Coal Transportation in Utah Udot Planning Network

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Coal Transportation in Utah Udot Planning Network PLAN COAL TRANSPORTATION IN UTAH UDOT PLANNING NETWORK 35% SHIPPING COAL BY RAILis used outside of Utah MEANS SHIPPING COAL BY ROAD(14 other states)IN UTAH 35% is used outside of Utah (14 other states) 65% WHY IS COAL IMPORTANT? is used within Utah In 2006, Utah’s coal production was 26.1 million tons (12th nationally). Although we may not realize it, coal in Utah is critical to our Where is Utah coal sent? 5% quality of life, providing most1.4 million of theleft the electrical mine by rail power that 65% we consume on14% a daily basis. In 2009, 82 percent of Utah’s 65% is used35% within Utah In 2006,3.7 Utah’s million coal left production was 26.1 million tons (12th nationally). stays in Utah is sent outside of Utah electricthe mine power by conveyor* generation came from coal. Coal is also an (18 other states) 5% integral part of Utah’s economy.1.4 million left The the mineindustry81% by rail employed approximately14% 1,954 individuals in 2009,21 million providingleft income 65% 35% 65% 35% 3.7 million left the mine by truck is sent outside of Utah stays in Utah is used within Utah is used outside of Utah and important tax dollars for the state. In 2009, the value of (18 other states) the mine by conveyor* (14 other states) 35% extracted coal was approximately $623 million. Current coal 81% is used outside of Utah 21 million left 0.2% production* (Aboutis primarily 2 million tons located of this total transfersin three from counties in central consumed by residential (14 other states) conveyor to trucks at the Huntington Powerthe Plant.) mine by truck 65% 35% Utah: Emery, Carbon and Sevier. How is Utah11.7% coal andconsumed? commercialis users used within Utah is used outside of Utah consumed by industrial users (14 other states) CURRENT HAUL ROUTES 0.2% 0.3% * (About 2 million tons of this total transfers from 88.1% consumed by residential conveyor to trucks at the Huntington Power Plant.) consumed by residential Nearly every coal mine in Utah relies on trucks to transport consumed11.7% and commercial users and commercial users by electric consumed utilities by industrial users its coal to five rail loadout facilities — intermodal hubs where 65% 36% of Utah’s coal is used outside of Utah coal from mines is loaded from trucks onto trains. Primary 0.3% is used within Utah 88.1% In 2006, Utah’s coal production wasconsumed 26.1 millionby residential tons (12th nationally). coal-haul routes are those linking the mines to the railroad consumed and commercial users by electric utilities loadouts, which experience very high coal truck volumes exceeding 100 trucks per day.36% of The Utah’s majority coal is used outside of coal of Utah leaving 5% Utah is transported by rail. Secondary routes are those used 1.4 million left the mine by rail less frequently for direct delivery of coal to power plants and 14% 65% 35% industrial locations within Utah. In total, approximately 1,300 3.7 million left stays in Utah is sent outside of Utah coal-haul truck trips are made each day on state and local Base data and information thesource: mine Annual byReview conveyor* and Forecast of Utah Coal (18 other states) roads throughout Utah. Coal trucks are extremely heavy and Production and Distribution – 2010 (Utah Department of Natural Resources) and from the Energy Information Administration website www.eia.doe.gov present significant maintenanceIn 2006, issues Utah’s coal on productionthe roadways was they 81% 26,100,000 tons (12th nationally). use. 21 million left 21,000,000 (81%) left the mine by truck the mine by truck 65% 35% 3,700,000 (14%) left the mine by conveyor* READ MORE is used within Utah is used outside of Utah 1,400,000 (5%) left the mine by rail (14 other states) In *2006, (About 2,000,000 Utah’s tons coal of this productiontotal transfers from was conveyor 26,100,000 to trucks at the tons Huntington (12th Power nationally). Plant.) 21,000,000 (81%) left the mine by truck TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 0.2% 3,700,000 (14%) left the mine by conveyor* * (About 2 million tons of this total transfers from consumed by residential 1,400,000 (5%) left the mine by rail conveyor to trucks at the Huntington Power Plant.) * (About 2,000,000 tons of this total transfers from conveyor 11.7% and commercial users to trucks at the Huntington Power Plant.) consumed by industrial users 0.3% 88.1% consumed by residential consumed and commercial users by electric utilities 36% of Utah’s coal is used outside of Utah In 2006, Utah’s coal production was 26,100,000 tons (12th nationally). 21,000,000 (81%) left the mine by truck 3,700,000 (14%) left the mine by conveyor* 1,400,000 (5%) left the mine by rail * (About 2,000,000 tons of this total transfers from conveyor to trucks at the Huntington Power Plant.) 191 Carbon 191Skyline R Wildcat R Price Carbon Railco Sunnyside 123 Levan R R Savage R Levan Wildcat 6 Skyline 89 1 INTERSTATE R R 15 Price Huntington Savage COAL TRANSPORTATION IN UTAH Railco SunnysideHuntington 28 2 123 Sufco R R Hunter Castledale 6 R 10 89 Gunnison 1 50 INTERSTATE Ferron 15 Huntington Huntington 28 2 M FUTURE HAUL ROUTES Salina Hunter RCastledale 3 Coal resources in the Alton coal field (shown on map below) are being considered for extraction. Mining these resources would 10 Gunnison INTERSTATE impact transportation routes and nearby communities, adding traffic to highways70 that serve major tourist destinations such as 50 Ferron Bryce Canyon National Park. Additional passing lanes, wider shoulders, and other safety measures could be needed. Salina 3 RHOW COAL IS TRANSPORTED INTERSTATE • In 2009, Utah’s70 coal production was 21.9 million tons (13th nationally) • 81 percent left the mine by truck (17.7 million tons) • Only one Utah mine delivers coal directly to a power plantR (2Existi millionng Rail Lo tons)adout Freeway • Only one Utah mine has direct access to a railroad (less than 2 million tons) State Highway R Proposed Rail Loadout 20 Coal Seams M Possible Mining Activity 191 Current Rail Route INTERSTATE Carbon 15 Coal Mining Activity Keeps Utah's Roads Busy 1 Book Cliffs Coal Field Proposed Rail Route Panguitch 2 Wasatch Coal Field Skyline Wildcat R Existing Rail Loadout Freeway R 191R Price R 3 Emery Coal Field Carbon State Highway Savage R Proposed Rail Loadout Railco Cedar CitySunnyside 20 123 89 4 AltonCoal Coal Sea Fieldms Sufco R R M Possible Mining Activity R Skyline Wildcat 6 Current Rail Route INTERSTATE Current Primary Coal Truck Route 89 INTERSTATE 1 R R 15Price 15 INTERSTATE 1 M Proposed Primary Coal Truck Route 15 Huntington Savage Book Cliffs Coal Field Proposed Rail Route Railco Sunnyside Huntington123 Panguitch Current Secondary Coal Truck Route Sufco 28 2 R R M 2 Emery Coal4 Field Hunter 6 R Castledale 89 R 1 3 Wasatch Coal Field Coal Fired Power Plant INTERSTATE 10 Gunnison 15 Cedar CityHuntington 50 Ferron 89 4 Huntington Alton Coal Field 28 2 M Hunter INTERSTATE Castledale Salina 3 Current Primary Truck Route 15 R 10 Gunnison M Proposed Primary Truck Route 50 Ferron INTERSTATE Current Secondary Truck Route 70 4 Salina 3 Coal Fired Power Plant R INTERSTATE 70 INTERSTATE 80 SLC INTERSTATE Vernal 15 R Existing Rail Loadout Freeway State Highway Bonanza R Proposed Rail Loadout 20 Coal Seams M Possible Mining Activity I PP Current Rail Route INTERSTATE 15 R Existing1 Rail Loadout Freeway Book Cliffs Coal Field Proposed Rail Route Panguitch State Highway INTERSTATE R Proposed Rail Loadout INTERSTATE 2 Emery Coal Field 70 20 Coal Seams INTERSTATE M 15 R Possible3 MiningWasatch Activity Coal Field Current Rail Route Cedar City INTERSTATE 15 89 1 4 Alton Coal Field Book Cliffs Coal Field Proposed Rail Route Panguitch Bryce Canyon 2 National Park INTERSTATE Emery Coal CurrentField Primary Truck Route 15 M Proposed Primary Truck Route R 3 Wasatch Coal Field Cedar City Current Secondary Truck Route 89 4 4 Alton Coal Field Coal Fired Power Plant INTERSTATE Current Primary Truck Route 15 M Proposed Primary Truck Route Current Secondary Truck Route 3/17/2011 For4 more information on this topic, contact the UDOT Planning Division. Daniel B. Kuhn, Railroad & Freight Planner (801) 965-4148 or [email protected] TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Coal Fired Power Plant.
Recommended publications
  • Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2019
    Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2020 Rank Mine Name / Operating Company Mine Type State Production (short tons) 1 North Antelope Rochelle Mine / Peabody Powder River Mining LLC Surface Wyoming 66,111,840 2 Black Thunder / Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Surface Wyoming 50,188,766 3 Antelope Coal Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 19,809,826 4 Freedom Mine / The Coteau Properties Company Surface North Dakota 12,592,297 5 Eagle Butte Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 12,303,698 6 Caballo Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 11,626,318 7 Belle Ayr Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 11,174,953 8 Kosse Strip / Luminant Mining Company LLC Surface Texas 10,104,901 9 Cordero Rojo Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 9,773,845 10 Buckskin Mine / Buckskin Mining Company Surface Wyoming 9,699,282 11 Spring Creek Coal Company / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Montana 9,513,255 12 Rawhide Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 9,494,090 13 River View Mine / River View Coal LLC Underground Kentucky 9,412,068 14 Marshall County Mine / Marshall County Coal Resources Underground West Virginia 8,854,604 15 Bailey Mine / Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company Underground Pennsylvania 8,668,477 16 Falkirk Mine / Falkirk Mining Company Surface North Dakota 7,261,161 17 Mc#1 Mine / M-Class Mining LLC Underground Illinois 7,196,444 18 Tunnel Ridge Mine / Tunnel Ridge, LLC Underground West Virginia 6,756,696 19 Lively Grove Mine / Prairie State Generating Company
    [Show full text]
  • REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water
    REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water March 2014 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation EPA 542-R-14-001 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 5 Notice and Disclaimer..................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 9 Passive Technologies Technology: Anoxic Limestone Drains ........................................................................................ 11 Technology: Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS).................................................. 16 Technology: Aluminator© ............................................................................................................ 19 Technology: Constructed Wetlands .............................................................................................. 23 Technology: Biochemical Reactors .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coal and Coal Mining in Washington
    State of Washington ARTHUR B. LANGLIE, Governor Department of Conservation and Development ED DAVIS , Director DIVISION OF MINES AND MINING SHELDON L. GLOVER, Supervisor • Report of Investigations No. 4 Coal and Coal Mining in Washington By STEPHEN H. GREEN OLYMPIA STA1'E PRINTING PL ANT 19'1 (' CONTENTS Page Foreword .. 3 Introduction . • . 5 Selected bibliography . 6 Historical . 7 Coal areas of the State. 8 :Northwestern Washington ..................................... 8 King County . 9 Pierce County . 10 Southwestern Washington ..................................... 11 Kittitas County .. ............ .. ........................... 11 Anthracite . 12 Whatcom County ............................ .................... 12 Lewis County ........ ................... ....................... 13 Coal production ..................................... .. ..... ........ 18 Coal mining methods.. 20 Coke industry ...... ·.... -· ................ , ......... : ................ 16 Conditions affecting mining.. 20 Carbonization and hydrogenation of coal. ............................... 17 Fuel briquets . 16 :New prospects and developments.. 41 Present status of the coal mining industry ............................... 24 Properties operating in 1943. 25 King County . 26 Kittitas County . 38 Lewis County . 36 Pierce County . 33 Thurston County . 35 Whatcom County .......................... ..... ................ 25 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing principal coal areas of Washington ........ Facing 8 Figure 2. Graph of production 1860-1942, inclusive .
    [Show full text]
  • Health Impact Assessment of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky
    Health Impact Assessment of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky A Report from Kentucky Environmental Foundation By Elizabeth Walker, PhD Deborah Payne, MPH Acknowledgements The authors thankfully acknowledge the following experts for reviews and comments on drafts of this report: Carla Baumann, MSN, RN Philip Curd, M.D., MSPH Richard Futrell, PhD Michael Hendryx, PhD David Mannino, MD John Patterson, MD, MSPH Monica Unseld, PhD Any remaining errors are entirely our own. The authors also thank contributions of interviews carried out by students of Berea College’s Health in Appalachia course (HEA/APS 210), Fall 2010 and 2011. About Kentucky Environmental Foundation: The Kentucky Environmental Foundation (KEF) is a non-pro!t organization dedicated to securing solutions to environmental problems in a manner, which safeguards human health, promotes environmental justice, preserves ecological systems and encourages sustainability. Design and layout: Rob Gorstein Graphic Design, Inc. i Health Impact Assessment of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................3 Health Impacts of Coal Mining ............................................................................................5 1. Surface mining ...........................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Waste Water Quality Management in Iilawarra Coal Mines
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Engineering and Information Coal Operators' Conference Sciences 1998 Study of Waste Water Quality Management in IIlawarra Coal Mines R. N. Singh University of Wollongong H. B. Dharmappa University of Wollongong Muttucumaru Sivakumar University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/coal Recommended Citation R. N. Singh, H. B. Dharmappa, and Muttucumaru Sivakumar, Study of Waste Water Quality Management in IIlawarra Coal Mines, in Naj Aziz and Bob Kininmonth (eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Coal Operators' Conference, Mining Engineering, University of Wollongong, 18-20 February 2019 https://ro.uow.edu.au/coal/268 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Study of Waste Water Quality Management in IIlawarra Coal Mines ABSTRACT This paper is concerned with two case histories of wastewater quality management in underground coal mines in the I1lawarra region. The first investigation briefly presents an analysis of mine water discharge having an extremely high concentration of suspended solids and consistently high barium concentrations, averaging 14.4 mg/l Barium, over the sampling period. A laboratory study of chemical precipitation processes has indicated that about 91% of barium could be removed by using ferric sulphate and lime. On the basis of the information obtained from the environmental audit process an alternative water treatment and reuse system incorporating 51% reduction in the water consumption with 32% less off-site discharge has been suggested (Thomas, 1995). The second case history is concerned with the storm water management at a mine situated in the Illawarra escarpment where only 20% of the wastewater generated in the colliery is discharged off -site.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental Impacts from Coal Cradle to Grave: the Environmental Impacts from Coal © 2001, Photostogo © 2001, Photostogo
    Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal © 2001, PhotosToGo © 2001, PhotosToGo Clean Air Task Force 77 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110 June, 2001 Clean Air Task Force 77 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 292-0234 Fax: (617) 292-4933 CATF gratefully acknowledges support for this report from the following foundations: The Turner Foundation The John Merck Fund The Joyce Foundation The Heinz Endowments The Rockefeller Brothers Fund The Energy Foundation The Kapor Foundation Credits: Writer: Martha Keating, Clean Air Task Force Editing: Ellen Baum, Clean Air Task Force Amy Hennen, Izaak Walton League of America Design Editor: Bruce Hill, Clean Air Task Force Design: Jill Bock Design Printing: Spectrum Printing & Graphics, Inc. June, 2001 Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal he electric power industry is health. Some are known to cause the largest toxic polluter in cancer, others impair reproduc- the country, and coal, which tion and the normal development Tis used to generate over half of of children, and still others the electricity produced in the damage the nervous and immune U.S., is the dirtiest of all fuels.1 systems. Many are also respira- From mining to coal cleaning, tory irritants that can worsen from transportation to electricity respiratory conditions such as generation to disposal, coal asthma. They are an environmen- © 2001, PhotosToGo releases numerous toxic pollut- tal concern because they ants into our air, our waters and onto our lands.2 Nation- damage ecosystems. Power plants also emit large ally, the cumulative impact of all of these effects is quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), the “greenhouse gas” magnified by the enormous quantities of coal burned each largely responsible for climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 River Basin Management Plan
    2021 River Basin Management Plan Mine waters challenge Published: 22/10/2019 Contents 1. Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 2. Mine water pressures ............................................................................................... 3 3. Addressing the challenge ......................................................................................... 6 4. Future challenges and actions .................................................................................. 9 5. Case studies: abandoned metal mines ................................................................... 12 6. Choices ................................................................................................................... 17 7. Contacts and supporting information ...................................................................... 18 8. References ............................................................................................................. 18 1. Summary Mining played a major part in Britain’s rich industrial history, but this also led to thousands of abandoned mines left scattered across our landscape. Most of these mines closed well over 100 years ago but they still pollute our rivers, harm fish, river insects and ecosystems and can have an adverse impact on economic activity. Discharges from abandoned mines continue to pollute over 1,500km (3%) of rivers in England. Pollution from coal mines is easy to see, because the iron rich water they
    [Show full text]
  • Air Pollution Due to Opencast Coal Mining and It's Control in Indian Context M K Ghose • and S R Maj Ee Centre of Mining Environment
    Jou rn al of Scientific & Industrial Research Vol. 60, October 200 I, pp 786-797 Air Pollution due to Opencast Coal Mining and It's Control in Indian Context M K Ghose • and S R Maj ee Centre of Mining Environment. In dian School of Mines, Dhanb ad 826004, India Received: 29 Janu ary 200 I; accept ed : 29 June 200 I Open cast mining dominates th e coal production scenario in India. It creates more serious air pollution prob le m in the area. Coal producti on scenari o and its impact on air quality is descri bed. To maint ain th e energy demand in opencast min ing i~ growing at a phenomenon rate. There is no wcll-clefinccl method for assess in g the impact on air qu alit y clu e to minin g projects. An investi gati on is condu cted to evalu ate th e impact on ai r enviro nment due to opcncast coal mining. Emi ssion fac tor dat a arc utili zed for computati on of du st ge neration due to different mining ac ti viti es. Approach for the selec ti on of work zo ne and ambient air monitoring stations arc cl cscribccl. Work zone air qu alit y, ambient air qu alit y, and seasonal va riati ons arc di sc ussed. whi ch shows hi gh po llution potential clue to SPM. The statu s of air pollution clue to opencast mining is evaluated and its impac t on air environment is assessed. Characteristics SPM show a great concern to human hea lth .
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Mine Methane (CMM) Finance Guide Updated July 2019
    EPA-400-D-09-001 Coal Mine Methane (CMM) Finance Guide Updated July 2019 Introduction such as the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Global methane emissions from the coal Implementation originally created financial mining sector can be reduced through markets and incentives to develop projects recovery and utilization projects that collect that reduce GHG emissions, and the California methane gas from coal mines for productive and Quebec Cap-and-Trade programs have use or through destruction when an economic expanded to include CMM offsets. More use is not feasible. recently, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s provides a pathway for international (EPA’s) Coalbed Methane Outreach Program cooperation through markets and carbon (CMOP) is a voluntary program with the goal pricing associated with Nationally Determined of reducing methane emissions from coal Contributions. Third, multinational mining activities. Our mission is to promote collaborative initiatives such as the Global the profitable recovery and utilization of coal Methane Initiative (www.globalmethane.org) mine methane (CMM), a potent greenhouse have focused on overcoming policy, gas (GHG) that contributes to climate change regulatory, legal, and technical barriers that if emitted to the atmosphere. When collected inhibit project development. and used for energy, CMM is a valuable fuel Often, the critical barrier to developing CMM source. projects is securing financing. This is due, in CMOP estimates that more than 200 CMM part, to the lack of awareness of the sources projects exist worldwide. Many more project of finance and limited understanding of the opportunities exist in emerging market requirements to secure financing.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Particulate Matter (PM10) Related to Surface Coal Mining Operations in Appalachia
    Atmospheric Environment 54 (2012) 496e501 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Atmospheric Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv Short communication Characterization of particulate matter (PM10) related to surface coal mining operations in Appalachia Viney P. Aneja a,*, Aaron Isherwood b, Peter Morgan b a Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8208, USA b Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, San Francisco, CA 94105-3441, USA article info abstract Article history: This study investigates the environmental exposure of residents of a community in southwest Virginia to Received 20 June 2011 respirable concentrations of dust (PM-10 i.e. PM10) generated by trucks hauling coal from surface coal Received in revised form mining operations. The study site is representative of communities in southwest Virginia and other parts 13 February 2012 of Appalachia that are located in narrow hollows where homes are placed directly along roads that Accepted 15 February 2012 experience heavy coal truck traffic. Preliminary air sampling (Particulate Matter i.e. PM10) was conducted for a period of approximately Keywords: two weeks during early August 2008 in the unincorporated community of Roda, Virginia, at two locations Surface coal mining (about a mile apart along Roda Road (Route 685) in Wise County, Virginia). For the purposes of this study PM10 Elemental analysis (a combination of logistics, resource, and characterization of PM) we sited the PM samplers near the road Electron microscopy to ascertain the micro exposure from the road. The results revealed high levels of PM10 (the mean 3 3 Air toxic adjusted 24-h concentration at the Campbell Site 250.2 mgmÀ ( 135.0 mgmÀ ); and at the Willis 3 ¼ Æ 3 Site 144.8 60.0 mgmÀ ).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact of Methane Released from Coal Mines
    MATEC Web of Conferences 305, 00030 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202030500030 SESAM 2019 Environmental impact of methane released from coal mines Nicolae Ianc1*, Corneliu Boantă1, Ion Gherghe1, Cristian Tomescu1 1National Institute for Research and Development in Mine Safety and Protection to Explosion – INSEMEX, 32-34 G-ral Vasile Milea Street, Petrosani, Hunedoara, Romania Abstract. Methane gas accompanying coal deposits was formed as a result of successive stages of the anaerobic process of vegetal material transformation into coal, at high temperatures and pressures, without external oxygen supply. During the metamorphism process, the content of C, H and O is modified, meaning an increase in carbon content, a decrease in hydrogen and oxygen, the nitrogen and sulphur content remaining constant. During this process, water and carbon dioxide is generated, the water being generated in the first transformation phases. Within the slow oxidation process, gas products result by using the oxygen content in plants, especially methane and carbon dioxide due to the fermentation stimulated by bacteria. Methane released into the atmosphere following the mining of coal have double ecological impact, participating in the destruction of the ozone layer and at the same time contributing to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect. At the same time, methane gas released into the atmosphere during coal mining may be used by mining operators as primary power resource for covering the power requirements of the mine or it can be used for commercial purposes. 1 Introduction The methane gas that accompanies the coal deposits was formed as a product in the successive stages of the process of anaerobic conversion of the vegetal material into coal at high temperatures and pressures, during the carbonization process, without oxygen supply from the outside.
    [Show full text]
  • AP-42 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining
    Revision of Emission Factors for AP-42 Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining Revised Final Report For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Factor and Inventory Group Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Attn: Ron Myers (MD-14) EPA Contract 68-D2-0159 Work Assignment No. 4-02 MRI Project No. 4604-02 September 1998 Revision of Emission Factors for AP-42 Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining Revised Final Report For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Factor and Inventory Group EPA Contract 68-D2-0159 Work Assignment No. 4-02 MRI Project No. 4604-02 September 1998 NOTICE The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-D2-0159 to Midwest Research Institute. It has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. iii PREFACE This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Work Assignment No.4-02. Mr. Ron Myers was the requester of the work. Approved for: MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Roy Neulicht Program Manager Environmental Engineering Department Jeff Shular, Director Environmental Engineering Department July 1998 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1 Introduction ...................................................... 1 Section 2 Revision of AP-42 Section on Western Surface Coal Mining .................
    [Show full text]