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
* WH
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 effortthe 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
systemssuch as in-pipe treatment of acid and alkaline solutionsare 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 CreekLaurel 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
statementproposed 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 Mcurves 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
------- |