United States EPA-600/7-81-086
Environmental Protection May 1981
Agency
»EPA Research and
Development
COAL RESOURCES AND
SULFUR EMISSION REGULATIONS:
A Summary of Eight Eastern and
Midwestern States
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Prepared by
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-81-086
May 1981
Coal Resources and
Sulphur Emission Regulations
A Summary of Eight Eastern
and Midwestern States
by
Richard A. Chapman and Marcel la A. Wells
Teknekron
2M8MilviaStreet
Berkeley, California 94704
Contract No. 68-02-3136
Program Element No. EHE623A
EPA Project Officers: James D. Kilgroe
David Kirchgessner
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 277 LI
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research Labor-
atory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
in
-------
ABSTRACT
Increasing demand for electric power and the national mandate to become less
dependent on expensive, imported petroleum will result in the increased use of
coal for power generation. Accompanying the changes in fuel mix will be
revisions to environmental regulations and legislation affecting the use of coal.
This report provides an analysis of coal resources, current coal use, and the
effectiveness of SOj control strategies for use by coal users, regulators, and
administrators in future coal-related decisions.
The report focuses on the eight major eastern and midwestern coal-producing
states: Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia. Each state analysis includes a general overview of the coal
industry, an overview of coal properties, a description of major coal seams, an
analysis of the quantity of coal available to meet various SO^ emissions
regulations, and information regarding the sulfur content of coals used by
utilities in 1979. The report focuses primarily on physical coal cleaning (PCC)
and the use of low-sulfur coal as viable emission control strategies, with flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) discussed to a lesser extent.
Data on coal resources, coal properties and washability, coal production, and
deliveries to utilities were compiled from several sources and organized into
computer data bases. The Coal Assessment Processor (CAP) model was
developed to operate on these data bases to determine the quantity of coal that
would be available in each state to meet various 502 emission regulations using
one or a combination of alternative SO^ control technologies. With this
information, decision makers can examine the situation from state to state to
identify the appropriate strategies for controlling S02 emissions from coal
combustion
This report was prepared by Teknekron under Subcontract Agreement No. 553-1
and submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-3136 by Versar, Inc., under
the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers
the period April 1979 to March 1981.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xv
I. INTRODUCTION I-I
2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1
Section 2 References 2-6
3. METHODOLOGY 3-1
Section 3 References 3-9
4. STATE ANALYSES 4-1
4.1 Alabama 4-2
4.2 Illinois 4-10
4.3 Indiana 4-18
4.4 Kentucky 4-26
4.5 Ohio 4-38
4.6 Pennsylvania 4-46
4.7 Virginia 4-54
4.8 West Virginia 4-62
Section 4 References 4-74
APPENDIX A: Averaging Times A-1
v
-------
FIGURES
Page
2-1 Projected S02 Emission Reduction by Control Strategy 2-5
2-2 Projected Cumulative S0? Emission Reduction since
1979 by Control Strategy 2-5
3-1 Comparison of CAP Model PCC I Results with Coal
Preparation Plant Performance 3-4
3-2 Comparison of CAP Model PCC 2 Results with Coal
Preparation Plant Performance 3-4
3-3 Percentage of Coal Reserves in Northern Appalachia
Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using Physical
and Chemical Coal Cleaning (Total Coal Reserves =
1,734 Quads) 3-7
3-4 Percentage of Coal Reserves in Northern Appalachia
Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using Flue Gas
Desulfurization, Fluidized Bed Combustion, and
Coal Gasification for SCs Control (Total Coal Reserves =
1,734 Quads) ^ 3-7
3-5 Levelized Physical Coal Cleaning Costs in 1978,
Exclusive of Lost Coal Energy Cost, as a
Function of Weight Loss 3-8
3-6 Comparison of CAP Model Levelized Coal Cleaning
Cost with Thirteen Plant Design Costs (Including
Cost of Lost-Coal Energy at $1 / I0b Btu) 3-9
4.1-1 Alabama Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-3
4.1-2 Alabama Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-4
4.1-3 Percentage of Projected 1985 Alabama Coal Production
Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using Physical
Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization 4-6
4.1-4 Percentage of Projected 1985 Alabama Coal Production
Able to Meet Various SO? Emission Standards Defined by
an Emission Ceiling and Percentage SO* Reduction Using
Physical Coal Cleaning at Ik", 1.6 sp. gr. 4-7
4.2-1 Illinois Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-11
4.2-2 Illinois Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-12
VII
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Poqe
4.2-3 Percentage of Projected 1985 Illinois Coal Production
Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using Physical
Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization 4-14
4.2-4 Percentage of Projected 1985 Illinois Coal Production
Able to Meet Various SCU Emission Standards Defined by
an Emission Ceiling and Percentage SC^ Reduction Using
Physical Coal Cleaning at Ife", l.6sp. gr. 4-15
4.3-1 Indiana Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-19
4.3-2 Indiana Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-20
4.3-3 Percentage of Projected 1985 Indiana Coal Production
Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using Physical
Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization 4-22
4.3-4 Percentage of Projected 1985 Indiana Coal Production
Able to Meet Various SCU Emission Standards Defined
by an Emission Ceiling and Percentage SC>2 Reduction
Using Physical Coal Cleaning at I ft", 1.6 sp.gr. 4-23
4.4-1 Eastern Kentucky Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-27
4.4-2 Western Kentucky Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-28
4.4-3 Eastern Kentucky Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-29
4.4-4 Western Kentucky Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-30
4.4-5 Percentage of Projected 1985 Eastern Kentucky Coal
Production Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using
Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization 4-32
4.4-6 Percentage of Projected 1985 Eastern Kentucky Coal
Production Able to Meet Various SO, Emission Standards
Defined by an Emission Ceiling and Percentage SO?
Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at Ife", 1.6 sp. gr. 4-33
4.4-7 Percentage of Projected 1985 Western Kentucky Coal
Production Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using
Physical CoaJ Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization 4-34
viii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Pqqe
4.4-8 Percentage of Projected 1985 Western Kentucky Coal
Production Able to Meet Various SO, Emission Standards
Defined by an Emission Ceiling and Percentage SCU
Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at IV, 1.6 sp. gr. 4-35
4.5-1 Ohio Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-39
4.5-2 Ohio Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-40
4.5-3 Percentage of Projected 1985 Ohio Coal Production
Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using Physical
Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization 4-42
4.5-4 Percentage of Projected 1985 Ohio Coal Production
Able to Meet Various $©2 Emission Standards Defined
by an Emission Ceiling and Percentage S02 Reduction
Using Physical Coal Cleaning at Ife", 1.6 sp. gr. 4-43
4.6-1 Pennsylvania Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-47
4.6-2 Pennsylvania Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-48
4.6-3 Percentage of Projected 1985 Pennsylvania Coal
Production Able to Meet Various Emission Limits
Using Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas
Desulfurization 4-50
4.6-4 Percentage of Projected 1985 Pennsylvania Coal
Production Able to Meet Various SO, Emission
Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and
Percentage S0? Reduction Using Physical Coal
Cleaning at !&*, 1.6 sp. gr. 4-51
4.7-1 Virginia Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-55
4.7-2 Virginia Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-56
4.7-3 Percentage of Projected 1985 Virginia Coal Production
Able to Meet Various Emission Limits Using Physical
Coat Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization 4-58
IX
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Page
4.7-4 Percentage of Projected 1985 Virginia Coal Production
Able to Meet Various SOo Emission Standards Defined
by an Emission Ceiling and Percentage SCU Reduction
Using Physical Coal Cleaning at Ife", 1.6 sp. gr. 4-59
4.8-1 Northern West Virginia Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-63
4.8-2 Southern West Virginia Coal Properties Fact Sheet 4-64
4.8-3 Northern West Virginia Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-65
4.8-4 Southern West Virginia Coal Washability Data Sheet 4-66
4.8-5 Percentage of Projected 1985 Northern West Virginia
Coal Production Able to Meet Various Emission
Limits Using Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas
Desulfurization 4-68
4.8-6 Percentage of Projected 1985 Northern West Virginia
Coal Production Able to Meet Various SC^ Emission
Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and Percentage
SO, Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at Ife",
1.6sp.gr. 4-69
4.8-7 Percentage of Projected 1985 Southern West Virginia
Coal Production Able to Meet Various Emission
Limits Using Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas
Desulfurization 4-70
4.8-8 Percentage of Projected 1985 Southern West Virginia
Coal Production Able to Meet Various S02 Emission
Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and Percentage
S02 Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at \h", 1.6 sp. gr. 4-71
-------
TABLES
Page
2-1 Average Emission Potentials and Emission Reductions
for Coal from Eight States 2-1
2-2 Current (1979) SO-Reduction Achieved by Cleaning
Utility Coal from Eight States 2-2
2-3 Additional SO? Reduction That Could Have Been
Achieved If AH the 1979 Utility Coal from Eight
States Had Been Cleaned 2-3
2-4 Emission Levels and Percentage SCL Reduction
Achievable by One-Half of 1985 Planned Coal
Production Using PCC I 2-6
3-1 Typical Washability Data 3-3
3-2 Energy Consumed in the Production of Low- and
Medium-Btu Gas 3-5
4.1-1 Potential S02 Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Alabama Coals Delivered to
Utilities in 1979
4.1-2 Source State for Coal Used in Alabama Plants in 1979 4-8
4.1-3 Out-of-State Coal Use by Alabama Plants in 1979 4-8
4.1-4 States Receiving Alabama Coal Deliveries to Utility
Plants in 1979 4-9
4.1-5 Alabama Utility Plants Receiving Alabama Coal
Deliveries in 1979 4-9
4.2-1 Potential SO2 Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Illinois Coals Delivered to
Utilities in 1979 4-15
4.2-2 Source State for Coal Used in Illinois Plants in 1979 4-16
4.2-3 Out-of-State Coal Use by Illinois Plants in 1979 4-16
4.2-4 States Receiving Illinois Coal Deliveries to Utility
Plants in 1979 4-17
4.2-5 Illinois Utility Plants Receiving Illinois Coal
Deliveries in 1979 4-17
XI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Page
4.3-1 Potential SC^ Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Indiana Coals Delivered to
Utilities in 1979 4-23
4.3-2 Source State for Coal Used in Indiana Plants in 1979 4-24
4.3-3 Out-of-State Coal Use by Indiana Plants in 1979 4-24
4.3-4 States Receiving Indiana Coal Deliveries to Utility
Plants in 1979 4-25
4.3-5 Indiana Utility Plants Receiving Indiana Coal
Deliveries in 1979 4-25
4.4-1 Potential SC^ Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Eastern Kentucky Coals
Delivered to Utilities in 1979 4-33
4.4-2 Potential SCL Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Western Kentucky Coals
Delivered to Utilities in 1979 4-35
4.4-3 Source State for Coal Used in Kentucky Plants in 1979 4-36
4.4-4 Out-of-State Coal Use by Kentucky Plants in 1979 4-36
4.4-5 States Receiving Kentucky Coal Deliveries to Utility
Plants in 1979 4-37
4.4-6 Kentucky Utility Plants Receiving Kentucky Coal
Deliveries in 1979 4-37
4.5-1 Potential S02 Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Ohio Coals Delivered to Utilities
in 1979 4-43
4.5-2 Source State for Coal Used in Ohio Plants 4-44
4.5-3 Out-of-State Coal Use by Ohio Plants 4-44
4.5-4 States Receiving Ohio Coal Deliveried to Utility
Plants in 1979 4-45
XII
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Page
4.5-5 Ohio Utility Plants Receiving Ohio Coal Deliveries
in 1979 4-45
4.6-1 Potential S02 Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Pennsylvania Coals Delivered
to Utilities in 1979 4-51
4.6-2 Source State for Coal Used in Pennsylvania Plants
in 1979 4-52
4.6-3 Out-of-State Coal Use by Pennsylvania Plants in 1979 4-52
4.6-4 States Receiving Pennsylvania Coal Deliveries to Utility
Plants in 1979 4-53
4.6-5 Pennsylvania Utility Plants Receiving Pennsylvania
Coal Deliveries in 1979 4-53
4.7-1 Potential S02 Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Virginia Coals Delivered to
Utilities in 1979 4-59
4.7-2 Source State for Coal Used in Virginia Plants in 1979 4-60
4.7-3 Out-of-State Coal Use by Virginia Plants in 1979 4-60
4.7-4 States Receiving Virginia Coal Deliveries in Utility
Plants in 1979 4-61
4.7-5 Virginia Utility Plants Receiving Virginia Coal
Deliveries in 1979 4-61
4.8-1 Potential S02 Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Northern West Virginia Coals
Delivered to Utilities in 1979 4-69
4.8-2 Potential S02 Emission Reductions and Costs Due to
Selective Washing of Southern West Virginia Coals
Delivered to Utilities in 1979 4-71
4.8-3 Source State for Coal Used in West Virginia Plants in 1979 4-72
xiii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Page
4.8-4 Out-of-State Coal Use by West Virginia Plants in 1979 4-72
4.8-5 States Receiving West Virginia Coal Deliveries to
Utility Plants in 1979 4-73
4.8-6 West Virginia Utility Plants Receiving West Virginia
Coal Deliveries in 1979 4-73
A-1 Typical Coal Sulfur RSD Values Reported
by EPA as a Function of Coal Sample Size A-2
A-2 Example Normal Variates and Implications of Confidence
Level on Expected SCU Violations A-3
A-3 Mean Coal SC>2 Contents Equivalent to Selected
Short-Term Emission Limits for Various Values of
Coal Sulfur RSD A-3
XIV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for the Energy Assessment and Control Division of the
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under a subcontract to Versar, Incorporated, of Springfield, Virginia.
The EPA Project Officer was Mr. David Kirchgessner and the EPA Program
Manager was Mr. James D. Kilgroe. The Versar Program Manager was Mr. Lee
C. McCandless and the Versar/Teknekron Coordinator was Mr. Jerome Strauss.
Teknekron Research appreciates the direction and assistance provided by
Messrs. Kilgroe, Kirchgessner, McCandless, and Strauss.
Teknekron Research would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by
Ms. Laurie McGildray of Versar in the preparation of portions of Sections 1,2,
and 3 of this report and by Mr. James D. Kilgroe of EPA in the preparation of
portions of Appendix A.
The project was conducted under the overall direction of Dr. Stanley M.
Greenfield. The Teknekron Research Program Manager was Mr. Richard A.
Chapman. Mrs. Mar eel la A. Wells and the Computer Sciences Group were
responsible for the development of the CAP Model and the extensive coal data
bases used in the preparation of this report. Special thanks are expressed to
Ms. Barbara Phillips, Senior Technical Editor, Ms. Evelyn Kawahara and the Word
Processing Group, and to Mr. Patrick Rupert and the Graphics Group for their
invaluable help and patience.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND In the next several years in the United States, an increasing amount of coal will be used for power
generation. This will be due both to an increased demand for electric power and to the national mandate
to become less dependent on expensive, imported petroleum. Accompanying the changes in fuel mix will
be revisions to environmental regulations and legislation affecting the use of coal.
AIR
POLLUTION
REGULATIONS
The Clean Air Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-604) and its Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-95) provide authority for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control the discharge of air pollutants into the
atmosphere. The Act requires EPA to coordinate, develop, and implement regulations designed to limit
the quantity of pollutants in the ambient air and to control pollutant emissions to the atmosphere from
stationary and mobile sources. As such, the Act contains several regulatory and enforcement actions for
control of emissions from stationary sources using coal. Actions include: (I) creating National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and implementing State Implementation Plans (SIP) to meet these
standards, (2) promulgating New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) on the federal level, and
(3) establishing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations on the national level and
nonattainment area designations on the state level.
National Ambient
Air Quality
Standards and
State Implementation
Plans
Under Section 109 of the Act, NAAQS hove been set by EPA on sulfur dioxide, particulote matter,
nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons, and lead. To implement these
standards, each state must develop a detailed plan for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS in all
regions of the state. These State Implementation Plans, which must be approved by EPA (per
Section 110 of the Act), include emission limits, timetables for compliance, and enforcement programs.
The primary source of sulfur dioxide that affects ambient air quality is the combustion of solid and liquid
fuels in stationary sources. Therefore pre- and post-combustion control of sulfur in power plants is a
major tool in each SIP for meeting the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide.
SIP limits for SO2 are often set by the state at a level that will not discourage the use of local coal.
Furthermore, lower limits are usually set for units located in urban areas than for units located in rural
parts of the state. For example, in Pennsylvania the SIP limit for many units located in the rural areas
and near major coal fields is 3.3 Ib S02/IO Btu, while the SIP limit for units
in the 0.6 to 0.7 Ib SO-/10* Btu range.
; located near urban areas is
New Source
Performance
Standards
Section III of the Act requires EPA to issue New Source Performance Standards for emissions from new
and modified sources that contribute significantly to air pollution and endanger the public health and
welfare. The standards must reflect the best degree of control and take cost, energy, and non-air related
environmental impacts into account.
The Amendments of 1977 specifically mention the need to revise and/or develop NSPS for fossil-fuel-
fired boilers. The original NSPS, which is applicable to large coal-fired boilers (greater than 250 million
Btu/hr heat input) built or modified between 1972 and 1979, specifies an emission limit of 1.2 Ib
S02/I068tu.
The large coal-fired boiler NSPS was revised in 1978 to reflect "a degree of emission limitation and
percentage reduction achievable through application of the best technological system of emission
1-1
-------
reduction." The revised NSPS specified a maximum emission limit of 1.2 Ib Sr^/'O Btu, combined with
90 percent sulfur dioxide removal. A floor of 0.6 Ib SO^/Btu was set along with a minimum 70 percent
reduction in sulfur dioxide. Emission limits are average levels not to be exceeded during a 30-day
(running) average. Sulfur reduction credits for coal cleaning are given on the basis of o 3-month average
for sulfur removed at the preparation plant.
ISSUES
Regulatory considerations will include a growing realization that accelerated coal use may moke it more
difficult to meet State Implementation Plans (SIPs), to meet Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) requirements while still permitting growth, to find sufficient offsets in nonattainment areas, and
to find cost-effective ways to control emissions from small boilers. Furthermore, there is an emerging
awareness of the acid rain/acid deposition problem and of the fact that fuel sulfur variability and
temporal variations in the efficiency of flue gas scrubbers are significant determinants of whether any
given source will exceed specified emission regulations.
COAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT
To respond to these considerations in their future coal-related decisions, coal users, regulators, and
administrators will have to be armed with extensive information on coal resources, current coal use,
sulfur dioxide (SOj) control technologies, and alternative SC^ emission regulatory strategies. This
document, accordingly, supplies information on cool resources, current coal use, and the effectiveness
and costs of SC^ control technologies for the eight major eastern and midwestern coal-producing states:
Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Each state analysis
includes a general overview of the coal industry, an overview of cool properties, a description of major
coal seams, an analysis of the quantity of coal available to meet various SOj emission regulations, and
information regarding the sulfur content of coals used by utilities in 1979. The report focuses primarily
on physical coal cleaning (PCC) and the use of low-sulfur coal as viable emission control strategies, with
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) discussed to a lesser extent.
APPROACH
Data an coal resources, coal properties and washability, coal production, and deliveries to utilities were
compiled from several sources and organized into computer data bases. The Coal Assessment Processor
(CAP) model was developed to operate on these data bases to determine the quantity of coal that would
be available in each state to meet various SO* emission regulations using one or a combination of
alternative SOj control technologies. With this information, decision makers can examine the situation
from state to state to identify the appropriate strategies for ensuring compliance with SO-^ emission
regulations.
The report is organized into four sections: Introduction, Conclusions and Recommendations, Method-
ology, and State Analyses.
1-2
-------
2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Where Physical
Coal Cleaning is
Most Effective
Coals that are naturally low in sulfur or whose sulfur content has been reduced by 1he use of physical
coal cleaning can be used to comply with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 1971 New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) regulations governing sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired utility
boilers. Also, in some cases, PCC plus FGD may be a cost-effective SOT control strategy for emission
regulations requiring large percentage SO2 reductions that cannot be achieved by PCC alone. Physical
coal cleaning (PCC) is the generic name for a technological process that removes ash and pyritic sulfur
from coal. With regard to sulfur removal, PCC is most effective when used with coal whose pyritic
sulfur content is high. In the United States, coals of this type are mined in northern Appalachia and the
eastern Midwest. The desulfurization potential of PCC is determined by laboratory washability tests on
specific coal samples. Table 2-1 shows, for various coal-producing states, the relationship between the
average emission potential of the coal and the percentage by which SO, emission can be reduced using a
moderate level of coal cleaning. Although the data in the table represent laboratory washability results
for just a limited number of samples, they ore useful in illustrating the relationship between coal
characteristics and washability. Furthermore, they indicate the kind of cool typically found in each
state.
Table 2-1
Average Emission Potential! and Emission Reductions for
Coal from Eight States
Region
and
State
Northern Appalachia
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Northern West Virginia
Southern Appalachia
Southern West Virginia
Virginia
Eastern Kentucky
Eastern Midwest
Western Kentucky
Indiana
Illinois
Alabama
Alabama
Number of
Washability
Samples
170
90
30
16
8
13
37
21
40
10
Average
Emission Potential
(IbSOj/XTBtu)
4.0
5.8
4.9
1.4
I.I
2.3
6.6
5.9
6.6
2.0
Average Emission
Reduction
Using PCC 1*
(%)
33.2
25.9
28. £
10. 1
7.6
15.9
31.5
26A
29.3
10.8
* PCC I is equivalent to coal crushed to I 1/2 inch top size and separated at 1.6 specific gravity.
For example, western Kentucky coal has a high average emission potential of 6.6 pounds of SO^ per
million Bhj, but moderate cleaning of the coal can provide a 31.5 percent reduction in SO-, emissions.
£ £
Virginia coal illustrates the other extreme) its typical •mission potential is low (1.1 Ib 502/10 Btu), and
2-1
-------
the percentage of emission reduction also is low (7.6 percent). Pennsylvania snows a slightly different
pattern — a moderate emission potential of 4.0 Ib SO^/IO Btu and a high average percentage emission
reduction of 33.2 percent — which is partially explained by the relatively high pyritic sulfur content
compared with total sulfur content.
Table 2-2 summarizes the current extent to which electric utilities are using coal cleaning for ash and
SO2 reduction. The data are from the 1979 deliveries-to-utilities data base combined with the coal
washability data base (the data bases are described in Section 3). The deliveries-to-utilities data base
specifies the SO, content of the as-delivered coal and the quantity of coal cleaned prior to delivery.
These specifications were converted to the as-mined quantities and SOj contents presented in Table 2-2
by assuming that the washability characteristics of the coals washed prior to delivery were the same as
those of the coals that were not washed prior to delivery. For example, as shown later in Table 4.1 -I, a
21 percent SO^ reduction can be achieved by washing Alabama coals. Therefore, it was assumed that the
washed Alabama coals delivered to utilities had had their SC^ content reduced by 21 percent in the
washing process, and that, accordingly, the as-mined SC>2 content was equal to the as-delivered SC^
content divided by 0.79 (i.e., 1-0.21). Coal weight prior to washing was calculated in a similar manner,
to determine the percentage of utility coal cleaned in 1979.
Table 2-2
Current (1979) SO, Reduction Achieved by
Cleaning Utility fcoal from Eight States
Region and Coal Delivered
State in to Utilities
Which Coal in,!979
Was Mined (10 Tons)
Northern Appalachia
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Northern West Virginia
Southern Appalachia
Southern West Virginia
Virginia
Eastern Kentucky
Eastern Midwest
Western Kentucky
Indiana
Illinois
Alabama
Alabama
EIGHT-STATE TOTAL
47,400
38,300
31,300
17,500
13,400
68,600
38,100
25,300
49,500
14,600
344,000
Utility Coal
Cleaned in
1979
(Percent)
30
II
23
9
7
22
34
52
72
32
33
SO2 Content of Coal
As-Mined
(IOJ Tons)
2,100
2,750
1,760
300
280
1,630
2,880
1,620
3,570
460
17,340
As Delivered
(I03tons)
1,860
2,670
1,690
290
270
1,570
2,600
1,410
2,780
440
15,570
Average SO,
Reduction by Coal
Cleaning in 1979
(Percent)
12
3
4
1
1
4
10
13
22
5
10
Table 2-2 shows, for example, that over one-half of the coal from Indiana and Illinois and about one-third
of the coal from Pennsylvania, western Kentucky, and Alabama were cleaned prior to delivery to utilities
in 1979, and that this cleaning resulted in significant SO, reductions. On the other hand, only small
percentages of the coal from Ohio, southern West Virginia, and Virginia were cleaned prior to utility use
in 1979. .
2-2
-------
The SO, reduction thai could have been achieved if all coat delivered to utilities in 1979 had been
cleaned at I 1/2 inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity (i.e., moderate cleaning) is summarized in
Table 2-3.
Table 2-3
Additional SO, Reduction That Could Have Been Achieved If All
the 1979 Utility Coal from Eight States Hod Been Cleaned
Region and Additional SO, Reduction*
State in by Washing All Coal
Was Mined (10
Northern Appalachia
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Northern West Virginia
Southern Appalachia
Southern West Virginia
Virginia
Eastern Kentucky
Eastern Midwest
Western Kentucky
Indiana
Illinois
Alabama
Alabama
EIGHT -STATE TOTAL 2
3 Tons)
470
740
280
30
30
260
530
180
230
70
,850
(Percent)
25
28
16
II
10
16
21
13
8
17
18
Levelized Cost of Clean
the Additional Coals
<$/Ton»»)
9.10
9.30
8.00
7.90
8.30
10.00
6.50
4.60
6.60
8.60
8.40
(Mills/kWh*
4.0
4.4
3.5
3.4
3.5
4.4
3.1
2.2
3.3
3.8
3.8
ing
Cost-Effectiveness
•*) ($/Ton S02 Removed)
670
430
720
4,100
3,700
2,200
310
310
430
1,200
710
* Over current practice (see Table 2-2).
»• Of raw coal.
*** For a generating unit with a heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh.
This table illustrates, for example, that about 1.7 million more tons of SO2 could have been removed in
1979 by cleaning all the utility coal from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and western Kentucky, and that moderate
S02 reductions could hove been achieved by washing other northern Appalachian and eastern Midwest
coals.
Typically, a coal user wilt purchase washed coal if he perceives an economic advantage to doing so. As
shown in Table 2-3, the estimated levelized costs of cleaning utility coal range from $5 to $10 per ton.
The weighted average delivered cost of raw coal from the eight states shown in Table 2-3 amounted to
about $30 per ton ($60 per ton level ized) In 1979. Cleaning all the coals would have increased this cost
by only 10-20 percent — a low price to pay compared with that of other SOj control strategies. Another
measure of the cost of pollution control is the cost-effectiveness of the process, which Is calculated as
the cost per ton of SO, removed. The average cost-effectiveness of PCC for utility coal in each state in
1979 is shown in the final column of Table 2-3. Cost-effectiveness is partially a function of the
washability of the coal. Clearly, PCC is more cost-effective for western Kentucky coals than for
southern West Virginia coals ($3IO/ton versus $4,IOO/ton of SO2 removed). Fortunately, coal cleaning is
most cost-effective with those coals that have the greatest potential SOj reduction. For example, the
costs of SOj reduction for eastern Kentucky coals may range from SWO/ton of SO2 for high-sulfur coals
to more than $3,000/ton of SO2 for low-sulfur coals.
2-3
-------
Certain benefits of coal cleaning can reduce the boiler operator's overall costs to the point of offsetting
some, or even all, of his coal-cleaning costs. For example, burning .cleaned coal can reduce boiler
maintenance costs and increase boiler reliability, especially if the boiler is currently experiencing ash-
fouling problems. Other benefits include reduced costs for coal transportation, coal handling, ash
handling, and stack gas cleaning. Furthermore, PCC processes reduce the variability of a coal's sulfur
content, making it easier to meet SOj emission regulations. These factors contribute to the economic
advantage of burning cleaned coal.
Impact of
Physical Coal
Cleaning on
National SO,
Emissions
The cost of pollution control is a function of emission regulations, coal properties, and boiler
characteristics. Over the next 20 years, most utility boilers in the United States will still be governed by
SIP regulations or by the I.2 Ib/IO6 Btu New Source Performance Standard (NSPS). The NSPS emission
ceiling often encourages the use of either low-julfur compliance coal or an FGD system. However, in
the case of SIP regulations, the SCK limits applicable to many of the SIP-governed units are high enough
to allow the use of higher-sulfur local coals, cleaned or uncleaned.
In a recent acid-rain-mitigation analysis conducted for EPA and DOE, the least-cost SCK compliance
strategy was determined for each existing and future coal-fired electric generating unit in the United
States, assuming various SIP emission-regulation scenarios. In the base-case SIP compliance scenario,
units currently in compliance with their SIP or NSPS SCK emission regulations were assumed to continue
to use the same coal sources and washing practices used in 1979. Units not currently in compliance were
assumed to switch to a low-sulfur coal, physically clean coals from the same sources used in 1979, or
build on FGD system, whichever proved cheapest. For this analysis it was assumed that a unit could use
an FGD system with the I979 coal as delivered, with the I979 coal after physical cleaning, or with a
local high-sulfur coal. The use of PCC for coals other than those received in 1979 was not considered in
this analysis.
The projected S02 emission reduction (i.e., the difference between 1979 uncontrolled and controlled
emissions) through the year 2000 is summarized in Figure 2-1 for the least-cost control strategies
selected for each generating unit. Physical coal cleaning of their I979 deliveries was selected by 27 SIP
and NSPS units, while switching to low-sulfur cool was selected by I 14 units. If this analysis had included
the option of using PCC on coals other than those received in 1979, many of the SIP and NSPS units
selecting low-sulfur coal would have used physically cleaned alternative coals. Therefore, the S02
emission reduction for PCC and coal switching are combined in Figure 2-1. Physical coal cleaning
currently reduces 502 emissions by about 1.7 million tons per year; this total was added to the SO,
reduction projected to be achieved by PCC and coal switching (phased in over a 5-year period) to produce
a maximum reduction of about 2.5 million tons per year in 1985. FGD systems were chosen as the least-
cost S02 control strategy for 63 SIP and 44 NSPS units and, as shown in the figure, were found to reduce
S02 emissions by about 2.I million tons per year in 1985. The use of FGD systems by new units governed
by the 1978 NSPS is responsible for the increase shown in FGD SO2 reductions after 1985.
Also shown in Figure 2-1 is the S02 reduction that could be achieved if all coals delivered to utilities in
1979 were physically cleaned. If this strategy for additional SO, reduction were phased in over a 10-year
period, about 5 million tons of S02 per year would be removed by PCC in 1990. S02 reduction from SIP
and NSPS units using physical coal cleaning decreases after 1990 due to the projected retirement of
these units. If the use of physically cleaned coals in units governed by the 1978 NSPS had been
considered in this analysis, S02 reduction from PCC probably would not show a decrease after 1990.
Figure 2-2 shows the projected cumulative S02 reduction achievable between 1979 and 2000 by each of
the SOj control strategies. Coal switching plus PCC and FGD each will achieve a cumulative removal of
about 24 million tons by 1989; and if all SIP and NSPS coals were washed, FCD and coal switching plus
PCC each would achieve a cumulative SOj reduction of about 60 million tons in 1994.
2-4
-------
12-
10
§ <>•
1980
1985
1990
Yeor
1995
Figure 2-1. Projected SOj Emission Reduction by Control Strategy.
2000
I?BO
Figure 2-2. Projected Cumulative SO, Emission Reduction
since 1979 by Control Strategy.
2-5
-------
Regulations That
Can Be Met By
Physical Coal
Cleaning
PCC can reduce the sulfur content of many cools by 20 to 30 percent. Many coals, however, are so high
in sulfur that even a 20 to 30 percent reduction cannot bring them into compliance with current SIP
regulations. Table 2-4 shows the average SOj reduction and emission levels that can be met by about
one-half of the projected 1985 coal production in each state by coal cleaning at 1-1/2 inches and
1.6 specific gravity (PCC I).
Table 2-4
Emission Levels and Percentage SO, Reduction
Achievable by One-Half of l985T»lanned
Coal Production Using PCC I
Region and State
in Which Cool
Will Be Produced
Northern Appolochia
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Northern West Virginia
Southern Appalachia
Southern West Virginia
Virginia
Eastern Kentucky
Eastern Midwest
Western Kentucky
Indiana
Illinois
Alabama
Alabama
SO7 Emission
Levek
(lbS02/IObBtu>
2
4
3
1
1
1
4-5
4
4-5
1-2
SO,
Emission Reduction
(Percent)
33
22
20
10
5
16
24
7
24
?
These figures show that physical coal cleaning will allow about half of the projected 1985 coal production
from Pennsylvania, southern West Virginia, Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama to meet S02
emission levels below 2.0 Ib SO,/10 Btu and about half of the projected 1985 production from Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio, northern West Virginia, western Kentucky, and Illinois to achieve SO-, reduction! of
20 percent or more.
In considering changes in air pollution emission regulations, it is important to keep in mind the local coal
market and its impact on local employment. Each state analysis in this report includes employment and
production data for 1977. The labor requirements in the different states vary depending primarily on
coal mining methods. A measure of the relative labor intensity of mining for each state can be
determined by calculating the number of workers per ton of coal mined. Coal mining in states such as
We»t Virginia, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Virginia is more labor intensive (more workers per ton of coal
produced) because of the heavy reliance on underground mining. Accordingly, regulations affecting coal
production could affect workers in these states more than those in other, Jess labor intensive, areas.
References:
Teknekron Research, Inc., Acid Rain Mitigation Study; Emission Control Strategies and Costs.
R-003-EPA-8I, Draft Report Prepared for U.S. environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., and U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne Motional Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (Berkeley,
Calif..February 1981).
2-6
-------
3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Each state analysis in Section 4 is organized to provide:
• A general overview of the state's coal industry, including the location of coal
fields, coal production and employment for major counties, and current coal
washing practices
• An overview of the properties of the coal in the state, with an emphasis on coal
sulfur content
• A description of the major cool seams in the state
• A discussion of the quantity of coal able to meet various SOj emissions ceilings,
floors, and percentage removal standards using PCC and FGD
• A presentation of the extent of coal movement between states, and a review of 1he
coal-blending stategies used by the state's major utility plants to comply with the
SIP S02 standard
The information was compiled from a number of existing sources (as documented in the references) and
from simulations using the Coal Assessment Processor (CAP) model. The CAP model was developed
under the EPA Coal Cleaning Program to determine the quantity of coal available in the United States to
meet various SO^ emission regulations. Five coal data bases and a washability data base were compiled
to interface with the model. The coal data bases include information on reserves, 1976 production, 1985
planned production, and deliveries to utilities from September 1977 to September 1978 and from January
to December 1979. The washability data include experimental sulfur and ash reductions for over
500 cools. The SO, control technologies simulated by the CAP model include various PCC and chemical
coal cleaning (CCC) processes, FGD, fluidized bed combustion (FBC), low-8tu gasification, medium-Btu
gasification, and PCC + FGD. Performance models for each of these control technologies determine
potential SO^ reduction and energy penalties. Only PCC and FGD are considered in this report, The
coal data bases and the CAP model's treatment of S02 control technologies, S02 emission limits, and
PCC cost simulations are discussed in detail below.
COAL DATA
BASES
Reserves
Data Base
The coal reserves data base contains 52,986 records, each specifying a given coal's location, quantity,
and properties. Coal quantities were derived from 3,167 resource records representing the demonstrated
coal reserve base as summarized in Bureau of Mines (BOM) Reports 1C 8680 and 1C 8693. "^ Coal
properties and locations from nearly 269,000 sample analyses recorded in the "historical coals file"
archived by the BOM in Denver, Colorado, were matched geographically with the 3,167 resource records
to produce the 52,986-record reserves data base. Coal properties currently specified in the reserves data
base include heating value, sulfur content, and ash content (on a moisture-free basis) and moisture
content. Sulfur content is divided into pyritlc and organic sulfur in proportion to their ratio in the
washability data base. Other coal properties available from the BOM "historical coal file" for addition to
the reserves data base include: (I) proximate analysis; (2) ultimate analysis; (3) ash softening tempera-
ture! CO free swelling index; (5) Hardgrove grindabillty index; and (6) preparation code (i.e., washed or
not washed).
Efforts are currently under way to add trace element information to the data base. USCHEM, the trace
element data base of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Coal Resources Data System, has
recently been acquired. This data base contains information an the quantity of 61 trace elements in
3,*75 of the 4,0*3 coal samples in the USGS data system. Other sources of trace element information
being pursued include Pennsylvania State University records and various state geologic surveys.
3-1
-------
1976 Production
DataBase
The data base on 1974 production contains 3,074 records, each specifying a givwi coal's location,
quantity, and properties. Information on the location and quantity of coal produced in 1976 was obtained
primarily from annual state coal-production reports, a 1979 Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES)
report, and various Keystone manuals. ' In many cases these sources listed high, mean, and low values
for coal heating value and moisture, ash, and sulfur content. This information was used in assigning coal
properties from the BOM "historical coals file" to the 1976 production data base. As shown by the
histograms presented in Section 4, the coal sulfur contents specified in the 1976 production data base
differ in many cases from the coal sulfur contents specified in the reserves data base. These differences
reflect the selective mining of each state's coal reserves in 1976.
1985 Production
Data Base
The data base on production planned for 1985 was developed from individual mine-expansion plans
reported by the Notional Coal Association (NCA) and the Department of Energy's Western Coal
Development Monitoring System (WCD). The NCA data were combined with the 1976 production data
for the eastern states, and the WCD data were combined with the 1976 product on data for the western
states, to form the 4,328-record data base on projected 1985 production. Like the reserves and 1976
production data bases, this data base uses BOM "historical coals file" coal properties. The 1985 coal
sulfur content histograms ore similar to the 1976 histograms, and any differences are due to planned
shifts in coal production from various mines and seams.
Deliveries-to-
Utilitle*
Data Base:
1977/1978
and 1979
The deliveries-to-utilities data base includes information on the quantity, cost, and properties (sulfur,
ash, heating value) of all coals delivered to utilities from September 1977 to September 1978 and from
January through December 1979, as reported to the Department of Energy on El A Form 423. The
Form 423 data for September 1977 to September 1978 were obtained from NCA, while the data for
January through December 1979 were obtained from Cool Outlook (o weekly document issued by Pasha
Publications). Unlike the other data bases, this one does not take coal properties from the BOM
"historical coals file." In addition to coal quantities and properties, this data base includes information,
obtained by Versar, Inc., on which coals were physically cleaned before delivery in 1979. This feature
allows the CAP model to clean only those coals not already cleaned prior to delivery.
Coal
Washability
The coal washability data base contains information on the composition and washability characteristics
a
of 587 coal samples as reported by the Bureau of Mines in report RI8II8 and later unpublished
supplements. The data base specifies the location of samples by state, county, and coalbed. For each
sample, the results of laboratory float-sink testing are included for samples crushed to pass 1.5 inch,
3/8 inch, and 14-mesh screens. The following information is included for the total sample and for
products floating at 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, and sometimes 1.9 specific gravity: weight recovery, Btu recovery,
heating value, pyritic sulfur percentage, total sulfur percentage, ash percentage, and pounds of potential
SO? per million Btu. Typical washability data are shown in Table 3-1.
In the CAP model, each data-base coal at the county-seam level is assigned the washability character-
istics of one or more of the 587 coal samples. Washability assignments are made on a geographical basis
in the following order of priority: (I) county bed, (2) state bed, (3) state county, (4) out-of-state bed,
(5) closest out-of-state sample. Coals from Appalachia (Alabama, Georgia, eastern Kentucky, Maryland,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) and from the eastern Midwest (Illinois,
Indiana, and western Kentucky) ore represented by 380 and 98 washability samples, respectively, and in
most cases county-bed or state-bed matching is possible. For the remaining coal regions, represented by
only 109 washability samples, matching is often more tenuous.
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. Typical Washobility Data
STATE 1
COUNTY 1
OHIO
COSMOCTOM
COALBCOI MIDDLE KCTTANNINO
RA« COAL HOISTUACt 4.1 i
CUMULATIVE VASHAOILITT DATA
SAMPLE CRUSHCD TO PASS 1-1/2 INCHCS
PRODUCT
FLOAT. 1.30
FLOAT- 1.40
FLOAT- i. 60
TOTAL
RECOVERY.*
•CIOHT BTU
SO.O S4.6
70.9 DS.7
•3.7 92.4
100.0 100.0
BTU/LB
139*0
13722
I3S91
12314
ASMit
2.3
3.0
isis
SULFUR.*
PTKITIC TOTAc
.kl 2.20
1.20 2.97
l.SS 3.05
4. SI 4.36
LB S02/M
3.3
»l4
10.3
BTU
SAMPLE CRUSHER TO PASS 3/0 INCH
peooucr
FLOAT-1.30
FLOAT- 1.40
FLOAT-l.tO
TOTAL
•ECOVCRV.*
•EIGHT OTU
Sl.9 SO. 5
7S.1 03.7
03.7 42.2
100.0 100.0
BTU/LB
139*9
13009
13044
1230*
ASM,«
2.1
3.2
4.3
13.0
SULFUd.t
frame TOTAL
.47 2.19
.95 2.75
1.37 3.20
4.34 t.17
LO SOA
3.1
4.0
4.7
10.0
SAMPLE CRUSHED TO PASS 14 NCSH
P1WOUCT
FLOAT-I.30
FLOAT-1.40
FLOAT-1.60
TOTAL
KCOVtRt.%
•CIOHT ITU
52.2 59.0
71.4 01.1
03.3 43.1
100.0 100.0
BTU/LB
13990
13002
1222T
ASH,*
1.9
2.7
4.2
14.1
SULFUR•»
TOTAL
.40 2.13
.73 2.94
1.12 2.90
4.60 6.39
LB S02/M BTU
3.0
3.7
4.2
10.S
Source: Reference 8.
SO, EMISSION
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES
Physicol Cool
Cleaning
Commercial PCC processes are separated into five different levels*
• Level I: Removes mine debris and noneombustible impurities. Unit operations
include crushing and particle sizing.
• Level 2: Coal is crushed and classified. Only the course coal (+3/8 or * 1/4 inch)
is cleaned.
• Level 3: Coal is crushed and classified. COOTS* and intermediate
(I Ik inch x 28 mesh) size fractions are cleaned in separate circuits. Fine coal
(28 mesh x 0) is dewatered and either shipped with the cleaned coal or discarded.
( Level 4: Coal is crushed and classified. Coarse, intermediate, and fine coal size
fractions are cleaned in separate circuits.
o Level 5: Similar to Level 4 except that separations are achieved at two or more
stages. The product consists of premium-quality clean coal and middling coal.
The PCC processes that can be simulated by the CAP model include any combination of top size (i.e.,
1.5 inch, 3/8 inch, I k mesh) and specific gravity (i.e., 1.3, l.ft, 1.6). For these state analyses, only two
combinations were chosen! 1-1/2 inch top size, l.i specific gravity; and 3/8 inch top size, 1.3 specific
gravity. The first combination is called PCC It and the second, PCC II. The PCC I simulation best
corresponds to the Level 3 commercial process. To verify the CAP model's coal-cleaning simulations,
a comparison was made of the CAP-predicted characteristics of cleaned coals and the characteristics of
actual cleaning-plant products. Data on 85 actual preparation-plant feed coals were Input to the CAP
model. The model predicted their sulfur and Btu contents after cleaning, using both coal-cleaning
3-3
-------
algorithms 'i.e., PCC I and PCC II). The cleaned-coal properties were determined bv -nultiolymq the
uncleaned coal properties from the coal data base bv the ratio of the corresponding cleaned to yneleaned
coal properties in the washability data base. The predictions were compared with the sulfur and Btu
contents of the ocrual cleaning-plant products. Results were characterized in terms of SOj emission
potential Ob SCu/IO Btu). Linear regression analyses were conducted with the data grouped according
to commercial cleaning levels (2, 3, and 4) and with all levels combined. The results, presented .n
Figures 3-I and 3-2, show significant agreement between the predicted results of cleaning and the actual
plant products. Linear regression equations and correlation coefficients derived from the data analyses
show that CAP-based predictions exhibit good accuracy. The eauafions also indicate that the CAP-
predicted PCC I products tend to have a higher SO, emission potential (are less "clean") than the plant
products. Conversely, the CAP-predicted PCC 2 products have a lower SO^ emission potential 'are more
"clean") than the plant products.
EL
!
y
I •
j
Q < Level 3
Q; Level •
I
£
& •
A ; Level -'
o: Level )
a ; Level»
Plant ProOJCt Em,»gn Potwit.ol lie SOj/IO* Blu
C ieaninq
Level
2
3
t
All
Req/euion
Equation
Y = I.2BX -
Y . I.07X .
Y . I.IOX .
Y < I.I7X .
0.71
0.02
0.04
0.21
Corr* lotion
Coefficient Irl
0.9»
0.92
0.9?
O.M
Ptanl Protkit Emiuian Pol«nlial tt> SO?/I06 Blul
ClMning
Level
7
)
4
All
Regreuian
Equation
Y
Y
Y
Y
•- 0.9* X . O.«0
. 0.72X . 0.23
• U-4ix . 0.11
> O.KIX - U.OB
Correlation
Caeflicient (r)
D.W
O.M
O.H
U.89
Figure 3-1. Comparison of CAP Model
PCC I Results with Coal
Preparation Plant Performance
Figure 3-2. Comparison of CAP Model
PCC 2 Results with Coal
Preparation Plant Performance
3-4
-------
Flue Cos
Oesulfurizotion
The performance of FGD systems is simulated in the CAP model by assuming the use of wet
lime/limestone systems having a 90 percent SOn removal efficiency {30-doy averaging time). Partial
scrubbing is assumed in cases where the emission limit can be me! by removing less than 90 percent of
the SO,, thereby allowing part or all of the flue gas reheat to be achieved by mixing the scrubbed gas
with the bypassed unscrubbed gas. Energy penalties assigned to FGO systems vary between about
5 percent, for cases where all of the flue gas is scrubbed, to about I percent, for cases where all of the
reheat is provided by the bypassed gas.
Other SO, Central
Technologies
Although this report discusses only the PCC and FCD simulations, the CAP model can estimate SO,
reductions for CCC processes, combined PCC and CCC, FBC processes, and low- and medium-Btu coal
gasification. A short description of each of these simulations Is given below.
Chemical Cool Cleaning. The performance parameters for CCC processes ore more rigid than for PCC
processes. For different CCC processes, the CAP model user must specify the percentage reduction or
threshold value of sulfur (pyritlc, organic, and total) in the clean coal. For example, the Meyers process
is specified in CAP as reducing the pyritic sulfur to a threshold level of 0.2 percent, with a 5 percent
coal energy and 10 percent cod weight loss.
Combined PCC and CCC. PCC/CCC combinations — i.e., multistream processes wherein one PCC or
CCC process operates on one of the products of the other - can also be simulated in the CAP model.
For example, the Gravichem process is defined as PCC at 14 mesh, 1.3 specific gravity, with the sink
product treated with the Meyers CCC process and combined with the float product, which is not
chemically cleaned.
Fluldized Bed Combustion. FBC using limestone sorbent is assumed to hove a maximum SO, removal
efficiency of 90 percent. Because of the higher thermal efficiency of FBC systems compared with
conventional coal-fired boilers, no energy penalty is assigned when this technology is used for SO,
control.
Cool Gosificcticn. The low- and medium-Stu coal gasification processes assumed in the CAP model have
different SOj removal efficiencies and energy penalties as a function of coal type, as summarized in
Table 3-2. Coal Is categorized as low-volatile or high-volatile on the basis at Its ash-free heating value.
Cools having an ash-free heating value of less than 13,000 Btu per pound are assumed to be high-volatile
C bituminous or subbitumlnous coals; all other coat* are assumed to be medium-volatile or low-volatile.
Table 3-2. Energy Consumed In the Production of Low-8tu and MediunvBtu Co*
Coal Type
Low- volatile
High-volatile
Gas Type
(In Btu)
Law
Low
Medium
Law
Medium
Medium
Cont?ol
0-92
92-99
0 - 99,9
0-99
0-93
93 - 99.9
Energy Lass (% of Input Energy)
Process
30.89
29.05
45.20
27,92
40.00
40.00
SOj'Control
1.31
9.80
2.5!
0.24
0.77
1.54
Total
32.20
38.85
48.71
28.16
40.77
41.54
Source; Reference 10.
3-5
-------
IMPACT OF
^
The ability of each SCU emission control technology to comply with various SO, emission limits when
used with coal 'rom nortnern Appa'achio is shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-U. The first figure shows the
COAL AVAILABILITY percentage of northern Appalachian coal reserves able to comply with various emission limits using each
of five physical and chemical coal cleaning technologies, while the second figure shows the percentage of
the same reserves able to comply with the same limits using the remaining SO, control technologies.
The CAP model can evaluate the effect of different SC>2 emission requirements on actual emissions.
These emission requirements include emission ceilings, required percentage SCU removal, emission
floors, and minimum required percentage 502 removo'' Thus, for example, the CAP model con evaluate
the New Source Performance Standard for utility boilers, which includes a 1.2 pound SO, per million Btu
ceiling, a 90 percent required SC^ reduction, a 0.6 pound SCU per million Btu floor, and a 70 percent
minimum SO, reduction applicable to low-sulfur coals able to meet the floor with less than 70 percent
SOi removal. For each specified SO2 emission limit, the CAP model determines the quantity of coal in a
given state or region capable of meeting that limit using each specified SOj control technology. Coal
energy loss (in the case of coal cleaning) and process energy use are considered in determining the net
quantity of coal available to meet each emission limit. For the state-by-state analyses, a continuum of
emission limits from 0 to 9.0 Ib SO./IO Btu was used, and the percentage of compliance coal was
estimated with no SO2 controls and with PCC and FGD.
Averaging Times In simulating different emission limits, it is important to take into account that the sulfur content of
coal and thus a boiler's S02 emissions are not constant and therefore must be associated with an
averaging time. A boiler's short-term (e.g., 3-hour) average SOj emissions may be twice as high as its
long-term average emissions depending on the distribution of sulfur in the coal being used. The results
presented in this report are for long-term overage (mean) emission limits and cool sulfur contents. A
detailed discussion of coal sulfur variability and the conversion between long-term and short-term
emission limits is contained in Appendix A. The important aspects of this conversion are summarized
below:
• The relative standard deviation, or RSD (standard deviation/mean), of coal sulfur
content is often used to define the variability of a boiler's potential SO,
emissions.
• The major variables that affect compliance with an emission standard are the coal
sulfur RSD, the averaging time of the standard, and the frequency with which the
standard may be exceeded (e.g., once a month, once a year).
• Higher mean SO, content coal may be used to comply with a given SO. emission
standard if the coal sulfur RSD is small and the averaging time is long.
• Coal cleaning, in addition to reducing coal sulfur content, usually decreases the
coal sulfur RSD.
• This study may tend to overestimate the quantity of urvcleaned coal, and to a
lesser extent cleaned coal, able to meet short-term average emission limits. As a
result, the study may understate the benefits of coal cleaning for producing
compliance coals.
3-6
-------
I
j[ 30
I "
sjr ^
V X^
* / vr v*
.X"
/
Row Cool
» PCC, Ihin., I.& sp.gr.
' PCC, 3/8 in., Usp.gr.
« Meyers process
o Crovichem process
a 0.95 pyrltic, 0.20 organic sulfur removal
Emission Standard (Ib SOj/IO* Bfu)
Fiour* J-3. Porccntog* of Coal RCMTVM in NbrtlMm Apoolochio Ablo la Me«l Varieut Emotion Limits
Using Phrsical and Chemical Coal Chaning (Total Coal Rewtves > 1,73* Quods)
— Raw Coal
» FCD
« FCD » PCC
o FBC
o Law-tilu gauf icauon
e Meaium-Btugatilicolion
J T *
Emission Sianaorddb SOj/IO" Btu)
rVemtaotof Coal R«wv« in Ntorthwn Appalachia Able to MM! Various Emission Limits
Using Fk» Cos Oesulfuruoiion, Fluidiztd 6«1 Combustion, and Cool Gasification for
SOj Control (Total Coal Rcscrvn • 1,73* Quads)
3-7
-------
COSTS OF PHYSICAL
COAL CLEANING
The CAP model contains algorithms for calculating the levelized costs of physical coal cleaning. The
capital and operating cost algorithms are based on 13 PCC plant designs reported by Versar plus cost
estimates for landfill disposal of the coal refuse and treatment of collected leachate. The cost of lost
coal energy is based on the Btu recovery information in the washability data base (Table 3-D and on the
coal cost. At present the CAP model calculates PCC costs only when operating on the deliveries-to-
u till ties data base, since this is the only data base that includes detailed information on coal costs.
Levelized PCC capital and operating costs are shown in Figure 3-5 as a function of weight loss. The
following factors were used in calculating the levelized costs: (Da 16 percent fixed charge rate; (2) a
13 percent discount rate; (3) an 8 percent inflation rate; (4) a 1.5 percent real cost escalation rate for
coal; (5) no real cost escalation for other labor and materials; and (£) a 20-year plant life.
Figure 3-6 compares the levelized PCC costs calculated by the CAP model with the costs of the 13 PCC
plant designs developed by Versar, illustrating that the levelized PCC costs of the CAP model ore within
20 percent of the detailed plant design costs. Each state analysis presents the levelized cost of washing
for utility coal in 1979 as a function of various emission limits.
U
«••
O
*
?
1
3'
O Versar plant designs
0 0.05
Figure 3-5.
0.10
0.15 0.20
Weight Loss
0.25
OJO
0.35
Levelized Physical Coal Cleaning Costs in 1978, Exclusive of Last
Cod Energy Cast, as a Function of Weight Loss
3-8
-------
70'
o
^ 60-
oo
r-
r so-
Irt
<3
?
u
1
u
•S 30H
20-
10-
,-•20%
10 20 30
50 60 70
Design Coal Cleaning Cost (1978
-------
4. STATE ANALYSES
4-1
-------
4.1 ALABAMA
General
Information
The Alabama coal fields are located in the northern third of the state, with most of the production
coming from counties near Birmingham. A lignite belt with a generally east-west orientation exists in
southern Alabama; this belt, however, has little economic significance. Strip mining produced 15 million
tons of coal in Alabama in 1977, while underground mining produced about 7 million tons. About
3 million tons of Alabama coal in 1577 were used as metallurgical coal for producing coke.
About one-half of the Alabama coal was shipped by rail or water in 1977 while 35 percent was shipped by
truck and 10 percent was used in minemouth generating plants.
Pertinent facts regarding Alabama coal properties are listed in Figure 4.1-1. The coal properties, taken
from the coal data bases described in Section 3, are specified on a moisture-free basis for the reserves
and production data bases and on an as-delivered basis for the deliveries-to-
-------
Figure 4.1-1. Alabama Coat Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves: 2,972 million tons, 78.5 quadrillion Btu
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content
(Btu/lb) (%) (%)
Mean 13,532 1.28 10.50
Std. Dev. 797 0.72 5.07
Minimum 11,510 0.50 1.10
Maximum 15,370 3.90 21.40
S !0-
jj
5 IS-
tio-
•1
'
Ijf
if fl
1 1 fill 1 1
i 5 * 7 I » 10
CM SvHur CMim(b SCyio'Blul
1976 Production: 21.06 million tons, 0.57 quadrillion Btu
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content
(Btu/lb) (%) (%)
Mean 13,629 1.34 9.66
Std. Dev. 698 0.68 3.61
Minimum 11,660 0.40 3.20
Maximum 15,150 , 3.90 20.00
** JO"
\*
i"
£
I 10*
1
5-
1
•
' '
•
1 n
j '»"s i * i * ib
CM Sulfur Caiwii Ik SCy ID* Blu)
Projected 1985 Production: 32.08 million tons, 0.85 quadrillion Btu
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content
(Btu/lb) (%) (%)
Mean 13,667 1.23 9.88
Std. Dev. 682 0.73 3.36
Minimum 11,660 0.40 3.20
t 1 • 1 C I Cf\ O QA *^A AA
Maximum 15,150 3.90 20.00
1 979 Deliveries to Utilities: 14.59 million tons,
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content
(Btu/lb) (%) (%)
Mean 12,003 1.50 13.23
Std. Dev. 545 0.67 2.53
Minimum 9,732 0.30 3.30
Maximum 13,784 9.00 24.00
M
|JO
1
r
r
d
I
o
r
r
i ifi
Hi-icTI-i-m II n
i ( i i > • * 10
Cat Sy«w CiMMI l» SOj/ 10* Blu)
0.35 quadrillion Btu
HI
1 "
1 (5
•
j.
! >
A
r
1
i m
fir IIL
01 J J » J * ? 1 > 1C
Cmt tuKur
4-3
-------
Figure 4.1-2. Alabama Coal Washability Data Sheet
Row Coal:
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
10 Samples
Heating Sulfur
Value Content
(Btu/lb) (%)
13,696
914
12,765
15,056
PCC 1: 1-1/2 iru, 1.6
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC II: 3/8
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
14,213
657
13,278
15,230
1.33
0.95
0.59
3.76
J!
Ash
Content I
(%) 5 »-
9.50 1 '°
6.38 3 "
1.73
•
n m r
16.27 0 I J 1 . S . 7 1 » .0
CM SuMur C«ntvti (ft SOy/loStu)
sp. gr., 10 Samples
so
Sulfur Ash
Content Content 1
(%) (%) , »•
*
1.21
0.84
0.57
3.40
2 »•
6.09 1
4.49 1 "•
1.50
f
0
14.10 o . i i . • • » i . „
C*a SuHur C»Mm <» SOj/loSlu)
in., 1.3 sp. gr., 10 Samples
so
Heating Sulfur Ash , „.
Value Content Content j
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) * »•
14,750
344
14,286
15,349
0.87
0.23
0.61
1.26
i *'
2.57 1
1.33 5 "'
1.10
p
4.80 •• i i ...» •...
CM SuHw CMvn (k KyioStuI
SO2 Emission Reduction and Energy Recovery:
SCL Emission Reduction Btu Recovery
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCCI
1078
8.1
0
25.0
PCC II PCC PCC 11
25.5 96.4 63.2
22.8 3. 29.2
2.0 90.3 18.0
72.0 99.7 93.4
4-4
-------
Ataboma The coal deposits in Alabama are divided into four fields: the Coosa, Cchaba, Plateau, and Warrior.
Coal Seams Mos, of the stateis current production comes from the Warrior field. Within each field there are a large
number of coal beds, each of which contains many seams. The major producing coal beds, all in the
Warrior field, are discussed below.
Mary Lee Cool. The Mary Lee Cool group, the largest producing group in the state, includes the Blue
Creek, Jogger, Mary Lee, Mt. Carmel, Newcastle, and Ream beds in Jefferson, Tuscaloosa, and Walker
counties. These beds are mined by both underground and surface methods. The Mary Lee bed varies
from four to eight feet in thickness and contains many partings, which must be removed by washing; the
bed has a strong, sandy shale or sandstone top and a fireclay or shale bottom. The Mt. Carmel bed is an
upper split of the Mary Lee. The Blue Creek bed varies from six to eight feet in thickness and has a
sandy shale top and shale bottom, while the Jogger bed is less than six feet thick. Both the Blue Creek
and Jagger coals are used for coking as well as for general steam and domestic purposes.
Pratt Coal. This group, the second largest producer in the state, includes the American, Curry,
Gillespie, and Pratt beds mined by surface and underground methods in Jefferson and Walker counties.
The principal beds in this group are the Pratt (known in the western part of the basin as the Corona) and
the American (known in the western part of the basin as the Nickel Plate). The Pratt bed, between three
and six feet thick, contains a two-to-three-inch-thick parting near the top. The roof and floor of this
bed are usually sandstone. This bed is one of the major sources of coking coal in Alabama. The Nickel
Plate bed averages about three feet in thickness and has a Two-inch-thick parting near the top. This bed
has o hard shale top and a smooth fireclay floor. The American bed is generally thicker than the Nickel
Plate and contains more partings.
Brookwood Cool. This group includes the Brookwood, Carter, and Milldale beds, which are mined by
surface methods in Tuscaloosa County. In thickness, the Brookwood bed con reach seven feet, while the
Carter and Milldale beds seldom exceed three feet. Beds in the Brookwood group typically have a shale
roof and floor and at least one parting, which is removed with the coal. Coal from this group is used for
both coking and steam generation.
Block Creek Cool. This group includes the Black Creek, Jefferson, and Lick Creek beds and is mined by
both surface and underground methods. Both the Black Creek and Jefferson beds are between one and
seven feet thick and are overlain by a shale top. The Black Creek coal has a fireclay bottom, while the
Jefferson is underlain by either shale or sandstone.
Cobb Cool. The Cobb coal group consists of the lower Cobb and the upper Cobb coal beds. Both beds are
fairly persistent and crop out extensively across the central part of the field. The thickness of either
bed rarely exceeds two feet, but both have been mined.
-------
Estimates of
Alabama Coal
Available to
Meet Various
SOj Emission
Regulations
Figure 4.1-3 shows the percentage of projected 1985 Alabama coal production excluding metallurgical
coal able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of three levels, and
when used in conjunction with an FGD system. Much of the Alabama coal can comply with relatively low
emission limits without cleaning. If 95 percent of the pyritic and 20 percent of the organic sulfur were
removed by a hypothetical chemical coal cleaning process, almost all of the Alabama coal could comply
with a I Ib 502/10 Btu emission standard.
Figure 4.1-4 shows the percentage of the projected 1985 Alabama coal production excluding metallur-
gical coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an SC>2 emission ceiling and
a percentage SO, reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the value of the emission
L s
ceiling in !b SO.,/10° Btu.) The curves in this figure show again that Alabama coals can comply with
relatively low emission limits but that they are not able to comply with regulations requiring a large
percentage SO, reduction.
Table 4.1-1 shows the potential SOj emissions, percentage SO, reduction, and cost of compliance for an
SO, emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at Ife inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity of those
coals mined in Alabama for utility use in 1979 that had sulfur contents exceeding a specified floor.
100
80
^ 70
* 60
§
5
| 50
I
£ 40
3
£
30
20
10
VS,
Row cool
PCC, Ifcin., 1.6 sp.gr.
PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 sp.gr.
FGD
• - »0.9S pyritic, 0.20 organic sulfur removal
3 ft 5 6
Emission Standard (Ib SO2/|06 Btu)
8
Figure 4.1 -3. Percentage of Projected 1985 Alabama Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Using Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization
4-6
-------
Figure 4.1 -4. Percentage of Projected 1985 Alabama Coal Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and
Percentage SO2 Reduction Using Physical Cool Cleaning at Ifc", 1.6 sp. gr.
O Emission Ceiling in Ib S02/I06 Btu
I I I 1 I I I I
30 40 SO 60 70
Required SC>2 Reduction (%)
80
90
100
Table 4.1 -I. Potential SO, Emission Reductions end Costs Due to Selective
Washing of Alabama Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
Coals to Be Washed*
Quantity to
Be Washed
(IOJTons)
Total 502 ^m'5s'on5
after Selective
Washing
SC>2 Emission Reduction
Achieved by
Selective Washing
(I03 Tons) (%)
Level ized Cost
of Washing
(I06 I979S)
Cost
Effectiveness
($/Tons S02)
No coals
Coals with $©2 contents
above floor of:
345
4 lb/!06Btu
3 lb/!06Btu
2 Ib/IO6 Btu
1 Ib/IO6 Btu
All coals
1,096
4,823
7,213
9,986
10,295
334
297
281
273
273
II
48
64
72
72
3
14
19
21
21
9
41
62
85
89
820
350
970
1,180
1,240
* Excluding the 4,293,000 tons-of coal actually washed in 1979.
4-7
-------
Major Sources
of Coal Used
by Alabama
Utility Plaits
in 1979
Source states for coal delivered to Alabama utilities in 1979 are listed in Table 4.1-2 along with the
quantity and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the coal from each state. Table 4.1-3 shows
the Alabama utility plants that imported the greatest amount of coal in 1979, ranked according to the
quantity imported. Following the plant name, the combined units' size and SO, limits are shown. In some
cases, more than one SO, limit applies to various units of a given plant. The remaining columns indicate
the quantity imported from each state, the percentage of coal that quantity represented for each plant,
and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the imported coal.
Table 4.1-2. Source State far Coal Used in Alabama Plants in 1979
State
Alabama
Kentucky
Tennessee
Ohio
Indiana
West Virginia
Remaining States
TOTAL
Size
Plant (MW)
Colbert 1,286
Colbert 1,286
Colbert 1,286
Colbert 1,286
Colbert 1 ,286
Widows
Creek 1 , 826
Widows
Creek 1,826
Gaston 1,912
Tombigbee 545
Barry 1,566
Remaining
Plants -
TOTAL 9,151
Quantity
(ICTTcns)
12,659
3,415
721
548
440
243
115
18,141
Table 4. 1-3.
SO, Limit
(Ib/nr Btu)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.5, I.I
0.5, I.I
1.2,4.0
1.2,4.0
1.8
_
—
Total Coal Sulfur
Used in State (Percent)
70 1.41
19 2.55
4 1.84
3 2.13
2 1.74
1 1.79
1 2.19
100 1.68
Weighted Average
Ash SO,
(Percent) (Ib/IO6 Btu)
13.4 2.35
12.8 4.40
12.7 3.02
11.8 3.66
10.3 3.16
12.8 2.90
11.4 3.76
13.2 2.84
Out-of-State Coal Use by Alabama Plants in 1979
Percentage of
State of Quantity Total Coal
Origin (10 Tons) Used by Plant
KY 964 40
OH 548 23
IN 434 18
WV 202 8
TN 104 4
KY 2,011 57
TN 235 7
TN 339 7
KY 180 30
KY 174 18
291 4
5,482 30
Weighted Average
Sulfur Ash SO,
(Percent) (Percent) (Ib/ 10 Btu)
1.76 12.3 3.06
2.13 11.8 3.66
1.75 10.3 3.18
2.00 12.8 3.23
2.35 13.2 3.86
3.22 13.0 5.53
1.32 13.6 2.13
2.14 11.9 3.53
1.15 14.9 2.03
0.89 12.2 1.52
1.66 12.0 3.21
2.30 12.5 3.97
4-8
-------
Major Utility
UMTS of Alabama
Coal in 1979
Toble 4.1-4 lists the states containing utility plants that burned Alabama coal in 1979. Also listed are
the Alabama coal quantities received, the percentage of coal use these quantities represented for each
state, and the weighted average coal properties. The largest Alabama users of Alabama coal are listed
in Table 4.1-5 along with relevant plant information and coal properties.
Table 4.1-4. States Receiving Alabama Coal Deliveries to Utility Plants in 1979
State
Alabama
Georgia
Mississippi
Florida
Tennessee
TOTAL
Percentage of
Quantity Total Coal
(10 Tans) Used in State
12
14
Toble 4. 1-5.
Plant
GOT gas
Goston
Widows Creek
Miller
Barry
Greene
Tombigbee
Gadsden
Colbert
TOTAL
Size
(MW)
1,317
1,912
1,826
662
\,566
518
545
136
1,266
9,151
,659
713
£86
527
4
,588
70
4
25
9
-------
ILLINOIS
General
Information
All of Illinois except the northern quarter of the state is underlain by cool, with the majority of the
production coming from the southern part of the state. In 1977, Illinois was the fourth largest coal-
producing state behind Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Strip mining produced about
24 million tons in 1977 while underground mining produced about 29 million tons. Nearly 3 million tons
of Illinois coal in 1977 were used as metallurgical coal for producing coke.
Eightv-three percent of the Illinois coal was shipped by rail or water in 1977 while 12 percent was
shipped by truck and 5 percent was used in minemouth generating plants.
Pertinent facts regarding Illinois coal properties are listed in Figure 4.2-1. The coal properties, taken
from the coal data bases described in Section 3, are specified on a moisture-free basis for the reserves
and production data bases and on an as-delivered basis for the deliveries-to-utilities data base.
Coal Employment
and Production
in 1977
County
Perry
Randolph
Jefferson
Franklin
Macoupin
Christian
Fulton
Williamson
Douglas
Others
TOTAL
• Source!
*• Source;
Product
Underground*
0
2,383
4,334
4.751
3, £23
2,808
0
1,333
2.688
7,491
29.411
Reference 1.
Reference 4.
ion (10 Tons)
Surface*
9,571
4,581
434
0
0
0
2,680
839
0
5.977
24,082
Total*
9.571
6,964
4,768
4,751
3,623
2.808
2,680
2,172
2,688
13,468
53,493
VgJue
(10*$)*
128
113
*••**
**»
»»»
49
55
44
48
***
924
Number of Employees
(Monthly Average)**
1,533
2,016
2,348
1,779
977
916
854
1,197
801
3,693
16,1 14
Witheld to ovoid disclosing individual companies' confidential data.
Coal Washing
in 1977
Illinois coals are very amenable to sulfur reduction by physical coal cleaning methods. In 1977, 37 coal
cleaning plants processed 78 percent of the coal produced in Illinois. The level of cleaning by these
plants is unknown.
Coal Washability
Data
Pertinent facts regarding the washobility of Illinois coals, taken from the washability data base described
in Section 3, are listed here In Figure 4.2-2. The top portion of the figure provides information regarding
the coal properties on a moisture-free basis before and after physical cleaning. Two levels of cleaning,
PCC I and PCC II, are analyzed. The bottom portion of this figure summarizes the potential SO-
emission reduction and energy recovery characteristics of the coals in the washability data base at the
two levels of cleaning.
4-10
-------
Figure 4.2-1. Illinois Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves: 65,626 million tons, 1,465 quadrillion Btu
25'
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content 1
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) J,,.
Mean 12,271 3.92 13.52 }°
Std. Dev. 676 1.27 4.13
Minimum 9,710 0.50 4.70
rJUrroJlfTH
Maximum 13,880 9.50 30.50 ' ' J^j^,,.
1976 Production: 57.82 million tons, 1.41 quadrillion B
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content I20'
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) !„.
*
Mean 12,209 3.24 11.53 ]'"
Std. Dev. 808 1.24 2.09 >
Minimum 10,281 0.80 6.20
Maximum 13,657 6.70 18.00 '*
Projected 1985 Production: 92.63 million tons, 2.05 qu
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content 1"
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) |,5
f
Mean 12,279 3.30 11.61 f""
Std. Dev. 743 1.20 2.08 '
Minimum 10,281 0.80 6.20
Maximum 13,657 6.70 18.00
1979 Deliveries to Utilities: 49.51 million tons, 1.08 q
u
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content 1 K
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) { „
Mean 10,857 2.81 10.72 1 "
Std. Dev. 627 -0.73 2.78 Is
Minimum 8,000 0.26 2.07 .
Maximum 12,700 5.28 33.50
tu
P 4^
ifli^W
t 7 e » 10
1 n rl 1 u i u
1 j i S t 7 > 10
Cml SMMur OnMM (k SOj/ 10* Biu)
odrillion Btu
ll JLn> rm
CMI Sun* CVMOI (fc SOj/ 10* Blu)
jadrillion Btu
01 I J « S
1
t ? 1 » 10
CM tyMK CvNM Ik U'
4-11
-------
Figure 4.2-2. Illinois Coal Washability Data Sheet
Row Coal: 40 Samples
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
11,944
683
10,777
13,294
Sulfur Ash i „.
Content Content ]
(%) (%) * is-
I
1 ,0-
3.86 15.29 f
1.39 4.45 5 '
1.14 7.63
n
. Inn
m n i
Mi r mnm
Im n Immm
7.82 25.03 ' ' ''•'«»••"
CoU SvUu CenMnl <» SO^IITBlo)
PCC 1: 1-1/2 in., 1.6 sp. gr., 40 Samples
25 •
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC II: 3/8
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12,901
286
12,390
13,544
in., 1.3 sp.
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
13,529
281
13,023
14,042
Emission Reduction vs.
Sulfur Ash i n
Content Content I
(%) (%) * '••
2.84 8.50 1
0.87 1.42 S '
0.99 5.40
ri
Dir
_ _
m
4.56 11.40 . • i . . • . • • . »
Coal Solfi* Canunl IK SOj/IOTilwl
gr., 40 Samples
Sulfur Ash i »
Content Content ]
(%) (%) * "
1
i
-------
Illinois Herrin (No. 6) Cool. The No. 6 coal bed is the third largest coal-producing bed in the United States and
Coal Seams ;j mjnea- |n |||inojSi western Kentucky, Indiana, and Missouri. Illinois No. 6 coal has been correlated
with Indiana No. 6 and Kentucky No. II. It is by far the major producing seam in Illinois, representing
A
45 million tons, or 8A percent, of the state's 1977 production. The No. 6 coal is subdivided into fairly
persistent benches, between some of which occur clay bands of great persistence. The most widely
occurring clay band is called the "blue band," commonly located one to two feet above the base of the
coal and typically one to two inches thick (although much thicker in some areas). In many areas of
southwestern Illinois, a fairly persistent layer of pyrite or of pyrite and clay combined occurs a few
inches above the blue band. The No. 6 coal usually persists in a thickness of between five and six feet
and generally hoi a black slate roof overlaid by a fairly thick limestone caprock. The No. 6 coal of
lowest sulfur and ash content is located in the Franklin-Williamson-Jefferson county district known as
the "Quality Circle" and is between 8 and 14 feet thick. The "Quality Circle" area covers about 250
square miles and is about £0 to 70 percent mined out. The No. 6 bed was mined by both strip and pillar
A
and room methods in 46 mines in 1977.
Horrisburg-Springfield (No. 5) Cool. In 1977 this coal bed accounted for nearly 7 million tons, or about
13 percent, of Illinois production. Illinois No. 5 coal has been correlated with Indiana No. 5 and
Kentucky No. 9. These coals represent the second largest coal-producing bed in the United States. The
No. S coal is the most extensively mined coal in western Illinois and has also been mined in the
southwestern portion of the state. Usually this coal has a thickness of between four and six feet but may
occur in deposits as thick as ten feet. No. 5 coal of relatively low sulfur content is located in
southeastern Illinois. The No. 5 coal in western Illinois and the Springfield area is characterized by
numerous claystone dikes, which may cut through the seam from top to bottom. These irregularities may
significantly influence the purity of the coal and the quality of the roof strata. Four pillar and room
mines and ten strip mines were producing coal from the No. 5 bed in 1977.
Colchester (No. 2) Cool. Two strip mines produced about £22,000 tons of No. 2 coal, or about I percent
of Illinois coal production, in 1977. No. 2 coal has been mined principally in northern and western
Illinois, where seam thickness varies between two and four feet. Throughout the remainder of the state,
the seam, where it exists, varies in thickness from a few inches to about two feet. The immediate floor
is commonly on underclay without special refractory characteristics. However, in northern Illinois the
immediate underclay overlies refractory clay of economic importance.
Davis-DeKovon Coal. One strip mine produced about 531,000 tons of Davis-DeKovan cool in 1977. The
DeKovan and Davis coal seams are commonly 10 to 25 feet apart and are usually strip mined
simultaneously. Each seam is typically three to four feet thick. These coals were mined for many years
in small operations along their outcrop in southern Illinois.
4-13
-------
Estimates of
Illinois Coal
Available to
Meet Various
SC>2 Emission
Regulations
Figure 4.2-3 shows the percentage of projected 1985 Illinois coal production excluding Tietallurgical coal
able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of three levels, and when
used in conjunction with an FGD system. Illinois coal is high in sulfur, and less than half of the raw coal
can comply with a 5 Ib SO,/10 Btu emission limit. Physical cleaning significantly increases the quantity
of Illinois coal able to comply with a given SO, emission limit. If 95 percent of the pyritic and
20 percent of the organic sulfur were removed by a hypothetical chemical coal cleaning process, more
than one-half of the Illinois coal could comply with a 3 Ib 502/10 Btu emission standard.
Figure U.2-U shows the percentage of the projected 1985 Illinois coal production excluding metallurgical
coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an SO, emission ceiling and a
percentage SO, reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the value of the emission
<- f
ceiling in Ib SO,/10 Btu.) The curves in this figure show that physical coal cleaning can reduce the
sulfur content of most of the coal in Illinois by at least 20 percent, and some of the coal by nearly
50 percent. The high sulfur content of Illinois coal, however, does not allow much of it to comply with a
combined percentage S02 reduction and a low S02 ceiling when physical coal cleaning is used for S02
control.
Table 4.2-1 shows the potential 50^ emissions, percentage SO^ reduction, and cost of compliance for an
SO-, emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at I ft inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity of those
coals mined in Illinois for utility use in 1979 that had sulfur contents exceeding a specified floor.
100
90
80
5 70
60
50
o 40
»
$
-; 30
m
20
10 »
—— Row cool
• — • — PCC, Ifc in., 1.6 sp. qr.
PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 sp.gr.
FGD
- - - -0.95 pyritic, 0.2U organic sulfur removal
8
Emission Standard (Ib 5O2/IO Btu)
Figure 4.2-3. Percentage of Projected 1985 Illinois Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Using Physical Cool Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization
4-14
-------
Figure 4.2.4. Percentoge of Projected 1985 Illinois Coal Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Stindards Defined by an Emission Ceiling md
Percentage*^ Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at I V, l.< sp. or.
Emisiion Ceiling in Ib SO2/I06 Btu
Required SOj Reduction (%)
Table 4.2-1. Potential SO, Emission Reductions and Costs Due to Selective
Washing of ((finals Coals Delivered to Utilities In 1979
Coals to Be Washed*
No coals
Coals with SO, contents
above floor of:
7lb/IOSBtu
6lb/IOSBtu
5lb/l06Btu
4lb/l063tu
All coals
Total SO, Emission
Quantity to after Selective
Be Washed Washing
(IOJTons) (lO^Tons)
0
2, OSS
5,045
8,500
11,444
15,089
819
760
715
643
60S
585
SO, Emission Reduction
s i Achieved by
Selective Washing Levellzed Cost
(!03Tons)
0
59
105
176
214
234
(%) (I06 1979$)
0 0
7 17
13 36
22 65
2S 85
29 100
Cost-
Effectiveness
($/Ton S02)
_
290
340
370
400
430
* Excluding the 34,423,000 tons of coal actually washed in 1979.
4-15
-------
Major Sources
of Coal Used
by Illinois
Utility Plaits
in 1979
Source states for coal delivered to Illinois utilities in 1979 are listed in Table 4.2-2 along with the
quantity and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the cool from each state. Table
-------
Major Utility
Users of Illinois
Coal in 1979
Table 4.2-4 lists the states containing utility plants that burned Illinois coal in 1979. Also listed are the
Illinois coal quantities received, the percentage of coal use these quantities represented for each state,
and the weighted average coal properties. The largest Illinois users of Illinois coal are listed in
Table 4.2-5 along with relevant plant information and coal properties.
Table 4.2-4. States Receiving Illinois Coal Deliveries to Utility Plants in 1979
State
Illinois
Missouri
Indiana
Wisconsin
Georgia
Iowa
Florida
Michigan
Minnesota
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
TOTAL
Percentage of
Quantity Total Coal
(ICTTons) Used in State
18,408
11,434
6,427
3,697
3,326
1,975
1,448
830
688
504
445
261
70
49,513
51
S3
18
30
17
17
25
3
5
2
2
10
< 1
-
Table 4.2-5. Illinois Utility Plants R«
Plant
Baldwin
Kincaid
Coffeen
Joppa
Duck Creek
Newton
Marian
Meredosia
Doll man
Hennepin
Remaining
Plants
Size SO, Limit
(MW) (Ib/fCTBtu)
1,815 5.8
1,212 8.1
878 4.6
1,015 3.6
390 1.2
590 1.2
271 1.2, 4.3
557 1.6, 5.2
364 1.2, 6.2
316 5.8
_» _
TOTAL 15,592
Quantity
(IOJTons)
4,785
2,752
2,399
1,728
1,118
1,014
812
795
721
604
1,681
18,408
Weighted Average
Sulfur Ash SP,
(Percent) (Percent) (lb/IObBtu)
3.12
2.51
2.73
2.73
2.52
2.72
2.51
3.11
2.82
3.22
2.25
2.57
2.35
2.81
11.4
10.3
11.3
9.7
9.3
9.2
9.8
9.8
9.4
16.8
10.6
II. 1
9.9
10.7
5.97
4.55
5.11
4.94
4.45
5.16
4.27
5.57
5.03
6.18
3.91
4.27
4.08
5.22
sceiving Illinois Coal Deliveries in 1979
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used by Plant
96
100
100
57
100
72
100
100
100
74
21
51
Weighted Average
Sulfur Ash
(Percent) (Percent)
3.00 11.3
3.52 10.3
3.74 17.4
2.11 9.0
3.36 8.8
2.96 11.6
3.01 14.9
2.91 5.6
3.24 9.6
2.95 10. 1
3.06 11.3
3.12 11.4
sp,
(Ib/IO^Btu)
5.66
6.94
7.90
3.58
6.37
5.19
5.82
5.14
6.18
5.35
5.74
5.97
-------
General
Information
4J INDIANA
The Indiana coal fields are located in the southwestern portion of the state, with most of the production
coming from the southern counties in the field. Strip mining produced about 27 million tons of coal in
Indiana in 1977, while underground mining produced less than I million tons. None of the coal produced
in Indiana in 1977 was used for the production of coke.
About two-thirds of the Indiana coal in 1977 was shipped by roil or water, while one-third was shipped by
truck, and only 3 percent was used by minemouth generating plants.
Pertinent facts regarding Indiana coal properties are listed in Figure 4.3-1. The coal properties, taken
from the coal data bases described in Section 3, are specified on a moisture-free basis for the reserves
and production data bases and on an as-delivered basis for the deliveries-to-utilities data base.
Coal Employment
and Production
in 1977
County
Wcrrick
Pike
Sullivan
Vermillion
Clay
Spencer
Greene
Others
TOTAL
* Source;
** Source:
Production (I03 Tons)
Underground*
464
34
0
0
0
0
27
0
525
Reference 5.
Reference 1.
Surface*
8,979
6,777
3,358
2,420
1,398
1,101
1.010
2,427
27,470
Total*
9,443
6,311
3,358
2,420
1,398
1,101
1,037
2.427
27,995
Value
(I05S)«
129
92
***
***
23
16
16
»*+
387
Number of Employees
(Monthly Average)**
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
3,942
Withheld to avoid disclosing individual companies' confidential data.
Coal Washing
in 1977
Indiana coals, because of their high pyritic sulfur content, are very amenable to sulfur reduction by
physical coal cleaning methods. In 1977, 14 coal cleaning plants processed 73 percent of the cool
produced in Indiana. The level to which these coals were cleaned is unknown.
Coal Washabiliry
Data
Pertinent facts regarding the woshability of Indiana coals, taken from the washability data base
described in Section 3, are listed here in Figure 4.3-2. The top portion of the figure provides information
regarding the coal properties on a moisture-free basis before and after physical cleaning. Two levels of
cleaning, PCC I and PCC II, ore analyzed. The bottom portion of the figure summarizes the potential
SOj emission reduction and energy recovery characteristics of the coals in the washability data base at
the two levels of cleaning.
4-18
-------
Figure 4.3-1. Indiana Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves: 10,607 million tons, 244 quadrillion Btu
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content I*
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) !„
i
Mean 12,854 3.16 10.66 }""
Std. Dev. 524 1.59 2.84 '•
Minimum 10,740 0.50 3.30
Maximum 14, i •> > » 10
Cml SuHw 0«M (t> S0j/I0* BM
1976 Production: 25.79 million tons, 0.66 quadrillion B
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content !*"
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) *„.
Mean 12,886 3.06 10.17 f'°'
Std. Dev. 362 1.36 1.27 3>
Minimum 11,320 0.50 8.60
Maximum 13,850 6.70 17.60
Projected 1985 Production: 30.62 million tons, 0.70 qt
n
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content 1"
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) {„
Mean 12,886 3.06 10.14 f'°'
Std. Dev. 354 1.37 1.20 Js
Minimum 11,320 0.20 8.60
Maximum 13,850 6.70 17.60
1979 Deliveries to Utilities: 25.32 million tons, 0.55 qi
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content I "
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) J „
Mean 10,867 2.78 10.72 | "
Std. Dev. 369 0.94 1.82 } •
Minimum 8,202 0.42 3.10
Maximum 12,690 7.30 24.90
tu
mpiljll
ll
J
1
h nH n
1 i ) « 5 i ' I * 10
CM) S»H»r C«MI Ik SOy 10* Btul
adrillia
dlliUjl
lE
>
Jtu
flj
ll
I «fl n
i i i • i i i > To
Cool SuKur OMM (k SOy 0* Clul
jadrillion Btu
J
TTfmf
f
•.
01 } 1 * I « 7 1 » 1C
CM U«ur O
-------
Figure 4.3-2. Indiana Coal Washability Data Sheet
Raw Coal: 21 Samples
n
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content I
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) { ,>
_____ n^ii I
Mean 12,546 3.67 If. 89 1 ""
Std. Dev. 531 1,39 3.46 1 '
Minimum 11,598 0.67 6.37 „
Maximum 13,452 7.17 19.57
PCC 1: 1-1/2 in., 1.6 sp. gr., 21 Samples
»
Heating Sulfur Ash
Volue Content Content |
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) 4 .s.
i
Mean 13,022 2.90 8.54 1 '"
Std. Dev. 294 l.ll 1.67 I "
Minimum 12,255 0.36 5.40 .
Maximum 13,598 4.33 13.70
PCC II: 3/8 in., 1.3 sp. gr., 21 Samples
IS,
Heating Sulfur Ash x
Value Content Content |
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) » ...
Mean 13,637 2.19 4.25 I "
Std. Dev. 138 0.82 0.62 « "
Minimum 13,391 0.32 3.20
n n
n llfl n
Dl 23*S*7E*>'
CMI httfur Conwnt fib SO?/ loS»d
nom
m o
CM Sulfur Cmnl (» SOj/iaSlv)
nil
iin
Maximum 13,900 3.85 5.40 " ' ' ' ' ! ' ' ' ' lf
' C«l Sulfur CmMUttO^loSnl
Emission Reduction vs. Energy Recovery:
Emission Reduction Btu Recovery
(%) (%)
PCC 1 PCC II PCC 1 PCC II
Mean 26.4 43.1 96.4 56.6
Std. Dev. 14.4 14.2 2.2 13.2
Minimum 5.0 15.0 9 .7 28.4
Maximum 49.0 64.0 99.1 78.7
4-20
-------
Indiana Springfield (No. 5) Cool. No. 5 cool is the most widely mined in Indiana and has been correlated with
Coal Seams Illinois No. 5 and Kentucky No. 9. These coals represent the second largest coal-producing bed in the
United States. The seam ranges in minable thickness from four to seven feet throughout much of
southwestern Indiana. Primary crushing and mechanical cleaning are effective in removing its free
impurities and partings. Springfield coal is free burning, with on ash of medium density, and is suitable
for use in electric generating plants and industrial installations.
Hymera (Mo. 6) Cool. This coal has been correlated with the Illinois No. 6 and Kentucky No. 11 cools and
persists in a minable thickness of between four and eight feet throughout southwestern Indiana. In the
northern and eastern parts of the field, the coal contains two thin (about one-inch) clay bands in the
upper half of the bed. In some locations these bands increase in thickness, eliminating almost all of the
upper half of the seam. Pyrite is rather prevalent in this coal but is easily removed by mechanical
cleaning. The No. 6 coal lies just below the No. 7 coal, and most mines operating on these coals remove
both where possible. Together the No. 6 and No. 7 coals represent about one-half of Indiana's
production.
Danville (No. 7) Cool. This coal also persists throughout much of southwestern Indiana, in a minable
thickness of between two and six feet. It is low in ash, medium to high in sulfur, and contains few clay
partings. It is usually cleaned prior to use for domestic, industrial, and electric generating purposes.
Survont (No. It) Cool. The Survant coal persists throughout the Indiana coal fields in two benches, each
about two feet thick. The upper bench has a semi-blocky nature and produces good lump coal for
domestic and steam uses. The lower bench is more friable and produces more fines, but it offers a good
assortment of the smaller sizes for both domestic and industrial use. The coal from both benches is
relatively low in sulfur and ash and is often used with little or no processing.
Seelyville (No. 3) Cool. This coal, present in most of Indiana's coal-producing counties, averages about
six feet in thickness with a maximum thickness of about eight feet. As a high-sulfur coal of medium to
high ash content, it requires mechanical cleaning prior to use.
Minsholl Cool. The Minshall coal is currently being mined only in Spencer and Daviess counties, where it
is called the Buffaloville coal. This coal bed ranges in character from a block or semi-blocky coal to the
usual brightly bonded, cubic-cleavage type of bituminous coal more common in Indiana. When of a
blacky nature, this bed is somewhat higher in sulfur and ash content than the true block coals. The
Minshall coal is free burning and is used for both industrial and domestic purposes.
4-21
-------
Estimates of
Indiana Coal
Available to
Meet Various
SCU Emission
Regulations
Figure i».3-3 shows the percentage of projected 1985 Indiana coal production excluding metallurgical coal
able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of three levels, and when
used in conjunction with an FGD system. Indiana coal, like coal from other interior bosin states, is high
in sulfur and only one-half of it can be used to meet a 5 Ib
Btu emission standard without
cleaning. Physical cleaning at Ife inch, 1.6 sp. gr. can be used to bring one-half of the Indiana coal into
compliance with a 3.5 Ib SO^/IO Btu emission limit while chemical cleaning by a hypothetical process
that removes 95 percent of the pyritic and 20 percent of the organic sulfur can bring one-half of the
Indiana coal into compliance with a 2 Ib 502/10 Btu limit.
Figure ^t.3-4 shows the percentage of the projected 1985 Indiana coal production excluding metallurgical
coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an SO, emission ceiling and a
percentage SO, reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the value of the emission
£ c
ceiling in Ib SQ,/IO Btu.) The curves in this figure show that physical coal cleaning is able to reduce
the sulfur content of one-half of the Indiana coal by 10 percent and about one-third of it by 30 percent.
Because of the high sulfur content and woshability characteristics of Indiana coal, physical cleaning is
unable to produce much compliance coal for an emission standard defined by either a high percentage
SC>2 removal or a low emission ceiling.
Tcble
-------
Figure 4.3-4 . Percentage of Projected 1985 Indiana Coal Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and
Percentage SO, Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at Ih", 1.6 sp. gr.
10
O Emission Ceiling in IbSC^/IO* Btu
Required S0? Reduction (%)
Table 4.3-1. Potential SO7 Emission Reductions and Costs Due to Selective
Washing of Indiana Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
Coals to Be Washed*
Total SO, Emissions
Quantity to after selective
Be Washed Washing
(10 J Tons) (l03Tons)
SO, Emission Reduction
1 Achieved by
Selective Washing
(!03Tons) (%)
Levelized Cost Cost-
of Washing Effectiveness
(I06 1979$) ($/TonS02)
No coals
Coals with S02 contents
above floor of:
756
7 lb/IO°Btu
6 lb/!06Btu
S lb/l06Bru
4 Ib/IO6 Btu
All cools
2,665
5,132
8,384
10,557
12,484
691
665
618
587
572
65
91
138
169
184
9
12
18
22
24
II
22
36
49
57
170
240
260
290
310
Excluding the I2,83?,000 tons of coal actually washed in 1979.
4-23
-------
Major Sources
of Coal Used
by Indima
Utility Plants
in 1979
Source states for cool Delivered to Indiana utilities in 1979 are listed in Table 4.3-2 along with the
quantity and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the coal from each state. Table 4.3-3 shows
the Indiana utility plants that imported the greatest amount of coal in 1979, ranked according to the
quantity imported. Following The plant name, the combined units' size and SC^ limits are shown. In
some coses, more than one 50^ limit applies to various units of a given plant. The remaining columns
indicate the quantity imported from each state, the percentage of cool that quantity represented for
each plant, and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the imported coal.
Table 4.3-2. Source State far Coal Used in Indiana Plants in 1979
State
Indiana
Illinois
Kentucky
Wyoming
Utah
Montana
Colorado
Quantity
(10-' Tons)
19,700
6,427
4,231
1,896
1,334
813
763
Remaining States 436
TOTAL
Plant
Gibson
Tanners
Creek
Tanners
Creek
Clifty Creek
State Line
State Line
Michigan
City
Schohfer
Mitchell
Bailly
Remaining
Plants
TOTAL
5,598
Table «k3-3.
Size SO, Limit
(MW) (lb/f06Btu)
2,700 1.2
1,009 4.9
1,009 4.9
1,259 6.0
508 1.2
508 1.2
600 1.2, 6.0
958 1.2
502 1.2
590 6.0
— _
15,335
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used in State
55
18
12
5
4
2
2
1
100
Out-of-State Coal U
State of Quantity
Origin (10 Tons)
IL 4,166
KY 1,395
UT 1,017
KY 2,152
MT 813
WY 610
IL 1,383
WY 1,008
CO 763
IL 614
1,978
15,899
Sulfur
(Percent)
2.94
2.73
3.79
0.74
0.60
0.40
0.39
3.56
2.70
Weighted Average
Ash SD,
(Percent) (lb/l06Btu>
11.4 5.45
11.3 5.11
13.0 6.80
9.2 1.44
8.8 1.02
4.3 0.85
7.4 0.70
12.1 6.44
10.9 4.97
se by Indiana Plants in 1979
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used by Plant
74
57
42
56
57
43
73
92
57
60
10
45
Weighted Average
Sulfur Ash SO-
(Percent) (Percent) (Ib/IO T3tu)
2.66 11.2 5.01
3.64 13.4 6.66
0.56 8.7 0.93
4.07 13.5 7.23
0.40 4.3 0.85
0.47 4.7 1.00
2.73 12.7 5.11
0.84 11.3 1.59
0.39 7.4 0.70
3.09 10.0 5.59
2.57 10.9 4.62
2.40 10.8 4.38
-------
Major Utility
Users of Indicna
Coal in 1979
Table 4.3-4 lists the states containing utility plants that burned Indiana coal in 1979. Also listed are the
Indiana coal quantities received, the percentage of coal use these quantities represented for each state,
and the weighted average coal properties. The largest Indiana users of Indicna coal are listed in
Table 4.3-5 along with relevant plant information and coal properties.
Table 4.3-4. States Receiving Irdima Coal Deliveries to Utility Plants in 1979
State
Indiana
Kentucky
Georgia
Illinois
Alabama
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Iowa
Florida
Missouri
Michigan
TOTAU
Percentage a
Quantity Total Cool
(KTTons) Used in Stat«
19,700
1,906
1,269
1,080
440
422
289
83
81
51
1
25,323
55
8
7
3
2
2
2
1
1
-------
4.4 KENTUCKY
General
Information
Kentucky has two coal fields; one in eastern Kentucky in the Appalachian coal region and one in western
Kentucky in the Eastern Interior coat region. In 1977, Kentucky was the largest coal producing state,
with a total production of over 146 million tons. Eastern Kentucky produced 38 million tons of cool from
underground mines and 56 million tons from surface mines in 1977 while western Kentucky produced
23 million tons from underground mines and 29 million tons from surface mines. About 14 million tons of
eastern Kentucky coal and less than I million tons of western Kentucky coal were used as metallurgical
coal for producing coke.
About 84 percent of eastern Kentucky coal was shipped by rail or water and 14 percent bv truck in 1977,
while about 79 percent of western Kentucky coal was shipped by rail or water, 15 percent was shipped by
truck, and 5 percent was used in minemouth generating plants.
Pertinent facts regarding eastern Kentucky and western Kentucky coal properties are listed in
Figures 4.4-I and 4.4-2, respectively. The coal properties, taken from the coal data bases described in
Section 3, are specified on a moisture-free basis for the reserves and production data bases and on an as-
delivered basis for the deliveries-to-utilities data base.
Coal Employment
and Production
in 1977
County
Pike
Muhlenburg
Hopkins
Ohio
Har Ian
Martin
Perry
Union
Others
TOTAL
* Source;
" Source;
Product
Underground*
13,973
4,734
5,215
3,104
7,497
2,763
2,113
7,319
14,954
61,672
Reference 1.
Reference 6.
ion (I03 Tons)
Surface*
4,163
12,452
5,150
7,213
1,892
6,487
6,678
0
40,550
84,5?0
Total*
18,141
17,186
10,365
10,317
9,389
9,250
8,791
7,319
55,504
146,262
Value
(IOS$)**
444
253
194
166
250
179
177
151
1,1 14
2,928
Number of Employees
(Monthly Average)**
8,674
3,663
2,286
2,768
4,747
4,746
3,773
2,428
23,657
56,742
Coal Washing
in 1977
Eastern Kentucky coals are generally low to medium in sulfur content; the medium-sulfur coals have a
substantial amount of pyritic sulfur, which can be removed by physical coal cleaning to produce low-
sulfur coal. In 1977, 50 cleaning plants were processing 29 percent of the eastern Kentucky coal.
Western Kentucky coals are high in both total and pyritic sulfur and yield medium-sulfur coal when
physically cleaned. In 1977, 14 cleaning plants were processing 37 percent of western Kentucky coal.
The level to which these coals were cleaned is unknown.
Coal Woshability
Data
Pertinent facts regarding the washability of eastern and western Kentucky cools, taken from the
washability data bose described in Section 3, are listed here in Figures 4.4-3 and 4.4-4, respectively.
The top portion of the figures provides information regarding the coal properties on a moisture-free basis
before and after physical cleaning. Two levels of cleaning, PCC I and PCC II, are analyzed. The bottom
portion of the figures summarizes the potential SO, emission reduction and energy recovery character-
istics of the coals in the washability data bose at the two levels of cleaning.
4-26
-------
Figure 4.4-1. Eastern Kentucky Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves:
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
12,889 million tons, 335
Heating Sulfur
Value Content
(Btu/lb) (%)
13,542
950
11,120
15,130
1976 Production: 85.
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Projected
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
13,688
712
11,120
14,760
1.23
0.92
0.20
5.40
quadrillion Btu
Ash
Content
8.86
5.55
0.90
23.50
1 million tons, 2.33 quadrillio
Sulfur Ash
Content Content
1.13
0.82
0.30
5.20
7.59
2.44
2.10
17.30
1985 Production: 106.2 million tons, 2.1
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content
(Btu/lb) (%) (%)
13,659
721
11,120
14,760
1.10
0.81
0.30
5.20
1979 Deliveries to Utilities: 68.61
Heating Sulfur
Value Content
(Btu/lb) (%)
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
12,020
838
8,876
1-3 7Q-5
1.14
0.53
0.10
C I/.
7.76
2.52
2.10
17.30
million tons, 1.
Ash
Content
11.40
2.96
0.80
l i /.n
n •
I
£
n
0<
0
nBt
25-
i:
1 10-
I,
M
i
u
f
1 — . — n
Coal Suitor CerMfillfeSOj/lo'btu)
nJIfl „ - n
0 1 }]
-------
Figure 4.4-2. Western Kentucky Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves:
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
12,602 million tons, 303
Heating Sulfur
Value Content
(Btu/lb) (%)
12,748 3.86
595 0.63
8,698 0.90
14,410 6.60
quadrillion Btu
K
Ash
Content !"
/Q/ \ £
11.74 |°
3.50
1.60
n fifl 1
tu,
Cool Su««
-------
Figure 4-4-3. Eastern Kentucky Coal Washability Data Sheet
Raw Coal: 13 Samples
•*.,
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content f
(Btu/lb) (%} (%) \ ».
T
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
12,986 1.44 11.48 1
1,163 1.21 7.44 1 '«
11,120 0.56 2.13
r
h n n
14,366 4.88 23.47 i ; i i ; • i »• • »
Cm! Suriu C«*vrt 1* SOjMdVvt
PCC 1: 1-1/2 in^ 1.6 sp. grn 13 Samples
JO
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content \ *'
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) { ,-
*
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC II: 3/8
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
13,862 1.20 5.53 \ "
619 0.78 3.55 1 "
12,676 0.59 1.50
14,474 3.32 12.70
in., 1.3 sp. gr., 13 Samples
JO
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content i *'
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) 1 ,.
14,319 1.02 2.42 1 "
294 0.55 I.I! 1 -
13,846 0.48 1.20
14,725 2.42 4.60
P
n n n
01 J J « S 4 7 1 > 1C
(HI SuHi* C*n»nr«t lOj/ltSiu1
JI
n fin
c_i Sutiai c«>w« in so;'io'tiu>
Emission Reduction vs. Energy Recovery:
Emission Reduction Btu Recovery
(%) (%)
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC 1 PCC II PCC 1 PCC II
15.9 25.6 94.7 64.2
12.1 17.2 4.6 23.7
2.0 3.0 83.6 21.7
39.0 61.0 99.7 94.9
4-29
-------
Figure 4.4-4. Western Kentucky Coal Washability Data Sheet
Row Coal: 37 Samples
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12,339
864
8,698
13,676
PCC 1: 1-1/2 in., 1.6
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC II: 3/8
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
13,242
360
12,555
13,926
Sulfur
Content
(%)
4.05
0.71
2.17
5.02
Ash
Content I
(%) 5 ,».
| ,0-
13.81 3
5.52 J "
5.17
T r
n
II
• • • X 1 .
n
37.63 . .- i . . s . » • . ,o
C—l Mtut Cd»M«t IK SO,/loSiul
sp. gr., 37 Samples
Sulfur
Content
(%)
2.96
0.55
1.47
3.75
Ash
Content ! "'
/'•-«
Cm Suit* Cccw
-------
Eastern Kentucky Upper Elkhorn No. 3 Cool. This cool bed is the most important one in the eastern Kentucky coal field
Coal Seams QnQ. tne seventr) (arg^t producing bed in the United States. It is known by many names in the various
mining districts of eastern Kentucky, including Cedar Grove, Darby, Jellico, Mason, Millers Creek,
Mingo, Straight Creek, and Thacker. The Upper Elkhorn No. 3 coal is present in one or more benches of
up to six feet in thickness with one or more partings that occasionally reach a thickness of nearly one
foot.3
Fire Clay Coal. This coal bed, widespread in eastern Kentucky, is also known by many names, including
Deon, Hazard No. ft, Poplar Lick, and Wallins. In the Big Sandy reserve district the coal generally
consists of several beds with bone, flint-clay, or shale partings. Although its thickness in the Big Sandy
district varies greatly, large areas are over two feet thick. In the Hazard reserve district, the Fire Clay
coal is known commercially as Hazard No. ft and generally occurs as a bright-banded, three-foot-thick
single seam with persistent flint-clay partings. In other reserve districts this cool is usually about three
to four feet thick with partings up to six inches thick.
Hazard So Cool. This coal bed, the nation's eighth largest producer in 1977, is mined in eastern
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia. In the Hazard reserve district it is also known as Leatherwood
and Prater coal. It has a variable thickness, which in small areas may reach five feet. Some partings of
up to three inches thick are present, but they are not persistent over large areas.
3
Lower Elkhorn Cool. This cool is mined in eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Tennessee. In
1977 it wqi the largest producing bed in the United States. Lower Elkhorn coal, known also as
Freebum, Imboden, Pond Creek, and Warfield, is mined in many of the eastern Kentucky reserve
districts. In the Hazard district it ranges up to three feet in thickness and in some areas contains one-
foot-thick partings. In the Big Sandy reserve district it is reported to be as much as five feet thick with
10-inch-thick partings.3
Western Kentucky
Coal Seams
Herrin(No. 11) Cool. The Herrin (No. 11)coal bed is the third largest producing bed in the United States
and is mined in western Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri.' Kentucky No. 11 has been correlated
with Indiana No. t and Illinois No. 6. The No. 11 bed presents a pattern of thick coal (up to seven feet) in
the southern outcrop region of Hopkins, Ohio, and Muhlenberg counties, with thinning trends to the
northeast. It is characterized by a shale parting of one to three inches in the lower part of the bed.3'7
Mulford (No. 9) Cool. The No. 9 coal is the most persistent and consistent bed in the western Kentucky
field and has been correlated with Illinois No. 5 and Indiana No. 5.3 These coals represent the second
largest coal-producing bed in the United States.1 The No. 9 coal Is found continuously within its outcrop
limits, in thicknesses of up to six feet. In on area of central Webster County the bed thins abruptly, while
in southern Hopkins County it is generally more than four feet thick.3'7
4-31
-------
Estimates of
Eastern Kentucky
Coal Available
to Meet Various
SO2 Emission
Regulations
Figure 4.4-5 shows the percentage of projected 1985 eastern Kentucky coal production excluding
metallurgical coal able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of
three levels, and when used in conjunction with an FGD system. Coal from eastern Kentucky is low in
sulfur and is able to comply with low SO^ emission limits without physical cleaning. Cleaning does,
however, substantially increase the quantity of eastern Kentucky coal able to comply with a low SOj
emission limit.
Figure 4.4-6 shows the percentage of the projected 1985 eastern Kentucky coal production excluding
metallurgical coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an SO, emission
ceiling and a percentage SO, reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the value of the
^ /•
emission ceiling in Ib 502/10 Btu.) The curves in this figure show that almost one-half of eastern
Kentucky coal can, by physical cleaning, comply with a 20 percent SO, reduction requirement and that
about one-half can comply with an emission standard defined by a 20 percent SO, reduction and a
2 Ib/IO6 Btu ceiling.
Table 4.4-1 shows the potential SO, emissions, percentage SOo reduction, and cost of compliance for an
SO, emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at Ife inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity of those
coals mined in eastern Ketucky for utility use in 1979 that had sulfur contents exceeding a specified
floor.
100
90
80
#
r 70
E
UJ
3
£
60
50
° 40
30
20
10
Raw coal
PCC, Ifc in., l.6sp. gr.
PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 sp. gr.
FGD
0.95 pyritic, 0.20 organic sulfur removal
34567
Emission Standard (Ib S02/I06 Btu)
e
Figure 4.4-5. Percentage of Projected 1985 Eastern Kentucky Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Using Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurizotion
4-32
-------
Figure 4.4-£. Percentage of Projected 1985 Eastern Kentucky Cool Production Able to Meet
Various SO2 Emission Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and
Percentage S02 Reduction Using Physical Cool Cleaning at IV, 1.6 sp. gr.
O Emission Ceiling in Ib S02/106 Btu
10
20
30 40 50 60 70
Required S02 Reduction <%)
80
Toble ft.4-1. Potential SO, Emission Reductions and Costs Due to Selective
Washing of Eastern Kentucky Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
Coals to Be Washed*
Total SO, Emissions
Quantity to after Selective
Be Washed Washing
(10JTons) (I03 Tons)
SO, Emission Reduction
Achieved by
Selective Washing
(103Tons) (%)
Levelized Cost Cost-
of Washing Effectiveness
(I0ffl979$) ($/TonS02)
No coo Is
Cools with SO, contents
above floor off
1,310
4 lb/IO"Btu
3lb/l06Btu
2lb/l06Btu
1 lb/IOfiBtu
All coals
1,965
5,214
20,510
53,074
54,898
1,277
1,245
1,164
1,059
1,055
33
65
147
251
255
3
5
11
19
19
15
45
202
529
551
460
690
1,370
2,110
2,160
* Excluding the 13,702,000 tons of coal actually washed in 1979.
4-33
-------
Estimates of
Western Kentucky
Coal Available
to Meet Various
SOj Emission
Regulations
Figure 4.4-7 shows the percentage of projected 1985 western Kentucky production excluding metallur-
gical coal able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of three levels,
and when used in conjunction with an FGD system. Coal from western Kentucky is high in sulfur and is
generally unable to comply with S02 emission limits lower than 5 to 7 Ib 502/10 Btu. Physical cleaning
of this coal substantially increases the quantity able to comply with 502 erniss'orl limits in the 4 to
5 Ib/IO Btu range while chemical cleaning by a hypothetical process that removes 95 percent of the
pyritic and 20 percent of the organic sulfur would allow about one-half of the coal to comply with a
2.5 Ib S02/I0 Btu emission limit.
Figure 4.4-8 shows the percentage of the projected 1985 western Kentucky coal production excluding
metallurgical coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an SC>2 emission
ceiling and a percentage SO,, reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the value of the
*
emission ceiling in Ib SO,/10 Btu.) The curves in this figure show that almost all western Kentucky coal
can comply with a 20 percent SO, reduction requirement of physically cleaned but cannot comply with a
relatively low emission ceiling combined with a percentage reduction SO^ standard.
Table 4.4-2 shows the potential §©2 emissions, percentage S02 reduction, and cost of compliance for an
S07 emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at 1^ inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity of those
coals mfned in western Kentucky for utility use in 1979 that had sulfur contents exceeding a specified
floor.
100
90
70
£0
.1
tfl
£
jj 50
*
o 00
a
30
20
10
. s
-^—— Raw coal
. —• —PCC, Ifc in., 1.6 sp. gr.
PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 jp. gr.
FGD
- - - »0,9S pyritic, 0.20 organic
sulfur removal
Emission Standard (Ib SO2/tO Btu)
Figure <*.<*-!. Percentage of Projected 1985 Western Kentucky Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Using Physical Cool Cleaning and Flue Gas Desolfurization
4-34
-------
Figure 4.4-8 . Percentoge of Projected 1985 Western Kentucky Coal Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and
Percentage; SOj Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at I Id", 1.6 sp. gr.
O Emission Ceiling in Ib SOj/10 Btu
30 40 50 60 70
Required SOj Reduction (%)
80
90
100
Table 4.4-2. Potential SO, Emission Reductions and Costs Due to Selective
Washing of Western Kentucky Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
Coals to Be Washed*
Quantity to
Be Washed
(IOJTons)
Total SO. Emissions
after Selective
Washing
(I03 Tons)
SO- Emission Reduction
f Achieved by
Selective Washing
(!03Tons) {%)
Levelized Cost
of Washing
(I06 1979$)
Cost-
Effectiveness
($/Ton S02)
No coals
Cools with SO, contents
above floor of:
1,896
7 Ib/I0*8tu
6 lb/IO*Btu
5 Ib/ 10* Btu
4 Ib/ 10* Btu
All coals
12,997
18,998
21,808
23,865
26 ,076
1,538
1,432
1,393
1,364
1,343
358
464
503
531
553
19
24
27
28
29
88
122
139
152
169
250
260
280
. 290
310
* Excluding the 12,051,000 tons of coal actually washed in 1979.
4-35
-------
Major Sources
of Coal Used
by Kentucky
Utility Plaits
in 1979
Source states for coal delivered to Kentucky utilities in 1979 are listed in Table 4.4-3 along with the
quantity and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the coal from each state. Table 4.4-4 shows
the Kentucky utility plants that imported the greatest amount of coal in 1979, ranked according to the
quantity imported. Following the plant name, the combined units' size and SO, limits are shown. In
some cases, more than one SO, limit applies to various units of a given plant. The remaining columns
indicate the quantify imported from each state, the percentage of coal that quantity represented for
each plant, and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the imported coal.
Table 4.4-3. Source State far Coal Used in Kentucky Plants in 1979
State
Kentucky
Indiana
Virginia
Illinois
West Virginia
Tennessee
Remaining States
TOTAL
Size
Plant (MW)
Shawnee 1 , 530
Shawnee 1 , 530
Shawnee 1 , 530
Ghent 1,047
Coleman 450
Colemon 450
Brown 700
Big Saidy 1,060
Mill Creek 1,08!
Remaining
Plants -
TOTAL 1 1 , 799
Quantity
(lO^Tans)
21,056
1,506
532
504
388
175
172
24,732
Table 4.4-4.
SO, Limit
(Ib/fO5 Bto)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2, 6.0
5.3
5.3
6.0
6.0
1.2
_
-
Total Coal Sulfur
Used in State (Percent)
85 2.91
8 2.80
2 0.61
2 3.22
2 0.81
< 1 1.80
< 1 2.42
100 2.81
Out-of -State Coal Use by Kentucky
Percentage of
State of Quantity Total Coal
Origin (10 Tons) Used by Plant
VA 532 15
IL 504 14
WV 292 8
IN 1 , 205 50
IN 192 12
OH 171 10
TN 175 12
WV 94 4
IN 44 2
468 6
3,677 15
Weighted Average
Ash SO,
(Percent) (Ib/IO^'Btu)
13.4 5.32
9.7 5.07
6.4 0.90
16.8 6.18
11.7 1.33
15.0 3.09
15.4 4.31
13.1 5.14
Plants in 1979
Weighted Average
Sulfur Ash SD,
(Percent) (Percent) (lb/IOfr'Btu)
0.61 6.4 0.90
3.22 16.8 6.18
0.69 10.8 1.08
3.08 9.9 5.61
2.39 9.6 4.27
2.42 15.4 4.31
1.81 IS.O 3.09
1.16 14.5 2.06
3.63 11.4 6.73
2.17 9.0 3.84
2.24 10.9 4.13
4-36
-------
Major Utility
Users of Kentucky
Coal in 1979
Table 4.4-5 lists the states containing utility plants that burned Kentucky coal in 1979. Also listed are
the Kentucky coal quantities received, the percentage of coal use these quantities represented for each
state, and the weighted average coal properties. The largest Kentucky users of Kentucky coal are listed
in Table 4.4-6 along with relevant plant information and coal properties.
Table 4.4-5. States Receiving Kentucky Coal Deliveries to Utility Plants in 1979
State
Kentucky
Tennessee
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Michigan
South Carolina
Indiana
Florida
Alabama
West Virginia
Remaining
10 States
TOTAL
Quantity
(IOJTons>
21,056
15,828
12,106
11,890
10,918
9,150
4,947
4,231
3,733
3,415
2,703
6,760
106,738
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used in State
85
£8
23
62
52
38
84
12
63
19
10
4
-
Weighted Average
Sulfur
(Percent)
2.91
2.33
1.25
1.76
0.94
0.93
1.32
3.79
2.22
2.55
0.96
1.92
1.95
Ash
(Percent)
13.4
13.1
13.2
II. 1
10.7
9.4
10.6
13.0
9.8
12.8
12.2
9.9
11.9
(Ib/I0°%tu)
5.32
4.14
2.21
2.96
I.5S
1.51
2.13
6.80
3.79
4.40
1.63
3.26
3.42
Table 4A<. Kentucky Utility Plants Receiving Kentucky Coal Deliveries in 1579
Plant
Paradise
Mill Creek
Shawn ee
Big Sandy
Cane Run
Brown
Coleman
Ghent
Elmer Smith
Cooper
Remaining
Plants
TOTAL
Size SO, Limit
(MW) (Ib/ttT Btu)
2,377
1,081
1,530
1,060
989
700
450
1,047
399
354
-
11,799
0.9, 5.2
1.2
1.2
6.0
1.2
6.0
S.3
1.2,6.0
6.0
3.3
-
—
Percentage of
Quantity Total Coal
(lO^Tons) Used by Plant
5,407
2,191
2,191
2,039
1,634
1,339
1,277
1,216
832
725
2,205
21,056
100
98
62
96
100
88
78
50
95
100
88
85
Weighted Average
Sulfur
(Percent)
4.35
3.53
2.22
1.19
3.35
2.51
2.31
0.71
2.90
1.48
2.67
2.91
Ash SO,
(Percent) (Ib/IO^fctu)
17.1
14.3
10.5
13.5
12.4
13.2
11.9
9.3
9.6
10.0
13.0
13.4
8.26
6.48
3.83
2.11
6.10
4.25
5.05
1.16
5.22
2.43
4.94
5.32
4-37
-------
General
Information
d.5 OHIO
The Ohio coal fields are located in the southeastern quarter of Ohio and include a 25-countv area. In
1977, Ohio was the fifth largest coal-producing state behind Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
Illinois. Surface mining produced 33 million tons in Ohio in 1977, while underground mining produced
14 million tons. None of the Ohio coal produced in 1977 was used as metallurgical coal for the
production of coke.
One-half of the Ohio coal in 1977 was shipped by rail or water, 35 percent was shipped by truck, and
IS percent was used by minemouth generating plants.
Pertinent facts regarding Ohio coal properties are listed in Figure 4.5-I. The coal properties, taken
from the coal data bases described in Section 3, are specified on a moisture-free basis for the reserves
and production data bases and on an as-delivered basis for the deliveries-to-utilities data base.
Employment
and Production
in 1977
County
Belmont
Harrison
Muskingum
Jefferson
Vinton
Perry
Coshocton
Tuscorawas
Others
TOTAL
* Source:
Production ( 10 Tons)
Underground*
4,851
3,029
153
368
642
1,589
307
21
3,216
14,176
Reference 1.
Surface*
6,936
3,096
5,468
3,806
1,769
761
1,701
1,785
8,420
33,742
Total*
11,787
6,125
5,621
4,174
2,411
2,350
2,008
1,807
11,635
47,918
Value
(I06$)**
231
138
88
69
37
23
35
30
197
848
Number of Employees
(Monthly Average)**
3,874
2,41 1
1,383
837
776
733
576
298
4,314
15,202
*» Source; Reference 9.
Coal Washing
in 1977
Because of their high pyritic sulfur content, Ohio coals are very amenable to sulfur reduction by physical
cool cleaning methods. The 14 coal cleaning plants reported as operating in Ohio in 1977 processed
a
32 percent of the coal and removed an average of 29 percent by weight of the coal processed. Most of
the coal from the Pittsburgh seam and nearly half of the Middle Kittonning coal was cleaned, resulting in
an estimated 502 reduction of 30 to 40 percent.
Coal Washobility
Data
Pertinent facts regarding the washability of Ohio coals, taken from the washability data base described
in Section 3, are listed here in Figure 4.5-2. The top portion of the figure provides information regarding
the coal properties on o moisture-free basis before and after physical cleaning. Two levels of cleaning,
PCC I and PCC II, are analyzed. The bottom portion of this figure summarizes the potential S02
emission reduction and energy recovery characteristics of the coals in the washability data base at the
two levels of cleaning.
4-38
-------
Figure 4.5-1. Ohio Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves: 21,055 million tons, 509 quadrillion B
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content
(Btu/lb) (%) (%)
Mean 12,780 3.45 11.78
Std. Dev. 907 1.40 5.39
Minimum 8,571 0.50 2.20
Maximum 14,256 9.40 37.40
c
Oumllly (Wtiatit Pwccnt)
» u. o £ 3 K
~fi I 2 3 * J i 7 8 » ID
Cool Sulfur Ctntwt (» SOj/IO* Bfe)
1976 Production: 45.80 million tons, I.I 1 quadrillion Bt
Heating Sulfur Ash y
Value Content Content f
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) |»
Mean 12,921 3.62 11.01
Std. Dev. 489 1.02 2.16
Minimum 9.750 0.60 5.20
Maximum 14,230 8.70 23.40
Projected 1985 Production: 54.54 million tons,
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content
(Btu/lb) (%) (%)
Mean 12,937 3.62 10.95
Std. Dev. 481 1.00 2.03
Minimum 9.750 0.60 5.20
Maximum 14,230 8.70 23.40
1979 Deliveries to Utilities: 38.31 million tons,
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content
(Btu/lb) (%) (%)
Mean 11,183 3.48 15.00
Std. Dev. 838 0.95 4.12
Minimum 8,564 0.67 3.00
Maximum 14,436 6.58 25.10
i15
i..
I'
0
1.34 qix
2S<
1-
J.I5
t 10
i s
0
p
Quantity (Prrcent of Samples) 10
Cool Sulfur Cattwt (Ib SOj/IO* Btu)
4-39
-------
Figure 4.5-2. Ohio Coal Washability Data Sheet
Row Coal
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCCI: 1-
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
: 90 Samples
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12,494
930
8,571
14,256
Sulfur
Content
(%)
3.55
1.39
0.67
6.55
Ash
Content 1 "
(%) | ,s
13.61 I "'
5.56 ] »•
3.57
n (Tl irn rfl_fl rk_n_
rfi ^ 1 y 1 U 1 1 U ! m 1 ruJ flrflTLn
37.43 "i ; j j ; * « 5 • » *
C«l V/Hur C«li
8.65 \
3.08 1 '•
3.10
„ n 11 T-rfllTn i-ri n-i
flLi|nl 111 IlimnilfTUTir,
17.50 0 i 1 1 . » 4 i i » K
Col Sullut CXM» lib SOj/loSivl
gr., 90 Samples
Sulfur
Content
(%)
1.81
0.89
0.51
4.26
JS
Ash
Content 1 "'
(%) , is.
| ,0-
3.56 |
1.01 J >
1.50
i r ifl
J-II4 ji.
8.50 » ' ' » • « • ' • ' ••
Col Suffur CXMXI {» SOj/loS'J'
Energy Recovery:
Emission
('
PCCI
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
25.9
12.7
8.0
63.0
Reduction Btu Recovery
PCC II PCC 1 PCC II
53.4 95.2 45.7
13.7 2.9 22.2
16.0 82.4 5.4
81.0 99.6 90.0
4-40
-------
Ohio Pittsburgh Cool. Slightly more than one-quarter of the coal produced in Ohio in 1977 come from this
\ ^JMIIIM. Q I
cool bed. The Pittsburgh bed is the largest coal producer in the United States, persisting in minable
thickness over more than 5,000 square miles in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Ohio.
Reserves in Ohio are estimated at over 10 billion tons of coal above 31 inches in thickness. In the No. 8
district, the Pittsburgh bed covers about 800 square miles averaging about five feet in thickness.
Production is about equally divided between surface and underground mining methods, and about
88 percent of the Pittsburgh coal is washed prior to use. The coal is moderately coking, of firm
structure, and used primarily in large utility and industrial pulverized coal boilers.
Middle Kittonning Cool. This coal bed provided slightly less than one-quarter of Ohio's coal in 1977 and
is an important producing bed also in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. (It is the sixth largest producing
bed in the United States.) Conservative estimates indicate well over 7 billion tons, more than 28 inches
thick, in Ohio District No. 6. Both surface and underground mining methods are used, and about
44 percent of the coal is washed prior to use. The coal is exceptionally firm and has a low ash content
(and often a high ash fusion temperature) along with a very low free-swelling index. It is used
extensively in the ceramic and cement industries and for steam generation in stoker-fired boilers.
Meigs Creek Cool. The Meigs Creek seam, which accounted for about 18 percent of Ohio coal production
in 1977, is believed to contain the largest easily accessible unmined reserve in the state. The seam is
estimated to be of minable thickness over an area of 1,040 square miles and generally lies near the
surface, making it suitable for mining by surface methods. Structurally, the Meigs Creek coal varies
from a massive bed to a bed broken by one or more partings. The high ash and sulfur content of this coal
is largely attributable to closely spaced, paper-thin shaly partings. In 1977, only 8 percent of the coal
was washed. Meigs Creek is generally unsuitable for domestic use and is burned primarily in modern
pulverized coal-fired boilers.
Clarion Cool. This coal accounted for about 6 percent of Ohio's production in 1977. About 12 percent of
it was washed prior to use. The usual structure of the coal consists of three benches separated by two
partings of clay. The thickness of the bed in southern Ohio is about 3 feet; and that of coal and partings
about 4 feet. The Clarion coal is generally mined by conventional underground methods. When washed,
it is highly suitable for steam generation in stoker and pulverized coal boilers.
Lower Kittonninq Cool. This coal bed is the fourth largest producing bed in the United States. Mined
primarily in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, Ohio, and Maryland, it accounted for about
5 percent of Ohio's 1977 coal production. Only 5 percent of this coal was washed in 1977.' Lower
Kittanning reserves in Ohio are estimated at over 3 billion tons above 28 inches thick. The coal
commonly occurs as a single block without noticeable partings and is mined by both underground and
surface methods. It lies just above the state's most valuable and persistent clay bed which is used
extensively by large scale ceramic industries for the production of sewer pipe, face brick, stoneware,
fireproofing, and refractory ware. Cement plants have found this coal suitable for clinkering the shale
and clay used In the manufacture of Portland cement.3
4-41
-------
Estimates of
Ohio Coal
Available to
Meet Various
SOj Emission
Regulations
Figure 4.5-3 shows the percentage of projected 1985 Ohio cool production excluding metallurgical coal
able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of three levels, and when
used in conjunction with an FGD system. Ohio coal is generally high in sulfur and most of it is unable to
comply with S02 emission limits lower than about 6 Ib/IO Btu. Physical cleaning of Ohio coal
substantially increases the quantity of coal able to comply with SO~ emission standards in the 4 to
5 Ib/MBtu range and chemical cleaning by a hypothetical process that removes 95 percent of the pyritic
and 20 percent of the organic sulfur allow about one-half of the Ohio coal to comply with a 2 Ib
SO/IO6 Btu emission limit.
Figure 4.5-4 shows the percentage of the projected 1985 Ohio coal production excluding metallurgical
coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an SO2 emission ceiling and a
percentage SO2 reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the value of the emission
ceiling in Ib SOj/IO Btu.) The curves in this figure show that physical cleaning can reduce the sulfur
content of most of the Ohio coal by 20 percent and con bring much of the Ohio cool into compliance with
a 4 Ib SO2/IO Btu ceiling combined with a 20 percent SO, removal emission regulation.
Table 4.5-1 shows the potential S02 emissions, percentage SO2 reducton, and cost of compliance for an
S02 emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at I ft inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity of those
coals mined in Ohio for utility use in 1979 that had sulfur contents exceeding a specified floor.
100
90
80
70
....
•c
S
*> 60
g
V)
tf)
I 50
1
a ItO
•>
*
§ 30
ffi
20
10
x-r"
Raw coal
• —• —PCC, Ih in., 1.6 sp. gr.
PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 sp.gr.
- - - -0.9S pyritic, 0.20 organic sulfur removal
34567
Emission Standard (Ib SO^/IO6 Btu)
Figure 4.5-3. Percentage of Projected 1985 Ohio Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Using Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization
4-42
-------
Figure 4.5-4. Percentage of Projected 1985 Ohio Coal Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and
Percentage SO2 Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at IV, 1.6 sp. gr.
O Emission Ceiling in Ib SO/IO6 Btu
10
20
30 40 50 60
Required SOj Reduction (%)
70
80
90
100
Table 4.5- 1 . Potential SO, Emission Reductions and Costs Due to Selective
Washing of Ohio Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
Coals to Be Washed*
Quantity to
Be Washed
( 10 J Tons)
Totol SO, Emissions
after Selective
Washing
(IOJTons)
SO, Emission Reduction
Achieved by
Selective Washing Levelized Cost
(!03Tons) (%) (10*1979$)
Cost-
effectiveness
($/ T on 5O-})
No coals
Coals with SO, contents
above floor off
2,479
7 lb/IO°Btu
6lb/l069tu
5 lb/!06Btu
ilb/!06Btu
All coals
12,353
20,225
27,063
31,986
34,527
2,101
1,964
1,832
1,757
1,735
378
515
647
722
744
15
21
26
29
30
137
201
273
302
322
360
390
420
420
430
Excluding the 3,787,000 tons of cool actually washed in 1979.
4-43
-------
Major Sources
of Coal Used
by Ohio
Utility Plmts
in 1979
Source states for coal delivered to Ohio utilities in 1979 are listed in Table 4.5-2 along with the
quantity and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the coal from each state. Table 4.5-3 shows
the Ohio utility plants that imported the greatest amount of coal in 1979, ranked according to the
quantity imported. Following the plant name, the combined units' size and SO- limits are shown. In
some cases, more than one SO, limit applies to various units of a given plant. The remaining columns
indicate the quantity imported from each state, the percentage of coal that quantity represented for
each plant, and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the imported coal.
Tablets-! Source State for Cool Used in Ohio Plants
State
Ohio
Kentucky
West Virginia
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Utah
TOTAL
Percentage of
Quantity Total Coal
(10 Tons) Used in State
27,561
12,106
8,129
3,6ft9
1,624
31
O.I
53, 100
52
23
15
7
3
< 1
< 1
100
Weighted Average
Sulfur
(Percent)
3.70
1.25
2.06
0.50
3.11
2.50
0.54
2.66
Ash SO,
(Percent) (Ib/IO Btu)
15
13
13
5
12
14
II
14
.7
.2
.6
.8
.9
.1
.8
.0
6.78
2.21
3.56
1.2ft
5.2ft
ft. 22
0.98
4.82
Table 4.5-3. Out-of -State Cool Use by Ohio Plants
Size
Plant (MW)
Stuart 2,33ft
Stuart 2,33ft
Gavin 2, £00
Gavin 2, £00
Miami Fort 1,383
Miami Fort 1,383
Cardinal 1,186
Kyger Creek 1,055
Beckjord 1,165
Boyshore 630
Remaining
Plants
TOTAL 23, 139
SO, Limit State of
(Ib/f0b Btu) Origin
3.2 KY
3.2 WV
9.5 WY
9.5 WV
1.2, 1.6 KY
3.3, S.S KT
1.2, 1.6 wv
3.3, 5.5 WV
ft. 8 WV
8.2 WV
2.0 KY
1.2 WV
Quantity
-------
Major Utility
Users of Ohio
Coal in 1979
Table 4.5-4 lists the states containing utility plants that burned Ohio coal in 1979. Also listed are the
Ohio coal quantities received, the percentage of coal use these quantities represented for each state, and
the weighted average coal properties. The largest Ohio users of Ohio coal are listed in Table 4.5-5 along
with relevant plant information and coal properties.
Table 4.5-4. States Receiving Ohio Coal Deliveries to Utility Plants in 1979
State
Ohio
Michigan
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
Alabama
Indiana
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Georgia
Florida
Minnesota
TOTAL
Percentage o
Quantity Total Coal
(I(T Tons) Used in State
27,561
5,006
1,994
1,844
548
408
374
316
171
£8
16
8
38,313
52
21
9
5
3
1
1
3
1
< 1
< 1
-------
General
In f or ma 11 on
4.6 PENNSYLVANIA
The Pennsylvania bituminous coal fields are located in the southwest portion of the state. Anthracite
deposits are located in eastern Pennsylvania but are not included in this analysis. In 1977 Pennsylvania
was the third largest coal-producing state behind Kentucky and West Virginia. Surface mining methods
were used to produce about 46 million tons in 1977, while underground mines produced about 38 million
tons. Nearly 21 million tons of Pennsylvania coal were used as metallurgical coal for the production of
coke.
Over one-half of the Pennsylvania coal was shipped by roil or water, 36 percent was shipped by truck,
and 8 percent was used in minemouth generating plants.
Pertinent facts regarding Pennsylvania coal properties ore listed in Figure 4.6-I. The coal properties,
taken from the coal data bases described in Section 3, are specified on a moisture-free basis for the
reserves and production data bases and on on as-delivered basis for the deliveries-fo-utilities data base.
Coal Employment
and Production
in 1977
County
Washington
Indiana
Clearfield
Armstrong
Somerset
Greene
Cambria
Clarion
Others
TOTAL
* Source;
Product
Underground*
9,138
7,627
S90
3,505
2,683
6,209
3,558
0
5.063
38,373
Reference 1.
ion(I03 Tons)
Surface*
2,035
2,823
7,795
3,927
4,519
821
2,526
6,069
15,751
46,266
Total*
1 1 , 1 73
10,450
8,385
7,432
7,202
7,029
6,083
6,069
20,814
84,639
VgJue
(10*$)*
365
285
153
147
192
227
214
126
458
2,167
Number of Employees
(Monthly Average)**
5,944
5,646
2,534
2,382
3,120
4,680
5,479
1,296
7.226
38,307
Source: Reference 10.
Coal Washing
in 1977
Pennsylvania coals have a relatively high pyritic sulfur content, which can be reduced by physical coal
cleaning. In 1977, 66 coal cleaning plants processed nearly one-half of the coal produced in
Pennsylvania. The level of cleaning that these coals received is unknown.
Coal Washability
Data
Pertinent facts regarding the washability of Pennsylvania coals, taken from the washability data base
described in Section 3, are listed here in Figure 4.6-2. The top portion of the figure provides information
regarding the cool properties on a moisture-free basis before and after physical cleaning. Two levels of
cleaning, PCC I and PCC II, are analyzed. The bottom portion of the figure summarizes the potential
502 emission reduction and energy recovery characteristics of the coals in the washability data base at
the two levels of cleaning.
4-46
-------
Figure 4.6-1. Pennsylvania Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves:
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
23,827 million tons, 623
Heating Sulfur
Value Content
(Btu/lb) (%)
13,496
706
7,069
15,520
1976 Production: 84.87
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Projected
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
13,572
513
11,271
14,641
2.32
1.13
0.40
9.40
quadrillion Btu
15 1
Ash
Content | »•
<%> | ,,
11.05 }""
3.85 J s.
2.50
_> 1 . y\J 0 1 I 3 » 5 < I 1 > 10
CM i-fl*f C-M^HItiOj.'Ic'Bivl
million tons, 2.30 quadrillion E
25 •
Sulfur Ash
Content Content I"
(%) (%) |,5.
2.11
1.02
0.60
8.00
i
10.58 t'0<
1.93 J5.
5.00
18.50 °:
1985 Production: 99.61 million tons, 2.62 qi
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content i»
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) 1
*"
13,588
484
11,271
14,641
2.14
0.99
0.60
8.00
1979 Deliveries to Utilities: 46 JO
Heating Sulfur
Value Content
(Btu/lb) (%)
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
12,161
561
9,086
13,612
1.99
0.62
0.49
5.42
10.53 j'°'
1.00 j,
5.00
18.50
million tons, I.l3q
K,
Ash
Content | "'
(%) { H.
14.60 | "'
4.04 J '
5.60
Itu
i i » J i 7 i i To
C~a SuHtir C0IWM Ik SO;/lo' Blu)
ndrillior
iBtu
TTx_li>.
» i j : » s « j e » 10
Can Wllm teinnt Ib tOjt 10* eiu
uadrillia
J
nBtu
Tn-rTTV
32 . 60 o i i i i i i i « t ,c
CM Smfi* C*m»t lie Wj/ioW
4-47
-------
Figure 4.6-2. Pennsylvania Coal Washability Data Sheet
Row Coal:
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
1 70 Samples
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12,982
1,057
7,070
14,658
PCC 1: 1-1/2 in., 1.6
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC II: 3/8
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
13,930
451
12,508
14,838
Sulfur
Content
(%)
2.56
1.56
0.53
9.40
sp. gr., 1 70
Sulfur
Content
(%)
1.67
0.84
0.44
6.08
n
Ash
* 20
Content >
(%) * -
I
£ io-
14.41 1
6.60 * *
4.80
nn n
rff
ir nLni1 -n
U ml rLj-f] rn
51.90 ° ' ! 3 ' * ' ' ' ' '•
Cool Sullur C»«-t lie SGj.'IC6bi, '
Samples
25
Ash ,.
Content 1
(%) « "•
t .0-
8.15 f
2.26 * "
3.20 »J
r[
i_
-i
1 II n U-n n n
15.90 ° ' ' 3 ' 5 ' I ! ? '
Cool Sultjr Cor-i^illt 5C7'!Oifc'.
in., 1.3 sp. gr., 170 Samples
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
14,686
328
13,482
15,323
Sulfur
Content
(%)
1.04
0.40
0.46
2.46
25
Ash
Content f
(%) ; "
t
i ,o.
3.17 f
0.82 ' "
1.50
c
j
J
II
1
in
h
fin,
O -J/N o i ? 3 i. s i : e « o
7 . £\j
Cool Sulljr Corl^-t (It SO,'!P*i!.'
Emission Reduction vs. Energy Recovery:
Emission Reduction Btu Recovery
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC 1
33.2
17.5
-2.0
72.0
PCC II PCC 1 PCC II
55.8 93.4 48.1
21.6 4.3 20.3
-28.0 76.7 0.4
85.0 99.3 88.9
4-48
-------
Pennsylvonio Pittsburgh Cool. This bed, the notion's largest producer in 1977, extends in minable thickness over more
Coal Seams fhan 5^0 square miles in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. In Pennsylvania, reserves of
this cool are now confined primarily to Washington and Greene counties and small areas of adjacent
Allegheny, Westmoreland, ond Fayette counties. Although the Pittsburgh bed is restricted to a relatively
small part of Pennsylvania's bituminous coal field, its persistent thickness of four to six feet makes it
one of the state's main minoble sources. Most of the Pittsburgh cool comes from very large underground
mines.
Lower Kittonning Coal. This coal bed, mined in many Northern Appalachian states, was the nation's
fourth largest producing bed in 1977. It occurs os a complex of up to five splits, which may be variously
combined into a single coal. The most persistent single split is the third from the bottom, with the lower
two splits occurring frequently. The Lower Kittanning coal is mined by surface and underground methods
in many Pennsylvania counties.
Upper Freeport Cool. The Upper Freeport coal bed was the fifth largest producing bed in the U.S. in
1977 and is actively mined in many Northern Appalachian states. In the eastern portion of the
Pennsylvania bituminous cool field it is mined primarily by surface methods) in the western portion, large
underground mines are used. The seam in the western part of the deep mining area is called the Thick
Freeport or Double Freeport, because of its exceptional thickness of four to six feetj in this seam the
normal Upper Freeport merges with a thick upper split, which elsewhere is separated from the main coal
or, more usually, absent altogether.
Middle Kittonning Cool. This bed, mined in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maryland, was the
nation's sixth largest producer in 1977. It is mined, primarily by surface methods, in many counties near
the northern and eastern portions of the bituminous coal field. The Middle Kittonning bed is frequently
split into two seams, both of which may be minable.
Lower Freeport Cool. This coal is extensively mined by both surface and underground methods in the
eastern portion of the Pennsylvania bituminous coal field. The lower Freeport bed occurs as a coal
complex with either a single thick seam or two or more minable splits.
Clorion-6rookville Cool. This coal occurs as a single, unsplit seam in a thickness of three to six feet.
The upper bench (split) is usually discarded or left for roof control. The coal is relatively high In sulfur
and ash content and often has one or more partings. The Clarion coal, a separate (middle) split of the
Claricn-Brookville complex, is widely strip mined in many counties in the northwestern area of the
bituminous coal field. The Brookville coal, the lower split of the Clarion-Brookville complex, is mined in
the same areas as Clarion.
-------
Estimates of
Pennsylvania Coal
Available to
Meet Various
SO, Emission
Regulations
Figure i.6-3 shows The percentage of projected 1985 Pennsylvania coal production exctudina metallurgi-
cal coal able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning a1 each of three levels,
and when used in conjunction with an FGD system. Over one-half of the Pennsylvania coal can meet o
3 IbSO^/IO Bfu emission standard. After physical cleaning, one-half of the coal can comply with a
2 Ib SOj/IO Btu limit and after chemical cleaning by a hypothetical process that removes 95 percent of
the pyritic and 20 percent of the organic sulfur about one-half of the coal can meet a I Ib S07/I06 Btu
emission limit.
Figure 4.6-4 shows the percentage of 1he projected I98S Pennsvlvanic coal production excluding
metallurgical coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an SCU emission
ceiling and a percentage SO^ reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the value of the
emission ceiling in Ib SC>2/IO Btu.) The curves in this figure show that physical coal cleaning can reduce
the sulfur content of most of the Pennsylvania coal by about 30 percent and about one-quarter of the
coal by 40 percent. In addition, about one-half of the Pennsylvania coal, after physical cleaning, con
comply with a 2 Ib SCyiO Btu emission ceiling combined with a 20 percent S02 reduction standard.
Table 4.6-1 shows the potential SOj emissions, percentage SO^ emissions, percentage SO, reduction, and
cost of compliance for an SO^ emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at I 6 inch top size and 1.6
specific gravity of those coals mined in Pennsylvania for utility use in 1979 that hod sulfur contents
exceeding a specified floor.
•o
o
?
UJ
0
at
-r
£
• Raw coal
'PCC, Ih in., 1.6 sp. gr.
'PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 sp.gr.
FGD
0.95 pyritic, U.2U organic sulfur removal
20
10
3456
Emission Standard (Ib SCyiO6 Btu)
Figure 4.6-3. Percentage of Projected 1985 PennsyIvonio Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Ifcing Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Oesulfurization
4-50
-------
Figure 4.6-4. Percentage of Projected 1985 Pennsylvania Cool Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and
Percentage SO2 Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at I V, 1.6 sp. or.
10
'«'on Ceiling in Ib SOj/IO6 Btu
20
30 40 50 60 70
Required SOj Reduction (%)
80
90
100
Table 4.6-1. Potential SO, Emission Reductions and Costs Due to Selective
Washing of Pennsylvania Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
Coals to Be Washed*
Quantity to
Be Washed
( 10 J Tons)
Total SO, Emissions
after Selective
Washing
(lO^Tons)
SO, Emission Reduction
Achieved bv
Selective Washing
(!03Tons) (%)
Levelized Cost
of Washing
(I06 1979$)
Cost-
Effectiveness
(S/Ton S02)
No coals
Coals with SO, contents
above floor off
1,381
5 lb/!06Btu
4lb/l06Btu
3lb/l06Btu
2 lb/!06Btu
All coals
2,798
6,450
22,122
30,315
34.365
1,292
1,236
1,015
936
913
89
146
366
446
469
6
II
26
32
34
27
55
205
270
313
300
380
560
610
670
* Excluding the 13,069,000 tons of coal actually washed in 1979.
4-51
-------
Major Sources
of Coal Used
by Pennsylvania
Utility Plaits
in 1979
Source states for coal delivered to Pennsylvania utilities in 1979 are listed in Table 4.6-2 along with the
quantity and the weighted overage sulfur and ash content of the coal from each state. Table 4.6-3 shows
the Pennsylvania utility plants that imported the greatest amount of coal in 1979, ranked according to
the quantity imported. Following the plant name, the combined units' size and SO, limits are shown. In
some cases, more than one SO, limit applies to various units of a given plant. The remaining columns
indicate the quantity imported from each state, the percentage of coal that quantity represented for
each plant, and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the imported coal.
Table 4,6-2. Source State for Coal Used in Pennsylvania Plants in 1979
State
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Ohio
Maryland
Kentucky
TOTAL
Quantity
(IOJTons)
32,102
4,387
1,844
262
65
38,661
Table 4.6-3.
Size
Plant (MW)
Mansfield 1,760
Mansfield 1,760
Mansfield 1,760
Hat fields
Ferry 1,581
Mitchell 374
Eddystone 488
Phillips 381
Cromby 1 52
E Ira ma 488
Portland 403
Remaining
Plants
TOTAL 17,412
SO, Limit
(Ib/fO5 Btu)
0.6
0.6
0.6
3.3
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.6
3.3
-
_
Percentage of
Total Cool
Used in Stqte
83
II
5
1
< 1
100
Sulfur
(Percent)
1.97
2.54
3.41
2.41
0.98
2.11
Weighted Average
Ash S
(Percent) (Ib/IO
15.5 3.
12.0 4.
14.5 5.
14.6 4.
6.3 1.
15.0 3.
^tu)
27
10
89
08
49
49
Out-of-State Coal Use by Pennsylvania Plants in 1979
State of Quantity
Origin (lO^Tons)
OH 1,829
WV 454
MD 192
WV 2,352
WV 656
WV 411
WV 132
WV 128
WV 107
MD 52
247
6,559
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used by Plait
61
15
6
72
91
54
14
47
7
7
2
17
Weighted Average
Sulfur Ash SO,
(Percent) (Percent) (Ib/ 10^ Btu)
3.43 14.5 5
2.67 14.9 4
2.67 14.9 4
2.63 13.3 4
2.10 6.7 3
2.78 9.4 4
2.66 15.8 4
2.61 10.3 4
2.54 15.0 4
1.88 14.6 3
1.58 9.6 2
2.80 12.8 4
.91
.54
.54
.29
.19
.29
.46
.05
.23
.14
.46
.57
4-52
-------
Major Utility
Users of
Pennsylvania
Cool in 1979
Table 4.6-
-------
General
Information
4.7 VIRGINIA
The Virginia coal fields ore in the western portion of the state and are mined primarily in Buchanan,
Wise, and Dickenson counties. In 1977, Virginia was the seventh largest cool producing state ahead of
Inaiana, Montana, and Alabama in the top ten producing states. Surface mining methods were used to
produce about 15 million tons and underground methods were used to produce about 23 million tons.
Over 6 million tons of Virginia coal were used as metallurgical coal for the production of coke.
Nearlv three-fourths of Virginia coal production was shipped by rail or water and one-fourth was shipped
by truck in 1977.'
Pertinent facts regarding Virginia coal properties are listed in Figure 4.7-1. The coal properties, taken
from the coal data bases described in Section 3, ore specified on a moisture-free basis for the reserves
and production data bases and on an as-delivered basis for the deliveries-to-utilities data base.
Coal Employment
and Production
in 1977
Production (Id3 Tons)
Count v
Buchanan
Wise
Dickenson
Tazewell
Russell
Lee
TOTAL
* Source:
** Source:
Underground*
12.242
4,746
2,753
1,716
949
652
23,057
Reference 1.
Reference 1 1 .
Surface*
4,291
6,547
1,933
456
614
726
14,567
Total*
16,533
11,292
4,686
2,172
1,562
1,378
37,624
Value
(ICTS)*
544
279
127
88
51
27
1,116
Number of Employees
(Monthly Average)**
7,863
4,359
1,963
843
1,015
505
16,548
Coal Washing
in 1977
Virginia coals are generally low in both pyritic and total sulfur and do not benefit substantially by
physical coal cleaning. In 1977, 24 cleaning plants processed 32 percent of the coal. The level to which
these coals were cleaned is not known.
Coal Washability
Data
Pertinent facts regarding the washobility of Virginia coals, taken from the washability data base
described in Section 3, are listed here in Figure 4.7-2. The top portion of the figure provides information
regarding the coal properties on a moisture-free basis before and after physical cleaning. Two levels of
cleaning, PCC I and PCC II, are analyzed. The bottom portion of the figure summarizes the potential
50* emission reduction and energy recovery characteristics of the coals in the washability data base at
the two levels of cleaning.
4-54
-------
Figure 4.7-1. Virginia Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves: 3,636 million tons, 99.4 quadrillion Btu
Heating Sulfur Ash "1
Value Content Content l "'
(Btu/ib) (%) (%) i";
Mean 13,993 0.85 9.04 | ,0 r
Std. Dev. 895 0.43 5.31 l ,
Minimum 10 240 0 40 1.50 o ,_L.
Maximum 15,490 3.70 31.70
1976 Production: 40.00 million tons, 1.13 quadrillion Btu
Heating Sulfur Ash «•
Value Content Content jjc
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) !»•
., , ._ I Tfl
I
Mean 14,138 0.87 8.12 f'j'
Std. Dev. 544 0.43 2.65 *t
Minimum 10,860 0.40 3.90
k m— n
':')«>« r i i ib
C«l SuKur OiMfil (» SOj/ 10* Biul
•1 HI- n
Maximum 15,229 3.10 19.50 5 JsJcJ,,.^,, ' ' '°
Projected 1985 Production: 46.39 million tons, 1.28 qua<
Heating Sulfur Ash Ml
Value Content Content f30
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) I"
Mean 14,210 0.90 7.77 l" r
Std. Dev. 499 0.46 2.80 J
Minimum 10,860 0.30 3.90 , J
Maximum 15,229 3.10 19.50 »
1979 Deliveries to Utilities: 13.39 million tons, 0.33 quc
*<
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content 1 «
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) I „,
Mean 12,305 1.02 12.88 | "'
Std. Dev. 536 0.35 3.15 I «
Minimum 10,424 0.24 4.80
kill ion Btu
} 1 i i i J i J 10
-------
Figure 4.7-2. Virginia Coal Washability Data Sheet
Raw Coal: 8 Samples
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Mean 13,715
Std. Dev. 1,1 A3
Minimum 1 1 ,872
Maximum 14,828
PCCI: 1-1/2 in., 1.6s
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Mean 14,486
Std. Dev. 408
Minimum 13,576
Maximum 14,899
PCCII: 3/8 in., l.3sp
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Mean 14,876
Std. Dev. 180
Minimum 14,513
Maximum 15,035
Emission Reduction vs
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
10
Sulfur Ash , „,.
Content Content 1
(%) (%) | -'
| »•
0.77 10.04 I
0.23 7.83 * "•
0.48 1.97
1.17 22.77
p. gr., 8 Samples
so
Sulfur Ash
Content Content \
(%) (%) $ »-
!
1 „.
0.74 5.03 |
0.19 2.71 1 '«
0.48 1.50
1.07 10.30
. gr., 8 Samples
Sulfur Ash i «,.
Content Content j
(%) (%) | -
1 »
0.69 2.46 f
0.15 0.99 * "
0.49 1.10 o
0.88 4.10
. Energy Recovery:
Emission Reduction
(%)
PCC 1 PCC II F
7.6 15.3
4.7 11.5
1.0 0
14.0 30.0
II
Cool SMM« C«nl«il U> SO^IO^Blul
m
PI
Call Sullur Conw» (IB SO?'IOS'V
nn
i i i i i i i » 10
Cool SuMw Canl«il (U> SOJ/IO
-------
Virginia Kennedy Coal. This bed, found in the Norton Formation, was Virginia's largest producer in 1978; it
Coal Seams accounted for 8 percent of the state's production that year. The Kennedy seam is between two and ten
7 8
feet thick and is mined by both surface and underground methods, primarily in Buchanan County. '
Blair Coal. The Blair coal, found in the Wise Formation, accounted for about 7 percent of Virginia's coal
production in 1978. The coal is between two and four feet thick, has a hard and clear structure, and is
usually low in sulfur and ash content. It is mined primarily by surface methods in Wise County and by
378
underground methods in Buchanan County. ' '
Dorchester Coal. This bed is the lowest in the Wise Formation and is mined principally in Wise County
by both surface and underground methods. The seam is from two to six feet thick and in some places
378
contains a streak of clay, one to six inches thick, and dirty coal about two feet below the seam top. ' '
Splosh Dam Cool. The Splash Dam Coal is found in a 15-square-mile area of Dickenson and Buchanan
counties in thicknesses of between three and five feet. The coal is intermediate in luster and has a
bluish gray cast. The cleavage plains are not pronounced, and the coal breaks into irregular shapes. The
seam is characterized by one or two thin shale partings to which the coal tends to adhere strongly. The
principal markets for this coal have been provided by metallurgical and high-grade industrial steam coal
users.
Jawbone Cool. This coal bed, one of the higher beds in the Lee Formation, is mined by both underground
and surface methods. In some places it lies as much as 100 feet above the Tiller bed, while in others the
two coals join to form one bed. Alone, the Jawbone coal seam is about six feet thick; when combined
with the Tiller, however, it forms a coal zone thicker than IS feet. Numerous bone partings make this
378
coal high in ash, which can be readily removed by washing. '
Clintwood Cool. This seam is in the Wise Formation and is located 70 to 150 feet above the Blair coal in
Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, and Wise counties. The minable seam is composed of five benches; the middle
three are generally mined. These three benches have an average total thickness of ten feet and are
separated by two small shale partings. The coal generally has a slender columnar structure and is not
dusty. The Clintwood coal is high in heating value, low in both ash and sulfur, and easy to clean by
mechanical methods. Although it is used primarily as a metallurgical coal for the production of coke, it
is suitable for use as a steam coal. '
Pocohontos No. 3 Cool. This bed is one of the deepest in the Pocahontas Formation and is mined
primarily in Buchanan County from shaft mines that are about 1,300 feet deep. Pocahontas No. 3 is
medium- to low-volatile bituminous coal ranging in thickness from two to eleven feet with a usual
thickness of between four and five feet. Although it is used primarily as a metallurgical coal for the
production of coke, its low fusion temperature also makes it suitable for domestic use in clinker-type
stokers.3'7
Imboden Cool. This bed, 225 to 500 feet above the Clintwood coal, crops out in Buchanan, Dickenson,
Lee, and Wise counties. The seam is two to ten feet thick and in some sections carries one to eight
partings, up to three feet thick, composed of shale, mud, dirty coal, coal and laminated shale, and sulfur
streaks. The Imboden coal is a high-quality coking coal and is also suitable for use as a steam coal. '
4-57
-------
Estimates of
Virginia Coal
Available to
Meet Various
$©2 Emission
Regulations
Figure 4.7-3 shows the percentage of projected 1985 Virginia coal production excluding metallurgical
coal able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of three levels, and
when used in conjunction with an FGD system. Virginia coal is low in sulfur and can comply with
relatively low SO-^ emission limits without physical cleaning. In addition, cleaning does not substantially
increase the quantity of compliance coal.
Figure 4.7-4 shows the percentage of the projected 1985 Virginia coal production excluding metallur-
gical coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an 502 ern'ss'on ceiling and
a percentage SO~ reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the value of the emission
ceiling in IbSO^/'O Btu.) The curves in this figure show again that Virginia coals can comply with
relatively low emission limits but that they are not able to comply with regulations requiring a large
percentage SOj reduction.
Table 4.7- I shows the potential SC>2 emissions, percentage SC^ reduction, and cost of compliance for an
SO^ emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at Ife inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity of those
coals mined in Virginia for utility use in 1979 that had sulfur contents exceeding a specified floor.
i
s
E
UJ
8
o
J"
3
£
» Raw coal
•PCC, Ifein., 1.6 sp.gr.
•PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 sp.gr.
•FGD
• 0.95 pyntic, 0.20 organic sulfur removal
3456
Emission Standard (Ib SOj/IO6 Btu)
8
Figure 4.7-3. Percentage of Projected 1985 Virginia Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Using Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization
4-58
-------
Figure 4.7-4 , Percentoge of Projected 1985 Virginio Cool Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Standards Defined by on Emission Ceiling and
Percentage SOj Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at IV, 1.6 sp. gr.
issiwi Ceiling in Ib S02/IOS Btu
10
20
30 40 50 60 70
Required S02 Reduction (%)
80
90
100
Table 4.7-1. Potential SO, Emission Reductions and Costs Due to Selective
Washing of Virginia Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
oals to 3« Washed*
Totol SO, Emissions
Quantity to after Selective
Be Washed Washing
(IOJTons) (IO'5Tons)
SO- Emission Reduction
Achieved by
Selective Washing
(10 Tons) (%)
Level I zed Cost Cost-
of Washing Effectiveness
(10° 1979$)
($/Ton S02)
Mo coals
Coals with S02 contents
above floor off
251
4lb/IO°3tu
3 lb/IOSBtu
2lb/IOfiBtu
Mb/104 Stu
All coals
115
457
2,426
11,941
12,537
251
248
239
224
223
< 1
3
12
28
28
< 1
1
5
II
II
< 1
5
26
98
104
_
1,670
2,170
3,500
3,710
Excluding the 849,000 tons of coal actually washed in 1979.
4-59
-------
Major Sources
of Coal Used
br Virginia
Utility Plaits
in 1979
Source states for coal delivered to Virginia utilities in 1979 are listed in Table ft.7-2 along with the
quantity and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the coal from each state. Table A.7-3 shows
the Virginia utility plants that imported the greatest amount of coal in 1979, ranked according to the
quantity imported. Following the plant name, the combined units' size and SO. limits are shown. In
some cases, more than one SO, limit applies to various units of a given plant. The remaining columns
indicate the quantity imported from each state, the percentage of coal that quantity represented for
each plant, and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the imported cool.
Table 4.7-2. Source State for Coal Used in Virginia Plaits in 1979
State
Virginia
Kentucky
West Virginia
TOTAL
Size
Plcnt (MW)
Chesterfield 802
Chesterfield 802
Potomac
River • 459
Potomac
River 459
Bremo Bluff 240
Bremo Bluff 240
Clinch River 714
GlenLyn 331
GlenLyn 331
TOTAL 2,578
Quantity
(10 Tons)
2,602
1,744
758
5,104
Toble 4.7-3.
SO, Limit
(Ib/TO5 Btu)
2.6
2.6
I.I
I.I
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
—
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used in State
51
34
15
100
Weighted Average
Sulfur
(Percent)
0.81
0.93
0.83
0.86
Ash S
(Percent) (Ib/IO
Out-of-State Coal Use by Virginia Plants in
State of Quantity
Origin (10 Tons)
KY 986
WV 3
WV 376
KY 339
WV 319
KY 244
KY 156
WV 60
KY 15
2,503
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used by Plant
99
< 1
39
35
57
43
9
8
2
49
15.4 1.
9.6 1.
10.5 1.
12.7 1.
1979
Weighted Average
^tu,
34
49
33
39
Sulfur Ash SP,
(Percent) (Percent) (Ib/ 10° Btu)
1.03
1.18
0.72
0.71
0.97
1.05
0.64
0.80
1.04
0.90
8.8 1
11.3 1
8.7 1
8.0 1
11.2 1
10.9 1
15.0 1
16.9 1
16.7 1
9.8 1
.62
.87
.11
.11
.57
.71
.06
.37
.89
.44
-------
Major Utility
Users of
Virginia
Coal in 1979
Table 4.7-4 lists the states containing utility plants that burned Virginia coal in 1979. Also listed are the
Virginia cool quantities received, the percentage of coal use these quantities represented for each state,
and the weighted average coal properties. The largest Virginia users of Virginia coal are listed in
Table 4.7-5 along with relevant plant information and coal properties.
Table 4.7-4. States Receiving Virginia Coal Deliveries to Utility Plants in 1979
State
North Carolina
Virginia
South Carolina
Missouri
West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
New Jersey
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
Alabama
Maryland
TOTAL
Quantity
( 10 S Tons)
6,596
2, 602
954
601
574
532
502
431
297
170
113
10
4
13,385
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used in State
31
51
16
3
2
2
2
20
2
< 1
< 1
< 1
-------
4.8 WEST VIRGINIA
General
Information
Coal occurs in all but 2 of the 55 counties of West Virginia and is mined in 33 counties in the southern
and north central portions of the state. ' In 1977 West Virginia was the second largest coal-producing
state behind Kentucky. About 74 million tons were produced from underground mines and nearly
22 million tons were produced from surface mines. In 1977, over 23 million tons of West Virginia coal
were used as metallurgical coal for the production of coke.
About 83 percent was shipped by rail or water in 1977, while 10 percent was shipped by truck; only
6 percent was used in minemouth generating plants.
Pertinent facts regarding northern West Virginia and southern West Virginia coal properties are listed in
Figures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2, respectively. The coal properties, taken from the coal data bases described in
Section 3, are specified on a moisture-free basis for the reserves and production data bases and on an as-
delivered basis for the deliveries-to-utilities data base.
Coal Employment
and Production
in 1977
Production (I03 Tons)
Count v
Monongalia
McDowell
Boone
Logan
Wyoming
Kanawha
Raleigh
Marion
Others
TOTAL
* Source:
** Source:
Underground*
9,329
7,580
6,197
5,362
6,378
4,426
5,276
4,917
24,044
73,509
Reference 1.
Reference 12.
Surface*
1,110
865
1,883
1,594
288
2,222
993
102
12.867
21,924
Total*
10,439
8,445
8,080
6,956
6,666
6,647
6,269
5,019
36,911
95,433
Vqjue
(10*$)*
210
402
253
224
284
192
294
147
955
2,961
Number of Employees
(Monthly Average)**
3,669
7,263
5,565
5,115
6,557
4,038
5,476
3,786
29,629
71,098
Coal Washing
in 1977
Coal from northern West Virginia is generally medium to high in both pyritic sulfur and total sulfur and is
amenable to sulfur reduction by physical coal cleaning. Southern West Virginia coal, however, is low in
both pyritic and total sulfur and does not benefit as much from coal cleaning. In 1977, 135 coal cleaning
plants processed 55 percent of West Virginia's coal. The level to which these coals were cleaned is
unknown.
Coal Washability
Data
Pertinent facts regarding the washability of northern and southern West Virginia coals, taken from the
washability data base described in Section 3, are listed here in Figures 4.8-3 and 4.8-4, respectively.
The top portion of the figures provides information regarding the coal properties on a moisture-free basis
before ana after physical cleaning. Two levels of cleaning, PCC I and PCC II, are analyzed. The bottom
portion of the figures summarizes the potential SO^ emission reduction and energy recovery character-
istics of the cools in the washobility data base at the two levels of cleaning.
4-62
-------
Figure 4.8-1. Northern West Virginia Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves:
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
22.2 10 million tons, 574
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
13,229
999
9,186
15,360
1976 Production: 46.90
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Projected
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
13,607
786
9,186
1 C AOA
1 5 , 030
Sulfur
Content
(%)
2.73
1.37
0.40
6.60
quadrillion Btu
Ash
Content
(%)
12.17
6.12
1.50
37.50
i "•
i
V
I
t 10-
i'
n n (1
[TLrJL fJLnrfl J n
JIhnlhlnMlrdlHL
0 I 2 J * 5 4 7 | * iO
Coat SwUwf COTWNI (» SOj/ 10* Btw)
million tons, 1.28 quadrillion Btu
Sulfur
Content
(%)
2.44
1.30
0.40
5CA
.50
Ash
Content
(%)
9.31
2.44
3.30
*^ 1 ^ A
21 .70
1985 Production; 52.80 million tons,
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
13,524
845
9,186
15,030
Sulfur
Content
(%)
2.29
1.33
0.40
5.50
1979 Deliveries to Utilities: 31.26
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
12,270
663
10,023
14,142
Sulfur
Content
(%)
2.70
1.02
0.30
6.70
Ash
Content
(%)
9.65
2.63
3.30
21.70
million tons,
Ash
Content
(%)
12.68
3.42
2.80
23.70
Hi
1"
i£is.
i
•T
^ 10-
1
* „
0
IT
-
rill
p
fl rf „
Cwl SwHwr Cwttwu 1 b SOV 10* Bf wl
1.38 quadrillion Btu
1"
Is
1,0
^ 5
r
ttr
_
n_
rfuL
i n
n 0
fl rdl n
Oltllit'l'IO
Cool SuMur ConHnl
-------
Figure 4.8-2. Southern West Virginia Coal Properties Fact Sheet
Reserves: 17,267 million tons, 471 quadrillion Btu
Heating Sulfur Ash 3Si
Value Content Content | »•
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) ]»•
Mean 14,034
Std. Dev. 715
Minimum 11,000
Maximum 15,570
1976 Production: 61.22
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Mean 14,202
Std. Dev. 535
Minimum 12,469
Maximum 15,390
0.94 7.89 f"
0.45 3.75 1"'
0.10 1.30 " [
4.30 26.10 °*~^
million tons, 1.74 quadrillion B1
5C-
Sulfur Ash
Content Content | *'
(%) (%) i K.
,. 1
0.81 7.34 f
0.49 2.17 ! =•
0.30 3.40
J)«5«'i»lo
Cool Sulfut Conttnl Ift Stylo' Blul
fu
rl
6.60 15.60 o • i i : s « » • . *
Cw Sulfur Can»"i 1 lo SCy iO' S'ui
Projected 1985 Production: 87.95 million tons, 2.42 qut
w
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content ] "'
(Btu/lb) (%) (96) S „.
,,, *
Mean 14,174
Std. Dev. 550
Minimum 12,469
Maximum 15,390
0.81 7.40 | "'
0.45 2.27 J ,o.
0.30 3.40 f
.80 15.60 r^
1979 Deliveries to Utilities: \7M million tons, 0.42 qu
»
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content I*
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) *„
Mean 1 1 , 926
Std. Dev. 602
Minimum 9,912
Maximum 14,129
i
0.84 13.46 {"'
0.25 3.12 J«
0.30 4.60
idrillion Btu
i
3 J i 5 « > « * ib
C-.I uiui c«^i^-> '*. sa}' in' B'.,I
adrillion Btu
r H, _ _
3.80 27.60 T i i ; J : 5 i ; A
C«tl iutlar C*>Nnl lib SO^'it' Blwl
4-64
-------
Figure 4.8-3. Northern West Virginia Coal Washability Data Sheet
Row Coal: 30 Samples
IS-
Heating Sulfur Ash ?
Value Content Content 1 **
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) ] ,s.
^
Mean 12,647 3.06 15.74 j *
Std. Dev. 1,266 1.21 8.21
Minimum 9,186 1.06 6.63 „
[Tib
Maximum 13,973 6.33 37.53
PCC 1: 1-1/2 in., 1.6 sp. gr., 30 Samples
Heating Sulfur Ash
Value Content Content t "•
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) | ,s.
Mean 13,721 2.35 8.60 1 ""
Std. Dev. 369 1.09 2.05 f •-
Minimum 12,744 0.88 6.10 J
Maximum 14,282 4.82 13.90 °
PCC II: 3/8 in., 1.3 sp. gr., 30 Samples
Heating Sulfur Ash ,
Value Content Content f *
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) I ,,.
Mean 14,449 1.54 3.75 1 *
Std. Dev. 225 0.79 0.53 J *
Minimum 13,835 0.15 2.80 _
im
? i «
CMlbMutC*
^
D !
f
Maximum 14,968 3.56 5.30 * '
1
n
i
mm n n
—>>^
in
n
•i m
j i J i 7 i » ib
Cml Mtv C««M Ik SOj/IO* ttvl
If
p.
In
; *
C«lW«^C*
p
s i 7 i > it
nmilkiOj/lo'Bivi
Emission Reduction vs. Energy Recovery:
Emission Reduction
Btu Recovery
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC 1
28.6
16.5
4.0
63.0
PCC II
55.5
17.7
26.0
91.0
PCC I
93.2
5.2
78.1
98.9
PCC II
45.8
16.9
12.0
72.7
4-65
-------
Figure 4.8-4. Southern West Virginia Coal Washability Data Sheet
Row Coal: 16 Samples
id:
Heating Sulfur Ash ?
Value Content Content |
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) 1 »•
Mean 13,064
Std. Dev. 901
Minimum 11,000
Maximum 14,210
PCC 1: 1-1/2 in., 1.6
Heating
Value
(Btu/lb)
Mean 13,976
Std. Dev. 460
Minimum 13,202
Maximum 14,604
* ».
0.90 12.73 !
0.35 5.84 * "'
0.59 5.30
sp. gr., 1 6 Samples
so
Sulfur Ash -
Content Content 1 *°
(%) (%) * ».
i ».
0.83 6.69 1
0.21 2.41 J "'
0.59 3.90
ri
m n
1 J ) » S i 7 1 1 1C
r
n
1 42 10 70 o i i 3 « » * 7 . » 10
I.HZ. IU./U C*UM* <*»*<< (*iO,IU>'t><»l
PCC II: 3/8 in., 1.3 sp. gr., 16 Samples
X,
Heating Sulfur Ash ,
Value Content Content } "•
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) i ,.
Mean 14,625
Std. Dev. 249
Minimum 14,220
Maximum 15,035
0.79 2.40 I
0.17 0.57 j >o.
0.63 1.50
r
n
1.35 3.10 ^ > ' i J * ; « ' "
Emission Reduction vs. Energy Recovery:
Emission Reduction Btu Recovery
Mean
Std. Dev.
Minimum
Maximum
PCC 1 PCC II PCC 1 PCC II
10. 1 16.5 96.5 55.5
11.9 15.7 2.4 19.3
0.0 -5.0 90.6 22.6
42.0 47.0 99.3 80.5
4-66
-------
Northern West
Virginia Coal
Seams
Pittsburgh Coal. This is the largest coal-producing bed in the United States and the major single source
of coal mined in West Virginia, accounting for about 25 percent of the coal produced in the state. It is
mined by both surface and underground methods over an area of 2,100 square miles in northern West
Virginia and is used as a utility steam coal and as a coking coal. The coal is usually double-bedded (i.e.,
composed of two benches) but occasionally multiple-bedded (i.e., composed of more than two). It ranges
from two to twenty feet in thickness, with the greatest thickness in the Potomac River Valley and an
average thickness of about seven feet.
Lower Kittonning. Cool. This coal persists in minable thickness over a 2,640-square-mile area in northern
West Virginia. It is mined by both surface and underground methods for use as a steam coal by utilities.
The Lower Kittonning coal is multiple-bedded and two to twelve feet thick, with an average thickness of
about five feet.
3
Upper Freeport Cool. This coal is mined in a I,lfi5-square-mile area by underground and surface
methods for use in the steam and coking coal markets. It is double- or multiple-bedded and ranges from
two to twelve feet in thickness, with an average thickness of about five feet.
Redstone Coal. This utility and by-product coal persists in minable thickness over o 300-square-mile
area in northern West Virginia. It ranges from two to six feet in thickness and is usually free of partings
but frequently contains clay dikes.
Sou them
West Virginia
Coal Seams
Pocahontas No. 3 Cool. This is a high-quality, low-volatile metallurgical coal that is low in both sulfur
and ash. It is by far the most important seam in the Pocahontas Formation and one of the most
important seams in West Virginia. It persists in a minoble thickness of between two and ten feet over a
650-square-mileareo in the state.
Lower Cedar Grove Cool. This coal seam, providing steam coal for utilities, lies just below the Cedar
Grove metallurgical coal seam in the southernmost counties of the state. The Lower Cedar Grove seam
covers an area of about 365 square miles, is multiple-bedded, low in sulfur and ash, and between two and
six feet in thickness.
Sewell Cool. The Sewell coal, covering an area of about 2,000 square miles in southern and southeastern
West Virginia, is mined extensively for use in both the steam and coking coal markets. The coal is
usually multiple-bedded, soft, and columnar. Its thickness ranges from two to ten feet and averages
about three feet.3
Pocohontos No. ft Cool. This coal is located about 85 feet above the Pocahontas No. 3 cool over an area
of about 155 square miles at the southern tip of West Virginia. The coal is suitable for use as both a
steam coal and a metallurgical coal. Pocahontas No. 4 coal is multiple-bedded, soft, columnar, and very
irregular. It ranges from three to six feet in thickness.
Eagle Cool. The Eagle coal, known also as Middle War Eagle and Mohawk coal, is suitable for both the
steam and metallurgical coal markets. It occurs over a 1,360-squore-mile area in the central portion of
West Virginia. It is double- or multiple-bedded and between two and four feet thick.
Campbell Creek Coal. This coal, also known as No. 2 Gas and Upper War Eagle coal, is used as both a
steam and a metallurgical coal. It is minable over a 2,100-squore-mile area of central West Virginia. It
generally occurs as a multiple-bedded, splint type coal between two and ten feet thick.
4-67
-------
Estimates of
Northern West
Virginia Coal
Available to Meet
Various SOj
Emission
Regulations
Figure 4.8-5 shows the percentage of projected 1985 northern West Virginia coal production excluding
metallurgical coal able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of
three levels, and when used in conjunction with an FGD system. Coal from northern West Virginia is
quite high in sulfur and unable to comply with low SO^ emission limits. Physical cleaning can bring an
additional 10 to 20 percent of the northern West Virginia coal into compliance with a given SO^ emission
limit. If 95 percent of the pyritic and 20 percent of the organic sulfur were removed by a hypothetical
chemical coal cleaning process, one-half of the coal could comply with a 1.5 Ib SO,/10 Btu emission
limit.
Figure 4.8-6 shows the percentage of the projected 1985 northern West Virginia coal production
excluding metallurgical cool able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an SO,
emission ceiling and a percentage SO. reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the
£~ /•
value of the emission ceiling in Ib SO,/10° Btu.) The curves in this figure show that the sulfur content of
most of the northern West Virginia coal can be reduced by 20 percent by physical cleaning and that
s
physical cleaning can bring about one-half of the coal into compliance with a 4 !b SO2/IO Btu ceiling
combined with a 20 percent SO, reduction standard.
Table 4.7-1 shows the potential SO2 emissions, percentage SO^ reduction, and cost of compliance for an
SO, emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at Ife inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity of those
coals mined in northern West Virginia for utility use in 1979 that had sulfur contents exceeding a
specified floor.
100
90
80
f
"Z 70
§
W)
§
V)
M
I
I
5
o
60
50
30
20
10
Raw coal
• — • — PCC, Ifc ir>., 1.6 sp. gr.
— — — PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 sp. gr.
FGD
- - - »0.95 pyritic, 0.2U organic sulfur removal
23456
Emission Standard (Ib S0,/I06 Btu)
8
Figure 4.8-5. Percentage of Projected 1985 Northern West Virginia Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Using Physical Cool Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization
4-68
-------
Figure 4.8-6. Percentage of Projected 1985 Northern West Virginia Coal Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling end
Percentage SOj Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at Ih", 1.6 sp. gr.
mission Ceiling in Ib SO2/I06 Btu
10
20
30 40 50 60 70
Required SO^ Reduction (%)
80
100
Table 4.8-1. Potential SO? Emission Reductions and Costs Doe to Selective
Washing of Northern West Virginia Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
Cools to Se Washed*
Quantify to
Be Washed
(IOJ Tons)
Total SO, Emissions
after Selective
Washing
(KTTons)
SO, Emission Reduction
Achieved by
Selective Washing
-------
Estimates of
Southern West
Virginia Coal
Available to Meet
Various SO2
Emission
Regulations
Figure 4.8-7 shows the percentage of projected 1985 southern West Virginia coal production excluding
metallurgical coal able to meet various emission standards before cleaning, after cleaning at each of
three levels, and when used in conjunction with an FGD system. Coals from southern West Virginia are
much lower in sulfur than those from the northern portion of the state and are able to comoly with much
lower S02 emission limits. Physical cleaning is relatively ineffective in lowering the sulfur content of
southern West Virginia coal.
Figure 4.8-8 shows the percentage of the projected 1985 southern West Virginia coal production
excluding metallurgical coal able, when physically cleaned, to meet a standard stipulating both an S02
emission ceiling and o percentage SO, reduction. (The circled number next to each curve shows the
value of the emission ceiling in Ib SO2/I06 Btu.) The curves in this figure show again that southern West
Virginia coals can comply with relatively low emission limits but that they are not able to comply with
regulations requiring a large percentage SOj reduction.
Table 4.8-2 shows the potential SC>2 emissions, percentage SOj reduction, and cost of compliance for an
SO emission regulation requiring physical cleaning at Ife inch top size and 1.6 specific gravity of those
coals mined in southern West Virginia for utility use in 1979 that had sulfur contents exceeding a
specified floor.
100
90
80
#
~ 70
I
a
j! so
o 40
<
-" 30
£
20
10
——^— Raw coal
PCC, Ifjin., 1.6 sp.gr.
PCC, 3/8 in., 1.3 sp.gr.
FGD
... -0.9i pyritic, U.^U organic sulfur removal
3456
Emission Standard (Ib SOj/IO6 Btu)
7
Figure 4.8-7. Percentage of Projected 1985 Southern West Virginia Coal Production Able to Meet
Various Emission Limits Using Physical Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desutfurization
4-70
-------
Figure 4.3-8. Percentage of Projected 1985 Southern West Virginia Coal Production Able to Meet
Various SO, Emission Standards Defined by an Emission Ceiling and
Percentage SO, Reduction Using Physical Coal Cleaning at Ifc", 1.6 sp. gr.
O Emission Ceiling in Ib SCyiO Btu
50
70
80
90
100
Required SOj Reduction (%)
Table 4.8-2. Potential SO, Emission Reductions and Costs Due to Selective
Washing of Southern West Virginia Coals Delivered to Utilities in 1979
Coo Is to Be Washed*
Quantity to
Be Washed
(IOJTons)
Total SO, Emissions
after Selective
Washing
(IO-5 Tons)
SO. Emission Reduction
Achieved by
Selective Washing
(l03Tons) (%)
Levelized Cost
of Washing
(I06 1979$)
Cost-
Effectiveness
($/Ton S02)
No coals
Coals with SO, contents
above floor of:
267
4lb/IO°3tu
3lb/l06Stu
2lb/l063tu
1 lb/!06Btu
All coals
82
337
933
15,677
16,013
267
263
260
236
236
< 1
4
8
31
31
< 1
2
3
12
12
< 1
4
8
123
126
—
1,000
1,000
3,970
4,060
Excluding the 1,450,000 tons of coal actually washed in 1979.
4-71
-------
Major Sources
of Coal Used
by West Virginia
Utility Plants
in 1979
Source states for coal delivered to West Virginia utilities in 1979 are listed in Table 4.8-3 along with the
quantity and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the coal from each state. Table 4.8-4 shows
the West Virginia utility plants that imported the greatest amount of coal in 1979, ranked according to
the quantity imported. Following the plant name, the combined units' size and SO^ limits are shown. In
some cases, more than one SO, limit applies to various units of a given plant. The remaining columns
indicate the quantity imported from each state, the percentage of coal that quantity represented for
each plant, and the weighted average sulfur and ash content of the imported coal.
Table 4.8-3. Source State for Coal Used in West Virginia Plants in 1979
State
West Virginia
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Maryland
Pennsylvania
TOTAL
Percentage of
Quantity Total Coal
(10 Tons) Used in State
23,648
2,703
574
374
235
73
27,607
86
10
2
1
1
< 1
100
Weighted Average
Sulfur Ash SO,
(Percent) (Percent) (Ib/IO Btu)
2.06 13.8
0.96 12.2
1.07 15.7
0.92 14.3
1.46 18.1
1.21 14.5
1.91 13.7
3.41
1.63
1.87
1.63
2.57
2.08
3.17
Table 4.8-4. Out-of-State Coal Use by West Virginia Plants in 1979
Weighted Average
Size
Plant (MW)
Spcrn 1,037
Sporn 1,037
Sporn 1 ,037
Fort Martin 1,107
Mitchell 1,460
Mitchell 1,460
Harrison 1,920
Mount Storm 1,686
Pleasants 626
Amos 2,900
Remaining
Plants -
TOTAL 12,448
SO, Limit State of
(Ib/f0 Btu) Origin
3.2 KY
3.2 VA
3.2 OH
3.1 KY
7.5 KY
7.5 OH
5.1 KY
2.7 MD
1.2 KY
1.6 KY
_ _
_ _
Quantity
(lO^Tons)
£83
560
292
1,064
337
77
326
235
123
96
166
3,959
Total Coal Sulfur Ash
Used by Plant (Percent) (Percent)
31 0.98 15.0
25 1.07 15.7
13 0.89 14.3
36 0.89 8.4
10 1.14 13.9
2 1.03 14.5
10 0.86 15.1
8 1.46 18.1
10 1.12 14.1
1 0.97 14.5
1 1.17 14.3
14 1.01 13.3
SO,
(Ib/I0° Btu)
1.70
1.87
1.59
1.43
2.02
1.81
1.50
2.57
1.92
1.73
2.02
1.74
4-72
-------
Major Utility
Users of
West Virginia
Coal in 1979
Table 4.B-5 lists the states containing utility plants that burned West Virginia coal in 1979. Also listed
are the West Virginia coal quantities received, the percentage of coal use these quantities represented
far each state, and the weighted average coal properties. The largest West Virginia users of West
Virginia coal are listed in Table 4.8-6 along with relevant plant information and coal properties.
Table 4.8-5. States Receiving West Virginia Coal Deliveries to Utility Plants in 1979
State
West Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
Pennsylvania
North Care-lira
New Jersey
New Hampshire
Maryland
Virginia
Kentucky
Alabama
New York
Remaining
7 States
TOTAL
Quantity
(KTTons)
23
8
4
4
3
1
48
,648
,129
,542
,387
,161
,286
909
764
758
388
243
173
332
,722
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used in State
86
15
19
II
15
59
97
15
15
2
1
3
< 1
-
Table 4.8-6. West Virginia Utility Plants R<
Plant
Amos
Harrisian
Mitchell
Mount Storm
Kommer
Fort Martin
Konawha River
Pleasants
Albriaht
Sporn
Remaining
Plants
TOTAL
Size
(MW)
2,900
1,920
1,460
1,686
615
1,107
421
626
289
1,037
_
12,648
SO,Umit
1.6
5.1
7.5
2.7
6.8
3.1
1.6
1.2
3.2
3.2
_
-
Quantity
(IOJ Tons)
6,889
2,937
2,836
2,532
1,993
1,853
999
1,066
948
663
932
23,648
Weighted Average
Sulfur
(Percent)
2.06
2.06
2.53
2.54
0.84
2.11
2.58
0.88
0.83
0.81
1.79
2.46
1.93
2.03
Ash SO,
(Percent) (Ib/IO^Btu)
ceiving West Virginia Coal
Percentage of
Total Coal
Used by Plant
99
90
87
92
100
64
100
90
100
30
93
86
13.8
13.6
10.9
12.0
13.6
10. 1
7.8
10.8
10.5
11.7
12.8
7.8
12.8
13.0
3.41
3.62
4.01
4.10
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
.40
.29
.83
.40
.33
.33
.90
.75
.24
3.34
Deliveries in
1979
Weighted Average
Sulfur Ash
(Percent) (Percent)
0
2
3
1
4
2
0
2
1
0
1
2
.80
.75
.52
.98
.31
.40
.74
.94
.61
.87
.20
.06
13.4
8.9
14.1
18.6
14.1
14.6
15.9
12.2
12.9
15.9
14.3
13.8
sp,
(Ib/IO6 Btu)
1.36
4.22
5.89
3.45
7.24
3.99
1.29
4.72
2.66
1.54
2.00
3.41
4-73
-------
SECTION 4 I. Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Safety and Inspection. Annual Statistical
REFERENCES Report, Fiscal Year 1976-1977. Birmingham, Ala., 1977.
2. "Bituminous Coal and Lignite Production and Mine Operations — 1977." Energy Data Report,
DOE/EIA-OI 18(77). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 21 December 1979.
3. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1976 Keystone Coal Industry Manual. New York, 1976.
It. State of Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals. Ninety-Sixth Coal Report of Illinois, 1977.
Springfield, III., 1978.
5. State of Indiana Bureau of Mines and Mining. Annual Report — 1977. Indianapolis, Ind., 1978.
6. Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals. Annual Report for the Year Ending December 31,
1977. Lexington, Ky., 1978.
7. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1980 Keystone Cool Industry Manual. New York, 1980.
8. McGraw-Hill, Inc. U.S. Coal Mine Production by Seam. New York, 1980.
9. Department of Industrial Relations. 1977 Ohio Division of Mines Report. Columbus, Ohio, 1978.
10. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1977 Annual Report on
Mining, Oil and Gas, and Land Reclamation and Conservation Activities. Harrisburg, Pa., 1978.
II. Virginia Department of Labor and Industry. Annual Report for Yeor 1977. Richmond, Va., 1978.
12. State of West Virginia Department of Mines. 1977 Annual Report and Directory of Mines.
Charleston, W.Va., 1978.
4-74
-------
Appoxlix A: Averaging Times and Coal Sulfur Variability
Emission limits may be enforced or set on a long-term average basis. Alternately, they may be set or
enforced on a 3-hour, 2Vhour, or similar short-term average basis. The amounts of cool available for
compliance with various emission limits as derived in this report are applicable only to long-term
averages for large boilers. If short-term emission limits are specified, one may use the data in this
report by determining the mean (long-term average) coal sulfur content that corresponds to the emission
limit (maximum expected short-term value).
The maximum expected short-term value is dependent upon the statistical properties of the coal, the
boiler size, and the emission regulation. For example, a 25-MW(e) boiler that must meet on emission
limit of a 4.0 Ib SOj/IO Btu (3-hour average) may require a compliance cool with a mean sulfur content
of 2.0 Ib S02/I06 Btu if uncleaned or with a mean sulfur content of 2.8 Ib S02/I0 Btu if cleaned.
The variability in coal properties such as sulfur content results from differences in:
• The chemical composition and structure of coal-forming vegetal matter
• The chemical changes that occurred during accumulation and burial of the vegetal
matter
• The amount and nature of sediments deposited during accumulation of coal-
forming material
• The characteristics of the sedimentary rocks above and below the coal seam
• The subsequent geologic history of the deposit such as the permeation of
groundwater and depth of burial
Because of the nature of coal formation, there is a certain structure (as opposed to complete
randomness) in the properties of a coal deposit. For this reason, it is possible to draw lines of constant
sulfur content (isolines) on the map of a coal mine or reserve. Superimposed on this structure will be a
certain amount of randomness. Thus, if samples are taken from a certain deposit, the statistical
treatment of this data must recognize both structural and random characteristics of the samples.
EPA is concerned with the control of SO, emissions from coal combustion. This is a time dependent
phenomenon, a sequence of emissions over successive time increments. This sequence of emissions will
depend upon coal and the manner in which it is mined, prepared, transported, and fired in the boiler. It
will also depend upon the use of air pollution control devices such as fabric filters and flue gas
desulfurization units.
Mining operations transform the spatial characteristics of coal into a time sequence of varying coal
properties. Alternative mining approaches or schemes within the same deposit will provide different
time sequences of potential sulfur emissions. These sequences will be subsequently modified by coal
preparation, coal transportation, coal blending, and sulfur emission control operations.
Important parameters used in previous studies to evaluate the random nature of coal sulfur variability
include the relative standard deviation (RSD), the coal lot size, and the emission averaging time. The
RSD, or coefficient of variation is defined as the standard deviation divided by the mean value. The coal
lot size is the weight of coal that each data point represents. The averaging time is the time period over
which the emission limit is averaged.
The structural or autocorrelation properties of the coal sulfur content are useful in forecasting future
data from past data. Small autocorrelations may Indicate that the correlation between past and present
values is small, so that past data provide little useful information In predicting future events. If the
autocorrelation is large, it is essential to determine the time dependent effect of events through
modeling to predict future trends. Once these trends have been forecast, the random properties of the
data can be used to provide on estimated measure of their accuracy.
A-1
-------
Previous studies have indicated that, in general:
• Coal sulfur variability decreases with increasing lot size.
• The variability of sulfur emissions decreases with increasing averaging times.
• It is more difficult for small boilers to comply with a specific emission limit with
a fixed averaging time than for large boilers. Because of sulfur variability, the
mean sulfur value of compliance coals for small boilers is lower than for large
boilers.
• The autocorrelation structure of coal data must be used to predict accurately the
expected emissions from a potential compliance coal.
• Coal cleaning reduces the coal sulfur vcriability.
Previous studies have not provided sufficient data to predict the autocorrelation characteristics.
However, for the purpose of this study a simplified procedure con be used to estimate the quantities of
coal available for a given emission standard. While this procedure is not rigorously correct from a
statistical standpoint, it will allow us to arrive at an estimate that is more nearly correct than those
obtained by ignoring the effects of sulfur variability.
Estimates of the relationship of RSD to coal lot size, boiler size, and emission averaging time are
presented in Table A-I. The RSD values in this table, which are estimated from previous studies, '
decrease with coal sample size.
By assuming that the variations of the sulfur content in coal is normally distributed, the mean cool sulfur
content needed to comply with o given emission limit con be estimated by the equation:
Mean coal SOj content = SOj emission limit/d * Z • RSD)
where Z is the normal variate corresponding to a given confidence level (see Table A-2) and RSD is the
appropriate value for a given boiler size, averaging time, and cleaning condition. Table A-3 presents
computed values of the mean coal 50^ content that are equivalent to selected emission limits for various
RSD values and 2 = 3.
Table A-1. Typical Coal Sulfur RSO Values Reported by EPA as a
Function of Coal Sample Size
Coal Sample
Size (tons)
1
33
264
600
4,800
7,920
33,600
96,360
144,000
.752,000
Plant Size
(MWe)
25
25
500
500
25
500
25
500
500
Averaging Period
(days)
1/8
1
1/8
1
30
7
365
30
365
Cool
Unc leaned
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
24
21
19
16
15
12
08
07
02
Sulfur RSD
Cleaned
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.12
.11
.08
.08
.05
.03
.03
.01
Sources; Reference I for uncleaned coals; reference 2 for cleaned coals.
A-2
-------
Table A-2. Example Normal Variates and Implications of Confidence
Level an Expected S02 Violations
Confidence Level (%)
84.13
95.00
97.72
99.87
Z = Normal Variate
(Number of Standard
Deviations between
Mean and Limit)
1.0
1.645
2.0
3.0
Number of Days per Year
of Expected Violations
58
18
8
0.5
Table A-l Mean Coal SO, Contents Equivalent to Selected Short-Term Emission Limits
for Various Votes of Coal Sulfur RSD (Z =. 3)*
Sulfur
RSD
0.01
0.02
0.03
O.OS
0.07
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.15
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.24
0.30
0.33
Short-Term Emission Limit (Ib S02/I06 Btu)
0.6
0.58
0.57
0.55
0.52
0.50
0.48
0.45
0.44
0.41
0.41
0.38
0.37
0.35
0.32
0.30
1.2
1.17
1.13
1.10
1.04
0.99
0.97
0.90
0.88
0.83
0.81
0.76
0.74
0.70
0.63
0.60
2.0
1.94
1.89
1.83
1.74
1.65
1.61
1.50
1.47
1.38
1.35
1.27
1.23
1.16
1.05
1.00
3.0
2.91
2.83
2.75
2.61
2.48
2.42
2.26
2.21
2.07
2.03
1.91
1.84
1.74
1.58
1.50
4.0
3.89
3.77
3.67
3.48
3.31
3.23
3.01
2.94
2.76
2.70
2.55
2.45
2.33
2.11
2.00
Z»3 represents a confidence level of 99.87%, or one expected 24-hour overage violation in 769
days.
I. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Prellminory Evaluation of Sulfur Variability In Low Sulfur Cools from
Selected Mines. EPA-450/3/77/044. Research Triangle Park, N.C.! U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, November 1977.
2. Versar, Inc. SO- Emission Reduction Data from Commercial Physical Cool Cleaning Plants and
Analysis of Product Sulfur Variability. EPA Contract No. 68-02-2188. Tosk 600. Draft Report.
Kesearcn Triangle Park, N.t.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1978.
A-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
I. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-81-086
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4.T.TLEANOSUBT.TLE Coal Resources and Sulfur Emission
Regulations: A Summary of Eight Eastern and
Midwestern States
S. REPORT OAT
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AUTHOHlS)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Richard A. Chapman and Marcella A. Wells
(Teknekron Research, Inc.)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Versar, Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia 22151
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE623A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3136
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
Final; 4/79-3/81
D PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL_RTP pr0ject officer is James D. Kilgroe, Mail Drop 61,
91S/541-2854. Prepared by Teknekron under subcontract 553-1.
18. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of an analysis of coal resources, current coal use:
and the effectiveness of SO2 control strategies for use by coal users, regulators, and
administrators in future coal-related decisions. The report focuses on the eight ma-
jor eastern and midwestern coal-producing states: Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Indiana. Each state's analysis
includes a general overview of the coal industry, an overview of coal properties,
a description of major coal seams, an analysis of the quantity of coal available to
meet various SO2 emission regulations, and information regarding the sulfur content
of coals used by utilities in 1979. The report emphasizes physical coal cleaning and
the use of low-sulfur coal as viable emission control strategies; flue gas desulfuriza-
tion is discussed to a lesser extent. Data on coal resources, coal properties and
washability, coal production, and deliveries to utilities were compiled from several
sources and organized into computer data bases. The Coal Assessment Processor
model was developed to operate on these data bases to determine the quantity of coal
that would be available in each state to meet various SO2 emission regulations using
one or a combination of alternative SO2 control technologies.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
oal
Sulfur Oxides
Properties
Coal Preparation
Flue Gases
Desulfurization
Washing
Combustion
Coal Handling
Coal Mines
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Washability
13 B 07A,07D
08G,21D 13H
07B
14G 15E
081
21B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS mis Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
112
20. SECURITY CLASS /Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
Form 2220-1 (t-71)
A-4
------- |