The Environmental Impact of
Coal Transfer and Terminal Operations
Delon Hampton and Associates
Silver Spring, MD
Prepared for
Industrial Environmental Research Lab,
Cincinnati, OH
Oct 80
PB81-104747
U.S. Eteprtment of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
-------
April 1980
The Environmental Impact
of Coat Transfer & Terminal Operations
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research & Development
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(float read Inunctions on Ihe reverse brfore completing)
RFPOHT NO
EPA-600/7-80-169
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
The Environmental Impact of Coal Transfer and Terminal
Operations
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESS!
REPORT DATE
October 19CC Issuing Date
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
L. Pelham and L.A. Abron-Robmson, M. Ramanathan and
D. Zimmora
B PERFORMING ORGANIZATION RkPORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Delon Hampton & Associates
8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800
Silver Spring, Md. 20910
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
Cl-78-0123
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAMf ANO ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab-Cmn., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio *5268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 12/78-12/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCV CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
IERL-CI Project leader for this report is Dohn F. Martin
16 ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to assess current environmental impacts, and to define potential
control technology that will minimize the pollution resulting from coal transfer /terminal
operations. Environmental impacts from coal transfer/terminal operations can be lessened
by employing proper control methods, which should be incorporated into the early stages of
planning and design. Coal transfer is an expanding technology, and the construction, operation,
and closure/abandoment of new transfer facilities should be monitored and reported. In addition,
experiences related to the transfer of western coals should be monitored and reported, since
d limited amount of experience has been reported on the handling of these coals.
U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ncy
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia. PA 19107
17
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Held/Croup
Barges
Coal transfer/terminal operations
Conveyors
Pneumatic pipelines
Slurry pipelines
Stockpiles
Trains
Air Quality
Coal Transportation
Land Use
Water Quality
19 OIS rRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to the public
19 SECURITY CLASS |
UNCLASSIFIED
71 NO OF PAGES
30 SECURITY CLASS tTlitipage)
UNCLASSIFIED
11 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-731
-------
FPA-600/7-80-169
October 1980
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
OF COAL TRANSFER AND TERMINAL
OPERATIONS
by
L. Pelham and L. A. Abron-Robinson
Delon Hampton and Associates
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
and
M. Ramanachan and D. Zimomra
Environmental Quality Systems, Inc.
Rockvi^le, Maryland 20852
CI-78-0123
Project Officer
John F. Martin
Energy Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory-Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute f.ndorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted, and
used, the pollut'onal impact on our environment and even our health often
requires that new and increasingly more efficient pollution control methods
be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cincinnati (IERL-
Ci) assists m developing and demonstrating new and improved methodologies
that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
Coal transfer or handling operations are a part of all mining and trans-
portation systems. Special environmental impacts may be related to the
transfer or terminal facility which are different or changed slightly from
other coil production processes. Information in this report relates to
pollutants and control technology applied to such functions as loading and
unloading, storage, and transfer of coal. This report should be of interest
to stace and federal agencies or private companies involved in transportation
of coa'. For further information contact the Energy Pollution Control
Division of lERL-Ci.
David G. Stephen
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iti
-------
ABSTRACT
This EPA study was conducted to assess current environmental Impacts and
to define potential control technology that will minimize the pollution
resulting from coal transfer operations and transfer terminal operations. This
document is a surtnary manual that compares and evaluates potential control
technologies that may be employed. Major sections are as follows: (1)
Discussion of the major differences between western coal and lignites and mid-
western or eastern coals; (2) Description of coal transfer operations and
transfer terminal facilities; (3) Discussion of potential environmental impacts
associated with transfer operations and terminal facilities; and (4) Review and
assessment of environmental controls that are employed or available for
controlling pollutant sources resulting from coal transfer operations and
facilities. An annotated bibliography is provided for selected literature
concerning coal transfer.
Environmental impacts can be lessened by employing proper control
methods. Specific control methods are applicable to each site and operation,
and should be incorporated into the early stages of planning and design.
Coal transfer is an expanding technology, and the construction,
operation, and closure/abandonment of new transfer facilities should be
monitored and reported.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. CI-78-C123 by
Del on Hampton and Associates under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers a period from December 1978 to December
1979, and work was completed as of April 1980.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword Hi
Abstract iv
FiLles vi
Abbrevia:ions and Symbols vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusion end Recommendations 4
3. Major Differences Between Western Coal and Lignites, and
Mid-Western or Eastern Coals 6
4. Description of Transfer Operations and Terminal Facilities. 8
Transfer operations at mine site 8
Train loading and unloading 9
Conveyor loading and unloading 10
Truck loading and unloading 10
Barge loading facilities 11
Barge unloading 12
Transfer ooerations at coal slurry facility 12
Transfer operations at terminal end of slurry pipeline 14
Transfer operations at coal preparation sites 15
Coal stockpiles and storage piles 16
Pneumatic pipelines 18
Miscellaneous 18
5. Environmental Impact of Transfer Operations 19
Introduction 19
Water quality 19
Water use 25
Air quality 26
Noise 29
Aesthetics 32
tand use 32
6. Control Technology 34
General 34
Water use 34
Water quality control 35
Site abandonment 41
Air quality control 42
Noise cont.xl technology 46
References 50
Annotated Bibliography 54
Bibliography 63
Append i x 70
Glossary 78
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Planned U.S. Coal Slurry Pipelines 13
2. Estimated Noise Levels of Unit Operations
with Coal Transfer/Terminal Facilities 30
3. Summary of Source Water Control Technology 37
4. Typical Treatment Systems 39
5. Coal Storage Runoff Regulations 40
vi
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
BACT
Btu
cm
cu ft
dB
ft
gal
in
km
lb
1
m
mg
mi
ml
mt/y
oz
P-E
ppm
sec
TSP
EPA
ug/ml
ORNL
SYMBOLS
CACO,
Fe J
Mn
best available control technology
British thermal unit
centimeter
cubic feet
decibel
feet
gallons
inch
kilometer
pound
liter
meter
milligram
mile
milliter
million tons per year
ounce
prec i pi tati on-evaporati on
parts per million
second
tota? suspended particulates
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
microgr^ms per milliter
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Calcium carbonate
iron
manganese
percent
v'1
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Technical data and descriptive information concerning coal transfer and
terminal operations are limited. Transfer operations receive little attention
in the environmental assessment reports prepared for larger operations such as
coal extraction, coal transport, and coal utilization activities, because they
are viewed as a small portion of these operations.
In recent years, with more attention being given to increasing coal
production, protecting the environment, and reducing the costs of transporting
large quantities of coal for long distances, more emphasis is being placed on
transfer and terminal operations. Research and development of coal transport
operations are increasing. This is evidenced by the development of slurry
pipelines, larger and more efficient trucks, trains, barges, and more complex
facilities for load'ii% unloading, and storing coal.
Transfer operations are designed, constructed, and operated so as to
accommodate the modes of transportation they serve. In the United States, the
methods of transporting coal can be separated into four major categories:
railroads, boiges, trucks, and miscellaneous (i.e., tramways, conveyors and
slurry pipelines).
Railroads carry most of the coal that is transported over long distances.
About 50 percent (%) of all U.S. coal produced moves all-rail from mine to
market (7). Railroads are involved in moving approximately 704 of all the coal
produced in the United States. Barges are the second largest long distances,
carriers with approximately 21%. Although coal slurry pipelines are capable of
long distance transport, only one pipeline is currently operating, however,
currently several are planned or under construction. Trucks and conveyor belts
are functional over relatively short distances. Trucks are the major haulers
over short distances, although some shipments are as much as 80 kilometers (50
miles), because of their versatility and the widespread availability of public
roads. Approximately 11% of all U.S. coal moves all-truck from mine to market.
Use of belt ccnveyors is increasing greatly because of recently developed
technology and because they are becoming more cost effective and energy
efficient than the trucks they replace. Pneumatic pipelines are currently in
common use within power plant facilities to carry coal short distances before
entering the firing mechanism. Pneumatic pipelines currently are being
considered for other short distance uses.
A relatively new addition to coal handling is the rail-to-barge and/or
rail-to-ship transfer (transshipment) facility. Rail-to-barge facilities are
1
-------
increasing in use particularly for moving western coal to points along the
Mississippi River, across the Gulf of Mexico, and to foreign countries (e.g.,
across the Great La
-------
The findings of the site visits are reflected throughout the text of this
document arid more detailed information is contained in Appendix A.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Under uncontrolled condition the construction, operation, and closure of
transfer operations and coal transfer terminals would result in adverse
environmental impacts. However, these operations and facilities are subject to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations, and controls are commonly
employed to achieve compliance.
Although not standardized, control methods currently are available for
all identified environmental impacts. The applicability and effectiveness of
these controls are site and operation specific. In many cases, control methods
cannot be compared because of lack of standardization, variation that exists
between sites, and the limited quantity of collected data and available
literature.
Environmental planning should be incorporated into the early stages of
facility and unit operation design. Early planning increases control options
and minimizes control cost.
Little information was found in the literature concerning the
construction and closure/abandonment of coal transfer facilities, and energy
requirements and efficiency of control methods available for coal transfer
applications. A study should be conducted to obtain this type of information.
Coal handling facilities differ significantly from other types of facilities,
and therefore, general construction and site closure/abandonment information
should be supplemented by information collected directly from transfer
facilities. The environmental impacts and control methods used during the
actual construction and closure/abandonment of the various types of transfer
facilities should be collected and reported.
Coal transfer is an evolving and expanding technology. A clear example is
the proposal to transport coal by slurry pipeline part of the intended route,
and then transferring the wet coal to barges or ships for the remainder of the
route. This type of transport would requ>e the application of two new transfer
facilities: a) one which transfers the coal slurry to wet barges or ships; and
b) another which unloads the barge or ship and transfers to another transport
mode, or prepares the coal for utilization. The construction, operation, and
closure/abandonment of new types of transfer facilities should be monitored,
assessed, and reported.
-------
Generally, there are significant differences between eastern, mid-
western, and western coal. As western coal is targeted for extensive
development, a:id since a limited amount of background has been gained and
reported on the handling of western coals, experiences related to the transfer
of western coals should be monitored and reported.
-------
SECTION 3
MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WESTERN COAL AND
LIGNITES, AND MID-WESTERN OR EASTERN COALS
The Increased demand for coal, specifically, the demand for low sulfur
coal, has targeted western coal and lignite for extensive development. These
resources are located in the Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain coal
provinces. Because of their somewhat remote locations, western coal and lignite
was not, until recent years, a high priority area for coal development. Eastern
coals, although not close to the surface and often containing higher amounts of
sulfur, were developed first and used extensively because of the relatively
short transport distance to consumers. However, the Clean Air Act has made it
more difficult to burn high sulphur-content coals, and will lead to increased
quantities of western coal being shipped east.
Experience over the past several years has shown that there are basic
differences between western coals and lignites, and mid-western and eastern
coals. According to Johnson (26), western coals have been shown by sample
analysis to have lower calorific values, higher moisture content, lower
hardgrove grindability index numbers, different particle shapes, and a higher
friability (i.e., fractures more easily). Johnson also reported the following
differences found in western coals and lignites as compared to mid-western or
eastern coals based on experience:
1. Wider range of flowdbility characteristics;
2. Higher percentage of impurities;
3. Higher percentage of fines;
4. Higher susceptibility to spontaneous combustion;
5. Dustier, even though the moisture content is higher;
6. Stickier when subjected to additional moisture;
7. More abrasive;
8. More degradation during handling.
As discussed below, many of these differences affect the polluting
potential of the coal or lignite.
-------
The most significant difference between western coals and lignites, and
mid-western and eastern coals is calorific values. Using cownon calorific
values of 12,000 Btu/lb for mid-western and eastern coals. 8,600 Btu/lb for
western coal and 7,000 Btu/lb for lignite, it would require approximately 60%
more western coal and 29* more lignite to obtain the equivalent heating value of
mid-western and eastern coals. These figures indicate that larger quantities of
western coals and lignite must be transferrec, handled, stockpiled, and stored
to equal the energy equivalent of mid-western and eastern coals.
Accommodation of these larger quantities of coal requires larger coal
handling equipment, and thus additional land space. For example, as calculated
by Johnson (26), the land areas required for reserve or emergency stockpiles to
sustain a 550 megawatt gross rated unit at full load for 90 days would be 24X
larger for western coals, and 54S larger for lignites than for equivalent piles
of mid-western or eastern coals. These figures do not induce land requirements
for drainage ditches and settling basins for runoff.
Western coals and lignites are much rtore susceptible to spontaneous
combuscion due to the tendency of these lower ranked coals and lignites to
oxidize when exposed to the atmosphere. Friable coals, which crumble very
easily, usually contain a higher percentage of fines and aggravate the oxidation
process because they provide more surface area through breakage. Western coal,
being more friable, will undergo more oxidation and coal degradation during
compaction. Because initial densities of western coals and lignites are lower
than those of mid-western and eastern coals, more compaction is required.
Johnson's (26) recommended compaction for.western coals and lignites to prevent
spontaneous combustion is 65 to 70 Ibs/ft . Increased compaction requires more
use of compacting equipment, and subsequently, more fugitive dust. The
increased potential for spontaneous combustion in western coals and lignites has
led to the consideration of installing fire detection and protection systems
which require a substantial capital investment.
Another significant difference between western coals and mid-western or
eastern coals is their sulfur content and thus the potential for generating acid
mine drainage. In general, western coals have a lower sulfur content, although
coals with high sulfur content have been identified. Though generally high in
sulfur, eastern and mid-western coals containing low quantities of sulfur are
being mined. In view of these facts, specific conditions should be taken into
consecration. Generally, the mining of low-sulfur western coal does not result
in acid formation because of the low concentrations of iron sulfide, the
relatively dry climatological conditions, and the buffering capacity of the soil
which tends to be neutral to alkaline.
-------
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF TRANSFER OPERATIONS AND TERMINAL FACILITIES
The following is a description of transfer operations and transfer
terminal facilities. Transfer facilities are custom-designed according to
silo-specific requirements and conditions. These conditions include, but are
not limited to, the following: the quantity and quality of coal handled, the
incoming and outgoing modes of coal transportation, the physical size and shape
of the site, the function and orientation of the site as a whole, meteorological
conditions of the site area, and economics. Given specific site conditions,
often there are several options of transfer methods and equipment that could be
used. Block diagrams in simplified form for each major category cf operations
are shown in Appendix A.
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT MINE SITE
Ccal mines do not store large amounts of coal because of safety hazards.
Bureau of Mines regulations, and the mechanization of today's mines (9).
Stockpiles are temporary storage piles where coal is kept for anticipated
emergencies, or before being transferrod to other locations.
There are normally two major transfer points at an underground coal mine
site: (I;1 transfer from the device that brings coal out of the mine to the mine
site stockpile, and (2) transtet from the mine site stockpile to the transport
device that carries the coal from the mine site. Transfer facilities associated
with transfer operations usually include a type of stockpile (e.g., open
stockpile, silo, hoppers) and a loading system (e.g., loading tunnel).
Surface mining of coal usually involves three transfer operations: (1)
transfer from the mining device to the onsite transport device; (2) transfer
from the onsite transport device to the mine site stockpile; and (3) transfer
from the mine site stockpile to the transport mode that carries the coal from
the mine.
In the past, trucks have been used almost exclusively for onsite transport
of t^e surface mined coal, however, the use of conveyor beUs is increasing. As
annual tonnages and haulage distances increase, and advances are made in
conveyor technology, the costs of installing and operating conveyor belts become
more favpraoi*.
-------
TRAIN LOADING AND UNLOADING
The most efficient method of rail transportation for large mines is by
unit trains. A unit train carries a single commodity \n dedicated service
between two points with the possibility of alternating trips to other
destinations to better utilize equipment. Mines not large enough to support the
use of unit trains usually use bulk rate trains. Loading and unloading of rail
cars pulled by bulk rate trains are less mechanized.
Storage for unit train flood-loading is either in open piles on the
ground, or in silos or bins. Ground storage is currently the most common method
of accumulating the supply necessary for high-speed unit train loading; however,
the use of large enclosed silos has increased recently.
The most popular form of open-space storage is the single conical pile.
To facilitate train loading, the pile may be situated directly over a loading
station to minimize handling of the coal. A loading station commonly consists
of a surge bin, located above the track and 'arge enough to hold incoming coal
while cars are changing, a loadout chute, end a control room. The chute is d
large, vertical telescopic device that travels to the car bottom with each new
car, rises with the coal as the car is filled, stops and crowns the car, then
stops the flow of coal as the cars are changed and repeats the cycle. During
loadings, the chute remains in contact with the coal in the car and thus
prevents the escape of dust and the spillage of coal.
An alternative to using a loading station is to position the storage pile
on the ground and reclaim it by using a device for removing coal from the surface
of the pile, or by using a -eelaiming system positioned at the bottom of the
pi^e. Both methods usually p-ace the coaf on a conveyor belt that feeds the coal
directly to the rail cars o»* to bins located above the track.
Front-end loaders are a versatile means of loading rail cars. However,
they do not possess the speed and efficiency required for loading unit trains.
Front-end loaders are still used sometimes at small mines where high equipment
expenses are not practical and speed is not critical.
The unit train concept has led to the use of rotating car dumpers with
swivel couplings that unload e"ch car by causing it to turn and empty its coal
content into hoppers without uncoupling the rail cars. The hopper allocates the
coal onto a conveyor belt which moves it toward a stockpile or storage area. An
older and commonly used system for unit train unloading employs rail cars with
bottom discharge hatches which discharge coal either to open stockpiles or
hoppers located below the track. Some form of shaker or vibrator is often
required for complete discharge of the contents from the rail car, especially
for wet coal.
The coal in rail cars can freeze requiring a thawing shed to melt the bond
between the rail car and the frozen coal. Two modern systems for thawing are the
g*s infrared and the electric infrared. A coal shaker may also bi» needed when
hopper cars are involved. Instead of thaw sheds, mechanical devices are
sometimes used to break ice bonds.
-------
CONVEYOR LOADING AND UNLOADING
Conveyors are used extensively to move coal at underground mines, in coal
stockpile and storage areas, and for loading and unloading. Conveyors are also
cornnonly used to move coal short distances, generally up to about 15 kilometers
(km) (10 mi). Two examples of short distance use of conveyors is for coal
movement from mines to nearby barge/ship loading facilities, and from mines
directly to nearby electric power generating plants. Coal is reduced to a
predetermined size by crushers before it is placed on a conveyor.
Conveyors have been proven technically feasible and are being considered
for long distance overland coal transport, and for uses requiring mobile
conveyors. Overland conveyors of lengths greater than 322 km (200 mi) have been
proposed and would be used instead of trucks, trains, or slurry pipeline. Many
conveyors are covered. Mobile conveyors car now be designed to follow mining
equipment at surface mine sites and replace ens He haulage by truck. These
mobile conveyors can also be used to modify coal handling at storage piles.
How a conveyor is loaded depends on how it interfaces with the device
handling the coal prior to its placement on the conveyor. Some of the common
ways to load a conveyor are as follows:
1. Placement on the belt by a reclaimer which s-'tematically deposits
small amounts of coal on the belt.
2. Feed from a bin or hopper having some method of controlling flow.
3. Controlled flow from one conveyor belt to another.
For unloading the coal from a conveyor, the coal is usually allowed to
simply fall from the terminal end of the conveyor. Devices such as telescopic
chutes may be placed at the end of the conveyor to protect the coal from the
Influence of the environment, thus reducing fugitive emissions.
Conveyor belt wear is significantly more at transfer points due to impact
and acceleration forces. Thus, minimizing tne transfer points is desirable for
both economical and environmental reasons. The primary impacts of conveyor belt
operation are spillage and fugitive dust emissions at feeding, transfer, and
discharge points.
TRUCK LOADING AND UNLOADING
The most common use of trucks is to transport coal at surface mining sites
from the point of excavation to either the mine site stockpile or storage area,
or when economical, directly to the end user's stockpile or storage area. At
surface mines the coal is loaded on the truck either by the shovel performing
the digging or by a front-end loader. In most other situations where trucks are
used, loading is cannonly accomplished by feed from an overhead bin, use of a
front-end loader, or by feed from a conveyor.
10
-------
Two types of trucks are commonly used: those that tilt to unload, and
bottom dumping trucks. Trucks uf the type that tilt to unload are usually
smaller in size, and discharge the coal directly onto stockpiles or storage
areas or in bins or hoppers. Bottom dumping trucks usually drop their contents
into hoppers located below an opening in the roadway.
Truck loading and unloading operations *re potential sources of fugitive
dust. A commor method of unloading coal is to dump the coal into bins which have
feeders underneath to transfer the coal to a conveyor. Dust can escape during
transfer from truck to bin, and from bin to conveyor. Dust emissions may be
substantial if the coal is dry and fine, and the wind speed is high,
BARGE LOADING FACILITIES
In the 1974 Keystone Coal Industry Manual, barge loading is categorized
into five classes:
1. A simple dock from which trucks dump into the barge when water
conditions permit.
2. The stationary-chute type which works well where the river does not
fluctuate greatly and banks are steep.
3. Elevating-boom type, with barges moved back and forth in the river
beneath. This type is advantageous where the bank of the river is a
considerable distance from the channel, and the elevating boom and
conveyor belt can be combined for travel across the floodplain.
4. Floating-type, with the loading boom mounted on a floating or spar
barge and pivoted for easier loading. This method requires a steep
bank or fill to permit retraction and extension of the main conveyor
with changes in water level.
5. The tripper-conveyor type, in which the barges are stationary and
the loading chute moves back and forth to load and trim. The
current trend appears to be toward the tripper-conveyor type for
barges and mobiie leaders for ships.
Coal can be delivered to the barge loading site by any mode of transport.
The type of unloading system, and to scwe extent, the stockpiling configuration,
depends upon the way the coal arrives at Vie site. All existing barge and ship
loading facilities handle dry coal delivered by either train, conveyor, or
truck. Unloading of these modes of transport are discussed in other sections of
this report. A oarge loading facility has been proposed that would handle coal
received by pipeline. The coal would be loaded wet, with excess water being
removed from the vessel, and treated and disposed of based on accepted
engineering practices (24).
11
-------
BARGE UNLOADING
A typical barge unloading station includes a system of unloading the
barge, a receiving bin with feeders and a conveyor or facility for loading the
transport method used for moving the coal to the us£r': stockpile or storage
area. Barge unloading, until recently, was most commonly accomplished using
clamshell buckets. Continuous bucket unloading systems have been developed and
aie being used in the newer facilities.
Environmental concerns associated with barge unloading include fugitive
dust contamination of the water due to runoff und dust fallout, and aesthetic
impacts.
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT COAL SLURRY FACILITY
Only one commercial coal slurry pipeline is currently operating in the
United States. IT. is the Black Mesa pipeline, which has been operating
successfully since 1970. Black Mesa Pipeline Company operates the 46 centimeter
(cm) (18 in) diameter pipeline, which transports 4.5 million metric tons (5
million tons) of coal per year over a distance of 437 km (273 mi) from the Black
Mesa coal field in Arizona to the Mohave generating station in Nevada. The
fi-st and only other major long distance coal slurry pipeline was put into
operation in 1957. It was 174 km (108 mi) long from Cadiz to Cleveland and owned
by the Consolidation Coal Company. Operation of the Cadiz-Cleveland pipeline
was discontinued and the system mothballed due to the onset of unit trains.
Seven new coal slurry pipelines are currently planned or proposed (Table 1).
Transferring coal from stockpiles to the slurry preparation plant requires only
one transfer point, that is, from the transport device bringing coal from the
stockpile to the receiving bin or hopper at the preparation plant. Slur-y exits
the preparation plant and is sent to a pumping station.
At the slurry preparation facility for the Black Mesa pipeline, coal is
delivered from a surface mine via bottom-dump ing trucks which unload the coal to
hoppers located below an elevated roadway. A cloud of fugitive dust can usually
be observed during the truck dumping. Coal is then moved by conveyor through a
crusher to a stacker that forms a stockpile. Coal can also be moved to an area
for long-term storage. From a transfer tower located at the mine site, coal
(size 5.1 cm x 0) is conveyed to one of three cylindrical bunkers located above
the preparation plant. Each bin feeds a process line consisting of an impact
crusher, a rod mill, a sump, and a centrifugal pump. Impactors reduce the coal
to -0.60 cm x 0 by dry crushing, then feeds it to rod mills where it's screened
through .32 cm screens. The oversized material is recirculated through the
mill. Slurry is formed in the rod mills where water is introduced from the rod
mill sump. It is then pumped into one of four 2.4 million liter (630,000
gallons) storage tanks which are open topped and equipped with mechanical
agitators to maintain slurry suspension. Slurry is transferred from storage
tanks by centrifugal charge pumps into the suction of mainline high pressure
pumps. The pipeline system includes the slurry preparation plant, four pump
stations (the first station located at the slurry preparation facility),
pipeline test loops, and control and communication facilities (31). Once the
coal is inside the preparation plant, no pollutant streams are produced.
12
-------
TABLE 1. PLANNED U.S. COAL SLURRY PIPELINES
Pipeline System
Energy Transportation Systems Inc.
Nevada Power
Northwest (Snake River)
San Marco (Houston Natural Gas)
Texas Eastern
Florida Gas
Boeing
Route Length (km)
Wyoming to Arkansas and Louisiana ?,?05
Utah to Nevada
Wyoming to Oregon
Colorado to Texas
Wyoming to Texas
Kentucky to Florida
Utah to California
28P
1.760
1,440
1.920
2,400
1,040
Capacity (mt/y)
22
11
9
11
22
22-45
9
Source: Thompson, T.L. and W.H. Hale. Slurry Pipelines - What, Where, When. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Coal Utilization Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas. 1979. pp. 147-160.
-------
At each of the three pump stations along the pipeline route a dump pond Is
provided with capacity to hold upstream line fill In case of emergency. A water
pond is also provided at each station for use in flushing the downstream section
if emergency should require.
The coal transported by the Black Mesa pipeline is not cleaned to reduce
ash or sulfur content. Water for the system is supplied by seven deep wells and
an emergency reservoir. The wells are 1067 meter (m) (3500 ft.) to 1128 m (3700
ft.) deep, and casings are used to protect the shallow-well groundwater supplier
\ Ji).
Corrosion inhibitors may be added to the slurry to minimize corrosion.
Consolidated Coal Company patented a process that involves the addition of 12
parts per million (ppni) each of a chromate and polyphosphate, together with a pH
above 6, to control corrosion (3). The patent claims that the chromate is
removed from the water by fine coal present in the clarifiers. Others claim the
use of 10 to 1000 ppm of chromate coupled with organic phenols, polyacrylamides,
or alkylene oxides for corrosion control. Polyalkylbenzenes, and many other
compounds, may also be used to adjust the viscosity of the coal slurries (35).
With the exception of the transfer point for coal entering the coal
preparation facility, there are no air emissions directly attributed to the
transfer of coal by slurry pipeline under normal operating conditions.
Equipment at the preparation facility and pump stations is electrically oowered.
Noise is not commonly a problem due to the remote locations of these facilities.
Also most facilities are enclosed and equipped wit; noise shields.
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT TERMINAL END OF SLURRY PIPELINE
The Black Mesa pipeline terminates at the Hohave Generating Station,
located near Laugnlin, Nevada. Three basic coal slurry systems are maintained
at the station. These systems are: the slurry storage and transfer system, the
slurry feed system, and the res lurry systers.
Arriving slurry is normally directed to one of four coal slurry "active"
storage tanks to assure a smooth, uninterrupted flow of fuel. Each tank is 26.5
a (87 ft.) in height and is rated at a total storage volume of 30.3 million
liters (8 million gal). Agitators are used for continuous mixing of the
material. Piping arrangements are also provided to divert flow from the
pipeline to any one of seven onsite storage ponds. Slurry can also be
transferred from one active storage tank to any of the inactive storage ponds.
Slurry is pumped from the active storage tanks, through a slurry heat
exchanger to reduce its viscosity, and to the fuel processing equipment. A
return line to the active storage tanks maintains continuous flo'« in the supply
lines. Coal is separated from water by centrifuges wh-ich t>ien send the coal
(20-30* water) to pulverizers. From the pulverizers, the coal is moved to the
furnaces pneumatically. Water from the centrifuges (centr.ite) containing 5-6*
solids is directed to thickener tanks (clarifloccul.rtors), where additional
solids are separated from the water. Before entering the thickeners, the
centrate is treated with polymer flocculants. The underflow containing 20-26%
-------
coal solids i.> pumped to the boilers, diffused into the furnace fireball, and
burned as fuel. Overflow from the clariflocculator tanks containing
approximately ?0 ppm suspended solids is directed to the plant's cooling water
system for use as cooling-tower makeup. This overflow represents about 10% of
the plant's requirement. All cooling-tower blowdown is pumped to evaporation
ponds since no nater can be returned to the Colorado River or allowed to drain
into the groundviater.
By original design, coal in the Mohave slurry handling system, which has
been diverted to inactive storage, is allowed to settle, and the water is
decanted for use in the cooling water systems. After a drying period of two to
three months, the coal is excavated and relocated to a storage bunker. When
neoJec, the coal is loaded into trucks and transported to two underground
hcppers. The coal is then fed onto a conveyor belt which carries it to a mixing
c'tamber where water is introduced. The mixture is screened of rocks and other
dabris and directed to mixing tanks where the consistency and density of the
naterial is adjusted. The resulting slurry is pumped to active storage tanks.
Several factors including pipeline capacity, labor cost, and
environmental factors led to the conlcusipn that a new storage and reslurrying
system was needed at Mohave. The operating principle of the new system is as
follows: A slowly oscillating high-energy jet stream of water is directed from
a central location into a bed of material to undercut that material. The
material collapses into the stream of water, is reslurried, then flows back to a
slurry pump located near the jet. During the flowback, the slurry does not
encounter the jet stream and must maintain sufficient velocity to keep the
part'cles in suspension. This forms a natural slope leading back to the pump,
generally in the shape of a crescent. This new system was designed into four
disk-shaped ponds, 133 m (436 ft) in diameter and 12.2 m (40 ft) deep at their
centers. The four ponds are arranged in a four-leaf clover configuration. Two
sets of four ponds are to be used, having a total 40-day ccal supply (13).
It was demonstrated that being able to store the coal as a slurry and
maintaining a level of water on the surface have eliminated the problems of
fugitive coal dust emissions and the occurrence of spontaneous combustion in the
stored coal (13).
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT COAL PREPARATION SITES
Most coals undergo some type of preparation before delivery to the
consumer. The extent of preparation is determined by the quality of the coal,
the mode and economics of transport from the mine to the consumer, and the
requirements of the consumer. Usually, approximately 50% of all the bituminous
coal and lignUe produced in the United States is mechanically cleaned at a coal
preparation facility. Mechanical sizing alone does not normally require a
separate facility. Some of the reasons for coal preparation are:
1. Reduction of pyritic sulfur from coal;
2. Concentration of carbon in the clean coal;
15
-------
3. Reduction of asn content of the coal;
4. Reduction in concentration of trace elements;
5. Adjustment for uniform quality of product including ash, moisture,
and Btu content.
There are five transfer points normally associated with a coal preparation
plant: (1) Transfer from incoming transport mode to surge bins; (2) Transfer
from the surge bins to plant stockpile or storage area (usually screening and
crushing of the coal also involved); (3) Transfer from the stockpile co the
preparation plant; (4) Transfer from the preparation plant to clean coal
stockpile and storage area; (5) Transfer from clean coal storage to outgoing
transport mods. The transfer equipment/facilities normally involved are the
surge bins, plant stockpile and storage area, and clean coal stockpile and
storage area.
When the run of mine (ROM) coal is delivered to the preparation plant
site, it is dumped into a surge bin or surge feeder which controls the feed
through the first process module. The plant location in relationship to one or
more mines, and the mode of transport of the ROM coal to the preparation plant
site, play an important role not only in determining whether or not the
stockpiling and/or storage function occurs before or after the initial size
check and size reduction, but also in determining the method of stockpiling and
storage. For example, if the preparation plant is a long distance from the
mine, and the primary method of hauling the ROM coal is by rail cars, the ROM
coal will usually be held in the rail cars and processed through the initial
size check and size reduction only as needed for feedstock. If, OR the other
hand, the coal is transported to the plant sice by conveyor or truck, major
delays may occur in the mining operation if some storage is not provided at the
plant site.
COAL STOCKPILES AND STORAGE PILES
As used here, stockpiles and quantities of coal that are involved in the
normal operations of the site are sometimes rereared to as active storage or
short-term storage. Storage refers to quantities of coal held in reserve for
times when the quantity of coal available in stockpile": Is unable to meet
demand. Storage piles are usually much larger than stockpiles, and the turnover
time of coal held in storage may be significantly greater. The greater size and
average age of the coal generally makes storage more of a potential
environmental hazard.
Coal held in storage is usually piled on the ground in an area near to but
separate from the stockpile. The amount of coal held in storage is normally 30
to 120 times the daily capacity of the operation demand in which it is involved.
The design and construction of the storage pile depends on the method used to
move coal to storage, and the reclaiming method. Fugitive dust, surface run-
off, and leachate are also major environmental issues that should be considered
in the design.
16
-------
Open storage is rapidly Decoming a thing of the past, but it is still a
viable metnod if proper consideration is given to fugitive dust and runoff
control. The location of the facility and local environmental requirements may
rule out open storagt, but it should be included in initial considerations.
Even with the expense of acceptable dust and runoff controls, open storage can
be considerably less expensive than covered storage (8).
Stockpiles may be open or closed to the atmosphere. Stockpiles may also
be positioned on the ground or elevated. As with storage piles, the design and
construction of the stockpile depends on factors such as the method of stacking,
the method of reclamation, and environment.
Open stockpiles positioned on the ground are usually conical or wedge-
shaped. The conical piles are the simplest form of storage. Reclaiming is
often accomplished by a reclaim conveyor located beneath the pile. Mobil
equipment is used, when needed, to push coal in dead storage areas to a location
where the coal is accessible to the reclaim conveyor. Several methods have been
developed to reduce the dead storage area while simultaneously reducing
environmental impacts. Two such methods are: 1) Surrounding the stockpile with
a dike; 2) Constructing a structure with sloped sides, that is recessed so the
surface of the pi'.e will be nearly flush with ground level.
Wedge-shaped piles are built with a travelling stacker operated with a
belt conveyor running parallel to the pile. The conveyor is generally elevated
to about half the height of the pile, either on an earth fill or on a steel
structure. The pile is built as the movable tripper slowly traverses the length
of the pile. The stacker may have either a fixed or a hinged boom, the latter
serving to practically eliminate dust problems.
Wedge-shaped piles can be reclaimed by using an under-the-pile conveyor
system similar to that used for conical piles, or a stacker/reclaimer system may
be employed for both functions. The stacker/reelairner system is a more recent
innovation, adopted from strip mining technology and initially used at rower
plants, but is new used at preparation plants and other facilities. It is a
ver:atile storage method which allows storage on both sides of the conveyor
track. However, using the stacker/reclaimer to remove coal from a pile will
probably generate more dust than reclaiming systems located beneath the pile.
Another type of open storage, frequently found at power plants anj finding
increaseJ application in preparation plants, is the kidney-shaped stockpile.
The kidney-sfiaped stockpile is formed by a stationary radial stacker with a boom
that rotates through an arc, and which raises and lowers as necessary. The
stacker may be either ground or tower mounted.
Storing coal in enclosed structures is considered best available control
technology (BACT) in many parts of the country and may be required at all
locations in the future. Enclosed storage provides protection against the
elements, minimizes the potential for airborne pollutants, provides for nearly
100% live storage, and permits the transfer to rail cars without complex
mechanical devices. Various types of enclosed bins and s^los are available.
The majority of the large capacity enclosures are cylindrical in shape and made
of steel or concrete. The current trend is toward elevated enclosures that
17
-------
permit rail cars to pass beneath and be loaded through a feeder. Another method
of removing coal from the enclosure is to use a reclaim conveyor located beneath
an elevated enclosure, or in a reclaim tunnel located in an enclosed position on
the ground.
According to Chrystal (8), there were over 150 large diameter coai silos
in use in the United States in 1979. Storing coal in a 100% live storage
facility, such as silos, eliminates the expense and environmental impact of
using mobile equipment and the associated maintenance required for reclaiming
dead storage. Silos also reduce the possibility of hot spots developing on the
coal pile. Other advantages of si os and other closed storage systems are the
elimination of the need for runoff control systems, and the reduction of dust
control requirements.
PNEUMATIC PIPELINES
A pneumatic pipeline represents relatively new technology for
transporting coal. Presently, they are used for transporting coal over
relatively short distances. Basically, it is a pressurized pipeline into which
coal is fed and conveyed in a suspended state by compressed air. Currently, the
most feasible application of pneumatic pipelines appears to be movement of coal
to and from a rail terminal. Pneumatic pipelines could be particularly
advantageous in the West because they require no water. An above ground
pneumatic system requires minimal ground preparation and can be designed to be
portable.
The system consists of a compressor to supply air pressure, silos for
storing the coal to be fed into the pipeline, and a cyclone and baghonse to
remove it at the end. At the terminal end, a cyclone could remove particles
larger than 5 microns in diameter at efficiencies of about 98*. The remaining
particles may be removed in a baghouse or other air quality control system.
MISCELLANEOUS
A crushing device or facility is often included in transfer and handling
operations. Crushers may be located at the mine, the preparation plant,
transfer terminals, or at the power plant. Crusher installations are extremely
dusty and noisy, and when not enclosed would lose 1 or 2% of the coal in the form
of fugitive dust, depending upon wind velocity and the coal being crushed.
18
-------
SECTION 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRANSFER OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Summarized here are various environmental impacts associated with coal
transfer operations and transfer terminal facilities. T'ese operations and
facilities include: loading, unloading, stockpiling and storing, reclaiming,
and all operations associated with facilities used primarily for coal transfer.
In addition, the environmental impacts associated with the construction of new
facilities and abandonment of existing facilities will be considered.
The environmental impacts discussed are:
• Water quality
• Water use
• Site abandonment
• Air quality
• Noise
9 Aesthetics
t Land use
WATER QUALITY
Loading. Unloading. Stacking, and Reclaiming
Loading, unloading, stacking, and reclaiming coal may contribute to
changes in water quality due to the interaction of water with dust fallout and
coal spillage generated by these operations. The quantities of fugitive dust
and spillage generated will depend upon the type of operation and the efficiency
of environmental controls, if employed. Fugitive dust and spilled coal will
settle on the site or be carried of*-site and settle on nearby land and water
resources. Water contacting this coal may be degraded in quality, taking on
suspended and dissolved solids. The amount of water quality degradation would
therefore be a function of the quantity and quality of fugitive dust and
spillage generated, and the characteristics of contacted water.
19
-------
Coal Stockpiles and Storage
Coal stockpiles and storage areas which are exposed to the environment are
a major potential source of water pollution at coal handling facilities. Coal
storage piles produce effluents resulting from the drainage and runoff of water
which occur during and after precipitation. Precipitation drains and leaches
soluble pollutants from the coal which may affect aquatic life in nearby
waterways.
Coal contains many elements and compounds, often in trace amounts. The
effect of coal on contacted water and nearby receiving water depends on factors
including:
• Volume of coal stored
• Coal particle size
• Surface area of the coal pile
• Coal pile geometry, configuration (i.e., angle of side slopes)
• Compaction of coal pile
• Characteristics of soil layers beneath coal storage pile (e.g.,
permeability)
• Amount of precipitation
• Intensity of rainfall
• Climate
o Nature of terrain and hydrology of area surrounding the coal pile
t Quality of surface and groundwater contacting the coal
Efforts have been made to quantify the amount of runoff from coal storage
piles. Cox, et al. (14), found from results of a rainfall-regression analysis
that about 73X of the total rainfall can be accounted for as direct runoff;
percolation into the coal pile and evaporation was assumed to make up the
remaining 27%. Another estimation of the runoff from a coal storage area, in
conflict with that reported by Cox, et al., was used by the Ar.ny Corps of
Engineers (37); they assumed 25X runoff.
The major parameters of concern in the runoff from eastern high sulfur
coals are low oH, trace and heavy metal content, and suspended solids and fines,
which •;, ;' 's solid mineral debris, sediment, and dissolved and colloidal
materiel (...-i. Factors that affect production of acidity in coal piles and the
subsequent leaching of trace metals are (5, 6, U, 16, 28, 29):
20
-------
• Concentration and form of pyrite sulfjr in coal
i Method of coal preparation and cleaning before storage
• Climate, including rainfall and temperature
t Concentration of CaCO, and other neutralizing substances in the
coal J
• Concentration and fora of trace metals in the coal
4 Residence time of water in the coal pile
• Coal particle size which determines amount of exposed surface area
• Coal rank, type, and age
The pyr'tic sulfur content of the coal is a major factor because it is the
primary acid forming substance. Metals are inore likely to solubilize in low pH
runoff/leachate.
Coal particle size has been shown to be important as it directly
determines the surface area of the coal sample being studied. Samples witii
larger exposed surface areas are more heavily oxidized sid retain more rainfall,
thus yielding
-------
thac the aged coal produced a lower pi and higher sulfate concentration as
compared to the fresh coal. The differer*. effluents in relation to frequency of
rainfall for both fresh and aged coals may be attributable to the length of time
the coal pile has had to form pyritic oxidation products and acid leachate, and
in turn, increase of dissolved heavy metal concentrations. It would seem that
the longer the interval between rainfall events, the more oxidation of the coal
that is likely to occur, thus increasing the pollution potential of the coal
pile.
Anderson (1) reported that during periods of no precipitation, retained
moisture within the coal pile is dissolving minerals that are then flushed from
tne pile during precipitation. If there is sufficient precipitation, almost all
of the dissolved minerals are flushed from the pile, and after the first flush,
oni.v minor concentrations of minerals are carried from the pile in continuing
coal pile leachate flows. Reportedly, this is particularly true of total iron,
copper, manganese, chromium, and zinc. Anderson's statement does not consider
oxidation or aging, and the influence of a tiding fresh coal to the coai pile.
The discharge of untreated leachate ano contaminated runoff front coal
piles into surface or groundwater may cause several environmental impacts.
Potential adverse impacts include:
1. The alteration of the pH of receiving streams.
2. The precipitation of metallic hydroxides in larger or higher
buffered receiving streams, which can result in flocculant coatings
that cover the stream bottom and destroy bsnthic organisms.
3. Significantly increase the concentrations of trace metals in
receiving waters. Metals can be biomagnified in the food chain and
may affect humans as well as other animals.
4. Percolation through soils and contamination of groundwater with
heavy metals and depressed pH.
5. Increase turbidity.
6. Reduce oxygen content of the water tnrough chemical oxygen demand.
Increased turbidity, caused by the presence of coal fines in a body jf
water, reduces the depth of effective photosynthesis by rapidly absorbing
radiant energy in upper water layers. This may inhibit the algal growth
potential which increased nutrients might promote. Increased turbidity also
delays the self-purification of water and can allow the distant transport of
organic waste. In high concentrations, usually greater than 40,000 mg/1 (5
oz/gal), turbidity has been found to cause severe injury or death to many fish
species (30).
The discharge of untreated leachate/runoff at large coal handling
facilities is unlikely because discharges into surface waters are regulated by
federal and state regulations. On the federal level, the effluent requirements
for the stream and power industry include:
22
-------
1. Total suspended solids In wastewater run-off resulting from
precipitation, taken collectively including coal pile drainage,
yard and roof drainage, and runoff from construction activities,
shall not exceed average concentrations of 15 mc,/l ( <0.01 oz/gal)
during each runoff event, or a maximum concentration of 70 tng/1
(0.01 oz/gal) per day.
?. Alt stream discharge must have a pH value between 6.0 to 9.0 at all
times.
Closed Coal Storage/Stockpile
Using enclosed bins and concrete silos to stock and store coal will
eliminate water quality impacts, since no water will be permitted to come in
contact with the coal.
Slurry Pipelines
The effect of coal on the water it is transported with can either be
harmful or beneficial, depending upon whether pollutants are leached from the
coal into the water, or if the coal absorbs pollutants from the water (20). Coal
contains a number of components that can contribute poll-jtants to the water used
as the carrier fluid. These include organic substances (particularly humic
substances in lower rank coals), mineral matter (e.g., clays, alkaline earth
carbonates, sulfides and silica), and trace elements. Coal may contain trace
amounts of nearly every element found naturally existing in the environment.
These elements may be associated either with the organic or mineral fraction of
«:oal, and potentially may be leached from the solid coal into the slurry water.
The extent of physical and chemical reactions between the coal and the water
depend upon the characteristics and composition of the coal and the water.
Laboratory tests reported by Moore (32) found the following quality
parameters to be present in highest concentrations in slurry wastewater using
coal samples from several mines in Wyoming: alkalinity, biochemical oxygen
demand, calcium, chemical oxygen demand, chloride, magnesium, nitrate,
potassium, silica, sodium, sulfate, and total hardness. The concentrations of
several parameters in Moore's study were belo* the detectable limit of the test
procedure used. These included chromium (0.1 ug/ml), copper (0.09 ug/ml), iron
(0.12 ug/ml), manganese (0.055 ug/ml), mercury (7.5 ug/ml), phosphate
(0.01 ug/ml), and zinc (0.018 ug/ml).
Coal-derived oil is being studied (29) as a carrier fluid for slurry
pipelines. If employed, the oil could be utilized as fuel with or without
processing prior to burning, depending on environn«ntdl controls.
Subsequently, the wastewater problem would be reduced if not eliminated.
Environmental impacts from potential pipeline breaks are site specific. A
pipeline break over land would have little effect on g-oundwater, as most of the
coal particles would be filtered by the suil. If water, other than fresh water,
or a coal oil derivative is used as tho carrier fluid, the impact may be more
severe depending on the quantity and quality of the release.
?3
-------
No effluent resulting from the use of coal-slurry is discharged directly
into natural waters, but is usually disposed of by evaporation. A possible
impact, although slight, might be the attraction of migrating water fowl to
these ponds. Chemicals used in the clariflocculation process for corrosion
inhibition of pH adjustment could prove to be harmful to these birds. A way to
minimize this impact would be to carefully choose chemicals to aid in
coagulation ana corrosion inhibition, or to neutralize the chemicals after tiie
job is finished (18). Some coal slurry pipelines may terminate in areas rtiere
the effluent cannot be disposed of by evaporation. In this case, the effluerc
must be treated &s an industrial waste, and discharged in accordance w*th
required standards. Another alternative is to recycle the effluent to the
origin of the pipeline.
Construction of Transfer/Terminal Facility
For construction of a transfer/terminal facility near a waterway (river or
lake), dredging for dock construction will usually be necessary. The
environmenttl impacts of dredging are short-term. Temporary water quality
impacts include the following: (34, 35)
• Bottom-dwelling organisms are destroyed or displaced.
0 Release of bottom nutrients can cause algal blooms.
• Reduction in dissolved oxygen le'flls from various chemical
additions from newly exposed sediments.
• Increased turbidity, which might inhibit photosynthesis and further
depress dissolved oxygen levels.
• Settled sedimert transported by waterway currents may affect
benthic organisms in nearby areas.
Grading of the construction site is also a source of water quality impact which
may result in the following:
• Increase in sediment runoff to receiving streams;
• Increased sediment loads and increased turbidity in receiving
streams may result in decreased photosynthetic activity, thereby
reducing dissolved oxygen levels;
t Discoloration of the water could disrupt recreational uses of tne
waterway downstream.
Spraying of Water and Other Chemicals for Dust Suppression
Small quantities of water may be used to control dust emissions from
loading, unloading, stacking, reclaiming, and conveyor transfer. The
wastewaters resulting from the quantities of water used for dust control are
small compared to runoff/leachate from piles, and therefore, have little
environmental significance (37).
24
-------
HATER USE
Slurry transportation of coal requires large quantities of water,
although these amounts are less than would be required for most minemouth
utilization of coal. Pipelines that are relatively short may recycle water and
use a water make-up system. When the pipeline is long, as is the case in the
existing Black Mesa pipeline, and for most of the facilities proposed for other
locations, adequate water resources must be available. The quantity of water
required for slurry preparation depends upon the volume of coal to be shipped,
and the water to coal ratio. Operation of the Black Mesa pipeline requires 3.9
million m (139 million cu.ft) of water per year. The additional demands for
water required by slurry pipelines may require diversion of water from existing
streams, underground aquifers, or from other uses possibly resulting in
significant environmental impacts. In western states, obtaining the necessary
water rights may be rigorous, although recently it has been found to be a
readily available fluid in those areas (19).
Water requirements are a major disadvantage of coal slurry pipelines,
however, as reported by Godwin and Manahan (20), "the generation of electricity
at the mine site or conversion of the coal to a liquid or gaseous fuel requires
more water than does slurry pipeline transport. For example, generation of 1
million Btu's of electrical energy at the mine site requires 379 liters (100
gal) of water; on- site generation of synthetic natural gas with the same energy
content requires 114 liters (30 gal) of water; and only 45 liters (12 gal) of
water is required for the slurry transport of coal with an equivalent amount of
energy."
In summary, the large volume of water required for slurry preparation and
transportation will have an impact on the following:
• Existing water use pattern
• Availability of water for ether uses (e.g., agriculture, power
generation, industrial use);
• Alteration in ground and surface water hydrology and flow regime
• Interbasin transfers may be required
However, the impacts will be si'.e specific and may be severe in areas
limited water resources prevail. In order to overcome this difficulty, studies
are being conducted to determine the feasibility of using alternate water supply
sources in slurry transportation. These include municipal wastewater plant
effluents, industrial waste effluent, sea water, and saline water from deep
wells. Even though the use of sea water provides an unlimited supply for slurry
preparation, the technical difficulties to combat corrosion in boilers and
scrubbers 'would be significant and limited by the tolerable chloride
concentration in dewatered coal cake.
One benefit of using water as a carrier fluid in coal transfer is the
availability of th-? slurry water for potential reuse in terminal facilities. At
25
-------
the Mohave power plant, the treated slurry water Is reused as cooling tower
make-up water (33). The slurry water may also be suitable for use in irrigation
or for non-contact recreational purposes. Discharge of the water into receiving
waters requires that it meet pollution standards. These problems may be
aggravated if low-grade groundwater is used for slurry transport.
AIR QUALITY
General
The extent to which the ambient air quality will be affected by coal
transfer operations and terminal facilities will depend primarily on the
equipment, storage, and transportation facilities used at each installation. In
general, air emissions that are common to most transfer/terminal operations
occur in the form of fugitive dusts from open storage and from spillage during
transfer. In addition, fugitive dusts are also generated from traffic around
terminal facilities. Minor quantities of gaseous pollutants are also released
to the atmosphere from coal storage piles and from fuel combustion (d^esel) in
trains, trucks, and barges.
Coal storaga could be the major source of total suspended particulate
(TSP) emissions. Other significant transfer operations which should be
considered in evaluating air quality impacts from transfer/terminal faculties
include:
0 Loading and unloading operations
• Movement of coal within the terminal (e.g., conveyors), and
• Uncontrolled combustion of coal and release of gaseous pollutants
Emission of gaseous pollutants from diesel engines and accidental
spontaneous combustion at coai storage piles is generally infrequent and should
not cause a significant impact on prevailing air quality. However, the release
of fugitive dust emissions from cocl handling and vehicle movement is semi-
continuous ir nature, and therefore, 1s significant for environmental impact
analysis. The fugitive coal dust can deposit on neighboring plants and leaves
thereby inhibiting their photosynthetic capabilities. The accumulation of coal
dust on vegetation and soil can be harmful to wildlife feeding on the
vegetation, and can alter the soil permeability characteristics (35). However,
these effects are suspected to bo contained within the immediate vicinity of the
terminal since the fugitive dust particles are u.jally large (median size 23),
and quickly settle to the surface (39). The final environmental impact
statement on the Fuel Use Act indicates that the projected increase in coal
utilization (over one billion tons per year by 1985) will cause no significant
regional degradation in ambient air quality, and the major impact will be site-
specific and related to the construction of new terminals, highways, and
railroad spurs (39). The report also projects that the majority of coal will be
transported through railroad facilities.
26
-------
Open Coal Storage
The amount of coal stored is a function of the type of facility operated.
Average number of days coal supplies are maintained at various user categories
follow: (4)
• Coke plants - 23 days
• Electric utility stations - 92 days
• Industrial facilities - 37 days
Fugitive dust (particulate matter) is emitted from open storage piles via
wind anij other weathering forces acting on the surface of the pile. This
process i.» similar to the wind erosion of soil. Gaseous materials also emanate
from coal storage piles by oxidation of the exposed coal and the release of
pressure on the solid due to mining and comminution. Some volatile emissions
are *'&o generated during the weathering processes.
Oxidation of coal storage piles results in gaseous emissions such as
hydrocarbons, ethane, carbon monoxide, and sulfur compounds. However, based en
the results of sampling coal storage pile emissions at the surface and upwind.
Blackwood and Hjchter (4) found that the upwind concentration of these
pollutants as a gas were nondetectable.
Generally, oarticulate emission from open coal storage piles is
influenced by several factors including:
• Meteorological conditions (e.g., wind, speed, humidity and
temperature)
• Local topographical conditions
• Surface area of the coal pile
• Pile geometry
• Moisture content and bulk density of the coal
t Length of storage and condition of crust formation
• Regional precipitation
• Coal size
o Coal credibility (dustiness)
• Mitigative measures taken to control fugitive dust emission
According to Blackwood and Wachter (4), the particulate emission factor
for a coal storage pile has been shewn to be 6.4 mgAg-yr ( 0.1 oz/lb-yr).
27
-------
Reportedly, this average emission factor describes the emissions within 10855 at
the 95* confidence level. The major influencing factor was found to be the
Thornthwaite Precipitation-Evaporation (P-E) Index which is a combination of
the effect of humid*, cy, prec. -itaticr. and temperature.
The dispersion of fugitive dust in a downwind direction will vary with
wind velocity, existing barriers (embankments, dikes, vegetation), and the
fall-out characteristics of the .articles. Previous studies conducted by EPA
(35) have shown that at an average wind speed of 5 m/sec (16 ft/sec), only 40X of
the participate matter with a settling velocity of 5 cm/sec (0.2 ft/sec) would
remain dispersed at a downwind distance of 1 km (0.6 mi). At 10 km downwind,
only 17% of the particulates are expected to remain in suspension. The settling
velocity of 5 cm/sec (0.2 ft/sec) is a conservative estimate for fugitive coal
dust particles with a median miss diameter of approximately 25 microns.
Loading and Unloading Operations
Host loading and unloading operations result in thf: release of coal dust
and particulates. The quantity of particulate matter emitted from loading and
unloading operations depends on the rate of flow of coal (design capacity), coal
size, moisture content of coal, and the type of installation. If the transfer
operation employs silo storage systems and enclosed conveyors, the particulate
emissions should be low f-om the facility. However, for open coal storage piles
with truck unloading and the rotary bucket reclaiming system, participate
emissions may be significant. In addition to release of coal dust particles
from transfer operations, particulate emissions will also be generated from
loaded vessels (trains, barges, ships, etc.) waiting for shipment. These
effects will be additive to those resulting from transfer operations themselves.
Slurry Pipeline Facilities
Fugitive dust emissions at slurry preparation sites may result from coal
crushing and coal transfer operations. These particulate emissions can be
effectively managed by providing suitable enclosures.
Fugitive dust emissions at the slurry recovery terminal may occur during
drying operations. Operating experiences at the Ohio terminal (currently not
operational) indicate that the flash dryers used for evaporating surface
moisture from dewatered cake was dust prone. However, no health effects were
experienced from these facilities, and the impact was primarily a nuisance
impact. Coal sljrry evaporation ponds may also be a source of fugitive dust due
to aerosols from evaporation and airborne coal fines.
A pipeline break hiay cause fine particles of coal to be spread over the
surface- of the soil. These fine particles may be a source of fugitive dust.
Coal-slurry discharged to holding ponds and evaporation ponds may also be a
source of fugitive dust.
28
-------
NOISE
General
There are three basic sources of noise which radiate from coal transfer
operations and terminal facilities:
1. Vehicular movement anJ traffic noise (e.g., trains, towboats,
ships, trucks)
2. Coal handling equipment (e.g., conveyors, crushers, bulldozers,
stackers, reclaimers)
3. Coal impact noise.
The environmental impacts of noise from transfer/terminal facilities will
depend upon:
1. Quantity and quality of noise generated.
2. Distance of the source (facility) to residential or natural
communities.
3. Ability of surrounding terrain to buffer, noise.
4. Exist.ng land uses in the vicinity of the site (residential,
comraericial, or ind-jstrial).
Reportedly (34), both sudden and periodic noises may affect animals
behaviorally and physiologically. In extreme cases, loss of hearing through
inner ear damage has been observed in laboratory mammals. Furthermore, high
levels of noise for fairly short durations have produced significant effects on
sexual function, blooo chemistry, auditory function, and susceptibility to
seizures. Neural and hormonal processes may be stressed. Since acoustic
signals play a major role in survival, viable behavior and population dynamics
may be disturbed if communication is obscured by background noise.
Vehicular Movement and Traffic Noise
Table 2 presents a summary of estimated noise levels of unit operations
within coal transfer/terminal facilities. Although the operations described in
the table do not include all of the equipment outlined above, the major sources
of noisp at a transfer/terminal faci.ity, i.e., operations that result in coal
impact noise, bulldozer, and construction activities, are quantified.
Trains-
Noise resulting from train movements is a complex mixture of sounds
generated by many different pieces of equipment and operations. Sources of
noise in a raving diesel-electric locomotive are listed below, in defending
order of noise level:
29
-------
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS OF UNIT OPERATIONS
WITHIN COAL TRANSFER/TERMINAL FACILITIES _
Noise
Unit Operation Level dB(A) Distance (m) Reference
Unloading Train
Bottom dump* 59 12 (38)
Rotary dump 60 12 (38)
Loading Ship
^A
Shuttle conveyor 75 15 (38)
Storage
Stockpile conveyor 65 15 (38)
Bulldozer activity and
reclaiming process 75-95 15 (38)
Construction Activities
Pile drivers 100 15 (38)
Earth moving equipment and
smaller stationary equipt.
(compressors, generators, etc.) 75-90 15 (38)
Reclamation Equipment
Feeder 75 0.9
Vibrator 110 0.9
Operation Facility**** 77 15 (35)
*This is an estimate for the rotary dump unloading facility based on the bottom
c*jmp facility. Both methods produce noise from coal impact, ventilation
systems, and winches for car positioning.
**This is an estimate based on comparison witn a traveling stacker.
***105B feeder and P160 vibrator manufactured by Eriez Magnetics, Erie,
Pennsylvania.
****An estimate of total noise generated by a barge loading facility on the Ohio
River, Burlington, OH. Equipment includes large trucks, leaders, bulldozers,
truck dump, barge-loader, vibrating screens, crushers, conveyors, motors, fans,
motor noises from tow boats.
30
-------
• Horn
• Car coupling
0 Diesel exhaust muffler
• Wheel/rail interaction
o Electrical generator
• Bells/whistles
Sources of noise in electric locomotives are:
• Horn
• Cooling blowers
• Wheel/rail interaction
• Electric traction motors
Towboats--
The only significant sourcs of noise generated by towboats is due to horn
blasts. Propulsion noise is usually radiated into the water and hull noise is
usually of low freqjency. The noise levels from towboats associated with barge
and ship terminals probably cause little impact o.i the surrounding community
(35).
Trucks--
Noise levels attributable to the operation of trucks originate from the
engine, exhaust, cooling fans, and tires, "he major source of noise from trucks
is the exhaust, which can reach levels of about lOCdB.
Coal Handling Equipment
Several different pieces of equipment within the transfer/terminal
facility are used to load, unload, transfer, and stockpile coal. This equipment
in turn has different noise levels associated with it. A list of noise sources
is included below:
• Truck dumps • Rotary dumpers
• Motors • Conveyors
t Fans • Crushers
• Winches for rail car • Feeders
positioning
t Bulldozers, loader
t Barge/ship loaders • Stackers/reclaims.,
31
-------
• Ventilation systems
Coal Impact Noise
Coal impact noise from a transfer/terminal facility originates wheii coal
is dropped from rail cars unloading, either by bottom-dump or rotary-dump
facilities,, or is dropped into emoty rail cars, ships, barges, conveyer transfer
points, anc storage bins.
The noise level generated by coal impacting with receiving equipment
mostly is related to the material en which the coal is dropped. Proper housing
and covering of facilities can greatly reduce the amount of noise generated from
coal impact.
Slurry Pipeline Facilities
The operation of coal slurry transfer pipelines is not expected to
generate any noise pollution. However, significant noise levels may be
generated during construction and dismantlement. Noise pollution at slurry
preparation facilities (e.g., crushers, pulverizers, etc.) will be minimal if
proper housing, enclosures, and exhaust control systems are incorporated (18).
AESTHETICS
Aesthetic impacts can occur during construction, operation, and
abandonment of coal transfer unit operations and transfer/terminal facilities.
A major aesthetic impact of transfer/terminal operations will be caused by
disruption of the horizon with vertical obtrusions. The use of vertical
equipment (conveyors, stackers, reclaimers, loading terminals) and coal storage
piles can reduce the visual attractiveness of the site and the surrounding area.
Coal stockpiles and other storage facilities, particularly large silos, may be
noticeable for significant distances from the site. Conveyors,
stacker/reclaimers, and other equipment also are elevated often to heights which
would restrict views. Another aesthetic impact may be caused by fugitive dust
fallout because of the dark color of coal. Such dust is usually visually
displeasing.
Aesthetic impacts are site-specific to the type of facility, equipment
used, and the nature of the surrounding area (residential, rural, or
industrial). A large factor determining the extent of the impact on the
community will be determined by the ability of the population to adjust to
changes in the visual appearance of the horizon.
LAND USE
Transfer operations that are part of mining facilities, utilization
facilities, and other coal handling facilities not used primarily for the
transfer of coal, represent minor land use impacts because they are an integral
part of that facility. The vast majority of such facilities is located a
significant distance away from heavily populated and residential areas. This
32
-------
point is emphasized by the planning and construction of minemouth coal-fired
electrical generating stations near western mines. For similar reasons, such
facilities also occupy sites with sufficient land acreage to support transfer
operations without additional major environmental impacts. When located in
incorporated areas having zoning laws, facilities using coal are located in
areas zoned for heavy industry--another factor that limits land use.
Land use impacts may vary depending upon the type of transfer equipment
and methods employed. For example, open storage and stockpiles require
significantly more land space than silos, a fact that tends to increase siting
options.
At facilities designed to use coal, land use impacts are usually minor
compared to those of the primary facility i.e., slurry preparation and
dewatering facilities which are attached to the associated mining and
utilization facilities, respectively. Facilities originally designed to use
oil or gas, which require ^ess space for fuel transfer operations, may cause
more serious land use impacts if converted to coal. In such cases, coal
handling facilities may be forced to occupy a space smaller than chat normally
used, and/or the facility must acquire additional space.
Land use impacts for facilities utilized primarily for the transfer of
coal from one mode of transport to another are site specific and differ
depending on the type of facility and equipment used. Barge/ship loading
facilities are independent facilities requiring space near water. The amount of
space depends heavily on the amount of coal storage space required and the type
of storage used. Barge/shiploading facilities that handle wet coal (received
from slurry pipelines or barges) may require sufficient space for water
treatment and handling systems.
Coal transfer/terminal operations and facilities will cause little, if
any, long-term land use impacts. When abandoned and dismantled, most facilities
can be returned to their original land use. Varying degrees of reclamation will
be required.
33
-------
SECTION 6
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL
This section describes currently available control techniques and
mitigative measure* that may be used to reduce adverse impacts on the
environment caused by coal transfer/terminal operations. The control
techniques ar< discussed in terms of the benefits on the environment as follows:
• Water use
e Water quality control
• Air quality control
• Noise
• Aesthetics and land use
Since the activities relative to the construction of new facilities and
abandonment of existing operations are short-term and temporary in nature,
separate discussions are included for these activities.
Before discussing other control methods and systems, it should be noted
that perhaps the best means of minimizing environmental problems is to
incorporate environmental planning in early designs. For example, how and where
coal will be stored, the number and types of piles, and types of stacking and
reclaiming equip-nent are major decisions. Coal storage should be designed to
meet the objectives of the facility. The facility should be arranged so that
additional storaqe can be easily added at a later date if necessary (8, 17).
WATER USE
Coal s^rry transportation depends upon the availability of carrier fluid
(water) in sufficient quantities. Using availability of the carrier fluid as a
major criteria for site selection may minimize water resource impacts. In
addition, alternate water supply sources should be investigated at each site,
either to supplement and/or substitute identified available freshwater
supplies. Alternatives might include surface water, groundwater, saline water
from deep wells, salt water from the sea or lakes, municipal wastewuter, and
industrial wastewater. Investigations are currently in progress to determine
34
-------
the feasibility of L-sing sea water as a carrier fluid. The tolerance values for
chlorides and total dissolved solids will dictate the dilution water
requirements for sea W4i?r utilization. Fluids other than water should also be
considered. (Examples of potential usable fluids are naturally existing and
coal derived liquid hydrocarbons.) The concept cf creating a liquid hydrocarbon
carrier from coal at the pipeline's point of origin would be appealing, provided
more water is not required for the process than that required by a coal-water
slurry pipeline. The economics of liquification are poorly understood,
consequently further research is needed in this area (18). In summary, the
impact on water resources froi,: coal slurry pipelines could be minimized by
judicial site selection of terming facilities, and by considering all possible
water alternatives and the potential for using a non-water carrier fluid.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL
In general, the control techniques available for reducing the impact of
wastewater resulting f--om coal transfer operations can be classified into two
categories as follows:
• Techniques that are effective in reducing runoff/leachate flow and
characteristics (source control).
• Techniques that are effective for removing pollutants from run-
off /leachate wastes (collection and treatment).
Because the wastewaters generated from coal pile storage areas
(runoff/leachate) and from air pollution control devices (e.g., dust
suppression, scrubbing, etc.) are usually similar in characteristics, most
terminals handle and treat these wastes jointly.
Source Control
Hater quality impacts from coal handling facilities are primarily a result
of coal-water interactions occurring within the terminal. The sources of water
are the various forms of precipitation and the water sprays used to control
particulate emissions. The quantity of water used for dust control purposes may
vary between 4 to 10 liters per metric ton (1 and 2 gal per short tonj of coal
processed at the facility (37). Oust control is accomplished by strategic
placement of nozzles. A chemical additive is generally used in the spray water
to aid the formation of a crust on the coal surface. These chemicals are usually
water soluble polymers (acrylics) and are mixed in dosages as reconmended by the
supplier (11). Excess water applied in the spray system is usually collected
anci joined with other run-off from -.he plant site.
In general, there are several principal sources of wastewaters from coaT
transfer/terminal facilities. They include:
• Runoff from coal itoreg" area
o Leachate from coal pile drainage
35
-------
• Excess spray waters used as a dust suppressor
• Uastewater resulting from the interaction of coal dust fall-out,
and spillage from transfer operations with precipitation and
surface waters
Various source control techniques have been developed to reduce coal-
water interaction. Table 3 provides a summary of some source control techniques
and their advantages and disadvantages.
Employing structural barriers usually involves a large capital
investment. Silos and enclosed bins are examples of structural barriers. Since
these structures separate the coal from the environment, precipitation does not
contact the coal.
An alternative to the use of enclosed structures is water insoluble
chemicals. Coverings that have been ur.ed include cut-back asphalt, asphalt
emulsion, and road tar (2). Reportedly, aspnalt emulsions (25-40% water) are
superior to other covering materials. The inaterial is heated to about 49-65 C
(120°-150 F) and can be applied by spraying through a hand nozzle. In addition
to reducing water problems, these barriers are also effective in controlling
wind err-si on from coal piles. Use of asphalt-type materials or tarpaulins has
been studied at several installations. Careful consideration should be given to
the use of asphalt or tarpaulin because of the possibilities for increasing the
potential of spontaneous combustion, and the possible development of the
"chimney" effect.
Another type of source control is to adjust the quality of wasta stream
before it leaves the source. For example, readily available sand, oyster
shells, and clamshells were used as the base for the coal pile located at a
barge-to-ba'-ge terminal on t?»» Mississippi River. Using these materials
provided a natural neutralizing effect to counter acidity cf water percolating
through the coal (15).
Collection and Treatment
The collection and treatment of wastewaters is practiced in many terminal
operations. Typically, coal pile runoff is directed to an ash pond or a catch
basin by drainage ditches, and subsequently treated. Treatment usually includes
pH adjustment and removal of suspended solidc, but often requires the addition
of settling aids such as lime or polymers followed by clarification in order to
remove the suspended or precipitated sol "Ids (28).
An Investigation by Metry (29) reported that in the case of western coals
containing low pyritic sulfur, ucjally it is necessary only to remove suspended
part'jles to meet EPA effluent. guideMnes for the steam and power industry.
Ho^.ever, for eastern coals curtaining high pyritic sulfur, the treatnent process
should neutralize excess icidity, precipitate heavy metals, and as well remove
excess suspended solid:,. According to Metry (30), the basic approach for
treating leachate anr* contaminated runoff would consist of the following:
36
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF SOURCE WATER CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Control Technology
Open-sided shed storage with
perimeter containment
Tarpaulin
Sealing coal pile with
asphaltic spray*
Sealing coal pile sit'e slopes
with earth
Application of chemical binders
runback and polymers (e.g., acrylics)
Prevent oxidation of pyritic
and marcasite coal by preventing
air circulation through the coal
pile
- Increase coal size or reduce
surface area
- Coating coal with oil
- Store aged or weathered coal
Advantages/Disadvantages
Low capital cost
Can promote spontaneous combustion
Suitable o»ly for small storage pile
Provides control against water contact
as well as dust emission
Can promote localized combustion
unless sealant cover is applied on top
as well as on side slopes tc prevent
"chimney" effect
Effective in reducing water-coal
contact as well as wino erosion
Affective in controlling wind erosion
Coal-water contact is only minimized
by formation of a crust on coal
particles
Less expensive than asphalt spray
Easy to handle and spray
2 to 3 applications over the area were
effective in preventing contact with
coal (901 of rainfall) (60)
Will reduce leaching of sulfur and
iron compounds
Will reduce acidity in leachate/run
off (9) (96)
Will reduce treatment requirements
for leachate/run-off
*Sealant requirement deper.ds upon coal pile permeability, coal size; may be
minimized by covering the pile with fines up to 0.3(ft) deep.
37
-------
1. Segregation of contaminated runoff and leachate from other water
streams at the facility.
2. Providing sufficient storage capacity for holding contaminated
runoff and leachate prior to treatment.
3. Treatment of contaminated runoff and leachate for suspended solids
and heavy mpi.jls, if present, prior to discharge to the receiving
water body.
4. Providing sufficient storage capacity of treated waters for
polishing the effluent.
5. Utilization of as much treated wastewater as possible for dust
suppression at different points in the coal-handling facility.
6. Recovery of coal fines in the contaminated runoff and leachate from
the settling and precipitation facilities.
Table 4 summarizes typical treatment systems that are currently being used to
control leachate/runoff waters from coal storage piles.
The use of storage ponds or catrh basins as the only means of control is
effective only in reducing suspended solids. These ponds are usually designed
to handle approximately a 15-20 day storm with a recurrence interval of 25 years
(27). If the ponds are designed carefully to prevent short-circuiting, they are
very effective in meeting concentration limitations of effluent suspended
solids. Drainage from some coals, particularly eastern coals, may require
neutralization prior to discharge. Depending upon the characteristics of
leachate and discharge limitations, the catch basin (clarification) treatment
followed by pH control could provide efficient wastewater treatment. The
current regulations governing the discharge of coal pile runoff waters from
mining point sources are summarized in Table 5.
Laboratory-scale studies have been conducted using advanced wastewater
treatment systems such as reverse osmosis. These studies indicate that the
reverse osmosis process is effective in removing multivalent ions from mine
drainage. Al'i heavy metal ions are removed at approximately the same level
(99 X). Water recoveries of approximately 9056 are achievable (22,23). While
effective, reverse osmosis would incur very high capital and operating costs.
Construction Activities
Construction of transfer/terminal facilities may require excavation,
consolidation, landscaping, surface preparation for coal pile storage, and
dredging in existing waterways. Water quality impacts during construction occur
primarily from sediment transport and soil erosion during storm events. When
these sediments enter waterways, local turbidity, discoloration, and reduction
in photosynthetic activities may appear during the construction period.
Effective control of erosion and sediment transportation can be accomplished by
preventing direct entry of runoff waters to the receiving waters. The storra
runoff water can be collected in diked areas to form a retention besin where the
38
-------
TABLE 4. TYPICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Collect.on and Treatment
Catch basin with provisions to
monitor overflow
Collection and reuse of
runoff/leachate for spray
systems
Pit and term storage of
roal
Advantages/Disadvantages
Effective only in reducing
suspended impurities
Not suitable for reducing
acidity and 'yellow boy1
probleTs or far heavy metals
Treatment required only for
reducing suspended particles
to protect jgoinst nozzlt
clogging
Provides positive containment
of runoff/leachate
Improves aesthetic appearance;
visible height of coal pile is
reduced
39
-------
TABLE 5. COAL STORAGE RUNOFF REGULATIONS
Coal Mining Point Source
BPCTCA
Parameter
Total Fe
Total Mn
TSS
pH
Max 1
Day^
7.0
4.0
70
6-9
Avg 30
Days
3.5
2.0
35
6-9
BATEA
Max 1
Day
3.5
4.0
40
6-9
Avg 30
Days
3.0
2.0
20
6-9
New Source
Max 1
3.5
4.0
70
6-9
Avg 30
Da^s
3.0
2.0
35
6-9
*A11 values are mg/1 except pH
Source: Weeter, D.W. Coal Pile Water Quality Management - Results of a
National Study. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Industrial Waste
Conference, P -due University, May 1978. p. 302.
40
-------
turbidity will be removed. In general, the following control methods will be
effective in controlling sediment transport:
• Provide catch basins and retention dikes
• Plant fast-growing cover crops (e.j., rye grass) to stabilize
barren or disturbed areas.
Dredging to remove bottom sediments may be required when docking
facilities are to support ships and barges. Excavating bottom sediments in a
restricted dock area will produce localized short-term temporary upsets to local
aquatic plants and animals. In addition, temporary visual effects will appear
because of the increased turbidity. Subsequent deposition of suspended
materials may smother or suffocate certain aquatic organisms. The following
control technologies are available to reduce the impact due to dredging:
• Use of a floating turbidity curtain to contain turbid suspension in
the immediate vicinity.
• Use of a different dredging equipment (e.g., mechanical or suction-
mechanical) with increased sediment removal efficiency.
• Proper scheduling of the dredging event to minimize environmental
stress on aquatic life.
SITE ABANDONMENT
Abandoning coal transfer/terminal facilities involves removal of existing
railroads, dock facilities, conveyors, and other structural features.
Equipment may be sold or reused and the steel recycled.
Belt conveyors are usually supported on concrete piers which are usually
abandoned rather than removed. Removal of all steel and concrete structures
with subsequent grading and reseeding will restore the land to its original
state. Similarly, abandoned roadways can be recla'ned in a manner suitable for
reestablishing original vegetation and plant life. This will also reduce the
impact on receiving water quality r«e to erosion and sediment carryover.
Renovation of a coal pile storage area can be accomplished by the following
manners:
• Gradual removal of coal dust with runoff waters. This will require
continued operation of existing treatment facilities until the coal
dust particles mostly have been removed.
• Regrading the coal pile storage area with fresh top soil, and re-
establishing original cover crops and plants.
41
-------
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
Methods of controlling air pollutants during the operat-.cn of coal
transfer/terminal facilities can be categorized cs:
• Enclosed systems
• Water or chemical sprays
• Surface coatings
• Dust collection
• Containment equipment
• Compaction
• Barriers
• Others
In addition to the above, prevention of pollution sources can be
considered a control method. There are two opposite yet correct methods of
preventing spontaneous combustion. One is to encourage air- circulation to
remove heat of oxidation and prevent a dangerous heat build up. The other is to
prevent contact between oxygen (air) and coal. Air circulation can be augmented
by increasing the surface area/volume ratio of the coal cite; many small piles
instead of one large pile has been suggested (28). However, this increases the
coal pile runoff, and because of increased coal oxidation, increases the
concentration of water effluents. Air circulation can be prevented by coating
the piles with sealing materials. Adequate precaution should be taken to
prevent the "chimney" effect, which results when there are breaks -'a the sealed
surface.
Enclosed Systems
Partial or complete enclosure of all operations at a transfer/terminal
facility will reduce or prevent air quality impacts (21, 34, 38, 37, 17).
Enclosures can be designed for most equipment and facilities including transfer
towers, rotary car dumpers including positioners and feeder hoppers, dockside
loading barges, coal screens and crushers, coal stockpiles (e.g., silos), and
conveyors. Bins receiving coal from trucks can be enclosed by three side panels
and a sloping roof. Curtains can be hung to partially close the remaining
opening while a truck is dumping. Enclosures are often serviced by dust
collectors.
Water or Chemical Sprays
Water (with or without a chemical additive), sprayed directly on coal,
reduces the quantity of airborne dust. Chemical compounds and foams may also be
used. Application of the spray occurs at designated points, and include (1)
directly onto the stockpile at each transfer point in a conveyor network, and
42
-------
(2) in the ••otary dumper prior to discharge (34, 27). The use of water or? a
stockpile may increase the occurrence of hot spots. Changes in wetness of the
coal affect ventilation of the pile and heating activity of the pyrite, and
require that the coal be dried prior to combustion. Thawing and shaking
equipment must be available in areas which experience freezing temperatures.
Non-toxic chemical sprays have been developed to control airborne dust while
simultaneously providing protection against freezing temperatures, thus
reducing the need for thawing equipment (4, 36, 37). Sprays do not function
well at bin-loading operations because the area is so large and the dust surge
is violent and intermittent.
One advantage of wet suppression systems over dust collection systems is
that the dust is never removed from the product stream. Disadvantages of wet
suppression systems include: (26)
1. The moisture content of the coal/lignite increases, reducing the
Btu/ton available at the boiler.
2. Air displaced or entrained with the coal/lignite at conve>or
transfer pcints is not contained.
3. Frequent maintenance is required.
4. Chemical additives or foaming agents are costly.
Surface Coatings/Coverings
Crusting agents, cappings and coverings prevent air from entering the
stockpiles, thereby reducing the potential fo" spontaneous combustion, and the
quantity of fugitive dust emission. Water-soluble acrylic polymers which leave
a clear, tough, dry film on the coal surface are among the crusting agents
currently in use. These polymers provide protection from wind and rain for
several months, hold the coal firmly in place while providing minimum friction
in coal handling, and burn off entirely at 538 C (1000 F).
Portland cement, plaster of paris, oils or salt sprays, asphalt, and tar
derivatives are types of capping agents wiiich control particulate emissions.
Asphalt, one of the more common capping materials, applied in emulsion form, can
be heated to 52-66 C (125 -150 F) in a tank wagon and sprayed through hand
nozzles directly on the stockpile (27. 17). Cut-back asphalts prevent coal dust
nuisance, windage loss, and moisture penetration (2). The tar derivative causes
the coal dust to adhere to the pile, however, when tar is sprayed onto a coal
pile, particulates are emitted from the overspray (4, 17).
Both the asphalt emulsion and the tar derivative can be burned off with
the coal. If the coal is to be pulverized, care should be taken during
reclaiming of asphalt-capped coal, as too much asphalt will gum up the
equipment. In areas with temperatures below -4 C (25 F), asphalt capping is not
recommended because of tendency for the water to freeze.
43
-------
Physical coverings such as tarpaulins and plastic covers are also used on
storage piles to reduce air movement and minimize airborne dust (27). When
tarpaulins are used to cover coal piles, frequent monitoring to locate hot spots
will be necessary to protect against spontaneous combustion.
Dust Collection
The fugitive dust generated by transfer operations located in enclosed
areas can be controlled by using a dust collection system or a device designed
to prevent the generation of dust. These systems can be used to control dust
inside buildings containing multiole operations. They can also be used to
collect and control the dust from individual transfer operations or transfer
points. Large enclosures often use central collection systems. The dust at
individual transfer points is more economically handled by devices designed to
collect and treat dust using a simple approacn, such as filtering, or by
employing devices that reduce or prevent dust from being generated. For
example, an insertable dust collector has been proposed for conveyor transfer
points that uses reverse jets of compressed air to force dust cike off the
collectors and back onto the conveyors so that the coal dust stays within the
coal handling system. Whencvc1 possible, it is desirable to return th"
collected coal dust to the product line, uiereLy eliminating disposal problems
and reducing product losses, The collected air stream containing the dust ran
be treated with control methods including fabric filters and scrubbers.
Containment Equipment
A major source of ftgitive dust associated with coal transfer is the
formation of stacking of open coal piles. Several devices are commercially used
to reduce fugitive dust generated from free falling coal by protecting it from
the influence of the wind as long as practical. Two such devices are loading
stacks and chutes, which can be designed to be telescopic.
A loading stack is a tube having doors or shrouds located at different
elevations on its sides. These doors are kept closed and selectively opened to
minimize the distance the coal is to fall from the opening to the top of the coal
pile. Minimizing the coal falling distance also tends to minimize fugitive
dust.
Telescopic chutes are circular devices which can be adjusted to change the
distance between where the coal is released and exposed to t^j atmosphere and
the top of the coal pile. When used to load rail cars, ships, and barges, the
chute travels to the bottom of each new car and raises as the car is filed.
Water sprays may be used Lut are not common.
Compaction
Compaction of coal in open or closed stockpiles/storage reduces available
pore spacinn for air circulation and minimizes coal surface area exposed to the
atmosphere. To ensure proper compaction, coal should be stored in the following
manner:
44
-------
1. Place the coal In thin lifts about 1 foot in depth.
2. Thoroughly compact each increment to break-up air channels and to
reduce the air-to-coal volume ratio.
3. Maintain gently sloping sides (maximum slope about 14°) on surface
piles to minimize segregation and to facilitate thorough compaction
of the pile sides.
4. Smooth the final surface to reduce the effect of wind in producing
differential pressures and possible resultant air currents within
the coal mass.
Barriers
Controlling the affects of wind on stockpiles and storage piles can reduce
the quantity of fugitive cust generated. Barriers that can be used for this
purpose are:
• Air-tight retaining walls
• Storage of coal in bins, silos, bunkers, earthen pits
• Storage underwater
• Wind guards for yard conveyors
To be effective, the height of such barriers must be greater than the height of
the pile since wind will tend to project over the barriers and still impact on
the coal pile.
A control method similar to the use of barriers is the use of pUs or
structures that are entirely or partially level or below surface. In addit-on
to reducing fugitive dust from the coal pile, storing coal in a pit usually
reduces the amount of coal spilled during loading and unloading. Spillage,
because of the greater surface area exposed to the wind, permits Taster drying
of the coal, but may generate more fugitive dust than does the coal pile.
Storing coal in pits requires additional design considerations for leaching and
runoff. This may be reduced by providing containment of the coal and
contaminated water, along with collection and treatment facility.
Other Methods
Minimizing the distance that the coal must fall through the air during
transfer can control the quantity of dust becoming airborne. This can be
accomplished by employing an adjustable boom controlled manually or with sensors
to handle the adjustment automatically on equipment used for loading the coal
(9, 10, 12).
Oust emissions may be reduced during the loading of bins by maintaining a
negative pressure to provide a downward flow of air from the top of the bin.
45
-------
During construction of the transfer/terminal facility, the roads can be
sprayed with water, paved and compacted, or excavated soils moistened to
minimize airborne dust. Paving the road that leads to a proposed facility can
result in 85X control of the particulate emission attributable to trucks (36,
*J/ } •
NOISE CONTROL TEC.HKOi.CGY
General
Basically, there are two approaches to reduce or control noise levels
generated frC'i any source:
• Shielding, enclosing, or insulating the noise source from the
surrounding area.
• Modifying the noise source through vibration isolation or by
structural dampening. Modification of the noise source might also
include equipment replacement.
The following section will identify both general and specific noise
control procedures and technologies which can mitigate noise impacts from
various unit operations within a coal transfer/terminal facility as described in
the preceding chapter.
Noise from Vehicular Movement
Trains—
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has proposed regulations
for train receiving yards in Noise Emission Standards for Transportation
Equipment: Interstate Rail Carriers (40 CFR, Part 201). The proposed
receiving property standards for noise from the nation's interstate rail
carriers, including railroad owned or operated terminal am? storage facilities,
and their related structures used for loading and unloading bulk materials, are
stated below.
EFFECTIVE HOURLY EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVEL
DATE DAYTIME NIGHTTIME
January 1, 1982 84dB 74dB
In addition to the proposed regulations, the EPA identified several
control technologies to reduce noise of receiving yards, included below:
Federal Reqister/Vol. 44, No. 75/Tuesday, April 17, ly/9/Proposed Rules.
46
-------
NOISE SOURCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Switch engine noise Exhause muffling and cooling fan
treatment
Retarders (master & Sound barriers; retarder lubricating
group'i and ductile iron shoes
Inert retarders Replace with releasable type
Car coupling Speed control
The EPA also recommended that the standard maintenance procedure of
grinding car wheels and rails to assure their roundness and smoothness be
continued to reduce wheel/rail noise.
Other factors identified in the review of noise control technology to
reduce train movement noise are:
t Absorbent rr.Uerial used in engine casing of locomotives (35).
• Reduction of wheel/rail interaction noise,
1. Continuous welded rails (achieves noise reductions greater
than 5dB)
2. Resiliant wheels
3. Rubber rail heads
4. Rubber tires
Towboats/Ships—
Noise from towboats, that position barges for loading, and ships, is not
expected to be of significant impact on the environment. However, use of
mufflers on exhaust systems will eliminate most of the noise from these sources.
Trucks-
Insulation material should be used in engine covers and panels to reduce
engine noise from trucks. Mufflers can easily reduce exhaust noise from lOOdB
to 90dB. Potential deductions of exhaust noise through research and development
activities may achieve a 25% reduction in noise levels at approximately 15 m (50
ft). Possible control technologies would be to place a resonator close to the
exhaust manifold; use exhaust pipe wraps, and double-wall or laminated exhaust
pipes to replace conventional exhaust pipe systems (35).
Coal handling equipment--
In general, noise generated by loading, unloading, stacking/reclaiming
systems, bulldozers, motors, fans, ventilation equipment, crushers, and
conveyors can be reduced or controlled by proper maintena*:ce procedures, reduced
47
-------
operating speeds, and replacement of existing equipment with that which
generates less acoustir energy. Shields, barriers, and enclosures can also
effectively reduce noi >e generated by machine vibrations and coal impact noise
with receiving equipment. Shields and barriers can achieve 8-10d3 reduction per
installation, while complete enclosures can achieve 12-15dB reduction (25).
Equipment such as conveyors, crushers, and truck or train dumps should be
enclosed when possible. The degree of noise reduction from enclosures will
depend upon the noise absorption and insulation properties of the material ;ised
for construction of the enclosure (38, 37). Bulldozers and other equipment
utilizing combustion engines should install mufflers on exhaust systems, or use
other exhaust and engine noise control technologies as suggested for tTUCKS and
trains above, where applicable. Also, bulldozer activities used for stockpiling
should be limited to daylight hours wherever possible (34).
Coal Impact Noise
Noise emissions caused by sources such as: 1) receiving hoppers of rotary
and oottom dump unloading facilities; 2) transfer points of conveyors; and 3)
loading of empty rail cars, ships, barges, and truck; can be reduced by
"softening", dampening, or preventing the impacts. Thus, the following controls
should be considered (25):
1. Placing internal baffles in hoppers to encourage the coal to slide,
rather than fall, onto hopper surfaces.
2. Changing chute slope to encourage sliding rather than bouncing.
3. Using soft materials (e.g., Neoprene) or dashpot buffers on chutes
and hoppers to reduce noise from mechanical impacts.
4. Replacing metal convejors at transfer points with canvas units, or
reducing the height of the drops.
5. Lining conveyor sides with plastic or fibery7ass railing.
6. Applying damping to the underside of conveyors, chutes, hoppers,
etc.
7. Using telescopic chutes for loading transportation equipment to
reduce the distance coal is dropped.
Generally, noise from all equipment and unit operations associated with a
coal transfer/terminal facility can be reduced by enclosing the entire area with
a manmade or natural barrier (e.g., trees and vegetation). The height of the
coal pile storage will also act as a noise barrier, and will reduce overall
noise from a facility \34, 37).
Aesthetics and Land Use
A major consideration for controlling aesthetic and land use impacts is
the location of the transfer/terminal facility. Site selection criteria should
48
-------
include consideration of landscaping and architecture (s.o.t industrial site or
park) which could blend with the proposed structural and non-structural
features. Land use impacts should be minimal since t*"«j area considered for coa'
transfer facilities typically is zoned already for industrial facilit^s.
However, disturbances to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife must be dealt v'.rh on
a site-specific basis, and require environmental impact statements.
Enclosing the facility with a 'ence or benn may redw.e the visual
unattractiveness of the facility. In addition to a barrier, tr.es and shrubbery
may be used to enhance the appea-ance of the area. Sele.cive planting will
create visual breaks in fence 0" berm, and thereby elimin:ie the monotony of the
continuous barrier. PI antino of vegetation should alsr accompany railroad lines
and roads to lessen the visual impacts of incoming .raffle to the facility.
Equipment which cannot be concealed by a barrier or selective planting
should be painted with colors which permit Ine equipment tc harmoniously blend
into the surrounding scenery. Use of unobtrusive colors and color patterns can
help to camouflage the equipment.
Barge transport has two at'jciated major aesthetic impacts that are unique
to this type of coal transport.: 1) the appearance of a damned river as opposed
to a free-flowing river; ar»j 2) the sight of barge movement on the river. These
impacts may or may not K- adverse depending on their physical appearance (e.g.,
landscaping, care w'i.h which barges are moved, color z* structures) and
individual taste. These aesthetic impacts m*y Jiange as the use of barges
increases.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, W.C. Coal Pile Leachate - Quantity and Quality Characteristics.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division - Proceedings of the
ASCE. Vol. 102, No. EE6, 1976. pp. 1239-12*3.
2. Barkley, J.F. The Storage of Coal. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Infonration
Circular 7235, February, 1943. 14 pp.
3. Barthauer, G. Use of Inhibitors to Reduce Corrosion of Pipes. U.S.
Patent No. 2791472, Consolidated Coal Company, 1957. 8 pp.
4. Blackwood, T.R. and R.A. Wachter. Source Assessment: Coal Storage Piles.
EPA-600/2-78-004k, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1978. 84 pp.
5. Boeqly, W.J., et al. Quarterly Report - Experimental Study of Leachate
from Stored Solids, June 1, 1977 to January 1, 1978. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1978. 29 pp.
6. Boston, C.R. Fossil Energy Program, Quarterly Progress Report for the
Period Ending December 1978. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, 1978. pp. 101-133.
7. Campbell, T.C. Coming: New Coal Transportation Modes. Mechanical
Engineering, 101(9), 1979. pp. 36-43.
3. Chrystal, J. Coal and Lignite Storage and Handling. In: Proceedings of
the 2nd International Coal Utilization Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1,
Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 162-174.
9. Coal Age. From Mine to Market by Rail - The Indispensable Transport Mode.
Coal Hge, July 1974. pp. 102-121.
10. Coal Age. Overland Belt Conveyors - Lowest in Cost When Tonnages are
High. Coal Age, July 1974. pp. 89-92.
11. Coal Age. Spray of Crusting Agent Puts Damper on Coal Pile. Coal Age,
June 1975. pp. 110-112.
12. Coal Age. Using Waterways to Ship Coal - No Cheaper Way When Destination
is Right. Coal Age, July 1974. pp. 122-128.
50
-------
13. Cobb, O.S., C.O. Giles, J.O. Hurnbuckle. and P.O. Leavitt. Coal Slurry
Storage and Reclaim Facility for Mohave Generating Station. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Coal Utilization Conference and
Exhibition, Vol. 1, Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 97-122.
14. Cox, D.B., T.J. Chu, and R.J. Ruane. Characterization of Coal Pile
Drainage. EPA 600/7-79-051, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1979. 91 pp.
15. Curth, P.O. and K.H. Hobson. New Barge-to-Barge Terminal Emerges to Meet
Coal Transport Needs. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Coal
Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1, Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 48-59.
16. Davis, E.C. and W.J. Boegly, Jr. A Review of the Literature on Leachates
from Coal Storage Piles. ORNL/IM/6186, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, 1978. 36 pp.
17. Electrical World. Special Report on Coal Handling. Electrical World,
June 1, 1975. pp. 39-44.
18. faddick, R.R. The Environmental and Pollution Aspects of Coal Slurry
Pipelines. EPA 600/2-79-067, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 114 pp.
19. General Accounting Office. Report to the Congress • Water Supply Should
Not Be An Obstacle to Meeting Energy Development Goals. CED-80-30, U.S.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., January 24, 1980. pp. 47-50.
20. Godwin, J. and S.E. Mar.ahan. Interchange of Metals and Organic Matte-
Between Water and Subbituminous Coal or Lignite Under Simulated Cojl
Slurry Pipeline Conditions. Environmental Science and Techn-jlogy, 13(f«),
1979. pp. 1100-1104.
21. Great Lakes Basin Commission. Coal Transportation and Use in the Great
Lakes Region. Great Lakes Basin Commission Standing Committee on
Transportation, 1978. 114 pp.
22. Hill, R.O. Methods for Controlling Pollutants. Presented at Reclamation
of Drastically Disturbed Lands Symposium, Wooster, Ohio 1976. 39 pp.
23. Hill, R.D. Water Pollution from Coal Mines. Presented at the 45th Annual
Conference, Water Pollution Association of Pennsylvania, University f-ark.
Pa., 1973. 9 pp.
24. Jacques, R.B. and A. Anderson. Coal Slurry Terminals - A Reality in the
Next Decade. Presented ac the 2nd Internation Coal Utilization Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 1978.
25. Jensen, P., et al. Industrial Noise Control Manual - Revised Edition.
Available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS fPB 297-534, 1978.
353 pp.
51
-------
26. Johnson, A.W. Handling Western Coals and Lignite. In: Proceedings of
the 2nd International Coal Utilization Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1,
Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 209-232.
27. Kaneletz, M. and J.J. Hess. Treatment System Is Innovative for Coal
Storage Ficility. Water and Wastes Engineering, 14(5), May 1977. pp. 28-
32.
28. Lowthiart, W.E. Pit and Berm Coal Storage. In: Proceedings of the 33rd
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, May 1978. Ann Arbor
Science, 1979. pp. 526-539.
29. Mechanical Engineering. Improved Coal-Slurry Pipeline. Mechanical
Engineering, 101(10), 1979. 46 pp.
30. Metry, A.A. Treatability and Treatment of Leachate and Contaminated Run-
off Waters From a Coal Transshipment Facility. In: Proceedings of the
30th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, May 1975. Ann Arbor
Science, 1977. pp. 198-206.
31. Montfort, J.G. Operation of the Black Mesa Pipeline System. Black Mesa
Pipeline Company, Black Mesa, Arizona, 1978. pp. 1-5.
32. Mpore, J.W. Water Qualify Aspects of Coal Transportation by Slurry
Pipeline. Presented at the 4th International Technical Conference on
Slurry Transportation, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 1979. 33 pp.
33. Rogozen, M.B. and L.W. Margler. Environmental Impacts of Coal Slurry
Pipelines and Unit Trains. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International
Technical Conference on Slurry Transportation, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1978.
pp. 16-30.
34. Roy F. Weston. Inc. Environmental Impact Report - Coal Transshipment
Facility, Superior, Wisconsin. ORTRAN, Inc., 1974. 147 pp.
35. Szabo.M.F. Environmental Assessment of Coal Transportation. EPA 600/7-
78-081, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1978.
142 pp.
36. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Environmental Impact Statement -
Proposed Barge Terminal Expansion, Packer River Terminal, Inc., South St.
Paul, Dakota County, Minnesota. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul,
Minnesota, 1977. 69 pp.
37. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Environmental Statement - Rail-to-
Barge Coal Transfer Facility, St. Louis, Missouri. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, St. Louis District, 1976. 141 pp.
38. U.S. Army Engineer District. Coal Transfer Facility at Ohio River Mile
314.5, Burlington, Lawrence County, Ohio. U.S. Army Engineer District,
Huntington, West Virginia, 1977. 59 pp.
52
-------
39. U.S. Department of Energy. Fuel Use Act - Final Environmental Impact
Statement. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1979. pp 1-3, 1-
5.
40. Wachter, R.4. 3.id T.R. Blackwood. Source Assessment: Water Pollutants
From Coal :.:or.:ye Areas. EPA 600/2-78-004m, U.S. Environmental
Protection ,--,ency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. 106 pp.
41. Weeter, D.ii. Cnal Pile Water Quality Management - Resjlts of a National
Survey. In: JJ- oc.eedings of the 33rd Industrial Waste Conference, May
1978, Purdue L'mversity. An Arbor Science, 1979. pp. 302-316.
S3
-------
.ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Allen, R.R. and V.F. Parry. Storage of Low-Rank Coals. U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Report of Investigations 5034, 1954. pp. 1-7.
An investigation to show that the most reactive coals can be stored
satisfactorily on the surface by avoiding segregation and by thorough
compaction. Field experience is reported.
2. Anderson, W.C. Coal Pile Leachate - Quantity and Quality Characteristics.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division - Proceedings of the
ASCE, Vol. 102, No. EE6, December 1976. pp. 1239-1253.
Presents the results of an intensive coal pile leachate quantity and
quality monitoring program undertaken under field conditions as part of a
comprehensive effort to design coal pile leachate facilities for Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York. The monitoring methodology, analysis of
data compiled and recommendations for the development of treatment
facility design parameters are considered.
3. Barkley, J.F. The Storage of Coal. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Information
Circular 7235, February 1943. 14 pp.
Addresses the following qjestions concerning stored coal: (a) Will the
coal lose any of its heating value in storage? (b) Will it slack and give
a smaller-size coal? (c) Will its burning characteristics change in any
way? (d) Will it catch fire from spontaneous combustion? (e) What
precautions should be taken when coal is stored?
4. Bsvan, R.R. Burning Coal in CPI Boilers. II. Coal Handling at the Plant
Site. Chemical Engineering, January 16, 1978. pp. 120-123.
Provides an easy-to-read description with pictures of operations
involving coal unloading, storage, preparation and conveying.
5. Blackwood, T.R. and R.W. Hachter. Source Assessment: Coal Storage Piles.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/2-78-004k, May 1978. 84 pp.
Describes a study of air pollutants emitted from coal storage piles. The
potential environmental effect of this emission source is evaluated.
6. Campbell, T.C. Coming: New Coal Transportation Modes. Mechanical
Engineering, Vol. 101(9), 1979. pp. 36-43.
54
-------
Discusses modes of coal transportation currently being employed and
planned, particularly in the transport of western coal. Discussed are
overland belt conveyors, slurry pipeline and barge-rail combination.
7. Chrystal, J. Coal and Lignite Storage and Handling. In: Proceedings of
the 2nd International Coal Utilization Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1,
Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 162-174.
Refer, to examples of innovative approaches to coal and lignite storage
and handling systems. Mentioned are large silos, self-cleaning storage
structures, and facilities for storing more than one type or grade of coal
with blending capability.
8. Coal Age. Transshipment Terminals - A Vital Transportation Link. Coal
Age, July 1979. pp. 77-82.
A Coal Age "Materials Handling Report" that describes the design,
operation and environmental issues associated with transshipment
terminals.
9. Coal Age. Slurry Pipelines Line Up for .he Long Haul. Coal Age, July
J979. pp. 82-93.
Discusses slurry pipelines and the political, legislative and
environmental problems that are delaying their construction.
10. Coal Age. Spray of Crusting Agents Puts Damper on Coal Pile. Coal Age,
June 1975. pp. 110-112.
Reports on the use of a water-soluble acrylic polymer crusting agent.
When sprayed on a surface, the agent leaves a clear, tough, dry, water-
insoluble film that adheres to the surface to provide wind and rain
protection for several months. When the coal is used, the agent burns off
entirely at 1000° F.
11. Cobb, D.B., C.O. Giles, J.D. Hornbuckle and P.O. Leavitt. Coal Slurry
Storage and Reclaim Facility for Mohave Generating Station. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Coal Utilization Conference and
Exhibition, Vol. 1, Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 97-122.
Describes the Mohave Generating Station and its coal slurry handling
system. It is necessary to store coal on-site to sustain operations
during periods when coal delivered via the pipeline are interrupted. When
stored, the coal in the slurry settles out, but to be used must be
reslurried. The construction of circular ponds for additional on-site
storage and the installation of the Marconaflo DYNAJET coal reclaim system
with those ponds have provided more adequate, reliable and economical
facilities for the storage and res lurry of coal.
12. Cox, D.B., T.J. Chu and R.J. Ruare. Characterization of Coal Pile
Drainage. U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv, EPA 600/7-79-051,
Washington, D.C., 1979. 91 pp.
55
-------
Sampling programs were established at two TVA coal-fired steam plants.
Coal samples were collected from these plants for development and
application of a shaker-type elation test for coal analysis. Rain gauges
were established at both plants, and runoff from one plant was measured.
Drainage was collected and subjected to a number of bench-scale treatment
studies using fly ash.
13. Curth, P.O. and H.H. Hobson. New Barge-to-Barge Terminal Emerges to Meet
Coal Transport Needs. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Coal
Utilization Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1. Houston, Texas, 1979. pp.
48-59.
Reports on a new barge-to-barge coal transfer terminal owned by
International Marine Terminals. The terminal is being developed in three
phases. Phase I has recently been placed in operation to meet a need for
additional capacity in transferring coal from inland river barges (1500
ton capacity) on the Mississippi River to large barges (13,000 ton
capacity) for movement across the Gulf of Mexico. Phases II ar.d III will
add ship loading capability and additional land storage. The components
of the facility with Phase I completed are a river barge unloader, a fixed
gulf barge loading boom, connecting conveyors and minimal land storage.
Environmental controls are discussed.
14. Cowherd, C., Jr. and T. Cuscino. Development of Emission Factors for Wind
Erosion of Aggregate Storage Piles. Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting
of the Air Pollution Control Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, 79-34.3, June
1979. 15 pp.
A testing program is described which entailed the use of a portable wind
tunnel and an isokinetic sampling system to measure windblown dust
emissions from a dormant storage pile of crusted coal. Test measurements
consisted of particle mass emission rates and size distributions for
various controlled wind speeds and times after the initiation of wind
erosion.
The results indicate that (a) natural surface crusts are very effective in
mitigating suspended dust emissions; and (b) a given surface has a finite
potential for wind erosion prior to mechanical disturbance. Agreement was
found oetween the erosion rate measured for uncrusted coal and the value
obtained from a previously developed emission factor equation based on
soil erosion data. The sampling scheme employed in this study is useful
for quantifying the erosion rate dependence which in turn can be coupled
with an analysis of wind flow patterns around storage piles to develop
dust emission estimates for overall pile erosion.
15. Davis, E.C. and W.J. Boegly, Jr. A Review of the Literature on Leachates
From Coal Storage Piles. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM/6186, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, 1978. 36 pp.
This report is an assessment of existing information on coal pile
leachate. The assessment indicates that few detailed studies have bean
56
-------
conducted to date and these are limited and the results are highly
variable. More detailed long-range studies using various types of coal
are recomnended. These studies should be carried out both in the
laboratory and in field-scale experiments.
16. Dickie, L. Controlling Airborne Dus* on Conveyor Belt Systems. Coal
Mining and Processing, pp. 72-74.
Discussed two methods of controlling fugitive dust from conveyor systems.
They are a central collection system and an insertable dust collector.
17. Electrical World. Special Report on Coal Handling. Electrical World,
June 1, 1975. pp. 39-41.
Discusses the use and operation of unit trains and other coal
transportation modes and coal handling systems including storage and
stacking and reclaiming. Two examples of total systems are given.
18. Faddick, R.R. The Environmental and Pollution Aspects of Coal Slurry
Pipelines. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/2-79-067,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 114 pp.
An in-depth review of the environmental impacts of coal slurry pipelines.
Detailed discussions are included for alternate energy transportation
modes, water quantity and quality, dewatering, pipeline corridor
selection and construction and operation and maintenance.
19. Godwin, J. and S.E. Manahan. Interchange of Metals and Organic Matter
Between Water and Subbiluminous Coal or Lignite Under Simulated Coal
Slurry Pipeline Conditions. Environmental Science and Technology, 13(9),
1979. pp. 1110-1104.
An investigation to determine solubilization of trace elements and
organic matter from carefully characterized samples of subbituminous coal
(from the Powder River Basin, Wyoming) and the lignite (from North Dakota)
under simulated coal slurry pipeline conditions. Distilled water was used
as the slurry medium. The study found tn»t despite the presence of heavy
metals at levels of several ppm in the coal—lead, cobalt, nickel and
chromium were absent in the by-product water suggesting evidence of a low
tendency for water to leach these environmentally important heavy metals
from coal under coal slurry conditions. T!ie percentages of other metals
leached from coal in a 50 percent slurry are extremely low, e.g., 0.01
percent for iron, aluminum and copper in subbituminous coal. The coal
retained most of its sodium, which should be highly soluble in the
inorganic form (except for that held by ion exchange in clay). Organic
levels in the slurry water could cause some water quality problem,
although it is anticipated that standard lime treatment would remove a
large amount of humic organic material. In summary, these studies have
not shown any major coal slurry by-product watir quality problems.
57
-------
20. Johnson, A.W. Handling Western Coals and Lignite. In: Proceedings of
the 2nd International Coal Utilization Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1,
Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 209-232.
Discusses the major differences between the quality, characteristics and
handling requirements of run-of-mine western coals and mid-western or
eastern coals. Highlighted are spontaneous combustion and dust control.
21. Lee, Y. and J.W. Wilson. Windblown Fugitive Particle Emissions From
Storage Piles. Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, 79-11.2, June 1979. 15 pp.
An investigation tc calculate the threshold friction velocity aid the
minimum wind velocity necessary to raise fugutive particles, the amount of
suspension and deposition and the reduction of visibility under various
meteorological conditions. Although limited concisions were drawn, the
investigation generally concluded that quantification of the emissions of
fugitive particles is very complicated because the observations upon
which to substantiate a model are scarce and incomplete.
22. Lowthian, W.E. Pit and Berm Coal Storage. In: Proceedings of the 33rd
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, May 1978. Ann Arbor
Science, 1979. pp. 526-539.
Addresses the development of a design strategy to reduce the pollutant
concentrations or to reduce or eliminate runoff. Provides a summarization
of observation and traditional storage rules. Found the pit and berm
method of coal storage to be a convenient, attractive storage free of
spontaneous combustion problems and detrimental environmental impact.
Also found the pit and berm method, compared to other methods of meeting
the NPDES permit requirements, to be the lowest cost alternative.
23. Mechanical Engineering. Improved Coal-Slurry Pipeline. Mechanical
Engineering, 101(10), 1979. 46 pp.
Reports on a novel scheme developed for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
for transporting coal from the mine to distant power generating stations.
The report suggests transporting powdered coal and coal-derived oil
through a pipeline as a non-aqueous slurry. During the journey, solvation
of the coal takes place, increasing the quantity of liquid and decreasing
the amount of solid. At the end of the line, the slurry would be separated
into its liquid and solid components and burned in separate facilities.
24. Metry, A.A. Treatability and Treatment of Leachate and Contaminated Run-
off Waters From a Coal T'-ansshipment Facility. In: Proceedings of the
30th Industrial Waste Conference, May 1975, Purdue L--iversity, Ann Arbor
Science, 1977. pp. 198-206.
Investigates treatment requirements for western and eastern coals.
Suggests basic approaches.
58
-------
25. Millard, R.E. Processing Coal Slurry for Utility Use. Power, January
1979. pp. 76-78.
Gives a detailed description of slurry and water handling systems at the
Mohave Generating Station.
26. Moore, J.W. Water Quality Aspects of Coal Transportation by Slurry
Pipeline. Presented at the Fourth International Technical Conference on
Slurry Transportation at Las Vegas, Nevada, March 1979. 33 pp.
A report on the findings of a program with the following three major
objectives: (1) to identify the type and extent of the water quality
changes that would occur as a result of the pipelining operation; (2) to
determine tie technical feasibility of using poor quality water such as
municipal and industrial; and (3) to deter.nine the treatment measures
applicable for use in restoring the slurry wastewater quality to
acceptable levels.
27. Montfort, J.G. Operation of the Black Mesa Pipeline System. Black Mesa
Pipeline Company, Black Mesa, Arizona, 1978. pp. 1-5.
A description with illustrations of the Black Mesa pipeline system
including Ine coal slurry preparation plant and the four pump stations.
28. PEDCo-Environmental, Inc. Survey of Fugitive Dust From Coal Mines. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado, 1978. 114 pp.
Emission factors were developed for individual mining operations at five
different western surface mines; the factors apply only to western coal
mines. Upwind-downwind ambient sampling was used. Emission factors for
transfer operations were found to be as follows:
1. Shovel/truck coal loading ranged from 0.002 to 0.014 Ib/ton.
2. Truck with bottom dump ranged from 0.005 to 0.028 Ib/ton.
3. Storage pile - (1.6u ) Ib/acre-hr. where v is in m/sec.
4. Train loading at one mine was 0.0002 Ib/ton.
5. Front-end loader at one mine generated 0.12 Ib/ton.
These values are initial emission rates and must be used in conjunction
with a fallout function in predicting ambient air quality impact from a
mine.
29. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Environmental Impact Report - Coal Transshipment
Facility, Superior, Wisconsin. ORTRAN, Inc., 1974. 147 pp.
An EIR on a materials handling terminal for the City of Superior,
Wisconsin. The terminal is designed to transfer from rail to barge up to
8 million tons per year of low-sulfur western coal via channel-side dock
loading facilities to ports in the lower Great Lakes.
59
-------
30. Schwaner, A.P. The Use of Large Diameter Silos for the Storage of Lignite
and Bituminous Coal at Power Plants. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Coal Utilization Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1,
Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 175-183.
Discusses the evolution, design and construction of large silos.
31. Stahl, R.W. and C.J. Dalzell. Recommended Safety Precautions for Active
Coal Stockpiling and Reclaiming Operations. U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Information Circular 8256, 1965. 7 pp.
Concludes that gas accumulation and dust suspension are the major safety
hazards in coal stockpiling and reclaiming operations. Presents 15 safety
recommendations devised to reduce danger from these and other sources.
Recommendations were devised by the Bureau of Mines after visits to coal
plants and a plant constructor in western Pennsylvania.
32. Szabo, M.F. Environmental Assessment of Coal Transportation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/7-78-081, Cincinnati, Ohio, May
1978. 142 pp.
Reviews (1) primary and secondary environmental impact resulting from
transportation of coal by slurry pipeline, railroad, barge, truck and
conveyor; (?) coal preparation and associated activities such as loading
and unloading; and (3) energy efficiencies of the transport modes.
33. Thompson, T.L. and W.H. Hale. Slurry Pipelines - What, Where, When? In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Coal Utilization Conference and
Exhibition, Vol. 1, Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 147-160.
Discusses several of the currently proposed coal slurry pipelines to
illustrate the status of coal pipelines in North America.
34. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Environmental Statement - Rail-to-
Barge Coal Transfer Facility, St. Louis, Missouri. U.S. Corps of
Engineers, St. Louis District, 1976. 141 pp.
A final environmental statement on the construction of a 10 million
ton/year coal terminal for transferring western coal from unit trains to
river barges for transport to locations along the Ohio and Mississippi
Rivers. The adverse environmental effects include the possible
deterioration of ambient air quality from fugitive dust and the potential
degradation of water quality resulting from coal spillage into the
Mississippi River during barge loading.
35. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Environmental Impact Statement -
Proposed Barge Terminal Expansion, Packer River Terminal, Inc., South St.
Paul, Dakota County, Minnesota. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul,
Minnesota, 1977. 69 op.
60
-------
An environmental impact statement for a proposal to expand an existing
barge terminal facility in South St. Paul, Minnesota. The adverse
environmental effects include the loss of 22 acres of wetland serving
water quality, food chain production and the degradation of air quality in
the area from particulates, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. There would
also be an increase in truck traffic (transporting coal) on arterial
streets and highways and an increase in barge traffic on the Mississippi
River.
36. U.S. Army Engineer District. Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Coal
Transfer Facility at Ohio River Mine 314.5, Burlington, Lawrence County,
Ohio. U.S. Army Engineering District, Huntington, l*est Virginia, 1977.
59 pp.
A DEIS on the construction, operation and maintenance of a proposed coal
loading facility consisting of a floating dock made up of two barges, a
crusher and a convenor system. Coal is delivered to the facility by truck
over existing roads, dumped into a PS-foot square bin and moved by an
enclosed conveyor to the crusher. The caal would then be moved by an
enclosed conveyor to the barges. Potential adverse impacts include an
increase in air pollution, water turbidity, loss of vegetation on plant
site and associated wildlife.
37. Wachter, R.A. and T.R. Blackwood. Source Assessment: Water Pollutants
From Coal Storage Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/2-
78-004m, May 1978. 106 pp.
Quantifies the effluent levels from coal stockpiles maintained outdoors
by examining coals (both freshly mined and aged) from six coal regions in
the United States. Effluent data were obtained by subjecting coals to
rainfall from a simulation apparatus and collecting grab samples of the
wastewater. The samples were analyzed for organic and inorganic
substances and water quality criteria parameters.
38. Wachter, R.A. and T.R. Blackwood. Water Pollutants From Coal Storage
Areas. In: Proceedings or the 2nd International Coal Utilization
Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1, Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 233-239.
Coal storage piles emit effluents due to the drainage and runoff of
wastewater which occurs during and after precipitation. Effluent levels
were determined in this study by placing various coals beneath a rainfall
simulation device. Drainage from these samples was then collect and
analyzed for a variety of pollutants and water quality parameters. Runoff
effluent levels were estimated for a representative stockpile using a
simple riydrologic model.
39. Weeter, D.W. Coal Pile Water Quality Management - Results of c. National
Study. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, Mjy 1978. Ann Arbor Science, 1979. pp. 302-307.
61
-------
Results of a national survey of available water quality daxa on coal pile
drainage were presented. Eiqhty utility companies were canvassed. Sixty-
two responded to the questionnaire and 19 actually had studied coal pile
drainage. The data is compared to water quality regulations and criteria.
Data is broken down into general surface water quality, surface water
heavy metal quality, groundwater quality, and the effect of various
treatment processes upon coal pile drainage. From a groundwater and
surface water basis, various pollutants can be discharged via coal pile
drainage. Effective treatment processes can be designed to control
regulated parameters, however, little data has been generated relative to
heavy metal and organics removal.
40. Winges, K.D. Assessing Impacts of Coal Mining Operations With Air Quality
Models. Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, 79-34.3, June 1979. 13 pp.
Investigates techniques which have been adopted to make assessments of
mining development. Concludes that impact assessment of mining
operations using atr quality models is in the early stages of development.
Although initially assumed to be a simple task, the reality is now
emerging that mine modeling is a difficult task with a host of different
source types, frequent complex topographic influences, and emissions with
deposition characteristics that require special treatment. This is
further complicated by difficult measurement procedures and limited
existing data bases.
41. Yu, A.T. World's Largest Ship-Barge Loading System Serves Coal Industry.
Coal Age, January 1971. pp. 76-78.
Describes the ship-barge loading system operated by the B&O Railroad at
Curtis Bay, Maryland. The facility is capable of simultaneously loading
at the same pier ocean-going vessels at 6,000 tph and intracoastal barges
at 4,000 tph. Coal is delivered to the pier by unit trains which are
i-^lcadsd by a rotary car dumper.
62
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Allen, R.R. and V.F. Parry. Storage of Low-Rank Coals. U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Report of Investigations 5034, 1954. pp. 1-7.
2. American Waterways Operators, Inc. Big Load Afloat. Washington, D.C.,
158 pp.
3. Anderson, W.C. System Treats Coal Pile Leachate and Municipal
Wastewater -Together. Water and Wastes Engineering, 1978. pp. 28-31.
4. Architecture Planning Research Assoc. Environmental Assessment - Land
Use, Socioeconomic and Transportation Issues Resultirg from Large Scale
Mining and Refining Complexes. Architecture Planning Research Assoc.,
Washington, O.C., 1975. 125 pp.
5. Association of American Railroads. The Case Against Coal Slurry
Pipelines. Association of American Railroads. AARb-0309/76, March 1976.
15 pp.
6. Bevan, R.R. Burning Coal in CPI Boilers. II. Coal Handling at the Plant
Site. Chemical Engineering, January 16, 1978. pp. 120-128.
7. Bisselle, A., et al. Resource and Land Investigations (RALI) Program: An
Approach to Environmental Assessment with Application to Western Coal
Development. U.S. Geological Survey, Rpitnn, V?. ? Vols. 1975. 613 pp.
8. Cabe, D.B., M.W. Hooper, and A.E. Schmidt. Influence of Alternative
Definitions of Exempt Fugitive Dust Sources on the Impact of PSD
Regulations on Surface Coal Mines. Presentation at the 72nd Annual
MeeHng of the Air Pollution Control Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
15 pp.
9. Campbell, T.C. and S. Katell. Long Distance Coal Transportation Unit
Trains or Slurry Pipelines. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Information Circular
8690, 1975. pp. 36-43.
10. Cart, E.N. Jr., M.H. Farmer, C.E. Jahnig, M. Lieberman, and F.M. Spooner.
Evaluation of the Feasibility for Widespread Introduction of Coal into the
Residential and Commercial Sectors. Council on Environmental Quality,
1977. 25 pp.
-------
11. Cavallaro, J.A., G.A. Gibbon and A.U. Deurbrouck. A Uashability ana
Analytical Evaluation of Potential Pollution from Trace Elements in Coal.
EPA-600/7-78-03S, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1978. 27 pp.
12. Center for Advanced Computation. Comparative Coal Transport Costs: An
Economic and Engineering Analysis of Truck, Belt, Rail, Barge and Coal
Slurry and Pneumatic Pipelines. 8 Volumes. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1977.
397 pp.
13. Chesser, A.H. Economic Advantages of Transporting Coal by Rail vs. Coal
Slurry Pipelines. United Transportation Union, Cleveland, Oh., 1S76. 63
PP.
14. Coal Age. Bucket-Wheel Reclaimers Getting Low Profile. Coal Age, June
1973. pp. 70-71.
15. Coal Age. High-Capacity Terminal Going up on Ohio River. Coal Age,
Janjary 1975. p. 22.
16. Coal Age. N&W Considers Hampton Roades Ground Storage. Coal Age, 1977.
p. 33.
17. Coal Age. Pile Discharger Shakes up Material Handling Problems. Coal
Age, May 1977. pp. 137-139.
18. Coal Age. Three-Wheel Bucket Machine Takes on Coal-Reclaiming. Coal Age,
June 1976. p. 175.
19. Coal Age. Unit Train Loading. Ccal Age, 77(1), 1972. pp. 77-83.
20. Coal Age. Keystone Coal Industry Manual. McGraw-Hill, New Ycrk.
(Published Annually)
21. Corey, R.C. How Coal Properties Influence Handling and Combustion.
Chemical Engineering, January 1978. pp. 111-119.
22. Cowlierd, C., Jr., K. Axtell, Jr., C.M. Guenther, G.A. Jutze, and C.O.
Mann. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources. Report
No. 450-3-74-037, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1974. 172 pp.
23. Cowherd, C., Jr., T. Cuscino, Jr., and D.A. Gilette. Development of
Emission Factors for Wind Erosion of Aggregate Storage Piles. Presented
at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 79-34.3; June, 1979. 15 pp.
24. Davis, J.J., Associates. Coal Preparation Environmental Engineering
Manual. EPA-600/2-76-138, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reserach
Triangle Park, N.C., 1976. 600 pp.
64
-------
25. Dempsey, W.H. Slurry - Why the Flurry? Association of American
Railroads, Wasninqton, D.C., 1977. 17 pp.
26. Dic'tie, L. Controlling Airborne Oust on Conveyor Belt Systems. Coal
Mining and Processing, pp. 72-74.
27. Dowler, W.L. Improved Coal-Slurry Pipeline. Mechanical Engineering,
1979. 46 pp.
28. Electrical World. Crushers Solve Frozen - Coal Problems. Electrical
World, 1977. p. 78.
29. Electrical World. New Coal Shipping Method Could Help Great Lakes
Utilities. Electrical World, 176(4), 1971. 13 pp.
30. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Development of Emission Factors
for Fugitive Oust Sources. EPA-450/3-74-037, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1974. 170 pp.
31. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Coal Mining Point Source Category. EPA-440/l-76/057a,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976. 288 pp.
32. Environmental Research and Technology. Air Pollutant Emissions in the
Northwest Colorado Coal Development Area. Environmental Research and
Technology, Westlake Village, California, 1975.
33. Gage, S.J., and E.R. Bates. Possible Environmental Implications of In-
Site Energy Development; Coal and Oil Shale. Presented at 3rd
International Conference on Environmental Problems of the Extractive
Industries, Dayton, Ohio, 1977. 7 pp.
34. Glover, T.O., M.E. Hinkley, and H.L. Riley. Unit Train Transportation of
Coal; Technology and Description of Nine Representative Operations. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8444, 1970. 109 pp.
35. Gray, W.S., and P.F. Mason. Slurry Pipelines; What the Coal Man Should
Know in the Planning Stage. Coal Age 80(9), 1975. pp. 58-62.
36. Green, W.R. Ill, and I.M. Thomson. Conveying In Land Coal, Then Barging
It. Society of Mining Engineers 23(1"), 1971. pp. 50-54.
37. Grier, W.F., and C.F. Miller. Demonstration of Coal Mine Haul Road
Sediment Control Techniques. Kentucky Department for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection, 1976. 84 pp.
38. Habegger, L.J., S.Y. Chiu, P.A. Dauzvardis, and J.R. Gasper. Water
Quality Implications of Increased Coal Use. Presented at 1978 AIME Annual
Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 1978. 11 pp.
65
-------
39. Hill, R.D. Methods for Controlling Pollutants. Presented at Reclamation
of Drastically Disturbed Lands Symposium, Wooster, Ohio, 1976. 39 pp.
40. Input Output Computer Services, Inc. Rail Transportation Requirements
for Coal Movement in 1980, Final Report. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Off ire of Transportation Energy Policy and Transportation
Systems Center, 1976. 39 pp.
41. Jackman, H.W., R.L. Eissler, and F.H. Reed. Weathering of Illinois Coals
During Storage. Illinois State Geological Survey, Circular 227, 1957.
pp. 1-12.
42. Ki'-by, A.J. Centralization of Control Automates; Coal Handling at Kaiser
Steel Corporation. Iron and Steel Engineering, 1971. pp. 72-74.
43. LaGrange, C.C. Storage of Coal with Special Reference to Quality
Deterioration and Spontaneous Combustion. Fuel Research Institute of
South Africa, Report No. 28. 1951. pp. 3-13.
44. Larwood, G.M., and D.C. Cc-"son. Coal Transportation Practices and
Equipment Requirements to 1985. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Information
Circular 8706, 1976. 90 pp.
45. Lee Y., and J.W. Wilson. Windblown Fugitive Particle Emissions from
Storage Piles. Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, 79-11.2; Jun_- 1979. 15 pp.
46. Longfellow, R.L. Cut Costs with Integrated Coal Handling. Power
Engineering, 76(8), 1972. pp. 31-33.
47. Mains, J.G. Photohydrogenation of Aerocolloidal Coal Dust. ORO-5020-2,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1977. 83 pp.
48. Manalytics, Inc. Coal Transportation Capability cf the Existing Rail and
Barge Network, 1985 and Beyond. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, California, 1976. 175 pp.
49. Meshenberg, M.J. Environmental Planning; A Selected Annotated
Bibliography. Report No. 264, American Society of Planning Officials,
1970. 79 pp.
50. Metry, A.A. Treatability and Treatment of Leachate and Contaminated Run-
Off Waters from a Coal Transshipment Facility. In: Proceedings of the
30th Industrial Waste Conference, 1975. pp. 198-206.
51. Meyer, J.P. Mathematical Modeling of Changes in the Distribution of
Sulfur in Coal as it Undergoes Mining and Transport Operations.
Environmental Science and Technology, 13(9), 1979. pp. 1104-1109.
66
-------
52. Monsanto Research Corporation. Fugitive Dust from Mining Operations -
Appendix, Final Report, Task No. 10. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, 1975. 45 pp.
53. Moore, J.W. Water Quality Aspects of Coal Transportation by Slurry
Pipeline. Presented at the 4th International Technical Conference on
Slurry Transportation, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1979. 33 pp.
54. Olsen, J.H. Coal Loading - Thick and Thin Seams. Mining Congress
Journal, 1973. pp. 24-29.
55. PEDCo-Environmental, Inc. Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado, 1974, 114 pp.
56. PEDCo-Environmental, Inc. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emissions from
Mining, Task 1 Report, Identification of Fugitive Dust Sorces Associated
with Mining. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1976. pp. 2-69.
57. Power. Decide Between Rotary and Bottom-Dump Coal-Unloading. Poi'er,
1976. p. 47.
58. Radian Corporation. Atmospheric Pollution Potential from Foss'1 Fuel
Resource Extraction, On-Site Processing, arid Transportation. EPA-600/2-
76-064, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, O.C., 1976.
277 pp.
59. Radian Corporation. A Western Regional Energy Development Study. Primary
Environmental Impacts. Council of Environmental Quality and Federal
Energy Administration, 1975. 189 pp.
60. Research Triangle Institute. An Assessment on the Highways in the
Appalachian Region. Appalachian Regional Commission, 1977. 327 pp.
61. Rice, J.K., J.M. Evans and M. Warner. Environmental Considerations of the
Use of Saline Water in Coal Slurry Pipelines. The Newsletter, 1976. pp.
8-9.
62. Roberts, W. Comments in Rails Still Ail. Mechanical Engineering, 101(7),
1979. pp. 61-62.
T
63. Ross, A.B. and P.O. Marfink a. Western Coal Transportation; A Challenge.
Mining Congress Journal, 1975. pp. 40-45.
64. Sargent, A. Western Coal Transportation; Unit Trains or Slurry Pipelines.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1976. 86 pp.
65. Schwaner, A.P. The Use of Large Diameter Silos for the Storage of Lignite
and Bituminous Coal at Power Plants. Presented at the 2nd International
Coal Utilization Conference and Exhibition, Volume 1, Houston, Texas,
1979. pp. 175-183.
67
-------
56. Slurry Transport Association. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Technical Conference on Slurry Transportation. Sponsored by: Slurry
Transport Association, Batelle Memorial Institute, U.S. Energy Research
and Development Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1977. 151 pp.
67. Slurry Transport Association. Proceedings of the 3rd Internationa^
Technical Conference on Slurry Transportation. Sponsored by: Slurry
Transport Association, Batelle Memorial Institute, Electric Power
Research Institute, Las Vegas. Nevada, 1978. 223 pp.
68. Soderberg, H.E. Practical Approach to Air Pollution for Coal Handling
Systems. In: Proceeding of the 2nd Symposium on Coal Preparation,
Louisville, Ky., Natic.ial Coal Association, 1976. pp. 109-116.
69. Soros, P. Britain's Immingham Terminal: New Transport System for Coal
Exports. Mining Engineering, 1973. pp. 35-37.
70. Stahl, R.W. and C.J. Dalzell. Recommended Safety Precautions for Active
C'-al Stockpiling and Reclaiming Operations. U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Information Circular 8256, 1965. pp. 1-7.
71. Thompson, T.L. and W.H. Hale. Slurry Pipelines - What, Where, When?
Proceeding of the 2nd International Coal Utilization Conference and
Exhibition, Vol. 1, Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 147-160.
72. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. River Terminals, Ohio River and
Tributaries. Army Engineering Division, Ohio River, 1974. 78 po.
73. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. River Terminals, Upper Mississippi River
and the Illinois Waterway with Connecting Channels to Lake Michigan. Army
Engineering Division, North Central, 1973. 50 pp.
74. Viciana, J.J. Long-Run Coal Conveyor Feeds 2,500 tph. Electrical World,
May 1, 1975. pp. 44-45.
75. Wachter, R.A. and T.R. Blackwood. Water Pollutants from Coal Storage
Areas. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Coal Utilization
Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 1, Houston, Texas, 1979. pp. 233-239.
76. Wahler, W.A. and Associates. Pollution Control Guidelines for Coal Refuse
Piles and Slurry Ponds. EPA-600/7-78-222, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Oh., 1978. 224 pp.
77. Weeter, D.W. Coal Pile Water Quality Management - Results of a National
Survey. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Industrial Waste Conference, May
1978, Purdue University, Ann Arbor Science, 1979. pp. 302-307.
78. Western States Water Council. Western States Water Requirements for
Energy Development to 1590. Salt Lake City, Western States Water Council,
1974.
68
-------
79. Weston Environmental Consultants-Designers. Environmental Problems and
Solutions for the Coal Industry. Presented to NCA/BCR Water Quality
Technical Committee, 1977. 40 pp.
80. Hinges, K.D. Assessing Impacts of Coal Mining Operations with Air Quality
Models. Presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Cincinnati, Oh., 79-34.3; 1979. 13 pp.
81. Yu, A.T. Bringing Western Coal to Market. Mining Engineering, July,
1975. pp. 69-73.
82. Yu, A.T. World's Largest Ship-Barge Loading System Serves Coal Industry.
Coal Age, January 1971. pp. 76-78.
69
-------
APPENDIX A
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT SURFACE MINE SITE
TRUCK
MINE SITE
STOCKPILE
TRUln.
TRAIN
CONVEYOR
Major Transfer Points
1. Transfer from mining device to on-site transport device.
2. Transfer from on-site transport device to mine site stockpile.
3. Transfer from mine site stockpile to transport device that carries the
coal from the mine site.
Transfer Facilities
1. Field conveyor system, if used.
2. Mine site stockpile and associated equipment.
3. Loading tunnel and/or other equipment.
70
-------
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT UNDERGROUND MINE SITES
Major Transfer Points
1.
2.
Transfer from device that brings coal out of the mine to the mine site
stockpile.
Transfer from the mine site stockpile to the transport device that carries
the coal from the mine site.
Transfer Facilities
1. Mine site stockpile and associate'd equipment, i.e., open stockpile, silo,
hoppers.
2. Loading tunnel and/or other equipment.
71
-------
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT INDUSTRIAL USER
Major Transfer Points
1. Transfer from arriving transport mechanism to mine site stockpile or
storage.
2. Transfer from stockpile or storage to utilization facility.
Mdjor Transfer Facilities
1. Stockpile/Storage
2. Unloading system for arriving coal
72
-------
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT BARGE LOADING FACILITY
TRAIN
OVERLAND
C01VEVCR
^
r~
1
1
1 5
STCCtf.lt
Major Transfer Points
1.
2.
Transfer Facilities
Transfer from incoming transport rrode to stockpile and/or directly to
barge.
Transfer from stockpile to barge.
1. Rotary dumpers for unloading unit trains.
2. Stockpile and/or bins.
3. Vessel loader.
73
-------
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT BARGE-TO-BARGE TERMINAL*
D A il^C
BAKbh
i
STnPtfDTI F/STflRARF
O 1 Uu\r 1LC/ J 1 U>\MUL
BARGE
Major Transfer Points
1. Barge unloader to conveyor
2. Conveyor to stacker
3. Stacker tc stockpi'.-/storage
4. Stockpile/storage to reclaimer device or by using mobile equipment to push
coal into reclaim hopper
5. Reclaimer or hopper to conveyor
6. Conveyorto barge loader
Transfer Facilities
1. Pier/Deck
2. Power substation
3. Fuel oil storage* tank
4. Water storage tank
5. Of'ice and personnel space
6. Parts storage building
*First facility of its kind located on the west bank at mile 57 near the mouth of
the Mississippi River.
74
-------
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT TERMINAL END
GF BLACK MESA SLURRY PIPELINE
COMYEYOR
CIRCULATING
IUTER-COOLINS
STSTEil
lEGr'flO
Q
- SLIMY PUMP
75
-------
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT FkONT-ENC OF BLACK HESA SLURRY PIPELINE
Major Transfer Points
1. Transfer of transport device to the first step of slurry preparation
(bunkers).
Transfer Facilities
1. Preparation plant.
2. Pumping station.
76
-------
TRANSFER OPERATIONS AT COAL PREPARATION SITE
Major Transfer Points
1. Transfer from incoming transport mode to surge bin cr surge feeder.
2. Transfer from surge bin or surge feeder to run of mine storage.
(Screening and crushing of the coal usually occurs between these transfer
points.)
3. Transfer from run of mine storage to preparation plant.
4. Transfer from preparation plant to cl«?an coal storage.
5. Transfer from clean coal storage to outgoing transport node.
Major Transfer Facilities
1. Surge bin.
2. Run of mine storage.
3. Clean coal storage.
77
-------
GLOSSARY
feeder: A device used to transfer coal at a controlled rate.
stacker/reclaimer: A machine that combines both distribution and reclaim
functions.
stacking tube: A concrete or metal tube with outward opening doors at
different heights along the tube. Coal dumped down the tube
discharges at ascending elevations.
telescoping chute: A sectionalized chute that can be raised ind lowered so that
the discharge spout stays close to the top of the pile.
tripper conveyor: A horizontal belt conveyor having a moveable discharge
station. This distribution method layers the cosl along the
entire of the conveyor or hold at a location to pile coal in
successive piles.
78
------- |