EJBD
  ARCHIVE
  EPA
  130-
  6-
  81-
  002

             United States         Off ice of         EPA 130/6-81-002
             Environmental Protection     Federal Activities       October 1981
             Agency           Washington, DC 20460
v^EPA       Environmental
             Impact Guidelines

             For New Source
             Underground Coal  Mines and
             Coal Cleaning Facilities
                                381

-------
this document is available to Che public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia  22161.

-------
 EJ6D
                                                         EPA-130/6-81-002
                                US EPA                  October  1981
 ^ ~                Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
 ^ "                   EPA West Bidq Room 3340
 00/1                        Maiicode 3404T
                         1301 Constitution Aye NW
                          Washington DC 20004
                              202-566-0556
                           ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT GUIDELINES
                                   FOR NEW SOURCE
                               UNDERGROUND COAL MINES
                                        AND
                              COAL CLEANING FACILITIES
0
->                                EPA Task Officer:
cJ                                Frank Rusincovitch
 0
                                   Repository Material
                                 Permanent Collection
                         US Environmental Protection Agency
                            Office of Federal  Activities
                              Washington, D.C.   20460

-------
                                  Preface

This document is one of a series of industry-specific Environmental Impact
Guidelines being developed by the Office of Federal Activities (OFA) for
use in EPA1s Environmental Impact Statement preparation program for new
source NPDES permits.  It is to be used in conjunction with Environmental
Impact Assessment Guidelines _for Selected New Source Industries, an OFA
publication that includes a description of impacts common to most industrial
sources.

The requirement for Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts
of their proposed actions is included in Section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended.  The stipulation that
EPA's issuance of a new source NPDES permit as an action subject to NEPA
is in Section 511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act of 1977.  EPA's regulations
for preparation of Environmental Impact Statements are in Part 6-of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; new source requirements are in
Subpart F of that Part.

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                      Page

Table of Contents                                                       i

List of Tables                                                         iv

List of Figures                                                         v

INTRODUCTION                                                            1

1.  OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY                                            3

    1.1.  Subcategorization                                             3
          1.1.1.  Wastewater                                            3
          1.1.2.  Production                                            4

    1.2.  Processes                                                     4
          1.2.1.  Major Processes                                       5
                  1.2.1.1.  Formation and Distribution of Coal          5
                  1.2.1.2.  Underground Mining Systems                 16
                            1.2.1.2.1.  Planning                       16
                            1.2.1.2.2.  Development                    17
                            1.2.1.2.3.  Extraction                     22
                            1.2.1.2.4.  Abandonment                    35
                  1.2.1.3.  Coal Cleaning Operations                   39
                            1.2.1.3.1.  Process Overview               42
                            1.2.1.3.2.  Stage Descriptions             47
                            1.2.1.3.3.  Process Flow Sheets            68
          1.2.2.  Auxiliary Support Systems                            70
                  1.2.2.1.  Coal Transportation                        70
                            1.2.2.1.1.  Railroads                      75
                            1.2.2.1.2.  Barges                         76
                            1.2.2.1.3.  Trucks                         77
                            1.2.2.1.4.  Conveyors and Tramways         77
                            1.2.2.1.5.  Coal Slurry Pipelines          78
                  1.2.2.2.  Storage Facilities                         79
                            1.2.2.2.1.  Coal Stockpiles                79
                            1.2.2.2.2.  Coal Refuse Piles              80

    1.3.  Trends                                                       84
          1.3.1.  Locational Changes                                   84
          1.3.2.  Raw Materials and Energy                             84
          1.3.3.  Process                                              85
                  1.3.3.1.  Underground Coal Mining                    85
                  1.3.3.2.  Coal Cleaning                              87
                  1.3.3.3.  Coal Transportation                        88
          1.3.4.  Pollution Control                                    89
          1.3.5.  Environmental Impact                                 89

-------
                                                                       Page

    1.4.   Markets  and  Demands                                            92
          1.4.1.   Markets                                                92
          1.4.2.   Demands                                                96

    1.5.   Significant  Environmental Problems                           101
          1.5.1.   Location                                             101
          1.5.2.   Raw  Materials and Energy                             102
          1.5.3.   Process                                               1°2
          1.5.4.   Pollution Control                                    103

    1.6.   Pollution Control Regulations                                103
          1.6.1.   Air  Pollution Performance Standards                  103
          1.6.2.   Water Pollution Performance Standards                109
          1.6.3.   Underground  Coal Mining Performance Standards        HI
          1.6.4.   Solid Waste  Regulations                              112
2.   IMPACT IDENTIFICATION                                               H*

    2.1.   Process Wastes                                               115
          2.1.1.   Mining and Preparation Waste                         116
                  2.1.1.1.  Air Emissions                              116
                            2.1.1.1.1.  Sources of Air Emissions       116
                            2.1.1.1.2.  Quantities of Air Emissions    117
                            2.1.1.1.3.  Dispersion of Emissions        125
                  2.1.1.2.  Water Discharges                           125
                            2.1.1.2.1.  Wastewater Sources             130
                            2.1.1.2.2.  Wastewater Quantities          132
                            2.1.1.2.3.  Wastewater Quality             136
                  2.1.1.3.  Solid Wastes                               140
          2.1.2.   Treatment Residuals                                  141

    2.2.   Environmental Impacts of Coal Industry Wastes                141
          2.2.1.   Human Health Impacts                                 141
          2.2.2.   Biological Impacts                                   142

    2.3.   Other Impacts                                                145
          2.3.1.   Special Problems in Storage and Handling  of
                     Raw Materials and Products                        145
          2.3.2.   Special Problems in  Site Preparation  and Facility
                     Construction                                      145
          2.3.3.   Coal Transportation                                  150
                  2.3.3.1.  Air Quality                                150
                  2.3.3.2.  Water Resources                            152
                  2.3.3.3.  Land Use                                   152

    2.4.   Modeling of Impacts                                          156
          2.4.1.   Air Quality Models                                    156
          2.4.2.  Water Resource Models                                 156
                                  ii

-------
                                                                       Page

3.  POLLUTION CONTROL                                                  l62

    3.1.  Standards of Performance Technology:  In-Process Controls
             and Effects on Waste Streams                              162

    3.2.  Standards of Performance Technology:  End-of-Process
             Controls and Effects on Waste Streams (Effluents)         165

          3.2.1.  Sedimentation Basins                                 I68
          3.2.2.  Aeration                                             I68
          3.2.3.  Neutralization                                       I68
          3.2.4.  Reverse Osmosis and Neutrolysis                      171
          3.2.5.  Ion Exchange                                         I71
          3.2.6.  Biochemical Oxidation of Ferrous Iron                173

    3.3.  Standards of Performance Technology:  End-of-Process
             Controls and Effects of Waste Streams (Emissions)         173

    3.4.  State-of-the-Art Technology:  End-of-Process Controls
             and Effects on Waste Streams (Solid Wastes)               178
          3.4.1.  Guidelines for Coal Refuse  Dumps and Impoundments    178
          3.4.2.  Mine Waste Treatment Techniques                      182
                  3.4.2.1.  Treatment of Mine Waste  With
                              Neutralization  Sludge                    182
                  3.4.2.2.  Treatment of Mine Waste  With
                              Sewage Sludge                             I82
                  3.4.2.3.  Chemical Stabilization of Mine Wastes      182

 4.  OTHER CONTROLLABLE  IMPACTS                                          I83

    4.1.  Aesthetics                                                    I83

    4.2.  Noise and Vibration                                           I83

    4.3.  Energy Supply                                                184

     4.4.   Socioeconomics

 5.   EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES

     5.1.   Alternative Mine Location and Site Layout                    189

     5.2.   Alternative Mining Methods and Techniques                    190

     5.3.   Other Alternative Considerations                             191

     5.4.   No-Project Alternative                                       191

 6.   REGULATIONS OTHER THAN POLLUTION CONTROL                           192

 7.   BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                       Z0°
                                   iii

-------
Table
                               LIST OF TABLES

                                                                        Page
  1    Classification of  coals  by  rank                                    6
  2    Standard  tests for  coal  analysis                                   °
  3    Demonstrated underground rainable  coal  reserve                    !•*
  4    Regional  distribution  of underground minable reserves            14
  5    Estimated productivities of  mining systems                       25
  6    Mesh  sizes                                                       7°
  7    Typical process  quantities  for  coal cleaning operations          TO
  8    Feed  characteristics of  unit coal preparation processes          52
  9    Chemical  characteristics of  makeup water                         °°
  10    Typical moisture contents of dryed products                      ol
  11    Transportation modes for coal                                    74
  12    Energy requirements of mining,  cleaning, and transportation      8b
  13    Coal  slurry pipelines                                             ^1
  14    Market consumption of  coal                                        ~
  15    Market consumption by  percentage                                 ^
  16    US coal production during 1973  through 1978                      97
  17    Regional forecasts of  combined  coal production                   98
  18    Regional forecasts of  underground coal production (tonnages)     99
  19    Regional forecasts of  underground coal production (percentages)  100
  20    Ambient air quality standards
  21    New source performance standards for air quality
  22    Nondeterioration increments
  23    Hew Source performance standards for wastewater discharges
  24    Emissions from a thermal dryer
  25    Emissions from a coal cleaning facility
  26    Trace element concentrations in emissions
  27     Polycyclic organic materials
  28    Lift  velocities of dry dusts
  29     Chemical  characteristics of  raw  acid mine  drainage
  30     Chemical  characteristics of  raw  alkaline mine  drainage          139
  31     Health effects  of  trace  metals
  32     Atmospheric emissions from  unit  trains  and barges
  33     Atmospheric emissions from  trucks
  34     Efficiency of reverse osmosis
  35     Emission  control  technologies
  36    Operating characteristics  of cyclones
  37     Operating characteristics  of scrubbers                           I7b
  38    Acronyms  and abbreviations                                       |^
  39    Metric conversions
  40    Glossary
                                    iv

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                              Page

  1    Calorific heating value, moisture, volatile  matter,  and        9
         fixed carbon in coal
  2    Coal provinces and reserves of the US                         11
  3    Distribution of forces                                        19
  4    Nomenclature of geometries                                    20
  5    Coal pillar stresses                                          21
  6    Methods of entry                                              23
  7    Productivities of mining systems                              26
  8    Room and pillar mining                                        27
  9    Sequence of face operations                                   29
 10    Pivot auger mining machine                                    31
 11    Longwall mining system                                        32
 12    Ideal caving conditions                                       33
 13    Natural roof hazards                                          34
 14    Updip mining                                                  36
 15    Downdip mining                                                37
 16    Natural mine flooding                                         38
 17    Double bulkhead seal                                          40
 18    Single bulkhead seal                                          41
 19    Coal preparation plant processes                              43
 20    Typical coal preparation facility                            44
 21    Coal sizing circuit                                           45
 22    Typical three  stage  crusher  system                           49
 23    Single- and double-roll crushers                              50
 24    Dense media circuit                                           54
 25    Jig  table  circuit                                             56
 26    Air  table                                                     57
 27    Pneumatic  cleaning  circuit                                   58
 28    Product  dewatering  circuit                                   62
 29    Thickener  vessel                                              63
 30    Sieve  bend                                                   65
 31    Vacuum  filter                                                 66
 32    Thermal  dryer                                                 67
 33    Typical  flash  dryer                                          69
 34    Coarse  stage  flow sheet                                       71
 35    Fine stage flow  sheet                                        72
 36     Sludge  separation flow sheet                                 73
 37     Coal refuse  dump  types                                       82
 38    Coal refuse  impoundment  types                                83
 39     Coal slurry  pipelines                                        90
 40     Trends  in proportionate coal consumption                     95
 41    Emission  sources  at coal  cleaning facilities                 118
 42    Downwash  of  plume                                            126
 43    Flow of  plume  through valley                                 127
 44    Hydrologic cycle                                             128
 45    Hydrology of  unrained watershed                               131
 46    Progressive  dewatering of  an aquifer                         133

-------
                          LIST  OF  FIGURES  (cont.)

Figure                                                              Page

 47    Postmining hydrology  on  downdlp  side                         134
 48    Postmining hydrology  on  updip  side                           135
 49    Subbasins of a watershed                                    137
 50    Subsidence from pillar shear                                 147
 51    Subsidence from pillar failure                               148
 52    Subsidence profiles                                          149
 53    Subsidence-overburden thickness  ratio                        151
 54    Abundance of water                                           155
 55    Schematic watershed for  modeling                             157
 56    Stanford watershed model                                    159
 57    Underground mine drainage model                              160
 58    Coal refuse pile drainage model                              161
 59    Infiltration of water to underground mine                    163
 60    Sealing of boreholes  and fractures                           164
 61    Dewatering of strata                                         166
 62    Protection against subsidence                                167
 63    Cyclone separator                                            177
 64    Venturi scrubber                                             179
 65    Unstable landforms                                           181
 66    Socioeconomic impacts                                        186
                                  vi

-------
                                INTRODUCTION
     The  Clean  Water Act  (CWA;  33  USC  1251 et  seq.) requires  that USEPA
establish standards  of  performance for categories  of  new source industrial
wastewater discharges.   Before  the discharge of  any  pollutant  to the navi-
gable waters of the  United  States  (US) can take  place  from  a new source in
an  industrial  category  for which  performance standards  have  been estab-
lished, a new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES)
permit must be obtained from either  the USEPA or  the State (whichever is the
administering authority  for the State in  which the discharge is proposed).
Section 511(c)(l) of CWA requires  that the issuance of NPDES permits by the
USEPA for proposed new source discharges be  subject to  the review provisions
of  the National  Environmental  Policy Act  (NEPA; 42 USC  4321  ejt seq.).
During  his  NEPA  review,  the USEPA  Regional Administrator  may  require the
preparation  of  an Environmental Impact  Statement  (EIS)  on  the  new  source.
The procedure established by the USEPA regulations (40 CFR  6 Subpart F) for
applying  NEPA  to  the  issuance  of  new source  NPDES  permits, in turn,  may
require preparation  of  an  Environmental  Information Document (BID)  by the  permit
applicant.   Each  EID is submitted to  USEPA  for review to determine  whether
potentially  significant  effects  on the quality  of the  human  environment will
result  from  construction and operation  of the new source.   If  significant
potential impacts are  identified,  succinct draft and  final  EIS's describing
the  significant  adverse  effects  and  focusing on  the  key   issues  such as
alternative  measures to avoid  and/or mitigate adverse  effects are  published
by USEPA  before issuing or  denying the permit, in  accordance with  the over-
all  NEPA  regulations  of  the  Council  on  Environmental  Quality  (43   FR
230:55978-56007;  29  November 1978).

     These guidelines supplement the  more general USEPA  document,  Environ-
mental  Impact  Assessment   Guidelines  for  Selected New  Source  Industries,
which  provides  general  guidance for  preparing an  EID  and presents the impact
assessment  considerations  that  are common  to most  industries.    Both  that
document  and these  guidelines  should  be  used  for  development  of  EID's  for
new source underground  coal mines  and  coal cleaning facilities.

     These  guidelines  identify  the environmental  impacts  that  potentially
result from  the construction,  operation,  and abandonment of  underground  coal
mines  and coal cleaning plants.  This  volume is  intended  to  assist  USEPA
personnel in   the   identification  of  those  impact   areas   that  should  be
addressed in every  EID.   In addition, these guidelines  present  (in Section
1):    an  overall description  of the  industry;  principal  mining  areas  and
methods;  environmental  problems;  and  recent  trends  in new  mine locations,
raw materials,  mining methods,  pollution  control  techniques, and demand  for
industry output.

      The remainder  of  this guidelines document  consists of five  sections.
Section 2 discusses mining-related wastes  and  the  impacts that  may  occur
during construction, operation, and abandonment  of coal  mining facilities.
Section 3 describes the  technology  for  controlling  adverse  environmental
impacts.   Section 4 discusses  other  impacts  that can be mitigated through

-------
design considerations  and proper site  and mine  planning.    Section  5 dis-
cusses the consideration  and impact assessment of  possible alternatives  to
proposed new source coal  mining  activitiest   Section 6 lists Federal  legis-
lation other than CWA that may apply to the coal mining industry.  Section 7
provides a  bibliography  of literature  that   pertains  to  underground coal
mines and coal cleaning facilities.

     This document may be transmitted to permit applicants  for informational
purposes, but  it should not be  construed  as   outlining  the complete  proce-
dural  requirements  for  obtaining   an   NPDES   permit,  for  complying with
regulations promulgated  by  the US Office  of  Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement  (USOSM)  of  the  US Department  of   the  Interior  (USDOI),  or  as
comprehending  an applicant's  total  responsibilities  under  the  new  source
HPDES  permit  program.   USEPA  determines  the  content  of each  specific new
source EID in  accordance  with  its final regulations that implement NEPA for
new source NPDES permitting activity (40  CFR  6.604  [b]).   These guidelines
do not supersede those  regulations nor  do  they supplant any  specific  direc-
tive  received  by the applicant  from  the USEPA official  who  is  responsible
for implementing those regulations in individual cases.

-------
                       1.   OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY
     This section provides  basic  information on the  extent  of the Nation's
coal reserves and the methods that are used to extract, clean, and transport
coal from underground mines.  The  descriptions  of  processes  are followed by
a brief examination of  the  coal  market and a summary of regulations admin-
istered by the USEPA and the USOSM  that  apply to underground coal mines and
coal cleaning facilities.

1.1.  SUBCATEGORIZATION

     The basis  for  the USEPA subcategorization  of  the coal  mining industry
for regulatory  purposes is  explained  in  the development document for efflu-
ent limitations and new source  performance standards  (USEPA  1976e).    Coal
mining activity is  subcategorized by  type  (surface mine,  underground mine,
or  preparation  plant),  untreated  discharge   characteristics   (acidic  or
alkaline),  and mine  size   (Group  A,   B,  or C  based  on  anticipated annual
production).

     For  the purpose  of  developing environmental  impact  guidelines, USEPA
addresses  surface  coal mining  separately from   underground  coal  mining and
includes coal  preparation plants  with  underground mines.   Surface  and under-
ground mining  techniques are sufficiently different to preclude the  use  of  a
unified  assessment  document  for  both kinds  of mines.   Because  mechanical
coal  preparation is  applicable  to  60%  of  underground-mined  coal (USDOE
1978), many  prospective operators of  large new  source underground  mines  will
require  environmental  impact  guidance  from  USEPA on  coal  preparation  in
addition  to  underground mining.   Because only  25% of  surface-mined coal  is
cleaned  mechanically,  however,  the environmental  guidelines  for coal  pre-
paration  plants will  be of  interest to fewer  surface mine  operators.

 1.1.1.  Wastewater

     Wastewater generated by the  coal mining  industry is subcategorized  by
source  (extraction,  preparation,  or storage activities) and  chemical charac-
 teristics  of  wastewater  (alkaline  or   acid/ferruginous  drainage).    Each
 subcategory  is subject to  separate  effluent  limitations (40 CFR  434; 44  FR
 9:2586-2592, 12 January 1979).   The established categories include:

     •   Acidic wastewater  from  coal preparation plants and
         associated  areas

     •   Alkaline wastewater from coal preparation plants and
         associated  areas

     •   Acid (ferruginous)  mine drainage

     •   Alkaline mine drainage.

-------
1.1.2.  Production

     To use  its  resources  most effectively for environmental  review of new
source NPDES  coal mining  permit  applications, USEPA  established screening
procedures based  on  the maximum annual design production  tonnage specified
in an applicant's NPDES  permit  application.   Two  groups of underground coal
mines are recognized on the basis of production tonnages:*

     •  Group  B  includes underground  mines with  annual production
        of 90,719 MT (100,000 T) or  greater.   Group  B mines are
        subject  at the  applicant's  option either  to  a comprehen-
        sive environmental review as described in 40 CFR 6» Subpart F or to
        certification that the applicant is following USEPA1s Best
        Practices guidelines.2   Mines that certify to  the use of
        Best Practices  are subject  to field  audits and to reviews
        of mining plans prepared in compliance with Best Practices
        at the option of USEPA.   An application that certifies to
        Best Practices  may be subject to  a comprehensive  environ-
        mental review  if  preliminary evidence indicates that the
        proposed  mine  may produce a significant  effect  on the
        environment.

      •   Group C  includes  underground mines  with  anticipated  peak
        annual production  less  than 90,719 MT  (100,000  T).  A mine
        in  this   category  must submit brief,  basic environmental
        data  to  USEPA.   Based on a review  of these data, USEPA may
        decide  to conduct a comprehensive  environmental review
        that would result  in  the preparation of a  finding  of  no
        significant  impact or an EIS.


 1.2.  PROCESSES

      These  guidelines  are applicable to  underground  coal mining,  to  coal
 cleaning,  and to the  auxiliary  operations  that  support  these  major  pro-
 cesses.   Underground  extraction methods  and coal cleaning  processes  are
 described  in  the detail  necessary  to  support  the  discussions of  trends
 (Section  1.3.3.), impact  identification (Section  2),  and pollution control
 (Section 3).   Greater  insight  into the  mechanics of underground mining  and
 coal  processing  is available  from the literature  cited herein.
 1Group  A includes surface mines only.

 2The  Best Practices  guidelines have not  been  published formally,  but  they
   are  incorporated by reference in the final new source regulations.  "Best
   Practices  for New  Source  Surface and Underground Coal  Mines"  was issued
   in a 1 September 1977 memorandum to  Regional Administrators that provides
   interim guidance on the application  of NEPA to new source coal mines.

-------
 1. 2.1.   Major Processes

      The gross  characteristics  of the  coal  resources of  the Nation  are
 highly variable both regionally and locally.   Coal  seams reflect their geo-
 logic histories through physical and chemical characteristics such as depth,
 inclination,  rank, grade, sulfur content,  and  potential to produce environ-
 mentally harmful pollutants.  The underground coal mining and cleaning tech-
. niques that currently are used  by  the US  coal  industry evolved in response
 to the variability of the coal resource.

      The following discussion  of major processes highlights  the techniques
 that are common to underground coal mining and cleaning operations national-
 ly.  Local variations in mining  techniques are common.   Coal cleaning prac-
 tices and  characteristics of  effluents can vary  regionally.   The processes
 of coal  formation are described first, followed  by separate discussions of
 underground mining techniques and coal cleaning operations.

      1.2.1.1.  Formation and Geographical Distribution  of Coal

      Coal  is formed  by  the burial  and compaction  of organic  debris that
 accumulates  from  the decay  of  plants  and animals  in  marine and freshwater
 marshes.   Numerous swamps and  back bay deltas dotted  the  coastal  areas of
 the  inland seas  that  at  various times covered  much of  the  North American
 continent.    Each coal  seam  represents  an accumulation of  organic swamp
 debris which  later was buried  by coarse-grained  sediments  from  upland  areas.
 The  extent and  longevity of each  swamp determined  the extent and  thickness
 of individual coal seams.

      Short-lived,  rapid  influxes of coarse-grained sediments to the  coastal
 swamps  buried  the  organic  debris  at  frequent  intervals.   With  continued
 burial  and  lithification  over  geologic   time,  these   sediments  became  the
 shaly  partings that split  many coal  seams.    Streams occasionally  eroded
 through  the   peat and sediment that  filled  the  swamps,  producing  channel
 deposits that  cause  locally unstable mine roof conditions and  want areas in
 some coal  seams.   Widespread upheaval and erosion  removed entire seams  from
 some  regions'  stratigraphy.    Some coal  seams  were  truncated abruptly by
 regional  tilt and erosion.    Many  coal seams  thin  laterally to the  feather
 edges  that mark the  limits  of  their depositional basins.

      Following  their  deposition,  coal   seams  were  subjected  to  varying
 amounts  of burial, compaction,  and folding.  The initial compaction of swamp
 debris produced peat.  Progressively more  intense  compaction of  peat formed
 the  coal  materials   of  successive  ranks including  lignite,  subbituminous
 coal,  bituminous  coal, and  anthracite (Table 1).

       The post-depositional  history of a coal seam determines its rank, which
 is a measure of  the coal's percentage  of fixed carbon.   The rank  of  coal
 increases  as its  percentage of fixed carbon increases.   High fixed  carbon in
 turn  reflects  great  depth  of burial,   heat  of  compaction,  and  dynamic
 stresses from structural activities during the ages since the organic mater-
 ial  was laid down.   The lower-ranked  coals are  classified  on the basis  of
 calorific  heat   content, expressed  as kg  cal  per  kg  (or  BTU  per  Ib).

-------
Table 1.  Classification of coals by rank.
CLASS

Anthracite
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Lignite
    RANK
Metaanthracite
                           Anthracite
                           Semianthracite
Low volatile
Bituminous coal

Medium volatile
Bituminous coal

High volatile A
Bituminous coal
High volatile B
Bituminous coal

High volatile C
Bituminous coal

Subbituminous A coal

Subbituminous B coal

Subbituminous C coal

Lignite A

Lignite B
    LIMITS1

FC _> 98%
VM _< 27,

FC 92 - <98%
VM 2 - <8%

FC 86 - <92%
VM 8 - <14%

FC 78 - <86%
VM 14 - <22%

FC 69 - <78%
VM 22 - <31%

FC < 69%
VM > 31%
BTU > 14,000
BTU  13,000 - 14,000


BTU  11,500 - <13,000

BTU  10,500 - <11,500

BTU  9,500 - <10,500

BTU  8,300 - <9,500

BTU  6,300 - <8,300

BTU  <  6,300
1 FC - percent  by dry weight  of  fixed  carbon
    Vll - percent by volume  of volatile matter
    BTU - British thermal units  per  pound of naturally moist coal

Source:  Yancey, H.F. and M.R. Geer.   1968.   Properties of coal and impurities in
   relation to  preparation.   In:   Leonard, Joseph W.  and David R. Mitchell.
   1968.  Coal  preparation.   American  Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
   Petroleum Engineers,  Inc., New York NY, 926 p.

-------
Bituminous coal and anthracite are  classified  by their percentages of fixed
carbon and volatile matter.

     The  chemical  characteristics  of  coal  seams  relate  directly  to  the
depositional environments of individual swamps and the depth and duration of
burial that  resulted  in heating  and compaction  of  individual  seams.   The
sulfur-bearing minerals,  pyrite  and  marcasite,  formed  in  the depositional
environments  that  were associated  with slowly  subsiding delta  plains  and
back bays (Home and  others  1978).   Many coal seams  and overburdens in the
Eastern and Interior Coal Provinces were deposited in  such environments, and
consequently  require  special preparation  and  handling,  if  they  are to be
mined and abandoned without generating acid mine drainage.  The depositional
history of  a coal  seam determines  its grade,  which is  a  measure  of  its
impurities.  Grade increases as percentage of impurities decreases.

     Two  general analytical  procedures provide data  on  the  major and minor
chemical  constituents of coal.  Proximate analysis yields an indirect deter-
mination  of a coal's  fixed carbon content by measuring the moisture content,
percentage of ash, and  percentage of  total volatile matter.  Ultimate analy-
sis includes  the determinations  of carbon and hydrogen  contents in  coal by
measuring their concentrations in the gases produced  by  the total  combustion
of the coal  sample.   Total sulfur,  nitrogen,  and ash are measured  directly.
Oxygen content  is  determined indirectly by comparing the cumulative weight
of measured  parameters  with  the original weight  of the sample.   Chlorine and
phosphorus contents  also may be determined.   Standard tests for  character-
izing selected properties  of coals  are  summarized  in  Table 2.

     Percentages of fixed  carbon and volatile matter  generally  are inversely
proportional  in  coals of  various rank  (Table  1).   Low  volatility and  high
carbon  content  are   among  the chief attributes  that  create  the  valuable
coking  quality of metallurgical  grade coals.    During combustion,  volatile
matter usually is  released as gases.   Coal  that  contains a higher percentage
of  volatiles will  yield  less  coke  than  an  identical   quantity of  lower-
volatile  coal (Holway 1977).  The  calorific content  of  a coal,  however,  is
not  solely  dependent  on  the  relative  proportions of  fixed  carbon  and
volatiles (Figure  1).

     Metallurgical  grade  coals  generally  fulfill four  basic  requirements
that  expedite the  coking  process:

      •   Low ash — Coals  with greater  than 8% ash require  exces-
         sive amounts  of carbon  to  volatilize the  semicombustible
        material.

      •   Low sulfur —  Cokes  from  high sulfur coals  require  extra
         limestone  to  prevent the embrittlement  of iron  by  sulfur
         during  blast  furnace operations.

-------
Table 2.  Summary of  standard  tests  for  the  analysis  of  selected  coal and coke
   properties.
ASTM Designation

   D 410

   D 431


   D 2013

   D 2015


   D 2234

   D 3172

   D 3173

   D 3174

   D 3175


   D 3176

   D 3177


   D 3302
               Title

Sieve Analysis of Coal

Designating the Size of Coal From its Sieve
Analysis

Preparing Coal Samples For Analysis

Gross Calorific Value of Solid Fuel by the
Adiabatic Bomb Calorimeter

Collection of a Gross Sample of Coal

Proximate Analysis of Coal and Coke

Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke

Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke

Volatile Matter in the Analysis Sample of Coal
and Coke

Ultimate Analysis of Coal and Coke

Total Sulfur in the Analysis Sample of Coal and
Coke

Total Moisture in Coal
Source:  American Society for  Testing And Materials.   1978.   Annual book of ASTM
   standards: Part 26.  Philadelphia  PA,  906 p.

-------
 LU
 I
 O
 I
 (T
 O
 BTU

16.000



14.000



12.000



10,000



 8.000



 6,000



 4,000



 2.000



~

:



xx'
u
t/3
	 0
I
t-
	 5
m
3
(O





•



/
r
.1

CO



1


:

/
f
/
/

<
CO
-i
i
K
— 5
CD
D
M


l^~ "

'. 3
; °
'/ z
5 P
5
u
LU
_l
p
_l
O
>
<£
I
^

I


:
;


X
^

CO
0
H
m
CD
LU
	 -1
<
§
	 ±
0
I







''I


v>
0
Z
D
K
m
<
uu
u
<
0
— i
o
X

-



:

^ ^
^^

in
O
Z
5
m
LU
_J
1-
~§
5
— 5
UJ

— B
•




^"'


U)
3
O
£
D
H
m
LU
— — _l
<
O
_1





;

^



LU
H
U
	 <
DC
I
h-
Z
<
~5
UJ
CO

-,
>

\


•
^»
•w



LU
H
U
<
— cr
I
K
z
<
-j
UJ
2







*., , ..
\
\
\
••'/
/
•'/
\
^
\
' 	 °J /x
t- '.'.
si
i
~2x
< ;;;
!!
|/
'/.
/>
/'
       PERCENT
         100



          :•
                 MOISTURE
                             VOLATILE MATTER
                                         FIXED CARBON
Figure 1.   Calorific heating value and proportions  of  moisture, volatile
  matter,  and fixed carbon contained in coals by  rank.  Leftmost column
  represents  Lignite A.

Source:  US Department of Energy.   1978b.  International coal technology
     summary  document.  Office  of  Technical Programs Evaluation, HCP/
     p-3885,  Washington DC, 178 p.

-------
     •  Low coking pressure — Coals may  expand sufficiently dur-
        ing the  coking  process to  damage coke-oven  walls.   Low
        volatile coals  can  expand  significantly  during  coking,
        exerting up to 1.7 atm (10 psig) of pressure on oven walls.

     •  High coke strength — Coke supports the limestone-iron ore
        charge in  blast  furnaces  during iron making.   High vola-
        tile coals generally produce cokes with low resistance to
        abrasion and low compressive strength.

     One coal alone generally  does  not satisfy all of  the requirements for
high quality  coking coal.   Metallurgical-grade coals generally  are blended
to produce a  higher quality  coke.   The blended coals may  be pulverized and
mixed with oil or water to increase  or decrease, respectively, the bulk den-
sity of  the  coke,  thus improving its  strength  and pressure characteristics
(Leonard 1978).

     Coal may contain both mineralogic and organic forms of sulfur.  Sulfur-
bearing  minerals occur  as  crystals or as  finely divided,  semi-amorphous
inclusions in the  carbon matrix of  coal.   Sulfur-bearing  organic compounds
are  chemically  bonded to  the  carbon  matrix.   Organic  sulfur in  coal may
occur in one  of several forms (Gluskoter 1968):

     •  mercaptan or thiol, RSH

     •  sulfide or thio-ether, RSR1

     •  disulfide, RSSR'

     •  aromatic systems containing the thiophene  ring

     •  delta-thiopyrone systems

     The sulfur  contents of the  US  coals range from  0.2% to approximately
7.0% by weight.   The  coals of the Interior  and Eastern coal fields  (Figure
2) generally  have higher percentages  of  sulfur than coals of the Northern
Great Plains  and Rocky Mountain Provinces.

     Coal  contains traces of virtually all  elements,  but   insufficient data
on their occurrence and  concentration are known to classify coals according
to their trace element compositions.   Trace  elements generally are more con-
centrated  in coals  than  elsewhere  in  the  earth's  crust.   When  coal  is
burned, most  of  these elements are  concentrated in the  coal ash, but  a  few
are  volatilized  and  can be emitted to the atmosphere (Gluskoter and  others
1977).  The trace  elements associated  with coal are described  in  Section  2.

     The  demonstrated  reserve base  of  US  coal  and  lignite  includes  398
billion MT (438 billion  T; USBOM  1977) distributed across  six  coal  provinces
in 37 states.  The demonstrated  reserve base refers to coal seams that cur-
rently are  minable economically.   The reserve base increases  as new coal
resources  become  minable   economically   with   advances   in  technology   or
                                      10

-------
                                                              COAL  RESERVE*:


                                                              ANTHRACITE


                                                              BITUMINOUS COAL


                                                              SUBBITUMINOUS COAL


                                                              LIGNITE


                                                              COAL  PROVINCE BOUNDARY
Figure 2.   Coal provinces  and reserves of  the United States.

Source:  University of Oklahoma.  1975.  Energy alternatives;  a comparative analysis.
     Science and Public Policy Program, Norman OK, OY1-011-00025-Y, variously paged.

-------
increases in the demand (price) for the coal.  It decreases as the resources
are extracted  or  the demand declines*   Lignite reserves  are considered to
occur within 60 m (200 ft) of the surface.  Other coal reserves occur within
300 m  (1,000  ft).   Subbituminous and  lignite reserves are  counted  if  they
are at least 152 cm (60 in) thick.  Higher  rank reserves  are at least 71 cm
(28 in) thick.

     Approximately  68% of  the demonstrated  reserve base  in 26  States is
minable by  underground techniques (Table 3).   Over 54% of  this  reserve is
located east  of Mississippi  River,  primarily in bituminous seams (Table 4).
Underground  minable reserves  west of  Mississippi  River  predominantly are
low-sulfur  (less  than IX),  subbituminous  coal.  Approximately  half of the
demonstrated  reserve of underground  minable coal  is  actually recoverable,
based  on  requirements  for mine safety  and  subsidence control (USBOM 1977).
The  following discussion  of coal  provinces was  abstracted  from  the  1975
Final  EIS on Federal coal leasing  policy  (USDOI n.d.).   Coal provinces of
the US include:

     •    Pacific  Coast Province  — Scattered  coalfields ranging
        from  lignite  through anthracite occur in mountainous  ter-
        rain  in California,  Oregon,  and  Washington.   Extensive
        coal  resources  occur  in  the  Arctic   Coastal   Plain of
        Alaska; scattered  fields  occur  in southcentral Alaska

     •   Rocky Mountain Province —  Coal resources occur in  six
        physiographic  regions

        —  The  Northern  Rocky  Mountain  Region  includes mostly
        scattered  fields  of  thin,  impure,  folded,  and  faulted
        bituminous  coal In  the  mountainous Yellowstone  area of
        western Montana

        -—The  Middle  Rocky  Mountain  Region  includes  extensive
        reserves  of lignite,  subbituminous, and  bituminous  coal
        in  the  complexly folded,  faulted,  and  steeply dipping
        strata of  Big  Horn Basin and  Hamms Fork,  two mountainous
        coal  areas  which are located  in northwestern and western
        Wyoming, respectively

        —The Wyoming Basin contains  large  fields  of subbituminous
        to  bituminous  coal  which occur in  the mountainous  Wind
        River  and  Green River  coal areas  in  central  and  south-
        western Wyoming and  in northwestern Colorado.  Anthracite
        may  be found  locally in  parts of  the Green  River  coal
        areas characterized by igneous  intrusion and intense  local
        deformation

        —The Southern  Rocky Mountain  Region holds several  large
        fields of  subbituminous  coal in seams  which may attain a
        thickness  of   23  m  (77   ft).     These   fields   occur
        specifically in the North Park  coal areas of Colorado
                                      12

-------
Table 3.  DooonetraCcd coal reserve base of underground ralnablo  coal.   Values are expressed in millions of metric tonn.
                        Coal Rank
                                                                                              Coal Province

State Anthracite
Alabaaa
Alaska
Arkansas BO. 6
Colorado 23. 1
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Idaho
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
,_, Missouri
Oi
Montana
New Mexico 2.1
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania 6,333.4
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia 125.0
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Total 6,564.2
Sub-
Bituminous Bituminous
1,567.4
560.9 4,369.0
148.3
7.698.1 3,611.0
0.4
48,298.3
8,127.1
4.0
1,578.9
15,984.4
830.7
113.8
1,289.2
1.259.4 63.248.6
1,144.4 808.2
28.4
11,900.4
1,084.4
b 13.2
20,305.4
570.2
5,712.6 1.0
2,979.8
232.1 759.4
30,415.8
3,638.6 25,131.6
165,472.3 97,941.9
Rocky Great
Pacific Mountain Plains Interior

4,928.7
228.9
11,309.1*

48.298.3
8,127.1
4.0
1,578.9
7,720.5

113.8
1,289.2
64,508.0*
1,952.6


1,084.4
13.2


5.713.6

991.5

28,770.23
, 5,933.4 59,963.9 52,293.7 68,457.3
                                                                                                                     Gulf
                                                                                                                    1,567.4
                                                                                                                              Eaatern
                                                                                                                        570.2a
                                                                                                                                             Total




0.4




8,247.7
830.7




28.4
11,900.4


26,638.8


3,104.1

30,415.8

1,567.4
4,928.7
228.9
11,309.1
0.4
48,298.3
8,127.1
4.0
1,578.9
15,984.4
830.7
113.8
1,289.2
64,508.0
1,952.6
28.4
11,900.4
1,084.4
13.2
26,638.8
570.2
5,713.6
3,104.1
991.5
30,415.8
28,770.2
                                                                                                                     1,852.5    81,451.4
269,952.1
           a  Combined  reserve  base  of  underground minable coal in two provinces.
           b  No reliable  daca  on the reserve base of underground nlnable coal.
Sources  US Bureau of Mines.  August 19,77.   Demonstrated coal reserve base of th« United States on January 1, 1976.  US Department  of  the  Interior,
    Washington DC, 8 j>.

-------
Table 4.   Regional distribution of the demonstrated reserve base of underground
   minable coal (millions of metric tons).
Anthracite

Bituminous

Subbituminous

Total
     East of
Mississippi River

    6,458.4

  141,121.6
  147,580.0
     West of
Mississippi River

       105.8

    24,350.7

    97,941.9

   122,398.4
   Total

  6,564.2

165,472.3

 97,941.9

269,978.4
Source:  US  Bureau of  Mines.   1977.  Demonstrated  coal reserve base of the  United
  States on  January 1,  1976.   US Department  of  the Interior,  Washington DC, 8 p.
                                       14

-------
—The  wide  plateaus,  uplifts,  and  broad  basins  of  the
Colorado Plateau Region include extensive reserves  of sub-
bituminous to  anthracite  coal in  the  Uinta, southwestern
Utah, and San Juan River coal areas in Colorado,  Utah, and
northwestern New Mexico, respectively

—The Basin and Range Region is characterized by  isolated,
subparallel  mountain   ranges   interspersed  with  nearly
level, sediment-filled  basins.  Scattered fields  of bitum-
inous  coal  and limited reserves of  anthracite  coal seams
up to  2  m (7  ft) thick are  found  in central and  southern
New Mexico within this  Region

  Northern Great  Plains  Province  —  The  gently  rolling
plains,  dissected  plateaus,  and  isolated mountains of  the
five areas within the Northern Great Plains include exten-
sive reserves  of coal  ranging  in rank  from  lignite through
semianthrac ite

—  The  North-Central  Region contains  deposits  of bitum-
inous  and subbituminous coal in  the  Judith  River  Basin  and
Assiniboine areas  in Montana,  respectively

—The  Fort  Union coal  area,  where  lignite to subbituminous
coals  occur  in Montana  and North  Dakota, comprises  the
largest  single coal resource  in  the  United States*    The
estimated lignite reserve (based  on less restrictive  cri-
teria  than are used to calculate  the  demonstrated reserve
base)  of this area exceeds  398  billion  MT  (438 billion T;
University of Oklahoma 1975)

—The  Powder  River Basin  includes  reserves of  subbitum-
 inous    to   bituminous  coal  in   southern  Montana   and
northeastern Wyoming

—Fields of  subbituminous  coal as  well as  extensive  re-
 serves of lignite are  found in  the  21,000  sq km (8,000 sq
mi) Denver Coal Region of Colorado

 —The  Raton  Mesa  area  in  southern  Colorado   contains
 reserves of bituminous coal

  Interior  Province —  Reserves  of  bituminous  and  semi-
 anthracite coal  are  found  in the  flatlands  of the  Mid-
 western  States between  the  Appalachian Plateaus  and  the
 Rocky  Mountains.   The higher  quality  coal  seams  are
 located  in the western part of the Province
                                15

-------
     •  Gulf  Coast  Province — Coal reserves  in  the lowlands and
        coastal  regions of  southern  and  eastern  Texas and  the
        Mississippi  Valley  include  bituminous  seams  near  the
        Mexican border and extensive deposits of lignite scattered
        from  southern Texas to Alabama

     •   Eastern  Coal  Province  — Coal  reserves  occur  in bands
        which trend northeast-southwest  and  parallel major struc-
        tural  features  of  the  mountainous  region  that   extends
        1,300  km (800  mi)  from  northern Pennsylvania  to  north-
        western  Alabama*    Coal  rank  generally  decreases  from
        anthracite  to  bituminous  in  a  westerly  direction  across
        these  bands.

     1.2.1.2.  Underground Mining  Systems

     Underground mining  systems  range  in complexity  from conventional drill-
and-shoot  operations  to fully automated longwall  systems.   Summary discus-
sions  of  mining  systems (USDOE  1978;  USEPA 1978,  USEPA  1976d;  USEPA 1975)
and  comprehensive texts (Cummins  and  Given 1973;  Hittman  Associates,  Inc.
1976)  are  available which describe  in detail the  technical  aspects of  the
development,  operation, and  abandonment of  underground coal  mines.    The
following  description  of underground mining  systems uses  the minimum level
of  detail  necessary  to  identify  the  sources  of  potential environmental
impact associated with  underground coal  mining.

     A modern underground  coal  mine  represents  planning,  development,  and
intensive  capital investment  for several years preceding the  profitable pro-
duction of coal  from  the  mine.    Underground mines are significantly more
expensive  to  develop and operate than  surface mines.  Therefore  they usually
are  planned for  long-term operation in  coal  seams  that are not  recoverable
economically  by  surface mining methods alone.

The   underground  coal  mining   process  may  be   characterized  as  four
operations:

     •  Planning
     •  Development
     •  Production
     •  Abandonment

           1.2.1.2.1.  Planning

     Planning  is fundamental to  mine  development.   Permit applicants gen-
erally supply relatively complete  plans and  specifications to the  relevant
State  regulatory agencies.    Plans for  underground  mines  should conform  to
the  Federal Mine  Safety and Health Act  of  1977  (PL  95-164).  Additionally,
underground  coal mines  should  be  planned  to avoid,  minimize,  or  mitigate
potential  adverse environmental  effects.  This document generally  describes
the environmental considerations that  are appropriate for  the mine  planning
                                      16

-------
process.  Additional  guidance  is available  from the USEPA  region  to which
the new source NPDES permit application is made.

          1.2.1.2.2.  Development

     The development or construction  of  an entire underground coal mine may
take decades, and  extraction may commence  in  some parts of  the  mine years
before development begins in others.   In the ideal situation, entryways and
crosscuts are advanced  through  the  coal  seam to  the  limits  of the property
to be mined.  Coal  then is  extracted from  pillars  and  longwalls  in  retreat
(that is, in the direction opposite to the development advance).

     Full development of the mine prior  to production requires the long-term
investment of considerable capital.   Plans for mine development and  extrac-
tion may change  radically after mining commences, based on  the availability
of capital, innovative  technology,  and markets.   The amount of salable coal
produced during  mine development may be minuscule  compared to  annual ton-
nages during full scale production.

     Development  of the mine generally  begins with  site  layout, including
the posting of  signs and the installation  of  wastewater and runoff  control
measures  as specified  in  the   regulatory  program  administered  by  the   US
Office of Surface Mining  (USOSM; 30 CFR Chapter VII, 42 FR  239:62639-62716,
13  December  1977).   These  regulations  apply  to  underground  mines with
surface-disturbed areas greater than 0.8 ha (2.0 ac),  and  they specify  the
minimum standards of  performance acceptable under the Surface  Mining  Control
and Reclamation  Act  of  1977  (SMCRA;  30 USC  1201  et seq.).

     Mine development generally includes a standard set  of  operations:

     •   Coal  cutting  machinery or  conventional  drill-and-blast
        techniques  may  be  used  to drive  entryways through the coal
        seam.   Entryways are  interconnected with  crosscuts,  pro-
        ducing  a honeycomb  of  unexcavated coal and voids

     •   Roof  control systems are installed.   Primary roof  control
        is  a  function of  the geometry of coal  left in place during
        mine  development.    The configuration  of  entryways  and
        crosscuts depends on the amount  of  subsidence  permissible
        and the strength and thickness  of  the  coal seam and over-
        burden  (Cummins and Given  1973; Hittman  Associates,  Inc.
        1976).    Bolts,  props,   trusses,  shields, and other arti-
         ficial   roof  support  systems are  used  to  prevent  roof
         falls

      •    Ventilation,  haulage, and  electrical  systems  are  in-
         stalled.   One  function of  the layout of  pillars  and bar-
         riers is to minimize the cost of providing adequate venti-
         lation to all working  areas  of  the mine.   A minimum num-
         ber  of  entryways  and  crosscuts  also   is  necessary  for
                                       17

-------
        rapid and efficient transport of coal from work areas.  In
        coal mines  staffed  by members of the United Mine Workers
        of  America   (UMWA),   electricity  (traditionally  direct
        current)  fulfills  all  power  requirements  underground.
        Diesel  equipment  increasingly is  being used  in non-UMWA
        operations.

     The  pattern of crosscuts and  entryways appropriate  for an individual
mine  is determined  on the  basis of  lithology of  the  overburden,  safety
requirements, conservation practices, and workspace  needs underground.  Mine
openings  range  in  width from 3.6 to  9 m (12 to 30  ft),  based on depth and
thickness of the seam, extraction ratios, roof  conditions, and  the number of
independent support  systems  that  are proposed  for roof  control.   The 3.6 m
minimum width is applicable  to shallower  seams.  Access to the mine by most
kinds of machinery is  restricted by openings of widths less than  3.6 m.  The
maximum opening  generally is  6.1 m  (20 ft)  wide where a single kind of roof
support  system is  used,  and 9  m wide  where  two  kinds are used  (Hittman
Associates, Inc. 1976).

     The  distribution of  compressive and tensile forces around a mine open-
ing  further constrains the  geometry of mine  development (Figure  3).   The
average stress  to any horizon of interest for coal mining  is  0.25 atm/m (1.1
psi/ft) of  depth.   The stress field has  a nominal homogeneity, unless it is
perturbed  by  an anomaly, such as a mine opening.   Most  of  the forces de-
picted  in Figure 3 are displaced  toward  the  sides of the  opening  and bear on
the  unexcavated coal.  The  superimposed  lateral  compressive forces form an
arc, called a pressure arch, that bears  near  the  periphery  of the  opening.
Bending  and shearing  forces  in  the  roof are  counterbalanced  by artificial
roof support  systems.

     To support the roof properly,  a generally symmetric  system  of  pillars,
barriers,  abutments,  and ribs  (Figure  4) remains unexcavated until  the
extraction  phase commences.   The  dimensions  and   geometry  of  unexcavated
features  generally reflect their intended  life spans and purposes, as well
as the strengths and structural  properties  of  the coal  seam and overburden.

     Given  an opening of width  W (Figure 5),  the  concentration of elastic
(fracturing)  stresses at  the  periphery of the  opening may exceed  the in situ
stress  near the center of  the pillar by a  factor  of 5 to 7.    This  stress
concentration may  dissipate at a distance of 1 - 1/2  W into the pillar, or
farther  depending  on  the  distribution  of  in situ  plastic  (yielding  or
flowing)  stresses.    Theoretically,  a  single  coal  pillar should  be three
times  wider  (3W)   than  the  adjoining  opening  (Hittman  Associates, Inc.
1976).

     The  pressure  arch theory of entryway  design  accounts   for  the lateral
transfer  of overburden pressures  to the peripheries  of multiple  openings.
The  diameter  of the arch of lateral compressive  forces located  above an
opening (Figure  3)  increases in  proportion to  the width  of   the  opening.  A
                                      18

-------
            I   i   1   111      i  11111
           T~~r~r ~i   r~r
          Vertical compressive   I
                V-_ _^ — —  t   M~~   f
 \    II    i    i
Vertical compressive
                            MAXIMUM TENSILE STRESSES

      ''"•;?.; coal .c/.'.'^..'  forces   Bending forces  forces ,'.;;'; .coal ^,~;;;~
Figure 3.  Distribution of forces around a narrow  opening  in  a  deep  coal

  seam.
Source:  Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.  Underground  coal mining:  an

     assessment of technology.  Prepared  for  Electric  Power  Research

     Institute, Palo Alto CA, EPRI AF-219,  455  p.
                                    19

-------
                                                      *^*-^*?*'**^~**'**^*>?>*>?**i>f

                                                                           [^
Figure 4.  Nomenclature of geometries for unexcavated coal.


Source:  Adapted from Hittman Associates, Inc.   1976.  Underground
     coal mining:  an assessment of technology.   Prepared for Electric
     Power Research Institute, Palo Alto CA,  EPRI AF-219, 455 p.
                                     20

-------
                                                ELASTIC
                                                 *— W—H
Figure 5.  Concentrations of stresses in a coal pillar.  The maximum
  stress concentration is located at the periphery of the pillar,
  which is 3 times wider than the adjacent openings.


Source:  Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.  Underground coal mining: an
     assessment of technology.  Prepared for Electric Power Research
     Institute, Palo Alto CA, EPRI AF-219, 455 p.
                                    21

-------
limit  (called  the maximum  pressure  arch)  eventually  is reached  at which
failure of the roof is imminent.
                                                                           a
     To  illustrate  the  function of  the  pressure arch  theory,  and  as
prelude  to  a more  general  discussion of  subsidence  (Section  2.3.2.)> tne
following example is given.   For coal  seams  located at depths D between 120
and 600 m (400 and 2,000 ft), empirical evidence indicates that the width of
the maximum pressure arch equals 0.15D + 60 where D is given in feet.   Thus,
for a  set of standard  conditions,  (seam height,  opening width, lithology,
and structure) the maximum pressure arch in  a  coal seam 240 m (800 ft) deep
is equal  to 54 m (180 ft).  As a factor of safety,  the width across a series
of ribs  or  pillars  generally is chosen  to  be less than  75%  of the maximum
pressure  arch.   For this hypothetical example,  the  maximum  span  across a
series  of  ribs  and pillars should  be  less  than  40 m (135  ft;  Hittman
Associates, Inc.  1976).

     Dimensions of  ribs and  pillars depend on  the  depth and thickness of the
seam,  the width of  the excavated opening, and  the  structure and  lithology of
the  roof and overburden.   Widths  of pillars and ribs  generally increase
relative  to widths  of  openings  as  depth  increases.  Widths of  barriers gen-
erally excede the  mean  of  the width  of  the  maximum  pressure  arch and the
width  across  the  adjoining  rows of ribs and pillars.   For the  hypothetical
example  at  a depth of 240 m.  the  minimum barrier  width  is 47 m  (157.5 ft;
Hittman  Associates, Inc. 1976).

     An   underground mine  may  be   reached   through shaft, drift,  or  slope
entryways (Figure 6).   Shafts and  slope  entryways are driven  through  over-
burden to reach the coal seam  where  it  is  not  exposed  at an outcrop.   The
choice of vertical  shaft versus slope entryway  usually  depends on the pro-
posed  size  of the entryway and the proposed haulage  system,  as well as  the
ventilation system and  other  service considerations.   A drift entryway  is
driven into a coal  seam  from its outcrop.

           1.2.1.2.3.   Extraction

     Coal is extracted during production either with  conventional  drill  and
shoot  techniques or by  continuous mining  systems.   Extraction systems  for
mine  development and  coal  production are  chosen based on the  operator's
experience, available  capital,  and the following coal seam variables:

     •   Seam height,  which  determines  one economic   basis  for
         choosingamining   system.    Conventional mining  systems
         become   less   efficient   as   seam  height  or   thickness
         increases.   Longwall mining  systems are  impeded  by varia-
         tions in  seam  height

     •   Bottom quality,  which ranges from excellent  (dry,  firm,
         and even)  to  poor  (wet,  soft, and  pitted  or  rutted),  and
         affects  machine operations by  limiting  traction  and  re-
         stricting maneuverability
                                       22

-------
                                SHAFT ENTRY
                                DRIFT ENTRY
^
*=,
-TT-
^
                                 SLOPE ENTRY
Figure 6.  Methods of entry to underground coal mines.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.  1975.   Inactive and
     abandoned underground mines: water pollution  prevention and
     control.  US Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Water
     and Hazardous Materials, Washington DC,  EPA-440/9-75-007,  339  p.
                                   23

-------
     •  Roof  quality,  which limits the amount of  coal  that may be
       extracted  from the  excavation without  artificial  protec-
       tion  against  collapse of the  mine roof

     •   Methane liberation, which  in some seams  occurs  at a rate
       proportional  to the  rate  at  which coal is  cut  or sheared
       from  the working face.  Methane  accumulates and sometimes
       ignites in underground workings  when  it is  not removed by
       the ventilation system.   Methane accumulation is monitored
       at least once  every 20  minutes at the  seam face, causing
        disruption of otherwise  continuous work cycles

     •   Hardness  of  seam,  which  primarily affects  the  choice of
        coal cutting  equipment

     •   Depth of seam, which determines  the  response of the over-
        burden to excavation of the coal seam

     •     Water,  which  may  infiltrate  the   underground   workings
        through  channels,   fractures,  fissures,  or other water-
        transmitting voids  in mine walls, roof, and  bottom.

     A comparison of manpower requirements and  productivities of continuous
and conventional mining systems appears  in Table  5.  Continuous mining sys-
tems generally employ  fewer men per  face and produce  more tons per man and
per  shift  than conventional  systems.   The efficiency  of continuous mining
systems remains essentially unchanged with increasing  seam height.   Conven-
tional systems  reach a point of  diminishing return as  seam height reaches
1.8 m  (6  ft).   These trends are illustrated  in Figure  7,  which is  based on
the data presented in Table 5.

     Conventional mining systems  utilize five categories  of unit operations
(Hittman Associates, Inc. 1976) which can proceed simultaneously at  separate
working faces (Figure 8).   The  categories include:

     •   Cutting a slit  or kerf  along the bottom  of  the  working
        face across its full  length

     •  Drilling a pattern  of blast  holes into  the  working face

     •  Blasting  the  coal  with  chemical agents or  charges of  com-
        pressed gas

     •  Loading and hauling the fractured coal from the  face  to a
        centralized crushing  and  loadout facility  for shipment to
        the cleaning plant

     •   Roof  bolting  with  rods, trusses, props,  and bolts to  en-
        sure   the  safety   of    underground    personnel   and  to
                                      24

-------
     Table 5.   Estimated productivities of conventional and continuous mining  systems  for selected seam
        heights*


     MINING SYSTEM     CONVENTIONAL   CONTINUOUS   CONVENTIONAL   CONTINUOUS    CONVENTIONAL   CONTINUOUS
NJ
Ui
Seam height
(inches)
Tons per shift
Total face crew
Work minutes
per shift
Man minutes
per ton
Tons per man
shift
48
512
10
400
5.86
51.2
48
500
6
400
3.38
83.3
60
640
10
400
4.69
64.0
60
600
6
400
2.86
100.0
72
680
10
400
4.42
68.0
72
700
6
400
2.44
116.6
     Source:  Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.  Underground coal mining:  an assessment  of  technology.
              Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute,  Palo Alto  CA,  EPRI AF-219,  455p.

-------
120-1
 110-
 100-
h
|L
oc
u
a.
o
  80
  TO-
         CONTINUOUS
         SYSTEM
                               CONVENTIONAL
                               SYSTEM
  50
               —T
                48
       —I—
        SO
SEAM HEIGHT,  INCHES
72
Figure 7.  Productivities of conventional  and  continuous mining systems
  as functions of seam height,  based on data presented  in Table 5.
Source:  Hittman Associates,  Inc.   1976.   Underground  coal mining: an
     assessment of technology.   Prepared  for  Electric  Power Research
     Institute, Palo Alto CA,  EPRI-AF-219,  455  p.
                                   26

-------
     CONVENTIONAL „
     MINING
                   5. ROOF BOLT

                4, LOAD COAL
                                                              CONTINUOUS
                                                              MINING
Figure 8.  Room and  pillar mining using conventional and continuous
  techniques.


Source:  US Department of Energy.  1978b.  International coal  technology
     summary document.  Office of Technical Programs Evaluation,
     HCP/p-3885,  Washington DC, 178 p.
                                      21

-------
        minimize  the  deterioration  of roof  conditions  before  a
        mining section is abandoned.

     A typical sequence for mine development and  extraction  with convention-
al techniques is  shown  in  Figure 9.   The flow  of work depicted  in  Figure  9
is from  right  to left.   Each  numbered panel represents  an  approximate 3  m
(10 ft) thickness of coal to be  extracted.

     The cycle of unit  operations in Figure 9  starts with  coal  loading  and
ends with roof bolting.  After  the  coal is  loaded from Panel  1,  the bolting
crew moves  up  to the face  of  Panel 8 to secure  the roof over  Panel 1.   A
coal cutting machine then is moved or  trammed  to  Panel 8.  A cut 3  m (10 ft)
deep is  made  in  the coal seam with  the machine-mounted blade, which  is  ex-
tended  or  sumped into  the  seam from  the  stationary  machine.    The  cutting
blade is traversed  through  the  coal  across  the  width of the  panel (usually  6
m  or 20  ft),  leaving a narrow kerf, or slot along the base of  the recover-
able coal.

     After  the cutting  machine is  trammed to the  next panel  (Panel 9  in
Figure  9),  the drilling crew  cuts  a specified pattern of  blast holes  into
the face of Panel 8.  As seam  height increases over  1.5 m (5 ft), the number
of rows of drill holes increases.   The holes  are  loaded  with a blasting
agent  and  then shot, exposing  the  working  face  of  Panel 15.   The  cycle  at
Panel 8  then returns  to  loading, and the  coal  is  removed from  the  face area
ahead of the bolting  crew.

     Continuous  mining  systems utilize  machinery  to  extract  coal  during
room-and-pillar,  shortwall, and  longwall  operations.   Machinery  and  panel
configurations  are  chosen  within the constraints of  the coal  seam  variables
described previously.

     Continuous  room-and-pillar operations  (Figure 8)  are based  on the  cap-
abilities of  coal cutting machinery to  combine  the  unit operations  of  con-
ventional mining techniques (cut, drill, shoot,  and  load)  into  one contin-
uous operation  that periodically is  halted  for methane checks; roof bolting;
and  the installation of electrical,  conveyance, and  ventilation  services.
Coal is  cut from the face  with rippers, borers, augers, and  shearers  that
direct the  cuttings to  conveyor belts mounted  inboard on the  machine assem-
bly.   These inboard conveyors  feed the coal  to  the mobile conveyor  belts,
shuttlecars, or  load-haul-dump (LHD) vehicles  that transport the coal to the
permanent haulage system,  which may be another conveyor or a  train  of  mine
cars pulled by a  locomotive.

     The  continuous auger  miner is  one  of  several  kinds  of coal  cutting
machines that  are available for underground mining.   A typical auger  type
coal cutting  machine is shown in plan view in  Figure  10.   The machine  is
anchored to a pivot point  at  the tailpiece.   The augers initially  are re-
tracted  with the  auger bits flush against the  face wall.
                                      28

-------
17771
165
158
13?
ilT
107
100
93
86

75

1

"14"
7
*

5
,_:

^
*

In
— -

S
S

S
r—

S
, IDLE
s

s

BEING /
BOLTED
171
164
157
1?fl
113
10fi
99
92
85
78
"f
z
s
7f




13
R


i


q|
3


S

S


5

5.


§

ffi



S

T

BEING X
CUT
170
163
156
126
112
105
98
91
84
77
7
4
26
19
12
5


RI

3s

r;

ft

BEIN
DRIL
f--

u>
G
.E




T—

n
D
335
I62
155
123
111
104
97
90
83
76
69
37
25
18
11
4


SIS

slSl
-------
     As the  cut  is made (from  left  to right in  Figure  10), the  augers  ad-
vance  into  the wall.   A chain drive or  winch  drags  the machine  sideways
against the  anchor jack (marked PULL in Figure  10).   The direction  of  pull
can be reversed to  the  anchor  jack located to the left of the  machine (dead
jack)  if  it  is necessary to abort the cut.  Coal  cuttings  are  loaded  onto
the inboard  conveyor.

     The  augers are fully extended by the  end of the cut.   After the augers
are retracted  and a methane check is made,  the  roof is bolted and  the  pull
line anchor  jack  is brought  forward  to the new bay.  The  machine is trammed
forward;  the tail pivot is  anchored,  and a new cut  is started  in the direc-
tion  opposite to the  previous cut.   The  dead jack  of the  previous  cut
becomes the  pull  jack of the new cut.

     Longwall  mining systems employ  one or more parallel entryways located
approximately  90  to 180 m (300 to 600 ft)  apart  and connected by a cross cut
(Figure 11).  Mechanical aids  that include the  cutter,  conveyor,  shield, and
roof supports  are inserted  through the crosscut.   Coal  is sheared or planed
from the  face  and then  directed onto the conveyor  which  feeds  the coal  to a
semi-stationary  haulage system  located  in an adjacent entryway.   Roof  sup-
ports  advance  toward the cut face, thus leaving the roof of the mined  area
(gob)  to  collapse as the unsupported overburden subsides into the chamber.

     Longwall  systems generally  are  suitable for coal  seams that have  uni-
form  height, bottom  and roof  conditions,  hardness,  and  areal  distribution.
Longwall  mining   of multiple   seams  is  possible   under  some  conditions.
Shallow seams  are mined first, followed by progressively deeper seams.

     Longwall  systems may be impeded  by variations in  seam  height and hard-
ness,  undulating  bottom and  roof,  sulfur  balls,  and channel deposit  want
areas  that  interrupt the long  cutting passes of automated planers and shear-
ers.    Faults, joints,  bedding planes,  or  other structural  features in the
overburden  may prevent  the  orderly subsidence  of  mined areas as roof  sup-
ports  are advanced toward  the  cut face.

     Overburden  structures and lithologies may  cause undesirable shifts in
roof  loads, contributing  to the  possible failure of roof  support  systems.
The  profile of  a  desirable caving  situation  is shown  in  Figure  12.   The
overburden  pressure ( v of  Figure 12) increases sharply  at  a  critical  dis-
tance  (4.5  m or  15 ft in Figure  12)  behind  the  face as  the  pressure arch in
the  desirable immediate roof  transfers the  overburden  load laterally.   The
props  advance • toward the face, and the unsupported  roof  caves and  consoli-
dates, causing the in situ pressure  of  the disturbed overburden  to  increase
above  its original value.

     The  use of  longwall systems in coal seams less  than  195 m (650  ft) deep
may  result  in a  partial collapse of the  deeper overburden while  shallower
strata remain supported by the  gob  (Figure 13a).   Parallel  joints in  the
                                       30

-------
Figure 10.  Pivot auger mining machine.


Source:  Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.  Underground coal mining:
     an assessment of technology.  Prepared for Electric Power
     Research Institute, Palo Alto CA, EPRI AF-219, 455 p.
                                    31

-------
                                                                TAILPIECE
                                 LONGITUDINAL
                                 ADVANCEMENT
                                    SELF-ADVANCING
                                      HYDRAULIC  .
                                     ROOF SUPPORTS
                                                         LONGWALL MINING.  .
                                                         REQUIRES MULTIPLE ENTRY •
                                                         DEVELOPMENT ON EACH
                                                         SIDE OF THE PANEL TO PROVIDE
                                                         VENTILATION. ACCESS. AND .  .
                                                         CONVEYOR ROUTES
                                                   .  .
rigure J.J..   Longwall mining system.


Source:   US  Department  of Energy.   1978b.   International  coal technology
      summary document.   Office  of  Technical Programs Evaluation,
      HCP/P-3885,  Washington DC,  178 p.
                                        32

-------
                            ORIGINAL OVERBURDEN
                                PRESSURE
                                DESIRABLE ^  .  - \ j.

                                MEDIATE HOOF " "z I {
Figure 12.  Ideal  caving condition and pressure profile during  longwall
  mining.  Dashed  line indicates original pressure  profile;  solid line
  shows pressure profile during mining.
Source:  Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.  Underground  coal  mining:  an
     assessment  of  technology.  Prepared for Electric  Power Research
     Institute,  Palo Alto CA, EPRI AF-219, 455 p.
                                     33

-------
Figure 13.  Natural roof hazards that affect the operation of longwall
  mining systems.  See text for description of hazards.
Source:  Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.  Underground coal mining: an
     assessment of technology.  Prepared for Electric Power Research
     Institute, Palo Alto CA, EPRI AF-219, 455 p.

-------
overlying strata may cause  interlocking of large blocks of overburden, pro-
ducing severe  pressures  on roof  supports  and causing  the  release of loose
gob at  the  face (Figure  13b).    Parallel  joints at  a slight  angle  to  the
working face may cause an upset of the  roof props (Figure 13c).

     Longwall mining systems  offer  the  following advantages over other min-
ing systems (USDOE 1978):

     •  Lower cost per ton of coal produced

     •  Higher productivity per man hour

     •  Higher percentage of  recovery of coal resource

     •  Predictable subsidence

     •  Adaptability to thick and multiple seams

     •  Capability to mine at great depths

     Shortwall mining systems are similar in principle to longwall  systems.
During shortwall mining,  coal is cut  from a panel  approximately 45 m  (150
ft) long.  Roof supports advance  toward the panel as  mining  progresses.   The
unsupported,  undermined  areas  subside  into  the  void  behind  the advancing
roof supports.  The  panel  length is short  enough to  be worked  economically
with  the conventional  raining  machinery  used  in  room-and-pillar  systems,
although automated shearers also  are available  for  shortwall  systems.

     Shortwall systems can be used  to change  existing mining  operations  from
room-and-pillar techniques to wall-type mining  techniques without additional
costs for the  replacement  of  machinery or revision of  plans  for  mine  devel-
opment.   Advanceable  roof supports  may  be  the only additional equipment
required to consummate the change-over.   Shortwall  operations  also offer  the
advantage  of   flexibility  in selecting the  locations of mining panels  or
walls to minimize  the interruptions in production  that result  from  changes
in  seam  height and the presence  of want areas,  unsuitable  roof and  bottom
conditions, and gas and oil wells.

          1.2.1.2.4.  Abandonment

     The techniques  that are appropriate for  the  abandonment of an  under-
ground mine generally reflect  the  manner in which the mine  was developed.
Water  infiltrates  to the  mine  void through  overlying and adjacent  strata.
Drift entryways  that are  advanced  up  the  dip  of  the coal  seam will  allow
this  water  to drain freely  from the  mine,  unless  suitable  seals  are
installed at  the drift mouth  (Figure 14).  Entryways  that are advanced  down
the dip of the seam must be pumped  during  mine  operation (Figure 15).   After
abandonment,  water drains  to  the depths of the mine,  forming  a subterranean
pool  that may slowly drain to  the  surface through channels,  fractures,  and
other small voids  (Figure  16).
                                       35

-------
                                              LEAKAGE
                                              AROUND SEAL
Figure 14.  Updip mining from a drift mouth.  In  (a),  the mine drains
  freely from the drift mouth under force of gravity.  In (b), the
  mine chamber floods against a leaky barrier across the drift mouth.
Source:  Warner, Don L.  1974.  Rationale and methodology for monitoring
     groundwater polluted by mining activities.  Prepared for the
     US Environmental Protection Agency National Environmental Research
     Center, Las Vegas NV, 84 p.
                                    36

-------
 MINERAL
 BARRIER
            PUMPING REQUIRED
            DURING MINING
UNDERGROUND
MINE
     GROUNDWATER
     LEVEL
                       GROUND
                       SURFACE
Figure 15.  Downdip mining from a drift mouth.   Mine water  is pumped from
  the depths of the chamber until the workings  are abandoned.
Source:  Warner, Don L.  1974.  Rationale and methodology for monitoring
     groundwater polluted by mining activities.   Prepared for the
     US Environmental Protection Agency National Environmental  Research
     Center, Las Vegas NV, 84 p.
                                    37

-------
                          GROUNDWATER
                          LEVEL
INUNDATED
UNDERGROUND
MINE
     MINERAL
     BARRIER
          GROUND
          SURFACE
Figure 16.  Natural flooding of  downdip mine after abandonment.
Source:  Warner, Don L.   1974.   Rationale and -methodology  for monitoring
     groundwater polluted by mining activities.   Prepared  for the
     US Environmental Protection Agency,  National Environmental  Research
     Center, Las Vegas NV, 84 p.
                                   38

-------
     The following kinds  of  seals  frequently are installed at mine openings
during abandonment:

     •  Dry  seals  to prevent  the  entrance of air  and water into
        mine portals where there is little or no flow  of water and
        minimal potential  to  develop  hydrostatic pressure against
        the seal

     •  Air  seals  to prevent the flow of  air  into the mine while
        allowing water  to  drain from  the mine to a treatment fac-
        ility if required

     •  Hydraulic seals which  plug  the discharge from  flooded mine
        voids and  exclude air  from the mine,  thus retarding the
        oxidation of sulfide minerals.

     Hydraulic  seals may  be employed to  seal  the  drift mouths of  entryways
that were  developed  up  the dip of the coal  seam.   A hydraulic seal may  in-
clude one  or more bulkheads  (Figures 17 and  18)  constructed with  timbers,
walls of  concrete block,  backfilled  material, and  grout  curtains  injected
through boreholes  from  the surface.   These abandonment techniques and  others
are  more  thoroughly described  in  other  USEPA  publications  (USEPA  1973,
1975).

     1.2.1.3.   Coal  Cleaning Operations

     The raw coal  that  leaves the mine  site  is  termed run-of-the-mine (ROM)
coal.   In most  underground mining operations,  ROM coal  contains  oversized
material,  gob,  blasting  wire,  and the  brattice cloth  used for routing  of
face ventilation  flow.  This coal  generally is unsalable without some degree
of  cleaning or preparation.   Coal cleaning facilities range in  complexity
from  relatively  simple,   off-the-shelf, sizing  and  crushing  machinery  to
multistage separators  and flotation  processors which  can  be designed  speci-
fically  to clean  a few  kinds of coal  from one or a few neighboring mines for
delivery  to  long-term customers.

     The  USEPA has  an  ongoing  research and  applications  program  that  may
significantly affect the  future form and economics of current and developing
coal  cleaning technologies  (Section  1.3.3.).   Reports  of this  program des-
cribe in  detail the coal  cleaning  technologies  currently  used  by the mining
industry   (Nunenkamp  1976, McCandless  and  Shaver 1978).   The  engineering
principles of mechanical  coal cleaning also are described more thoroughly in
other  sources  (Leonard  and Mitchell  1968,  Cummins and Given  1973, Merritt
1978).   The following discussion  of  coal cleaning technology summarizes the
elements  of mechanical coal  preparation in the detail necessary to identify
the environmental  impacts and  pollution control  strategies  that  are dis-
cussed  in Sections 2.0  and 3.0, respectively.
                                        39

-------
                                 Eilsling Ground
                   front

                                  /
                                  '—Grew
 R«or


Bulkhead
Figure 17.  Cross  section of a typical double bulkhead seal.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.   1973.   Processes,

     procedures,  and  methods for controlling pollution from mining


     activities.   EPA 430/9-73-011, Washington DC,  390 p.

-------
                                               HsodV Timber

                                               Backfill

                                               Original
                                               Ground Surface
                       Footer
Figure 18.  Cross  section of a typical  single bulkhead seal  for  drift
  mouth abandonment.
Source:  US Environmental Protection  Agency.   1973.  Processes,  procedures,
     and methods  to control pollution from mining activities.   EPA-430/9-
     73-011, Washington DC, 390 p.
                                      41

-------
          1.2.1.3.1.   Process Overview

     The mechanical  cleaning  of  coal  generally  includes  the  five basic
stages (Figure 19) described  below.   The number of  stages employed and the
unit operations  that  comprise each  stage may vary  among individual opera-
tions, although  Stages 1,  2,  and 3 are common to  most  of the Nation's coal
cleaning facilities (Figure 20).

     •   Stage  1:  Plant feed  preparation — Material larger  than
        21 cm  (6 in)  is  screened from  the  ROM coal on a  grizzly.
        The properly  sized feed  coal is ground to an initial  size
        by one or more crushers  and  fed  to  the preparation plant.

     •   Stage  2:  Raw coal sizing — Primary sizing  on  a  screen  or
        a  scalping  deck  separates  the  coal  into  coarse-  and
         intermediate-sized fractions  (Figure  21).    The  coarse
         fraction is crushed again  if necessary and subsequently  is
        re-sized for  cycling  to  the  raw coal separation step.  The
         intermediate  fraction undergoes secondary  sizing  on wet  or
        dry vibrating screens to remove  fines,  which may undergo
         further  processing.   The intermediate fraction  then is fed
         to  the raw coal separator.   Coal sizes generally are ex-
         pressed  in  inches  or mesh size  (Table 6).  In Figure 21,
         the  notation 4X0  indicates  that all  of the  coal  is
         smaller  than  10  cm (4 in).  A  notation  such as 4 X 2 in-
         dicates  that  the coal is sized between 5  and 10  cm (2 and
         4 in).   The  notation 4+ indicates  that  the  coal  is larger
         than 10  cm  (4 in).

     •   Stage 3:   Raw coal  separation — Approximately  97.5%  of
         the US coal  subjected to raw coal separation undergoes wet
         processes,  including dense media  separation,  hydraulic
         separation,  and  froth flotation.   Pneumatic  separation  is
        applied  to.the remaining 2.5% (USDOE 1978b).  The coarse-,
         intermediate-, and fine-sized fractions  are processed  sep-
         arately  by equipment  uniquely  suited for each size  frac-
         tion.    Refuse (generally  shale and  sandstone),  middlings
         (carbonaceous material  denser  than the desired  product),
         and cleaned  coal are  separated for the dewatering stage.

     •   Stage  4:  Product dewatering and/or drying  —  Coarse- and
         intermediate-sized   coal   generally  are  dewatered  on
         screens.  Fine coal  may be dewatered in centrifuges and
         thickening  ponds and  dried in thermal dryers.

     •   Stage  5:  Product storage and shipping —  Size   fractions
        may  be  stored  separately   in  silos,  bins, or   open air
         stockpiles.   The  method of  storage generally depends  on
         the  method  of  loading  for  transport  and the  type  of
        carrier  chosen.'
                                      42

-------
 PLANT FEED
PREPARATION
     2.
RAW COAL
  SIZING
SECONDARY
SIZE CHECK
   2
      3.
 RAW COAL
     INTERMEDIATE PRODUCT
SEPARATION
  PRODUCT WATER
DEWATERtNG
       5.
   PRODUCT
    STORAGE
 AND SHIPPING
Figure 19.  Coal  preparation plant processes.
Source:  Nunenkamp, David C.   1976.  Coal  preparation environmental
     engineering manual.  US  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office
     of Energy,  Minerals, and Industry,  Research Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/2-76-138, 727 p.
                                  43

-------
                                                                          CLEAN COAL
                                                                          STORAGE
                                                        RAW COAL
                                                        STORAGE
              REFUSE BIN
               REFUSE CONVEYOR
                                                                       PREPARATION
                                                                       PLANT
                   TRUCK DUMP
Figure 20.   Typical  coal cleaning facility.
Source:   Nunenkamp, David C.  1976.  Coal preparation environmental engineering manual.
     US  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Research
     Triangle Park NC, EPA-600/2-76-138, 727 p.

-------
     CAR DUMP
           A
                    TRUCK DUMP
                           A
                                                                     FUGITIVE
                                                                      DUST
                    A EMISSION POINTS
 .R. CAR
LOADING

  A
 BARGE
LOADING
  A
Figure 21.  Typical  circuit for coal sizing stage.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.  1977.  Inspection manual
     for the enforcement of new source performance standards:  coal
     preparation plants.   Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,
     Washington DC, EPA-340/I-77-022, 156 p.
                                    45

-------
Table 6.  Metric and English equivalents  of  US standard  sieve  sizes
  and Tyler mesh sizes.
US Standard                 Mesh Size
Sieve No.                cm           inches             Tyler Mesh No.

    4                  .475            .187                   4
    6                  .335            .132                   6
    8                  .236            .0937                  8
   10                  .20             .0787                  9
   12                  .170            .0661                 10
   14                  .140            .0555                 12
   16                  .118            .0469                 14
   18                  .100            .0394                 16
   20                  .085            .0331                 20
   30                  .06             .0234                 28
   35                  .05             .0197                 32
   40                  .0425           .0165                 35
   45                  .0355           .0139                 42
   50                  .030            .0117                 48
   60                  .025            .0098                 60
   70                  .0212           .0083                 65
   80                  .0180           .0070                 80
  100                  .015            .0059                 100
  120                  .0125           .0049                 115
  140                  .0106           .0041                 150
  170                  .009            .0035                 170
  200                  .0075           .0029                 200
  230                  .0063           .0025                 250
  270                  .0053           .0021                 270
  325                  .0045           .0017                 325
                                   46

-------
     For a typical coal  cleaning  plant with 910 MT  (1,000  T)  per hour cap-
acity, approximately 70% of  the crushed coal reports to the coarse cleaning
circuit.  Sizing and recrushing of  the coarse coal result in the cycling of
34% of  the  coarse coal  charge to  the fine and  intermediate  cleaning cir-
cuits.  Approximately  27% of  the coarse  charge is removed  as  refuse.   The
remaining 39% is removed as  clean product.   Process quantities for the fine
and intermediate cleaning circuits  appear in Table 7.

     1.2.1.3.2.  Stage Descriptions

     The initial screening  and crushing of  ROM  coal  at Stage 1  (Figure 19)
may be  accomplished  in one  or more substages  (Figure  22).   The  grizzly can
be  a  set of  iron bars,  welded  on 21 cm  (6  in)  centers  to  a  rectangular
frame.  Oversized material  that would  otherwise  inhibit the operation  of the
primary crusher  is  scalped  from  the  feed  coal  on the  grizzly  bars.   In  a
multicrusher system, the output from  the  primary crusher is screened.   Over-
sized coal  is  fed to  the next in  a series of crushers, and finer material
reports directly to  sizing  and separation stages.

     The types of mills  that are  available  for  Stage  1 crushing  include ro-
tary breakers, single  and double  roll  crushers,  hammermills, and ring  crush-
ers.  Each  type  of  mill is  available  in  various models which crush the ROM
coal at different rates  to  different  sizes.   The  general  characteristics  of
crushing mills appear  below (McLung 1968).

     •   Rotary breaker - Often called the  Bradford  breaker after
        its  inventor,  this  large,  rotating cylinder  is driven  at
        12 to  18 revolutions per  minute by an electric motor via a
        chain  and  reducer drive.   ROM coal  is  introduced  through
        one  end  of  the cylinder  and  is crushed against the encir-
        cling  steel plates.   The  crushed  coal exits  the  breaker
        through  the  precut  holes  in the plates and feeds to a con-
        veyor.   Slate, overburden, rock,  and  other  gangue mater-
        ials that  resist breakage  are carried by a series of baf-
        fles to  the  far  end of  the  cylinder,  where they  are
        removed  from the mill by a continuously rotating plow.

      «   Single-  and  Double-Roll Crushers  - A roll  crusher com-
        prises one  or two steel rollers studded with  two different
        lengths  of  heavy  teeth.    The long  teeth slice the large
         pieces of coal  into  fragments and feed  the  flow  of coal
         into the smaller teeth,  which make the proper  size reduc-
         tion.   In single-roll mills,  the coal is  crushed against a
         stationary breaker  plate (Figure 23a).  Double-roll crush-
         ers also fragment  the coal with specially designed  teeth.
         Crushing action against  the rollers (between  the teeth)  is
         minimal (Figure 23b).  Both mills  are fed through  the top.
         Product exits through the  bottom.
                                        47

-------
Table 7.  Typical process quantities for a 910 MX  (1,000  T)  per  hour  coal
   cleaning facility.

Coarse coal
fraction
Intermediate
coal fraction
Fine coal
fraction
Thermal dryer
ri list-
Washing
circuit
MT/hr £
630 69
190 21
90 10

De watering
circuit
MT/hr £
245 39
330 52
58 9

Process
water
1/m %_
3,293 12
7,040 26
16,427 61

Refuse
MT/I
173
82
19
3
                                                                            63
                                                                            30
 Total
910    100      633    100   26,760   100
                                                                   277     100
 Source:   Nunenkamp, David C.   1976.   Coal preparation environmental engineering
      manual.   US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
      Development, EPA-600/2-76-138,  Washington DC, 727 p.
                                       48

-------
                                   COARSE ORE BIN
                 SCREEN
                                                    SCREEH
Figure 22.  Typical three stage  crusher system for raw coal crushing.


Source:  Cummins, A. B. and  I. A.  Given (Editors).  1973.   SME mining
     engineering handbook.   American Institute of Mining,  Metallurgical,
     and Petroleum Engineers,  Inc.,  New York NY,  variously paged.
                                    49

-------
                                  (A)
                                  (B)
Figure 23.  Single-roll (a) and double-roll (b) crushers for sizing of
  raw coal.
Source:  McClung, J. D.  1968.  Breaking and crushing.  In Joseph W.
     Leonard and David R. Mitchell (eds.).  1968.  Coal preparation.
     3rd edition.  American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
     Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York NY, 926 p.
                                    50

-------
        Hammermill - This mill uses a set of hammers  to  strike  the
        feed  coal  against a  breaker  base plate.   The  rebounding
        fragments  are  swept  against  a  perforated  steel plate or
        crushing grate and discharged to  a bin or conveyor.
               crusher  - The  principles  of  hammermill  and  ring
        crusher operations  are similar.   Instead  of hammers,  the
        ring  crusher  uses  a  set of  smooth and  toothed  rings  to
        drive   the   feed  coal   against   the   breaker    plate.

     The unit  operations that  commonly are employed at  Stages 2  and 3  of
Figure  19   (sizing  and  separation,  respectively)  vary  considerably among
modern cleaning installations nationwide.   The  choice of unit  operations  for
a  particular  installation  depends  on  a  number of  factors,  including coal
preparation objectives,  availability and  costs of  equipment,  and operator
experience.  Nine of the  typical unit operations that currently are employed
during  the sizing  and  separation  steps  are  listed below  (McCandless  and
Shaver 1978).   Water  requirements,  sizes  and  rates  of  feed, and dewatering
efficiencies of selected  unit processes are described in Table  8.

     •  Dense media -  Light,  cleaned coal  is continuously skimmed
        from  a  slurry  of  raw  coal  and  controlled-density  fluid
        (usually magnetite; Figure 24).  Accuracy  of separation is
        sharp from  0.059 to 20 cm  (0.02  to  8 in).   Quality  and
        sizes of feed can fluctuate widely.

     •  Froth flotation - A slurry of coal  and  collector agents is
        blended to induce water-attracting tendencies in selected
        fractions  of   the feed  coal.    After  the addition  of a
        frothing agent,  finely  disseminated air bubbles are  passed
        through the slurry.  Selected coal  particles adhere  to  the
        air bubbles and  float  to  the surface, to be skimmed  off
        the top.  The  process  can  separate fractions in a band of
        0.045 to 1.18 mm  (0.002 to 0.05 in).

     •  Humphrey spiral  - A slurry  of coal and  water is fed  into
        the top of a  spiral  conduit.   The flowing  particles  are
        stratified  by  differences  in  density,  with  the   denser
        fractions  flowing closer to  the  wall of  the  conduit.   A
        splitter at the end of  the stream  separates  the stratified
        slurry  into final product  and middlings.   These products
        are fed to separate dewatering  facilities.

     •  Hydrocyclones - A slurry of coal and water is subjected to
        centrifugal forces  in an ascending  vortex.   The denser  re-
        fuse material forms a layer at  the  bottom  of the vessel.
        Circulating water skims the clean  coal  from  the top  of  the
        stratified  slurry  and  directs  the product  to  a   vortex
                                       51

-------
Table 8.  Feed characteristics of unit cleaning operations for sizing and
  separation of crushed coal.
  COAL
CLEANING
  UNIT
WATER REQUIRED
  PER MT OF
  FEED (Iph)
    MAXIMUM
   FEED RATE
    (MTph)
 RANGE OF*
FEED SIZES
  (cm)
% SOLIDS
IN FEED
Baum jig
  12 to 21
9.8 to 48 per m2
  of jig area
0.3 to 20      85 to 90
Belknap washer
     21
      145
0.6 to 15
                                                                       85 to 90
 Chance  cone
  29 to 50
488 per ra2 of
  cone area
0.2 to 20
                                                                       85 to 90
 Concentrating
   table
  50 to 67
 DSM  heavy media     83  to  125
  cyclone         (heavy media
                     slurry)
Flotation  cell      54  to 67
Humphrey  spiral
     125
9.1
4.5
1.8
0.9
to 14
to 32
to 3.6
to 1.4
0 to 0.6
0 to 0.6
0.030 to 0.0075
0.6 to
0.0075
20
12
20
15
to 35
to 16
to 30
to 20
Hydroseparator     58  to  75
                  1.4 per vertical
                   cm of vessel
                      1.3 to 13
                85 to 90
 Hydrotator
   50  to 67
49 per m2 of
   surface
                                                         0 to 5.1
                85  to 90
Menzies  cone
   58  to 75
      273
 1.3  to  13
                                                                        85  to  90
                                       52

-------
Table 8.  Feed characteristics of unit cleaning operations  for  sizing  and
  separation of crushed coal (concluded)*
COAL
CLEANING
UNIT
WATER REQUIRED
PER MT OF
FEED (Iph)
MAXIMUM
FEED RATE
(tph)
RANGE OF!
FEED SIZES
(cm)
% SOLIDS
IN FEED
Rheolaveur free
  discharge
12 to 17
1.1 to 1.8 per
 cm of vessel
0 to 0.6
15 to 30
Rheolaveur sealed
  discharge        25 to 50
                2.9 to 3.6 per
                 cm of vessel
                     0.6 to 10
               15 to 30
1Range of feed sizes  is  listed  for bituminous coal only.  Anthracite feeds for
   Menzles cones and  hydroseparators  range between 0.08 and 13 cm.   The DSM
   cyclone accepts anthracite  feeds between 48 mesh and 0.75 in. The flotation
   cell accepts 200 to 28 mesh.   The  Belknap washer does not process anthracite.


Source:  Apian, F. F.  and R.  Hogg. 1979.   Characterization of solid constituents
         in  blackwater effluents  from coal preparation plants.  Prepared for the
         US  Environmental Protection Agency and US Department of Energy,
         EPA-600/7-79-006,  FE-9002-1, Washington DC, 203 p.
                                       53

-------
                        4 X 1/4
                                                                         CCRUSHER
                                                                             (P)
                                                                           3/4 X 0
                                                                           3/4 X 0
TO REFUSE BIN
                       A)  RAW COAL SCREEN
                       B)  PRE WET SCREEN
                                                                           11/2X0
                       (J)  COARSE MAG. SEPAR.    CLEAN COAL
                       (K)  FINE MAG. SEPAR.        A
                       (L)  CENTRIFUGE        LOADING OR STORAGE
 C)  REF. RINSE SCREEN   (M)  CENTRIFUGE
 D)  COAL RINSE SCREEN   (N)  CENTRIFUGE
(E)  SLURRY SCREEN      (P)  CRUSHER
(F)  REFUSE RINSE SCREEN (R)  CYCLONE
(G)  SIEVE BEND         (S)  LIGHT MEDIA SUMP
(H)  HVY. MEDIA BATH     (T)  HEAVY MEDIA SUMP
(I)  HVY. MEDIA CYCLONE  (V)  HEAVY MEDIA SUMP

            A  EMISSION POINTS
            (1)  TO WATER CLARIFICATION
  Figure  24.   Typical  circuit for dense media coal  cleaning.
  Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.  1977.   Inspection  manual
       for the enforcement of new source performance standards:  coal
       preparation plants.   Division  of Stationary  Source Enforcement,
       EPA-340/1-77-022,  156 p.
                                         54

-------
       finder, which  feeds  the  cyclone overflow into  the  product
       dewatering stage  (Nunenkamp  1976).   Feed coal  sizes  range
       between 0.044 and 64 mm  (0.002  and  2.5  in).

    •  Jigging - A slurry of coal and  water  is stratified  by pul-
       sating fluid.  Clean, low density coal  is  skimmed from the
       top  of the vessel.   The  accuracy of  separation  is  low.
       Sizes  of feed  coal  range between 3.4 and 76 mm (0.1  and  3
       in; Figure 25).

    •  Launders - Raw coal  is fed with a  stream of  water into the
       high end of a  trough.  The coal-water stream stratifies as
       it  flows  down  the  incline.    The  denser  refuse  material
       forms  the bed  load  of the  trough while the less dense coal
       is  suspended  in  the stream.   The cleaned  product is  split
       from the  stream  at  the  low  end of  the  trough.   Feed coal
       sizes  range between  4.76 and 76 mm  (0.19 and 3 in).

    •   Pneumatic -  Streams of pulsating  air stratify  the feed
       coal  across  a table equipped  with alternating  decks and
       wells  (Figure 26).   Refuse   is  pushed  into the  wells and
       withdrawn under  the  table.   The cleaned product rides over
       the  refuse  and  is  withdrawn at the  discharge  end of the
       table.    Feed  coal  sizes  range  to  a  maximum  of 9.5  mm
       (0.38  in; Figure 27).

    •   Two stage  flotation -  The   first  stage proceeds  as pre-
       viously described for froth  flotation.   During the second
       stage, the  frothed  coal  is  re-slurried  with  water and
       treated  with an  organic  colloid to  prevent the coal from
       refrothing.   A xanthate  collecting  agent and an alchohol
       frothing  agent are added to  the slurry, causing the   pyri-
       tic gangue  to float to  the top of  the vessel, whence  it  is
       skimmed  and concentrated.   Pyritic  sulfur  content of the
       feed coal is reduced up to  90%.   Approximately 80% of the
       coal's original  heating value is recovered.

    •  Wet tables - A slurry of coal  and  water is floated  over a
       table  that pulsates  with  a   reciprocating  motion.    Denser
       refuse materials flow toward the sides  of the  table,  while
       the cleaned  coal is skimmed  from  the  center.   Feed  coal
       sizes   range  between  0.15  and   6.4   mm   (100  mesh and
       0.25 in).

     The  process  waters  used during the coal separation stage generally  are
maintained between pH 6.0 and 7.5.   Waters with lower pH  inhibit the  flota-
tion of both coal and ash-forming substances.   As pH  increases, the  percen-
tage of floating coal maximizes,  but the  percentage of  floating refuse also
increases.  The  pH  of process  waters  may  be elevated  with  lime.    Reagents
may be added to control  the percentage of  suspended fines  (Zimmerman 1968).
                                      55

-------
     SCREEN
                REFUSE 4 X 0
                                    4 X 1/4
                                          SCREEN
iLKttH^
1/4

X 0 "^
1/4X0
                                                 1/2 X
                                                  1/4   I
                                                        CENTRIFUGE
                                                 ru
                                                                     A
                              I  THERMAL
                       	*-l   DRYING
                              J   PLANT
                              I
                              I	
(1) TO HATER CLARIFICATION


A POINTS OF EMISSION
                                                                   1/2 X 0
                                                                   1/2 X 0
                                                                   1/2 X 0
                                                           CLEAN COAL LOADING
                                                               OR STORAGE
Figure 25.  Typical circuit for jig table coal cleaning.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.   1977.   Inspection manual
     for the enforcement of new source performance standards:   coal
     preparation plants.  Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,
     Washington DC, EPA- 340/1- 7 7- 022, 156 p.
                                    56

-------
CLEAN COAL
                i
                / DUST HOOD
                           VARI-SPEED FEEDER
                MIDDLINGS
                 AIR LOCK
    REFUSE   FLUTTEF/
              VALVE
HUTCH
                                 FEED BIN


                              MOTOR

                               SHAKER UNIT


                               -SPEED REDUCER

                                 AIR DUCT


                                DAMPER
\
Figure 26.  Typical air table for pneumatic coal cleaning.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.   1977.   Inspection manual
     for the enforcement of new source performance standards:   coal
     preparation plants.  Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,
     Washington DC, EPA-340/1-77-022, 156 p.


-------
          2 X 3/8*
                             TO LOADING OR WET CLEANING
                                              325 H X 0
         RAW 2 X 0
                   A
                                                              ra    VENT TO
                                                           f~	*" ATMOSPHERE
                                                              (SCRUBBER
                    SURGE
                    BIN.
                     J2 X 0.
 VENT TO
ATMOSPHERE
           PRIMARY AIR
 BAG
FILTER\7
                     COMBUST.
                     CHAMBER
                             DRYING
                            CHAMBER
                                                                     SLURRY TO
                                                                      PONDS
                                   100 M X 0
               COMBUST. AIR
                           1/4 X 325 M
                     CYCLONE
        V
3/8 X 0
                                    3/8 X 0
                                     A
                                               CYCLONE
                                               2 X 325M
                                              	
                                                                   2 X 3/8
                                                                «o
                                                                x
                                                                GO
                                                                CO
                                           *—j  AIR TABLE
              A EMISSION POINTS
              0 STACK EMISSIONS
                                         R.R.
                                         CAR
                                                       \7
                                 REFUSE
                                  BIN
Figure 27.   Typical circuit  for pneumatic coal  cleaning.
Source:  US  Environmental Protection Agency.   1977.   Inspection manual
     for the enforcement of new source performance standards:  coal
     preparation plants.  Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,
     Washington DC, EPA-340/I-77-022, 156 p.
                                      58

-------
     Make-up water  for  cleaning plant operation  ideally has a  neutral  pH,
low conductivity,  and low bicarbonate content.  The water preferably is free
from contamination  by  sewage,  organic  material,  and  acid  mine  drainage.
Other dissolved constituents also should  occur  in  low concentrations (Table
9).

     Product dewatering (Stage  4  of  Figure 19) includes  the  use of mechan-
ical devices,  thermal  dryers,  and  agglomeration  processes  to  reduce  the
moisture contents of  processed  coal  and  refuse  (McCandless and Shaver 1978;
Figure 28).   The  moisture contents  of products dried  by typical processes
appear in Table 10.   Mechanical processes are of two general  types:

     •   In-stream processes that  do not produce  a  final  product
        (hydrocyclones  and static  thickeners).    These  processes
        remove  approximately  30  to  60%  of  the moisture in feed
        material.   Thickeners  and cyclones usually  are  placed  on
        line  with other drying  devices  that reduce  the moisture
        contents  further.

     •   End-of-stream  processes  that  produce  a  final  product
        (screens, centrifuges,  spiral  classifiers, and  filters).

     Several  of the  processes  that  are used for Stage 3  separation  also are
used  for  Stage  4  dewatering,  including  hydrocyclones,  centrifuges,  and
spiral  classifiers.  These  processes are  described above.   Static  thick-
eners,  screens,  and  filters may also have a separation function,  but are
more appropriately  described as dewatering  processes.

     •   Static thickeners generally  are  used in conjunction with
        flocculants to  settle  the  fines  from  a  static  pool  of pre-
        paration  plant  refuse  water  (blackwater).     A  typical
        thickener feed  contains 1 to  5% solids; thickened under-
        flow  contains  20  to  35%  solids.    Common  flocculants
        include  inorganic  electrolytes such as lime and  alum,  and
        organic   polymers   such  as   starches  and   polyacrylamide
         (Apian  and  Hogg 1977).   Sludge  from the thickener under-
        flow  may  be dewatered  further by mechanical  devices,  ther-
        mal drying, or  agglomeration.  A typical  thickener vessel
        appears  in  Figure  29.

      •   Screens  serve  dual  functions of  dewatering  and  sizing.
         The mode  of operation  (fixed or  vibrating),  mesh size,  and
         bed depth of feed material are chosen on  the  basis of  raw
         feed  characteristics  (gradation and   moisture  content),
         feed  rates,  and  the   desired  efficiency  of  sizing  and
                                       59

-------
Table 9.  Desirable chemical characteristics of make-up water for coal
  cleaning processes.
                                                            a
                                               Cone ent ra t ion
     Parameter                                   (mg/1)	

     PH                                             7.8
     Hardness as CaCO_                            190
     Ca              3                             64
     Mg                                             7.5
     Na                                            19
     K                                              4.7
     NH4                                            0-4
     C03                                            °
     HC03                                         157
     Cl                                            35
     S04                                           49
     N03                                           15
     N02                                           Trace
     P04                                            0.5
     S102                                           7.2
a pH  expressed  in standard units.
 Source:   Lucas,  J.  Richard, David R. Maneval, and W. E. Foreman.  1968.
      Plant waste contaminants.   In  : Leonard, Joseph W. and David R.
      Mitchell.   1968.   Coal preparation.  American  Institute of Mining,
      Metallurgical,  and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.,  New York NY, 926 p.
                                    60

-------
Table 10.  Typical moisture contents of dried product  from  selected drying
  operations in coal cleaning facilities.
Type of Equipment or Process

Dewatering screens

Centrifuges

Filters

Hydraulic cyclones

Static thickeners

Thermal dryers

Oil agglomeration
    Moisture Content
of Discharge Product (%)

         8 to 20

        10 to 20

        20 to 50

        40 to 60

        60 to 70

         6 to 7.5

         8 to 12
Source:  McCandless, Lee C., and Robert B.  Shaver.  1978.   Assessment  of
     coal cleaning technology: first annual  report.  US  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Research  and Development,  Washington DC,
     EPA-600/7-78-150, 153  p.
                                      61

-------
48 X
48M X 0 REFUSE t
» RAW COAL I |
28M X 0 ^rh 4 1
SLURRY ' M TS-TFLOTATION CELLS
I /CYCLONE
y CLEAN COAL
28H^ RETURN TO t
V»SHIN6 CIRCUIT „ .
nm
i
TDISC FILTER




CLEAN £01L CLARIFI
I r
l^^sjAnc


r






T
THICKENER!

x~x
1 O I
n
^ DISC FILTER V
g
o
ED WATER g REFUSE
RETURN TO THERMAL RETURN TO |j
DRYER OR LOADING CIRCUIT gj
1
1
1
1
1
I
«» f^m. OVERFLOW ^ v^- 	 =L=r-^=ry
TO STREAM* 	 T\— —-^ V~~ — ~jr ^*
-------
           TOP VIE*
                                    Con* Scrcpcr

                                  Di*ch«rq* Con*
Figure 29.  Thickener vessel  for  dewatering of coal cleaning products.
  Sludge is withdrawn through the underflow discharge tunnel.  Cleaned
  product exits through  the upper tunnel.


Source:  Nunenkamp, David  C.   1976.   Coal preparation environmental
     engineering manual.   US  Environmental Protection Agency, Office
     of Energy, Minerals,  and Industry,  Research Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/2-76-138,  727 p.
                                    63

-------
        dewatering.   The  sieve  bend,  a  typical  dewatering  and
        sizing screen, appears in Figure 30  (Nunenkamp 1976).

     •  j[ilters  are of  two  types —  pressure and  vacuum.   Both
        types generally accept a  feed with 30% solids at 27 dry MT
        (30 T) per hour.   Pressure  filters produce a cake with 20
        to 23%  moisture.   Product  cake  from vacuum  filters  may
        contain 34  to 40% moisture.   The moisture removal effi-
        ciency of the pressure filter is offset by  its higher cap-
        ital  cost  relative to vacuum  filter systems.   A typical
        vacuum filter appears in  Figure 31 (Nunenkamp 1976).

     Most thermal  dryers at  coal cleaning  facilities use coal  as  the com-
bustion feed  stock.  Thermal dryers include  two general types.

     •  Direct heat  dryers use the products of  combustion to dry
        the  coal.    The  direct heat  concept  is  used in  most  US
        thermal drying facilities (Nunenkamp 1976).

     •  Indirect heat  dryers  circulate the products of combustion
        around the drying  coal,  avoiding direct  contact  with the
        coal.

     Direct  heat  thermal  dryers  fall  into  six   categories  (McCandless and
Shaver 1978):

     •  Fluidized bed dryer uses  a  constriction  plate fitted to a
        housing  that  forces  the  drying  air to  pass  uniformly
        through the plate  (Figure 32).  Feed  coal enters the plate
        while hot air  is lifted  through the  plate  by  a  fan.   The
        air  currents  thus  produced cause  the feed  coal  to float
        above  the  plate   and  flow  toward  the   discharge  point.
        Fine  material is scrubbed from the  exhaust gases, and the
        resultant residue  reports to a  thickening  and dewatering
        step.

     •  Ilultilouver dryer comprises two concentric,  revolving cyl-
        indrical shells, each fitted with louvers that support the
        bed of feed coal and direct it toward the discharge point.
        Multilouver dryers can handle  large  volumes of wet mater-
        ial that requires  a  relatively short drying  time  to  min-
        imize the  potential  for  in-dryer  combustion of  the  feed
        product.

     *  Rotary  dryer consists of a solid  outer  cylinder  and  an
        inner shell of  overlapping  louvers  that  support  and  cas-
        cade   the drying coal  toward  the discharge end.    Drying
        action can be direct  (using  the products  of combustion),
        or indirect (using  an  intermediate fluid  for heat transfer
        between  the shells).
                                     64

-------
                     FEED

                                    DEWATERED
                                    PRODUCT
Figure 30.   Schematic profile of a sieve bend used for coal sizing
  and dewatering.


Source:  Nunenkamp, David C.  1976.  Coal preparation environmental
     engineering manual.  US Environmental Protection Agency, Office
     of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Research Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/2-76-138, 727 p.
                                    65

-------
                        CAKE
                          \
                                                 DRYING ZONE
           DISCHARGE ZONE
         SLURRY FEED
              DISCHARGE
               HOPPER
                                                           .SINGLE
                                                           SECTION
                                                          OVERFLOW
                                                        INDIVIDUAL
                                                        TROUGH
Figure 31.  Profile  view of a coal vacuum filter.
Source:  Nunenkamp,  David C.   1976.  Coal preparation environmental
     engineering  manual.   US  Environmental Protection Agency, Office
     of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Research  Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/2-76-138,  727 p.
                                     66

-------
-
 i
                                                  8 COOLERVi	)
                                                  jj BLOWER
                            CHAM6M
                                                              PRODUCT
                                                             DISCHARGE
   DISCHARGE TO
SLUDGE TANK OR POND
                                                              CLEAN DRY, COOL PRODUCT
        Figure 32.   Thermal dryer and exhaust scrubber.

        Source:  Nunenkamp, David C.  1976.  Coal preparation environmental engineering  manual.   US
             Environmental  Protection Agency, Office  of  Energy,  Minerals, and Industry,  Research
             Triangle  Park  NC,  EPA-600/2-76-138, 727  p.

-------
     •    Screen dryer  applies  gas  pressure  from  combustion  to
        squeeze the  moisture  mechanically  from  the  feed  coal
        through the  supporting screens.   A lower  percentage  of
        coal fines (relative to other drying  processes)  thus may
        be lifted from the  bed.    Coal  is  exposed to  drying heat
        for approximately 50 seconds.

     •    Suspension  or  flash  dryer  continuously  introduces feed
        coal into a  column  of  high temperature gases (Figure 33).
        Surface moisture  is dried almost  instantaneously  (flash
        dried).  Coal is exposed  to  the drying gases for approxi-
        mately 5 seconds.

     •    Turbo-dryer  contains  an  inert nitrogen  atmosphere  (less
        than 3% oxygen) that prevents the explosion or ignition of
        coal  fines  in the  sealed drying  compartment.    Wet coal
        enters  a  stack  of  rotating  circular  trays  that succes-
        sively feed  the coal to lower trays  using stationary wiper
        blades.

     Indirect heat dryers use  heat transfer  agents (including oil, water, or
steam)   that  do not  come into  contact with  the feed coal.   Drying  coal is
circulated  through  the  heating  chamber  on covered  conveyors  that  may be
equipped  with helical  (worm)   screws,  fins,  paddles, or  discs.   The drying
fluid circulates around the conveyor  and through  the hollow  screws.

     The  oil agglomeration process  for  dewatering fine  coal was developed
during World War I.  The original  process,  known as the bulk oil Trent  pro-
cess, used  an amount of oil equivalent  to  30 to 50% of  the weight of  the
coal to agglomerate  the  fine coal  particles into small pellets.  The pelle-
tized,  agglomerated  slurry  then was  dewatered to 8  to  12 %  of  its  original
moisture  content.    Subsequent development  of the  convertol and spherical
agglomeration  processes reduced   the in-process  oil  demand  considerably,
although  these processes are not yet  used commercially  in the US  (McCandless
and Shaver 1978).

     Coal  storage  and  shipment operations  (Stage 5 of  Figure  19) are  dis-
cussed more  thoroughly in  subsequent sections of this document.  The degree
of sophistication in individual storage and  loading  systems  reflects in  part
the  volume of  coal  being   processed,  stored, and  shipped,   as well as  the
kinds of  coal transportation  services  available.    Some  systems  can load  a
moving  train directly  from overhead  storage*   Other  systems may be inter-
mittent,  using bucket loaders and  dump  trucks  to  feed  hoppers that  load
trains either directly or via  conveyors.

          1.2.1.3.3.  Process  Flow Sheet for Typical Operations

     The  complete coal cleaning plant utilizes a  series of unit processes to
prepare ROM  coal for storage and shipment.   These  processes  must  be  mutually
compatible for  proper  operation of the plant.  Rates  and sizes  of  feed for
                                      68

-------
           ALTERNATE  VENT
          WET SCRUBBER
          (IF REQUIRED)
                                      C-E RAYMOND FLASH DRYING
 ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENT
FOR VERY  FINE WET  COAL
           DRY COAL DISCHARGE
              FROM  AIR  LOCK
                AUTOMATIC
               DRY DIVIDER
              DRY RETURN -
              WET FEED
              MIXER
                      STOKER
DRY COAL
CONVEYOR
-DRYING COLUMN

 DRY COAL CONVEYOR
 WET FEED CONVEYOR
 WET FEED BIN
 GATE
 WET FEEDER
                                                      -DOUBLE FLAP VALVE

                                                   TEMPERING AIR  DAMPER
Figure 33.   Typical flash  dryer.
Source:   US Environmental  Protection Agency.  1977.  Inspection manual
     for the enforcement of new  source performance standards:   coal
     preparation plants.   Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,
     Washington DC,  EPA-340/1-77-022, 156 p.
                                   69

-------
one unit  process  should compliment  the  capabilities  of  other in-line  pro-
cesses.  Process water  generally  is  recycled, especially in operations  that
use heavy  media such as  magnetite slurries  for the  separation  of  product
from refuse.   Evaporation  and consumptive water  use  may require the  intro-
duction of make-up water to the process cycle.

     A complete process flow  sheet can be broken  into  three  parts:

     •  Coarse  stage  (Figure  34)

     •  Fine stage (Figure 35)

     •  Sludge  stage  (Figure  36)

The coarse  stage feeds  fine coal  and refuse to the fine  stage.   Coal  slime,
which  includes  fine coal and  refuse,  is  fed  to the  sludge stage.  Each stage
produces  characteristic blackwater and  refuse.  Process waters from the  fine
coal  and  sludge processing  stages generally  contain  higher  proportions  of
fines,  especially  clay-size  particles,  than coarse stage process waters.   A
series  of  thickeners, cyclones, screens, filters, and  dryers  may be  used  to
recover a maximum  percentage  of solids  from the recycled process  waters.

1.2.2.  Auxiliary  Support  Systems

     Underground coal mining  and  cleaning operations  generally are  supported
by  facilities  for  transportation, storage, maintenance,  and administration.
Maintenance yards and administrative  facilities (such  as changing  rooms,
first  aid  stations,  and the dispatcher's office) generally are located in  or
near  the   area  of  mining  or  cleaning  operations.    Space  requirements  for
these  support  activities  generally  depend  on  the sizes of  the  operations
which  they serve.   Large operating  facilities may  require  extensive service
areas.   Smaller  operating facilities  located  near  to  one  another  may  be
served  by  common maintenance  and  administrative areas, although some admini-
strative   services  (especially  mine  rescue   and   first   aid  facilities)
generally  are  available  at   all  sites  of  operations.   Facilities  for the
transportation and  storage   of coal  and  refuse are  described  in  greater
detail  in  the  sections that  follow.

      1.2.2.1.   Coal Transportation

     The  US Department of  Energy  (USDOE) reports statistics for six modes of
coal  transportation  (USDOE 1979).  During 1978, approximately 550 million MT
(600 million T) of coal (93%  of total production) were delivered to US con-
sumers  via  these  transportation  networks  (Table 11).   The  remaining  pro-
duction was either exported  (6%)  or  stockpiled (1%).   The conveyance  systems
that  are  used  for  the  transport  of  coal from  mines  to cleaning  facilities,
stockpiles,  and  consumers  include   railroads,  barges,  trucks,  conveyors,
tramways,  and  slurry  pipelines.
                                       70

-------
  Raw Coal
                                         ^MMMIIMMUMIIMI ^MMMMMMMMMMMMMI
                                    Make-up
                                     Water
                                     Storage
            [Heavy Media Vt«»el
       Drain-Rinse
         Screens

        *
                     To
                   Refuse
                  Disposal
   FINE COAL
' PREPARATION^
!(See Figure  35 )!
  COAL SLIME
 PREPARATION

                                                                            i
                                                                           »i
      To
     Refuse
    Disposal
                     Medium Thickene
       •^
       V,
                    JMaanetic SeparatorT   y
               LEGEND

            -Route of Fine Coal
            • Route of Coarse Cool
            -Route of Refuse
            - Route of Heavy Media Slurry
         ^- Optional Route-Sink-Ftoat+Media
         -*>- Route of Sink-Floct-f Media
            -Route of Magnetite
            -Route of Dirty Process Water
            - Route of Clean Process Water
            -Route of Fresh Make-up Water
Figure 34.  Coal  cleaning plant flow sheet for  coarse stage separation

  and dewatering.


Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.  1976.   Development document

     for interim  final effluent limitations  guidelines and new source
     performance  standards for the coal mining  point source category.

     Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington DC, EPA 440/1-

     76/057-a, 288  p.

-------
     CoaLFjnes From Destaging Screen
  a**"*"*   (See Figure  34)   ^wnjuifinju»B
    —	^	•*! *
                                   >11
                                   44
              Make-up
               Water
              Storage
                                   Heavy Medi
                                    Cyclone
           To Refuse
            Disposal
         k/ispuaui v^
                    * • •
                       ••.l~"                          To Desliming Screen
                .           JMognetic Separator!            .c       *  _. .
^««»»•	^»»«ti»»t«J  T       ^     I            \Se« rigure  3^ )
                                   LEGEND
           »-Route of Mognetit*
            *- Route of Dirty
             • Route of Cleon Proce«« Vtotar
                                                -Optional Route of Fine Coal
                                              ^•Ro«r)« of RefuM
                                              » Rout* of Heavy ItodM Story
                              »• Route of Frash
Figure 35.  Coal cleaning  plant flow sheet for fine stage separation  and
  Hews.tering.

Source:  US Environmental  Protection Agency.  1976.  Development  document
     for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and new  source
     performance standards for  the coal mining point source category.
     Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington DC, EPA  440/1-
     76/057-a, 288 p.               72

-------
        CooJ Slime From Desliminq Screen
                "yS°-ly?££l... o.
Froth- Floatation
Unit
•
4
•

«...
«Jin
nnffrrn1
Thermal
Dryer
1

R,Filter^

                                                       [Thickener |

                                 —J
                  To
                 Clean
                 Coal
                Storage
      To
   Oesliming
    Screen
(Se« Figure No.   )
                                    LEGEND
                              To
                            Refuse
                            Disposal
               •Route of Dirty Process Water   «• «*i»^>- Optional Route of Coo I Slime
                Route of Clean Process Water   mining- Route of Caked Clean Coal
                Route of Coal Slime          .«•»..»-Route of Caked Refuse

                            • • • • • ^- Route of Refuse
Figure 36.  Coal cleaning plant  flow  sheet  for sludge (slime) separation

  and dewatering.


Source:  US Environmental Protection  Agency.   1976.   Development document

     for interim final effluent  limitations  guidelines and new source

     performance standards for the  coal  mining point source category.

     Office of Water and Hazardous  Materials,  Washington DC, EPA 440/1-

     76/057-a, 288 p.                73

-------
% of Total
54.0
16.1
2.7
0.6
15.6
11.0
Thousand MT
293,415
87,345
14,670
3,458
84,832
59, 765
Thousand T
323,500
96,301
16,175
3,813
93,530
65,893
Table 11.   Transportation modes for coal produced and  consumed in the US
    during 1978.


Transportation Mode                        Tonnage Transported1
All rail2

River and ex-river-^

Great lakes

Tidewater**

Truck5

Tramway, conveyor, and
private railroad


TOTAL                               100            543,485         599,212
iData do not  include  approximately  0.45 million MT (1 million T) of coal
  either that was  sold  to mine  employees  or  for which destinations and
  transport modes  are not revealable.

2Includes coal hauled to and  from railheads  by truck.  Does not include
  coal moved via waterways.


^Includes coal shipped  by truck,  conveyor, or rail to barge loading
  facilities.  Does not include shipments to Great Lakes  ports or tidewater
  ports.

4Includes coal moved  to tidewater dumping piers for loading into vessels
  as cargo.

^Includes coal moved  by truck only.  Does not include coal  shipped by
  additional methods.
Source:  US Energy  Information Administration.   1979.   Energy  data  reports:
     bituminous coal and lignite distribution,  calendar year 1978.   US
     Department of  Energy, DOE/EIA-0125/4Q78,  85 p.
                                       74

-------
          1.2.2.1.1.  Railroads

     Three kinds of  trains  were used to  transport  approximately 54% of the
coal produced and consumed in the US during 1978 (USEIA 1979).

     •   Conventional trains  haul coal  as  common  freight.   Coal
        cars are treated like all other  freight cars, and are sub-
        ject to  the full tariffs of the Interstate Commerce Coin-
        mission  (ICC).

     •   Unit trains  comprise  approximately  100 coal  cars, each
        with a 91  MT (100 T) capacity.   These trains are  subject
        to approximately two  thirds of  the  full ICC tariff.

     •  Dedicated trains generally use  tracks  that  are constructed
        solely for  transporting  coal  to and  from  coal  mining  or
        processing  facilities that otherwise would  be without rail
        service.

     The  choice  of  a coal car  loading  system  for  an individual  coal  mining
or cleaning facility  depends  on the  kinds of trains to be  loaded.   Two gen-
eral kinds of systems normally  are used.

     •   Plant-rate  loading  systems  use  booms and  chutes  to load
        the output  from a coal cleaning  plant directly  to  waiting
        coal cars.   This method generally  is  applicable  to single
        car  loadings although  it also  is  used  for loading unit
        trains at  some  operations.

     •    Flood   loading  systems  are utilized to  load  most unit
        trains.   Moving  coal cars are  loaded by  chutes  fed  from
        overhead storage  silos  or  remote  stockpiles.    At  some
        operations, conveyors  may  transfer the  coal to  overhead
        silos from the  cleaning plant  directly,  or  the silo may be
        loaded  from  remote stockpiles.   The routing of  coal  from
        plant  to  stockpile  to  loading  facility  generally is  a
        function of train availability  and  the production  rate at
        the  plant.

      Two  kinds   of  dumping  systems  are  used to  unload  coal from rail cars.
 The  type  of  system utilized at a particular site depends  on the type of car
 to  be dumped  (Mining Informational Services 1977).

      •  Bottom-dump cars unload coal through dump gates located  in
         the  decks of the cars.   The coal falls into chutes  or hop-
         pers  located beneath  trestles.   The  cars  may  be unloaded
         while  stationary or  in motion,  with or  without  car vibra-
         tors  to shake the coal through  the gates.
                                       75

-------
     •  Rotary dump  cars  can be unloaded  by one of  two methods,
        depending on car construction.  Most of the coal cars that
        are used  in conventional  trains  are  of  random  size  and
        construction, and must  be  uncoupled for  individual rota-
        tion.    Unit  train  cars  are of  uniform  size,  and  are
        equipped with a swivel  coupling at  one end  for  individual
        rotation without uncoupling.

          1.2.2.1.2.  Barges

     During 1978, barges transported  16.1Z of the coal produced and consumed
in the US  (Table  11).   Coal barges generally are towed  in strings of 10 to
36.  The length of a string of  barges depends  on  the sizes of locks and  the
depths of navigation channels of an individual waterway.   Most modern barges
are of open-hopper  design;  the  coal  is transported uncovered.   Coal barges
range in capacity between 900 and  1,800 MT (1,000 and 2,000 T; Szabo 1978).

     Coal  usually  is  transported  to barge-loading  facilities  via  train.
Coal  cars  are unloaded  by  bottom-dump  or  rotary-dump  systems (Section
1.2.2.1.1.).   Conveyors  and  buckets  transfer  the  coal  from  dump-piles,
stockpiles,  bins,  silos,  or other  load-staging   areas.   Five  classes of
barge-loading  facilities are used  nationwide (Szabo 1978).

     •  Simple dock, in which  trucks dump directly to  the barges
        at  dockside

     •   Stationary  chute  in which a string  of  moving barges  is
        flood-loaded from a fixed  loading  chute

     •   Elevating boom,  which  can be  adjusted  to compensate  for
        changes  in  river  stage as  it loads  a moving string  of
        barges

     •  Floating  boom,  in which the  loading boom  is mounted on  a
        floating  barge  so that  the boom can pivot  across  a string
        of  barges

     •   Tripper-conveyor,  in which  the loading  chute  moves back
        and forth across  the stationary string of barges.

     Unloading facilities  for  barges generally  include  docks,  stockpiles,
outbuildings,  service areas, and access roads.  Unloading facilities may be
located at existing ports or near power generating stations  along navigable
river corridors.   Coal  is  unloaded from  barges  using  (1)  clamshell  buckets
operated  from  individual  cranes, or (2) a  continuous bucket unloading system
with  buckets  mounted on  a chain  drive and feeding  the off-loaded coal to
conveyors.
                                      76

-------
          1.2.2.1.3.  Trucks

     Trucks  transported  15.6% of the  coal  produced and  consumed  in the US
during 1978.   Trucks primarily are  used  to transport  coal  over short  dis-
tances from mines  to cleaning  plants or  other nearby  collection  points.
Capacities  of coal  trucks generally  range between  18  and  27 MX  (20 and
30 T), although off-road coal haulers  may exceed  154 MT (170  T)  capacity.

     Efficient transportation of coal  by truck requires properly constructed
and maintained  haul roads.   Haul road  alignments  are chosen from  optimal
combinations of machine-related factors such as  horsepower-load ratios and
acceptable rates of  tire wear, and environmental  factors  such as topography,
slope stability,  and surface water  drainage patterns.    The  environmentally
protective  features  of  haul  road  design  (culverts,  bridges, stormwater
drainage ways, and maximum grade) may  reduce the costs of roadway and mach-
inery maintenance  by minimizing  the  road  surface  deterioration ordinarily
caused by stormwater erosion and poor vehicle traction  on  wet or  unstable
soils and excessive  grades (Grim and  Hill  1974,  USEPA 1976b).   Haul roads
are  regulated  under the   regulatory  programs  administered  by  the USOStl
(Section 1.6.3.).

          1.2.2.1.4.  Conveyors and  Tramways

     Conveyors generally carry coal  for distances of  30 to 60 m (100 to 200
ft) between  process  steps and storage and  loading  facilities (Szabo 1978).
Conveyor systems longer  than 1 km (0.6 mi)  are  unusual,  although conveyors
of several kilometers length are used  successfully at  present (USDOE 1978).
The capacity of a conveyor system  can be  increased  by  adding  one  or  more
tiers of belts to a  line of pylons (Chironis 1978).

     Aerial  tramways utilize buckets  attached to steel cables to transport
coal, refuse, and  personnel over  rough terrain and areally extensive obsta-
cles.  The cables are suspended from pylons and towers.   Lengths of  tramways
generally are characterized in hundreds of meters, although some systems now
in operation exceed  50 km  (30 mi).

     Tramway systems may be reversible or  non-reversible.   Reversible  sys-
tems return  the carriers  to their points of origin  by  reversing the direc-
tion of  travel  on load-pulling  cables.   Non-reversible  systems return the
carriers utilizing either  separate lengths of cable or  the returning  portion
of  a continuous   cable.    The  types  of  aerial  tramways   currently   used
include:

     •  Monocable  — A  single cable is  spliced  into a continuous
        loop that simultaneously supports and pulls the buckets.

     •   Bicable  —  One  cable is  fixed between two  points and
        serves as a  track  for  buckets  that  are pulled  by a second
        cable system which may operate as a continuous  loop.

     •   Twin cable -— A pair  of track cables may  be  utilized  in
        monocable and bicable  systems  to  provide separate haulage
                                     77

-------
        for  loaded  and empty  buckets,  usually  suspended  from
        opposite sides of the supporting towers (Cummins and Given
        1973).

          1.2.2.1.5.  Coal Slurry Pipelines

     The only coal  slurry pipeline  presently in operation (USDOE 1978b)  has
the capacity to transport 4.5 million MT (5 million T)  of coal  per  year  from
the  Black  Mesa coal field  in  Arizona  to   the  Mohave  electric generating
station in Nevada,  a distance of 437 km  (273 mi; Szabo  1978).  Additional
pipelines currently are planned or under construction  (Section  1.3.).

     Slurry pipeline  systems  are  designed  for  lifespans of 20 to  40 years
(Cummins and  Given  1973).   To be  economically  successful,  a coal  slurry
pipeline generally must transport at  least  3.6 million MT (4 million  T)  per
year.   Reductions  in the costs of  other  coal  transport  systems may  affect
the operation of a  pipeline  system  years  after the  system  is  completed.   A
174 km (108 mi) long  coal slurry  pipeline that began  transporting  coal  dur-
ing 1957 was furloughed from use indefinitely during 1963 because of adjust-
ments  in  ICC tariff  structures for  coal transport by rail that  made  the
pipeline uncompetitive  (Chironis 1978).  The  pipeline  carried 0.9 million MT
(1 million T) of coal per year  across the Ohio countryside from a  mine  near
Cadiz to the electric generating facility at  Eastlake  (Szabo 1978).

     The major components of a coal slurry pipeline  system  include  a prepar-
ation  plant,  pumps,  pipeline,  storage tanks,  and dewatering facilities.
Component operations are computerized  and  can  be  monitored  and  adjusted
telemetrically by  a single  operator  at a centralized  control  station.    At
the  Black  Mesa  operation,   the  coal  slurry preparation plant  performs
crushing and sizing  operations  similar  to those described for  coal cleaning
facilities in Section 1.2.1.3.   Coal is  crushed  and  screened  to   produce  a
particle size and  density distribution of  fine coal that mixes effectively
with water to form a slurry  containing  an average of  47% solids by weight.
The slurry is stored  temporarily in large tanks equipped with agitators  that
keep the fine coal  in suspension.

     Slurry is pumped from the tanks  to the  pipeline at approximately  545 MT
(600 T) per hour.  To sustain its annual  delivery rate of 4.5  million MT of
coal per  year,  the  Black Mesa  pipeline  requires  approximately 450 million
liters  (120  million gal) of  water per  year  (assuming that 1  MT  of water
occupies 1,000 1).

     At the generating  station, the slurry again  is  stored  in agitated tanks
for  the dewatering process.   The  slurry  is  centrifuged  to remove approxi-
mately 30% of the water.  The coal  cake is  pulverized   and fed  to the  gener-
ating  station  at  20% moisture.    Centrifuged water  is clarified  and  then
circulated through  the  generating  station cooling system or pumped to large
evaporation  ponds.    No water discharge  is  permitted from the Black  Mesa
operation (Szabo 1978).
                                      78

-------
     1.2.2.2.   Storage Facilities

     Coal and  coal  refuse are  stockpiled in  enclosed  or open  air storage
facilities.    Enclosed facilities for  cleaned  coal include  silos  and bins.
Coal refuse  historically has been stored  in abandoned mine workings (Section
3.4).  Open air  storage facilities for  coal  and coal  refuse  are described
below.

          1.2.2.2.1.  Coal Stockpiles

     Approximately 5.5 million MT (6 million T) or 1% of the Nation's annual
coal production was stockpiled during 1978 (USEIA 1979), mostly at coal con-
suming  facilities or  at centralized distribution  points.   Haulage for coal
generally is  the  rate-limiting factor for production  at  underground mines.
The amount of  coal  stockpiled  in conjunction with mining operations, there-
fore, is minimal (Cummins and Given 1973).  At coal cleaning facilities, ROM
coal is  stockpiled  to  maintain  even rates  of feed to  preparation plants.
Stockpiles of  cleaned  coal  generally contain  the  equivalent  of 0.5 hour of
rated  plant  cleaning  capacity  to  assure the cost-effective  blending  and
loading of the final  product (Nunenkamp 1976).

     The storage capacity of a coal stockpile  is determined by  the  shape and
angle of repose of  the stockpiled material.   The  shape of  a stockpile is  a
function of  the  pile-stacking mechanism.  Ramped stockpiles  are formed by
trucks.  Shapes of ramped stockpiles therefore vary widely.  Stockpiles also
are  stacked  by booms mounted with  conveyors or  buckets.    These stackers
produce three  general  stockpile  shapes.

     •  Conical stockpiles are formed by  fixed stackers.

     •  Rectangular stockpiles are  formed by  traveling  stackers
        mounted on  fixed rails.

     •  Kidney-shaped  stockpiles are formed  by stackers that  pivot
        at the loading  end (Cummins and  Given  1973).

     Coal is  reclaimed from  stockpiles   by surface  and subsurface  systems.
The  shape of  the  stockpile determines  the kind of  system  employed.

     •   Surface  systems  include traveling  stackers that  reclaim
        the coal  from  rectangular  stockpiles.   These systems  are
        used  for  open-air blending of coal.   Extensive  stacker-
        reclaimer  operations offer  the   advantage of  nearly  100%
        live  storage,  but also  can  produce considerable amounts of
        fugitive  dust.

     •   Subsurface systems include  conveyors  or buckets that  re-
        claim coal  from the centers of conical-,  rectangular-,  or
        kidney-shaped piles.    The  conveyors  and  buckets are  fed
                                      79

-------
        by chutes  and  hoppers that are  located  to afford maximum
        live storage capacity with minimal surface handling.

          1.2.2.2.2.  Coal Refuse Piles

     Coal refuse includes the coarse material extracted  during mine develop-
ment and the coarse  and fine reject  from  coal  cleaning operations (Section
2.1.1.3.)*  Methods for  the  disposal  of  coal refuse generally depend on  (1)
the physical and chemical characteristics of the refuse  material  (i.e.  par-
ticle size distribution,  moisture content, and  the  occurrence of toxic  and
acid-forming elements),  (2)  the  volume of refuse  to  be  stored,  and (3)  the
proximity  of  suitable  storage  sites  to  the  coal mining and  cleaning
operations.

     Coal  refuse may  require dewatering,  treatment, or  temporary storage
prior to its ultimate  disposal.   Coarse refuse  that  is  free from excessive
moisture may have  sufficient mechanical  stability  to  form  temporary open  air
stockpiles without impoundments  (Section  1.2.2.2.).    These stockpiles  are
reclaimed as  the coarse  refuse  is buried in  a  separate  landfill.    Stock-
piling may  be  necessary  to  facilitate  the  blending of  coarse  refuse with
dewatered fine coal refuse to produce  a  homogeneous refuse product with more
desirable  physical and chemical  properties  than  existed  in the raw  refuse
materials singly (Cowherd 1977).

     The amount  of coal  refuse  produced  by  a cleaning  facility may  range
between 20% and 40% of  its ROM feed coal (Nunenkamp  1976).  Coal  refuse gen-
erally  is  denser  and  therefore  requires  less volume  per  unit  weight  for
storage than cleaned coal.   The  proportion of  fine and coarse refuse  that is
available  for  disposal  from  a  coal  cleaning   operation  generally  is  a
function of the  objectives and complexity  of  the cleaning  process.  Multiple
stage  preparation plants with  separate  fine and  coarse  coal cleaning cir-
cuits  generally produce more  fine  wastes  as  a  separate  product  than  do
single-stage sizing and crushing operations.

     The selection of  a coal refuse disposal site generally is  based  on  the
consideration of environmental,  engineering,  and cost factors.   Two  kinds of
sites  currently are  in  use for permanent  or  long-term  storage  of  coal
refuse:

     •  Dump —  a landfill on or  in  the earth for the  storage  of
        relatively dry  refuse

     •   Impoundment —  a depression  or excavation  on  or  in  the
        earth for  the  storage of fluid refuse.

     The  topography of  the  disposal  site  usually  restricts the choice of
possible disposal  site configurations.   Five  types of dumps and  four  types
of  impoundments  are recognized  for use in generalized topographic situations
(W. A. Wahler and  Associates 1978).   The types include:
                                      80

-------
•  Dumps (Figure 37)

   —  Type I:  Valley fills are common in hilly or mountain-
       ous  terrain.    The refuse  pile has  a  horizontal or
       sloping  surface  that is  extended  down  the  valley in
       compacted lifts.   The disposal  site  eventually  fills
       the valley.

        Type II:   Cross-valley fills  are similar  to  Type  I
       fills  but  do  not  completely fill  the  valley.    This
       type of  fill  often is  used  to construct the dam  for  a
       Type VII impoundment.

        Type III:   Side-hill  fills  generally are constructed
       on  gently  sloping,  stable  terrain.    If   the   fill
       crosses  a stream or  a large  topographic  depression, it
       may  be classed as  a  valley fill.

   —  Type IV:  Ridge piles straddle  a ridgeline or  the nose
       of a ridge.   This type of fill  is not  in common use,
       although some ridge piles  have   been  constructed on
       gently sloping, stable  terrain.

   —   Type V:   Waste heaps  generally  are utilized in  the
       flat terrain  of the midwest.  Waste  heaps may  be con-
       structed by  the  same kinds  of systems  used  for  the
       stockpiling  of clean coal.

 •   Impoundments (Figure  38)

        Type  VII:    Cross-valley slurry  ponds  are formed  by
       embankments   that  traverse  the valleys  from ridge  to
        ridge.   Coarse  coal refuse  often has  been used  for
       construction of cross-valley impoundments.

    —   Type VIII:   Side-hill ponds are constructed on gentle,
        stable  slopes of wide  valleys.    The  impoundment  is
        formed by a three-sided embankment or dike.

    —   Type IX:  Dike  ponds generally are  used  in flat ter-
        rain.    The  encircling  embankment   excludes  drainage
        into the impoundment from outside areas.

    —   Type X:   Incised ponds are formed by excavation  of the
        land  surface, usually  in  conjunction with  surface
        development  operations  of  underground  mines  or com-
        bined  surface and underground mining operations.
                                  81

-------
               VALLEY-FILL  TYPE I
              CROSS-VALLEY  TYPE II
SIDE-WILL   TYPE III
RIDGE  TYPE IV
WASTE HEAP  TYPE V
Figure  37.   Coal refuse dump  types.
Source:   W.  A.  Wahler and Associates.   1978.  Pollution control guide-
      lines for coal refuse piles  and slurry ponds.  Prepared for US
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Research and Develop-
      ment, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati
      OH,  EPA-600/7-78-222, 214 p.
                                      82

-------
             CROSS-VALLEY   TYPE VI!
                                            SIDE-KILL  TYPE VIII
               DIKED POND  TYPE IX
                                             INCISED POND TYPE X
Figure 38.  Coal  refuse  impoundment types.
Source:  W. A. Wahler and Associates.  1978.   Pollution control
     guidelines  for  coal refuse piles and slurry  ponds.  Prepared
     for US Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Research
     and Development,  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
     Cincinnati  OH,  EPA-600/7-78-222, 214 p.
                                     83

-------
Type VI dumps and Type  XI  impoundments  account for the more complex config-
urations of disposal sites that represent combinations of the other types.

     Specifications for  the  construction of dumps and impoundments for coal
refuse  are established  under the  regulatory  program administered  by  the
USOSM (Section 1.6.3.).  Guidelines  for the selection and operation of coal
refuse disposal sites are described  in  Section 3*4.1.

1.3.  TRENDS

     Trends  in  the mining  and cleaning  of coal  reflect:   (1)  Federal  and
State  legislative and  administrative  activities,  (2) advancement  of coal
technologies, and  (3)  the  changing  role  of other energy sources in meeting
current and  future  needs.   These trends  are manifested  in  (1) the emerging
role  of western  coal,  (2)  technological changes  in coal  mining  and pro-
cessing resulting  in  overall gains in efficiency, and (3) pollution control
requirements  and  environmental  performance standards chat  reflect concern
for the potentially adverse  environmental effects of  coal mining  activity.

1.3.1.  Locational Changes

     Public  managers  are assessing  the costs  and  feasibilities of  technolo-
gies  to halt  subsidence from underground coal mining  in  numerous  eastern  and
midwestern urbanized  areas.   The  trend  in  modern  mining  practice  is  to
locate  new underground coal mines away from urban areas to  the  extent  pos-
sible.    State agencies may accelerate   this  trend with  prohibitions  or
restrictions  on  the siting of underground  mines  in or near  developed  areas.
USDOI  agencies currently  are re-examining the  impact  of  underground  coal
mining  in  undeveloped areas (Dunrud and Osterwald 1978).

     Coalfields  east  of Mississippi River account for approximately  55% of
demonstrated  coal  reserves  (USBOM  1978)  and approximately 97%  of   all  US
underground  mines  (Hittman  Associates,   Inc.  1976).   Most  coal  cleaning
operations also are located east of Mississippi River.  There are no  changes
forecast  for this trend; most new  western coal production  will  come  from a
few large  surface mines (USDOI 1978).

1.3.2.  Raw Materials and  Energy

      The  raw materials  that are used  in  underground coal  mining operations
include chemicals for pollution control and blasting; heavy, inert rock dust
for the suppresion of lighter, explosive coal dust;  water  for dust control;
and process-related materials such as roof bolts, roof timbers, and brattice
cloth.   The  development of  improved technologies for  underground blasting
and roof support  have contributed to the improved safety of underground coal
mines.    Small subsidiary  gains  in the  efficiencies of  underground coal-
mining  techniques  may  be  attributable  in  part to these  safety-related
 improvements.
                                      84

-------
     Most underground  mining  equipment  is  powered electrically  either by
batteries or  with generating  equipment  located at  the  surface.   The  UMWA
continues to  resist  the  introduction of  diesel-powered  equipment   under-
ground, although such equipment now is used in several non-union underground
coal mines.   Studies  indicate that much  underground mining  equipment has
excessive horsepower, although this  condition may be corrected as operators
of new mines  use  computer simulation  techniques  to match equipment perfor-
mance characteristics  with actual  power requirements  (Hittman Associates,
Inc. 1976).

     The energy required  to  mine, clean, and  transport  coal has been  esti-
mated based  on  a study  conducted by  Hittman and  Associates,  Inc.  (1974).
The  data that  are  listed in  Table  12  show  the  nationwide  average  Btu-
equivalent of coal that  is mined, cleaned,  or transported per  Btu of  energy
that is expended to mine,  clean,  or  transport  the coal.  These  data are con-
sidered accurate  to within one order of magnitude.   This analysis is  based
on the assumption that one kg  (2.2 Ib) of coal  is equivalent to 26,800 Btu.

     Longwall mining  systems generally utilize equipment  with higher  total
energy consumption requirements than room  and pillar systems.  As a result,
longwall  systems  extract  equivalent  amounts  of coal  at  approximately 10
times the energy  cost  of room and pillar operations, although  long wall sys-
tems use  fewer  men  and achieve higher levels of output  per man shift  than
room-and-pillar systems.   Longwall  systems  also  maximize  recovery  of  the
coal resource.

     During  coal  cleaning operations,  most  of  the  total  process   energy
requirement occurs  during primary  crushing.    Subsequent sizing, crushing,
and  separating  functions  require approximately 10% of  the energy expended
for  primary  crushing.    The  energy  required  by thermal  dryers varies  con-
siderably with dryer design and throughput  rate.

     The  choice  of  one  coal  transportation mode ovar  another generally is
based on the cost and availability of  a  carrier and the  compatibility  of the
transport  system with  site  constraints  and  operating  conditions.    Unit
trains are highly favored for  the  transport of large amounts  of  coal  on  a
continuing basis, although unit trains expend more energy  than other  trans-
portation modes to haul  equivalent amounts  of coal.

1,3.3.  Process

     1.3.3.1.  Underground Coal Mining

     Developments  in  underground coal  mining  technology have  focused  on
reversing  the trend toward  decreasing productivity  per  man shift which  is
attributed to more stringent  safety  regulations and labor relations  problems
in  the  bituminous coal industry.  The increased  use of longwall  mining may
result in higher  productivity, but  longwall systems operate efficiently only
in  near-ideal conditions  of  continuous seam  height;  firm, dry bottom;  and
                                      85

-------
Table 12.  Energy requirements of selected underground coal mining,
  cleaning, and transportation methods.
                                    Btu's of  coal  energy mined,  processed
                                     transported per Btu of  energy  expended
Operation                         or

Underground mining
     Longwall                                        180
     Room and pillar                               1,160

Coal cleaning
     Primary crushing                              6,250
     Combined crushing and  sizing                    560
     Thermal drying                                1,320

Transportation

     Unit train                                       70
     Mixed train                              I        89
     Barge                                           129
     Slurry pipeline                                 141
     Trucks                                        1,090
     Conveyors                                     2,624

Source:  Hittraan  Associates,  Inc.  1974.   Environmental impacts, efficiency,
     and costs of energy supply and end  use:  Volume 1.  Prepared for the
     Council on Environmental Quality,  the National Science Foundation and
     the US Environmental Protection Agency,  Columbia MD, variously paged.
                                       86

-------
overburden which  subsides properly  and completely  when roof  supports are
removed.  Shortwall mining systems require less intensive capital  investment
than longwall  systems and therefore  may receive closer  scrutiny in  future
(USDOE 1978b).

     1.3.3.2.  Coal Cleaning

     The quest for higher productivity has accelerated  the use of  continuous
mining  systems  in place  of  conventional drill and  blast operations,  often
resulting in  a ROM coal  that contains  increased  fines and non-combustible
material.   Machine-mined coals  generally need  more  intensive  processing
before  they are suitable  for modern boilers and blast furnaces.

     A  new family of  chemical coal cleaning technologies is being developed
that  reduces both  the  pyritic  and  organic  sulfur contents  of processed
coals.  These technologies are expected  to receive widespread commercial use
in the  high-sulfur  coal  fields of the  Eastern and  Interior Coal  Provinces.
In the  brief technology descriptions  that  follow, process sponsors are shown
in parentheses (McCandless and Shaver 1978).

     •   Magnex  process treats dry,  pulverized coal  with Fe(CO)3,
        allowing  up to  90%  of the  pyritic  sulfur  content  to  be
        removed magnetically  (Hazen Research,  Inc.,  Golden CO).

     •    Syracuse   process  comminutes  coal  by  exposure  to  NH3
        vapor.   Conventional  cleaning  processes then  treat coal
        and ash to  remove 50  to  70% of the pyritic  sulfur content
        (Syracuse Reasearch Corp., Syracuse NY).

     •   Meyers  process  uses ^2(804)3  and  oxygen in  water  to
        remove 90  to  95% of  the  pyritic sulfur content  by  oxida-
        tive leaching  (TRW, Inc.,  Redondo  Beach CA).

     •   Lol  process uses oxygen in water  at moderate  temperatures
        and  pressures to remove  90  to 95%  of the  pyritic  sulfur
        content  by   oxidative  leaching   (Kennecott Copper Co.,
        Edgemont MT).

     •   Perc  process  removes  95% of  the pyritic  and up  to  40%  of
        the organic sulfur content of coal using  air oxidation and
        water leaching at high temperatures and moderate  pressures
        (US Department of Energy,  Bruceton PA).

     •  GE process  uses microwave  treatment of coal  permeated with
        NaOH to convert  pyritic and  organic  sulfur to soluble  sul-
        fides.   Approximately 75% of the  total sulfur content  is
        removed (General  Electric  Co.,  Valley  Forge  PA).

     •   Battelle  process  leaches  the coal with an alkali agent  to
        remove  approximately  95% of  the pyritic  and 25  to  50%  of
                                      87

-------
        the  organic   sulfur   content  (Battelle   Laboratories,
        Columbus OH).

     •  JPL  process  removes 95% of the  pyritic  and up  to  70% of
        the organic sulfur content by chlorinolysis of the coal in
        an organic  solvent  (Jet  Propulsion  Laboratory,  Pasadena
        CA).

     •  IGT  process  uses oxidative pretreatment  of the  coal fol-
        lowed by hydrodesulfurization  at 800°C  (1472°F)  to remove
        95%  of  the  pyritic and  up  to 85%  of the  organic sulfur
        content (Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago IL).

     •  KVB  process oxidizes  the  sulfur  in  a nitrous oxide atmos-
        phere.    Sulfates are washed  from  the coal.   The process
        removes 95% of  the pyritic and  up  to 40%  of  the organic
        sulfur content (KVB, Inc., Tustin CA).

     •  ARCO process uses a two-stage  chemical oxidation procedure
        to remove 95%  of the pyritic  sulfur  content and some or-
        ganic sulfur from  processed coal  (Atlantic Richfield Co.,
        Harvey IL).

     The  USEPA  Industrial Environmental  Research  laboratory at  Research
Triangle Park  NC  has  ongoing programs to  identify  and  assess the environ-
mental  effects  of  coal cleaning  technologies.    Major  project  activities
include:

     •   The  development of a technology overview that describes
        all  of  the  current  coal  cleaning  processes  and   their
        pollution control  problems

     •   The design  and implementation  of an  environmental  test
        program to obtain  improved data on  pollutants  from commer-
        cial coal cleaning  plants

     •   Trade-off  studies  that compare  the cost effectiveness of
        coal  cleaning  and  other  S02  emission  control  strategies

     •   Studies to  determine the relative environmental  impacts
        of coal cleaning and  flue gas  desulfurization  (FGD).

     In addition  to the contract research  and  development program Research
Triangle Park,  USEPA conducts cooperative projects  with  the Bureau  of  Mines
the  US  Geological  Survey,  the US  Department  of Energy,  and the Electric Power
Research Institute.

     1.3.3.3.   Coal Transportation

     Coal  slurry  pipelines  may  receive  more  favorable  consideration  by
industry  in the  future planning  of  coal  transportation systems  (Chironis
                                      88

-------
1978).   Six coal  slurry pipelines  are now  planned  or  under  construction
(Figure 39).   The  longest and possibly  largest  pipeline would  transport  19
to 34.5 million MT (21  to 38 T) per year over 2,030 km (1,260 mi) from  the
Powder River Basin, Montana,  to  Houston, Texas (Szabo 1978).  Data are  sum-
marized  in  Table   13  that  describe  the  coal  slurry  pipelines  that   are
proposed or under  construction.

     Pneumatic  pipelines for  coal  transportation  also  may receive  closer
scrutiny in future.  One  pipeline  has  been operated  successfully in Colorado
over a distance of 102  m (4,000 ft).  A second  pneumatic pipeline has  been
proposed to  transport  5,440 MT  (6,000 T)  of coal per  day from a mine  near
Carbondale, Colorado, to  a railroad  spur located 34  km (21 mi)  away.

     A pneumatic  pipeline system  includes a  coal  preparation plant,  a  pump
to pressurize  the  pipeline,  storage  silos  for the feed coal, and  a cyclone,
baghouse,  and  storage  bins at  the delivery  end.   Granulated coal from  the
preparation plant  is loaded  from bins  into the pipeline.   The pump maintains
a load-end  pipeline pressure of 10 atm  at a mass  flow of 1 part  coal to  10
parts  air.   The   pipe  line  telescopes  to  larger  diameters downstream  to
accommodate  the  decreased density (increased  volume)  of the flowing mass.
Coal  is  recovered  at  the delivery  end  by cyclones that capture  particles
larger than 5 microns  (0.0002 in)  at 98%  efficiency.   The remaining  par-
ticles are removed in the baghouse  (Szabo  1978).   The captured  coal  fines
may be stored  in bins or  silos for loading by  other  transportation modes.

1.3.4.  Water  Pollution  Control

     On   12  January  1979,   USEPA    promulgated  regulations   (40 CFR 434;
44 FR  9:2586-2592) that  specify the standards of performance for  new source
coal  mines and preparation  plants based on the best  available  demonstrated
control  technology for wastewater discharge.  These regulations mandate the
use of treatment and control technologies  to minimize the potential environ-
mental  effects  of  mine  drainage  and  process  waters   discharged  to  the
environment.   Effluent limitations  were expressed as concentrations  in the
waste  stream rather than total  pollutant  load per  unit  of  product,  because
no correlation was found between  the  volume of  water treated and discharged
and the  tonnage of coal  mined or processed.

      USEPA expects that  advances in  plant design will result in little or no
discharge  of  cleaning  plant process  water  to  the  environment,  although at
this  time  there   is  no  requirement  to recycle  preparation plant  process
water.   The  use  of techniques  which  reduce the  influx of  water  to under-
ground mines  (Section 3.1)  may in future reduce  the volume of mine waste-
water  requiring  treatment before discharge.

1.3.5.   Environmental  Impact

      Implementation of  Federal  and  State  effluent  limitations for  point
source discharges  has resulted  in noticeable improvement of the quality of
some  surface waters previously  degraded by  coal  mining activity.  Continued
                                      89

-------
                                                                BOUNDARIES OF REGIONS FOR DISCUSSION
                                                                OF MARKETS  AND  DEMANDS
Figure 39.  Status  of  coal slurry pipelines in the United States.

Source:  Szabo, Michael F.  1978.  Environmental  assessment of coal transportation.   US Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research
     Laboratory,  Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/7-78-081, 141 p.

-------
Table 13.  Coal slurry pipelines that are proposed  or  under  construction in the  US.
System
  Origin
 Destination
   Annual throughput        Length
million MT (million T)      Km  (mi)
                                                                                                      Pipeline diameter
                                                                                                         cm      (in)
Energy Transpor-
tation Systems, Inc.

Gulf Interstate
Northwest

Houston Natural Gas
                          Gillette WY     White  Bluff  AR
                                     22.7
                          Gillette WY
                Columbia River
                Valley, OR
                          Walsenburg CO   near Houston  TX       13.6
                                (25)
                                (10)
                                                 (15)
                          1,667  (1,036)      96.5     (38)
                          1,770  (1,100)  51  to  61  (20  to  24)
                                            1,784  (1,109)   20  to  71   (8  to  28)
Nevada Power
Alton UT
Las Vegas NV
              (10)
                                                                                         290   (180)     61
(24)
Wytex
Powder River    Houston TX
Basin MT
                  19 to 34.5 (21 to 38)     2,510  (1,560)   20  to  71   (8  to  28)
Source:  Szabo, Michael F.  1978.  Environmental  assessment  of  coal  transportation.   US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Office of Research and Development,  Industrial  Environmental  Research Laboratory,  Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/7-78-081m
     141 p.

-------
improvement  in the environmental  quality of  areas disturbed  by mining  is
expected as  pollution control technologies improve.   Implementation of  the
Surface Mining  Control and Reclamation  Act  of 1977  (SMCRA)  is expected  to
reduce further  the potentially adverse environmental effects associated  with
coal mining by  mandating site-specific environmental studies prior  to devel-
opment of underground mines which  disturb  more than 0.8 ha (1.0 ac) of  sur-
face area.   These  legislative and  administrative activities coincide with a
projected significant  increase  in  coal  production  which,  in the absence  of
effective   mandates   for   control,   could    significantly   degrade    the
environment.

1.4  MARKETS AND DEMANDS

1.4.1.  Markets

     Approximately 95% of  the coal produced  in the US is committed  to sales
contracts or other delivery agreements  in advance of production.   This  fig-
ure  includes the  production from mines  wholly  owned  by  steel producers,
utilities, and  other  high-volume coal consumers.   The  remaining 5% is  sold
on  the open  market,  known in the  industry as the spot market.   Most  coal
that is sold on the  spot  market  is  mined in  the  east,  generally, by small
mining operations  that  do  not produce the high volume  of coal necessary  to
win long-term sales agreements.

     Data are compiled  by  the US Department  of Energy (USDOE)  that  show the
trends in coal  consumption among four major groups  of users  (USEIA  1979).

     •  Electric utilities —  All privately  owned companies  and
        public  agencies  engaged  in the  production  or distribution
        of electric power

     •  Cokeplants —  All  plants where bituminous  coal  is carbon-
        ized for the manufacture of coke in slot  or beehive  ovens

     •  All  other  industrial  categories  — All industrial consum-
        ers  of bituminous coal and  lignite   other than electric
        utilities and coke plants

     •  Retail  sales — Retail sales of  coal for  commercial  or  re-
        sidential heating

     Electric utilities increased  their  consumption of US coal  by 79 million
MT  (86.9 million T)  between  1974 and 1978 (Table 14).   Consumption of  coal
for coke ovens  and space  heating decreased steadily during the same period.
Other industrial categories experienced  a net decline in coal  use  following
1974, although  industrial  coal  consumption has risen steadily  since, except
during 1976 (Table 15).  The  use of coal for space  heating decreased by  over
4 million MT  (4.4  million  T)  between 1974 and 1978.   Figure 40 illustrates
these trends in coal use.
                                      92

-------
Table 14.   Domestic market consumption of bituminous  coal  and lignite
  produced In the US during 1974 through 1978  (millions  of MT).


Consumer Use                                   Calendar Year
                               1974      1975       1976      1977      1978


Electric Utilities             357       399       421       445       436

Coke Plants                     84.7      84.1       84.3       77.2      64.7

Other industrial categories     57.5      48.6       48.3      54.2      55.3

Retail Sales                     6.17       4.58      3.76      2.81      1.90
     i


Totall                         505        536       557       580       558
      may  not  add  to  totals shown because of independent rounding.


 Source:  US  Energy Information Administration.  1979.  Energy data reports:
      bituminous  coal  and lignite distribution, calendar year 1978.  US
      Department  of Energy,  Washington DC, DOE/EIA-0125/4Q78, 85p.
                                        93

-------
Table 15.  Market consumption by percentage of bituminous coal and lignite
  produced in the US during 1974 through 1978.
Consumer Use                                  Calendar Year
                              1974      1975      1976      1977      1978
Electric Utilities            70.6      74.4      75.5      76.8      78.2

Coke Plants                   16.8      15.7      15.1      13.3      11.6

Other industrial categories   11.4       9.1       8.7       9.3        9.9

Retail Sales                   1.2       0.9       0.7       0.5        0.3


Total1                       100.0     100.0      100.0      100.0      100.0
Source:  US Energy  Information Administration.   1979.   Energy data  reports:
     bituminous coal and  lignite distribution,  calendar year 1978.   US
     Department of  Energy, Washington  DC,  DOE/EIA-0125/4Q78, 85 p.
                                       94

-------
    80-
    60-
    40-
    20-
     O-
    -10-
                                               ELECTRIC UTILITIES
                                             •COKE PLANTS
                         •OTHER INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES


                           •RETAIL SALES
      1974
1975
1976
                                            1977
1978
Figure 40.  Trends in  the  proportionate consumption of annual coal
  production for major consumer categories, 1974 through 1978.


Source:  US Energy Information Administration.  1979.  Energy data
     reports:  bituminous  coal and lignite distribution, calendar year
     1978.  US Department  of Energy,  Washington DC, DOE/EIA-0125/4Q78,
     85 p.
                                     95

-------
     Domestic  bituminous  coal  production  increased  steadily  from  1974
through 1977.  Anthracite  production showed a net  decrease of 609 thousand
MT (670 thousand  T) during  the  same period (Table 16).    A  series of work
stoppages curtailed coal mining  activities for  the first three  months of
1978,  depressing  the  year's  production  below  the  level achieved  during
1975.

1.4.2.  Demands

     The USDOE developed regional  forecasts of coal production through 1990
based  on  low,  medium, and  high production  scenarios that account for  the
anticipated prices  and capabilities of competing energy resources,  transpor-
tation costs, and environmental regulations.

     The low and  high  scenarios  reflect  lower  and upper bounds beyond which
coal  production  reasonably  would  not be  expected   to  decrease  or increase
during that  period.   The medium scenario  represents a  more probable set of
production  statistics (USDOE  1978b).   Regional   boundaries  are  shown in
Figure 39.

     The regional  forecasts for coal production  by surface and underground
mining methods  indicate  a  marked  shift  of production  capacity  to the  West
(Table 17).   Large western  surface mines  are  expected  to provide the  coal
necessary  to close  the  gap between  current production  and  projected  ton-
nages.  The  forecasted changes in  underground  coal  mining  capacity  are rela-
tively small.   Eastern coal production  from underground mines may increase
by 53 million MT  (58 million T) between  1985 and 1990 (Table  18).   The rela-
tive  share  in  total  production  by  western  underground  coal  mines would
decrease as  total production increased (Table  19).

     These forecasts were revised  by  the USDOE to reflect refinements  in  the
assumptions  on  regulatory  constraints  and  pricing  of  competing   energy
sources (USDOE 1979).  The  new forecasts are not appreciably  different  from
the  old,  although the band  between  the  high and low scenarios  of 1995  was
narrowed by  approximately 91 million  MT  (100 million T).   Regional  shifts of
forecasted  coal  production  did   occur.   These  data,  however,   were   not
reported  for individual  mining  methods  and  therefore   are  not  discussed
here.

     Production shortfalls  in  the  coal  mining industry may be attributed to
the  general, historical  trend  of  decreasing productivity caused   by  safety
and  environmental regulations  (Hittman Associates,  Inc.  1976).   Other  causes
of the shortfall  may include the undercapitalization of the industry  in  gen-
eral  and  the shortage of trained  manpower and mining machines  to  construct
and  operate  a significant number of new  mines.

     The quality  of coal mined  by  underground  methods varies  from  high-value
coking coals to  low-value   fuel  coals.   To  satisfy air  pollution  standards
for  electric generating  facilities, coals  with naturally low  sulfur contents
and  coals  that  are amenable to significant reduction  of  sulfur content by
                                      96

-------
Table 16.   US coal production during 1973 through 1978  (thousands  of MT).
Resource                                            Calendar Year
                         1973a     1974a      1975a      1976a     1977a      1978b
Anthracite               6,209     6,015     5,639      5,662      5,600       c

Bituminous,  Sub-
bituminous and
Lignite                537,944   548,551   589,489    616,986    623,000    588,500


Total                  544,153   554,566   595,128    622,648    628,000    588,500
Sources:  a.  US Bureau of Mines.  1978.  Mineral  commodity  summaries.   US Depart-
              ment of the Interior, Washington DC,  200  p.

          b.  US Energy Information Administration.   1979.   Energy data reports:
              bituminous coal and  lignite distribution, calendar year 1978.  US
              Department of Energy, Washington DC,  DOE/EIA-0125/4Q78, 85 p.

          c.  Not available
                                         97

-------
Table 17.  Regional forecasts of US coal  production from surface and  underground
  mines (millions of MT).
Region                   	    1985                               1990
                         Low    Median     High              Low    Medium    High


East                     388      400       413               360     405      435

Midwest                  227      248       256               306     366      401

West                     285      367       411               347     612      851


Total                    900    1,015     1,080             1,013   1,383    1,687
Source:  US Office of  Surface Mining  Reclamation and  Enforcement.   1979.
     Permanent regulatory program  implementing  Section 501(b)  of the  Surface
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act  of  1977:   final environmental statement.
     US Department of  the Interior, Washington  DC,  OSM-EIS-1,  variously paged.
                                           98

-------
Table  18.   Regional  forecasts of US coal production by underground mining methods
  (millions of  MT).
Region                    	1985	             	1990	
                         Low    Medium    High             Low    Medium     High


East                      271      280      290               273      314       343

Midwest                   112      132      141               205      249       261

West                       25       26       26                26       34        33


Total                     408      438      457               504      597       637
Source:   US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and  Enforcement.   1979.
     Permanent regulatory program implementing  Section 501(b)  of the Surface
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of  1977:   final environmental statement.
     US  Department of the Interior, Washington  DC,  OSM-EIS-1,  variously paged.
                                            99

-------
Table 19.  Percentage of forecasted US production attributable to underground
  mlnable coal, based on Tables 17 and 18.
Region                   	1985	            	1990	
                         Low    Medium     High             Low    Medium    High


East                       70        70        70               76      78       79

Midwest                    45        53        55               67      68       65

West                        976                764


Total                      44        43        42               50      43       38
Source:   US  Office  of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.  1979.
     Permanent regulatory program implementing Section 501(b) of the Surface
     Mining  Control and Reclamation Act of 1977:  final environmental statement.
     US  Department  of the Interior,  Washington DC, OSMHBIS-1, variously paged.
                                           100

-------
cleaning will be in higher demand than coals of comparatively  lower  quality.
The demand for metallurgical grade coals generally has decreased  since  1973,
reflecting the general decrease in US steel production (USBOM  1978).

     Desulfurization of coal by physical or chemical cleaning  processes cur-
rently is not  practiced  at commercial scale,  although demonstration plants
and pilot facilities currently  are  in use.  The  projected demand for  steam
grade coal,  therefore, will  concentrate  initially  on coals  with  compara-
tively lower sulfur contents.  As the feasibility of coal  desulfurization  is
enhanced  by  implementation  of  improved,  demonstrated   technology,   coal
consumers may  elect  to use local,  cleanable,  high  sulfur coals instead  of
low sulfur coals requiring  transportation over greater distances.   The fac-
tors which constrain such  choices include the costs of transportation,  coal
processing, and  environmental  regulation, all of  which  may  vary  signifi-
cantly at the regional level.

1.5.  SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

     The   implementation   of   Congressionally-mandated    pollution   control
strategies for the coal mining  industry  should reduce  significantly  the mag-
nitude of many environmental impacts that historically  are associated  with
underground coal mining and coal  preparation.  The impact  of land subsidence
from underground mining, however, is  the  subject of  continuing investigation
as a compromise is sought  between maximum recovery of the  coal  resource and
minimum damage to  the  environment.   The following discussion  highlights the
major environmental  problems of  coal cleaning and  underground  coal mining
operations.   Section  2 describes these  and other environmental  problems  in
greater detail.

1.5.1.  Location

     Underground mining produces  land subsidence where insufficient  coal  or
other material is left in place to  support the roof.   New  underground mines,
therefore, are sited away  from  developed  areas whenever possible.   Longwall
and  shortwall systems  especially  result  in  subsidence   and  therefore  are
utilized only in locations where  some subsidence  is  tolerable.

     Coal  cleaning  operations  and  associated  areas  require  open  space.
Typically they are designed  to  maximize  the use  of the affected  area and  to
minimize the  need  for extensive  stormwater and  wastewater control  systems.
Coal cleaning  operations generally are located proximate  to the  mines  which
they serve, thereby limiting  the  distance which coal must travel before ex-
traneous material  is  removed and  it  is  salable.   If  a  large  proportion  of
the  ROM  coal is unsalable,  the  cost  of  transport,  and  hence  the  distance
between the mine and the preparation  plant, may be critical to operating the
mine profitably.
                                       101

-------
1.5.2.  Raw Materials and Energy

     The  electricity that  is used  to operate  underground  coal  mines  and
cleaning  plants generally  is  purchased from a local utility  company, unless
it can  be generated more  cheaply at  the  site of  operation.   A generating
station constructed  to service  new mining  operations represents  potential
stress on the environment which must  be addressed in terms of both  its  pri-
mary and  secondary effects before  the full effects of  mine development  or
plant construction can be assessed  properly.

     The  raw  material  for at least one phase of  many coal  cleaning opera-
tions is  the coal  refuse that is  processed  through advanced  stages  of sizing
and separation.  Refuse from  the  primary sizing and  crushing  of  ROM coal may
contain considerable combustible material  that  is  recoverable  by  advanced
cleaning  techniques.  Permanent burial  or other disposal  of  this potentially
recyclable refuse  may  represent  a long-term commitment of resources for the
short-term gain of salable coal.

1.5.3.  Process

     The  potentially  significant  environmental   problems  associated   with
underground coal mining include:

     •   Disruption  of natural  earth materials by creating  voids
        that promote subsidence of  mined areas

     •   Dewatering  of aquifers  by disruption or  removal of coal
        seams and  confining strata  or  water-bearing  strata

     •    Fugitive  dust from  surface  operations   and  mine  venti-
        lation

     •  Solid wastes that contain pollutants  which can cause  long-
        term, adverse effects on  the environment

Coal cleaning operations also generate  solid  wastes, effluents,  and fugitive
dust,  as  well  as  potentially  noxious   emissions   from  thermal dryers.

     Additional problems associated with coal mining and  cleaning  processes
include  the  usurpation  of open  space;  the dedication  of  transportation,
electricity, and  other regional  resource to  industrial  use; and the poten-
tial secondary effects of work force fluctuations  and  additional demands for
municipal services on communities near  the  new operations.

     Numerous chemical elements and compounds  occur  in higher concentrations
in coal  seams and associated strata  than  elsewhere  in  the earth's crust.
Although  many of  these  chemical species  currently  are  not recognized  as
pollutants with known  toxic effects, the USEPA has ongoing research to  esta-
blish the threshold concentrations  of minor chemical  constituents in  coal
that  pose hazards  to  human  health or the  ecological   balance  (Ewing  and
others 1978).
                                      102

-------
1.5.4.   Pollution Control

     The pollution control devices that may be used to achieve  the Federally
mandated  effluent and  emission  limitations  (Section  1.7.)  produce  solid
wastes  that  may  require  preparation (e.g.  neutralization  or dewatering)
before  disposal.   These solids  are described  more  thoroughly  in  Section
3.2.

1.6  POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS

     Federal regulations have been promulgated that control  the discharge  of
process waste pollutants  to  the environment.   The USEPA administers regula-
tory programs that  limit the concentrations  of  pollutants to  be discharged
in emissions (Section  1.6.1.)  and effluents (Section 1.6.2.).  Solid  wastes
from coal mining and cleaning operations currently are regulated by USEPA  if
they contain hazardous or  toxic materials.  The  regulatory programs that are
administered by the  US  Office of Surface Mining Reclamation  and Enforcement
(USOSM) under the US Department  of  the  Interior (USDOI)  explicitly address
the  disposal of  solid  wastes  from  coal  mining  and  cleaning  operations
(Section  1.6.3.).

1.6.1.  Air Pollution Performance Standards

     Underground  coal mining and coal cleaning operations are  affected  by a
four-point regulatory program  for the control of atmospheric emissions.  The
basic elements of the program  include:

     •  National  Ambient Air Quality Standards  (NAAQS's)  that  es-
        tablish  the  maximum concentrations  of   pollutants  legally
        allowable Nationwide

     •  State Implementation Plans  (SIP's) that  specify  the meth-
        ods  by  which the  States  will achieve compliance  with  the
        NAAQS's

     •    New  Source Performance  Standards  (NSPS's)  that  require
        coal  cleaning  facilities with thermal  dryers  to  utilize
        the  Best  Available  Control  Technology  (BACT)  to  meet
        specific  emission limitations

     •  Prevention of  Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits that
        require  the  approval of  the  regulatory  authority  prior to
        the construction of  an emitting  facility in an  air quality
        classified area.

The  full  program implements the Clean Air  Act  (CAA;  42  USC  7401-7642)  as
amended during  1974  (PL 93-319,  88  Stat.  246)  and 1977 (PL  95-95, 91 Stat.
685; and  PL  95-190,  91  Stat. 1401-02; Quarles 1979).
                                      103

-------
     The  NAAQS's  are   the  cornerstone  for  preserving  and  enhancing  the
Nation's  ambient air  quality.   The  NAAQS's include  primary and  secondary
standards  (Table 20).    Primary standards  specify  the  maximum  permissible
ambient pollutant concentrations to prevent  adverse  effects  on human  health.
Secondary  standards  specify the maximum concentrations  to  prevent  adverse
effects on sensitive environmental resources.

     To  achieve the levels of  environmental  protection specified  by  the
NAAQS's,  Congress  directed  the  several States to formulate  plans  to  achieve
the goals of  the CAA within a  specific timetable.   The  Nation was  divided
into 247 Air Quality Control Regions  (AQCR's)  based  on available  air  quality
data.   Ambient  concentrations  of  pollutants  were  estimated  for each  AQCR
from the  results of air  sampling  programs.    These  estimates were compared
with the  NAAQS's to determine  the scope  of regulatory  activities  in  each
AQCR that would  be necessary to achieve  the  National goal of clean air.

     Each  State developed  plans  (SIP's)  to  regulate the  emission  of  air
pollutants on a  regional  basis.   SIP's establish procedures  and  criteria to
control the level  of emissions from existing and  proposed sources.

     The  USEPA  published  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS's) for  coal
cleaning  operations  with  thermal dryers on  15  January 1976  (40  CFR  60-250;
41 FR  10:  2232).  These regulations  require  that  the State  be consulted at
critical  junctures of  plant  operation,  including:

     •   Pre-construction  planning  — The State regulatory author-
        ity should  be  informed  of  construction plans  and cleaning
        facility characteristics before  construction commences.

     •   Pre-startup  operations  —  The State  again should be noti-
        fied  before  the cleaning facility  begins  operation.

     •   Routine operations — The plant operator must  submit air
        quality  monitoring  data  to the State at specific intervals
        throughout  the operation of  the  cleaning  facility.

     The  current NSPS's for coal cleaning operations  that process more than
181 MT (200 T)  of coal per day specify  the  limits  for opacity and particu-
late  emissions  permissible from  thermal  dryers,   pneumatic  coal  cleaning
equipment, and  coal  handling and  storage  equipment  (Table  21).   These pro-
posed  regulations  currently are  in effect,  although  they are not  yet  corrob-
orated  by final  NSPS's for  coal  preparation  plants and handling facilities.

     The  CAA  also mandated  a regulatory program to  require preconstruction
approval  of industrial facilities  that potentially would produce  significant
air  emissions in  areas that have  specific  air  quality problems  or goals.
These  requirements for the prevention of significant  deterioration (PSD) of
local  air quality  include two major  components (Quarles  1979).
                                     104

-------
Table 20.  Federal ambient air quality standards.
EMISSION
Sulfur dioxide
                                               STANDARD1
      Primary

80 yg/m3 annual
arithmetic mean

365 pg/m3 maximum
24-hr concentration
                                                         Secondary
1,300 yg/m3 maximum
3-hr concentration
Particulate matter
75 yg/m3 annual
geometric mean

260 yg/m3 maximum
24-hr concentration
150 yg/m3 maximum
24-hr concentration

60 yg/m3 annual
geometric mean as a
guide in assessing
implementation plans
Nitrogen dioxide2
100  pg/m3 annual
arithmetic mean
100  yg/m3 annual
arithmetic mean
Ozone
235  ug/m3  (0.12 ppm)
maximum 1-hr
concentration
235  yg/m3  (0.12 ppm)
maximum 1-hr concentration
Carbon  monoxide
 10 mg/m3  (9 ppm)
 maximum 8-hr
 concentration

 40 mg/m3  (35 ppm)
 maximum 1-hr
 concentration
 10 mg/m3  (9 ppm)
 maximum 8-hr  concentration
                                                     40 mg/m3 (35 ppm)
                                                     maximum 1-hr concentration
 !por  any standard other than annual,  the maximum allowable concentration may be
   exceeded for the prescribed period  once each year.

 2The  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (PL 95-95) require the USEPA
   Administrator to promulgate a national primary ambient air quality standard for
   N02 concentration over a period of  not more than 3 hr unless, based on the
   criteria issued under Section 108(c),  he finds that there is no significant
   evidence that such a standard for such a period is requisite to protect public
   health.

 Source:   40 CFR 50
                                   105

-------
Table 21.  Summary of new source performance standards for bituminous coal
   preparation plants and handling facilities capable of processing more
   than 181 MT (200 T) of coal per day.
Equipment
Opacity Limitation
       CO
     Particulate
 Concentration Standard
(g/dscm)(gr/dscf)
Thermal Dryers
        20
 0.070
0.031
Pneumatic Coal
Cleaning Equipment
        10
 0.040
0.018
Coal Handling and
Storage Equipment
        20
Source:  40 CFR 60.250; 41 FR 10:2232,  15  January 1976.
                                       106

-------
Table 22.  Nondeterioration increments: maximum allowable  increase  by  PSD
  class of the AQCR.
Pollutant*	Class I     Class II	Class  III
                              (yg/m^)(yg/mj)


Particulate matter:

  Annual geometric mean           5              19           37

  24-hour maximum                10              37           75

Sulfur dioxide:

  Annual arithmetic mean          1              20           40

  24-hour maximum                 5**            91          182

  3-hour maximum                 25**           512          700
*0ther pollutants for which  PSD regulations will be promulgated are to
include hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,  photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen
oxides.

,**A variance may be  allowed  to  exceed each of these increments on 18 days
per year,  subject to limiting 24-hour increments of 26 yg/nP for low
terrain and 62 yg/m^ for high terrain and 3-hour increments of 130 ug/m->
for low terrain and  221  yg/m^ for high terrain.   To obtain such a variance
both State and Federal approval is required.

Source:   Public Law  95-95.   1977.   Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Part C,
     Subpart 1, Section  163.
                                      107

-------
     •  Area classification system — All  areas  of the Nation are
        classified on the basis of regional  air  quality goals and
        the existing  ambient air  quality.   The  purpose  of the
        classification system is to  permit local industrial acti-
        vity without the  degradation of local air  quality  to the
        point where compliance with  ambient  air  quality standards
        is  minimal  or  non-existent.   The  States may designate
        areas where  pristine air  quality  is  to be  protected by
        preventing  excessive emissions  of  regulated  pollutants.
        Three classes of air quality areas have  been  established:

        — Class  I  areas  have pristine air  quality and therefore
        are subject to stringent restrictions or emissions.

        — Class  11 areas have air  quality that  has  been affected
        by moderate industrial activity.   All areas of  the  country
        originally were designated  by USEPA as  Class 11.    States
        were authorized to  redesignate  these areas as  Class 1 or
        Class 11, based on established procedures.

        — Class  III areas have air  quality  that has  been affected
        by major  industrial activity.

     •  Permissible  increments of  selected emissions — Numerical
        limitations  specify  permissible  Increases  of pollutant
        concentrations above existing concentrations.

     Each air quality class is protected from  significant deterioration by a
system  of  allowable increments of  air  emissions  that  reflect the  combined
air quality effects  of  new industrial growth  in the  classified area  (Table
22).  To protect  areas of pristine  air  quality,  Class  I increments  are more
restrictive  than those for  Class II  or  Class  III.    For  example, if  the
existing concentration  of particulates in a Class I area  is  30  pg/m3,  new
industrial  activity would be permitted to contribute no more  than 5>^g/m3
additional  particulates annually  to the local atmosphere.   The new ambient
concentration of particulates for  the  area would be  increased  to no more
than  35 yg/m3.   For a  Class II  area  with identical baseline  conditions,
the increment for particulates  is 19 vg/n»3«  The allowable  ambient concen-
trations of particulates  from all industrial activity in  the area thus would
be  limited to 49 pg/m3.    In  Class  III  areas,  the  increment for  particu-
lates  is  37  yg/m3.   Industrial expansion  would  be  permitted  so long  as
ambient participate  concentrations did  not exceed  the limit of 67 yg/m3.

     Other  provisions  under PSD  include   the  application  of BACT  to  indus-
trial  facilities on a  case by  case basis.  The use  of   BACT  for  a coal
cleaning facility can be  mandated by the  regulatory  authority through a set
of  conditions attached  to an individual PSD permit.    The  permit  conditions
also  may   reflect   the   results   of  any  public  hearing  on  the  permit
                                      108

-------
application, and may be modified to account  for  changes  in local air quality
that are detected during  the applicant's  air quality monitoring program that
is required for post-construction activities.  Coal cleaning facilities that
emit less than  45 MT (50 T) of pollutants per year may be  exempt  from com-
pliance with PSD increments and requirements to  Install BACT.

1.6.2.  Water Pollution Performance Standards

     On 12  January  1979,  USEPA published final  regulations  that specify the
new source  performance  standards  and effluent limitations applicable  to the
coal mining point source  category effective  12 February 1979 (40 CFR 434;  44
FR 9:2586-2592;  Table 23).   New source  NPDES  permits  for  the  coal  mining
industry differ  significantly from the  existing source NPDES  permits  which
USEPA began to administer several  years ago.  First,  the  new source limita-
tions are  more restrictive  than  the existing  source  limitations  for  total
iron.   Second, each  new source permit  must be  approved  prior  to  the con-
struction  of  the  proposed  new source.    Third,  new  source  NPDES  permit
actions may be  subject   to comprehensive environmental  review  by  USEPA  in
accordance with NEPA, as  well  as other  applicable environmentally protective
laws  and  regulations.   Hence  the  new  source  program  offers  significantly
enhanced  opportunity, as  compared with  the existing source  program,  for:
(1) public  and Interagency  input to  the Federal  NPDES  permit review process;
(2) effective environmental  review  and  consideration of alternatives;  and
(3) implementation  of environmentally  protective permit  conditions  on mine
planning, operation,  and  decommissioning.

     An underground  coal mine or coal cleaning  operation  is designated as a
new source  on the basis  of  timing and  other considerations.    Two kinds  of
facilities  are designated new sources  automatically:

     •  Coal preparation plants that  are constructed outside  the
        permit  areas  of neighboring mines on or after 12 February
        1979

     •  Underground  mines that are  assigned identifying numbers  by
        the Mining  Safety and Health  Administration  (MSHA) on  or
        after  12 February 1979.

     Underground  coal mines that  operate under  existing  source permits may
be  designated as  new sources  if  one  or more  of  the  following  conditions
apply:

     — Mining is begun in a new coal seam.

     — Effluent  is  discharged to  a  new drainage basin.

     — Extensive new surface disruption occurs.

     — Construction of  a new shaft,  slope,  or drift  entryway  is
        begun.
                                       109

-------
     Table 2'J.  Nationwide performance standards for wastewater discharged after application of the best
       available demonstrated control technology by new sources in the coal mining point source category.
       The limitations are not applicable to excess water discharged as a result of precipitation of snow
       melt in excess of the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event (40 CFR 434; 44 FR 9:2586-2592,
       12 January 1979).  Units are milligrams per liter (mg/1) except as otherwise indicated.
                          Coal Preparation Plants
                          And Associated Areas
                                                            BITUMINOUS, LIGNITE, AND ANTHRACITE MINING
                              Acid or Ferruginous
                                Mine Drainage-^
                                    Alkaline Mine
                                     Drainage	
     Parameter

Tbtalsuspended solids

Total iron

Total manganese

pH (pH units)
           Average of
1-day     30 consecutive
Maximum   daily values



range
70.0
6.0
4.0
6.0-9.0
35.0
3.0
2.0

           Average of
1-day     30 consecutive
Maximum   daily values
70. 02
6.0
4.0
range 6.0-9.0
35. 02
3.0
2.0

                                                                                         1-day
                                                                                         Maximum
 Average of
30 consecutive
daily values
                                                                70.0

                                                                 6.0



                                                              range 6.0-9.0
                                                 35.0

                                                  3.0
  Drainage which is not from an active mining area (for example, a regraded area) is not required to
     meet the stated limitations unless it is mixed with untreated mine drainage that is subject to
     the limitations.

  Total suspended solids limitations do not apply in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
     Wyoming.  In these states, limitations for total suspended solids are determined on a case by
     case basis.

-------
    — Additional land or mineral  rights  are acquired.

    — Significant new capital  is  invested  in the operation

    The Regional Administrator  may identify other characteristics of under-
ground mines that  should  be  considered for  redesignating an existing source
nine as  a  new  source.    Underground coal mines will  be designated  as new
sources case by case, primarily  on the basis  of  information supplied by the
NPDES  permit   applicants.


    The new  source NPDES permit  program may be  administered by the  USEPA
directly or by the  States  under  a program  approved by  the  USEPA.   Of  the
following  States  in  which USEPA administers  the NPDES  permit program  di-
rectly,  Arizona,  Florida,  Louisiana,  New   Jersey,  and  South  Dakota  lack
underground minable  coal  reserves.

            USEPA                                   USEPA
State        Region                 State             Region

                                    New Jersey        II
Alaska           X                   New Mexico        VI
Arizona         IX                   Oklahoma         VI
Arkansas        VI                   Texas             VI
Florida         IV                   Utah             VIII
Idaho            X                   West Virginia    III
Kentucky        IV                   South Dakota     VIII
Louisiana       VI

    The USEPA new source effluent limitations  apply only to wastewater dis-
charged  from active  mining areas  and preparation plants.   They do not  apply
to runoff  from land  that  has  been  regraded  in accordance  with a mining plan,
so long  as it  is  not mixed with mine discharge,  or to discharge  from aban-
doned  mines.   Areas undergoing  reclamation  are  considered to  be  a  separate
subcategory from active  mines  and coal preparation plants.   No limitations
for the  reclamation subcategory have been  proposed by USEPA,  and the  final
new source regulations  do  not  address  directly  the long-term  discharge  of
effluents   from   surface-disturbed  areas   following   the   completion   of
revegetation.
 1.6.3.   Underground Coal Mining  Performance Standards

     Underground coal  mines and coal preparation  plants  that  disturb more
 than 0.8 ha (2 ac) of  surface  area are  regulated  under programs mandated  by
 the  Surface Mining Control and  Reclamation Act of  1977 (SMCRA; 30 USC 1201
 et seq.).  The Office  of  Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement  (USOSM)
 was established under Title II of the SMCRA.   The responsibilities of USOSM
 broadly include:

     •   The  promulgation  of  performance  standards  for  surface
        mines and  the  surface  operations  of underground mines  and
        coal cleaning facilities
                                            111

-------
     •   Approving and  monitoring State-administered  programs  to
        regulate the coal mining industry

     •   Administering various  programs to  repair the  legacy  of
        previous  mining,   and  advancing  the  technology  of   coal
        mining and reclamation

     Final regulations  for the USOSM  interim regulatory  program were  pub-
lished on 13 December 1977 (43 FR 239:62639-62716).  These  regulations  focus
primarily on the- prevention  or  mitigation  of potentially adverse effects  of
coal mining on the hydrologic balance.  Environmentally  sensitive hydrologic
resources are  to be  protected  through  the use  of in-process  and  end-of-
process controls  to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutant  loads  to
the hydrologic regime.

     Final regulations that  describe  the USOSM permanent regulatory  program
were published on 13 March 1979  (30  CFR Chapter VII; 44 FR 50:15311-15463).
Of the  eleven  new subchapters thus  promulgated  (two additional  subchapters
appear  in the  13 December  1977  final  regulations),  two  subchapters  bear
directly on the  scope and  extent  of  information necessary  to 'support  permit
applications   to  operate   underground  coal   mines    and   coal   cleaning
facilities:

     •  Subchapter G:  Permits for surface  coal mining operations

     •  Subchapter K:  Permanent program environmental performance
        standards

     Regulations  which govern the design of  sedimentation  ponds  and head-of-
hollow  fills,  originally  published  on 13  December 1977,  were  revised  and
published as proposed regulations on 14 November 1978 (30 CFR Parts  715 and
717; 43 FR 220:52734-52757).   These proposed regulations  reflect a reconsi-
deration of design criteria  for these  structures  as mandated  by  the District
Court of the District of Columbia (Mem. Op.  filed 24 August 1978).

     The USOSM responsibilities  for  regulating the coal mining  industry are
partly coincident with the USEPA mandate to  regulate water and air  pollution
under the Clean  Water Act,  the  Clean Air Act, and  the Resource  Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA; PL 94-580;  43 USC 6901 £t  se^.).  Both agen-
cies  have the  power either  to  grant permits  directly  or  to   oversee the
granting  of permits  by  the States.   Both  agencies are  constrained to avoid
duplicative effort—the USEPA under Section 101.(f) of  the  Clean Water Act,
and the USOSM under Section  201.(c)(12) of  the SMCRA.
 1.6.3  Solid  Waste  Regulations


     The Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act (RCRA), P.L. 94-580, defines
 "solid waste" as including solid, liquid, seraisolid, or contained gaseous

 materials.  Regulations implementing Subtitle C of the Act  (40 CFR Part 261)
                                    112

-------
provide that a solid waste is a hazardous waste if it is,  or contains,  a
hazardous waste listed in Subpart D of Part 261 or the waste exhibits any of
the characteristics defined in Subpart C.  These charcateristics include:

     o  Ignitability (flash point below 60° C (140° F)
     o  Corrosivity
     o  Reactivity
     o  Toxicity

     Hazardous wastes are identified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D,  The hazardous
substances identified at this time in Subpart D do not include the major
solid wastes of the underground coal mining and coal preparation industry.
However, this does not eliminate the possibility of other industry wastes
having "hazardous" designations in the future.  Wastes containing arsenic or
cadmium, for example, may be considered hazardous if the toxic materials can
be leached out at concentrations of 5 mg/1 and 1 mg/1, respectively, using
the EP (Extraction Procedure) toxicity test.  The natur of the wastes to be
generated by a particular new source coal mine or preparation plant will
have to be carefully examined to determine the applicability of the hazardous
waste designation.

      All new facilities that will generate, transport, treat, store, or dis-
pose  of  hazardous wastes roust notify US EPA of this occurrence and obtain a
'USEPA identification number.  Storage, treating, and disposal also require a
permit.

      The determination of whether wastes generated or handled are hazardous is
the  responsibility of the owner or operator of the generating or handling
facility.  The first step is to consult the promulgated  Ust  (CFR 261  Subpart
 D).   If the waste is not listed, the second step is to determine whether the
 waste exhibits any of the hazardous characteristics of listed through analytical
 tests using procedures promulgated in the regulations of by applying known
 information about characteristics of the waste based on process or materials
 used.
                                      113

-------
     If it is determined that a hazardous waste is generated, it should be
quantified to determine applicability of the small generator exemption.  This
cutoff point is 2,200 pounds per month, but it drops to 2.2 pounds for any
commercial product or manufacturing chemical intermediate having a generic
name listed in Section 261.33,  Containers that have been used to contain less
than 21 quarts of Section 261.33 materials and less than 22 pounds of liners
from such containers are also exempt.  It is anticipated that this exemption
may be available to many very small plants with, for example, only one machine
tool and one small painting operation.  However, as more information is ob-
tained on the behavior of substances in a disposal environment, the terms of
this exemption may be altered from time to time.

     The hazardous waste management system is based on the use of a manifest
prepared by the  generator describing and  quantifying the waste and designating
a disposal, treatment, or storage facility permitted to receive the  type waste
described to which the waste  is to be  delivered.  One alternate site may be
designated.  Copies  of  the  manifest are  turned  over to the  transporter and a
copy must  be signed  and returned to the  generator each time  the waste  changes
hands.   If  the  generator does not  receive a  copy from  the designated receiving
facility or alternate within  35 days,  he must  track the fate of the  waste
 through  the  transporter and desisnated  facility or  facilities.  If the mani-
 fest  copy  is not received  in  45 days,  the generator must  file an  Exception
Report with US EPA or the  cognizant  state agency.

      A copy of  each manifest  must  be  kept for  three years or until a signed
 copy  is  received from the designated  receiving facility.   In turn, the signed
 copy  must  be  kept for three years.   The same retention period applies  to each
 Annual Report  required whether disposal, storage,  or  treatment occurs  on-site
 or off-site.

      The generator must also:

      *  package the waste in accordance with the applicable DOT regulations
         under 49 CFR Parts 173, 178, and 179;
      *  label each package in accordance with DOT regulations under 49 CFR 172;
                                    113a

-------
     •   mark  each  package  in accordance  with  the applicable DOT regulations
        under 49 CFR 172;
     «   mark  each  container of  110 gallons  or less  with the following  DOT
        (49 CFR 172) notice:
               "Hazardous  Waste - Federal Law Prohibits Improper  Disposal.
               If  found,  contact the nearest  police or public  safety authority
               or  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."
     •  supply appropriate placards for the transporting vehicle  in accordance
        with DOT regulations under 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart  F.

     Waste in properly labelled and dated containers in compliance with the
regulations may be stored on the generator's  premises for up  to 90 days with-
out a storage permit.  This is to permit time for accumulation for more economic
pickup or to find  an available permitted disposal facility.

     Due to the cost and stringent design and operating requirements  for
permitted landfills, it is anticipated that most new generator plants  will
utilize off-site disposal facilities.  However, any companies  desiring to
construct their own will be subject to 40 CFR Part 264.

     Incineration is considered to be "treatment," and, as such,  is also
subject to Part 264 as are  chemical, physical, and biological  treatment of
hazardous wastes,  and a permit will be required.  Totally enclosed treatment
systems—such as in-pipe treatment of acid and alkaline solutions—are not
subject to this part.

     Although underground injection of wastes constitutes "disposal" as de-
fined by RCRA, this activity will be regulated by the underground injection
control (UIC) program adopted pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act  (P.L.
93-323).  The consolidated  peruLt regulations (40 CFR  Tarts 122,  123,  124)
govern  the procedural aspects of  this program; the technical considerations
are  contained in 40 CFR Part 146.

      The  disposal of  innocuous  solid  wastes  is  subject to Subtitle D  of  RCRA
and  the implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 256).   Recovery or disposal in
an approved  sanitary landfill will be required  under a state  program.   Disposal
 in open dumps is  prohibited.   All existing state  regulations  which do not mee,
 the  requirements  of Subtitle D are superseded.

                                   113b

-------
                        2.0  IMPACT IDENTIFICATION

     Underground coal mining and  coal  preparation generate wastes that have
the potential to affect the environment  adversely.   This section focuses on
the  interfaces  between  these  wastes  and  the  environment  by identifying
(1) environmental  resource  elements  which  can  affect  or   be  adversely
affected  by coal  preparation  and  underground mining  operations;  and (2)
potential  sources  and  characteristics  of  wastes,  including  emissions,
effluents, and solids.

     Underground  coal mining  is  an extractive  process  and  therefore pro-
duces environmental  impacts  which are similar nationwide.   The severity of
local effects  of underground  coal  mining can vary  significantly,  based on
the  mining methods  used  and  the presence  of sensitive  environmental re-
sources.   Coal preparation plants  nationwide have  grossly similar  process
operations,  but generate  wastes  with  chemical  characteristics  that vary
regionally or locally with coal seam and overburden  composition.

     The  key site characteristics  that  influence the magnitude and  signi-
ficance of environmental impacts  include topography, geology  (depth  of over-
burden  to coal seam, and the  thickness  and  composition  of the coal  seam),
soil  composition,  land use, hydrology,  climate,  and the presence of  unique
or   sensitive   natural   features.    The  identification   of   environmental
resources located  in the  proposed permit area and  adjacent areas is  a fun-
damental  step  in  assessing   the environmental  effects  of  proposed  coal
cleaning  and underground coal  mining operations.   The adjacent areas include
those  natural  and  human  resources contiguous  to or sufficiently near  the
proposed  permit  area that may be affected by the underground  coal mining  or
coal  cleaning  operations conducted within  the  proposed  permit  area.   The
appropriate  officials should  be  consulted to delineate  the  adjacent  areas
for  assessment  that  are relevant  to each proposed permit area.

      Environmental  resources  that  are especially sensitive  to coal  mining
activities may require special consideration during the  baseline  inventory
and  environmental planning processes.    Specific guidance on  the  presence,
location, extent, or particular  sensitivities of  individual  resource ele-
ments may be available  from the Regional Administrator or from other Federal
or  State agencies.   The  sensitive resources described  below  are recognized
as  sensitive by the  USEPA  (40 CFR 434; 44  FR  9:2586-2592).   Section 6  of
these guidelines lists  environmentally protective Federal legislation, regu-
lations,  and Executive  Orders.

      •   Cultural Resources
         — Archaeological  sites
         — Historical sites
         — Community integrity and quality
         — Acoustic environment
         — Recreational land uses
         — Wild and scenic  rivers
                                       114

-------
     •  Ecological Resources
        — Sensitive ecosystems
        — Habitats of endangered species
        — Wetlands
        — National natural landmarks

     •  Geoenvironmental Resources
        — Prime agricultural lands
        — High sulfur coal seams
        — Toxic overburden
        — Alluvial valley floors
        — Steep slopes (greater than 25%)

     •  Water Resources
        — National Resource Waters
        — Saturated zone
        — Surface water
        — Groundwater

     The following discussion presents the minimum  site- and  process-related
data requirements  for  identification of  the effects of proposed  underground
coal mines and coal cleaning facilities.  The  inventory checklists  presented
in the section are organized on  the  basis of impacted  resources  (air,  water,
and  land) and  impacting  activities  (treatment  and  disposal  of wastes,
mining and cleaning methods, and coal  transportation).  The permit  applicant
should consult with the appropriate  USEPA or State  official to determine  the
format for presenting  environmental  and  process-related information to sup-
port each new source NPDES permit application.*

     The  level  of detail  of  the inventoried  data should  be sufficient  to
allow a determination  of  the  critical issues  that  may be associated  with a
permit application.   Some of these  issues  (such as  existing air  and  water
quality) may require more attention  in some regions than  in others. Certain
issues (such as control or prediction  of subsidence)  may  be of more or less,
concern  based on the  mining  methods  proposed  in  the  permit  applcation.
Coordination with the  USEPA is  recommended early  in  the mine  planning  and
environmental inventory process  to  insure that key issues will  be  addressed
adequately.

2.1.  PROCESS WASTES

     Process  wastes include the emissions,  effluents, and solids  generated
by  mining and  cleaning operations  and associated treatment  systems.   To
address  adequately the impacts  of  coal mining  and preparation  wastes,  the
sources,  quantities,  and characteristics of  those  wastes should be identi-
fied  to  the  extent possible.   The  following  discussion  generally  describes
the  wastes,  treatment residuals,  and potential  waste sources,  from  under-
ground coal  mines, coal cleaning facilities,  and waste  treatment processes.
Checklists  of  environmental  features  and  process-related   items  also  are
provided.
                                      115

-------
2.1.1.  Mining and Preparation Waste

     Waste streams generated by coal  mining  and preparation plant processes
include emissions,  effluents,  and solids.   Emissions are  discussed first,
followed by effluents and solids.

     2.1.1.1.  Air Emissions

     The air  quality in the vicinity  of proposed coal  mining  and cleaning
operations may  be subject  to  protection under PSD  considerations (Section
1.6.1.).  The regulatory  authority with responsibility for protecting local
air quality may impose special monitoring requirements as a pre-condition to
construction and operation of the  proposed facility.

     To develop  a complete  inventory of the  affected  air  resources, local
climatology and  air quality should be  described  thoroughly.   The relation-
ship  between  atmospheric  dispersion  patterns and  local topography should be
discussed with  the  aid of  models, if appropriate.   The following  resource
elements should be addressed explicitly.

     •  Topography — maps  and text that describe:

        — Regional  features that  affect local meteorology.
        — Location  of emission sources with respect  to  local
           topographic  features

      •  Climate — maximum,  minimum,  annual  and monthly  average
        data  from applicable stations  that describe:

        — rainfall
        — snowfall
        — temperature
        — wind  rose (speed and direction)
        — severe weather events

      •  Air Quality —  data and text  that  describe atmospheric
        concentrations  of:

        — particulates
        — NOX
        — other  parameters that  may be required  by the  Regional
           Administrator

           2.1.1.1.1.  Sources  of  Air Emissions

      Sources of air emissions  from underground coal mining and  coal cleaning
 operations  include  construction  activities  and  process-related operations.
 Sources of air emissions during construction activities  include unprotected
 spoils, haulroads,  and vehicular  exhausts.
                                      116

-------
     Coal cleaning processes,  coal  transfer (Figure 41), and open air  stor-
age provide numerous sources for air emissions.  The sources associated with
coal transfer and cleaning are listed below (Nunenkamp 1976, Szabo 1978).

     •  Coal transfer activities
        — Raw coal transport  to cleaning facility
        — Raw coal transfer to stacking hopper
        — Stacking
        — Raw coal storage
        — Raw coal transfer to cleaning operation
        — Coal fine transfer  to gob pile

        — Cleaned coal transfer to storage and  transportation
           facilities
        — Cleaned coal transport

     •  Coal cleaning activities:

        — Preliminary sizing  (wet  processes)
        — Dry crushing and sizing
        — Pneumatic separation
        — Thermal drying
        — Dryfeed and product transfer and loading

          2.1.1.1.2.  Quantities of Air Emissions

     Each discrete  coal  transfer operation produces a  quantity of  particu-
lates that may be  quantifiable on the average.   One  study completed by  the
USEPA assumed  an  average particulate emission  rate of  0.2 kg/MT  (0.4  Ib/T)
for loading and unloading activities associated  with all  modes  of  transport.
This rate is unadjusted  for  dust  control  measures that may be  applicable  to
coal  transfer  methods.    The  uncontrolled  particulate  emission rate may  be
adjusted  downward  based  on the  moisture -content  of  the  transferred coal
(Szabo  1978).   Emissions  from coal  transport  operations  are  discussed  in
Section 2.3.3.

     Emission rates from coal  cleaning operations depend  on  plant  design  and
the types of  control  processes that are employed  (Section 3).   Products  of
combustion from  the  drying of coal and the  coal-fired  heat source  include
carbon monoxide, the oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, particulates,  and hydro-
carbons  which generally  are  measured  as  those other  than methane.    The
emission rates for oxides of nitrogen from  dryers are comparable to  those  of
coal-fired power plants.   Sulfur oxide emissions from thermal  dryers gener-
ally are an order  of magnitude lower  (Table 24).   Carbon monoxide emissions
from  both sources  individually  are too  low to  control effectively (USEPA
1974b).

     Particulates  in  general  are  the  most abundant  form of emissions from
coal  cleaning  facilities, although other  combustion products  of  coal also
                                      117

-------
Gob Pile
                                           Stacker
                                           Reclaimer
                                           Operation
 Cleaned Coal
 Transport
   Figure 41.   Emission sources  associated with typical coal  cleaning and
     transfer  operations.


   Source:  Nunenkamp, David C.   1976.   Coal preparation environmental
        engineering manual.  US  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office
        of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Research Triangle  Park NC,
        EPA-600/2-76-138,  727  p.
                                       118

-------
              24.  Combustion product emissions from well controlled thermal dryers.
                             Concentration         Emission Rate           Coal Fired Power Plant
        Pollutant               ppm	       kg/million kg cal           kg/million kg cal


        NOX                     40-70              0.22-0.38                    0.39

        SOX                     0-11.2             0    - 0.05                    0.67

        Hydrocarbons
        (as methane)           20-100              0.04-0.19

        CO                      <50                   <0.17
vo
        Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.  1974.  Background information for standards
             of performance: coal preparation plants.  Volume 1: proposed standards.  US Environ-
             mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
             Triangle Park NC, EPA-450/2-74-021a, 40 p.

-------
are produced  during thermal  drying (Table  25).    Thermal  dryers generally
produce the bulk of partlculate emissions from coal cleaning apparatus.  The
ultra-fine  particles  «0.0075  cm)  are  entrained  by combustion  gases and
carried from  the  dryers at rates that  vary by dryer design (USEPA  1974b).
Typical emission rates  upstream from the dust control apparatus of  selected
dryers include (Nunenkamp 1976):

     •  Fluidized bed — 10 kg/MT (20 Ib/T)

     •  Flash — 8 kg/MT  (16  Ib/T)

     •  Multilouvered —  12.5 kg/MT (25  Ib/T)

Particulate emissions from coal cleaning operations include:

     •  Coal dust

     •  Carbon or  soot  particles

     •  Metallic  oxides and  salts

     •  Acid  droplets

     •  Silicates or  other inorganic dusts

     Thermal  dryers generally emit trace elements as particulate matter.  As
an average, a well-controlled  thermal  dryer with a  feed capacity of 450 MT
 (500 T) per hour discharges  approximately  0.13 gr (2 grains)  of arsenic per
hour.   Fluorine and selenium are  known to occur  in  coal,  although they are
not detected  in most  thermal  dryer  emission  streams  (USEPA  1974b;  Table
 26).

      The  compositions and concentrations of organic  gases emitted from  ther-
mal dryers are functions of dryer  temperatures,  feed rates, and coal charac-
 teristics.   The  kinds  of  polycyclic  organic  materials  (POM's)  that are
 emitted as gases by thermal  dryers may be  similar  to  those emitted by coal
 refuse fires (Table 27).  Emission rates of hydrocarbons from coal  cleaning
 facilities generally  are considered  to be  too   low for  regulatory control
 (USEPA 1974b).

 The extent of the  environmental problems associated with particulate  matter
 and aerosols depends  on  the   size  and  composition of  particles  and  the
 presence  of  air  flows  of   sufficient  velocity  to  spread  pollutants  from
 points of origin.   Dust  concentrations associated  with  the surface  opera-
 tions of  underground coal mines and coal cleaning facilities may be exacer-
 bated  by  movements  of  coal  and machinery.   Natural wind velocity,  however,
 often  may be adequate to lift particulate matter from unprotected  surfaces
 without  the  additional  impetus  provided by the operation of machinery  and
 the loading  and transport of  coal (Table 28).   Other  natural  factors that
 affect the suspension and transport  of dust include season, soil  moisture,
 temperature, humidity,  and wind direction (Downs and Stocks 1978).
                                       120

-------
Table 25.  Atmospheric emissions from a 5,730 MT (6,300 T) per day coal cleaning and associated
  activities,  assuming no particulate control.3
Source
 Particulates
(uncontrolled)
 EMISSION RATES (kg/day)

CO          NOX         S02
Hydrocarbons
Primary crushing 284
Loading and
unloading 114
Thermal drying 320 15.4 278.2 587.3
Vehicle emissions 1 6.8 11.4 0.8
Total 719 22.8 289.6 588.1



7.7
1.3
9.0
  Original assumptions in the source document included 80% particulate control in crushing trans-
     fer operations and 99% control of particulates from thermal dryers.
Source:  Szabo, Michael F.  1978.  Environmental assessment of coal transportation.   US Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/7-78-081, 141 p.

-------
Table 26.  Analysis of trace element concentrations in emissions from
  a typical thermal dryer.
               Constituent
Concentrations
in ppmw Unless
Noted Otherwise
               Aluminum
               Antimony
               Arsenic
               Barium
               Beryllium
               Bismuth
               Boron
               Cadmium
               Calcium
               Chloride
               Chromium
               Cobalt
               Copper
               Fluorine
               Germanium
               Iron
               Lead
               Lithium
               Magnesium
               Manganese
               Molybdenum
               Nickel
               Potassium
               Selenium
               Silica
               Silver
               Sodium
               Sulfate
               Strontium
               Tellurium
               Tin
               Titanium
               Vanadium
               Zinc
               Zirconium
      <50
     <100
      200
        1
       10
      <50
    3,000
    40-118
       30
       30

      <30
    5,000
      <30
    1,000
    50-100
     20-30
 1,000-2,000

        1.5%
      < 1
      300
 1,040-3,920
      100
     <100
      <50
      500
       50
     <100
       10
 Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.   1974.  Background  infor-
     mation for  standards of  performance:  coal preparation plants.
     Volume 1: proposed  standards.  US Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Office of Air  Quality Planning and  Standards, Research Triangle
     Park  NC, EPA-450/2-74-021a,  40 p.
                                   122

-------
Table 27.  Polycyclic organic materials emitted from coal refuse fires,
                    Dibenzothiophene
                    Anthracene/phenanthrene
                    Methylanthracenes/phenanthrenes
                    9-Methylanthracene
                    Fluoranthene
                    Pyrene
                    Benzo(c)phenanthrene
                    Chrysene/benz(a)anthracene
                    Dimethylbenzanthracenes (isomers)
                    Benzo (k or b) fluoranthene
                    Benzo(a)pyrene/benzo(e)pyrene/perylene
                    3-Methylcholanthrene
                    Dibenz(a, h or a,c)anthracene
                    Indeno  (1,2,3-c, d)pyrene
                    7H-Dibenzo(c, g)carbazole
                    Dibenzo (a, h or a, i)pyrene
Source:  Chalekode, P. K., and T. R. Blackwood.  1978.  Source
     assessment: coal refuse piles, abandoned mines and outcrops,
     state of the art.  US Environmental Protection Agency, Office
     of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/2-78-004v, 39 p.
                                     123

-------
Table 28.  Lift velocities of dry dusts.3
                                  Air Velocity, m/s
Particle Size (ym)

75 - 105

35 - 75

10 - 35
3Add 1 m/s (3 ft/s) for wet dusts.
Source:  Down, C. G. and J. Stocks.  1978.  Environmental impact of
    mining.  Applied Science Publishers Ltd.  London, England.  371 p,
Granite
7
6
4
Silica
6
5
3
Coal
5
4
3
                                   124

-------
          2.1.1.1.3.  Dispersion of Emissions

     The dispersion of thermal  dryer emissions  in the  atmosphere  is con-
trolled  by environmental  factors  as  well  as  design  considerations  for
thermal dryer  exhaust  systems (Dvorak  and Lewis 1978).   Key environmental
factors include:

     •  Topography  —  Local  terrain features affect the  direction
        and speed of near-ground  winds.   Higher elevations upwind
        from an exhaust stack can cause a local downwash of emis-
        sions  (Figure  42).    Higher elevations  downwind  from the
        stack  may  intercept  the emission plume,  resulting  in  a
        truncated   dispersion  pattern.    Cold,  night   air   that
        settles  to  valley  floors  may  force  the  plume  to   flow
        through  local  valleys  (Figure  43).    The  restricted air
        circulation pattern  of  valleys  can  increase  the ambient
        concentration  of pollutant  emissions  locally.

     •   Meteorology — Three meteorological  factors  control the
        dispersion  of  stack emissions:

        — Wind directions above  and  below the  plume determine the
        ultimate  direction of  plume  dispersion.    Changing  wind
        directions  cause the  path of  the plume  to widen and change
        direction.

        —  Wind speeds affect the  final ground-level concentra-
        tions  and ultimate stack-to-ground travel times of emitted
        pollutants.   High wind  speeds  dilute  the  pollutants but
        also  increase  travel  time, thus  allowing increased  oppor-
        tunities  for  chemical  reactions  between  airborne  pollu-
        tants  and local air  resources.

        —  Turbulence  in the  atmosphere increases  the mixing and
        dilution  of   emission  plumes.     Near-ground  turbulence
        usually is  induced by the  flow of air  over  rough  terrain
        or  by thermal  convection caused  by  stratified temperature
        differences between  the  upper  and  lower  portions of the
        atmosphere.

      2.1.1.2.   Water Discharges

      The  quantity  and  quality of  wastewater  generated by an active under-
 ground coal mine  generally  are  functions of  local  hydrogeology,  precipi-
 tation,  and runoff characteristics.   The local hydrologic regime  should be
 described  thoroughly  to  identify  the  hydrologic  variables  that  interface
 with  process- and  site-related  wastewaters  (Figure 44).    The  resource
 elements  to be addressed  in  an environmental inventory to support a new sou-
 rce NPDES  application  appear below.
                                      125

-------

                             WIND  r>


                                  :


Figure 42.  Downwash of plume caused by local terrain features,
Source:   Dvorak, A. J.  and B. G. Lewis.  1978.  Impacts of coal-fired
     power plants on fish, wildlife, and their habitats.  US Department
     of  the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
     Services, Washington DC, FWS/OBS-78/29, 360 p.
                                   126

-------
Figure 43.  Flow of plume caused by drainage of cold air through a valley.
Source:  Dvorak, A. J. and B. G. Lewis.  1978.  Impacts of coal-fired
     power plants on fish, wildlife, and their habitats.  US Department
     of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
     Services, Washington DC, FWS/OBS-79/29, 360 p.
                                   127

-------
i '
00
                                                                            ™nr oTrtDArtr /INTERCEPTION  PLUS
                                                                      UPPER ZONE STORAGE-(DEpRESSION STORAGE
                    SURFACE DETENTION




           INTERFLOW   ""^Sj^    EVAPORATION
                                                         •.. ;•.•....->. • .•• i •-.•••::•.
                                                        • •;••/-. • i. ;. •>.»•••.>'-. .   i
                                                        :•[•.'-^•-.':.:•••. :'•••;••- .;.v-

                                                        •: -.'SOIL MOISTURE-.., *•'*.
                     LOWER  ZONE STORAGE
GROUNDWATER FLOW— TO STREAM-



                     TO

                      DEEP

                       STORAGE
        Figure 44.  The hydrologic cycle,  including  all major components of the hydrologic regime.



        Source:  Shumate, Kenesaw S., E. E.  Smith, Vincent T. Ricca, and Gordon M. Clark.  1976.

             Resources allocation to optimize  mining pollution control.  US Environmental Protection

             Agency, Office of Research  and  Development, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,

             Cincinnati OH.  EPA-600/2-76-112, 476 p.

-------
*    Groundwater  -  maps,  text,  and  cross  sections  that
   describe:

   — Depth, extent, storage and transmission capacities, and
      water quality of all aquifers and confining strata that
      will  be  disturbed during  development,  extraction, and
      abandonment of the underground mine

   — Local  groundwater use characteristics,  including well
      locations, ownership, withdrawal  rates,  and planned or
      projected increases in local groundwater demand

   — Identification of  aquifer  recharge  areas for all aqui-
      fers  that are  to be disturbed,  with special attention
      to on-site recharge areas.

•  Surface  water  - maps, text,  and  cross sections that des-
   cribe  all  receiving  waters  to be  affected  by  proposed
   underground  mining   and  cleaning  operations.   Receiving
   waters include:

   — seeps
   — springs
   — streams
   — impoundments
   — wetlands

   The description of  surface  water  hydrology should  include
   descriptions of:

   — drainage basin areas
   — low flow of streams
   — mean flow of streams
   — flood flow of streams
   — flood control plans
   — flood control structures

   Surface  waters  should be characterized  by their chemical
   quality.   Stream segments  and  lakes that  are  classed as
   effluent limited, water quality limited, or as having some
   other  use-oriented  or  physical/chemical  water   quality
   classification should be identified.  The chemical  quality
   of receiving waters  should  be characterized on a seasonal
   basis by the following parameters.

   — temperature
   — PH
   — acidity
   — alkalinity
   — hardness
   — dissolved oxygen
   — total suspended solids
   — total dissolved solids
                                129

-------
        — turbidity
        — sulfate
        — ammonia
        — concentrations of total dissolved iron, manganese, zinc,
           aluminum, and nickel

        To  assess the  effects  of wastewater  discharges  on  the
        local  aquatic  community,  seasonal,  quantitative baseline
        data should be compiled  that  describe  adequately the bio-
        ta  of  local receiving  waters*   Biota should  be  sampled
        both  upstream  and  downstream  from  proposed   discharge
        points and  the  presence  of  spawning  beds  should  receive
        particular attention.  The possible occurrence of  unusual
        or endangered species of aquatic organisms should  receive
        special attention during  the Inventory.

        Appropriate biota include, but are not limited to:

        — phytoplankton
        — macrophytes
        — invertebrates
        — fish

     Water  discharges  from  proposed  underground  coal mining  and  cleaning
facilities  should be characterized by source,  quantity,  and  quality.   These
considerations are described below.

          2.1.1.2.1.  Wastewater Sources

     Wastewater associated with  underground coal mining  generally occurs  as
nuisance water which must  be managed effectively to avoid  disruption of  the
mining operation.  Groundwater,  which  is held  in fractures  and  voids in geo-
logic material, normally is encountered  during excavation  for mine  develop-
ment or  coal recovery.    Coal  seams locally may be  significant sources  of
groundwater  supplies.  These coal seams  generally have well-developed  frac-
ture  systems,  and   overlie   relatively   impermeable   shales,  clays,   or
claystones.

     The  hypothetical  hydrologic  regime of  an unmined  watershed  is dia-
grammed  in   Figure  45.   Water   from  precipitation percolates  downward  and
laterally  to recharge  the base  level  of  the  nearby  stream.   Additional
precipitation  flows downhill  through  the  upper  0.3 to  1 m  (1  to  3 ft)  of
soil.  Excess precipitation flows  over the ground surface as  runoff.

     The base flow of a stream represents the  contribution  of groundwater to
streamflow.  Groundwater may seep to  the surface along the contact  zones of
geologic materials  with  different water-bearing capabilities.   The ground-
water may enter  a stream  directly through the  subsurface  or flow  downhill
through seeps, gullies, and depressions  to  stream headwaters.
                                     130

-------
                  PRECIPITATION
Figure 45.  Idealized hydrology of  a  coal bearing watershed before
  mining.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.   1977.   Elkins mine
     drainage pollution  control  demonstration  project.   US Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Resource Handling  and  Extraction
     Division, Industrial Environmental Research  Laboratory,
     Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/7-77-090,  316 p.
                                   131

-------
     The depth  of the local  water table  in  part determines  the  amount of
water that infiltrates through the surface.  An  increase  in  the depth  of  the
watertable can  result  in a higher  capacity for  temporary  water  storage by
unconsolidated materials near the surface.  As the water-storage capacity of
the  surface  material  increases,  the amount  of  water  that  infiltrates  the
surface  during  gentle  storms  of long  duration  also  may  increase.    The
increased infiltration of  water through  the  surface depletes the amount of
excess precipitation available for runoff.

     An active coal mine may be idealized  as a shaft at the  center of  a cone
of depression in  the water  table.   The  diameter of the cone grows  as  the
mine  is  dewatered.   In  Figure 46,  the  successively  deeper  shaft  levels
represent the progressive extraction of  deeper coal  seams or the progressive
mining of steeply pitching seams.  The cone of depression grows as the shaft
becomes deeper.  The effects of dewatering eventually are noticeable in pri-
vately owned wells located off  the  mine  property.   The base  flows of  nearby
streams may be lowered.

     The excavation  of coal  or  other strata  disrupts  the  natural  flow of
water through the subsurface.   On the  down-dip side  of  the  coal seam, water
percolates through fractured  overburden  to the inined-out workings,  where it
mixes with  mine drainage  and  subsequently is discharged through the drift
entryway.  The quantity  of water  contributing  to local  base  flow and aquifer
recharge  is  reduced, and  the  recharge  to receiving waters may be  contam-
inated with mine  drainage  (Figure  47).   On the up-dip side  of the  coal seam,
water  percolates  through  fractured overburden and enters  the  mined-out
underground workings.   Most of this water flows down-dip toward  the  under-
ground  mine  pool which forms  at  the   down-dip extent  of  the  workings.
Recharge  from  percolating groundwater  is  minimal  to  aquifers  below  the
mined-out workings (Figure 48).   Water from the  mine pool may be  discharged
to the surface  through fractures  or  voids in  natural geologic materials.

     The  subsidence  of  natural  materials into  underground  workings  may
increase the permeability  of  unconsolidated materials near  the surface, pro-
ducing an  increase in the  rate of  water  infiltration through the  surface.
The  scarps,  fractures, sinkholes, and  other  surface features  of  subsidence
may  interdict  the flow  of  surface waters, routing   the  streamflow  into the
subsurface  (Hill  1978).

     Coal  cleaning  facilities  that use  water  for  process  operations gen-
erally  do  not produce process-related  water  discharges  (USEPA 1976d).  The
wastewater  sources associated with  coal cleaning operations  that  generally
generate  effluent for discharge include  surface  areas  (parking lots,   refuse
piles,  and  other ancillary areas) that  are affected by  runoff  (40  CFR 434;
44 FR 9:2586-2592,  12  January 1979).

          2.1.1.2.2.   Wastewater Quantities

      The  quantity  of  groundwater  that  may  require handling and  possible
treatment  for  discharge  may be estimated from the results of an aquifer  test
                                        132

-------
                                  PLAN VIEW
                                     BOUNDARY OF LEASE
                        PRIVATE WELLS
MINE
 D
                                               WELLS
              STREAM
                                  PROFILE VIEW
                  WATER TABLE
                          \
                                             X
                                               b
Figure 46.  Progressive  dewatering of an aquifer with excavation of
  a mine shaft.
Source:  Warner, Don L.   1974.   Rationale and methodology for monitoring
     groundwater polluted by  mining activities.   Prepared for the US
     Environmental Protection Agency,  National Environmental Research
     Center, Las Vegas NV,  84 p.
                                    133

-------
                               PRECIPITATION
                                                                 , •»•>-.:(>..,.-»;,• -u-.T.-r.-.- -.-_' •••'<". '»,i- ir'-.J.
Figure 47.   Post  mining hydrology on  the  downdip side of a drift
  mouth mine.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.   1977.  Elkins mine
     drainage  pollution control demonstration project.  US Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Resource  Handling and Extraction
     Division,  Industrial Environmental  Research Laboratory,
     Cincinnati OH,  EPA-600/7-77-090,  316  p.
                                     134

-------
                   PRECIPITATION

Figure 48.  Post mining hydrology on  the updip side  of  an  underground
  mine.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.  1977.   Elkins mine  drainage
     pollution control demonstration project.  US  Environmental Protection
     Agency, Resource Handling and Extraction Division,  Industrial
     Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/7-77-090,
     316 p.
                                    135

-------
(Walton 1970,  Lohman  1972).   One well  is pumped at a  known rate and water
levels are monitored  in  surrounding observation wells.   The results of  the
test are analyzed graphically or  numerically to quantify the ability of  the
aquifer to store  and  transmit water.   These  coefficients  lead directly  to
estimates  of  groundwater  quantities  in  situ  and  rates  of water migration
toward  dewatering centers  (Walton 1970,  Lohman 1972).    Other  methods  of
field investigation  include  pressure tests  and  drill  stream tests.  Water-
bearing capacities of rocks  also  may be estimated from laboratory tests  for
permeability, porosity, and  structural  properties (Loofbourow 1973).

     Runoff from  areas to  be affected by  proposed underground coal mines  and
coal cleaning  facilities  can be  calculated using accepted  engineering  prac-
tices (Chow  1959, USSCS 1972).   Changes  in the  topography, land cover,  or
water table of a  watershed may affect the pattern and  quantity  of runoff  and
streamflow locally.  The amount and volume of  runoff from alternate  drainage
configurations in the proposed permit area and adjacent areas should be  cal-
culated to assess the effects of proposed  coal mining activities  on  local
surface water  hydrology.   Figure  49 shows a typical mine  site  configuration
over  three subbasins  in an  affected drainage  basin.   Runoff  is  calculated
separately for  the  subbasins.   The runoff  patterns  of Subbasins A  and  B in
Figure  49  may change as  the basins are mined.   The  runoff pattern  of  Sub-
basin C is unaffected by  mining  activity, although streamflow characteris-
tics  through  the  subbasin  may  be  altered  by mining  upstream.

     The proposed permit  area  or  adjacent areas may include receiving waters
that  require  impoundment,  channelization, or other  interdiction for the con-
struction  of  surface  facilities  for underground coal mines and  coal cleaning
operations.   Contamination  of interdicted receiving waters with pollutant-
bearing mine  drainage  may  generate waste streams which  require  adequate
treatment  for discharge.  The volume of  the  waste stream  can be  predicted
and minimized during  the  design  process.

           2.1.1.2.3.  Wastewater  quality

     The  US  coal mining  industry produces four  basic  types  of  effluents
(USEPA  1976a):

      •   Raw  discharge effluent  — untreated mine drainage  that
        generally does  not  require  neutralization  and/or  sedimen-
         tation

      •   Sediment-bearing  effluent  — mine drainage which has  been
         passed through settling  ponds or basins without a  neutral-
         ization treatment

      •   Acid  mine  drainage  — untreated  mine drainage character-
         ized as acid with high iron content,  requiring neutraliz-
         ation and sedimentation treatment
                                       136

-------
                              Basin Outlet
Figure 49.  Subbasins of a watershed.
Source:  Shumate, Kenesaw S., E. E. Smith, Vincent T. Ricca, and Gordon
     M. Clark.  1976.  Resources allocation to optimize mining pollution
     control.  US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
     and Development, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
     Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/2-76-112, 476 p.
                                    137

-------
     •  Treated mine drainage — mine drainage which has been  pH-
        neutralized and passed through a sedimentation process.

     Discharge  effluent  may result  from collection  of runoff  from  undis-
turbed areas  or from effective management  of  interdicted  receiving  waters.
So long as it meets standards, it may be discharged in its raw state  without
treatment.

     Coal preparation plant effluent generally is  characterized  as  sediment-
bearing.  The media used in the washing process  are sufficiently alkaline  to
meet discharge  standards, but they dissolve little or none of  the extraneous
matter being  removed from the coal*

     Sediment-laden  water  generated  by the  erosion of  exposed land is  a
common, but  significant,  problem encountered  in  managing surface-disturbed
areas.   Erosion and resulting  sedimentation contribute  to  water  pollution
and cause the loss of soil nutrients leading to  reduced  soil  productivity.
To characterize adequately the susceptibility of  surface-disturbed  land  to
erosion and  soil loss, the  following site-related  factors  should be docu-
mented and analyzed  (Grim and Hill 1974):

        Degree  of slope
        Length  of slope
        Climate
        Amount  and  rate of  rainfall
        Type  and percent vegetation  cover
        Soil  type

     Acid mine  drainage  (AMD)  is  produced  by the oxidation of pyritic mater-
ials  to form ferric hydroxide and  sulfuric acid.   These  pollutants  contam-
inate  runoff and mine drainage,  causing low  pH and high concentrations  of
heavy  metals such  as  iron, manganese,  copper, and  zinc (Table  29).   The
amount and  rate of acid formation and  the chemical quality of  the drainage
are functions of the amount and type of  pyrite  in the overburden  and coal,
other  geological and  chemical characteristics  of the  overburden,  and  the
amount of water and  air available  for chemical reaction.

     Raw  mine drainage may be  alkaline in areas  where the  overburden con-
tains  alkaline  material  such as limestone  or  where  no  acid-producing mater-
ial  is associated  with  the  overburden or  coal  seam.    These  discharges
usually  are  high  in  sulfates  and  generally  are less detrimental   to  the
environment  than acid  mine  discharges  (Table 30).

     Untreated  acid mine  drainage  has destroyed productivity in approxi-
mately 17,700 km (11,000 mi) of US  streams (USOSM 1978a:BIII-33).   For the
Appalachian  Region,  it is estimated that  a residual acid load  in  excess of
270,000  MT  (300,000  T)  per  year  is not   neutralized  until   it reaches  the
larger streams.  In Appalachia, approximately 97Z of the acid  pollution in
streams  and  63Z in  impoundments  are  generated  by  coal mining  operations
(USOSM 1979).
                                      138

-------
Table 29.  General chemical characteristics of raw acid mine drainage.
Parameter           Minimum     Maximum        Mean        Std. Dev.
                      (mg/1)       (mg/1)        (SgTT)

pH                     2.6           7.7           3.6
Alkalinity             0           184             5             32
Total Iron             0.08        440            52.01         101
Dissolved Iron         0.01        440            50.1          102.4
Manganese              0.29        127            45.11          42.28
Aluminum               0.10        271            71.2           79.34
Zinc                   0.06          7.7           1.71           1.71
Nickel                 0.01          5             0.71           1.05
Total Diss. Solids    120        8,870         4,060           3,060
Total Susp. Solids     4        15,878           549           2,713
Hardness               24        5,400         1,944           1,380
Sulfate                22        3,860         1,842           1,290
Amnonia                0.53         22             6.48            4.70
Table 30.   General  chemical  characteristics of raw alkaline mine drainage,
Parameter           Minimum     Maximum
                      (mg/1)       (mg/1)

pll                     6.2           8.2
Alkalinity            30           860
Total Iron             0.02          6.70
Dissolved Iron         0.01          2.7
Manganese              0.01          6.8
Aluminum               0.10          0.85
Zinc                   0.01          0.59
Nickel                 0.01          0.18
Total Diss. Solids    152         8,358
Total Susp. Solids     1           684
Hardness              76         2,900
Sulfate               42         3,700
Ammonia                0.04         36
                                                Mean
Std. Dev.
                                                               183
                                                                 1.87
                                                                 0.52
                                                                 1.40
                                                                 0.22
                                                                 0.16
                                                                 0.04
                                                             2,057
                                                               215
                                                               857
                                                             1,136
                                                                 6.88
 Source:   US Environmental Protection Agency.  I976c.  Development document
      for interim final effluent limitation guidelines and new source
      performance standards for the coal mining point source category.
      EPA-440/l-76-057a.  Washington DC, 288 p.
                                    139

-------
     The quality  of  mine drainage which has  been treated by neutralization
and sedimentation  to achieve new source discharge  limitations  generally is
acceptable  for  discharge,  although generally inferior to that  of raw dis-
charge  effluent and  sediment-bearing effluent  regardless of  the  neutral-
ization techniques used  (USEPA  1976c).   The USEPA or State regulatory auth-
orities may require, on  a  case  by case basis, that concentrations of pollu-
tants  in  discharged wastewater be less  than those  required by  the NSPS.
These  more  stringent limitations may be necessary to  protect  streams with
spawning beds,  endemic  species,  high quality, poor  buffering  capacity, or
existing pollutant concentrations that are mandated for reduction under the
CWA.

     2.1.1.3.   Solid Wastes

     Solid  wastes  from coal cleaning  facilities  and  underground coal mines
are characterized  by quantity,  quality,  and particle  size.

     •  Quantity — At  combined  coal preparation and  underground
        mining  operations,  coal  cleaning  generally yields 80%  of
        the  total  volume of above-ground solid waste.  Quantities
        of  solid  wastes expected from  cleaning  operations can  be
        predicted  by  comparing  the  results   of  coal  washability
        tests  with  estimated mine  production  (Keller  and others
        1968, Ven  Kateson  1978, McCandless  and Shaver 1978).

     •  Quality —  Mine wastes from western  coal  seams  generally
        are  alkaline,  have  a  high pH,  and  contain  numerous dis-
        solved  substances  usually as  salts.   Mine  wastes  from
        eastern coal seams generally  contain  unstable sulfide min-
        erals  (especially  pyrite  and marcasite) which  can produce
        leachate  with low  pH  and high  concentrations of  sulfate
        and  heavy metals (W. A. Wahler and Associates 1978).

     •  Particle  size  — Solid  wastes from underground coal mining
        and  coal  cleaning operations  are classified  as fine  or
        coarse   on  the   basis  of   particle  size   distribution
        (Chalekode and Blackwood  1978).

        —  Coarse  refuse  includes  material   larger  than 0.38  cm
        (0.15  in).  This refuse  is separated from  ROM coal during
        the coal cleaning  process.   Waste rock from  the develop-
        ment of  underground  openings also  accumulates  as coarse
        refuse.  Coarse refuse  from  underground  mines also may  in-
        clude  extraneous material such as brattice cloth  from mine
        ventilation systems,  oily rags,  used mine  timbers,  and
        miscellaneous  trash.

        —  Fine  refuse  includes material  smaller  than 0.38  cm
        (0.15  in) from fine coal  cleaning and desliming operations
        and residuals  from effluent  treatment systems.
                                      140

-------
2.1.2.  Treatment Residuals

     Treatment residuals  from coal mine and  preparation  plant  pollution con-
trol systems generally include sludges and solid  wastes  from  treatment faci-
lities and  settling  ponds.   Thermal dryers  equipped with fabric filters or
other dust  suppression devices also generate  solid wastes,  usually as fine
particles,  grit,  or  dust.  The waste  treatment systems that  produce treat-
ment residuals are described  in  Section  3.2.  Waste quantities can be iden-
tified by comparing  the  mass  balance (stoichiometry) of the  treatment reac-
tion with quantified loadings of materials  that  will precipitate or settle
into the treatment systems (Apian and Hogg 1979).

2.2  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COAL INDUSTRY  WASTES

     Emissions, effluents, and solid wastes  from  underground  coal mining  and
coal cleaning operations  may contain pollutants that affect human health  and
environmental quality adversely.  The lethality,  toxicity, or other undesir-
able characteristics of a pollutant may depend on its ambient concentration,
method  of  dispersion  (air  and/or  water),  and  potential  for synergistic
effects with other pollutants.

2.2.1.  Human Health Impacts

     The principal effects on human  health from the pollutants found  in coal
are described below:

     •  Fugitive  dust  can result in  ambient air  quality which is
        hazardous to humans working  near  or  living  downwind  from the
        emissions source.  Respired dust can  contribute to  a de-
        crease  of effective volume  for  air intake to   the  lungs.
        The precise  health effects  of  a fugitive  dust depend  on
        its composition  (Chalekode and Blackwood  1978).

     •  Sulfates  can cause both  a bad  taste  and laxative effect in
        drinking  water.   USEPA (1976d)  recommends an upper  limit
        of  250 mg/1  to  provide  reasonable  protection to  humans
        from these adverse effects.

     •' Iron  concentrations  that exceed 30  mg/1  in domestic  water
        supplies  generally produce objectionable  taste,  color, and
        aesthetic characteristics  (USEPA  1976d).

     •  % Manganese poisoning from  contaminated drinking water has
        been  reported  (USEPA 1976c).   The  acceptable upper  limit
        for manganese  in  domestic water  supplies  is 0.5 mg/1, pri-
        marily  based on aesthetic and taste considerations  (USEPA
        1976d).

     •  Zinc  concentrations  in excess of 5  mg/1 can cause  an un-
        desirable taste  in  public  water supplies.  In addition,
                                      141

-------
        zinc  at high concentrations can have an  adverse  effect  on
        humans  (USEPA 1976c).

     •   Trace  elements  that are  found in  coal  can  have  adverse
        effects on human health.   Table 31 presents  a  summary  of
        trace metals, their associated health problems,  and perti-
        nent  references  for more detailed documentation.

     •   Polycyclic organic materials  (POM's) from  coal  combustion
        may be  carcinogenic (Chalekode and Blackwood 1978).  POM's
        that  are known to be carcinogenic include:


         — Benzo(c)phenanthrene

         — Dimethylbenzanthracenes (isomers)

         — Benzo(a)pyrene/benzo(e)pyrene/perylene

         — Dibenz(a,h or a,c)anthracene

         — 7H  - Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole

         — Dibenzo(a,h or a,i)pyrene

2.2.2.   Biological Impacts

     Aquatic and  terrestrial  biota may be  affected  adversely by the pollu-
tants which  are commonly found in  wastes from  underground  coal mining and
coal cleaning operations.   The  pollutants that are known to produce adverse
effects are highlighted below.

     •  Sediment is  transported by water  during  erosion  and  by air
        as fugitive  dust.   If  uncontrolled,  sediment transported
        by  runoff may  degrade  receiving waters  by causing in-
        creases  in  turbidity,  oxygen  demanding  materials,  nutri-
        ents, and  potentially  toxic  substances.   Increased  sedi-
        ment loads  to receiving  waters  also hasten  the aging  of
        ponds and lakes through filling and nutrient  enrichment.

        Aquatic  organisms  are   affected adversely by excess  sedi-
        ment.   Increased suspended sediment  loads reduce  primary
        productivity (photosynthesis)  in  surface waters by  limit-
        ing  the penetration of  light.   Sedimentation  buries and
        suffocates the organisms  of the periphyton and macroinver-
        tebrates  which  have limited  mobility,  and  it  reduces  or
        eliminates fish  spawning  success.  Physical  abrasion from
        suspended  sediments also destroys  aquatic  organisms.   As
        sediment  load increases  in streams,  the  interstices be-
        tween  the gravel and  rocks which compose  the  bottoms  of
                                      142

-------
Table 31.  Effects on human health produced by trace metals in coal.
Metal or Metal Compound
      Health Problems
     Reference
Arsenic
Cancer of the skin
Beryllium and compounds     Carcinogenesis; Poisoning
(Wickstrom 1972);
(Lee and Fraumeni
1969)

(Reeves et al.  1967);
(Wager et al. 1969)
Cadmium
Prostate cancer
Chromium and compounds      Carcinogenesis

Cobalt                      Carcinogenesis
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Nickel
Nickel  carbonyl
Vanadium
Antimony,  arsenic,
cadmium,  cobalt,  copper,
iron,  lead,  magnesium,
manganese,  tin,  and
zinc oxides
Nasal cancers
Mutagenic and teratogenic
effects

Nasal cancers
Suspected Carcinogenesis
Inhibition of lipid
formation
(Pott 1965);
(Kipling and Waterhouse
1967)

(Hueper 1961)

(Oilman and Rucker-
bauer 1963)

(Zawirsica and
Medras 1968)

(D'ltri 1972)
(Oilman and Rucker-
bauer 1963)

(Sunderman and
Donnelly 1965)',
(Cavanaugh 1975)

(Stokinger 1963)
Fume fever
 (Waldbott 1973)
                                    143

-------
riffle areas gradually  fill,  effectively eliminating many
habitats that normally  are  occupied  by a variety of aqua-
tic  organisms.     Aquatic   macroinvertebrates  and  fish
respond  to  high  concentrations  of  suspended  solids  by
exhibiting increased rates of downstream movement (drift),
decreases in population, and changes in community composi-
tion (Gammon 1970).

 Acid  water  discharges  can affect  aquatic  organisms  by
affecting  the permeability  of  tissue cells adversely; in-
ducing physiological damage in fish; and affecting aquatic
plants,  algae,  and  benthic  macro-invertebrates adversely
(USOSM 1979).

 Iron discharged in  untreated  wastewater  can kill fish by
coating  their  gills   with  iron  hydroxide   precipitates
(yellow  boy).   Fish are deprived  of  food  as the iron hy-
droxide  coats stream bottoms,  thus eliminating  macroinver-
tebrates and  other  food  organisms  (USEPA  1976b   USOSM
1978b).  USEPA  recommends a maximum iron concentration of
1  mg/1  for  the protection  of  many  forms  of  freshwater
aquatic  life,  although  tolerance  to  iron  varies greatly
among  aquatic  species (USEPA 1976d).   The NSPS discharge
limitations  for iron  take  into consideration this  vari-
ability  and  provide adequate protection for  aquatic  biota
in   general,   except  as  described   previously  (Section
2.1.1.2.3.).

 Manganese  acts similarly to  iron,  both as a direct  toxi-
cant to aquatic  biota  and as  a  precipitate-former  that
eliminates bottom-dwelling  organisms  (USEPA  1977 in  USOSM
1978b).    There is  no specific maximum concentration of
manganese  in freshwater that is  known to protect all  aqua-
 tic organisms.  Concentrations  up to 1  mg/1  may be safe
 for aquatic  animals (USEPA 1976d).  Much  lower concentra-
 tions,  however, may be hazardous to aquatic  plants.   Con-
 centrations  as low as 0.005 mg/1  of  soluble  manganese  are
 toxic  to algae (McKee  and Wolf 1963).

 Zinc concentrations ranging from 0.1  to 1.0  mg/1  in water
 with a total hardness of 20 mg/1  can  kill  fish by affect-
 ing their  gills adversely or by acting as an internal poi-
 son.  The  sensitivity of fish  to zinc varies with  their
 species, age,  condition, and  the  chemical  and  physical
 characteristics of  the water.   Freshwater  plants may  be
 affected  adversely by concentrations  of   10 mg/1  zinc
 (USEPA 1976c).
                             144

-------
2.3.  OTHER IMPACTS

     Underground  coal  mining and coal preparation may produce  environmental
impacts  not  directly  associated  with waste streams.   These special  impact
considerations include:

     •   Storage and handling  of  coal
     •   Site preparation  and  facility construction
     •   Coal transportation

2.3.1.   Special Problems  in  Storage and Handling  of Raw Materials and
   Products             ~~

     Storage piles  for coal  and  coal refuse generally are exposed to wind
and  precipitation,  giving  rise  to  fugitive  dust  and  potentially noxious
leachate and runoff  which must  be interdicted and  treated as necessary  to
minimize potential  damage to the  environment.   Methods  to characterize  the
quality  and  quantity of   wastewater from  storage  piles  are   available
(Monsanto 1978).

2.3.2.   Special Problems  in  Site  Preparation and  Facility Construction

     Coal cleaning facilities and the  surface  operations of underground coal
mines generally occupy areas  that otherwise  would be available  for  such land
uses as  agriculture,   forestry,  wildlife  management,  and  recreation.   This
usurpation of open space  may produce  ecological effects  that can be identi-
fied on  the basis of inventories  of the vegetation and wildlife resources  of
proposed permit  areas.   Minimum site information  requirements  for  these
inventories include:

     •  Vegetation;

        — species composition and distribution of types
        — importance  as  wildlife  habitat
        — local and regional uniqueness
        — noteworthy  specimens or associations of plants
        — threatened  or  endangered species
        — species of  economic importance

     •  Wildlife — habitat  for  resident or  migratory

        — amphibians
        — reptiles
        — birds
        — mammals
        — threatened  or  endangered species
        — game species

     Subsidence of unsupported, undermined terrain may restrict the usage  of
affected surface areas by humans  and wildlife.
                                     145

-------
     Subsidence always is a consideration in underground coal mining*  Abso-
lute assurance  that  subsidence will not  occur  in an area  that  is mined  by
underground methods  generally is  not  feasible.   To establish  a basis  for
measuring the effectiveness  of a  permit  applicant's proposed plans for  the
prediction and control of subsidence in the permit area, baseline conditions
should be established for the following resource  elements.

     •  Coal seam variables (Section 1.2.1.2.)

     •  Topography of the affected area

     •  Geotechnical properties of coal seam and  overburden
        materials:

        — Compressive strength
        — Mineralogy
        — Structure
        — Tensile strength

     The  stresses that are Induced at  the  peripheries of  underground  open-
ings  (Figure 3)  eventually  equilibrate.   To  relieve  the shear  stresses,
failure of the  roof  and  overlying strata may occur  on line with the  periph-
ery  of the  pillar (Figure 50).    Entire  pillars  may fail  under compressive
loads  that  diverge  from  the ideal pressure  arch (Section  1.2.1.2.2.)  when
acting  in natural overburden  (Figure 51).

     The  following discussion of subsidence largely is based on the  work of
Stefanko  (Cummins and  McGiven 1973).   Additional  references  to  the  topic
appear  in the bibliographic  index.

     The  extent of  subsidence  over one  or more mine openings  can be  pre-
dicted  empirically.   The arch of compressive forces above  a single  opening
can  achieve relatively  long-term stability  for subcritical widths  (-We).
Subsidence  eventually may  cause  a vertical  displacement  (Sj)  at the  sur-
face of  the  opening.  As the opening is  widened, the span  of  the excavated
chamber reaches a critical width (We)  that  approximates  the maximum pressure
arch at which compressive  failure of  the  overburden is imminent*  The subse-
quent  vertical  displacement  (S)  is a maximum  at the center of  the  trough
(Figure 52).   Excavation of  the  opening  to a super- critical  width  extends
the  limb  of  the subsidence  trough into  the  newly undermined overburden.  The
center  of the vertical displacement  (82) follows  the  center of the  trough
as  the  opening  is expanded.

     The  maximum  areal extent of  subsidence  from an underground opening can
be  approximated.   The  limits  of  the subsidence  trough lie within an envelope
extended  from  the peripheries of  the opening at  the angle  of draw, which is
measured  from  a  vertical  line  extended  upward  from  the  walls  of  the
opening.
                                       146

-------
Figure 50.  Subsidence caused by failure in shear stresses along pillar
  peripheries.
Source:  Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.  Underground coal mining:  an
     assessment of technology.  Prepared for Electric Power Research
     Institute, Palo Alto CA, EPRI-AF-219, 455 p.
                                   147

-------
                       Major damage at perimeter of subsided are
                                                     Original surface level

                                                        Subsided surface level

  Undisturbed »ir_o«q-rT!

Figure  51.   Subsidence caused by  compressive  failure of  a coal pillar.
Source:   Hittman Associates, Inc.   1976.  Underground  coal mining:   an
     assessment of  technology.   Prepared  for  Electric  Power Research
     Institute, Palo Alto CA, EPRI-AF-219,  455 p.
                                      148

-------
               L
                                 Subsidence Profiles
  Surface
 Thickness of Seam (t)
                               Critical
                         —   width (We)
                                                                       Depth (D)
Figure 52.   Subsidence profiles  and  the corresponding widths  of  a
  single opening.
Source:  Hittman Associates, Inc.   1976.   Underground coal mining:   an
     assessment  of technology.  Prepared  for Electric Power Research
     Institute,  Palo Alto CA, EPRI-AF-219, 455 p.
                                     149

-------
     Values for the angle of draw  generally vary with the depth of the coal
seam and the nature of the overburden.  A value  of  25° is assumed  to be suf-
ficient  to  include all  of  the significant  ground  movement associated with
most of  US  coal  seams,  although values  up to  35° are used  in Europe  and
higher values have been  encountered at  individual US  operations.

     The subsidence associated with an underground opening can  be  expressed
together with coal seam thickness as  a ratio.  The  functional  relationship
between  this  ratio and  the  ratio of  coal  seam depth  to  opening width  was
determined  by the National Coal Board of the United Kingdom on  the basis of
empirical evidence.   The cuirve in  Figure  53 represents  the  results of  subsi-
dence  surveys at  157  mines.   Thickness of seams ranged  from 0.6 to 5. 4 m (2
to  18  ft)  at  depths of  30 to  780  m  (100  to 2,600 ft).   The curve indicates
that subsidence  is negligible for width-depth ratios less  than  0.25.   Total
subsidence  (assumed  to be  90% of  the  seam  thickness) occurs  for width-depth
ratios greater  than 1.3.

     Returning  to the example developed  during the  discussion  of the pres-
sure arch  theory  (Section  1.2.1.2.2.), it is possible to quantify the subsi-
dence  that may  result  from  the  excavation  of coal from  a  40 m (135  ft;
opening  (created  by  mining  the ribs and pillars  on  retreat)  at  a depth of
240 m (800 ft).   The horizontal  distance  from the tail of the trough  to a
vertical line projected upward from the periphery of the opening is equal to
the tangent of  the draw angle multiplied by  the depth  of  the  seam (D tan a,
where  a is the angle of draw).   The product  is doubled to account for  both
sides  of the opening.   The width of  the excavation (40 m)  is  added  to the
product (2 D tan a + W).   The maximum width of  the trough  at the   surface
equals 264 m (881 ft).

      For this example,  the ratio  of the width of  the opening  to the depth of
 the seam equals  0.17.   Comparison of  this  ratio with the curve of Figure 53
 indicates  that  subsidence is  less  than 10%  of the thickness  of the seam.
 For a coal seam  1.8  m (6 ft)  thick, a maximum vertical  displacement of 0.2 m
 (approximately 8 in) may occur  at the surface.

 2.3.3.  Coal Transportation

      The  coal  transportation  methods described  in   Section  1.2.2.1.   can
 adversely  affect environmental resources,  including  air quality, water re-
 sources,  and land use.   These impacts  are described  in  the  sections  that
 follow.

       2.3.3.1.  Air Quality

       Trains,  barges, and trucks  produce emissions from engine exhausts and
 load  loss  during transport.   Emission rates  generally  depend on the  type of
 fuel  consumed  by the carrier and  the measures taken (if any)  to stabilize or
 cover the  surface of the  transported coal.
                                       150

-------
     1.0
    0.8
     0.6
S/T
    0.4
     0.2
7
              0.2      0.4     0.6      0.8     1.0     1.2     1.4
                                                                    •
 Figure 53.  The  subsidence-overburden thickness ratio  (S/T) expressed
   as a function  of width (W)  of the opening and depth  (d) of the seam.


 Source:  Hittman Associates,  Inc.  1976.  Underground  coal mining:   an
      assessment  of technology.   Prepared for Electric  Power Research
      Institute,  Palo Alto CA, EPRI-AF-219, 455 p.
                                      151

-------
     Emission rates  were  estimated for selected  pollutants  from unit  train
and barge operations (Table 32).   Emission rates  for  particulates were  esti-
mated as  percentages of the loads.   Unit trains may  lose  between 0.05 and
1.0%  of loaded  coal during  transit.   Barges travel  at lower  speeds and
therefore lose  less'coal.   An emission  rate  of  0.01% per  day is shown  in
Table 32  as a  cumulative  total of 0.02% of the original  load,  assuming  a
typical two-day  trip.

     The rate of load-particulate  loss from trucks also is  low.  An  average
loss  rate  of 0.0016% per km  (0.0025% per mi)  is assumed  for the 64 km  (40
mi) round trip  described  in Table  33.   Assuming that  the  truck returns  empty
to the  loading  facility,  the cumulative load loss for the  trip is  0.05%.

     Conveyors  either are covered  or operated  at low  speeds to minimize  the
loss  of load to the wind.  One study assumed  a wind  loss rate of 0.02%  per
day from  a  122  cm (48 in) wide conveyor  hauling  1,800 MT (2,000 T)  of coal
per hour  over  16  km (10 mi).   The  estimated  emission factor for  spillage
rate  at transfer stations along the belt was 0.07 kg/MT  (0.15 Ib/T), assum-
ing that  some emissions  were  controlled  by  enclosures (Szabo 1978).   Coal
sizes  larger than 0.95  cm (0.38  in)  or  coal  with greater  than 9%  surface
moisture  generally do not contribute  to conveyor  emissions (USEPA 1977b).

      2.3.3.2.   Water Resources

      Coal slurry pipelines can transfer significant amounts  of water between
distant  watersheds.    The  Black Mesa  pipeline  uses  approximately  1.2-
million 1 (0.3  million  gal)  of water per  day (Section  1.2.2.1.5.).  Assuming
a minimum  transfer  rate  of  3.6 million  MT  (4  million T) per  year  for eco-
nomic operation, a coal  slurry pipeline  will  use approximately  1 million 1
(0.3  million gal) per day to  pump a  slurry  that contains approximately 50%
solids  by volume.  This  rate  of  water use may conflict  with existing water
uses  in arid parts of the Nation  (Figure 54).

      2. 3. 3. 3.   Land Use

      The  land required  for rights-of-way (ROW) varies  by transportation mode
 (University of  Oklahoma 1975):

      •  Conveyor — 0.9 ha/km (3.64 ac/mi)

      •  Rail — 1.5 ha/km (6 ac/mi)

      •  Coal slurry pipeline — 2.5 ha/km (10  ac/mi)  for a  single
         pipeline; 3 ha/km (12 ac/mi)  for two pipelines in one ROW
         (Szabo 1978)
                                       152

-------
Table 32.  Atmospheric emissions from unit trains and barges hauling
  coal under assumed conditions.


                                         Quantity (kg per trip)
Pollutant
CO
NO
X
S0x
Hydrocarbons
Particulates (engine
exhaust)
Particulates (loading)
Particulates (in transit)
Particulates (unloading)
a
Unit train
935
4,855
780
2,075
345
2,285
5,700
2,285
Barges
2,122
3,492
254
406
122
3,630
3,600
3,630
a Assumes a 985  km (612 mi) 48  hr  round  trip  to  haul  11,430 MT
     (12,600 T) of  coal one way.

b Assumes a 460  km (288 mi),  48 hr trip  one way  to  haul  18,000 MT
     (20,000 T) of  coal.
 Source:   Szabo, Michael F.   1978.   Environmental assessment  of  coal
      transportation.   US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
      Research  and  Development,  Industrial Environmental  Research
      Laboratory, Cincinnati OH,  EPA-600/7-78-081, 141 p.
                                    153

-------
Table 33.  Atmospheric emissions from 6.4 km (40 mi) round trip by
  truck to haul 27 MT (30 T) of coal one way.
     Pollutant

     CO
     N02
     S02
     Hydrocarbons
     Aldehydes (HCHO)
     Organic acids
     Particulates (engine exhaust)
     Particulates (loading)
     Particulates (in transit)
     Particulates (unloading)
Quantity (kg per trip)

       0.98
       1.62
       0.12
       0.16
       0.01
       0.01
       0.06
      14
      27
      14
Source: Szabo, Michael F.  1978.  Environmental assessment of
     coal  transportation.  US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental
     Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/7-78-081, 141 p.
                                    154

-------
                                                        WATER  SURPLUS'


                                                        WiZm  0 TO  51
                                                               SI TO GREATER
                                                               THAN 200
WATER  DEFICIENCY (em)-.


IV.V.VJ  0 TO 50
       61 TO GREATER
       THAN  IOO
Figure 54.  Abundance of water in  the United States.


Source:  Szabo,  Michael F.  1978.   Environmental assessment of coal transportation.
     US Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Research and Development,  Industrial
     Environmental Research Laboratory,  Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/7-78-081,  141  p.

-------
2.4  MODELING OF IMPACTS

     Models are available  to  simulate  the effects of underground coal mines
and coal cleaning  facilities  on air quality  and  water  resources.  Adequate
local data must be available  to implement these models successfully.  Models
usually are calibrated  with data derived from  similar  geographic areas and
operational situations  for which the  impacts on air and  water quality are
known.  Models  for specific applications in particular geographic areas may
be available  from  Federal, State,  or  local agencies.   These agencies also
should be consulted  to  ascertain the  availability  of data for the proposed
permit area and calibration areas.

2.4.1.  Air Quality Models

     The USEPA  maintains  a library of  air quality  models  as part  of the
User's Network  for Applied Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP), available on
magnetic tape from the  National Technical  Information  Service (NTIS).  The
models simulate the dispersion of airborne  pollutants from single and multi-
ple point and nonpoint  sources using assumptions  for  wind  rose, stability of
the  plumes,  reactivity   of  pollutants,   and  other variable   conditions.
Guidance on the use of  these  models is available  from:

     Environmental Applications Branch
     Meteorology and Assessment Division (MD-80)
     US Environmental Protection Agency
     Research Triangle  Park NC  27711

2.4.2.  Water Resources Models

     Numerous models  are  available that simulate the effects  of  coal mining
and  associated  land  uses  on surface  water  resources  (Shumate  and  others
1976;  Sanford  and others  1977)  and  groundwater  quality  (Libicki   1978).
Other  models  predict the  quantitative  effects  of  local  groundwater  with-
drawal rates  on regional  groundwater  availability  (Trescott  1975; Trescott
and others  1976).   Some typical approaches to  modeling for  water  resources
management  are  described below.

     •   Watershed management models  include  the  delineation of
        subbasins  and pollution sources  for  a  network of streams
        (Figures 49 and 55).   Polluters include mines and  refuse
        piles that are  treated  as  point  sources  for the  purpose of
        simulation.   Pollutant  loads  are  calculated  for  stream
        segments at nodes that represent  their  points of conflu-
        ence  with  larger,  main-branch streams.   Changes  in  water
        quality are simulated by the  introduction  of hypothetical
        treatment  facilities  at critical nodes.  Achievable  water
        quality is optimized  using minimum permissible  concentra-
        tions   of  pollutants  for  selected  stream  segments  and
        pollution  minimization  strategies including:
                                      156

-------
                                                         Stream Node

                                                      D  Mine Source

                                                      §!  Stream Node with
                                                         Potential Instream
                                                         Treatment  Facility
Figure 55.  Schematic representation  of  a watershed  for water quality
  modeling.
Source:  Shumate, Kenesaw S., E. E. Smith, Vincent  T. Ricca, and  Gordon
     M. Clark.  1976.  Resources allocation  to  optimize mining pollution
     control.  US Environmental Protection Agency,  Office  of Research
     and Development, Industrial Environmental  Research Laboratory,
     Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/2-76-112, 476 p.
                                    157

-------
— Abatement at the source

— Treatment at the source

— Treatment in the stream channel

The optimal control strategy is chosen on  the basis of en-
vironmental  factors and  cost-effectiveness  (Shumate and
others 1976).

The  Stanford  Watershed Model  (SUM) provides a means for
calculating the availability of moisture  for  all  phases  of
the  hydrologic cycle  (Figure  56).   This model  is  utilized
to calculate the movement and  storage  of  surface  water and
groundwater for  the underground  coal mine and  coal refuse
pile models described  below.

 Underground mine  source models  simulate  the  effects  of
groundwater  flow and  storage  on rates  of generation and
transport  for  acid  and  other   pollutants  (Figure   57).
Rates  are calculated  separately  for  mine water  flow and
for  oxidation of  pyritic  materials.   Rates of  pollutant
transport  are  calculated for flooded  and  non-flooded mine
conditions.   The  dispersion  of pollutants  can  be  traced
through mechanisms that  include  leaching  through  sub-
strata,  diffusion  through substrata  under  the   force  of
gravity,  and flushing of substrata  by inundation (Shumate
and  others 1976).

 Refuse pile source models determine acid production  rates
for  discrete areas in the pile.   Acid  removal  rates are
determined for  each  removal  mechanism,  including runoff,
interflow, base flow,  and  percolation  to the  groundwater
reservoir  (Figure  58).    Precipitation  data   including
periodicity,  intensity, and duration are  utilized to simu-
late  the  discontinuous  nature  of   acid production  and
 transport under  natural conditions.   Acid  production  is
assumed to cease during rainfall  because of direct  block-
age  of oxygen  diffusion  to  exposed   pyritic   materials
 (Shumate and others 1976).
                              158

-------
tn
vD
             WUOK nrit/r
Precipitation
Kin Evaporation and Coefficients
Physical Watershed Parameters
Initial Goil Moisture Conditions
initial Groundwater Storage Conditions
                                                                                                 KAJOR OOTPUT
                                                                                       Synthesized
                                                                                       Synthesized Evapotranspiration
                                                         Evaporation from Exposed Water Surfaces
                                                      ->-  Runoff from Tr.nervious Surfaces
                      Interception
                                                     /.one Soil Moisture Storage
                      Upper zone Soil Moisture
                      Overland Flow Surface Detention
                                                              Overland Flow
                      Interflow Storage
                       Lower Zone Moisture Storage
                          Groundwater Flow
                            out of Basin
                       Groundwater  Storage
                                                       Evapotranspiration
                                                Groundwater Flow
         LEGEND

 Operations performed
' in 15 minute intervals
 (or smaller if specified)

. Operations performed
 in 60 minute intervals
          Figure 56.   Moisture accounting  in the  Stanford Watershed Model  (SWM).
          Source:  Shumate,  Kenesaw S., E.  E. Smith, Vincent T.  Ricca,  and  Gordon M.  Clark.   1976.
                Resources allocation to optimize mining  pollution control.   US  Environmental
                Protection Agency,  Office  of Research and Development,  Industrial Environmental
                Research Laboratory,  Cincinnati OH,  EPA-600/2-76-112, 476 p.

-------
           MAJOR INPUT
     Mine Descriptions
     Oxidation Rate Parameters
     Initial Acid Storage
     Flow and Acid Load
        Coefficients
          Calculation of Infiltration
            Water Reaching Ground-
            water by SWM
                                                      Aquifer Storage
     Calculation of Oxidation
       Rate Constants
  Oxidation of Pyritlc
    Material
      Comparison of Water
        Level Relative to
        the Strata
Inundation Does Not
   Occur in the
   System
                       Inundation Occurs
                         in the System
                                                                                         MAJOR OUTPUT
       Synthesized:
        Minewater Flow
        Acid Load
                                              Minewater
                                                Flow
  Oxidation
   Products
Acid Removal by
  Leaching
     ±
                                                                                 Acid Removal by
                                                                                   Gravity
                                                                                   Diffusion
                                                                                      ±
                                           Acid Removal by
                                             Inundation
Figure 57.   Schematic representation  of an underground mine drainage model.
Source:   Shumate, Kenesaw S., E. E.  Smith, Vincent  T.  Ricca, and  Gordon M. Clark.   1976.
     Resources allocation to optimize mining pollution control.   US Environmental  Protection
     Agency,  Office of  Research and  Development, Industrial Environmental Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/2-76-112, 476  p.

-------
           MAJOR INPUT
  Soil Column Descriptions
  Oxidation Rate  Parameters
  Initial Acid  Storages
  Direct Acid Runoff Parameters
   Calculation of Acid
   Production Rate  for
   each Representative Area
   Compartmentalized Formation
   and Storage of Acid Products
   between Areas and between
   Zones within each Area
Calculation of Surface
and Underground Water
Movement and Storages
by SWM
                                                     i
 Acid Removal by
      Direct Runoff
                                             Acid Removal by
                                                  Interflow
 Acid Removal by
      Base Flow
                                              Acid Transfer  to
                                                  Deep Storage
                                                                                    MAJOR OUTPUT
Synthesized:
   Sub-basin flow
   Acid Load
Figure 58.   Schematic  representation of a coal refuse pile drainage  model;
Source:  Shumate,  Kenesaw  S., E. E., Smith, Vincent T.  Ricca,  and Gordon M. Clark.  1976.
     Resources allocation  to optimize pollution control.   US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
     Cincinnati OH,  EPA-600/2-76-112, 476 p.

-------
                         3.0.  POLLUTION CONTROL

     Pollution  control  measures  are designed  to  prevent  or  minimize  the
potentially adverse environmental  effects  of  waste streams from coal mining
activity.  Pollution control technologies are characterized as:

     •   In-process controls which reduce  waste  volumes  or which
        moderate waste composition characteristics

     •   End-of-process  controls which render  the wastes  as harm-
        less as possible before release  to the environment

3.1.  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY;  IN-PROCESS  CONTROLS AND  EFFECTS
      ON WASTE  STREAMS

     In-process controls at  underground  coal  mines primarily are  designed  to
minimize the influx of water to underground workings (USEPA 1976c).   Ground-
water  enters  an underground mine  through fractures  and  voids in the  over-
burden  and  coal seam.  Disturbance of the  landscape overlying  an  underground
mine may increase  the  opportunity for water to pond  at the surface  and  per-
colate  downward (Figure  59).    Subsidence of overburden into the  workings
also  can  increase the  rate of  water  infiltration  through   the  overburden
(Section 2.1.1.2.1.).

     Three kinds  of in-process control  technology are  available  to  minimize
the rate of water  infiltration to underground workings:

     •   Sealing   of  boreholes and  fractures with grout  —  this
         technique  can  be applied  successfully  in  some geologic
         materials.  Grout is  pumped through  boreholes that   pene-
         trate the  water-bearing strata  immediately above the  work-
         ings (Figure 60).   The  types  of materials  that normally
         are used  for grouting include (Loofbourow 1973):

         -- Clay  grouts:   utilized  in  material  that  has a   high
         total  volume of  small voids, such as alluvium.   Fillable
         voids may be  as  small as 0.1 mm  (0.04  in).   Clay grouts
         bond with natural materials and therefore may remain  com-
         petent during ground motions caused by subsidence.

         — Cement slurries:  utilized  to fill  voids  of variable
         size and moderate or large  total volume.   Penetration of a
         cement slurry  into  voids may be  enhanced with  lubricants
         such as clay or  sodium silicate.   Clay-cement grouts gen-
         erally have  lower  strengths than  sand-cement  and   sand-
         cement-fly ash  grouts; non-clay  slurries do  not bind  to
         natural (in situ) clays.

         — Acrylamides and  chrome lignins:   utilized to  fill  voids
         as small  as  0.01  mm (0.004 in).  The pumping  and  settling
                                       162

-------
                                          WATER INFILTRATION«
                                          VIA FRACTURE ZONES S:
                                  frfr- '"i;i i; 14 rug
Figure 59.  Infiltration of water to an underground mine through disturbed
  overburden.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.  1976.  Development document
     for interim final effluent limitations guidelines and new source
     performance standards for the coal mining point source category.
     Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington DC, EPA-440/1-
     76/057-a, 288 p.
                                    163

-------
                            ra*£»
                                    Grout Holes

                                   4—<£ Borehole
       Overburden
      Confining  Bed
tTlTU«






v v
x \
V X
\ \
\. \
V \
V X
V N.

XXNXXXxXXXXXXN
XXX\XXX\XXXXXX

> Aquifer
\
XXX XX XXXX.XVXX x
XXXXXX\XX\XXXX
*
\

J

v
Xlk 	
XXXX
\\\ V
xxxx
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
xxxx
xxxx
v x xx v
i 	 rxvrr
XX XXX
X XXX X
X XXXX
>pw\ X VX
vX?vT
0-
r.\
-r-^JA-
      Confining Bed
Figure 60.  Sealing of boreholes  and fractures  to  control  infiltration
  of groundwater to an underground coal  mine.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.   1976.  Development document
     for interim final effluent limitations  guidelines and new source
     performance standards for the coal  mining point source category.
     Office of Water and Hazardous Materials,  Washington DC, EPA-440/1-76-
     057-a, 288 p.
                                   164

-------
       characteristics  of  these  materials   can   be   controlled
       through the use  of admixtures.

       — Resorcinol  formaldehydes:   utilized to fill  voids  lar-
       ger  than  0.01  mm (0.004 in).   These materials  have a  low
       viscosity and  short  setting time, and  can be used  to  fill
       shrinkage cracks in  cement  slurry grouts.

    •   Dewatering  of overlying materials — The volume of water
       that  enters underground  workings  can be  reduced  by  de-
       watering  the  overlying strata with  shallow, pumped wells.
       This  technology has been  demonstrated at   hematite mines
       near  Iron River,  Michigan  (Loofbourow 1973).   Figure  61
       illustrates  a   hypothetical  configuration  of  wells   for
       dewatering  an  underground  coal  mine.

    •  Temporary control  of subsidence — The absolute control or
       prediction  of subsidence   is not feasible  in  underground
       coal  mining  (Cummins and  Given 1973).   A structure  is  pro-
       tected  against  subsidence by  assuming an  angle  of  draw
       equal to  15° with the limbs  of  the angle  intersecting the
       surface approximately 4. 5 m (15 ft) outside the foundation
       line. The  extraction ratio is held at 50% for  portions of
       the  coal  seam that  lie outside  the limbs of  the angle of
       draw (Figure 62).

             Surface water  from  runoff  at  underground  coal mines
       and  coal  cleaning facilities can be  controlled using es-
        tablished  techniques  for  site  drainage  (Grim and  Hill
        1974, USEPA 1976b).  These  techniques employ  diversions,
        filter strips with  a suitable vegetation, and the  stabili-
        zation of exposed spoils  and wastes  to minimize  the  con-
        tamination of runoff with  pollutants.

     In-process   controls  for  coal  cleaning operations generally are limited
to process  water recycling measures (where  applicable)   and  runoff  return
conveyances from impervious areas  which  may feed stormwater to storage faci-
lities for  process  water makeup  or to  settling  basins (if  necessary)  for
treatment prior  to discharge  (USEPA  1976c).

3.2.   STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY;  END-OF-PROCESS CONTROLS AND
      EFFECTS ON WASTE  STREAMS (EFFLUENTS)

     Mine  water, acid  mine  drainage,  and  effluents  emanating  from coal
mines, coal  preparation  facilities, coal  storage  piles,  and  refuse piles
require  treatment  to  remove  or  neutralize objectionable  constituents.
Treatment systems for these waste  streams range from  simple detention  basins
to relatively complex  chemical  treatment plants.   The  treatment  systems
described  below  are  summarized  in  the  USEPA  development document for new
                                      165

-------
             WELL
             POINTS
GROUND
SURFACE
                                     ORIGINAL
                                     GROUNDWATER
                                     LEVEL
Figure 61.  Hypothetical configuration of pumped wells  for  dewatering
  of pumped wells for dewatering the strata that overly an  underground
  coal mine.
Source:  Warner, Don L.  1974.  Rationale and methodology  for monitoring
     groundwater polluted by mining activities.   Prepared  for the
     US Environmental Protection Agency National  Environmental  Research
     Center, Las Vegas NV, 84 p.
                                  166

-------
                                                       50% EXTRACTION RATIO
Figure 62.   Commonly used method  for  temporary protection of structures
  from subsidence.
Source:   Hittman Associates,  Inc.   1976.  Underground coal mining:  an
     assessment  of technology.   Prepared for Electric Power Research
     Institute,  Palo  Alto  CA, EPRI-AF-219, 455 p.
                                  167

-------
source coal  mining activities  (USEPA 1976c).   Citations  to corroborative
literature are indicated where appropriate.

3.2.1.  Sedimentation Basins

     Sediment-bear ing effluents  are collected  and  retained in  one  or more
basins to  facilitate the  settling of  suspended materials.   The retention
time will vary with the holding  capacity of the basin, the volume of  influ-
ent, and dominant particle size and concentration of sediments.  When  reten-
tion  alone  is  not capable  of  reducing  the   sediment  load  to acceptable
levels, flocculating agents, such  as  lime or alum,  may be added to  increase
the efficiency of  the treatment  (Hill 1973).   Organic polymers  may be used
as flocculants for coagulating alumina-type  clays (USEPA 1976c).

3.2.2.  Aeration

     Excessive amounts of dissolved iron  in  alkaline mine waters can be pre-
cipitated as  insoluble  iron  oxides by utilizing natural or forced aeration.
The precipitate settles to  the  bottom of  the  holding  basin.   The clarified
overflow  is  discharged  (National   Industrial  Pollution  Control  Council
1971).

3.2.3.  Neutralization

     Neutralization is  the most  commonly used method  for treating acid mine
drainage and  removing heavy metals.   Neutralization  systems are  individually
designed on  the basis  of  the selected  alkaline reagents,  the  quality  and
flow  of  feed water, and  the site-related  considerations.   Typical systems
include  the  addition  of the  alkaline reagent  to feed water; mixing;  aera-
tion; and  removal  of  the  precipitate.  The  general advantages and disadvan-
tages of neutralization treatment  processes  are listed below.

     Advantages;

     •  Neutralization removes acidity and  adds alkalinity.

     •  Neutralization raises pH.

     •   The  concentrations  of  heavy metals  are reduced.    Most
        heavy metals  will  precipate as  pH increases.   Concentra-
        tions of metals such as  copper, zinc,  managanese,  nickel,
        aluminum, and cobalt  can be reduced to  less than 0.5  mg/1
        (Hill 1973).

     •   In highly acidic acid  mine drainage,  sulfate can be re-
        moved  if  sufficient calcium  ions are  added  to cause the
        precipitation of calcium sulfate  (Grim and Hill 1974).
                                     168

-------
     Disadvantages;

     •  Hardness  is  not  reduced and may be increased.

     •  The concentration  of  sulfate remains  high.

     •  Iron usually is  not reduced to less than 3  to  7 mg/1
        (Grim and Hill 1974),  although reductions to less  than
        0.5 mg/1  have been reported (Hill 1973).

     •  A waste sludge is  produced  which requires disposal.

     Several alkaline reagents are available for the  neutralization of mine
water,  including  calcium carbonate  (high calcium limestone), calcium  oxide
(calcinated, quick,  or pebble lime), calcium  hydroxide (hydrated  lime), cal-
cium carbonate-magnesium carbonate  (dolomite  or dolomitic  limestone), cal-
cium oxide-magnesium oxide (burnt or calcined dolomite),  calcium  hydroxide-
magnesium   hydroxide  (pressure  hydrated  dolomite),  calcium   hydroxide-
magnesium oxide  (hydrated dolomite  or  partially hydrated dolomite),  sodium
carbonate (soda ash), sodium  hydroxide (caustic  soda), and anhydrous ammonia
(Lovell 1973).

     The selection of the  alkaline  reagent should be based upon  the  chemical
characteristics and  volume of drainage water, the  treatment  plant location,
and  the performance potentials  of the  various reagents  as determined  by
theoretical stoichioraetries  of  anticipated neutralization reactions.   Fac-
tors that also should be considered in selecting a  reagent  include  reagent
availability,  transportation,  cost,  reactivity, and  chemical and  physical
characteristics  of   the  impure  sludges  (Lovell  1973).   Caustic  soda,  for
example, may  be  desirable on the  basis  of anticipated process  stoichlome-
tries or  ease of  procurement  locally,  but  has the  disadvantage of  being
dangerous to handle.

     Limestone is the cheapest  alkaline reagent  and produces a smaller  quan-
tity of denser sludges  than  lime,  which  is the  most  commonly used  reagent.
Except  for  dolomite, however,  limestone has the  lowest reactivity rate  of
the agents used  for  neutralization.   Limestone  is  not  effective  for  treat-
ment of waters  above pH  6.5.   Limestone also  is  ineffective  in  highly
ferrous iron water,  which usually requires a more  complex  treatment system.
The particle  size,  characteristics, and  method  of  application of the  lime-
stone are critical to performance (Grim and Hill 1974).

     Hydrated and calcined lime  are  similar  in  their   performance and  react
rapidly with coal mine  drainage (Lovell 1973).   When  properly reacted  and
controlled, nearly perfect reagent  utilizaton efficiency  is possible.    The
control of reagent addition,  however, becomes more  difficult  as the acidity
of  the  water increases.  These reagents  usually  form a voluminous, low-
density sludge  that  gels  upon  aging.    This  sludge  has  poor handling  and
dewatering characteristics.
                                     169

-------
     For large  treatment  facilities,  a two-stage system utilizing limestone
and lime may offer  the  advantages  of  both reagents (Hill 1973).  Limestone,
effective at low pH, is added first to  the  AMD to increase the pH to 4.0 to
4.5.  The second stage uses lime to raise the  pH  to a desirable level.  This
combined  system offers  the  advantages  of improved  cost,  more desirable
sludge characteristics,  a high quality final effluent, and  the  ability to
treat ferrous iron AMD (Grim and Hill 1974).

     Dolomite reagents  perform  similarly to reagents with high calcium con-
tents, although they generally are  more costly  and  less  available  (Lovell
1973).  The volume and characteristics  of the  treatment  sludge also  are com-
parable, except for the treatment of highly  polluted water.   The  precipi-
tation rate  of calcium sulfate during treatment is  controllable,  but  the
treated effluent may not meet  USEPA  effluent limitations.   Because of  its
hardness,  dolomite is  the  least  reactive  reagent,  and  its  application is
limited  to lightly  mineralized waters.   Effluents  from  treatment  systems
utilizing  dolomite reagents may have  higher  than desired concentrations of
magnesium  (Lovell  1973).

     Sodium  hydroxide (caustic  soda)  treatment  of  mine  discharge  is most
desirable  as an emergency or temporary measure  to prevent the discharge of
waters of  unacceptable  quality.  Sodium hydroxide is more  costly than  lime-
stone or  lime  and  is dangerous to handle.   Control  of pH during  the  treat-
ment  process  Is difficult  because of  the  fast  reaction  rate.   The  sludge
produced  by  sodium hydroxide treatment may be less  dense than  sludge  pro-
duced with lime and may contain less calcium  sulfate  (Lovell  1973).   Sodium
hydroxide  systems  for  control  of  small  flows  are  uncomplicated,  do  not
require electricity,  and  are  easily moved for fast,  temporary treatment.

     Sodium  carbonate (soda  ash),  like caustic  soda,  is  very reactive  but
expensive  and  difficult to control.   The  sludge  produced  by a  sodium  car-
bonate treatment system is denser than sludge  produced by lime or caustic
soda systems, and  is less inclined to gel (Lovell 1973).  Use of  sodium car-
bonate, however, greatly increases the concentration of dissolved solids in
the final  effluent.  Sodium  carbonate  treatment systems can be  packaged as
simple feeders  that are easily transported for temporary application.   The
reagent, however,  is dangerous  to  handle.

     Anhydrous  ammonia  also may be used to  neutralize mine waters.   An anhy-
drous ammonia  system is inexpensive  and simple to operate  and maintain.   The
disadvantages  of this reagent,  however, are numerous  and  generally  preclude
its  use  except in extraordinary  situations.    These disadvantages  include
greater  reagent costs  than  for lime  or  limestone,  larger sludge  volume,
ammonia  loss  to the atmosphere by diffusion or  by air-stripping  where aera-
tion  is  practiced,  and  high  levels  of  ammonia  and  nitrate   in  ammonia-
neutralized mine drainage.

     Discharge  of ammonia-treated  effluent may  produce adverse  effects on
receiving  streams  caused  by  the  toxicity of  ammonia  to  fish and  other
                                      170

-------
aquatic organisms, the depression of  dissolved  oxygen concentrations  through
nitrification, and nitrate enrichment of  water which may lead  to  eutrophi-
cation (Grim  and  Hill 1974).   This reagent is  best  applied to treat  small
flows of  mine water  where the treated  effluent is  used  to irrigate  spoil
banks, producing no runoff  to  receiving waters.  In  this  situation there  is
no damage to receiving waters  and  the reclamation of  spoil  and  refuse  banks
is enhanced through  the benefit of the  water  and  nitrogen supplied  by  the
treated effluent to the vegetation.

3.2.4.  Reverse Osmosis and Neutrolysis

     Reverse osmosis  is  a  concentrating process in which  the  pollutants  are
retained on one side  of a membrane  that  is permeable  to water.   This  process
separates inorganic   ions  and  dissolved  and suspended  solids  in  solution.
All heavy metals are  reduced by more  than 99%.   The efficiencies for  removal
of chemical constituents in coal mine drainage  are  listed in Table 34.   Cal-
cium  sulfate  usually  is  the  first  material  to  precipitate  from  mine
drainage.  Water recoveries  of up  to 90%  may be obtained, although recovery
is limited  by the precipitation of materials  on  the membrane  (Hill  1973).
This process  currently  is  favored  over  ion exchange  because of its  greater
efficiency and added  ability to remove organics (Monti  and Silbermann  1974,
in Wachter  and Blackwood 1978).  In  application for  treatment  of  acid mine
drainage, however,  the  disposal  of  the  waste  stream generated  by  reverse
osmosis is  a  major problem.   To  reduce  this  problem, a  neutrolysis  system
may  be  employed  whereby  the  waste  stream is neutralized,  the  sludge  is
removed,  and  the  neutralized  water is returned as influent to  the  reverse
osmosis unit.  This system provides water  recoveries  in  excess  of 99%  (Hill
and others 1971, in Hill 1973).

3.2.5.  Ion Exchange

     Ion  exchange  is a  sorption  process  in which ions  attached  to an  ex-
change medium are  replaced by  ions passing through  the  medium  in solution.
Removal  efficiencies generally are  97%  for  total  phosphate,  90% for  ni-
trates,  100%  for  sulfates, and  45%  for  COD  (Weber 1972,  in Wachter  and
Blackwood 1978).   Problems encountered  in ion exchange  treatment  include
resin fouling, interference by certain  ions, limited loading  capacity, pro-
hibitive  operating  costs,  and disposal  of   regenerating  solutions  (Hill
1973).  Two ion exchange processes  are in use (USEPA 1976c):

     •  Sul-biSul process  removes  cations with one or more resins.
        Carbon  dioxide  then  is removed  by decarbonization;  sul-
        fates and hydrogen ions are removed by a strong-base anion
        resin.  The effluent is filtered before discharge.

     •   Modified desal  process removes  sulfate and  other anions
        from  influent water  using  a weak-base anion resin.    The
        water then is aerated to  remove carbon dioxide and to oxi-
        dize  ferrous  iron species.   Hydroxides of  metals then  are
        precipitated  with lime;   suspended solids   are  removed;
                                      171

-------
Table 34.   Efficiency of mine drainage treatment by reverse
  osmosis.
                                          Percent Removal

     Ca                                    98.0 - 99.8

     Mg                                    98.5 - 99-8

     Fe, Total                             98.5 - 99.9

     M                                    91.7 - 99.2

     Mn                                    97.8 - 99.1

     Cu                                    98.7 - 99.5

     S04                                   99.3-99.9

     Acidity                               81.0-91.7

     Specific  Conductance                  95.0 - 99.9
 Source:   Hill, Ronald D.   1973.   Water pollution from coal mines.
   Paper  presented at the 45th annual conference, Water Pollution
   Control Association of Pennsylvania, University Park PA.
   United States Environmental Protection Agency, National
   Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati OH,  11 p.
                                     172

-------
        and the effluent  is  filtered before  discharge to potable
        water supplies.

3.2.6.   Biochemical Oxidation of Ferrous Iron

     To  permit  the  effective  use  of  limestone  neutralization  and  thus
realize its advantages of  low  cost  and  minimal sludge production,  oxidation
of waters with high  ferrous  content (greater  than  100 mg/1) should precede
neutralization (Lovell 1973).   Oxidation by air  at  low pH is impractically
slow, however, and the need  for stronger chemical oxidants increases treat-
ment costs, thus eliminating  one of the advantages  of limestone.   Biochem-
ical oxidation utilizing autotrophic or chemolithotrophic bacteria therefore
becomes  advantageous  by  reducing  treatment  costs.    Bacteria  such  as
Ferrobacillus ferrooxidans and Ferrobacillus thiooxidans can oxidize soluble
ferrous iron in an acid solution.   The  mine water is introduced to the bac-
teria through a trickling filter-type unit.  Oxidation rates on the order of
thousands of mg/l/hr may be obtained by this method  (Lovell 1973).

3.3.   STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY;  END-OF-PROCESS CONTROLS AND
      EFFECTS ON WASTE STREAMS (EMISSIONS)'

     Control  features  for coal preparation  plants include  structural  and
operational components that are applied singly or in combinations at various
plant emission points (Table 35).  These control  features include:

     •  Cyclone — uses centrifugal force to separate fine parti-
        cles from hot gases as  they enter the vessel  tangentially
        (Figure 63).   Dust-laden  gases form  an outer  vortex of
        dirty gas as  dust  particles strike  the  cylinder wall and
        spiral downward to a collector.  Clean gases spiral upward
        in an  inner  vortex and  exit through  an  outlet (King and
        Fullerton 1968).   The  dust collection  efficiency,  capa-
        city, and other operating characteristics of cyclones  vary
        with diameter of the brick-lined or water-jacketed vortex
        chamber (Table 36).

     •   Scrubber  — uses  small droplets of  water  to agglomerate
        dust, which  then  flows  from the vessel.   Scrubber types
        are  differentiated on   the  basis  of dust  agglomeration
        methods that  result  in different  water  consumption rates
        per measure  of dust-laden  gas  (Table  37).    Four  basic
        scrubber types are recognized (USEPA 1977b):

        — Impingement:  stream of  hot  gases impinges the surface
        of a  water  reservoir,  causing  dust  to   agglomerate  in a
        turbulent mixture  of  gas  and  water bubbles  (King  and
        Fullerton 1968)

        — Centrifugal (wet cyclones):  stream of water  is sprayed
        at high velocity  across the  dust-laden  influent, causing
                                      173

-------
Table 35.   Applications of emission control technologies for materials
  handling and coal cleaning operations.
Emission Source

Materials Handling

   Car dumps
   Truck dumps
   Bins, silos
   Breakers, crushers
   Conveyor transfer
   Screens
   Transport loading

Coal Cleaning

   Surge bin
   Thermal dryer stack
   Vibrating screens
   Air  tables
   Crusher
              Control Technology

Cyclone   Scrubber   Spray   Filter
             X
             X
X
X

X
X
   X

   X
                                X
                                X
                                X
                                X
                                X
        X
        X
        X
                                                                      Enclosure
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
 Source:  US  Environmental Protection Agency.   1977b.  Inspection manual
      for the enforcement of  new source  performance  standards: coal prepara-
      tion  plants.   Division  of  Stationary  Source  Enforcement, Washington DC,
      EPA-340/1-77-022,  156 p.
                                     174

-------
Table 36.  Operating characteristics of dust-collecting cyclones.
                                        Minimum
                Maximum
Cyclone diameter  (cm)

Capacity (cmm)

Inlet velocity  (mps)

Pressure drop (cm)

Smallest size collected
  at 50% efficiency  (y)
 5.1

 0.33

 4.6

 1.3


10
549

700

 22.9

 15.2


200
 Source:  US  Environmental Protection Agency.   1977b.   Inspection manual
      for the  enforcement of new source performance standards:  coal
      preparation plants.  Division of Stationary Source Enforcement,
      Washington DC,  EPA-340/1-77-022, 156 p.
                                     175

-------
Table 37.  Operating characteristics of scrubbers for dust control.

Scrubber type
Impingement

Centrifugal

Dynamic

Venturi
Water Consumption
(lpm/1,000 cmm gas)
6.7 - 11.3

9.0 - 22.5

2.3

6.8 - 33.8
Pressure
Drop (cm)
15.2 - 20.3

5.1 - 15.2

2.5

30.5 - 152.4
Capacity
(cmm)
2,520

3,920

700

3,920
Maximum Efficiency %
Particle Size Range ( p )
95
1-5
90
2-5
95a
2-5
98
a
  Estimated.
Source:  US Environmental Protection Agency.  1977b.   Inspection manual for the enforcement  of
     new source performance standards:  coal preparation plants.  Division of Stationary
     Source Enforcement, Washington DC, EPA-340/1-77-022,  156 p.

-------
                                         Cleaned Gas Outlet
                    Tangential Inlet
                                                       Outer Vortex-
                                                        Dirty Gas
                                                       Inner Vortex -
                                                       Cleaned Gas
                     Collected Dust
Figure  63.   Cyclone  separator  for dust  collection.
Source:   Leonard,  Joseph W.,  and David R.  Mitchell.   1968.   Coal
     preparation.   American  Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
     Petroleum Engineers, Inc.  New York NY,  926 p.
                                     177

-------
       agglomeration and  separation of  dust from  gas  using the
       same principles described for dry cyclones

       —  Dynamic:   stream  of  dust-laden gas  impinges  a wetted
       fan  blade,  causing  agglomeration and separation of dust
       particles

       — Venturi:  hot, high-velocity gas  stream  is  sprayed with
       water  as it  passes  through  a Venturi throat (Figure 64)

    •  Spray  collector —  utilizes a gas-induced curtain of  water
       droplets that  capture dust  particles during both acceler-
       ation  and  free  fall into  the  spray  elimination zone  or
       entrainment  separator (King and Fullerton 1968).

    •  Fabric filter — utilizes finely  woven or felted  fabric  to
       capture dust particles from gases at moderate  temperatures
       (70° to 340°C  or 160° to 650°F; USEPA 1977b).

    •  Enclosure  — utilizes structural  devices at critical emis-
       sion  points to  contain   fugitive  dusts  from  material-
       handling  operations  such   as  conveyor  transfer,  filter
        separation in baghouses, and hopper loading.

3.4.  STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNOLOGY;   END-OF-PROCESS CONTROLS AND EFFECTS ON
      WASTE STREAMS (SOLID WASTES)

     Coal  refuse  dumps and impoundments  for coal  refuse  slurry  are con-
structed  for  the  long  term or  permanent  storage  of  coarse and  fine coal
refuse.  The  techniques used  for  site  selection,  construction,  operation,
and permanent maintenance of coal  refuse dumps and  impoundments are the sub-
jects of regulatory programs administered by the USOSM (Section 1.6.3.).  In
the sections  that  follow, guidelines for  the  utilization of  coal   refuse
dumps and impoundments are described first,  followed by  mine waste  treatment
techniques.


3.4.1.  Guidelines  for coal  refuse dumps and impoundments

     The following  guidelines are  based in part on the results  of a  study
performed  by  the USEPA Industrial  Environmental  Research Laboratory at Cinc-
innati, Ohio  (W. A. Wahler and  Associates  1978):

     •  Site  selection

        —  Refuse disposal  sites  should  isolate  the wastes  from
        groundwater and surface waters.
                                      178

-------
Figure 64.  Venturi scrubber for dust separation.
Source:  Leonard, Joseph W., and David R. Mitchell.  1968.  Coal
     preparation.  American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,  and
     Petroleum Engineers, Inc.  New York NY, 926 p.
                                  179

-------
       —  Sites  should be  inherently  stable.    Certain  terrain
       features in mountainous  areas  of Appalachia  are  known to
       be  unstable (Figure 65).

       —  Site configurations  should  allow  the  routing of drain-
       age from coarse refuse dumps into impoundments.

       —  Sites should  be free from  underground workings, lime-
       stone channels, or highly permeable soils.

    •  Construction and operation

       —  Site  disturbances should  be limited  to  the immediate
       area of operations.

       — Clearing  or grubbing of a site  in  advance of  dumping
       should be minimized  to  limit the extent  of exposed  soils.

       — Coarse  and fine refuse  should  be mixed where  practic-
       able to enhance  the  mechanical stability of  the dump.

       — Refuse dumps  should  be  free of  organic debris.

       — Surface waters  should be diverted around  refuse dumps.

       — Refuse  should be  placed in cells  within a dump.

       — Valley-fill dumps should be developed from the  heads of
       valleys.

       — Side-hill  dumps should  be developed in perimeter
       strips.

       — Surface area of exposed refuse should be minimized.

       — Active  surfaces should  be relatively  flat (thus minimi-
       zing erosion),  but  steep enough  to  prevent ponding  of
       water.

       — Refuse  should be placed using methods  that minimize the
        segregation of fine- and coarse-sized materials.

        — Noncritical portions of the dump should be  reserved for
        placement of refuse during inclement weather.

     Underground coal mines historically have been employed for the  disposal
of coal refuse.  This practice now is regulated by the USOSM and is  subject
to performance standards established  under  the  SMCRA (Section 1.6.3.).
                                      180

-------
              BOX AMPHITHEATER
                                 -  MOO
                                                               DEBRIS DELTA
       E = 3IS WEDGE W;TH DEBRIS DELTA
                                                   CRESCENT AMPHITHEATER
Figure 65.  Schematic topographic diagrams  of  five  landforms that are
  highly susceptible  to landslides.
Source:  Leasing,  Peter,  B. R. Kulander, B. D. Wilson,  S.  L.  Dean,  and
     S. M. Wooding.   1976.   West Virginia landslides  and slide-prone
     areas.  West  Virginia Environmental Geology  Bulletin 15,  20 maps
     (scale 1:24,000).
                                    181

-------
3.4.2.   Mine Waste Treatment Techniques

     Three techniques  for  treating or stabilizing mine  waste  are described
below.

     3.4.2.1.  Treatment of Mine Waste with Neutralization Sludge

     The  application of neutralization sludge  to  mine wastes  offers the
potential benefits of providing a  practical outlet for the disposal of  resi-
duals  generated  by  the neutralization of  acid  mine   drainage  while also
contributing to  the  reclamation of mine wastes.   The applicability of this
treatment has  been demonstrated by Grube  and  Wilmoth (1975)  in  a study  in
which mine waste materials planted with a mixture of fescue and  red  clover
were spray irrigated with  the slurry  from  lime,  limestone, or  lime/limestone
neutralization.   This study indicated that spray irrigation  of  sludge  should
be applied only  in areas of  relatively flat topography  to prevent the  unde-
sirable  erosion  of  sludge which  occurred readily  during  medium and high
intensity rainfalls.  The  sludge-treated areas had significantly  cooler sur-
face  soil temperatures and  dried  out  more slowly  than  spoil lacking  the
sludge,  provided  runoff   of  acceptable quality during  mild  precipitation
events,  and  appeared to have  a slight beneficial effect upon  the  establish-
ment and maintenance of vegetation.

     3.4.2.2.   Treatment of Mine Waste with Sewage Sludge

     Sewage  sludge may be  applied  to  mine  wastes to  supply nutrients  for  the
establishment  and growth  of  plant cover  (Grim  and  Hill 1974).    Treatment
with  sewage sludge  is applicable to both  acid and  alkaline mine  wastes.
This  form of  treatment increases  water-holding  and  ion exchange  capacities
of mine wastes, creates a more  favorable  root  zone  for plants,  buffers  the
extremes of  pH in mine wastes, and immobilizes  ions which may be present in
toxic  concentrations.   Species of plants that are tolerant  to  relatively
high concentrations  of metals should be used for revegetation of the treated
waste  pile,  if  significant  concentrations  of  metals   are  present   in  the
sewage sludge.

     3.4.2.3.   Chemical Stabilization of Mine Wastes

     Chemical   stabilizatioi  involves  the mixing   of  a  reagent  with mine
wastes or refuse to  form a ./eather-resistant layer  that  effectively prevents
erosion by wind or  water.  Chemically stabilized wastes seldom are intended
 to  be  permanent, and they are not so durable  or desirable as restoration of
soil  material  and  revegetation.   Chemical stabilizers have  useful   appli-
cations, however, for  the temporary control  of erosion  on  dry  sections of
active  refuse  ponds,   sites  unsuited for  the   growth  of vegetation,  or in
areas  where soil-covering material is not available.
                                       182

-------
                     4.0.  OTHER CONTROLLABLE IMPACTS

4.1.   AESTHETICS

     New source  mining  activity  may involve  large and  complex operations
occupying hundreds of  acres.   Coal  storage  and  handling areas, haul roads,
spoil and  refuse piles,  exposed  soils,  dust,   erosion,  and  sediment-laden
streams  are  aesthetically  displeasing  to  many.    Particularly   in  non-
industrial rural and suburban areas, mining  activity can  represent a notice-
able intrusion  on the  landscape.   Measures  to  minimize the  impact  on the
environment must  be  developed during site  selection,  mine planning design,
and reclamation.  The  applicant should consider the following  factors where
feasible to reduce potential aesthetic  impacts.

     •   Existing  nature of  the area —  The topography  and major
        land  uses in the area  of  the  candidate sites  for  surface
        facilities are important.    Topographic  features,  such  as
        hills, can be  used to screen the operation from view.  A
        lack  of  topographic  relief will require  other  means  of
        minimizing   impact,   such   as   regrading   or   vegetation
        buffers.

     •   Proximity of  operations  to  parks  and  other   areas where
        people congregate  for recreation and other activities  —
        The  location  of  public use  areas  should be  mapped  and
        presented in  the EID.   Representative views of the mining
        site  from observation  points  should be  described  using
        maps  and photographs.   The visual effects  on  these  recrea-
        tional areas should be considered  in the EID  in order to
        develop the  appropriate mitigation measures.

     •   Transportation System  —  The  visual impact of new access
        roads,  rail  lines,  haul  roads,  and refuse  piles  on  the
        landscape  should be considered.   Locations,  construction
        methods   and   materials,    and  maintenance   should   be
         specified.

4.2.  NOISE AND VIBRATION

     The  major  sources of  noise  associated  with coal  mining  activities
include:

     •   Coal  transportation systems (railroads and haul roads)
     •   Coal  preparation facilities (crushers and screens)
     •   Blasting  operations
     •   Land  reclamation/grading equipment

     Mining  activities can create significant  ambient noise  levels.   Noise
in some  situations  can be attenuated effectively  with thick stands  of vege-
tation or  other  barriers.   At  distances  of  450  tp 600  m (1,500 to  2,000 ft)
                                      183

-------
from coal mining  equipment,  noise levels may  decrease  by 20 dBA from  those
measured 15 m (50 ft) from the  source.   Even at  such distances,  however,  the
increases in noise levels due to  coal mining activities  still may be  notice-
able*   Noise receptors  within 1  km (0.5  mi) of  the  source are  the most
affected and should be documented  in the BID.

Noise also can create serious health hazards for exposed workers.   USEPA  has
recommended a 75-dBA, 8-hour exposure  level to protect workers  from  loss  of
hearing, and  a 55-dBA background exposure level  to protect adjacent  areas
from  annoyance of  outdoor  activity.    Control  methods  to  minimize  noise
include:

        Mufflers on equipment
        Lined ducts
        Partial barriers
        Vibration insulation
        Imposed speed limits on vehicles
        Scheduled equipment  operations  and  maintenance

     To evaluate  the noise  generated  from proposed underground coal  mines
and  coal  cleaning  facilities,   the   following  considerations should   be
addressed:

     •  Identify  all  noise-sensitive land  uses  and  activities ad-
        Joining the proposed site of operations

     •  Measure the existing ambient noise  levels of the areas ad-
        joining the proposed site

     •  Identify  existing noise sources, such  as traffic, aircraft
        flyover,  and other industry in  the  general area

     •   Identify the State  or  local noise regulations  that  apply
        to the site

     •  Calculate the noise  levels of proposed mining and cleaning
        operations and compare  those values with the existing area
        noise levels and  the applicable noise  regulations

     •   Assess the  impact   of  noise  from  the proposed  operations
        and  determine  noise abatement  measures  to  minimize  noise
        levels  (quieter  equipment, noise barriers,  improved  main-
        tenance schedules, etc.)

4.3.  ENERGY SUPPLY

     The  impact of  coal  mining  activity  on  local energy supplies  depends
largely on  the  type of mine operation  proposed  and  the  extent  of  ancillary
facilities.   Two  criteria   commonly are used  to  assess  the efficiency  of
various mining methods:
                                      184

-------
     •  Percentage of in-place coal recovered

     •  Amount  of  energy required  including  expenditures of die-
        sel fuel and  electricity to operate  all mining  equipment
        (University of Oklahoma 1975)

     The  permit  applicant  should  evaluate   the  energy  efficiencies  and
demands of all methods considered during project planning in the context of
an alternatives  analysis.    Feasible  design modifications  should  be consi-
dered in order to reduce energy needs.

     At a minimum, the applicant  should  provide  the following  information in
the BID:

     •  Total demand  of  energy from external  sources  required  for
        proposed operations

     •  Total energy generated at the  site  of  operations

     •  Energy requirements  by type

     •  Sources  of energy  off-site

     •  Proposed measures  to conserve or reduce energy demand and
        to  increase  the operating  efficiency of  underground  coal
        mining and coal  cleaning  equipment

     •  Energy expected  to be  produced

     •  Energy expected  to be  rendered unavailable using current
        technology.

4.4.  SOCIOECONOMICS

     The  construction and  operation of a large,  new underground coal mine or
coal  cleaning facility may cause changes in the economic and social patterns
in nearby communities (Figure 66).   These  changes are  functions of the ex-
isting  patterns  and  the  kinds  of measures that are available to mitigate any
adverse effects  of  the proposed  operations.

      The  significance of the changes caused by a new operation normally will
be  greater near a small,  rural  community than  near  a large, urban  area.
Rural  communities are likely to have  a  no manufacturing  economic  base,  a
lower  per capita  income,  fewer  social  institutions, a more  limited socio-
economic  infrastructure,  and  fewer  leisure  pursuits   than    large,  urban
areas.
                                       185

-------
                                                                                                             CONSUMER  PRICE
                                                                                                                INFLATION
           MINING RELATED
           EMPLOYMENT
           flROWTH
H FAMILY           fcj
INCOME
GROWTH          fl
-:
           TRADE.
           SERVICES
           EMPLOYMENT
           GROWTH
RETAIL AND
WHOLESALE
TRADE GROWTH
                                                                   HOUSING DEMAND
                                                                     GROWTH
                    INDUSTRIAL
                      GROWTH
MORTGATE
MONEY
SUPPLY
DECREASED
                                                                                          LAND DEVELOP-
                                                                                          MENT PRESSURE
                                                              USABLE OPEN
                                                              LAND DECREASE
                                                                   POLICE,  FIRE,
                                                                   & OTHER  SERVICE
                                                                     GROWTH
                                                               •1
                    SCHOOLS & OTHER
                    PUBLIC CONSTRUC-
                        TION
                                                                   SEWER & OTHER
                                                                   PUBLIC CONSTRUC-
                                                                       TION
                                                                   ROAD MAINTENANCE
FATALITIES,
INJURIES.
DISEASE
INCREASE
AMONG
MINERS

CTIVITY
REASE

<-


u. :
I
I
i_z
3 AND CONSTRUCTION

£ MEDICAL CARE


^.


TEEISM INCREASE


                                                      MUNICIPAL DEBT
                                                      & BUDGET INCREASE
                                                                                                                                               QUALITY OF LIFE
                                                                                                                                               DECLINE -
                                                                                                                                               INDICATORS:
                                                                                                                                               CRIME
                                                                                                                                               VIOLENCE
                                                                                                                                               ALCOHOLISM
                                                                                                                                               MENTAL ILLNESS
                                                                                                                                               FAMILY DISCORD
                                                                                                                                               DIVORCE
      Figure 66.   Schematic diagram of potential  local  socloeconomlc effects on rapid expansion In coal mining.  Feedback pathways are dashed.

      Source:  JMA.   1979.   New source NPDES permits  and  environmental  Impacts of  the coal mining Industry In the Honongahela and Gauley river
           basins. West Virginia.   Volume  I:  Coal mining environmental regulations, mining methods, and environmental Impacts.  Prepared
           for US Environmental Protection Agency Region  III,  Philadelphia PA, 172 p.

-------
     There are situations,  however,  in which the changes in a  small  commun-
ity may not be significant, and conversely,  in which they may be  consider-
able in an urban  area.   For example, a  small community may have a manufac-
turing (or natural resource)  economic base that has declined.  As  a  result,
such a  community may  have a  high  incidence of unemployment  in  a  skilled
labor force and a surplus of housing.   Conversely, a rapidly  growing  urban
area may be severely strained if a  large coal mining or cleaning  operation
is located nearby.   The rate at which  the changes occur (regardless of  the
circumstances) also  is  an important factor in  determining  the  relative sig-
nificance of the  changes.

     During the  life of  the  operation,  the  impact will be  greater if  the
project requires  large numbers  of  workers  to  be  imported temporarily from
outside the community.  The potentially adverse impacts include:

     •  Creation  of  social  tension

     •  Demand for increased  housing, police and fire protection,
        public utilities, medical facilities, recreational facili-
        ties, and other public services

     •  Strained  economic budget in the community where existing
        infrastructure  becomes inadequate

     •  Flow of local  property tax revenues  to municipalities other
        than  those experiencing increased service  demands as a re-
        sult of the  mining activity

     Methods  for  reducing  demands on the limited resources of local commun-
 ities  should  be  identified during  planning  for  proposed operations.  State
 and  Federal  programs for local  assistance generally require long  lead times
 for  budgetary  planning.  The applicant  may find it necessary to build hous-
 ing  and  recreation  facilities  and provide utility  services and  medical
 facilities  for  an imported work  force.   The applicant also may prepay local
 taxes,  and sometimes can negotiate an  agreement for a corresponding  reduc-
 tion in the property taxes paid later.   Alternatively, the communities may
 float  bond  issues,  taking  advantage of their tax-exempt status.   The  appli-
 cant may agree  to  reimburse  the communities  as  payments of  principal and
 interest  become due.

      The  permit  applicant  should document  fully the range of potential im-
 pacts  to  local  communities  and propose methods  to  minimize  demands and
 stresses  on community  infrastructure.   For  example, an increased local tax
 base generally is regarded as a  positive beneficial impact.  The increased
 revenue may support the  additional infrastructure required  for imported em-
 ployees and their families.   The spending and respending  of the  earnings  of
 these employees  may have  a multiplier  effect on  the  local  economy,  as can
 the interindustry  links created  by the  new operation.   The community may
 benefit socially as the  increased  tax  base  permits  the introduction of  more
 diverse and higher  quality services  and the variety  of community interests
 increases with growth  in population.
                                       187

-------
     In  brief,  the  applicant's framework  for analyzing  the  socioeconomic
impacts of developing and  operating  an underground coal mine or coal  clean-
ing facility should  be  comprehensive.  The  impacts should be  quantified  to
the extent possible  to assess fully  the potential  costs and benefits of  pro-
posed operations.  The applicant should distinguish clearly between expected
short-term and long-term changes.  The applicant should develop and maintain
close  coordination  with  State,  regional,   and local  planning  and   zoning
authorities to ensure full compliance with all  existing and/or  proposed  land
use plans and other  related regulations.

     USEPA is developing a methodology to forecast the  socioeconomic  impacts
of  new source industries  and  the  environmental  residuals  associated  with
those impacts.
                                      188

-------
                5.0.  EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES

     The purpose  of an  alternatives analysis  is to  identify  and evaluate
alternate plans  and actions  that  may accomplish the desired  goals  of the
project.  These  alternatives can  include  process modifications, site  relo-
cations, project phasing,  or project cancellation.  Each alternative  should
be  evaluated  equitably,  on  the  basis  of  both  environmental  and   cost-
effectiveness considerations.

     For the alternatives  to a proposed  project to be identified and  eval-
uated  properly,  environmental  factors  should   be  considered  early  in the
applicant's  planning.   The social,  economic,  and  environmental  factors
should  be  defined  for  the  evaluation  of each alternative.   Cost/benefit
analysis  is only  one means by which alternatives  can be  compared.   The
environmental  and  social benefits of each alternative also  should be  consi-
dered.   In  general, the complexity  of  the alternative analyses should  be  a
function of  the  magnitude and  significance of  the expected impacts  of the
proposed operations.   An underground coal mining or  cleaning operation that
is  demonstrated  to have a relatively minimal  impact on a  region generally
requires fewer alternatives  to be  presented in the BID.

     The  public's attitude  toward the  proposed operation and  its  alterna-
tives  should be  evaluated carefully.   Key factors such  as  aesthetics, com-
munity values, and  land use are the  subjects of public  concern, and require
consideration  by the  applicant as well as by the affected public.

5.1.   ALTERNATIVE  MINE LOCATION AND SITE LAYOUT

      An alternatives analysis for an underground coal mine should include a
detailed description of the proposed mine location,  phasing of operations,
site  layout,  and "alternative configurations  of  mining-related  facilities
(haul roads, diversion ditches, sedimentation ponds, preparation plants).

      The proposed mining site and alternative locations  of  facilities  should
be indicated on map(s) that show  existing environmental  conditions and other
relevant site information.   The  following minimum information generally  is
relevant:

      •  Proposed and alternative  mining  areas

      •  Placement of integral components  of  the mining  operation

      •  Major local centers of population (urban,  high,  medium, or
         low density)

      •  Surface water bodies

      •  Railways,  highways  (existing and planned), and  waterways
         suitable for the  transportation of  raw materials and
         wastes
                                       189

-------
     •  Prominent topographic features (e.g., mountains, wetlands,
        floodplains)

     •  Dedicated  land  use  areas (parks, historic  sites,  wilder-
        ness areas, wildlife  refuge lands,  testing  grounds,  air-
        ports, etc.)

     •   Other sensitive  environmental areas  (prime agricultural
        lands, historic  sites,  critical  habitats  of rare  or  en-
        dangered species)

     •  Soil characteristics

     The  considerations  that  led  to the  selection of  the  proposed  site
should be  supported  by  data, including  quality of  the  coal  resource,  ade-
quacy of  transportation systems, economic  factors,  environmental consider-
ations, license  or permit conditions, compatibility with  any  existing land
use planning  programs, and current  public opinion.

     Quantification, although desirable, may not be  possible for  all  factors
considered  in the  analysis.  Under  circumstances of  insufficient  data,  qual-
itative and general comparative  statements  supported by documentation may  be
sufficient  to support  the evaluation of alternatives.  Where  available, ex-
perience  derived  from  operation of  other  underground  mines,  mines  in the
same  area,  or at  sites  with  environmentally similar characteristics may  be
helpful in  appraising the nature of expected environmental  impacts.

5.2.  ALTERNATIVE  MINING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

      All  feasible  methods and techniques for extraction of  the coal  resource
should  be examined carefully on the basis of reliability,  economy,  and  envi-
ronmental considerations.  Feasible alternatives should be  screened  further
on the  basis  of  factors such as:

      •  Land, raw  materials,  waste  generation, waste treatment,
        and storage  requirements

      •  Ambient  air  quality and expected emission rates

      •   Quality  of receiving waters and proposed discharges

      •   Water consumption rates and proposed disruption of
         aquifers

      •   Fuel  consumption rates

      •   Capability,  reliability, residuals, and energy effi-
         ciencies of  proposed waste treatment systems
                                      190

-------
     •  Economics

     •  Aesthetics

     •  Noise generation

     A tabular or matrix form of display often  is helpful in comparing feas-
ible mining alternatives.  Dismissal of alternative mining methods which are
not feasible should be  supported  by an objective explanation of the reasons
for rejection.

5.3.  OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERATIONS

     In addition  to  identifying and evaluating alternative site locations,
site  layout  configurations, and  process methods,  an alternatives  analysis
should consider the following:

     •  Phased or staged mining of  coal  to  avoid  subsidence  or
        other disturbances  in areas  that are  seasonally  sensitive
     •  Alternative methods of access  to and  from the mining site
     •  Alternative production rates
     •  Alternative reclamation techniques  for  surface disturbed
        areas and coal  refuse dumps  (e.g.,  selective  replacement
        of overburden materials, etc.)

5.4.  NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

      In all  proposals  for  facilities  development, the  applicant  must  con-
sider and  evaluate  the impact of  not  constructing the  proposed new  source.
This  analysis is not  unique to  the development  of underground  coal  mines and
coal  cleaning facilities.   The  no-action alternative  is  described in  Chapter
IV  (Alternatives  to   the  Proposed  New  Source)  of  Environmental   Impact
Assessment Guidelines  for  Selected New Source Industries (USEPA 1975a).
                                       191

-------
                6.0.  REGULATIONS OTHER THAN POLLUTION CONTROL

     Several regulations  apply  to the construction and  operation of under-
ground coal  mines and coal  cleaning facilities.   Federal  regulations that
may be pertinent to proposed operations include, but are not limited to, the
following:

     •  Coastal Zone Management Act  of 1972 (16  USC 1451 et seq.)

     •  The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended
        (16 USC 661-666)

     •  USDA Agriculture  Conservation Service Watershed Memorandum
        108  (1971)

     •  Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1969  (16 USC  1274 et seq.)

     •  The  Flood Control Act of  1944

     •  Federal Highway Act, as amended  (1970)

     •   The Wilderness  Act of 1964, as  amended (16  USC 1131 £t
        seq.)

     •  Endangered  Species  Preservation  Act,  as  amended  (1973) (16
        USC 1531  et seq.)

     •  The National Historical  Preservation Act of 1966
        (16 USC  1531 et seq.)

     •   Executive Order  11593 (Protection  and Enhancement of  Cul-
        tural  Environment,  16  USC 470)  (Sup.  13  May 1971)

     •  Archaeological and  Historic Preservation Act of 1974
        (16 USC  469 et seq.)

     •  Procedures  of the Council on Historic Preservation (1973)
         (39 FR 3367)

     •  Executive Order 11988  (Protection of Floodplains; replaced
        EO 11296, 10 August 1966)

      •   The Federal Coal Mine Health and  Safety Act of  1977 (88
         Stat.  742)

      •   Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (Section 102)

      •    Energy  Conservation and  Production Act of  1976 (Section
         164)
                                      192

-------
 Executive Order 11990  (Protection of  Wetlands;   24  May
1977)

USEPA Policy  to  Protect Environmentally Significant Agri-
cultural Lands  (Draft  memorandum from Douglas  Costle to
Assistant  Administrators,  Regional  Administrators,  and
Office Directors; undated)
                             193

-------
Table 38.  Acronyms and abbreviations.


AQCR             Air quality control region

BACT             Best available control technology

CAA              The Clean Air Act; 42 USC 7401-7642, PL 95-190,
                   as amended

CFR              Code of Federal Regulations

CWA              The Clean Water Act, also known as the Federal
                   Water Pollution Control Act, 92-500, as amended;
                   33 USC et^ seq.

EID              Environmental Impact Document

E1S              Environmental Impact Statement

EO               Executive Order

FR               Federal Register

ICC              Interstate Commerce Commission

MT               Metric Ton

NAAQS            National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NEPA             National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
                   PL 91-190, as amended; 42 USC 4321 et_ seq.

NPDES            National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NSPS             New Source Performance Standard

NTIS             National Technical Information Service

PL               Public Law

PSD              Prevention of Significant Deterioration

RCRA             Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; PL 94-580;
                   43 USC 6901 et^ seq.

ROM              Run-of-mine coal

ROW              Right-of-way

SIP              State Implementation Plan (for attainment of air
                   quality)

SMCRA            Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
                   PL 95-87
                                   194

-------
Table 38.   Acronyms and abbreviations (concluded).
Stat.

SWM

UMWA

UNAMAP


US

use

USBOM

USDOE

USDOI

USEIA

USEPA

USOSM



USSCS
Statutes (of the United States)

Stanford Watershed Model

United Mine Workers of America

User's Network for Applied Modelling of Air
   Pollution

United States

United States Code

United States Bureau of Mines

United States Department of Energy

United States Department of the Interior

United States Energy  Information Administration

United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Office  of  Surface Mining Reclamation
   and Enforcement of  the United States Department
   of  the Interior

Soil  Conservation Service  (United  States Department
   of  Agriculture)
                                    195

-------
Table 39.  Metric conversions
Multiply (English Units)
ENGLISH UNIT 	 ABBREVIATION
acre
acre •• feet
British Thermal Unit
British Thermal Unit/ pound
cubic feet/minute
cubic feet/second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Fahrenheit
feet
A. V?^ b
gallon
to gallon/minute
^ horsepower
inches
inches of mercury
pounds
million gallons/day
M-l 1 A
mile
pound/ square inch (gauge)
square feet
square inches
tons (short)
yard
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfra
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu In
F
ft
gal
gpra
hp
in
in Ilg
Ib
mgd
mi
psig
sq ft
sq in
t
y
by To obtain (Metric Units)
CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555 (°F-32)*
0. 3040
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
(0.06805 psig + D*
0.0929
6.452
0.907
0.9144
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
1
I/ sec
kw
on
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
atm
sq m
sq cm
kkg
m
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram - calories
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/ second
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric tons (1000 kilograms)
meters
 *Actual conversion, not a multiplier

 Source:  McCandless, Lee C., and Robert B. Shaver.  1978.  Assessment of coal  cleaning  technology:   first  annual
      report.  US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Industrial  Environmental
      Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park NC, EPA-600/7-78-150,  153 p.

-------
Table 40.  Glossary of mining-related terms.


Bench;   a layer of coal;  either a  coal seam separated from nearby seams by
     an intervening layer,  or  one  of several layers within a coal seam  that
     is mined separately  from  the  others;  a form cut in solid rock as
     distinguished from one (as a  terrace) cut in unconsolidated material.

Bolting;  a method of roof  support in which steel bolts are secured in the
     roof of the mined area to assure structural stability of the roof.

Bottom;  the mine floor.

Bump;  a local seismic disturbance caused by either partial or total failure
     of a portion of  the  roof  support system of a mine.

Cat;  a caterpillar tread propulsion system.

Change out;  the portion  of a  mining cycle during which machines and
     ventillation facilities are  repositioned to permit cutting and loading
     (active mining)  to continue.

Chock;  a square pillar used for  roof support.  Chocks are constructed of
     prop timber laid up  in alternate cross layers in log-cabin style, the
     center being filled  with waste.

Coke;  a combustible  material consisting of fused ash and fixed carbon of
     bituminous coal.

Coking coal;  a bituminous coal containing about 90% carbon and suitable  for
     the production of coke.

Continuous mining;  a system of mining which employs a machine capable of
     cutting the coal from an exposed face in a nearly uninterrupted
     manner.

Conventional mining;   a  system of  mining which entails making a relief cut,
     drilling the face to permit  insertion of explosives, blasting  the coal,
     and removing the coal from the mine.

Crib;  see chock.

Deep-mined coal;  coal which is mined from deposits  covered by sedimentary
     deposits of soil, rock, and the like.  Access  to this coal is  obtained
     by  leaving  the  overburden in place, rather than by removal of
     overburden, as  in surface or strip mining.

Depth  of seam;  vertical  distance from ground surface  to  seam location.

Downdip;  downhill  succession of cuts in mining; the opposite of  updip.

Floor;   the upper  surface of the stratum which supports the coal  before  it
     is  removed  by  mining.
                                       197

-------
Table 40.  Glossary (continued).


Gob;  mine waste consisting  of  rubble  cut  from roof and floor of a mined
     seam.  Gob also contains coal  chips and coal dust not removed from the
     mined region.  The  term is also applied to waste remaining after coal
     is separated from raw mine output in  a cleaning operation outside the
     mine.

Lift;  the thickness of  coal removed in a  mining operation.  Closely related
     to seam height for  values  less than 10 feet.

Longwall;  a mining strategy in which  coal is removed from a longwall (face)
     of coal in  the deposit  in  a series of parallel cuts on the face.  The
     length of  the  cut may be from 500 to  1000 feet, hence the term,
     longwall.

MESA:  Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration, a portion of the United
     States Department -of the Interior.

Metallurgical grade coal;  coal best suited for use in production of  steel -
     a  "premium"  grade  of bituminous coal.

Miner;   1) a  mining machine,  2) a person who mines.

OSHA:   Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Pyrite;   iron sulfide (FeS2);  a lustrous yellow mineral.

Roof:   the  lower extreme of overburden remaining  after  removal  of coal.

Room and Pillar system;  a mining  strategy  in  which "rooms"  are  cut in the
	coal deposit and "pillars" of  coal remain to serve  as roof  support.

Run-of-mire;   said of ore in its natural,  unprocessed state;  ore just as  it
      is mined.

 Seam height;   thickness  of  the seam.

 Sedimentation;   settling out of solids  by  gravity.

 Shortwall;  a mining system similar to longwall.

 Slurry;  a very wet, highly mobile, semiviscous mixture of finely divided
      insoluble matter.

 Steam coal;  coal best  suited  for  and used in producing steam,  primarily for
      the generation of  electric power.

 Subsidence;  settling of ground surface due to movement of overburden
 	downward to occupy void space remaining after coal extraction.
                                        198

-------
Table 40.   Glossary (concluded).
Top;  the roof.

Tram, Tramming;  transport  of  a mining machine from one location to  another
     within the mine under  its  own  motive  power.

UMWA;  United Mine Workers  of  America.

Underground coal;  coal which  occurs beneath substantial sedimentary
     deposits of soil, rock, etc.  (See deep-mined coal; the terms are
     essentially synonymous).

Want;  a pinch or thinning  of  a coal seam, especially as a result of
     tectonic movements.

Yellow boy;  a yellow  gelatinous precipitate resulting from neutralization
     of acid mine water drainage.
                                       199

-------
                            7.0.  BIBLIOGRAPHY

     In an effort to maximize reader accessibility  to  literature  cited  in
this guidelines document, bibliographic  information is presented  in  two
modes:

     •  Citations are listed alphabetically  in  author-date  format
        under subject headings which correspond to  particular
        areas of interest in underground coal mining.   Articles
        emphasizing more than one topic  are  cross-indexed under
        the appropriate categories.  Subject headings  in this
        portion of the bibliography include:

        COAL - GENERAL
          Formation
          Other
          Physical Properties
          Quality Control
          Reserves
          Structure

        COAL CLEANING

        COAL INDUSTRY
          Drainage Control
          Energy
          General
          Mine Seals
          Regulations
          Transportation
          Trends

        EXPLORATION

        IMPACT
          Air Quality
          Ecology
          Gloodplains
          General
          Ground Effects
          Models
          Socioeconomics
          Water Quality
          Water Quantity

        METHANE

        MINING  GEOLOGY

        MINING  SYSTEMS
                                      200

-------
REVIEWS

ROCK MECHANICS

SOLID WASTE
  Disposal
  General
  Quality
  Treatment

WASTEWATER
  Mine Drainage
  Sediment Ponds

An Alphabetical listing  of  complete  citations  for works
cited in this guidelines document  follows  the  subject
index.
                               201

-------
COAL - GENERAL
COAL CLEANING
Formation

Carucclo and Perm 1974
Horne and others 1977a
Home and others 1977b
Horne and others 1978
Howard 1969
Pedlow 1977
Smith I975b

Other

Advani and others 1977
Gluskoter and others 1976
University of Oklahoma 1975

Physical Properties
Duba 1976
Dutcher 1978
Laine and others 1976
McCulloch and others 1974
Paciorek and others 1972

Quality Control

Caruccio 1970
Caruccio 1972
Coleman and others  1976
Cturtnick and others 1975
Donahue and Leonard 1967
Gomez and Donaven 1971
Lapham 1971
Morth and others 1970
Thompson and Benedict  1976

Reserves

Dunn and other  1971
Elliott  1973
Gorrell  and others  1972
Matson  and White 1975
USBOM 1975c
USBOM 1977b
USEIA 1978
USEIA 1979
Williams  and  others 1972

Structure

Keenan  and  Carpenter 1961
Leonard and Mitchell 1968
Merritt 1978
Meyers and others 1979a
Meyers and others 1979b
HcCandless and Shaver 1978
Mudd 1968
Murray 1978
Murray and Wright 1978
Nunenkamp 1976

COAL INDUSTRY

Drainage Control

Kosowski 1972
National Coal Association 1977
Parizek and Tarr 1972
USEPA 1976b
Wilson and others 1970

Energy
 Neihaus  1975
 Phillips 1976
 USEPA 1976f

 General

 National Coal  Association 1975
 National Coal  Association 1976a
 National Coal  Association 1976b
 Trakowski 1974

 Mine Seals

 Miller and Thompson 1974
 Penrose  1974
 Wilson and others 1970

 Regulations

 USEPA 1975a
 USEPA 1975e
 USEPA 1976c
 USEPA 1976d
 USEPA 1976e
 US Geological Survey and Bureau of
   Land Management 1976
                                     202

-------
COAL INDUSTRY (continued)

Transportation

Campbell and Katell  1975
Grier and others 1976
Olson 1976
Szabo 1978
USEPA I978b
Trends

Rabbltts and  Walsh 1974

EXPLORATION

Anonymous  1977
Balch and  others 1975
Barron 1978
Bond and  others 1968
Bond and  others 1971
Carmichael 1968
Caruccio  1975
Clarke 1976
 Clayton 1977
 Conselman 1968
 Cook 1977
 Dresen and Freystatter 1976
 Fowler and others 1975
 Gomez and Donaven 1971
 Guu 1975
 Hasbrouck and Guu 1975
 Home and others  1977
 Horne and others  1978
 HRB-Singer Inc. 1971
 Josien 1975
 Konya 1972
 Medlin and Coleman  1976
 Melton and Perm 1976
 Muir 1976
 Risser 1973
 Steflay and  Leighton 1977

 IMPACT

 Air Quality

 Brookshire and others 1979
 Cavanaugh 1975
 Ekeley 1911
 Turner 1979

 Ecology

  Bradshaw 1973
IMPACT (continued)

Floodplains

Pennsylvania Department of
  Environmental Resources n.d.

General

Ahmad  1974
Bisselle and others 1975
Brown  and others  1977
Down and Stocks 1978
Elphic and  Stokes 1975
Glass  1973
Grim and Hill  1974
Gwynn  1973
Hill 1976
Hittman Associates,  Inc.  1974
Hittman Associates,  Inc.  1976
Jacobsen  1976
Lake  1972
Lave  1975
Lerch and  others 1972
Minear and others 1976
Minear and others 1977
 Silverman 1975
 Snider and others 1978
 USBOM 1975b
 USEPA 1974a
 USEPA 1975a

 Ground Effects

 Bellinger 1970
 Bellinger 1971
 Bushnell 1974
 Dunrud 1974
 Dunrud 1975
 Gray  1971
 Gray  and others  1974
 Isobe and  others 1977
 Jones and  Bellamy 1973
 Kapp  1976
 Kumar and  Singh 1973
 Mabry 1973
 Morken and Whitman  1975
 Pennsylvania  Department  of
    Environmental Resources n.d.
 Powell 1973
 Shadbolt  1975
 Smith 1975a
 USEPA 1976b
  USEPA 1978a
 West and others 1974
                                       203

-------
IMPACT (continued)

Models

Anonymous 1973
Carey and others 1978
Smith and Jones 1975
Trescott 1975
Trescott and Larson 1976
Trescott and others 1976

Socioeconomics

Kolbash 1975
Moore 1977
USBOM 1975a

Water Quality

Gammon 1970
Gang and Langmuir 1974
Grubb and others 1972
Herricks and Cairns 1974
Hill 1973
Lovell 1973
01sen and Dettman 1976
Petrus 1975
Steele and Heines 1977
USEPA 1975d
USEPA 1978a
Warner 1974
Wierenga and others 1975
Zemansky and others 1975

Water Quantity

Grubb and others 1972
Konstartynowicz and Stranz  1973
Neihaus 1975
Shock 1975
Steele and Heines 1977

METHANE

Chakrabarti 1974
Conselman 1968
Deul 1964
Deul 1971
Deul 1976
Elder and Deul 1974
Kissell and others 1974
McCulloch and Deul 1973
McCulloch and others  1975a
Popp 1974
Price and others 1973
MINING GEOLOGY

Damberger and others 1975
Deul 1976
Dresen and Freystaetter 1976
Ganow 1975
Hardy 1975
Hylbert 1976
Josien 1975
Kalia 1975
Kent 1974
Leighton and Steblay 1977
McCulloch and Deul 1973
McCulloch and others 1975b
McCulloch and others 1975c
Smith 1975b
Van Besien 1977
Williamson 1967
Wright 1969
Wright 1973b

MINING SYSTEMS

Alves 1977
Bieniawski and Hustralid 1977
Chaplin and others 1972
Cummins and Given 1973
Elder and Deul 1973
Goode 1966
Grose and Nealy 1971
Hams 1976
Hardy and others 1973
Holland and Olsen 1968
Hustralid 1976
Kentucky Department for Natural
  Resources and Environmental
  Protection 1975a
Kentucky Department for Natural
  Resources and Environmental
  Protection 1975b
Legatski and Brady 1972
Legon 1974
Light 1976
McGiddy and Witfield 1974
Medlin and Coleman 1976
Moebs and Curth 1976
Morley 1973
Nunenkamp 1976
Olsen and Tandanand 1977
Pfleider n.d.
Reeves 1975
Roberts 1966
Saperstein 1974
Slsselman 1978
                                   204

-------
MINING SYSTEMS (continued)
SOLID WASTE (continued)
Stassen 1977
Steblay and Leighton  1977
Stepherson and Rockaway  1976
Stewart 1975
Stewart 1977
Systems Consultants,  Inc.  1978
USEPA 1975c
Von Schonfeldt 1978
Wilson and others 1970
Wright 1969
Wright 1973a
Wright 1973b

REVIEWS

Munn 1977
USEPA 1976e

ROCK MECHANICS

Advani and others 1977
Alves 1977
Arscott and Hackett 1972
Bieniawski and Hustralid 1977
Bolstead and others 1973
Bond and others 1968
Bond and others 1971
Budavari 1974
Das 1974
Dresen and Freystaetter  1976
Fowler and others 1977
Goode 1966
Hardy 1975
Haras 1976
Holland and Olsen 1968
Hustralid 1976
Kennan and Carpenter  1961
Kidybirski and Babcock 1973
Konya 1972
Roberts 1966
Shearly and Singh 1974
Stacey 1973
Su 1976
Von Schonfeldt 1978
West and others 1974
Wright 1969

SOLID WASTE

Disposal

Atwood and Casey 1973
Capp and others 1975
Cowherd 1977
Geer 1969
Kaufmar and McCuskey 1974
Libicki 1978
USBOM 1973
USEPA 1977
US National Academy of Sciences
  1975
Wahler and Associates 1978

General

Chalekode and Blackwood 1978
Chen 1976
McCartney and Whaite 1969
Miller 1972
Taylor 1972

Quality

Busch and others 1974
Caruccio 1975

Treatment

Adams and others 1972
Minnick and others 1975
Sopper and others 1975

WASTEWATER

Mine Drainage

Beers and others 1974
Cox and others 1977
Cox and others 1979
Ford 1970
Raines and others 1972
Gleason and Russell 1976
Hill and Bates 1978
Lau and others 1970
Loy 1974
Ricca and Taiganides 1969
Ricca and Chow 1973
Rozelle 1968
Streeter 1970
Wallitt and others 1970
Wilmoth and others 1972
Wilmoth 1977
Zaval and Burns 1974

Sediment Ponds

Leung 1977
                                       205

-------
Adams, L. M., J. P. Capp, and D. W.  Gillmore.   1972.   Coal mine spoil and re-
     fuse bank reclamation with power  plant  fly ash.   Mineral Waste Utiliza-
     tion Symposium, Proceedings Number  3:105-111.

Advani, S. H., K. Y. Lee, H. F. Wang,  and Y.  T.  Lin.   1977.  Fracture mechan-
     ics and  stress analysis associated  with underground coal gasification.
     In F. D. Wang and  G. B. Clark (eds.).   Energy resources and excavation
     Technology, Proceedings of  the 18th US  Symposium on rock mechanics,
     Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden  CO, p.   2As.l-2AS.6.

Ahmad. Moid V.   1974.   Coal mining and its effect on water quality.  Depart-
     ment of  Biology, University of Ohio, Athens OH, 7 p.

Alves, C. A.  1977.  Rock mechanics instrumentation applied to longwall.
     Masters  Thesis, Colorado  School of  Mines, Golden CO, variously  paged.

Apian, F. F., and R. Hogg.   1979.   Characterization of solid constituents  in
     blackwater  effluents from  coal preparation plants.  US Environmental  Pro-
     tection  Agency, Office  of  Research and Development, Industrial  Environ-
     mental  Research Laboratory,  Research Triangle Park NC, EPA-600/7-79-006,
     203  p.

American  Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).  1978.  1978 Annual  Book  of
     ASTM Standards.   Part 26:  Gaseous fuels; coal and coke; atmospheric  analy-
      sis.   Philadelphia PA,  906 p.

Anonymous.   1973.   How Cyprus Mines Corporation stores environmental data in
      computer.   World  Mining (US Ed.) 9(2):30-33.

Anonymous.   1977.   Hydraulic mining —  a refined  and  growing technological art,
      World  Coal 3(7):55.

Arscott, R.   L.  and P.  Hackett.  1972.   Influence  of  geological structure on
      failure around certain types  of  underground  excavations.   Symposium on
      Rock Mechanics, Proceedings Number  10:759-784.

 Atwood,  G.  and E.  F.  Casey.  1973.  Feasibility  of  returning underground coal
      mine wastes to mined-out areas.  I_n Need for  national policy for the use
      of underground space.  American  Society  of  Civil Engineers,  New York NY,
      p. 181-185.

 Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc.  1977.   Underground mine drainage control,
      Snowy Creek—Laurel Run, West Virginia,  feasibility study.  US Environ-
      mental  Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Industrial
      Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati OH,  EPA 600/2-77-114, 131 p.

 Balch, A. H., F. Rusky,  M. Lepper, and  S.  Peterson.   1975.  Use of seismic
      reflection method in coal  seam mapping.   Society of Explor.  Geophysics,
      Annual  International Meeting, Abstract number 45, p. 34-35.
                                         206

-------
Barron, K.   1978.  An air  injection technique for investigating the integrity of
     pillars and ribs in coal mines.   International Journal of Rock Mechanics,
     Mineral Science and Geomechanical Abstracts III 15(2):69-76.

Bell, F. G. (ed.).  1975.   Investigations in areas of mining subsidence.
     Butterworth & Co.  Ltd.,  London GBR.

Beers, W. F., E. J. Ciolkosg, and L.  T. Kardos.  1974.  Soil as a medium for
     the renovation of  acid mine drainage water.  Symposium on Coal Mine Drain-
     age, Research paper number 5:160-171.

Bieniawski, Z. T., and  W.  A.  Hustrulid.  1977.  A review of coal pillar strength
     formulas.  Rock Mechanics  III (10) :107-111.

Bisselle, A., A. Binder, R. Hoberger, L.  Morrow, R. Pagano, D. Parker, S.
     Sasfy, and R. Stricter.   1975.  Resource and land investigations (RALI)
     program; an approach  to environmental assessment with application to
     western coal development.   Mitre Corporation, McLean VA, Report number
     MTR-6988, variously paged.

Bellinger, G. A.  1970.  Microearthquake activity associated with underground
     coal-mining in Buchanon County, Virginia.  Earthquake Notes 41(4):26-27.

Bellinger, G. A.  1971.   Perturbation of a local microseismic regime by under-
     ground coal-mining.   Virginia Journal of  Science 22(3):119.

Bolstead,  D. D., J. R.  Alldredge, and M. A.  Mahtab.   1973.   Procedures used  for
      sampling fracture  orientations  in an underground coal mine.  US Bureau  of
      Mines,  Report  investigation number  7763,  9 p.

Bond,  L. 0., A.  W.  Schmidt, and R. P.  Alger.   1968.   Electric  log applica-
      tions in coal  mining  and  rock mechanics.   Mining Engineer  20(12):46.

Bond,  L. 0.,  R.  P.  Alger,   and  A. W.  Schmidt.   1971.   Well  log  applications  in
      coal  mining and  rock  mechanics.   In Special  raining  and exploration  issue,
      Society of Mining Engineers AIME, Transactions 250(4):355-362.

Bradshaw,  A.  0.   1973.   The ecological effects of pollutants.   In Fuel and  the
      environment.   Ann Arbor Science Publications Incorporated,  Ann Arbor MI,  p.
      123-128.

Brookshire,  David S., et al.   1979.   Methods development for assessing air
      pollution  control benefits.   Volume 5:   Executive  summary.   US Environ-
      mental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Ecological Effects,
      Washington DC,  EPA-600/5-79-001e, 23  p.

 Brown, C.  K.,  E. H.  Dettman, R.  A.  Hinchman, J. D.  Jastrow, and F.  C.
      Kornegay.   1977.  The environmental effects of using coal for generating
      electricity.  Argonne National Laboratory, Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
      sion, and Energy  Research and Development Administration, Washington DC,
      NTIS'NO.  PB-267 237/6 ST, 227 p.
                                        207

-------
Bucek, M. F., and J. L. Emel.  1977.  Long-term  environmental  effectiveness  of
     close down procedures — eastern underground  coal mines.   US  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Office of Research  and Development,  Industrial Environ-
     mental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH,  EPA-600/7-77-083,  139 p.

Budavari, S.  1974.  Rock mechanics aspects of the design of underground  mine
     workings.  Australia Mining 66(10):15-27.

Busch, R. A., R. R. Backer, and L. A. Atkins.  1974.   Physical property data
     on coal waste embankment materials.  US Bureau of Mines Report Investi-
     gation Number 7964, 142 p.

Bushnell, K. 0.  1975.  Map showing areas that correlate with subsidence events
     due to underground mining of the Pittsburgh and upper Freeport coal  beds,
     Allegheny, Washington and Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania.  US
     Geological Survey, miscellaneous field study map number MF-693-C, unpaged.

Campbell, T. C., and Sidney Katell.  1975.   Long-distance coal transport:  unit
     trains or  slurry  pipelines.  US Bureau of Mines information circular
     18-8690.

Capp, J. P., D. W. Gillmore, and D. G.  Simpson.   1975.   Coal waste stabilization
     by  enhanced vegetation.   Reports of  the Polish - US Symposium,
     "Environmental Protection of Openpit Coal Mines", Denver CO,  p. 127-136.

Carey, D. I., A. B. Crane, and D. J. Henderson.   1978.   Computer programming  for
     maximum modeling  information  transfer.  Water Resource Bulletin
      14(1):109-118.

Carmichael, V.  W.   1968.   Simple air-photo  techniques pare North America's
      exploration and mining  costs.  Mining Engineer 20(8):27.

Caruccio, F.  T.  1970.  The  quantification of reactive pyrite by gram  size.
      Symposium  on  Coal Mine  Drainage,  Research paper number 3, p. 123-131.

Caruccio, F.  T.  1972.  Trace  element  distribution in reactive and  inert
      pyrite.   Symposium on Coal  Mine  Drainage,  Research paper number 4,
      p.  48-54.

Caruccio,  F.  T.  1975.  Estimating  the acid potential of coal mine  refuse.
      In  Chadwick,  M.  J.  and Goodman,  G. T.   (eds.).  The ecology of  resource
     "degradation and  renewal:   the  15th Symposium of the British Ecological
      Society.   John Wiley & Sons,  New York NY, p. 197-205.

Caruccio,  F.  T. and J. C.  Ferm.   1974.   Paleoenvironment:   predictor  of  acid
      mine drainage problems.   Symposium on  Coal Mine Drainage, Research  paper
      number 5,  p.  5-10.

Cavanaugh,  G.  C.,  et  al.  1975.   Potentially hazardous  emissions  for  the ex-
      traction and  processing of coal and oil.   US Environmental Protection
      Agency,  Research Triangle Park NC, EPA-650/2-75-038.
                                       208

-------
Chakrabarti, J. N.  1974.   Scientific  utilization of methane from coal.
     Journal of Mines, Metals and  Fuels  22(3):77-79.

Chalekode, P. K., and T.  R.  Blackwood.   1978.   Source assessment: coal refuse
     piles, abandoned mines  and  outcrops,  state of the art.   US Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Office of  Research and Development,  Industrial Environ-
     mental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/2-78-004v, 39 p.

Chaplin, E. S., R. E. Anderson,  J. J.  Shore, J. L. Smith, and D. M. Jassowski.
     1972.  Research in  advanced power systems for mining safety.  Aerojet
     Liquid Rocket Co.,  Sacramento CA, 269 p.

Chen, C. Y.  1976.  Investigation  and statistical analysis of the geotechni-
     cal properties of  coal mine refuse.  Doctoral Thesis, University of
     Pittsburgh,  Pittsburgh PA,  210 p.

Chironis,  N. P.  (ed.).   1978.   Coal age operating handbook of coal surface
     mining and  reclamation.  McGraw-Hill,  Inc., New York NY, 442 p.

Chow, V. T.  1959.  Open-channel hydraulics.   McGraw-Hill Book  Company, New York
     NY, 680 p.

Clarke, A.  M.   1976.   Seismic surveying and mine  planning:   their  relation-
     ships and application.  In Muir, W.  L. G.  (ed.).   Coal  exploration:  pro-
     ceedings  of the  first  international  coal  exploration symposium.
     International  Coal Exploration Symposium  Proceedings III(l):158-191,
     288-293.

Clayton,  C.  G.  1977.   Applications of  nuclear techniques in the coal indus-
     try.   In Nuclear techniques  and mineral  resources:   proceedings  of the
     international symposium on nuclear techniques  in exploration,  extraction
     and  processing of mineral resources,  International Atomic Energy Agency
     Series III (464) 9200600778:85-118.

 Coleman,  S. L., J.  HJ. Medlin,  J.  J.  Rowe,  and F.  0.  Simon.   1976.   A compar-
     ison of the concentration  of trace metals of environmental concern in
      lignite, bituminous coal,  and anthracite.  Geological  Society of America
     Abstracts 8:818.

 Conselman, Frank B.  1968.  Factors in  exploration for nonassociated natural
      gas.  In Natural gases of  North America,  part 4.  Papers of general  scope.
      American" Association  of Petroleum  Geologists Memoir 9.2:1983-1989.

 Cook,  J.  C.   1977.  Borehole-radar exploration in a coal seam.  Geophysics
     '42:1254-1257.
                                         209

-------
Cowherd, David Carlton.  1977.  Geotechnical  characteristics of coal mine
     waste.  In American Society of  Civil  Engineers.   1977.   Proceedings of the
     conference on geotechnical practice for  disposal of solid waste materials.
     New York NY, 885 p.

Cox, D. B., T.-Y. J. Chu, and R. J.  Ruane.  1977.   Quality and treatment of
     coal  pile runoff. National Coal Association/Bituminous Coal Research Coal
     Conference and Expo IV, Louisville KY, variously paged.

Cox, D. B., T.-Y. Chu, and  R. J. Ruane.  1979.   Characterization of coal pile
     drainage.  US Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
     Research Laboratory, Research  Triangle Park NC,  EPA-600/7-79-051, 97 p.


Cturtnicek, T. E., S. J. Rusek, and C.  W.  Sandy.  1975.   Evaluation of low-
     sulfur western coal characteristics,  utilization and combustion exper-
     ience.  Monsanto Research  Corporation, Dayton OH, 549 p.

Cummins, A. B., and I. A. Given (Editors).  1973.   SHE mining engineering
     handbook.  American Institute  of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
     Engineers, Inc., New York  NY,  variously  paged.

Damberger, H.  H.,  C.  T. Ledvina,  J. W.  Nelson, and H. F. Krausse.  1975.
     Analysis  of  geological structures  that influence roof stability in  room-
     and-pillar mines  in  the Heirin (no.  6) coal, Illinois.  Mining Engineer-
     ing  27(12):67.

Das, B.   1974.  Contortlonal structures in coal .and  their effect on the  mech-
     anical properties  of coal.   International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
     Mineral Science  11:453-457.

Deul,  M.   1964.   Methane  drainage from coal beds, a  program of applied  re-
     search.   Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute,  Annual meeting number  60,
     Denver CO, unpaged.

Deul,  Maurice.   1971.   Structural control of methane migration  through  bitu-
     minous coalbeds.   Geological Society of America Abstracts  3(7):542.

Deul,  M.   1976.   Geologic  studies as a basis for methane drainage  from  coal-
     beds. Geological  Society of America Abstracts  8:836.

D'ltri, F. M.   1972.   The environmental mercury problem.  CRC  Press,
     Cleveland OH.

Donahue,  B. A.  and J.  W.  Leonard.   1967.  Petrography for coal  mining and  coal
     preparation part 1 and 2.   Society of Mining  Engineers  Transactions 238(2)
     147-153,  360-365.

Down,  C.  G.,  and J.  Stocks.  1978.  Environmental  impact  of mining.   Applied
     Sciences Publishers,  Ltd.   London, England.   371 p.
                                        210

-------
Dresen, L., and S. Freystaetter.   1976.   Rayleigh channel waves for the in-seam
     seismic detection  of  discontinuities.   Journal of Geophysics
     42(2):111-129.

Duba, A.  1976.  The  electrical  conductivity of coal and coal chars.  Ameri-
     can Geophysical  Union Transactions (EOS) 57:1006*

Dunn, James R., William A.  Wallace, and David B. Brooks.  1971.  Mineral re-
     source valuation in the public interest.  In Special mining and explora-
     tion issue, Society of Mining Engineers AIME, Transaction 250(4):280-284.

Dunrud, C. Richard.   1974.   Some engineering-geologic controls on coal mine
     subsidence:   effects of subsidence on mining, conservation of coal re-
     serves, and on the environment.  Association of Engineering Geology,
     Annual Meeting,  Program abstractsnumber 17:23.

Dunrud, C. R.   1975.   Effects of coal mine subsidence in selected mines of
     Utah, Colorado,  and Wyoming from the viewpoint of  the engineering geolo-
     gist.  Geological Society of America Abstracts 7:1061.

Duerbrouck, A.  W.   1977.  United States coal preparation practices.  World
     Coal 3(5):24-26.

Dutcher, R. R.  (ed.).  1978.  Field description of coal.  American  Society for
     Testing and Materials, Philadelphia PA, STP 661, 04-661000-13, 71 p.

Dvorak, A. J.,  B.  G.  Lewis, P. C.  Chee, E. H. Dettman,  and others.  1978.
     Impacts of coal-fired power plants on fish, wildlife, and  their  habitats.
     US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,  Biological Ser-
     vices Program, Washington DC, FWS/OBS-78-129, 260  p.

Ekeley, John  B.   1911.  Nature of  some coal dusts  and mine air  from Colorado
     mines.   Industrial Engineering Chemical Journal  3:586.

Elder,  C.  H.,  and  M.  Deul.  1974.  Degasiflcation  of  the Mary Lee  Coalbed near
     Oak  Grove, Jefferson County,  Alabama by vertical borehole  in  advance of
     mining.   US  Bureau of Mines Report Investigation Number 7968,  21 p.

Elliott,  R.  E.  1973.  Coal mining risks and reserves classification  with
     discussion.   Septieme Congres International  de  Stratigraphie  et  de
     Geologie du  Carbonifere 7(2):467-477.

Elphic,  L.  G., and R. A. Stokes.   1975.  Environmental  considerations in coal
     mining.   In P. D. Rao, and  E.  N.  Wolff  (eds.).   Focus on Alaska's coal;
      proceedings of  the University of  Alaska conference.   Alaska University
     Mineral and Industrial Research Laboratory reprint37, p. 177-181.

Ford  C.  T.   1970.   Selection of limestones  as neutralizing  agents for coal
     mine water.   Symposium on  Coal Mine Drainage, Research  paper  number  3,
      p.  27-51.
                                        211

-------
Fowler, J. C., L. A. Rubin, and W. L.  Still.   1977.   Detection,  delineation and
     location of hazards using ground  probing  radar  in coal  mines.   In F.  D.
     Wang, and G. B. Clark (eds.).   Energy  resources and excavation technology:
     proceedings of the 18th U.S. symposium on rock  mechanics.   Colorado School
     of Mines Press, Golden CO, p. 4A5.1-4A5.5.

Gaines, L., R. Jasinski, and A. Gruber.   1972.   Electrochemical  oxidation of
     acid mine waters.  Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage, Research paper number
     4, p. 105-114.

Gammon, J. R.  1970.   The effect of  inorganic sediment on stream biota.  Water
     Quality Office, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 141 p.

Gang, M. W., and D. Laugmuir.   1974.   Controls on heavy metals in surface and
     groundwaters affected by  coal mine  drainage; Clarion River-Redbank Creek
     Watershed, Pennsylvania,  ^n Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coal
     Mine Drainage  Research, Louisville  KY.

Ganow, H. C.  1975.  A geotechnical  study of the squeeze problem associated
     with the underground mining of  coal.  Doctoral Thesis,  University of
     Illinois, Urbana  IL,  265p.

Geer,  M.  R.   1969.  Disposal  of solid wastes from coal mining in Washington,
     Oregon,  and  Montana.  U.S.  Bureau of Mines Information Circular Number
     8430, 39 p.

Oilman,  J. P. W.,  and  G.  M.  Ruckerbauer.  1963.  Metal carcinogenesis.
     I:  Observations  of  the  carcinogenicity of a refinery dust, cobalt oxide,
     and colloidal  thorium dioxide.   Cancer Research 22(2):152-157.

Glass, Gary  B.   1973.   Contrasting the effects of coal mining in Wyoming  and
     Pennsylvania.   American Association of Petroleum Geologists,  Bulletin
     57(5):957.

Gleason, Virginia E.,  and H.  H. Russell.  1976.  Mine drainage  bibliography,
     1910-1976.   (Coal and the Environment Abstract  Series).  Bituminous  Coal
     Research,  Inc.,  for the US Environmental Protection Agency and  Pennsylvania
     Department  of  Environmental Resources, Monroeville  PA, 288 p.

Gluskoter,  H. J., R.  R.  Rych, W. G.  Miller, R. A. Cahill, G.  B. Dreher,  and
     J.  K.  Kuhn.   1977.   Trace elements  in coal:  occurrence  and distribution.
      Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 499,  Urbana  IL,  154 p.

Gomez, Manuel,  and D.  J. Donaven.   1971.   Prediction of low-temperature carbon-
      ization properties of coal in  advance of mining.   U.S.  Bureau of Mines,
      Washington DC, 94 p.
                                         212

-------
Goode, Claude E.  1966.  A study of  photoelastic  coatings applied  to  rock
     models.  In Symposium on rock mechanics  applications in coal  mines.
     Monongaliela Valley Coal Mining Institute and West Virginia University
     School of Mines, Morgantown WV, p.  78-95.

Gorrell, H. A., C. A. S. Bulmer, and M.  J.  Brusset.  1972.  Monetary  evalua-
     tion of coal properties.   In Geological  Conference on Western Canadian
     Coal, 1st  proceedings:  Resources Council of  Alberta, Information Service,
     Number 60, p. 61-71.

Gray, R. E.  1971.   Mine subsidence, support, and stabilization in western
     Pennsylvania,  ^ri  Environmental geology in the Pittsburgh area.   Geolo-
     gical Society of America,  Annual Meeting, Field Trip Guidebook Number 6,
     p. 25-35.

Gray, R. E., J. C. Gamble,  R.  J.  McLaren, and D.  J. Roger.  1974.   State of the
     art of subsidence  control.  Appalachian Regional  Commission Report
     73-111-2550, Washington DC,  variously paged.

Grier,  William F., C.  F. Miller,  and J. D. Womach.  1976.  Demonstration of
      coal  mine haul  road  sediment control techniques.   Prepared for Kentucky
     Dept.  for Natural  Resources and Environmental Protection.  Mayes, Sud-
      derth and Etheredge,  Inc., Lexington KY, and  Environmental Systems  Corp.,
      Knoxville TN,  84 p.

Grim,  Elmore  C.,  and R. D.  Hill.  1974.  Environmental protection  in  surface
      mining of coal.  National Environmental  Research  Center,  Cincinnati OH,
      US Environmental Protection Agency, USGPO,  Washington DC, EPA-670/2-74-093,
      292 p.

Grose,  W.  L.,  and J. F. Nealy.  1971.   Detector  for  discrimination of combus-
      tion reactions and the prevention  of coal mine  explosions.   In  Special
      mining and exploration issue,  Society  of Mining Engineers AIME,  Transac-
      tions 250(4):284-286.

 Grubb, Hayes F. and P. D. Ryder.  1972.   Effects of  coal mining  on the water
      resources of the  Tradewater River  Basin, Kentucky.  U.S.  Geological
      Survey, Washington DC, Water supply paper number 1940, 83 p.

 Guu  J. Y.  1975.   Studies  of  seismic guided waves:   the continuity  of coal
    ' seams.  Doctoral  Thesis,  Colorado School of Mines, Golden CO, 98 p.

 Gwynn, Thomas  A.  1973.  Environmental implications of developing coal re-
      sources.  American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin 57(5).
      957.

 Hams,  A. H.   1976.   The design of  openings in underground coal mines.  In The
      influence of excavation design and ground support on underground mining
      efficiency and costs.   Australian Mining Industrial Research Association,
      Wallongong N.S.W. Australia,  p. 81-86.
                                         213

-------
Hardy, H. R. , Jr.  1975.  Monitoring mechanical  stability of  geological  struc-
     tures.  Earth and Mineral Science 44(7):49,  53-54.

Hardy, M. P., S. L. Crouch and C.  Fairhurst.   1973.   Hybrid computer analysis of
     seam extraction.  Symposium on Rock Mechanics,  Proceedings number 14,  p.
     749.

Harris, J. C., et al.  1979.  EPA/IERL-RTP procedures for level 2 sampling  and
     analysis of organic materials.  US Environmental Protection Agency, Indus-
     trial Environmental Research  Laboratory,  Research Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/7-79-033, 154 p.

Hasbrouck, W. P., and J. Y.  Guu.   1975.  Certification of coal-bed continuity
     using hole-to-hole seismic  seam waves.   Society of Explor. Geophysics,
     Annual International Meeting, Abstracts number 45, p. 34.

Hawley, M. E. (ed.)»  1976.   Coal, Part 1; social, economic, and environmental
     aspects.  In Benchmark  papers on  energy.   Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.
     Stroudsburg~PA,  3:384.

Herricks,  E. E., and  J. Cairns,  Jr.   1974.  The recovery of streams stressed  by
     acid  coal mine  drainage.   Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage, Research paper
     number  5,  p.  11-24.

Heuper,  W.  D.   1961.   Environmental carcinogenesis and cancers.  Cancer
      Research  21:842.

Hill,  R.  D.   1973.   Water pollution from coal mines.  Paper presented at the
      45th annual conference, Water Pollution Control Association of Pennsyl-
      vania,  University Park PA.    US Environmental Protection Agency,  National
      Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati OH, 11 p.

Hill,  R.  D.   1976.   EPA's environmental assessments  related  to mining  in energy-
      development regions.   American Geophysical  Union  Transactions  (EOS)
      57:915.

Hill,  R.  D.,  and E.  R.  Bates.  1978.  Acid mine  drainage and subsidence:
      Effects of increased coal utilization.   US  Environmental  Protection Agency,
      Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
      Development,  Cincinnati OH,  PB-281 092,  29  p.

Hittman Associates, Inc.   1974.   Environmental  impacts,  efficiency,  and cost of
      energy supply and end use Volume I.    US  Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington DC, Council on Environmental  Quality,  Washington DC,  and
      National Science Foundation, Washington  DC,  PB-238  734, variously  paged.

 Hittman Associates, Inc.  1976.   Underground  coal mining:  an  assessment of
      technology.  Prepared for Electric Power Research Institute,  Palo  Alto
      CA, EPRI-AF-219, variously paged.
                                         214

-------
Holland, Charles T.,  and  D.  A.  Olsen.   1968.  Interfacial friction, moisture and
     coal pillar strength.   Society of Mining Engineers Transactions
     241(3):323-328.

Holway, Fred.  1977.  Getting the handle on metallurgical coal.  In; Chironis,
     Nicholas  P.,  (ed).   1977.   Coal age operating handbook of underground
     mining.   McGraw-Hill,  Inc., New York NY, 410 p.

Home, J. C.,  J. C.  Ferm, and A. D. Cohen.  1977.  Depositional models in coal
     exploration and mine planning.  American Association of Petroleum Geology,
     Bulletin  61:796.

Home, J. C.,  J. C.  Ferm, and R. A. Melton.  1978.  Use  of depositional models
     in  predicting roof problems in coal mines.  American Association of Petro-
     logy and  Geology Bulletin 62(3):523-524.

Home,  J. C.,  J. R.  Staub, D. Mathew, D. J. Howell, A. D. Cohen,  and B. P.
     Bagang.   1977.   Partings; origins  and  their significance  in  coal mining.
     Geological  Society of America Abstracts 9:1025-1026.

Howard,  James  D.   1969.  The influence  of channel  deposition on upper Creta-
     ceous  sedimentation and their effect on coal  mining.   Geological Society
     of America Abstracts 5:34-35.

HRB-Singer, Incorporated.   1971.   Detection of  abandoned underground  coal  mines
      by geophysical methods.   US Environmental  Protection Agency, Water Pollu
      tion Control  Research  Service,  Number  14010EHN,  87  p.

 Hustrulid,  W.  A.  1976.  A  review  of  coal pillar strength formulas.  Rock
      Mechanics 8(2):115-145.

 Hylbert, D. K.  1976.  Development of geological structural criteria for pre-
      dicting  unstable  mine  roof rocks.   Doctoral Thesis, University of
      Tennessee, Knoxville TN,  288  p.

 Isobe, T., N. Mori,  Y.  Ishijiana,  K.  Sato, and A.  Fukushimo.  1977.  Measure-
      ments of ground tremors caused by working coal seams and analysis of
      results  obtained.   International Strata Control Conference  6, 13 p.

 Jacobsen,  J.  J.   1976.   Dynamic analysis of the environmental and  social im-
      pacts of coal  development in the eastern Powder River  basin of Wyoming.
      Report Number  BNWL-2804, 23 p.

 Jones,  C.  J.  F. P., and J.  B. Bellamy.  1973.   Computer prediction of ground
      movement due to mining subsidence.  Geotechnique 23(4):515-530.

        ,  J. P. 1975.  Methods of investigation  in  long wall  faces,•  !**«-
                Journal of Rock Mechanics  and Mining Science  "Ml V. 141-345
                                         215

-------
Kalia, H. N.  1975.  Understanding  coal  geology  can Improve underground mine
     productivity and safety.  Mining Engineering 27 (12): 68.

Kapp, W. A.  1976.  The characteristics  of  a subsidence trough over an area of
     underground coal mining.  International Symposium of  Land Subsidence,
     Anaheim CA, Program III  (2): unpaged.

Kaufraar, Paul J. , and John McCuskey.  1974.   Underground storage of coal mine
     waste.  Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Proceedings Number 4:274-283.

Keenan, Albert M. ,  and R. H.  Carpenter.   1961.   Faults in pitching coal seams,
     their effects  on mining.  American  Institute of Mining, Metallalergy and
     Petroleum Engineers Transactions 217:230-236.

Keller, G. E. , S. J. Aresco,  and J.  Visman.   1968.  Sampling of coal.  In
     Leonard, J. W. , and D.  R. Mitchell  (eds).   1968.  Coal preparation.  The
     American Institute of Mining,  Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.,
     New York NY, p. 2-1 to  2-28.

Kent, Bion H.  1974.  Geologic causes and possible preventions of roof fall in
     room and pillar coal mines.  Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Information
     Circular Number 75, 17  p.

Kentucky Department for Natural  Resources and Environmental Protection, and
     Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.  1975a.  Research and demonstra-
     tion of  improved  surface mining techniques in eastern Kentucky:  Revege-
      tation.   Prepared  for  the Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington DC,
     Frankfort KY,  338  p.

Kentucky Department for Natural  Resources and Environmental Protection, and
     Northeastern Forest  Experiment Station.  1975b.  Research and demonstra-
      tion  of  improved  surface mining techniques  in eastern Kentucky:  Revege-
      tation manual.  Prepared for the Appalachian Regional Commission,
     Washington  DC, Frankfort KY,  104 p.

Kidybirski,  A.,  and C.  0.  Babcock.  1973.   Stress distribution and  rock  fracture
      zones  in the roof  of  longwall face in a coal mine.   Rock Mechanics
 King,  D.  T. , and R. W. Fullerton.  1968.  Dust collection.  _In Leonard, J.  S. ,
      and D. R. Mitchell (eds).  1968.  Coal preparation.  American  Institute  of
      Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,  Inc.,  New York NY, p  1-1  to
      1-56.

 Kipling, M. D. , and J. A. H. Waterhouse.  1967.   Cadmium  and  prostatic
      carcinoma.  Lancet 1:730.

 Kirschgessner, David A.  1977.  Environmental  regulations pertaining to coal
      utilization,  ^n Fourth Symposium on Coal Utilization, National Coal
      Association/Bituminous Coal Research,  Inc.,  Louisville KY,  p.  30-40.
                                         216

-------
Kissell, Fred N., J. L.  Banfield,  R.  W.  Dalzell, and M. G. Zabetakis.  1974.
     Peak methane concentrations during  coal mining*  Analysis.   Pittsburgh
     Mining Safety Research Center,  US Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh PA, 17 p.

Kolbash, R. L.  1975.  A study of  Appalachia's coal mining communities and
     associated environmental problems.   Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State
     University, East  Lansing MI,  96 p.

Konstartynowicz, E., and B. Stranz.   1973.  Influence of  the activity of mines
     on the water economy.   U.S.  Department of the  Interior Research Report
     Number P.L. 480-1,  53  p.

Konya, Calvin J.  1972.   Use of shaped explosive charges  to investigate per-
     meability,  penetration, and fracture formation in coal, dolomite, and
     plexiglas.  University of Missouri, Rolla MO,  112 p.

Kosowski,  Z.  V.  1972.  Control of mine drainage from  coal mine mineral
     wastes.   Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage, Research  Paper Number  4:423-424.

Kumar, R., and  B.  Singh.  1973.  Mine subsidence investigations over  a long-
     wall  working  and the  prediction  of subsidence parameters  for Indian  mines.
     International  Journal of Rock Mechanics  and Mining  Science 10(2):151-172.

Laine,  E.  F.,  D.  L.  Lager, and R. J.  Lytle.   1976.   Using electrical methods
     to monitor the physical  properties of  a  coal  seam.   Transactions of  the
     American Geophysical  Union,  (EOS)  57:1005.

Lake,  Joe  F.   1972.    The environmental  impact of coal  mining  at Black Mesa.
     New Mexico Geological Society,  Annual  Field Conference Guidebook,  Number
     23,  223 p.

Lapham,  D. M.  1971.  Trace  elements in coal:  potential economic sources and
      hazards.  Pennsylvania  Geology  2(6):6-7.

 Lau, C.  M., K. S.  Shumate, and E. E.  Smith.  1970.  The role of bacteria in
      pyrite oxidation kinetics.   Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage, Research
      Paper Number 3,  p.  114-122.

 Lave,  Lester B.  1975.   Short term  health considerations regarding the choice
      of coal as a fuel.  In Mineral  resources and  the emvironment:  Appendix
      to Section III:   Rep'oTt of  the panel on the implications of mineral pro-
      duction for health and the  environment.  National Academy of Science,
      Washington DC, p.  B1-B12.

      A  M  anA T   R  Fraumeni.   1969.   Arsenic and respiratory  cancer in man:
      t ^u^tioial  sS™  iourial o* the  National  Cancer Instttute «(„>:
      1045-1052.
                                          217

-------
Legatski, L. Karl, and J. D. Brady.  1972.  Control  of  dust  from  continuous
     coal mining machines.  Pacific Technological  Service, Santa  Rosa  CA,  Annals
     of the New York Academy of Science  200:747-764.

Legan, M. A.  1974.  Integrated reconstruction  of  coal  mines.   Journal of
     Mines, Metals and Fuels 22(5):125-127.

Leighton, F. W., and B.  J.  Steblay.  1977.  Applications of  microseismics  in
     coal mines.  Ser. Rock Soil  Mechanics  III, 2(3):205-229.

Lentzen, D. E., et al.   1978.   IERL/RTP procedures manual:   Level 1
     environmental assessment  (2nd ed.). US  Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Industrial Environmental  Research Laboratory, Research  Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/7-78-201, 279  p.

Leonard, Joseph W.,  and  David  R.  Mitchell.   1968.   Coal preparation.
     American  Institute  of  Mining, Metallurgical,  and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.,
     New York  NY,  926  p.

Leonard, J. W.  1978.   Evaluating coking coals.   In Merritt,  Paul C.,  (ed).
      1978.   Coal  age operating handbook of  coal preparation.  McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
      New York NY,  311  p.

Lerch, 0.  H.,  D.  R.  Maneval,  and H. B.  Montgomery.  1972.  Mine  drainage  and
      other mining impacts as a regional development concern.  Symposium on
      Coal  Mine Drainage, Research Paper Number 4, p. 15-18.

Lessing, P.,  B.  R.  Kulander,  B. D. Wilson,  S.  L.  Dean,  and  S. M. Wooding.  1976.
      West  Virginia landslides and slide-prone  areas.   West  Virginia
      Environmental Geology Bulletin 15, 20 maps (scale 1:24,000).

Leung  S.  S.   1977.   Evaluation of four sedimentation  ponds in the Hazard
      coal  district,  eastern Kentucky.   Geological Society of  America  Abstracts
      9(2):157-158.

 Libicki, J. 1978.  Effects of the disposal of  coal  waste and  ashes in open  pits.
      US'Environmental Protection  Agency, Industrial Environmental  Research
      Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,  Cincinnati  OH,
      EPA-600/7-78-067,  £98 p.

 Light, R.   1976.  Health and  safety.   Mining Engineer 28(3):61.

 Lohman, S. W.  1972.  Groundwater hydraulics.   US Geological  Survey Professional
       Paper 708, 70 p.

 Loofbourow, R. L.   1973.   Groundwater and  groundwater control.  In Cummins,
       A. B., and I.  A. Given  (eds.).   1973.   SME mining engineering handbook.
       The American Institute  of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,
       Inc., New York NY, variously paged.

 Lovell, Harold F.   1973.   Coal mine drainage pollution; 1973.  Earth and Mineral
       Science  42(7):54-55.
                                        218

-------
Loy, L. D. Jr.  1974.   Description of new innovative and theoretical mine
     drainage abatement techniques.   Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage, Re-
     search Paper Number 5:  146-159.

Lucas, J. R., D. R. Maneual,  and W.  E.  Foreman.  1968.  Plant waste
     contaminants.  In  Leonard,  J. W.,  and D. R. Mitchell (eds.).  1968.   Coal
     preparation.  The  American  Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
     Petroleum Engineers, Inc.,  New York NY, .p. 17-1 to 17-54.

Mabry, Richard E.  1973.   An evaluation of mine subsidence potential.  Sym-
     posium on Rock Mechanics,  Proceedings Number 14: 263-297.

MacCartney, J. C. and R.  H.  Whaite.   1969.  Pennsylvania anthracite refuse:  a
     survey of solid waste from mining and preparation.  US Bureau of Mines
     Information Circular Number 8409, 77 p.

McCandless, Lee C., and Robert  B. Shaver.  1978.  Assessment of coal cleaning
     technology:   first annual  report.   US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research
     Laboratory, Research Triangle Park NC, EPA-600/7-78-150, 153 p.

McClung,  J. D.  1968.   Breaking and crushing.  In Leonard, J. W., and D.  R.
     Mitchell (eds.).   1968.   Coal Preparation.  The American Institute of
     Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,  Inc., New York NY, p. 7-1
     to  7-30.

McCulloch, C. M.,  and Maurice Deul.  1973.  Geologic  factors causing roof
     instability and methane emission problems; the lower Kittanning coalbed,
     Cambria County, Pennsylvania.  US Bureau  of Mines, Report Investigation
     Number 7769,  25 p.

McCulloch, C. M.,  Maurice Deul, and P. W. Jeran.  1974.  Cleat in bituminous
     coalbeds.   US  Bureau of Mines, Report  Investigation Number 7910, 25 p.

McCulloch, C. M.,  P. W. Jeran,  and C. D. Sullivan.  1975.  Geologic  investi-
     gations of  underground coal mining problems.   US Bureau of Mines, Report
     Investigation Number 8022, 30 p.

McCulloch, C. J.,  J.  R. Levine, F. N. Klssell  and M.  Deul.  1975.  Measuring  the
     methane content  of coalbeds  for resource  evaluation.  Geological Society of
     America, Abstracts 7:1194-1195.

McCulloch, C. M.,  W.  P. Diamond,  B.  M.  Bench,  and M.  Deul.  1975.   Selected
     geologic factors  affecting mining  of  the  Pittsburgh coalbed.   US Bureau  of
     Mines,  Report Investigation  Number 8093,  72 p.

McDonnell, Archie  J.   1978.  Field estimates of aquatic plant respiration  and
      its application to  stream  dissolved  oxygen budgets.   The Pennsylvania
      State  University,   Institute  for Research  on Land & Water Resources,
      University Park PA,  36 p.
                                        219

-------
McGiddy, T. C., and D. B. Whitfield.   1974.   A computer system for the evalua-
     tion and planning of coal mines.   International Symposium on the Appli-
     cation of Computer Mathematics  to the  Mineral Industry,  Proceedings II
     (12):H1-H24.

McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wold.  1963.   Water quality criteria, second edition.
     The Resources Agency of  California,  Sacramento CA, 539 p.

Maloney, Kenneth L., and others.   1978.   Low-sulfur western coal use in existing
     small and intermediate  size  boilers.   US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/7-78-153a, 422  p.

Martin, J. F., and E.  F. Harris.   1977.   Research and development programs
     for pollution control in mining and  transport of solid fuels.  US
     Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
     Laboratory, Extraction  Technology Branch, Cincinnati OH, 4 p.

Martin, J. F., R.  B.  Scott,  and  R. C. Wilmoth.  No Date.  Water quality
     aspects  of coal  refuse  utilization.   US Environmental Protection Agency,
     Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Extraction Technology Branch,
     Cincinnati, OH,  un-paged.

Matson, T. K., and D.  H. White Jr.  1975.  The reserve base of coal  for under-
     ground mining  in the  western United States.  US Bureau of Mines Informa-
      tion  Circular Number  8678,  238 p.

Medlin, J.  H., and  S.  L.  Coleman.  1976.   Role of inorganic geochemistry in  coal
     mine  planning.   Geological Society of America Abstracts  8:1007.

Melton, R.  A., and J.  C.  Perm.  1976.  Precision  logging of rock  cores.
     Geological  Society of America Abstract  8:1008.

Merritt,  P.  C.  (editor).   1978.   Coal age operating  handbook  of  coal
      preparation.   Coal Age  Mining Informational  Services, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
      Hew York NY,  311 p.

Meyers,  R.  A.,  M.  J.  Santy,  W. D. Hart, L. C. McClanathan, and R.  A.  Orsini.
      1979a.   Reactor test  project for chemical removal  of  pyritic sulfur from
      coal;  Volume I,  Final report.   US Environmental Protection  Agency, Office
      of  Research and Development, Washington DC,  EPA-600/7-79-013a,  277 p.

Meyers,  R.  A.,  M.  J.  Santy,  W. D. Hart, L. C. McClanathan, and  R.  A.  Orsini.
      1979b.   Reactor test project for chemical removal  of  pyritic sulfur from
      coal; Volume II.  Appendices.   US Environmental Protection Agency, Office
      of Research and Development, Washington DC,  EPA-600/7-79-013b,117 p.
                                        220

-------
Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.   1975.   Investigation of mining related pollution
     reduction activities  and  economic incentives in the Monongahela River
     basin.  Prepared  for  the  Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington DC,
     variously paged.

Miller, Glenn C. , and  Richard  G.  Zepp.  1979.  Effects of suspended sediments
     on photolysis rates of  dissolved pollutants.  Water Research 13:453-459.

Miller, J. T. , and D.  R. Thompson.   1974.  Seepage and mine barrier width.
     Symposium on Coal Mine  Drainage, Research Paper Number 5: 103-127.

Miller, Louis V.  1972.  A preliminary investigation of sludge refuse from
     Indiana coal mines.   Indiana Academy of Science, Proceedings 81:246-250.

Minear, R. A., B. A.  Tschantz, J. H. Rule, G. L. Vaughan, and D. E. Overton.
     1976.  Environmental  aspects of coal production in the Appalachian re-
     gion, progress  report,  June 1, 1975 - May 31, 1976.  University of
     Tennessee,  Appalachian Resources Project, Knoxville TN,  96 p.

Minear, R. A., B. A.  Tschantz, J. H. Rule, G. L. Vaughan, D.  E. Overton, and
     G. Briggs.   1977.  Environmental aspects of coal production in the Ap-
     palachian region, progress report June  1, 1976  - May 31, 1977.  Prepared
     for  the  US  Energy Research and Development  Administration under Contract
     No.  E-(40)-4946,  University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN,  91 p.

Mining Enforcement  and Safety Administration.  1975.  Final environmental
     statement,  regulations governing the disposal  of coal mine waste  (30 CFR
     Part 77,  Sections 77. 215. h through  77.217).  United States Department  of
     the  Interior,  Washington DC, Variously  paged,  230  p.

Mining Informational  Services.   1977.  1977  Keystone coal  industry manual.
     McGraw-Hill, New York NY, 782  p.

Minnick,  Leonard J. ,  C. L. Smith, and W.  C.  Webster.  1975.   Treating  coal
     mining  refuse.    I U  Conversion Systems, Inc.,  United  States  6 p.

Moebs, N. N. ,  and E.  A. Curth.   1976.  Geologic  and ground-control aspects  of  an
      experimental shortwall operation in the Upper  Ohio Valley.   US Bureau  of
      Mines Report Investigation  Number 8112, 30 p.

 Monti, R. P., and P.  T. Silbermann.   1974.   Wastewater  system alternatives:
      What are they... and  what cost?  Part IV Water  and  Wastes Engineering
 Moore, John R. , R. A.  Bohm,  J.  H.  Lord, F.  K. Schmidt-Bleek, and G.  A.  Vaughn.
      1977.  Economics  of  the private and social costs of Appalachian coal
      production.  Prepared  for  the National Science Foundation, Washington
      DC, by the Appalachian  Resources Project, University of Tennessee,
      Knoxville TN, 77  p.

 Morken, J. , and W. C.  Whitman.   1975.  Pioneer vegetation on various treatment
      of coal  overburden.   North Dakota Academy of Science, Proceedings 29:23.
                                         221

-------
Morley, Lloyd A.  1973.  Electrical  power  utilization in underground coal
     mining.  Earth and Mineral Science  42(5):33-37.

Morth, A. H., E. E. Smith, and K.  S.  Shumate.   1970.   Pyritic systems; a
     mathematical model.  Symposium  on Coal  Mine Drainage,  Research Paper Number
     3, p. 132-137.

Morth, A. H., and E.  E. Smith.  1972.  Acid  mine drainage:   A mathematical
     model.  Fourth Symposium Coal Mine  Drainage Res., Pittsburg PA, by Coal
     Industry Advisory Commission to ORSANCO,  11 p.

Morth, A. H., E. E. Smith,  and D.  S.  Shumate.   1972.   Pyritic Systems:  A
     mathematical model.  US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC,
     EPA-R2-72-002, NTIS  PB-213 887, 171 p.

Muir,  W.  L.  G.   1976.  Coal Exploration:  proceedings of the first  inter-
     national coal  exploration symposiums.  International Coal Exploration
     Symposium  Proceedings  III (1):66A p.

Munn,  R.  F.   1977.   The coal industry in America; a  bibliography and  guide  to
      studies.   West Virginia University Library, Morgantown  WV, 351 p.

Murray,  W.  F.   1978.   The operation of a coal washery in Colorado.  Engineer-
      ing Mining Journal 86:1248-1250.

Murray,  H.  H.,  and S. Wright.  1978.  Coal  cleaning  (desulfurization) by high-
      intensity magnetic separation.  American  Association  of Petrology and
      Geology, Bulletin 62:(3):548.

 National Coal Association.   1975.   Coal  facts  1974-1975.   Washington DC,
      95 p.

 National Coal Association/Bituminous  Coal Research,  Inc.   1976a.   Third sym-
      posium on coal  utilization.  Louisville  KY, 233 p.

 National Coal Association/Bituminous  Coal Research,  Inc.   1976b.   Sixth sym-
      posium on coal  mine drainage.   Washington DC, 291  p.

 National Coal Association/Bituminous  Coal Research,  Inc.   1977.  Proceedings
      of  the seventh  symposium on coal mine  drainage research.  Washington DC,
       257 p.

 Neihaus, E. C.  1975. Water and energy requirements in the mining and  pro-
       cessing of coal, including  land reclamation.   In_  Bowden, C.,  K. J.
       DeCooke,  R.  Holmes,  E. J. McCullough,  B. Scale, and D. White  (eds.).
       Proceedings;  conference on  water requirements  for lower Colorado River
       basin energy  needs.   University of Arizona, Tucson AZ, p. 151-164.
                                         222

-------
Nunenkamp, David C.   1976.   Coal  preparation environmental engineering manual.
     US Environmental Protection  Agency,  Office of Research and Development,
     Washington DC,  EPA-600/2-76-138,  727 p.

Olsen, R. D.,and E.  H.  Dettmann.   1976.   Preliminary results from a study of
     coal mining effects  on water quality of the Tongue River, Wyoming.  Hydrol.
     Water Resources of Arizona and the Southwest US 6:59-67.

Olson, James J., and Sathit Tandanand.  1977.  Mechanized longwall mining, a
     review  emphasizing foreign technology.  Bureau, of Mines Information
     Circular  8740.

Olson, R. E.   1976.   Mine mouth power generation:  a case history in  two
     parts.  Geological Society of America Abstracts 8:1036-1037.

Paciorek, K. L. , R.  H. Kratzer, and J. Kaufman.   1972.  Coal mine combustion
     products:   identification and analysis.   Ultrasystems,  Inc., Irvine CA,
     165  p.

Parizek,  R.  R.,  and  E. G. Tarr.  1972.  Mine drainage  pollution  prevention and
     abatement using hydrogeological  and geochemical systems.  Symposium on Coal
     Mine Drainage,  Research Paper Number 4, p.  56-82.

Pedlow,  G. W., III.   1977.  A  peat island hypothesis for  the  formation of thick
      coal.   Doctoral Thesis, University  of  South Carolina,  Columbia  SC, 181 p.

Pennsylvania Department of  Environmental Resources.  No Date.  The develop-
      ment of environmental  guidelines for  land use  policy,  applicable to
      floodprone and mine-subsidence-prone  areas in  Pennsylvania.  Appalachian
      Regional Commission Report  73-185-2563, Washington DC, 217  p.

 Penrose, R.  G., Jr.   1974.  Limestone selection for permeable plug mine  seals.
      Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage, Research Paper Number 5, p.  133-145.

 Petrus,  Carolyn A.   1975.   Investigation of exit areas of ground water re-
      lated to anthracite  deep  mines.   Northeastern Section Geological Society
      of America Abstracts  7(1):105.

 Pfleider, Eugene P.   No  date.   Surface Mining.  The American Institute of
      Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York NY.

 Phillips, Peter J.,  and  others.   1976.   Coal  preparation for combustion and
      conversion.  Gibbs  & Hill Incorporated,  EPRI Project 466-1.

 Popp, J. T.   1974.   The  geological factors controlling the migration  reten-
      tion,  and  emission of methane in the Berkley coalbed.  Masters Thesis,
      Southern Illinois,  Carbondale IL, unpaged.
                                        223

-------
Potts, C. L.  1965.  Cadmium proteinuria:   The  health of battery workers exposed
     to cadmium oxide dust.  Annals of  Occupational Hygiene 8:55.

Powell, R. L.  1973.  Coal mine  subsidence problems in Indiana.  Indiana
     Academy of Science, Proceedings  83:239.

Price, H. S., R.  C.  McCulloch, J.  C.  Edwards,  and F. N. Kissell.  1973.  A
     computer model  study of methane  migration in coal beds.  Canadian
     Mining and Metallergy  Bulletin 66(737):103-112.

Quarles, John.  1979.   Federal regulation of new industrial plants.  New
     Plants Report,  P.O.  Box 998,  Ben Franklin Station, Washington DC,
     241 p.

Rabbitts, F. T.,  and J.  H.  Walsh.   1974.  A look at coal as a  source for
     tomorrow's energy.   Geosclence Number 1: 13-15.

Reeves,  J.  A. 1975.   Underground mining.  Mining Engineering 27(2):64B-64D.

Reeves,  A.  L.,  D. Deitch,  and  A. J. Vorwald.  1967.   Beryllium carcinogenesis.
      I:   Inhalation exposure  of rats to beryllium  sulfate  aerosols.  Cancer
      Research  27:46.

Ricca  V.  T.,  and E. P. Taiganides.  1969.  Hydrologic investigations  of  small
      watersheds in Ohio.  Phase I, October 1966-July  1969.  Ohio State
      University,  Water Resources Center,  Columbus  OH,  NTIS PB-209 928, 79 p.

 Ricca, V.  T.,  and K. Chow.  1973.  Acid mine drainage quantity and quality
      generation model.  AIME 102nd Annual Meeting, Chicago IL, 38 p.

 Rieber, Michael, and S. L. Soo.  1977.  Comparative coal transportation costs:
      an economic and engineering analysis of  truck, belt,  rail, barge and coal
      slurry, and pneumatic pipelines.   Center  for Advanced Computation,
      University  of.Illinois, Urbana  IL, Bureau of Mines OFR 146, CAC Doc.#223.

 Risser, Hubert E.   1973.  Exploration  and development of coal resources
      1970-1975.  In Future energy  outlook.  Colorado School of Mines Quarterly
      68(2):  75-7~9T

 Roberts, A.  1966.  The determination  of  stress in the strata around mining
      excavations.   Monogahela Valley Coal Mining Institute and West Virginia
      University  School  of  Mines,  Morgantown WV, p. 28-55.

 Rozelle, R. B.   1968.   Studies  on the  kinetics of iron (II) «ldation  In mine
       drainage.   US  Department  of the Interior, Federal Water  Pollution Control
       Administration,  Washington DC,  135 p.
                                        224

-------
Samuel, David E., J. R. Stauffer,  C.  H.  Hocutt,  and W.  T.  Mason (eds.).   1978.
     Surface mining and fish/wildlife needs in the eastern United States:
     proceedings of a  symposium,  3-6  December 1978.  West  Virginia University
     and US Department of  the  Interior,  Fish and Wildlife  Service, FWS/OBS
     78/81, US Government  Printing Office,  Washington DC,  386 p.

Sanford, R. L., T. L.  Myers, and  J.  F. Stiehr.  1977.  Directory of computer
     programs applicable  to US mining practices and problems.  US Department of
     the Interior, Bureau of Mines,  Washington DC, PB-289 743, 545 p.

Saperstein, Lee W.  1974.  Roof talk and other natural warning signals in
     underground coal  mines.   Earth and Mineral Science 43(5):37-38.

Scott, James J.  1976.   Research and development priorities:  Surface mining
     reclamation.   Prepared  for the US Bureau of Mines by the University of
     Missouri,  Dept. of  Mining, Petroleum, and Geological Engineering, Rolla
     MO, 158 p.

Shadbolt,  C. H.  1975.  Mining subsidence.  Ln F.  G. Bell (ed.).  Investiga-
     tions  in areas  of mining  subsidence.  Butterworth & Co.  Ltd., London GBR,
     p.  109-124.

Shah,  Y. M., and J.  R. Burke.   1977.  Inspection manual for  the  enforcement of
     new source performance  standards:   Coal  preparation plants.  US
     Environmental Protection Agency, Division of  Stationary Source Enforcement,
     Washington DC,  EPA 340/1-77-022, 156  p.

Shearly, P.  R., and S. Singh.   1974.  Estimation  of pillar  loads in  single  and
     contiguous seam workings.  International Journal  of Rock Mechanics  and
     Mining Science 11(3):97-102.

Shock, D.  A.   1975.  Water requirements  in the mining  and  processing  of  coal.
     Water Resources Symposium Number 8, Water management  by the electric
     power industry, p. 256-269.

 Shumate, K. S., E. E.  Smith,  V.  T. Ricca,  and G.  M. Clark.   1976.  Resources
     allocation to optimize mining pollution control.   US  Environmental
      Protection Agency,  Industrial Environmental  Research Laboratory, Cincinnati
      OH, EPA-600/2-76-112,493 p.

 Silverman, A.  J.  1975.   Environmental effects:   assessment of energy develop-
     ment.  In Clark, W.  F. (ed.).   Proceedings of the Fort Union coal field
      symposia; Volume 1  general session;  administration section.  Montana
      Academy of Science,  Missoula MT, p. G26-G34.

 Sisselman, Robert  (ed.).  1978.   E/MJ operating handbook of mineral under-
      ground mining.   3 vols.   McGraw-Hill, Inc.,  New York NY.
                                        225

-------
Smith, G. E., and J. E. Jones, Jr.   1975.  Will  Rogers style data dissemination
     in an age of Buck Rogers style  data acquisition:   data resources  for
     environmental impact assessment.   Mining  Engineering 27(12):68.

Smith, M.  1975a.  Coal mine subsidence in Washington  state:  inventory of a
     geologic hazard.  Geological Society of America Abstracts 7:377.

Smith, W. J.  1975b.  A study of the stratigraphical and tectonic settings of a
     coal seam in relationship to their effect on face performance.  Congr. Int.
     Stratigr. Geol. Carbonifer C.R.  4(7):239-251.

Snider, Henry I., Michael Gable, and R. Max  Ferguson.   1978.  Analysis of
     current land use and zoning versus selected environmental factors in
     drainage basins containing lakes or  ponds.   Research project technical
     completion  report, Eastern Connecticut  State College, OWRT Project No.
     A-068-CONN. 13 p.

Sopper, William  E., L. T. Kardos, and L.  E.  Dilissio.   1975.  Reclamation of
     anthracite  coal refuse  using  treated municipal waste water and sludge.
     Pennsylvania  State University,  University Park PA, 183 p.

Stablay,  B.  J.,  and F. W. Leighton.   1977.   Microseismic research applied  to
     strata  control problems of coal bumps  and roof falls.  International  Strata
     Control  Conference  6,  12 p.

Stacey,  T.  R.  1973.   Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis applied
      to  two  problems  in  rock mechanics.  Geomechanical Abstracts 4(4):136.

Stassen,  P.   1977.  Strata  control  in longwall workings in  the past twenty-five
     years.   International  Strata  Control Conference  6, variously  paged.

Steele,  T.  D., and F.  J.  Heines.   1977.  Water resources impacts of alternative
     coal development  plans in the  Yampa  River basin,  Colorado and Wyoming.
     American Geophysical Union Transactions EOS 58:394-395.

Steblay,  B.  J.,  and F. W.  Leighton.   1977.   Microseismic research  applied  to
      strata control  problems of coal bumps  and roof falls.  International  Strata
      Control Conference  6,  12 p.

Stepherson,  R. W., and J. D. Rockaway.  1976.   Pillar support  in underground
      coal mines.  Engineering,  Geology, and Soils Engineering  Symposium
      Proceedings Number  14:175-189.

Stewart, C.  L.   1977.   Rockmass response to longwall  mining of a thick coal  seam
      utilizing shield-type supports.   Master's Thesis,  Colorado  School of  Mines,
      Golden CO,  variously paged.
                                        226

-------
Stewart, R. M.  1975.  Mine entries;  slopes and shafts.  _In P.  D.  Rao  and E.  N.
     Wolff (eds.).  Focus on Alaska's coal '75; proceedings of  the University of
     Alaska conference.  Alaska University Mineral and Industrial  Research
     Laboratory Report Number  37:65-71.

Stokinger, H. E.  1963.  In F. A.  Patty (ed.).   Industrial hygiene and
     toxicology.  Interscience Publishers, New  York NY.

Streeter, R. C.  1970.   Sulfide  treatment of coal mine drainage.   Symposium on
     Coal Mine Drainage, Research Paper Number  3: 152-168.

Su, S. C.  1976.  Seismic effects of  faulting in coal seams:  numerical
     modeling.  Doctoral Thesis,  Colorado School of Mines, Golden  CO,  267 p.

Sunderman, F. W., and A. J. Donnelly.  1965.  Studies of nickel carcinogenesis
     in metastasizing pulmonary  tumors in rats  induced by the inhalation of
     nickel carbonyl.  American  Journal of Clinical Pathology 46:2037.

Systems Consultants,  Incorporated.  1978.  Multi-year program plan of  solid
     fuels mining and preparation.  Prepared for the Division of Solid Fuels
     Mining and Preparation,  US  Department of Energy, Arlington VA.

Szabo, Michael F.   1978.  Environmental assessment of coal  transportation.   US
     Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
     Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,  Cincinnati OH,
     EPA-600/7-78-081,  141  p.

Taylor, R. K.  1972.  The engineering geology of the colliery spoil heaps.
     Arthur Holmes  Geological Society Journal 4(3)i:13-22.

Thompson,  R.  R.,  and  L.  G.  Benedict.   1976.  Evaluation of  coking quality in
     coal mine planning.  Geological Society of America Abstracts 8:1139.

Trakowski, A.  C.  1974.   Abandoned underground mines.  Opening remarks,
     Interstate Mining  Compact Commission  spring meeting,  Piestem WV,  16 May
     1974.  US  Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of  Research and
     Development, Washington DC.

Trescott,  Peter C.   1975.   Documentation  of  finite-difference model for
      simulation of  3-dimensional groundwater flow.  US.   Geological Survey,
      Reston VA, open/file report 75-438,  variously paged.

Trescott,  P.  C.,  and S.  P.  Larson.   1976.   Documentation  of finite-difference
      model for simulation of  three-dimensional  groundwater flow.  US  Geological
      Survey,  Reston VA, open/file report  76-591  (Supplement to open/file report
      75-438), 20  p.
                                        227

-------
Trescott, P. C., G. F. Finder, and S.  P. Larson.   1976.   Techniques  of
     Water-resource investigations of  the United  States  Geological Survey,  Book
     7, Chapter Cl.  Finite-difference model  for  aquifer simulation  in two
     dimensions with results of numerical experiments.   US  Department  of  the
     Interior, Geological Survey, Washington  DC,  116  p.

Turner, D. B., and J. H. Novak.  1978.   User's guide  for RAM Volume  I.
     Algorithm Description and Use.  US  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory,  Research Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/8-78-016a, 70 p.

Turner, D. Bruce.  1979.  Atmospheric  dispersion  modeling:   A critical review.
     Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 29(5):502-519.

University of Oklahoma.  1975.  Energy alternatives:   a  comparative  analysis.
     Science and Public Policy Program,  Norman OK, variously paged.

US Bureau of Mines (USBOM).  1973.  Methods and costs of coal refuse disposal
     and reclamation.  US Bureau of Mines Information Circular Number 8576,
     36 p.

US Bureau of Mines (USBOM).  1975a.  Economic engineering analysis of US  surface
     coal mines and effective land reclamation.   US Department of Commerce, NTIS
     PB-2245-315/AS.

US Bureau of Mines (USBOM).  1975b.  Draft  environmental statement,  surface
     subsidence control in mining regions.  US Department of the Interior,
     Washington DC, DES-75-37, 47 p.

US Bureau of Mines (USBOM).  1975c.  The reserve  base of bituminous  coal  and
     anthracite for underground mining in the eastern United States.  US  Bureau
     of Mines  Information Circular Number 8655, 428 p.

US Bureau of Mines (USBOM).  1977a.  Advancing coal mining technology research,
     development, and  demonstration  in fiscal year 1977.  US Bureau of Mines
     Information Circular Number  8730, 13 p.

US Bureau of Mines (USBOM).  1977b.  Demonstrated coal reserve base  of the
     United  States on  January 1,  1976.

US Bureau of Mines (USBOM).  1975.   Noise control:  Proceedings of Bureau of
     Mines  Technology  Transfer  Seminar,  Pittsburgh Mining and Safety Research
     Center, Pittsburgh PA,  113 p.

US Bureau of Mines (USBOM).  1978.   Mineral commodity summaries.  US Department
     of  the  Interior,  Washington  DC,  200 p.
                                       228

-------
US Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).   1979.   The  good  news about energy.
     Executive Office of the President, Washington  DC,  55 p.

US Department of Energy (USDOE).   1978a.   Federal coal  leasing  and  1985 and 1990
     coal production forecasts.  Leasing  Policy  Development  Office, Washington
     DC, 139 p.

US Department of Energy (USDOE).   1978b.   International coal technology summary
     document.  Office of Technical Programs Evaluation,  Washington DC,
     HCP/P-3885, 178 p.

US Department of Energy (USDOE).   1979a.   Interim  updates to 1985 and  1990
     regional forecasts: working paper.   Leasing Policy Development Office,
     Washington DC, 12 p.

US Department of Energy (USDOE).   1979b.   Bituminous coal and lignite
     distribution calendar  year 1978.   Office of Energy Data and Interpretation,
     Washington DC, DOE/EIA-0125/4Q78,  86 p.

US Department of the Interior  (USDOI).   no date.  Final environmental  impact
    statement—proposed federal coal  leasing program.  US Government  Printing
    Office, Washington DC,  variously  paged.

US Department of the Interior, (USDOI).  1978a.   Permanent regulatory program
     implementing section  501 (b) of  the surface mining control and  reclamation
     act  of 1977: Draft environmental  statement.  Office of Surface Mining
     Reclamation and Enforcement,  Washington DC, 296 p.

US Department of the Interior (USDOI).   1978b.  Permanent regulatory  program of
     the  surface mining control  and  reclamation act of 1977:  Draft regulatory
     analysis.  Office  of  Surface  Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, US
     Government Printing  Office,  Washington DC, 137 p.

US Department of the  Interior (USDOI).   1979.   Permanent regulatory program
     implementing  section 501(b)  of the surface mining control and reclamation
     act  of  1977:  Final  Environmental Statement OSM-EIS-1 (January).   Office of
     Surface  Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, variously  paged.

US Energy Information Administration (USEIA).   1979.   Energy data  reports:
     bituminous coal  and  lignite distribution,  calendar  year 1978.   US Depart-
     ment of  Energy,  Washington DC,  DOE/EIA-0125/4Q78, 85 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1973.   Processes, procedures,  and
     methods to control pollution from mining activities.   Washington DC,
     DOE/EPA-430/9-73-011, 390 p.

US Environmental  Protection Agency (USEPA).   1974a.  Mine spoil potentials for
     soil and water quality.  Washington  DC,  EPA-670/2-74-070, 302 p.
                                        229

-------
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1974b.   Background  information for
     standards of performance:  Coal preparation plants.  Volume I:  Proposed
     standards.  Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Office of Air
     Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle  Park NC, EPA 450/2-74-
     021a, 40 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1974c.   Background  information for
     standards of performance:  Coal preparation plants.  Volume II:  Test data
     summary.  Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Office of Air
     Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle  Park NC,
     EPA-450/2-74-021b, 36 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1975a.   Environmental impact
     assessment guidelines for  selected new  source  industries.   Office of
     Federal Activities, Washington DC, variously paged.

US Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA).  1975b.   Review of mining and
     mining-related environmental impact  statements  (surface  coal mining
     section draft).  Office  of Federal Activities,  Washington DC,
     typescript, 153 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA).  1975c.   Criteria for developing
     pollution abatement programs for  inactive  and  abandoned  mine sites.
     EPA/440/9-75-008, Washington DC,  467 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA).  1975d.   Inactive and abandoned
     underground mines:  Water  pollution  prevention and control.
     Washington DC, EPA-440/9-75-007,  338 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA).  1975e.   Coal mining point  source
     category.  Washington DC.   Federal Register 40 202 48830-8.

US Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA).  1976a.   Extensive overburden
     potentials  for  soil and  water  quality.  Washington DC,  EPA 600/2-76-184.

US Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA).   1976b.   Erosion and sediment
     control,  surface mining  in the eastern United  States, planning  and
     design.   USGPO  Region 5-11,  EPA-625/3-76-006,  238 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA).   1976c.   Development document for
     interim final  effluent limitations guidelines  and new source performance
     standards  for  the  coal mining  point  source category.  Office of Water
     and Hazardous  Material,  Washington DC,  EPA 440/1-76/057-a, 288 p.

US Environmental  Protection  Agency  (USEPA).   1976d.   Quality criteria for
     water.   Washington DC,  p.  152-156.

US Environmental  Protection  Agency (USEPA).   1976e.   Coal mining.   Effluent
     guidelines and standards.   Washington DC,  Federal Register 41 94 19832-40.
                                       230

-------
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1976f.   Proceedings of the
     National conference on health, environmental  effects, and control
     technology of energy use.  Office of  Energy,  Minerals, and Industry,
     within the Office of Research and Development,  Report 600/7-76-002, 340 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1977a.   Reclamation of surface
     mined coal spoils.  Washington DC, EPA-600/7-77-093, 57 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1977b.   Elkins mine drainage
     pollution control demonstration  project.   Resource  Extraction and Handling
     Division, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH,
     EPA-600/7-77-090, 316 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1977c.   Inspection manual for the
     enforcement of new source  performance standards:  coal preparation plants.
     Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, Washington DC, EPA-340/1-77-022,
     156 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1978a.   Acid mine drainage and
     subsidence:  Effects of  increased coal  utilization.  Washington DC,
     EPA-600/2-78-068, 29 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1978b.   Environmental assessment
     of coal transportation.  Washington  DC,  EPA-600/7-78-081, 141 p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1978c.   Site  selection and
     design for minimizing pollution  from underground coal mining operations.
     Washington DC, EPA-600/7-78-006,  98  p.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).   1979.  Interagency  program in
     energy-related health and  environmental effects research:   project status
     report.  Health  Effects  Research Laboratory,   Reseach  Triangle Park NC,
     EPA-600/7-79-009, 160 p.

US Geological Survey  and  the  Bureau  of Land Management.   1976.   Surface
     management of Federal coal resources (43 CFR  3041)  and coal mining
     operating regulations (30  CFR 211),  final environmental  statement.  US
     Department of the Interior,  Washington DC, variously paged.

US Office  of Technology Assessment.   1979.  The direct use  of  coal:
     Prospects and problems of  production and combustion.   Washington  DC,
     411 p.

US Soil Conservation  Service  (USSCS).  1972.  National engineering  handbook:
     section 4, hydrology.  US  Department of Agriculture,  Washington DC,
     variously paged.
                                        231

-------
US National Academy of Sciences.  1975.   Underground disposal of coal mine
     wastes.  Study Committee  to Assess  the  Feasibility of  Returning
     Underground Coal Mine Wastes to  the Mined-Out  Areas,  Washington DC,  172 p.

Van Besien, A. C. 1977.  Geological Engineering.  Mining Engineer 29(2):p. 54
     and 57.

Ven Katesan, S.  1978.  Use of M—curves  predict washing properties of coal.  In
     Merritt, P. C. (ed.).  1978.  Coal  age  operating handbook of coal
     preparation.  Coal Age Mining Informational Services,  McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
     New York NY, p. 223-226.

Von Schonfeldt, H. A. 1978.  Mining and  in situ recovery.   In; Limitation of
     rock mechanics in energy-resource recovery and development.  US National
     Research Council, Committee for  Rock Mechanics, Washington DC, Report
     Number NRC-AMPS-RM-78-1,  p. 21-25.

Wachter, R. A., and T. R. Blackwood.  1978.   Source Assessment:  water pollution
     from coal storage areas.  Prepared  for  Industrial Environmental Research
     Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati OH, by Monsanto
     Research Corporation, Dayton OH, EPA-600/2-78-004ra, 105 p.

Wager, W. D., and others.  1969.  Comparative chronic inhalation toxicity of
     beryllium ores, bertrandite, and beryl, with production of pulmonary tumors
     by beryllium.  Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 15:10.

W. A. Wahler and Associates.   1978.   Pollution control guidelines for coal
     refuse piles and  slurry ponds.   US  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office
     of Research and Development,  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
     Cincinnati OH, EPA-600/7-78-222, 214 p.

Waldbolt, G. L.  1973.  Health effects of environmental pollutants.  C. V. Mosby
     Company.

Wallitt, A., R. Jasinski, and  B. Keilin.  1970.  Silicate treatment of coal mine
     refuse piles.  Symposium  on Coal Mine Drainage, Research Paper Number 3, p.
     180.

Walton, W.  C.  1970.   Groundwater  resource evaluation.  McGraw-Hill Book
     Company, New York NY, 664 p.

Warner, Don L.  1974.  Rationale and  methodology for monitoring groundwater
     polluted by mining activities.   Prepared for US Environmental Protection
     Agency by General Electric Co.,  Santa Barbara CA, EPA-680/4-74-003,   68 01
     0759,  85 p.

Weber, W. J.  1972.  Physiochemical  processes for water pollution control.  John
     Wiley  & Sons,  Inc.,  New York  NY, 596 p.
                                        232

-------
Wewerka, E. M., J. M. Williams,  N.  E.  Vanderborgh,  A.  W.  Harmon,  P.  Wagner,  P.
     L. Wanek, and J. D. Olsen.   1978.   Trace element  characterization of coal
     wastes-Second Annual  progress  report October 1, 1976-September  30,  1977.
     US Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of  Research and Development,
     Washington DC,  and  US  Department  of Energy, Division of Environmental
     Control Technology, Washington DC,  DOE LA-7360-PR, EPA-600/7-78-028a,
     144 p.

West, Terry R., R. B. Jackson,  and  D.  Johnson.  1974.   Stabilization of
     underground  coal mines prior to interstate highway construction.
     Birmingham Alabama.   Association of Engineering Geology, Annual Meeting,
     Program Abstract Number 17, p. 37-38.

Wickstrom, G.  1972.  Arsenic in the ecosystem of man.  Work-Environment-Health
     9(1): 2-8.

Wierenga,  P.  J.,  M.  T.  Van Gencichten, and F. W. Boyle.  1975.  Transfer of
     boron and tritiated water through sandstone.   Journal of Environmental
     Quality  4(l):83-87.

Williamson,  Iain  A.   1967.  Coal mining  geology.   Oxford University  Press,
     New  York NY, 266 p.

Williams,  G.  D.,  G.  J.  Dickie, and J. Steines.   1972.  Computer  storage  and
     retrieval of geologic data on coal  deposits.   In Geological  Conference
     of Western  Canadian Coal 1st  Proceeding,  Resource Council  of Alberta,
      Information  Service,  Number 60:  73-84.

Wilmoth  R.  C.   1977.  Limestone and  lime neutralization of  ferrous  iron acid
     mine drainage.   US Environmental Protection Agency,  Office  of  Research and
      Development, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,  Cincinnati OH,
      EPA-600/2-77-101,  94  p.

Wilmoth,  R.  C.,  D. G. Mason, and M. Gupta.  1972.   Treatment of ferrous  iron
      acid mine drainage by reverse osmosis.   Symposium on Coal Mine Drainage,
      Research Paper Number 4:115-156.

 Wilmoth,  R.  C.,  and J.  L.  Kennedy.  [No date].  Treatment options for acid
      mine drainage  control.   US Environmental Protection Agency  Office of
      Research and Development,  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
      Cincinnati  OH,  unpaged.

 Wilson  Larry W., N. J.  Matthews,  and J. L. Stump.  1970.  Underground coal
      mlnS methods  to  abate water pollution.  State of the Art Literature
      Review.  Coal  Research Bureau, West Virginia University, Morgantown WV,
      51 p.

 Wright, Fred.  1969.   Rock mechanics and  coal mining.  Mining Engineer
      21  (2):112-113.
                                         233

-------
Wright, P. L.  1973a.   Layout  of  continuous  miner operations in the Smoky
     River Mines.   Canadian  Mining  and Metallurgy Bulletin 66 (731):167-171.

Wright, T.  1973b.   The ideal  seam  for longwall working.  Geomechanical
     Abstracts 4(4):  134.

Yancey, H. F., and  M.  R.  Geer. 1968.   Properties of coal and impurities in
     relation  to  preparation,  jti Leonard,  J. W., and D. R. Mitchell (eds.).
     1968.  Coal  preparation.  American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
     Petroleum Engineers,  Inc., New York NY, p. 1-1 to 1-56.

Young, G. K.,  and L.  F. Gitto. 1967.   Streamflow regulation for acid control.
     IBM  Science  Computing Symposium,  Water Air Resource Management, 24 p.

Zaval, F. J.,  and R.  A. Burns. 1974.   Mine drainage pollution control
     demonstration  grant procedures and requirements.  US Environmental
     Protection  Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
     Environmental  Research Center, Cincinnati OH, EPA-670/2-74-003, 99 p.

Zawlrsica,  B., and  K. Medras.   1968.  Tumors and disorders  in the  porphyrin
     metabolism in  rats with chronic experimental lead poisoning.  I
     Morphological  studies.  ZBL ablg. Path. Anat. 3:1.

Zemansky, G.  M.,  T. Tilsworth, and D. J. Cook.   1975.  Potential water
     quality impacts of Alaskan coal mining.   In P.  D. Rao  and E.  N. Wolff
     (eds.).   Focus on Alaska's coal  '75; proceedings of  the University of
     Alaska conference, Alaska University Mineral and Industrial Research
     Laboratory, 37:182-189.

Zimmerman,  R. E.  1968.  Froth flotation.   In  Leonard, J.  W., and D.  R.
     Mitchell (eds.).  1968.  Coal Preparation.  The American Institute of
     Mining,  Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,  Inc.,  New York NY, p.  10-66
      to  10-90.
                                         234

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(f 'lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-1 30/6-81 -002
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Impact Guidelines for New Sou:
Underground Coal Mines and Coal Cleaning Fac
7. AUTHOFUS)
Dr. Alfred M. Hirsch, Don R.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
r^ , 1981

ilities 6- PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
McCombs, and David H. Dike
613/A
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Wapora, Inc.
6900 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20013
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Federal Activities
401 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4957
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/100/102
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Task Officer is Frank Rusincovitch (202)755-9368
16. ABSTRACT 	 "" '
This guideline document has been prepared
released by the Office of Federal Activit
Assessment Guidelines for Selected New So
to augment the information previously
ies entitled Environmental Impact
urce Industries. Its purp
provide guidance for the preparation and/or review of environmental
(Environmental Information Document or Environmental Impact Stateme
EPA may require under the authority of the National Environmental P
(NEPA) as part of the new source (NPDES) permit application review
This document has been prepared in seven sections, organized in a m<
facilitate analysis of the various facets of the environmental revi<
The initial section includes a broad overview of the industry intern
familiarize the audience with the processes, trends, impacts and ap]
pollution regulations commonly encountered in the underground coal r
coal cleaning industry. Succeeding sections provide a coraprehensivi
cation and analysis of potential environmental impacts, pollution c(
technologies available to meet Federal standards, and other controls
The document concludes with three sections: available alternatives
of Federal regulations (other than pollution control) which may app^
new source applicant, and a comprehensive listing of references for
17.
ose is to
documents
it) which
Dlicy Act
process.
inner to
2w process.
led to
plicable
nining and
2 identifi-
sntrol
ible impacts.
, a listing
.y to the
further
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
L DESCRIPTORS
Underground Coal Mining
Coal Preparation Plants
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Environmental Impact
Assessment
19. SECURITY CLASS {This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
10A
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
234
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                                                                                    MJ.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:   1981  341-082/263  1-3

-------