necessary to monitor additional indicator parameters where the key
(3)
indicators initially selected do not accurately reflect stream variability.
Level 3 analytical techniques are as specific to the stream and
indicator parameter being monitored as the sampling plan; thus, the necessary
Level 3 techniques cannot be determined until after the completion of a
Level 2 analysis. The Level 3 techniques selected must be capable of
detecting minor variations with time in the concentrations of key indicator
materials. However, the techniques will be optimized to fit a specific set
of stream conditions and therefore may not be as sophisticated or expensive
as Level 2 methods. The equipment may be either manual or instrumental, as
long as it can be used at the cleaning plant. Continuous monitors should be
used whenever possible to aid in interpreting data acquired intermittently
by manual techniques.
11
-------
Benefits of the Field Testing Program to the
Coal Preparation Industry
Results of the field testing program will be useful to owners and
operators of coal preparation plants even if their facilities are not selected
for testing. Field sampling is planned for at least one coal cleaning plant
in each of ten site categories. These ten site categories were carefully
selected to represent combinations of extremes in the values of four variables.
These four variables were also carefully selected to be the ones of major
importance in determining the pollution potential of any given coal cleaning
plant. Because this site selection design is comprehensive, extrapolation
of test results to a large number of coal cleaning plants should be possible.
Therefore, benefits to this expanded group of coal cleaning plants will
include the following:
• Reduced costs for pollution control. Cost reductions should be
possible by utilizing the following field program results:
- Information needed to select the most efficient pollution
control device or technique for a specific type of
effluent stream in a specific environmental setting
- Information needed to select the process equipment
and set points that result in effluent streams with
reduced pollution potential.
• Decreased pollutant monitoring and reporting requirements. A
better understanding of the pollutants of concern in specific
effluent streams should reduce the number of air and water
quality parameters and/or effluent streams that are under
consideration for government regulation.
12
-------
• Improved pollution control technology. Identification of
the most toxic v Le streams should stimulate research and
development on improved control technology techniques.
Benefits of Site Sampling to Cooperating Facility Owners
Results of the air, water, and solid waste sampling and analysis programs
will be of direct use to the cooperating coal cleaning facilities. Sample
analysis will produce data on pollutant concentrations which can be used
without cost to facility owners for partial compliance with the testing and
monitoring requirements mandated by part or all of the following Federal laws:
• Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (PL 94-469),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580), and
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - U.S. Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500).
One important part of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives the
regulatory and monitoring branches of EPA the authority to obtain data on
important health and environmental aspects of potentially harmful substances
and mixtures through testing, record keeping, and reporting. * Manufac-
turers and processors of these substances will be required to bear the costs
of both testing and record keeping. An initial group of potentially harmful
substances which must be considered by EPA under TSCA includes four elements
known to occur in coal (cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic). Thus, EPA may
require coal processors to conduct tests that define or clarify the health
and environmental effects of coal cleaning plant effluents. This requirement
may include tests to determine carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, behavior disor-
ders, cumulative or synergistic effects, and acute toxicity. The health and
ecological screening tests planned by Battelle for samples from cleaning
plant, refuse pile, and coal pile effluents or leachates have been approved
by EPA. Thus, results of Battelle's tests can be used by cooperating facility
owners for partial compliance with the requirements of TSCA.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 expands the
current provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to, among other items,
provide for a hazardous waste, regulatory program. ' Coal preparation
refuse clearly falls under the law's definition of solid wastes and may in
13
-------
the future be considered "hazardous waste". The U.S. EPA's definition of
hazardous waste includes any waste or its leachate that is considered
flammable, corrosive, infectious, reactive, radioactive, or toxic. The
high levels of heavy metals and sulfate and the- low pH of leachate from
coal refuse are very likely to result in a "hazardous" classification for
this type of waste. If the "hazardous" classification is given to preparation
plant refuse, then permit application, monitoring, record keeping, and
reporting will be required of owners and operators of the refuse facilities
under RCRA. These activities will require air and water quality analysis
of the type planned by Battelle for preparation plant refuse. Cooperating
facilities could use the data generated by Battelle's sampling and analysis
efforts as part of a permit application or monitoring report to comply with
RCRA.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is
an amendment to the U.S. Water Pollution Control Act, requires (1) applica-
tion for a permit for the construction and operation of facilities considered
to be point source discharges, and (2) a continuous operational monitoring
program. Effluents and leachates from coal cleaning plants, cleaning plant
slurry holding ponds, coal pile runoff collection systems or desilting
basins, and coal refuse leachate collection systems or ponds are considered
point source discharges and are therefore subject to NPDES requirements.
These effluents fall under the effluent limitations guidelines for the coal
mining point source category. Discharge water pollution limitations in this
(13)
category were set by EPA on April 26, 1977, for existing sources and
proposed limitations for new sources were published in the Federal Register
(14)
on September 19, 1977.v ' In addition, EPA is considering the promulgation
of regulations which would indicate that the amounts of pollutants in any
existing discharge, as disclosed in a permit application, would be incorporated
as NPDES permit limitations unless otherwise modified in the permit. '
Thus, no discharge of pollutants other than those indicated in the permit
would be authorized except in amounts equal to those in intake waters. All
of the above existing and proposed regulations will require water quality
data of the type planned by Battelle for coal cleaning plants and their
associated facilities. Cooperating coal cleaning facility owners could
benefit by use of these data in NPDES permit applications or monitoring
reports.
14
-------
ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL FIELD TEST PLANS
The environmental source assessments proposed for coal cleaning plants
in each of ten site categories will be similar in many respects. The elements
(e.g., sample locations, collection techniques, analysis techniques) that
should be common to all or most of these test plans are presented in the
following sections to facilitate the planning and preparation of the site-
specific test plans. Adherence to this generalized plan will ensure that
each of the field tests meets the overall project needs and objectives.
Potential Sampling Locations
The multimedia Level 1 environmental source assessments at each coal
cleaning plant will involve sample collection from a wide variety of gaseous,
liquid, and solid streams (Figure 1). The four primary types of samples
which need to be collected are air, water, slurry, and solids. More specific
sampling locations recommended for each of the sample types listed in
Figure 1 are identified in Figures 2 through 5. Level 2 and 3 sampling
locations will be selected from these comprehensive lists as described
earlier (see Testing Philosophy: The Phased Approach).
A block flow diagram of a generalized coal cleaning plant showing poten-
tial sampling locations is provided as an overview of the type of sampling
plan needed for each facility to be tested (Figure 6). Points in the flows
of coal, refuse, water, and air at which air or water pollutants may poten-
tially be released are noted on the diagram, as well as sampling points
necessary to characterize pollution control equipment and waste management
techniques. The general analytical group(s) recommended for a Level 1 analysis
of samples from each of the locations on Figure 6 is indicated in Table 1.
As part of the site selection scheme, it was decided that the coal
cleaning facilities selected for testing would be limited to six out of nine
general types of coal preparation processes. This scheme is summarized in a
15
-------
r
Sta
Emlss
1 1
Slurry
Dewaterlng , l
Device }nj
Effluent c°l
I
Air
1
ck Fugitive
«~ JSL,
r~
Solids
Sampling Sources
1
, i . i
Leachate Recycled
Collection Process
Ponds Water
V
1
W Product
wt coal
il
1 1
Emergency
Refuse Holding
Ponds
1
Water
1
Plant
Makeup
Hater
1
•
1
Water
Treatment
Facilities
Slurries
l
i
Coal Pile
Runoff
Ponds
1
Slurry
Dewaterlng
Equipment
t
Fugitive
Mater
Emissions
1
Refuse
Slurry
Ponds
FIGURE 1. OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL SAMPLE TYPES AND THEIR SOURCES AT COAL-CLEANING PLANTS
-------
Potential
Air Sampling
Locations
Fugitive Dust
Emissions
Coal Crushing &
Sizing Areas
Coal Transportation &
Handling Equipment
Pneumatic
Coal Cleaning-
Equipment
Coal Storage
Piles
Refuse
Disposal
Area
Plan
Boundary
Assessments
Stack Emissions
Thermal
Dryers
Coal Crushing &
Sizing Area
Exhaust Hoods
Gases
Parti culates
FIGURE 2. POTENTIAL AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
Potential
Water Sampling
Locations
Leachate
Collection
Ponds
Fugitive
Mater Emissions
Process Water
Clarified for
Recycle
Groundwater
Leachates
Surface Runoff
or Leachates
Water Treatment
Facilities
Plant
Makeup Water
Waste Water
Settling Ponds
FIGURE 3. POTENTIAL WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
Potential
Slurry Sampling
Locations*
Refuse
Slurry
Pond
Stack Gas
Scrubber
Slurry
Emergency
Holding
Pond
\
SI urry
Dewatering
Equipment
1
Thickeners
Coal Pile
Runoff
Ponds
1
Centrifuges
Filters
Influent
Slurry
FIGURE 4. POTENTIAL SLURRY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
*Slurry samples will be filtered so that the water and solids can be analyzed separately.
**In some cases the effluent may be a solid.
-------
Potential
Solid Sampling
Locations
tv>
o
ROM
Input
Coal
Product
Coal
Refuse
Coal
Thickener
Effluent
Centrifuge
Effluent
Filter
Effluent
Leaving Individual
Process Streams
1. ,
1 Solids from I
[ Slurry l
I Sampling '
Combined Refuse
Leaving Plant
Fugitive Dust and
Participates from !
Air Sampling '
FIGURE 5. POTENTIAL SOLID SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
TABLE 1. GENERALIZED COAL CLEANING PLA.1;:
LEVEL 1 SAMPLING POINTS
Potential
Analysis
'~roap(sj 'a)
1. Cleaning Plant (overall performance)
(a) Input coal C
(b) Product coal C
(c) Refuse C
(d) Process makeup water W,B,0
2. Dewaterlng Devices (thickness, centrifuges,
filters, settling ponds, etc.)
(a) Input slurry (of coal or refuse) S
(b) Clarified water W,B,0
(c) Concentrated solids S
3. Cleaning Plant Refuse Disposal Area
(a) Refuse water leachate W,B,0
(b) Surface water leachate from leachate
collection system W,B,0
(c) Treated leachate W.B.O
(d) Fugitive dust (Hl-Vol and Andersen samplers) F.O
(use a sieved sample of refuse for
ecological testing)
(e) Groundwater contamination W.B.O
4. Water Treatment System(s)
(a) Input water streams W,B,0
(b) Treated water destined for discharge W.B.O
or recycle
5. Thermal Dryer
(a) Particulate catch entering air pollution PC
controls
(b) Particulate catch exiting air pollution PC,B
controls
(c) Gas stream entering air pollution controls G,0
(d) Gas stream exiting air pollution controls G,0,B
(e) Scrubber slurry (If any) 5,0
(f) Ash from furnace C
6. Coal Storage (cleaned and/or raw coal)
(a) Surface runoff S.O.B
(b) Fugitive dust (use sieved coal sample for F.O.B
ecological testing)
(c) Groundwater contamination S,0,B
7. Coal Loading and Unloading Facilities
(a) Surface runoff S.O.B
(b) Fugitive dust F.O
(a) The potential analysis groups listed for each sampling location are the
maximan recommended; circumstances at some of the cleaning plants may
result in fewer analyses at a particular location. More details on the
analysis groups listed below will be given in the following sections of
this report.
C - coal analysis; B - biological tests (health and/or ecological
bioassays); F • fugitive dust analysis; 0 - organic analysis; S •
slurry analysis (includes both coal and water quality analyses);
W • water quality analysis; G - gas analysis; PC - partlculate
catch analysis.
21
-------
N)
MATERIAL {INPUT OUTPUT.
OM POLLUTANT)
SOLID SAMPLC POINT
LIQUID WATER OR
SIURRYI SAMPLE
POINT
OAUOUS SAMPLE POINT
IPOINT SOURCE OR
FUGITIVE)
o
D
FIGURE 6. BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM OF GENERALIZED COAL PREPARATION PLANT
AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES SHOWING POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
previous section of this report (see General Objectives of the Field Testing
Program) and is present. in great detail in another Battelle report.
For sampling purposes, however, it is important to review the six types of
coal preparation processes that will be encountered during the field testing
progra-n. Block flow diagrams of these six types of processes are presented
in Figures 7 through 12, including potential sampling locations specific to
each type of process. Cleaning plant Types A and B (Figures 7 and 8) repre-
sent low (simple) technology facilities, which prepare coarse coal sizes only.
Cleaning plant Types F, G, H, and I (Figures 9 through 12) represent high
(complex) technology facilities,' which prepare all coal sizes including the
very finest sizes. The nature of the site selection scheme resulted in the
exclusion of cleaning plant Types C, D, and E, which prepare coarse and inter-
mediate sizes of coal (greater than 28 mesh in size). Although an entire
environmental source assessment is not planned for cleaning plant Types C, D,
and E, it may be necessary to evaluate the refuse disposal areas at some of
these facilities, since the fine coal (less than 28 mesh) is not recovered
from the refuse stream.
Water and Slurry Filtrate Quality Program
Water and slurry filtrate samples will be collected from both process
and effluent streams for a variety of physical, chemical, and biological
tests. The types of water and slurry sampling locations are shown, respec-
tively, in Figures 3 and 4. The locations for collecting these sample types
are shown in the block flow diagram of a generalized coal cleaning plant
(Figure 6) and for specific coal cleaning processes (Figures 7 through 12).
Water quality will be assessed for several different reasons. For
example, the improvement in water quality from the use of pollution control
devices and techniques will be determined by sampling both input and output
flows from these systems. Although many plants have closed process water
circuits which theoretically allow no discharge, the effluent from dewatering
devices at closed-loop plants will be sampled in order to characterize
streams which would be released to the environment from open-loop plants.
A major source of pollution from the coal cleaning process is the surface
runoff and leachate from coal piles, refuse piles, and settling ponds. These
surface effluents will be characterized as well as the leachate to groundwater
from the above sources.
23
-------
exhaust hood
(If present)
(a)
ROM coal
1000 tph
N)
coarse refuse
(10 tph)
underslze
secondary
crusher
(optional)
LEGEND
[)<> Potential Stapling
^ Location
A - Air (gist* 1 participates)
S - Solid
should bt taken
before and after partlculate
control device.
crushed coal
990 tph
FIGURE 7. FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPE "A" CRUSHING AND SIZING PLANT
SHOWING POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
^
exhaust hood
(if Present)
ROM coal
1000Itph
(s)
crushing and sizing
(Figure 7)
,
refuse
LEGEND
(''
swples should be Uken
Location
A • Mr (gases 4 ptrtlculates)
S • Solid
SI • Slurry
U • Ulter
...
* Mf ill refuse strains ire
combined before dfsposil.
sa*>le co*lned refuse
-------
exhaust hood
(if present)
ICUN
fugitive dust
water
recycled
1 c
crushing and sizing /;
circuit (Figure 7) 1
st
Q
gp«
1
wet s«
at 3/t
i
wet sc
at 28
I.
»
hydrocj
3x0 in.
990 tph
:reen 3 « 3/8 *»•
> in. 690 tph
3/8x0 in.
300 tph
reen 3/8 in. x 2
M 200 tph
28 M x 0
100 tph
»1^.. Produc
75 tph
refuse
25 tph
s)
•^ refuse
*» (10 tph)
water /Ov
3«OigpjpA->'
1 coarse-size coal (fl)
refuse
water Ah (170 tph)
2800 KV9^^
k
8 M I __ concentrating table
^ circuic v
refuse
(50 tph)
1 f
J filter eo
m) ._
drained ^^
\y rvi^niiai M^MII^ S^HlM should te tihcfl iMfon
A . AIMOIMI 1 MrtlcullUl) *"* •"*' ptrtleylitt control
$ • Solid lei**'1"'
SI ' Slvrrv 1' «H r«firt« Itr.in trc ct»»-
H • MUr blind tefort dlipoul, inpli
. . coAlMd rtfirtt and Mil thlt
(*'5«« Tn* t p1*nl. Ftgurt 8. tupU.
for OUitr potmtul inpllng
loutlont.
product cl
520 tph t^Jl
i.\ I | dry p
, " >J/ particulate
product mechanical control
ISO tph * -ewatermg ,60 tpf devl
— ^** drying
10 tph
s)
clean coal
product
thickener
thickener underflow (30 tph)
FIGURE 9. FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPE "F" CONCENTRATING TABLF AND HYDROCYCLONR PLANT
SHOWING POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
exhaust hood
(if present) ,^
(T)
refuse
(10 tph)
ItGEND
®" Potential Swpltng
location
K • Mr (oases 1 pirtlculates)
S - Solid
SI • Slurry
H • Miter
(a)
Se» Typt B pl»nt. Figure 8,
for other potential supHng
locations.
product
to
coarse-size coal (a)
(b),
(c)
Supltt llwuld be UUn befort
ind tiler (urtlculite control
d«lu.
If til rtfusc jtr«K *re com-
bined before dlipo^aK u«plv*
cooblned refute
-------
exhaust hood
(If present)
refuse
tph)
co
utm
A • «U (i. 1 p.rt.eul,t.,)
$ • lolli
11 • Slurry
V • MUr
...
(*'lM Typt B Blint. F1«urt a.
for othtr potintUI uopllng
toutlonl.
b. Utn btfer.
»tla.l.U control
Itl
lc'lf til rvfiiii ttrttm ir* co»-
MUM btfort dlipoul, »>pl*
rtfuto ind o>lt thli
coarse-sice coal /a)
circuit (Figure 8)
product
520 tph
refu
(170 tph)
fugitive dust
dense-medium cyclone
circuit
water
3000 gpm
product
50 tph
mechanical
dewatering
28 M x 0
100 tph
refuse
(SO tph)
hydrocyclone
Product
L_
140 tp
?
drained
water
10 tph
vacuum
filter
80 tph
clean
coal
^ product'
740 tph
I 7
©
by-product
220 tph
partlculate
control
device
recycled
water ™
refuse
25 tph
±
drained water
5 .tph
thickener
thickener underflow (30 tph)
FIGURE 11.
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPE "H" DENSE-MEDIUM CYCLONE AND HYDROCYCLONE PLANT
SHOWING POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
exhaust hood
(if present)
NJ
\o
recycled
water
thickener underflow (30 tph)
FICURF 12. FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPF. "T" nFNSF-MFDTI'M CYCLONE AND FROTH- FLOTATION PLANT
SHOWING POTENTIAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
The Level 1 sampling of liquids will be accomplished by using dippers
in exposed streams and standing water. Normally, three grab samples will
be composited over a 5-minute period, with an effort being made to sample
the zone of maximum mixing. Each of the three grab samples taken in stagnant
water or slurry will be from a different location. Liquid will be obtained
from slurry and sludge samples by filtering through a Buchner funnel and
Whatman filter paper. Filtering and preservation of slurry filtrate will be
done on site. Other sampling methods, which are more specific to the type
of liquid stream involved, are discussed in the following sections.
Level 2 water and slurry sampling may involve either grab or propor-
tional sampling depending on the data needed. Grab samples may be appro-
priate if a more complete qualitative chemical or biological characterization
is required than was determined in Level 1. If quantitative data are desired,
then proportional sampling should be used for Level 2. Proportional sampling
can be conducted on either a time or flow basis, depending on the process
characteristics and measurement objectives.
Level 2 sampling for organics in aqueous streams may require continuous
extraction/concentration techniques in conjunction with a proportional
sampler. This procedure holds significant promise for obtaining a quanti-
tative time-averaged sample of organics. The extraction part of this
procedure may involve carbon or resin sorbents or solvent extraction.
Process Water and Slurry Sampling
A number of preliminary planning steps must be completed before sampling
process water and slurries. These data-gathering steps, plus the steps in
test planning and execution are presented in a flow diagram (Appendix A,
Figure A-l). This flow diagram indicates that sampling locations should not
be decided until process flow diagrams have been obtained and a site visit
has been made.
Basically, the Level 1 process liquid sampling will be performed at every
point of water influent to and effluent from the plant. In addition, liquid
streams entering and exiting fine-coal slurry dewatering devices (e.g., filters,
centrifuges, and thickeners) will also be sampled. These dewatering devices
will be sampled even in a closed-process-loop plant, so that the efficiency
of the device in reducing potential water pollutants can be compared with
30
-------
similar devices in open-loop plants which discharge the clarified water.
Potential sampling locations for the six types of coal preparation processes
that will be encountered are shown previously in Figures 7-12.
Some slurry streams that need to be sampled in the plant will be in
closed pipes and tanks. In these cases, valves or taps will have to be
installed prior to the sampling trip. No high-pressure or high-temperature
liquid sampling is anticipated.
Surface Runoff and Leachate Sampling
Level 1 surface runoff and leachate samples will be collected from raw
and clean coal storage piles, cleaning plant refuse disposal areas, and
cleaning plant work or parking areas. Surface leachate samples from water
treatment settling ponds, slurry disposal ponds, emergency holding ponds,
and leachate water holding ponds will also be sampled. Potential sampling
locations for surface runoff and leachate are shown on the diagram of a
generalized coal cleaning plant and its ancillary facilities (see Figure 6).
The preliminary data-gathering and test planning phases for this part of
the water quality program are shown in Appendix A, Figure A-2.
Some runoff and leachate water streams will be intermittent or at
least too shallow for dipper sampling. These.streams will be sampled using
polyethylene, or preferably Teflon, plug collectors that are driven into
the ground so that water can flow through the wire screen top, which should
be located just below the surface. Channels cut in the sides of the plug
(1 4)
collectors permit accumulation of groundwater seepage. '
Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater sampling should be designed to determine changes in ground-
water quality due to leachate from coal piles, refuse piles, and all types
of water and slurry holding ponds. This will require the collection of water
from appropriate upgradient and downgradient locations. Since the location
of sampling wells is not straightforward, a study of the site geology will be
necessary. Preliminary data collection and test planning phases necessary
for this part of the water quality program are shown in Appendix A, Figure A-3.
31
-------
Groundwater sampling is not part of EPA's phased assessment approach '
and will probably not be conducted as part of Battelle's Level 1 tests,
unless appropriate upgradient and downgradient wells already exist. However,
if Level 1 surface water sampling reveals a highly toxic leachate water
source, the potential for groundwater contamination will be investigated in
a Level 2 analysis. Groundwater sampling during a Level 2 analysis will be
accomplished by installing piezometric wells upgradient and downgradient from
potential sources of aquifer pollution. The Level 2 groundwater sampling and
analysis will be designed to correlate the concentration of pollutants and
rate of groundwater contamination with the character of the pollutant source.
Where the pollutant source is a refuse disposal area, the above factors should
also be correlated with the refuse disposal techniques in use at that site.
The above addition to the standard phased assessment approach described by
EPA is necessary to meet the goals of the overall coal cleaning environmental
assessment program (see pages 2 and 6 for rationale).
Analytical Techniques
The 37 physical, chemical, and biological tests listed in Table 2 are
potential Level 1 analysis techniques for water and slurry filtrate. Deci-
sions on which parameters should be measured on which streams will be determined
after a site visit has been made and available water quality monitoring data
obtained. It may be desirable to analyze some of the parameters in the field
with probes or reagent test kits. Field test kits, such as those manufactured
by Hach or Bausch and Lomb, are sufficiently accurate for a Level 1 analysis.
However, the availability of previous water quality data may allow deletion of
some analyses from certain streams or may indicate that other parameters
should be more accurately determined using laboratory techniques, instead
of the less accurate reagent test kits. Brief descriptions of the more
detailed water quality analysis techniques for Level 1 studies are pre-
sented in Appendix B for physical and chemical techniques and in Appendix C
for biological techniques.
32
-------
TABLE 2. POTENTIAL LEVEL 1 WATER AND SLURRY
FILTRATE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Recommended by Additional Tests
IERL/RTP for Recommended by Battelle
Source Assessments for Coal Cleaning Program
Physical & Chemical Tests^
Acidity 0>) Chloride
Alkalinity Phenol
pH(b) Oil and Grease
Biological Oxygen Demand Sulfide
Chemical Oxygen Demand Dissolved Iron
Conductivity^) Fluoride
Total Dissolved Solids(b) Redox Potential^)
Sulfates(b)
Nitrites (*>)
Nitrates^5'
Hardness)
Free Cyanide(b>
Organlcs on Methylene Chloride Extract
Liquid Chromatography
Infrared Spectrometry
Low Resolution Mass Spectrometry
Spark Source Mass Spectrometry
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
Biological Tests
Human Health Tests
Salmonella/Microsome Mutagenesis Assay (Ames)
Rabbit Alveolar Macrophage (Cytotoxlcity)
WI-38 Human Lung Fibroblast (Cytotoxicity)
Acute in vivo Test in Rodents
Aquatic Tests
Fathead Minnow Acute Static Bioassay
Daphnia Acute Static Bioassay
Freshwater Algal Assay
Terrestrial Test
Soil Microcosm Test
(a) From Reference (4).
(b) May be desirable to analyze on site with probe or field test kit.
(c) See Appendix B for a brief description of the more complex phys-
ical and chemical tests.
(d) See Appendix C for a brief description of the biological tests.
33
-------
Analytical techniques for Level 2 or 3 water quality programs cannot
be determined until the analysis of the Level 1 sampling phase has been
completed. However, the basis for decisions about which parameters and
streams need to be analyzed and which analysis techniques to use for
Levels 2 and 3 are discussed briefly in an earlier section of this report
(see Testing Philosophy: The Phased Approach). In many cases, the water
quality parameters determined with field test kits for Level 1 will be
determined by more accurate laboratory techniques for Level 2. Usually,
fewer parameters will need to be analyzed for Level 2 than for Level 1.
Where Level 2 analyses are made, the samples will generally be proportional
to time or flow instead of grab samples.
Level 2 water and slurry filtrate analysis techniques may need to be
more quantitative and/or more compound specific than Level 1 techniques.
Trace element analysis, for example, will probably require the use of
atomic absorption spectroscopy instead of spark source mass spectrometry.
Analysis for organics may require the use of gas chromatography combined
with mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, or ultra-
violet luminescence spectroscopy. These potential Level 2 organic analysis
techniques can be used for a more precise determination of organic compounds
suspected from Level 1 analyses.
Air Quality Program
The objective of the air quality program will be to quantify and charac-
terize the fugitive dust from coal cleaning plant operations, especially coal
and refuse transfer and storage facilities, as well as stack emissions from
thermal dryers and crushing and sizing hoods. The types of potential air
sampling locations are listed in Figure 2. In addition, these potential
air sampling locations are shown in the block flow diagram of a generalized
coal cleaning plant (see Figure 6) and in the diagrams for specific types of
coal cleaning processes (see Figures 7-12).
34
-------
Fugitive Dust Sampling
Level 1 samples of fugitive dust will be obtained using high volume
samplers (Hi-Vols) to draw large volumes of air through a glass fiber filter.
These Hi-Vols are described in EPA's Level 1 manual. ' ' Some of the Hi-Vols
will be fitted with particulate size fractionating heads known as Andersen
impactors. These impactors will have aluminum plates and a filter to collect
particulates in five size fractions.
Hi-Vol sampler locations will be chosen to permit collection of upwind
and downwind samples at (1) specific dust sources associated with the coal
cleaning plant and (2) locations beyond the property boundaries. Fugitive
dust sources of interest are listed in Figure 2. The design of a fugitive
dust sampling network will be determined by such factors as source complexity
and size, site geometry, and prevailing meteorological conditions. These
factors will be considered in a fugitive dust dispersion model, which was
recently modified by Battelle from EPA's Multiple Point Source Model. The
use of the diffusion model and the steps in conducting the fugitive dust
sampling are outlined in Appendix A, Figure A-4.
Since the amount of fugitive dust needed for ecological testing is
difficult to obtain in Hi-Vols within a reasonable period of time, a 53-pm
sieve will be used to filter the raw, cleaned, and refuse coal. The particu-
late matter filtering through this extremely fine sieve represents the size
fraction normally expected to become airborne and contribute to fugitive dust.
These sieved samples will be used for elemental analysis, particle morphology,
and in human health and soil microcosm tests. Obviously, these ecological
tests can only determine the relative toxicity of the sieved samples and
should not be construed to represent the toxicity of the combined components
of fugitive dust.
A Level 2 study will require more quantitative fugitive dust data,
which will require a greater number of samples collected under a variety of
meteorological conditions.
Stack Sampling
Level 1 stack sampling will be conducted on both thermal dryers and
crushing and sizing hoods, where these processes are used. Samples of parti-
culates and gases will be obtained before and after particulate control
35
-------
equipment by using the source assessment sampling system (SASS) train deve-
(1 4)
loped by EPA and described in detail in EPA's Level 1 procedures. '
The SASS train has a relatively high sampling flow rate, which provides the
quantity of particulate matter needed for testing within a reasonable period
of time. Usually, the sampling time will be 5 hours in order to sample the
required volume of stack gases. The SASS train collects the following types
of samples:
(1) Particulate matter (in four size fractions)
(2) Volatile organic species (greater than Cy organics are
collected in an XAD-2 adsorbent trap using a porous polymer
resin)
(3) Volatile inorganic elements (captured primarily in the
condensate collector).
The steps involved in planning and executing a stack sampling program are
shown in Appendix A, Figure A-5.
The SASS train samples for a Level 1 analysis will be collected at the
point of average velocity in ,the stack, which is determined by a velocity
traverse. Also, the samples should be withdrawn at a relatively constant
flow rate using a nozzle specifically selected for isokinetic conditions when
the test is initiated. This flow rate is allowed to vary from -30 to +50
percent of the specified isokinetic rate.
A sample of the thermal dryer gases will be collected at points upstream
and downstream from the particulate control devices for determination of
GI through C-j hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds. The gas sample will be
obtained using the low pressure grab purge sampling apparatus described in
(1 4)
EPA's Level 1 manual. ' Once stack gases are captured in the glass vessel,
they can be withdrawn through a septum for on-site analysis in a mobile
laboratory.
Level 2 stack sampling may involve samples taken at a variety of points
along a velocity traverse and may require a flow rate that is extremely close
to isokinetic conditions. Depending on the stream components that are iden-
tified as potentially hazardous during Level 1 testing, Level 2 testing may
necessitate use of some of the EPA sampling methods required for point source
compliance tests, which are described in detail in the Federal Register.
Time-integrated gas samples may need to be collected in an inert bag. In
most cases, the sampling techniques will be simpler than for Level 1 because
fewer parameters will need to be measured.
36
-------
Analytical Techniques
Potential Level 1 analysis techniques for fugitive dust and stack samples
are listed in Table 3. The more complex techniques are briefly described in
Appendix B for physical and chemical techniques and in Appendix C for
biological techniques.
Fugitive dust captured in the glass fiber filters of the regular Hi-Vols
will be analyzed for trace elements using several different techniques. A
Level 1 analysis will normally involve analysis of fugitive dust using spark
source mass spectrometry for a broad-spectrum check of the presence or absence
of over 70 elements. In Level 1 tests on streams where toxic trace elements
are already known to occur in potentially hazardous concentrations and in
some Level 2 studies, trace elements may be more accurately quantified by
atomic absorption spectroscopy.
Fugitive dust will be captured in Andersen impactors for a deter-
mination of the amount present in each of five size classes. Since the
Andersen impactors will have aluminum plates instead of filters, the fugitive
dust impacted on the plates can be more easily examined during the particle
morphology analysis. Also, the Andersen impactor catch can be separated into
respirable and nonrespirable particles for morphological analysis.
Sieved samples from the clean coal and coal refuse piles will be used
in human health and ecological tests. These tests will provide information
on the relative toxicity of these specific dusts before they have a chance
to mix with other dusts in the air column.
Particulate samples obtained during Level 1 studies from thermal dryer
or crushing and sizing stacks with the SASS train will be weighed to deter-
mine the amount in each of four size classes. These four size classes will
then be reduced to respirable (1-y cyclone and filter) and nonrespirable
(3-y and 10-y cyclones) particles, which will be examined separately for
particle morphology. In addition, the respirable particles will be used for
human health tests. The respirable and nonrespirable particles will be
analyzed by spark source mass spectrometry and possibly by atomic absorption
spectroscopy if sufficient information on certain elements in particulates
is already known. The combined respirable and nonrespirable particles wil.l
be used for soil(microcosm tests.
37
-------
TABLE 3. POTENTIAL LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR FUGITIVE
DUST AND STACK SAMPLES
Sample Type
Sampling Device
Analysis Technique(s
Fugitive Dust
Fugitive Dust
Fugitive Dust
Stack Particulates
Regular Hi-Vol
Andersen Impactor
53-urn Sieve
SASS(a) Cyclones
Volatile Organics
Greater Than Cj
Sorbent Resin
from SASS(a)
Volatile Organics
Cj-Cy and Sulfur
Compounds
Volatile
Inorganics
Stack Gas
Purge Sampling
Vessel
Spark Source Mass Spectrometry
Atomic Absorption'*-'
Size Distribution
Particle Morphology
Human Health Tests
Soil Microcosm Test
Spark Source Mass Spectrometry
Atomic Absorption'0'
Size Distribution
Particle Morphology
Human Health Tests
Soil Microcosm Test
Total Chromatographable Organics
Analysis of Cg-C^g
Liquid Chromatographic
Separation
Infrared Analysis
Low Resolution Mass
Spectrometry
Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry
On-Site Gas Chromatographic
Analysis of C-^-Cf and
Sulfur Compounds
Condensate Collector Spark Source Mass Spectrometry
and Impingers Atomic Absorption^0'
from SASSla)
Teflon or Tedlar Bag Plant Stress Ethylene
(a) SASS = Source Assessment Sampling System developed by IERL/RTP.(1.4)
(b) Brief descriptions of physical and chemical analysis techniques are
given in Appendix B; biological analysis techniques are described in
Appendix C.
(c) Atomic absorption spectroscopy will be used only if data on trace
elements is already available or for certain elements, such as mer-
cury, which are not readily detected by spark source mass spec-
trometry.
38
-------
The volatile organic gases will be analyzed by three different methods.
First, the C-^ through C7 organics will be determined on-site by a gas
chromatograph (GC). The GC analysis will be conducted on a subsample of gas
taken from the 3-liter flask with a septum described on page 35. Second,
the XAD-2 resin extract will be analyzed for Cg through Ci6 hydrocarbons
using a GC. This analysis and the following analyses will require liquid
chromatographic (LC) separation of the resin extract into seven fractions.
Third, the seven LC fractions will be analyzed by infrared (IR) spectrophotom-
etry and, when the quantity is sufficient, by low resolution mass spectrqm-
etry (LRMS). These techniques are explained in detail in the EPA Level 1
(1 4)
manual ' and are briefly explained in Appendix B.
The volatile inorganic gases captured in the condensate collector will
be analyzed during Level 1 studies by spark source mass spectrometry (SSMS)
for a broad-spectrum elemental analysis and may be analyzed by atomic absorp-
tion (AA) for trace elements of special interest. In addition, the impinger
solutions will be analyzed for mercury.
Sulfur compounds present in the thermal dryer stack gases will be
determined on site in a mobile laboratory during Level 1 testing. This GC
analysis will be conducted by withdrawing a subsample of gas from the 3-liter
glass flask full of stack gas. The subsample will be analyzed using sulfur-
specific flame photometric detection. .
As described earlier in this report, Level 2 and 3 analysis techniques
cannot be predetermined (see the section on Testing Philosophy: The Phased
Approach). However, examples of some Level 2 analysis techniques which may
be useful for fugitive dust and stack gases can be suggested. For example,
Level 2 analyses for trace elements in fugitive dust and stack gas particu-
lates may involve atomic absorption spectroscopy and neutron activation.
For a Level 2 analysis of organics, it will still be necessary to perform
liquid chromatographic separation as in Level 1. However, a variety of
separation techniques are likely to be used, depending on which compounds
are of concern; these separation techniques may include reverse phase or
normal phase high performance liquid chromatography. Other Level 2
analysis techniques for organics may include GC analysis, combined
with mass spectrometry, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and
ultraviolet luminescence spectroscopy. These and other potential Level
2 organic analysis techniques are described in an EPA report entitled
39
-------
"EPA/IERL-RTP Interim Procedures for Level 2 Sampling and Analysis of
, (6)
Organic Materials .
Coal, Refuse, and Slurry
Solids Quality Program
Potential types of sampling locations for solids include run-of-mine
(ROM) and product coal, cleaning plant refuse, and the solids filtered from
slurry samples (see Figure 5). Fugitive dust and stack particulate sampling
has been, discussed under the air sampling program. Potential locations for
collecting solid samples are shown in the block flow diagram of a generalized
coal cleaning plant (see Figure 6) and for specific types of coal cleaning
processes (see Figures 7-12).
Coal Sampling
Solid samples of the ROM,- product, and refuse coal streams are needed
to determine the overall efficiency of various coal cleaning processes in the
removal of sulfur and other pollutants, such as trace metals. Normally, the
ROM and product coal streams move by conveyors and will already be equipped
with manual or automatic samplers. These cross-stream samplers are usually
designed to take a sample from a conveyor while it is moving. The refuse
stream, and possibly the ROM coal feed, is not likely to have a sampling
device. In the absence of a sampling device, Level 1 sampling of ROM coal
will consist of taking a one-shovel-width, cross-stream cut from the belt
conveyor. In this instance, the conveyor will have to be stopped. A flat-
nosed shovel with straight sides should be used. Solid refuse streams
leaving a cleaning plant by truck will be sampled during Level 1 tests by
using a shovel. A composite sample of four shovelsful from each side of a
(1 4)
freshly dumped load of refuse will be used for analysis. ' The data
collection, planning, and execution phases for coal sampling are given in
Appendix A, Figure A-6.
Level 1 sampling of extremely fine product or refuse coal may be
accomplished by boring techniques in storage piles or bins, where the
moving stream is not accessible. Pipe borers, thief borers, or augers
(1 4)
may be used, depending on lump size and pile compaction. '
40
-------
In Level 2 sampling, techniques should be used that can obtain a much
more representative sample of coal and coal refuse. Coal and refuse piles
may be sampled by a technique such as ASTM D346-35, "Standard Method of
Sampling Coke for Analysis", which involves shoveling with coning and
quartering methods. For streams of coal or refuse moving by conveyor,
a mechanical cutter device should be used such as that described in ASTM
D2235-72, which removes a portion of a moving stream by a traverse at a
uniform speed. The large sample obtained by either of the above techniques
will need to be reduced to a representative subsample for analysis. ASTM
D2013-72, "Preparing Coal for Analysis", describes sample reduction tech-
niques using sample dividers and riffles.
Slurry Solids Sampling
The sampling of process slurries was discussed in a previous section
(see the section on Water and Slurry Filtrate Quality Program). Sludge
samples, such as those which accumulate in the bottom of ponds and thickeners,
may need to be sampled by techniques different from those for water samples.
For a Level 1 sample, sludges can be obtained with an Eckman dredge, which
has jaws that close when it hits the bottom of a pond. Similar, but much
more expensive, equipment is available for Level 2 sampling, which should
include compositing of samples obtained several days or weeks apart. The
data collection, planning, and execution phases for slurry solids sampling
are given in Appendix A, Figure A-6.
Refuse Disposal Evaluation
One of the potential sources of pollution from a coal cleaning
operation is the disposal area for cleaning plant refuse. This refuse
usually contains high concentrations of both toxic heavy metals and pyrite.
When it rains, acid drainage with dissolved iron, aluminum, and toxic trace
metals is created. ' Thus, a detailed assessment of the refuse disposal
area is extremely important to the overall environmental assessment of coal
cleaning processes.
The character of the refuse and methods of disposal have profound effects
on the quality and quantity of runoff and leachate discharged from the refuse
41
-------
pile. Therefore, information on the techniques used in refuse disposal and on
geology and topography of the disposal area should be obtained and evaluated
before Level 1 sampling plans are completed (see Appendix A, Figure A-7).
If analyses of the Level 1 grab samples of refuse and refuse leachate
indicate a hazardous situation, as expected, then the planning for a Level 2
sampling program should include a detailed geological analysis of the refuse
disposal area. This analysis should include test borings in the refuse pile
and in the underlying and surrounding soil. The boring sites should be
coordinated as much as possible with Level 2 groundwater sampling well loca-
tions, in order to reduce the number of borings. . Soil and refuse samples
from varying depths should be saved for Level 2 chemical analysis in order
to determine how deep the pollutants identified in Level 1 are leaching.
The Level 2 soil analysis results will be extremely important in the inter-
pretation of Level 2 groundwater analyses.
Analytical Techniques
All coal, coal refuse, and slurry solids samples will be analyzed
by spark source mass spectrometry (SSMS) as part of the Level 1 testing.
SSMS provides a broad-spectrum look at the presence or absence of over
70 elements. Since the SSMS technique is not highly quantitative, some
elements may be analyzed by atomic absorption (AA) spectroscopy as part of
the Level 1 tests. Decisions on which elements to analyze by the more quanti-
tative AA method will depend on the availability of previous analyses on raw
coal or refuse. Six trace elements (As, Cd, Pb, Mn, Se, and Hg) should be
given high priority for AA analysis due to their occurrence in coal from many
locations and their high toxicity.
Particulate catch and fugitive dust collected as part of the air
sampling program, as well as sieved samples of cleaned coal and coal refuse,
will be assayed by several tests to determine their relative biological toxicity.
The human health tests run on solid samples may include (1) the Salmonella/
microsome mutagenesis assay (Ames* test), (2) the rabbit alveolar macrophage
cytotoxicity test, (3) the Wl-38 human lung fibroblast cytotoxicity test, and
(A) the acute in vivo test in rodents. Ecological tests on solids will involve
a soil microcosm test.* '
42
-------
Some solid samples, especially particulate catch, fugitive dust,
and cleaned coal, will be analyzed for organics. The Level 1 organic analysis
on the methylene chloride extract from solids will include the following:
total chromatographable organics (TCO) for volatiles, gravimetric analysis for
nonvolatiles, and a combination of liquid chromatographic separation, infrared
(4)
spectrophotometry, and low resolution mass spectrometry. Level 2 organic
analysis of extract from solids may include many of the techniques discussed
in a previous section for the water and slurry filtrate quality program.
43
-------
REFERENCES
(1) Hamersma, J. W., Reynolds, S. L., and Maddalone, R. F., "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), 131 pp.
(2) Duke, K. M., Davis, M. E., and Dennis, A. J., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:
Level 1 Environmental Assessment Biological Tests for Pilot Studies",
EPA-600/7-77-043, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (April, 1977), 106 pp.
(3) Dorsey, J. A., Johnson, L. D., Statnick, R. M., and LochmUller, C. H.,
"Environmental Assessment Sampling and Analysis: Phased Approach and
Techniques for Level 1", EPA-600/2-77-115, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (June, 1977), 33 pp.
(4) Lentzen, D. E., Wagoner, D. E., Estes, E. D., and Gutknecht, W. F.,
"IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment, (Second
Edition)", EPA-600/7-78-201, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (in press), 178 pp + appendices.
(5) Beimer, R. I., Ryan, L. E., Maddalone, R. A., and Yamada, M. M.,
"Approach to Level 2 Analysis Based on Level 1 Results, MEG Categories
and Compounds and Decision Criteria", draft report No. 30051-001-RU-OO,
by TRW Defense and Space Systems Group, Redondo Beach, California
(October, 1977), 157 pp.
(6) Harris, J. C., and Levins, P. L., "EPA/IERL-RTP Interim Procedures for
Level 2 Sampling and Analysis of Organic Materials", EPA-600/7-78-016,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina (February, 1978), 103 pp.
(7) Cleland, J. G., and Kingsbury, G. L., "Multimedia Environmental Goals
for Environmental Assessment, Volume 1", EPA-600/7-77-l36a, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
(November, 1977), 148 pp plus appendices.
(8) Cleland, J. G., and Kingsbury, G. L., "Multimedia Environmental Goals
for Environmental Assessment, Volume 2: MEG Charts and Background
Information", EPA-600/7-77-136b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (November, 1977), 450 pp.
(9) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, "TLV's
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in
the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1976", ACGIH,
Cincinnati, Ohio (1976), 94 pp.
(10) Librizzi, W., "TSCA - An EPA View", Chemtech. 7/7) 405-408 (July, 1977).
44
-------
(11) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976: A Summary of Public Law 94-580", undated
pamphlet, Number SW-564, p 14.
(12) Min, S., Ballantyne, W. E., Neuendorf, D. W., and Sharp, D. A.,
"Pollution Control Technology for Coal Cleaning Processes", preliminary
report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Battelle's Columbus
Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio (June, 1977), p 220.
(13) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Coal Mining Point Source
Category", Federal Register, 42 (181), 46932-46938 (1977).
(14) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Coal Mining Point Source
Category", Federal Register, _42 (80), 21380-21390 (1977).
(15) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System", Federal Register, ^2 (251), 65209 (1977).
(16) Tolle, D. A., Thomas, R. E., Markarian, R. K., and Hale, V. Q.,
"Selection of Sites for an Environmental Source Assessment of the
Pollution Potential from Coal Cleaning Processes", draft report
on Contract No. 68-02-2163, by Battelle's Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio (April, 1978), 32 pp plus appendices.
(17) Martin, J. F., "The Impact of Coal Refuse on Water Quality", Coal,
437-440 (1977).
(18) Martin, J. F., "Quality of Effluents from Coal Refuse Piles",
Proceedings of the First Symposium on Mine and Preparation Plant
Refuse Disposal. Coal and the Environment Technical Conference,
sponsored by the National Coal Association in Louisville, Kentucky
(October, 1974).
45
-------
APPENDIX A
TEST PLANNING AND CONDUCT GUIDELINES
46
-------
I. ASSEMBLE AVAILABLE DATA
A. Assemble process data
Process diagrams
Flow data
Equipment drawings
Existing process sampling ports
B. Assemble emissions data
(1)
(2)
NPDES* emissions data
Chemical monitoring data
II. Conduct presinpUng site evaluation and reconnaissance
(A) Identify and locate all known or potential point source discharges
(B) Identify ease of access to sampling locations and make any necessary
•edification to facilities 1n order to allow sampling
III. Prepare site-specific test plan for Level 1 testing
A) Prepare detailed test plan based on Information gathered 1n Steps I *
B) Estimate cost and scheduling for Level 1 testing
C) Submit test plan for EPA approval and make modifications of test plan,
cost, and scheduling as required
II
IV. Conduct the appropriate Level (1. 2. or 3) stapling campaign
A Make presampUng preparation
(B Conduct testing based on site-specific test plan
1C Preserve and then deliver samples for chemical and bloassay analysis
(D Obtain data on plant operating conditions during test
V. Evaluate and prepare report on the appropriate Level (1, 2, or 3} results.
Then prepare the next Level (2 or 3) addendum to the site-specific test plan.
(A) Select 11st of effluents and parameters to be evaluated by the next level
of the phased approach. This will be based 1n part on bloassay
results. Estimated Permissible Concentrations (EPC). and Minimum Acute
Toxidty Effluent (MATE) values
B) Estimate costs and schedule for next level of testing
C) Prepare brief but detailed addendum for the site-specific test plan
(D) Submit addendum to the test plan for EPA approval and modify as required
AFTER LEVELS 1 AND 2 REPEAT STEPS IV 4 V
PROCEED TO STEP VI AFTER LEVEL 3
VI.
Prepare final report for the site testing
Report important discharge points, flow rates, pollutant concentrations, etc.
Report on performance of any pollution control equipment
Discuss correlations between emissions and plant operating param
ters
FIGURE A-l. PROCESS WASTEWATER SAMPLING
*NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
47
-------
1
A. Assemble existing environmental,
geological, and topographic data
(1) U.S.G.S. topographic maps
(2; Pre.lous impact statements
(3) Hydrologic surveys
M) Soil maps (neutral Tat ion
and erosion potential)
L
I. ASSEMBLE AVAILABLE DATA
B. Assemble existing emissions data
(1) NPDES* permits
(2) Other runoff or surface
leachate data sources
(3) Treatment facilities for
runoff and leachate
C. Assemble existing precipitation data
(1) U.S.G.S. precipitation records
(2) U.S. Heather Bureau data
Conduct presampling site evaluation and reconnaissance
;A. Identify and locate all known or potential point source discharges
(B) Identify ease of access to sampling locations and make any necessary
modification to facilities in order to allow sampling
III. Prepare site-specific test plan for Level 1 testing
(A) Prepare detailed test plan based on Information gathered 1n Steps I * II
B) Estimate cost and scheduling for Level 1 testing
C) Submit test plan for EPA approval and make modifications of test plan,
cost, and scheduling as required
IV. Conduct the appropriate Level (1, 2, or 3) sampling campaign
(A) Hake presampling preparation
(B) Conduct testing based on site-specific test plan
(C) Preserve and then deliver samples for chemical and bioassay analysis
(D) Obtain data on plant operating conditions during test
V. Evaluate and prepare report on the appropriate Level (1. 2, or 3) results.
Then prepare the next Level (2 or 3) addendum to the site-specific test plan.
(A) Select 11st of effluents and parameters to be evaluated by the next level
of the phased approach. This trill be based in part on bioassay
results. Estimated Permissible Concentrations (EPC). and Hinimum Acute
Toxicity Effluent (HATE) values
(B) Estimate costs and schedule for next level of testing
(C) Prepare brief but detailed addendum for the site-specific test plan
(D) Submit addendum to the test plan for EPA approval and modify as required
AFTER LEVELS 1 and 2 REPEAT STEPS IV s V
PROCEED TO STEP VI AFTER LEVEL 3
VI. Prepare final report for the site testing
(A) Report Important discharge points, flow rates, pollutant concentrations, etc.
(B) Report on performance of any pollution control equipment
(C) Discuss correlations between emissions and plant operating parameters
FIGURE A-2. SURFACE RUNOFF AND LEACHATE SAMPLING
*NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
-------
r
A. Assemble coal cleaning plant data
(1)
I!!
Storage and disposal area survey
Previous Impact statements
Groundwater monitoring data and
locations of existing wells
L
I. ASSEMBLE AVAILABLE DATA
Assemble adjacent Industry data
(1) Effluent discharge data from nearby
coal using operations
(2) Previous impact statements
C.
Assemble existing aquifer data
(1) Subsurface hydrologic studies
at the sites
(2) U.S.G.S. data
II. Conduct presampling site evaluation and reconnaissance
!A) Identify and locate all known or potential point source discharges
B) Identify ease of access to sampling locations and make any necessary
Modification to facilities In order to allow sampling
III.
Prepare site-specific test plan for Level 1 testing
!A) Prepare detailed test plan based on Information gathered In Steps 1 i II
B) Estimate cost and scheduling for Level 1 testing
(C
Submit test plan for EPA approval and Bake Modifications of test plan,
cost, and scheduling as required
IV. Conduct the appropriate Level (1, 2, or 3) sampling campaign
Nike presampling preparation
Conduct testing based on site-specific test plan
Preserve and then deliver samples for chemical and bloassay analysis
Obtain data on plant operating conditions during test
V.
Evaluate and prepare report on the appropriate Level (1. 2, or 3) results.
Then prepare the next Level (2 or 3) addendum to the site-specific test plan.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Select list of effluents and parameters to be evaluated by the next level
of the phased approach. This will be based in part on bloassay
results. EstlMted Permissible Concentrations (EPC). and ftfnlau* Acute
Toxlclty Effluent (NATE) values
Estimate costs end schedule for next level of testing
Prepare brief but detailed addendum for the site-specific test plan
Submit addendum to the test plan for EPA approval and modify as required
AFTER LEVELS 1 AND 2 REPEAT STEPS IV 4 V
PROCEED TO STEP VI AFTER LEVEL 3
VI. Prepare final report for the site testing
A) Report Important discharge points, flow rates, pollutant concentrations, etc.
B) Report on performance of any pollution control equipment
C) Discuss correlations between emissions and plant operating parameters
FIGURE A-3. GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
(Only existing wells will be sampled during Level 1. Wells will
be installed if deemed necessary for Level 2 or 3 sampling.)
-------
I.
Assemble available meteorological, air quality, stack emissions.
and fugitive dust source data
A. Assemble emting meteorological
and air quality data
(1) Seasonal and annual frequency
distribution of wind direc-
tion and speed
(2) Mixing heights and stagnation
data
(3) Data on particulate loading
for stacks and fugitive
sources
T_
B. Assemble stack emissions data
(1) Stack, height, diameter,
exit velocity, exit
temperatures
12) Existing particulate loading
information
(3) Acceptance or performance
test data
C. Assemble fugitive Bust source data
Locations of sources
Number of acres of refuse
and coal piles areas
(3) Height of each source
III
D. Determine sample locations based on results of diffusion modeling
(1) Hap all fugitive dust and stack sources—determine X and Y
coordinates for each
(2) Input above data into a fugitive dust emissions model for
selection of optimal site for monitoring
(3) Reevaluate locations after site visit
U. Conduct presampling Site evaluation and reconnaissance
(A) Identify and locate all known or potential point source discharges
(B) Identify ease of access to sampling locations and make any necessary
•edification to facilities in order to allow sampling
III. Prepare site-specific test plan for Level 1 testing
(A) Prepare detailed test plan based on Information gathered 1n Steps I I II
(B) Estimate cost and scheduling for Level 1 testing
(C) Submit test plan for EPA approval and «ake Modifications of test plan,
cost, and scheduling as required
IV. Conduct the appropriate Level (1, 2. or 3) sailing canpalgn
(A) Hake pre&anpUng preparation
(B) Conduct testing based on site-specific test plan
(C) Preserve and then deliver Movies for chemical and bioassay analysis
(D) Obtain data on plant operating conditions during test
V. Evaluate and prepare report on the appropriate Level (1, 2, or 3) results.
Then prepare the next Level (2 or 3) addendum to the site-specific test plan.
(A) Select list of effluents and parameters to be evaluated by the next level
of the phased approach. This will be based in part on bioassay
results. Estimated Permissible Concentrations (EPC), and Minimum Acute
Toxlcity Effluent (NATE) values
(B) Estimate costs and schedule for next level of testing
(C) Prepare brief but detailed addendum for the site-specific test plan
(D) Submit addendum to the test plan for EPA approval and modify as required
AFTER LEVELS 1 AND 2 REPEAT STEPS IV & V
PROCEED TO STEP VI AFTER LEVEL 3
VI. Prepare final report for the site testing
(A) Report Important discharge points, flow rates, pollutant concentrations, etc.
(B) Report on performance of any pollution control equipment
(C) Discuss correlations between emissions and plant operating parameters
FIGURE A-4. FUGITIVE DUST SAMPLING
50
-------
I. Assemble available data on stack(s) and emissions
(A) Collect stack physical characteristics—height.
diameter, pollution control devices, etc.
(B) Collect Information on operating conditions—
temperatures, flow rates, fuel used for
combustion, and compliance test data
(C) Assemble Information on physical and chemical
characteristics of coal being dried and
coal used 1n dryer furnace
II. Conduct presanpllng site evaluation and reconnaissance
(A) Identify and locate all known or potential point source discharges
(B) Identify ease of access to sampling locations and Mke any necessary
•edification to facilities In order to allow sanpllng
III. Prepare site-specific test plan for Level 1 testing
Prepare detailed test plan based on Information gathered 1n Steps I t II
B Estimate cost and scheduling for Level 1 testing
C Submit test plan for EPA approval and mike modifications of test plan,
cost, and scheduling as required
IV. Conduct the appropriate Level (1. 2, or 3) sampling campaign
Hake presanpHnj preparation
Conduct testing based on site-specific test plan
Dmi*k*miwu*i mmul •>!>&& ,J._.l J.._._ _ • __ f _» t «
v wwxvMta* •A** my wa«w VTI »i b*r~»t"c\. nit w»b fHfln
C)- Preserve and then deliver samples for chemical and bloassay analysis
n Obtain data on plant operating conditions during test
V. Evaluate and prepare report on the appropriate Level (1. 2. or 3) results.
Then prepare the next Level (2 or 3} addendum to the site-specific test plan.
(A) Select list of effluents and parameters to be evaluated by the next level
of the phased approach. This will be based In part on bloassay
results. Estimated Permissible Concentrations (EPC), and Mlnlmun Acute
Toxldty Effluent (NATE) values
B) Estimate costs and schedule for next level of testing
C) Prepare brief but detailed addendum for the site-specific test plan
D) Submit addendum to the test plan for EPA approval and modify as required
AFTER LEVELS 1 AND 2 REPEAT STEPS IV t V.
PROCEED TO STEP VI AFTER LEVa 3
VI. Prepare final report for the site testing
A) Report Important discharge points, flow rates, pollutant concentrations, etc.
Report on performance of any pollution control equipment
Discuss correlations between emissions and plant operating parameters
FIGURE A-5. $TACK SAMPLING
51
-------
1. Assemble available data or coal and slurried solids
(A) Collect all available data on physical and
chemical characteristics of feedstock
and product coals
(B) Obtain process diagrams showing slurry flow
volumes, percent solids, and mesh sizes
(C) Note locations and frequency of automatic
coal sampling devices for both feedstock(s)
and product)s)
II. Conduct presarapllng site evaluation and reconnaissance
A) Identify and locate all known or potential point source discharges
B) Identify ease of access to sampling locations and make any necessary
modification to facilities in order to allow sampling
III. Prepare site-specific test plan for Level 1 testing
(A) Prepare detailed test plan based on information gathered In Steps I & II
(B) Estimate cost and scheduling for Level 1 testing
(C) Submit test plan for EPA approval and Mke modifications of test plan.
cost, and scheduling as required
IV. Conduct the appropriate Level (1. 2. or 3) sampling campaign
(A) Hake presampling preparation
(B) Conduct testing based on site-specific test plan
C) Preserve and then deliver samples for chemical and bioassay analysis
Obtain data on plant operating conditions during test
V. Evaluate and prepare report on the appropriate Level (1. 2, or 3) results.
Then prepare the next Level (2 or 3) addendum to the site-specific test plan.
(A) Select 11st of effluents and parameters to be evaluated by the next level
of the phased approach. This trill be based in part on bioassay
results. Estimated Permissible Concentrations (EPC). and Minimum Acute
Toxlclty Effluent (NATE) values
(B) Estimate costs and schedule for next level of testing
C) Prepare brief but detailed addendum for the site-specific test plan
D) Submit addendum to the test plan for EPA approval and Modify as required
AFTER LEVaS 1 AND 2 REPEAT STEPS IV & V
PROCEED TO STEP VI AFTER LEVEL 3
VI. Prepare final report for the site testing
(A) Report Important discharge points, flow rates, pollutant concentrations, etc.
(B) Report on performance of any pollution control equipment
(C) Discuss correlations between emissions and plant operating parameters
FIGURE A-6. COAL AND SLURRY SOLIDS SAMPLING
52
-------
1. Conduct preinspectlon evaluation and assemble available data
(A) Obtain design and operation specifications for disposal
facility
(B) Obtain any existing refuse analysis data (physical and
chemical) for new and old refuse
Obtain Information on operating history of disposal facility
Obtain soil maps, copies of solid waste pemlts
S!
II. Conduct presaapllng site evaluation and reconnaissance
!A) Identify and locate all known or potential point source discharges
B) Identify ease of access to sampling locations and make any necessary
Modification to facilities 1n order to allow sampling
III. Prepare site-specific test plan for Level 1 testing
(A) Prepare detailed test plan based on Information gathered in Steps I I II
(B) Estimate cost and scheduling for Level 1 testing
(C) Subnlt t -----
test plan for EPA approval and mkt Modifications of test plan.
cost, and scheduling as required
IV. Conduct the appropriate Level (1. 2. or 3) sampling campaign
A) Nike presampling preparation
B) Conduct testing based on site-specific test plan
C) Preserve and then deliver samples for chemical and bioassay analysis
0) Obtain data on plant operating conditions during test
V. Evaluate and prepare report on the appropriate Level (1. 2. or 3) results.
Then prepare the next Level (2 or 3) addendum to the site-specific test plan.
(A) Select list of effluents and parameters to be evaluated by the next level
of the phased approach. This trill be based 1n part on bioasMy
results. Estimated Permissible Concentrations (EPC), and Hinlmu* Acute
Toxlclty Effluent (NATE) values
(B) Estimate costs and schedule for next level of testing
(C) Prepare brief but detailed addendum for the site-specific test plan
(D) Submit addendum to the test plan for EPA approval and modify as required
AFTER LEVELS 1 AND 2 REPEAT STEPS IV & V
RPOCEEO TO STEP VI AFTER LEVa 3
VI. Prepare final report for the site testing
(A) Report Important discharge points, flow rates, pollutant concentrations, etc.
(B) Report on performance of any pollution control equipment
(C) Discuss correlations between emissions and plant operating parameters
FIGURE A-7. REFUSE DISPOSAL EVALUATION
53
-------
APPENDIX B
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL 1
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTS
54
-------
APPENDIX B
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL 1
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTS
The intent of this appendix is to give a brief description of the results
expected from the physical and chemical tests referred to in the text. In
general, these analytical techniques are consistent with EPA's Level 1
protocol. Therefore, some of the organic techniques are designed to identify
classes of compounds rather than species. Also, some of the inorganic
analyses, such as spark source mass spectrometry, are only roughly quantita-
tive. In certain cases, techniques have been chosen that are Level 2 in
nature. Atomic absorption, for example, may be necessary for a more quanti-
tative analysis of volatile trace elements such as Hg, As, and Sb.
Inorganic Elemental Analysis
Spark Source Mass Spectrometry (SSMS)
This analysis will be performed on nearly all effluent streams to obtain
concentrations that are roughly quantitative for the following 71 elements.
Al
Ag
As
B
Ba
Be
Bi
Br
Ca
Cd
Ce
Cl
Co
Cs
Cu
Dy
Er
Eu
F
Fe
Ga
Gd
Ge
Hf
Ho
I
In
Ir
La
Li
Lu
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Nb
Nd
Ni
Os
P
Pb
Pd
Pt
Rb
Re
Rh
Ru
S
Se
Sc
Si
Sm
Sn
Sr
Ta
Tb
Th
Ti
Tl
Tm
U
V
W
Y
Yb
Zn
Zr
Cr K Pr Te
55
-------
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AA)
This technique will be used to make highly quantitative measurements
on toxic trace elements that are known to occur in significant concen-
trations in the raw coal or are inaccurately analyzed by SSMS due to
volatility problems. These elements may include As, Be, Cd, Hg, Mn, Pb, Sb,
and Se.
Particle Morphology
Fugitive dust and particulates in stack gases will be analyzed micro-
scopically to determine the following parameters:
• particle size range
• predominant shape
• evident cleavage
• structure
• color
• predominant types (fly ash, coal dust, etc.).
Several dust samples of known origin may also be analyzed for the above param-
eters. These samples may include cleaned coal, coal cleaning refuse, and
road dust. A photomicrograph will be taken of each sample.
Particle Size Distribution
The particle size distriubtions of fugitive dust and stack particulates
will be determined by the two field techniques described below. Each size
class will subsequently be weighed in the laboratory.
Andersen Impactor
An Andersen head will be used on some high volume samplers to determine
the size distribution of fugitive dust. The five size ranges determined by
the Andersen impactors and filter are the following:
56
-------
Nonrespirable Size Ranges
> 7.0 ym
3.3 - 7.0 ym
Respirable Size Ranges
2.0 - 3.3 ym
1.1 - 2.0 ym
< 1.1 vnn
Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) Cyclones
The SASS sampling train contains an oven module with three cyclones and
a filter which provide classification of particulate matter in stack gases
into the following size ranges:
Nonrespirable Size Ranges
> 10 ym
3 - 10 ym
Respirable Size Ranges
1 - 3 ym
< 1 ym
Organic Analysis •
On-Site Gas Chromatographic (GC) Analysis
A CG system operated in a mobile laboratory will be used to separate and
analyze C. through C_ hydrocarbons present in stack gases according to their
boiling points. Since the chromatogram peaks will represent mixtures of
materials present in a certain boiling range, rather than pure, individual
compounds, the results will be presented in ther following ranges:
Level 1 Level 1 Boiling
Designation Point Range. °C
GC 1 -160 to -100
GC 2 -100 to -50
GC 3 -50 to 0
GC 4 0 to 30
GC 5 30 to 60
GC 6 60 to 90
GC 7 90 to 110
57
-------
In addition, the same GC system may be used with sulfur-specific flame photo-
metric detection for analysis of sulfur compounds.
Total Chromatographable Organics (TCP) Analysis
The TCO procedure will be applied to various organic solvent extracts,
organic liquids, and SASS sorbent module rinses. The TCO results are reported
as one number which corresponds to the total quantity of material in the
100-300°C boiling range.
Gravimetric (GRAY) Analysis
The GRAY analysis is used to quantify organics with boiling points above
300°C. For a Level 1 analysis, weighing to a precision of ±0.1 mg is adequate.
The sample of organic extract which is dried and weighed should be no more than
5 ml or one-half of the total sample, whichever is smaller.
Liquid Chromatographic (LC) Separation
Extracted organics are separated by liquid chromatography using seven
different solvents in a gradient elution technique. This separation pro-
cedure is not a high-resolution technique; therefore, there is overlap in class
type among the seven resulting fractions. Each of the fractions is evaporated
and weighed.
Infrared (IR) Analysis
The total sample extract and the seven LC fractions discussed above are
analyzed by IR spectrophotometry. Spectra are interpreted in terms of functional
groups of organic gases present in the total sample and each LC fraction.
Low Resolution Mass Spectrometry (LRMS)
LRMS spectra will be obtained on any of the LC fractions which are
present in quantities greater than those recommended by IERL/RTP for Level 1.
58
-------
The resulting spectra will be interpreted on the basis of the investigator's
experience and a knowledge of the LC separation scheme, the IR spectra, the
type of sample, and compilations of reference spectra. The interpretation
may suggest the presence of specific compounds or may be able to identify
only the general types of organic compounds present in the sample.
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)
The first portion (GC) of this analytical technique is a physical method
designed for separating components of a complex organic mixture. Individual
components within a sample register a succession of peaks on a chromatogram;
the area under the peak indicates the quantity of the component, and the
time lapse between injection and emergence of the peak serves to identify it.
The mass spectrometry portion of this technique produces charged ions consisting
of the parent ion and ionic fragments of the original organic molecule and sorts
these ions according to their mass/charge ratio. The mass spectrum of the gas
chromatography output is a record of the number of different kinds of ions—the
relative numbers of each are characteristic for every compound, including
isomers. From the wealth of information obtained from GC/MS analysis, one
can determine the specific organic compound present rather than having to
accept statements on the relative abundance of groups or fractions of the
wastes. Thus, it is a more powerful and precise tool for organic analysis
than the combined IR and LRMS techniques.
Water Quality Chemistry
Water and slurry filtrate samples will be analyzed for some or all of the
following water quality parameters, depending on the availability of previously
collected water quality data at a test site:
59
-------
Acidity Nitrate
Alkalinity Nitrite
Ammonia Oil and Grease
Biological Oxygen Demand pH
Chemical Oxygen Demand Phenol
Chloride Redox Potential
Conductivity Sulfate
Dissolved Iron Sulfide
Dissolved Oxygen Sulfite
Fluoride Total Dissolved Solids
Free Cyanide Total Organic and Inorganic Phosphate
Hardness Total Suspended Solids
60
-------
APPENDIX C
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL 1
HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL TESTS
61
-------
APPENDIX C
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF LEVEL 1
HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL TESTS
The following human health and ecological tests are intended to complement
the physical and chemical data. Only the biological tests can provide a
reliable measure of the potential biological response to an effluent stream.
Also, the biological tests can detect complex biological effects such as
synergism and antagonism. On the other hand, the causes of the biological
effects observed cannot be interpreted without the data provided by physical
and chemical tests. All of the biological tests described briefly below are
presented in more detail in the EPA Level 1 manual. '
Health Effects Tests
Ames Test
The Ames test, also known as the Salmonella/microsome mutagenesis assay,
is designed as a screening technique to determine the mutagenic activity of
complex mixtures. It is based on the property of a bacterium, Salmonella
typhimurium, to change from a histidine-requiring state to prototrophy due to
exposure to nanogram quantities of various classes of mutagens.
Human Lung Fibroblast Assay
In this cytotoxicity test, also known as the WI-38 test, human-lung
fibroblast cells in culture are used to measure quantitatively the cellular
metabolic impairment and death resulting from in vitro exposure to soluble and
particulate toxicants. This test is performed by incubating cells in a flask
with various dilutions of an effluent test material, followed by cell counts,
cell viability, and protein and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) determinations.
62
-------
Rabbit Alveolar Macrophage (RAM) Assay^
In the RAM assay, cells washed out of the lungs of clinically healthy
rabbits are used to determine cellular impairment and death due to toxicants.
The testing and measurements are similar to the human-lung fibroblast test
described above. However, in addition to the cell viability and protein and
ATP determinations, the cells are also measured for phagocytic activity
(ability to engulf particulates).
Acute Jn vivo Test in Rodents
The first step of this two-step test involves administration of a 10 g/kg
dose of sample to five rats by introduction into the stomach through a tube.
Toxicological effects are noted over a 14-day period to determine the
necessity for a second step. If one or more test animals die or exhibit
gross toxic effects, then a second, more extensive test involving a graded
response is conducted. In this series, 80 rats are divided into groups,
each of which receives a fraction of the original dose. This second test
provides LDcg and other toxicological information.
Plant Stress Ethylene
*
This test is based on the fact that plants respond to environmental stress
by releasing ethylene; the greater the stress on a plant, the more ethylene it
releases. Therefore, gaseous effluent samples will be released into controlled
test chambers with plants, and the amount of ethylene released will be compared
with the amount released by control plants in similar test chambers. Obviously,
the 6-week-old soybean plants recommended for these tests must be very carefully
handled to prevent physical damage or other stresses which would confuse the
test results. Normally, the undiluted sample of gas and gas-to-air dilutions
of 1:1 and 1:3 are used in the exposure tests.
Freshwater Aquatic Tests
Fathead Minnow Acute Static Bioassay
In this test, the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelus) is used to deter-
mine the concentration of toxicant in dilution water that causes death of
63
-------
50 percent of the test population (10-20 individuals) in a 96-hour period. The
result of this acute mortality test is the statistically derived best estimate
of the 96-hour median lethal concentration (96-hour LC50).
Daphnia Acute Static Bioassay
In this test, the crustacean Daphnia pulex is used to determine the concen-
tration of toxicant in dilution water that causes immobilization of 50 percent
of the test population (10-20 individuals) in a 48-hour period. The test result
is known as the 48-hour median effective concentration (48-hour £650).
Freshwater Algal Assay: Bottle Test
In this test, freshwater algae are used to quantify changes in their growth
due to changes in concentrations of effluent in the dilution water. The dilution
water is provided with a standard nutrient medium. The two parameters used to
describe the growth of each test alga are maximum specific growth rate and
maximum standing crop.
Soil Microcosm Test
In the soil microcosm test, intact soil cores are used to quantify the
relationship between contaminant dose and transport, accumulation, and short-
term effects. The effects of concern are nutrient cycling disruption and
changes in soil biota populations. Biotic analysis involves a determination
of the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) concentration, while nutrients monitored
include calcium and dissolved organic carbon.
64
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
frleatf read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-073a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning
Processes: Master Test Plan
5. REPORT DATE
February 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
D.A.Tolle, D.W.Neuendorf, and P.Van Voris
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
E HE 62 3 A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-02-2163, Task 451
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 6/77 - 1/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES JERL-RTP project officer is James D. Kilgroe, MD-61, 919/541-
2851.
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives a master test plan, presenting the objectives and general
structure of a field testing program designed for an environmental source assess-
ment of coal cleaning processes. The report, to be used to prepare test plans for
individual coal cleaning sites, reflects the common thread running through a series
of tests at various sites. It includes the background and objectives of Battelie's
overall program for EPA, entitled 'Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Pro
cesses.' The report emphasizes the philosophy of the field testing program and the
elements of sampling and sample analysis which are common to all test sites. Coal
cleaning facilities to be tested in the 10 site categories will be evaluated at three
sampling and analytical levels. Level 1 tests identify problem areas that are asses-
sed by the more rigorous Level 2 tests. Level 3 involves long-term monitoring of
'key* indicator parameters which have been identified in the environmentally hazar-
dous streams tested by Level 2 techniques. Environmental source assessments
will: systematically evaluate the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
of selected process streams and all effluent streams; predict the potential effects of
those streams on the environment; rank the streams according to their relative bio-
logical toxicity; and identify areas requiring further research and development.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Assessments
Coal Preparation
Coal
Tests
Sampling
Analyzing
Toxicity
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Environmental Assess-
ment
Coal Cleaning
13B
14B
081
08G,21D
06T
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
74
20. SECURITY
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-73)
65
------- |