ORNL/SUB-79/45724/1

Conceptual Flow Sheets

Development for Coal Conversion
Plant Coal Handling-Preparation
and Ash/Slag Removal
Operations

Bechtel National, Inc.,

RIQUTION r Tl.tS ncu ... Et~T 1$ UMLIMI~

. ··· I

• .. • • ~ .. .»• ~ • .
 DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
 DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in

electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.
 Printed in the United States of America. Available from
National Technical Information Service
U .S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virgm1a £2161
NTIS price codes-Printed Copy: All Microfiche AOl

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the

United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency
thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied , or
assumes any legal liabil ity or responsibility for the accuracy , completeness, or
usefulness of any information , apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein
to any specific commerc ial product, process . or service by trade name, trademark ,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation , o r favoring by the United States Government or
any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
nocesurily stAIP nr rAfiAr.t those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.
 ORNL/SUB-79/45724/1
REPORT JOB 13022

CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT

FOR COAL CONVERSION PLANT COAL
HANDLING-PREPARATION AND ASH/SLAG
REMOVAL OPERATIONS

JULY 1979

,_;--·--- · - - - - - D I S C L A I M E R
This bOOk was prepared as an account ot work sponsored by an ogency of the United States Government.
Neither the United States Gover~ment nor any agency thereof. nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, """"
completeness. or usefulness of any information. apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or -
repre~nti .. thllt ib ·u)U wuull.l iiUt ir~hlu!Jt! ~rlvdtely uwnoo rlgnts. Reterenee nefein to any specilic
commercial product, process, or service by trade name. trademark, manufacturer. or otherWise, does
, not necessarily constilute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinioru of authors expressed herein do not
1

1 necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Report prepared by BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC.,

P.O. Box 3965, San Francisco, CA 94119
under contract humber 62X-45724 V for
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
operated by
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
for the
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 CONTENTS

Section

1 ABSTRACT 1-1

2 SUMMARY 2-1

3 CONCLUSIONS 3-1·

4 CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS BASES AND DEVELOPMENT

APPROACH 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Conceptual Flow Sheets Bases 4-3
4.2.1 Conversion Plants Design Feed
Coal C1aracteristics 4-3
4.2.2 Coal Conversion Plant Coarse
Coal Inlet Boundaries 4-5
4.2.3 Coal Conversion Processes 4-6
4.2.4 Coal Conversion Processes Coal
and Ash/Slag Handling Boundaries 4-24
4.2.5 Cbal Cleaning 4-27
4.2.6 Power/Steam Plant Coal Requirements 4-39
4.3 Conceptual Flow Sheets Development Approach 4-40
4.3.1 Coal Cleaning 4-48
4.3.2 Coal Storage and Blending 4-49
4.3.3 Coal F:i.ne. Crushing 4-51
4.3.4 Coal Pulverizing and Grinding 4-52
4.3.5 Conversion Reactor Ash/Slag Removal 4-53

5 CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEET DISCRIPTIONS 5-l

5.1 Flow Sheets and Major Equipment Lists
General Qualifications 5-2

[Preceding page blank/

iii
Section

5.2 Coal Cleaning Conceptual Flow Sheets 5-8

~.2.1 Coar~e Coal Breaking 2 Cleanine,
5-8
and Crushing
5.2.2 Fine Coal Cleaning and Dewatering 5-20
5.2.3 Coal Cleaning Effluent Treatment 5-31
5 • .3 Coal Storage and Blending Conceptual
5-33
Flow Sheets
5.4 Coal Fine Crushing Conceptual. Flow Sheets 5-48
Coal Fine Cru§hing .\~~.~~~~-~..!.!.!
Ultrafines Remov01l 5-55
5.4.2 Coal Fine Crushing With Ultra-
fines Removal 5-90
5.5 Coal Pulverizing and Gri~ding Conceptual 5-101
Flow Sheets
5.6 Ash/Slag ~emoval Flow Sheers 5-109

APPENDIX A A-1

REFERENCES R-1

iv
 TABLES

Table

2-1 Coal Conversion Processes Summary 2-2

4-1 Coal Conversion Processes Coal Feed Requirements 4-7
4-2 Coal Conversion Processes Ash/Slag Removal Systems
Design Information 4-13

4-3 Selected Coal Ash Analysis and Fusion TP.rnpPr~tures 4=22

4-4 Typical Illinois No. 5 Coal Ash Fusion Temperatures
Reduc.tng Atmosphere
4-25

4-5 Pittsburgh Seam Coal Washability Characteristics

Without Roof and Floor Dilution 4-28
4-6 Pittsburgh Seam Coal Washability Characteristics
With Roof and Floor Dilution 4-29
4-7 Kentucky No. 9 Seam Coal Washability Characteristics
Without Roof and Floor Dilution 4-30

4-8 Kentucky No. 9 Seam Coal Washability Characteri.sitcs

With Roof and Floor Dilution 4-31

4-9 Coal Cleaning Flow Sheets Design Conditions 4-38

4-10 Selected Coal Conversion Processes Estimated
Electricity and Stearn Requirements 4-41
4-11 Estimated Gasification Ash and Granulated
4-57
Slag Characteristics
5-1 Live Coal Storage Alternatives Summary 5-35
5-2 Coal Fine Crushing Alternatives Summary 5-50

v
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 FIGURES
Figure

4-1 Forecast Of Ash-Softening Temperatures ef

Pittsburgh Seam Coal 4-23
4-2 Pittsburgh Seam Coal Washability Characterisitcs
4-32
Without Roof And Floor Dilution
4-3 Pittsburgh Seam Coal Washability Characteristics
With Rnnf And Floor Dilutiuu
4-4 Kentucky No. 9 Seam Coal Washability Characteristics
4-34
Without Roof And Floor Dilution
4-5 Kentucky No. 9 Seam Coal Washability Characteristics
4-35
With Roof And Floor Dilution
4-6 Estimated Broken Coal Size Consist 4-37
4-7 Coal Handling And Preparation Operations Block
Flow Diagram 4-45

4-8 Ash/Slag Removal Operations Block Flow Diaeram 4-55

5-1 Typical Coal Sampling Station 5-18
5-2 Open Coal Stockpile Alternatives 5-37
5-3 Enclosed Coal Storage Alternatives 5-39

/ Preceding page blank vii

~-- """'·- ---~--- ----·--- -~--~·......... - --

,·
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 LIST OF FLOW SHEETS AND EQUIPMENT LISTS

Number

FS-1 JIG COARSE AND FINE COAL CLEANING 5-9

FS-1-1 ALTERNATIVE: HYDROCYCLONE FINE COAL CLEANING 5-21
FS-1-2 ALTERNATIVE: TABLE FINE COAL CLEANINC 5-25
FS-2-1 ALTERNATIVE COARSE COAL LIVF. STORAGE - V-BUNKERS 5-43
FS-3 S INGT.F. STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE CRUGIIING SRC I
AND II, EXXON DONOR SOLVENT, AND EXXON CATALYTIC
GASIFICATION 5-57
FS-4 TWO STAGE CAGE HILL COAL FINE CRUSHING HYGAS ~D
TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION 5-63
FS-4-1 ALTERNATIVE: TWO STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING
STACKED ARRANGEMENT HYGAS AND TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION 5-67
FS-5 ALTERNATIVE: SINGLE STAGE CAGE MILL CLOSED CIRCUIT
COAL FINE CRUSHING TO MINH1IZE ULTRAFINES PRODUCTION 5-71
FS-6 SINGLE STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING U-GAS AND
CO GAS 5-79
FS-7 COARSE COAL THERMAL DRYING 5-83
FS-8 ALTERNATIVE: SINGLE STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE
CRUSHING WITH PRE-SCREENING U-GAS 5--87
FS-9 FINE COAL ULTRAFINES SEPARATION 5-93
FS-10 ROD MILL COAL \.VET GRINDING TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION 5·-97
FS-11 SOLVENT COAL GRINDING H-COAL PROCESS 5-105
FS-12 ASH AND SLAG DEHATERTNG AND TRANSPORT 5-111
FS-13 ASH AND SLAG SLURRY PIPELINE TRANSPORT 5-119

Preceding page blank ix

~-~·-----------··- -- ... ~---- -..----~ 'f.,
 Section 1

ABSTRACT

This report presents 14 conceptual flow sheets and major equipment lists
for coal handling and preparation operations that could be required for
future, commercial coal conversion plants. These flow sheets are based
on converting 50,000 tons per day of clean coal represAntAtive of the
Pittsburgh and Kentucky No. 9 coal seams. Flow sheets were used by
Union Carbide Corporation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in a survey
of coal handling/preparation equipment requirements for future coal con-
version plants. Operations covered in this report include run-of-mine
coal breaking, coarse coal cleaning, fine coal cleaning, live storage and
blending, fine crushing (crushing to top sizes ranging from 1/4-inch to
20 mesh), drying, and grinding (70 percent minus 200 mesh).

Two conceptual flow sheets and major equipment lists are also presented
for handling ash or granulated slag and other solid wastes produced by
nine leading coal converHion processes. These flow sheets provide for
solid wastes transport to an environmentally acceptable disposal site
as either dry solids or as a water slurry.

1-1
 Section 2

SUMMARY

Union Carbide Corporation - Nuclear Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

is conducting a survey of coal handling, coal preparation, and ash/slag
removal equipment requirements for· ·future, commerc:irtl-scale coal, con-
version plants. Thi6 requirements ~u~vey is being pertormed for the
Department of Energy (DO~), Fossil Energy. It is part of a major DOE
program to establish equipment requirRments for large-seal~ conversion
plants and to determine the capabilities of manufacturers to provide such
equipment.

In order to efficiently identify equipment for inclusion in their require-

ments survey, Union Carbide contracted with Bechtel National, Inc. for
uevelopment of conceptual commercial coal conversion plant coal handling-
preparation and ash/slag removal flow sheets:and major e~uipment lists.
This report presents the resulting conceptual flow sheets and major equip-
ment lists. It also presents the b?ses and development approach used in
their preparation. Coal preparation operations covered by these flow
sheets are run-of-mine coal breaking, coarse coal cleaning~ coarse coal
crushing, fine coal cleaning, live storage-blending, dead storage, fine
crushi_ng, and grinding.

All conc~ptual flow sheets are for coal conversion plants that consume
50,000 short tons per day of coal having a nominal total moisture
of 8.0 wt percent. Of this coal quantity, 15 percent is used in an
atmospheric pressure fluidized-bed (AFB) power/steam plant which is part of
the coal conversion plant. The other 85 percent is provided to cbnversion

2-1
 reactors for the nine coal conversion processes identified in Table 2-1.
This table also summarizes reported process conversion reactor coal feed
requirements,

Table 2-1

CnAT. GONVERSION PRnr.F.SSES SUMMARY

'PrnrPss
Cuuv~L::.lo11 rroccoc and TypP Conversion Reactor Coal Feed Requirements
Number -- Size Cuu::•.i.:-;t Moi11t1.1rP --
-----=-~-~------,~·-------=~-------------+--------------------------,_------------------~
1 U-Gas - Fluidized-Bed
Gasification 100 Percent Minus 1/4 As Received
Inch
7 r.OGAS - Fluidized-Bed
Gasification 100 Pcrl!l!lll HhnJs 1/4
J;nch
3 HYGAS - Fluidized-Bed
Gasification 100 Percent Minus As Received
14 Hesh
4 Texaco Partial Oxidation -
Entrained Flow Gasification 100 Percent Minus As Received
20 Mesh
5 Exxon Donor Solvent -
Liquefaction 100 Percent Minus As Received
8 Mesh
6 Exxon Catalytic Gasifica-
tion - Fluidized-Bed Gasifi-
cation lUU .I:' ere E>n r. 1vfluus A3 Rccciv!dJ
8 1'1esh
7 SRC-l and SRC-ll - Lique-
and faction 100 Percent Minus As Rec.ei ved
8 12 MP.sh

9 H-Coal - Liquefaction 70 Percent Minus 2.0 Wt Percent

200 Mesh

2-2
Two major bituminous coal seams wete specified as possible conversion
plant sources·:

• Pittsburgh Seam coal as represented by this seam.in

Monongalia County, West Virginia

• Kentucky No.9 Seam coal as represented by this seam in

Hopkins County! Kentucky

Coal fiom either seam was postulated to be provided from a coal mine
complex locat~d adjacent to the conversion plant ~ite or from regional
coal mines. located appreciable distances from the plant site. For both
coal suu1~~s, ·the conceptual flow'sheets start at the. conversion plant
site after coal receiv.i.n.g. The coal operations· .flow sheets terminate at
conversion reRctor coal feed systems.

Coal produced frop! the adjacent coal mine complex can be cleaned and then
conveyed to live or dead storage facilities, or not cleaned, and after
reduction to 2 inch x 0, conveyed to live or dead storage. Coal transported
from regional mines is sized to 2 inch x o,. and i.f justified, cleaned before
transport in rail cars and/or river barges.

In coal cleaning, coal is broken to 6 inch x 0 and wet scieened at 3/8 inch.
Six-inch x 3/8-inch coal is cleaned in coarse coal jigs~ screen dewatered,
and crushed to ·2-inch top size prior to conveying to live or· dead storage.
Undersize coal and crushed coarse coal jig middlings can be cleaned by
selecting any one of three flow sheet processes: jig, hydrocyclone, or
table fine coal cleaning. After cleaning, fine coal is dewatered with
vibrating centrifuges, mixed with crushed coarse coal, and conveyed to
live or dead storage. Effluents from both coarse and fine coal dewatering
are treated to separate minus 28 mesh solids and recycle water.

Two methods are identified for live storage-blending follmvihg coal cleaning
or unloading of coal from regional mines: open, multiple, wedge-shape
stockpiles and totally-enclosed V-bunkers. Specifi~d design r.r:~p;:~ri ty for

2-3
both methods is 500,000 tons. With this live storage capacity, normal
fluctuations between mining or long-distance transport operations and con-
version reactor operations can be accommodated without use of a dead storage
facility. Dead coal storage, for use in emergency situations, is pruvlded
by open, sealed coal piles built and reclaimed by mobile equipment.

With exception of H-Coal, the conversion proces8es ln ~able 2-l rY4ulre

what is defined to bP. fine coal conversion reactor feed;. coal containing
particles not greater tha11 l/4 inch, but not all Rmnller than 20 mP.sh in
size. Hetause uf the large numbH~ vf prn~~ssco requiring this coal size
and~the different size Langes, nine conceptual rnRt fine crushing flow
sheets and major equipment lists· are presented. ~.Jith two exceptions, these
flow sheets use multi-row cage mill crushers. The flow sheets provide
for:

• Single-stage, open-circuit cage mill fine crushing -SRC-I

Ann SRC-II, Exxon Donor Solvent, Exxon Catalytic Gasification,
U-Gas, and COGAS

• Two-stage, open-circuit cage mill fine crushing - HYGAS and

Texaco Partial Oxidation

• Single-stage, closed-circuit cage mill fine crushing -

All fine coal feed processes except U-Gas and COGAS

• Single~stage cage mill fine crushing with prescreening -

U-Gas

• Single-stage, open-circuit rod mill grinding - Texaco

Partial Oxidation

Some deve"!opers of fine coal consuming conversion processes indicate

that ultrafines minimization is important for their conversion re-
actors. However, none have yet to quantify ultrafines limitations.
In anticipation of possible ultrafines removal requirements, an ultra-
fines separation flow sheet is presented. This flow sheet uses cen-
trifugal type air classifiers to remove minus 100 mesh coal. In order
to ensure efficient separation, hot flue gas can be used in the
classifiers for coal drying.

2-4
One flow sheet is presented for the H-Coal Process. This flow sheet uses
single-stage, open circuit wet ball mills to produce 70 percent minus
200 mesh coal. The grinding fluid is liquefaction solvent; a grinding
approach which requires development.

Except for SRC-I, the liquefaction processes involve gasification of

liquefaction residual solids. As a result, all conversion processes
produce gasification ash or slag. This ash or slag may be discharged as
dry solids or a water slurry depending on gasifier design. Solid wastes
are also produced by the fluidized-bed steam generators specified for
the conversion plant power/steam plant and coal cleaning. Because of
limestone injection for sulfur oxides control, solid wastes from the
power/steam plant contain calcium sulfate and calcium oxide in addition
to coal ash. Quantities of all three types of solid wastes established
for conversion of 50,000 tons per day of coal are:

• Granulated slag for conversion processes using stagging

gasifiers: 3,912 tons per day

• Ash for conversion processes using nonslagging gasifiers:

5,472 tons per day

• Power/steam plant solid wastes: 984 tons per day

• Coal cleaning refuse: 24,000 tons per day

Two conceptual ash/slag removal flow sheets are presented for handling
of the three identified conversion plant solid waste streams. One
is for transport-of combined solid wastes as a dry material. Methods
considered for transport of dry solid wastes are overland conveyors,
rail cars, and trucks. The second ash/slag removal flow sheet is for
water slurry transport with recycle of water from the solid wastes dis-
posal site. Nominal ash/slag transport distance from conversion plant
site to an ultimate, environmentally acceptable disposal site is 5 miles
for both ash/slag removal flow sheets.

2-5
 Section 3
CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions presented in this section apply to the nine specified coal

conversion processes and to typical Pittsburgh and Kentucky No. 9 Seam
coals. Major conclusions resulting from conceptual coal handling-prepara-
tion ~nd ash/slag remdval flow sheets and major equipment lists develop-
ment are:

• Ih general, equipment which meets the projected coal

handling-preparation and ash/slag removal requirements
of future commercial coal conversion plants is currently
available. Present capacity limits of some commercially
used equipment can probably be overcome by scaleup of
existing equipment.

• Improved coal handling-preparation and ash/slag removal

equipment is anticipated for future conversion plants
due to development of new constr·uction materials, higher
equipment reliability requirements, and improved fabri-
cation methods.

• Because of the large investment that will be required for

coal conversion plants, substantial investment in high re-
liability coal handling and preparation .facilities would
be fully justified.

• Research into the best design approaches for achieving bigh

plant operating reliability in large capacity coal handling
and preparation facilities could result in improved coal
conversion economics. In this regard evaluation of the per-
formance of existing large capacity material handling/pre-
paration operations, such as power plant coal operations, could
provide beneficial reliability information.

e In addition to the best approach(s) to achieving high plant

operating reliability, areas where development and demon-
stration is required.include:

3-1
 Scaleup of coal pulverizers
Solvent-coal slurry grinding
Scaleup of gravimetric feeders
Coal collection baghouse explosion prevention systems
Pulverized and ultrafine coal transport equipment
Pressurized ash and slag crushers

• Based on estimAted Pittsburgh and Kentucky No. 9 Seam wash-

ability nAta presented in this report, use of heavy-medium
coal cl~Rn1n~ would result in only marginally cleaner coal
and/or higher coal recovery than that resulting from the
~t~~ented conceptual coal cle~ning flow cheats. HowevPr,
hoth coal seams cover a wide geographic area and in some
locations heavy-medium coal cleaning could be more desir-
able than other coal cleaning methods. (Consideration of
heavy-medium coal cleaning was excluded from project scope.)

• F~r some c0al handling-preparation operations, economic

trade-off studies are required to determine if they are
justified for specific coal conversion plants and, if so,
P.Rtablishment of justified performance requirements. Coal
operations, where it is judged that trade-offs would be
beneficial, are cleaning, blending, and, for some conversion
processes, conversion reactor coal feed size consist require-
ments.

• Development of data for improved prediction of fine crushing

equipment performance would be beneficial for engineering
demonstration and commercial coal conversion plants. (Eight
of the nine coal conversion processes require fine coal feed.)
A coal fine crushing program similar to that being performed
for DOE on coal pulverizing and grinding should be evaluated.

• Removal of ulr.raftnes (lll Lbls report ul trafine· coal is

defined· as minus 100 mesh coal) from fine cOal befur~ con-
version, when required or economically justified, could
benefit from development of new or improved large capacity
fine particulate classification equipment.

• If coal ultrafines removal is used, development of new or

improved ultrafines handling and utilization methods could
be required.

11 The most economic method for obtaining the large quantities

of hot gas required for simultaneous coal drying and pul-
verizing, or for coal fluid bed drying, is from a power/
steam plant steam/gas generator. This approach is more

3-2
 efficient than direct coal firing and in the case of fluidized-
bed steam/gas generators eliminates the need for flue gas de-
sulfurization following coal pulverizing or drying.

• Conversion reactor ash/slag properties data is limited.

Additional data wou;I.d be beneficial for engineering demon-
stration and commercial coal conversion plants.

3-3
 Section 4

CONCEPTUAL FLOH SHEETS BASES AND DEVELOPMEHT APPROACH

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Union Carbide Corporation - Nuclear Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

is conducting a. survey of cbal handling, coal prepartion, and
a~h/sl?B removGl cquipmc~t requirements fur future, commercial-scale coal
conversion plants. This requirements survey is being per.formed for the
Department of Energy (DOE), Fossil Energy. It is part of a major DOE pro-
gram to establish equipment requirements for large-scale coal conversion
plants and to determine the capabilities of manufacturers to p~ovlde such
equipment~

·Najar objectives of the Union Carbide survey are determination of: current
equipment p~rform~nce characteristics, suita~ility of spec{fic equipment
for use in commercial coal conversion plants, equipment research and develop-
ment needs, and lead time requirements for. producing and demonstrating
equipment.of advanced design of critical'importance for coal conversion
cornrnercial~zation.

To efficiently acco~plish these objectives, use was made of conceptual flow

sheets for the coal and ash/slag operations that will be' required by future
coal ~onver~ion plants. These flow sheets:

• Match the coal feed requirements and ash/slag characteris-

tics of nine conversion processes being considered by 'DOE
for possible demonstration

e Identify equipment performance requirements

4-1
 • Demonstrate how individual types of equipment can be inte-
grated to form complete, matched, efficient, reliable
materials handling-preparation operations

• Identify areas where equipment deficiencies exist or where

improved or new equipment would be beneficial

The cuuuuli:rcial-~r.nlc C!Oal conversion plr~nt coal handling-preparation and

ash/slag removal conceptual flow sheets were develop~d for Union Carbide
by Bechtel. This report presents the bases established for these flow
sheets, the developmental approach used, and the flow sheets. This
section covers the first two topics. Section 5 presents the tlow sheets
and their associated major equipment lists.

Flow sheets presented in this report represent an extension of a project

titled the CCial. M1:n.P.-Coa~ ConV?I'tdon ·Plant_ Inte~face EvO:luation and Con-
ceptual Design (1). This project, completed in November 1977, was per-
formed for DOE. The mine-conversion plant interface evaluated consisted of:

• Operations required for mining and transport of coal to a

coal conversion plant nominally designed to process 50,000
tons/day of coal and hypothetically sited in the Appalachian region

• All coal opera-tions at the. conver.si~n plant preceding

actual feeding of coal to a conversion reactor; either
liquefaction, high-Btu gasification, or low-Btu gasification

• All op~rations required to collect, treat, transport, and

dispose of solid wastes, including conversion reactor ash
and/or slag, resulting from coal conversion

Some of the conceptual coal handling~preparation flow sheets developed for

the coal mine-coal conversion plant interface project meet some of Union
Carbide's flow sheet requirements. These flow sheets have not been repro-
duced in this report, but are referenced at appropriate points in Section 5.
In addition to flow sheets, the interface project involved development of
conceptual plant designs for selected coal operations, estimation of capital
costs, and estimation of annual operating costs.

4-2
In developing the flow sheets presented in· this report, emphasis was placed
on selected coal liquefactiori processes specified by Unibn C~rbide. How-
ever, because commercial coal liquefaction plants will require gasification
operations for hydrogen and/or fuel gas production, coal handling-prepara-
ation and ash/siag removal equipment requirements for selected gasification
processes are also included in this report.

4.2 CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS BASES

Th~s subsection presents design .bases established by Union Carbide and Union
Carbide-Bechtel for conceptual flow sheets development. ThR hAsPs ipclud9
conversion plants feed coal characteristics, nine coal conversion processes,
flow sheets inlet and outlet boundaries, and provision of coal for conver-
sion plant electricity. and process steam generation.

4.2.1 Conversion Plants Design Feed Coal Characteristics

Conceptual flow sheets presented in this report are for coal conversion
plants that consu.me 50,000 short tons/day of coal having a nominal total
moisture of 8.0 wt percent. To establish annual conversion plant coal
consumption, an annual plant operation of 330 days/year was specified.
Annual conversion plant coal consumption is, therefore, 16.5 million tons.
Conversion plant daily op~ration was specified as 24 hours.

Two major bituminous coal seams were specified as possible conversion plant
coal s.ources :

• Pittsburgh Seam as represented in Monongalia County,

West· Virginia
.
• Kentucky No. 9 Seam as represented in Hopkins County,
·Kentucky

Coal from either seam was postulated to be provided from:

• . An integrated coal mine compl~x located adjacent to the

coal conversion plant site

4-3.
 • A number of separate mines and/or mine complexes
spread over the representative and neighboring counties
and located an appreciable distance from the conversion
plant sHP

• Both mining alternatives

ln the first mining alternativP, the term integrated coal. mine complex is
used to indicate rhar such a ml1ting operation would be extrQmely lnrgP and
wnulrl probably consist of several mines tied together by a common coal trans-
port system. ·For the Pittsburgh Seam, such a mine complex would consist exclu-
sively of underground mines. For the Kentucky No. 9 Seam, a significant
portion, if not all coal, could probably be produced from surface mines.

In the seconcl mining alternative, rh~ distance~ ueLweeu tiiin.~a and the con-
vcroion plant site w~rP pnstJJlated to be such that coal would be transported
to the conversion plant by rail and/or barges. Remote mines would:

• In general, be sm~ller than a min~ that is part of an

integrated mine complex located adjacent to a conversion
plant s·ite

• In many instances, have shorter lives than the coal con-

version plant (Spatial distribution of mines relative to
the conversion plant site could change.with conversion
plant life.)

• Include both underground anci surface mines

Consideration of the teasibility and economic~ a~~uclated with tranoport

of 16.5 million tons/year of coal from regional mines in either West Virginia
or Kentucky to a conversion plant site was not part of the project covered
by this report. However, the potential cost of coal transport by railroad and
barges to a hypothetical West Virginia site along the Ohio River is dis-
cussed in the coal mine-coal conversion plant interface project final re-
port (l).

4-4
 Coal produced from an integrated mine complex was specified to have an as-
received size consist of 12 inch x 0 and a nominal total moisture of 7:0 wt
percent. A coal top size of 12 inches was specified because this is con-.
sistent with design requirements for the types of mine transport systems
thaL would be used in an integrated coal mine complex. It is also the
nomina~.t~p size of coal typically produced by longwRll shPArers and con-
tinuous miners.

Coal transported to the .conversion plant site in rail cars and/or barges
was specified to have an as-delivered size consist of 2 inch x 0 and a
uuutlual t.:ucal moisrure of 8. 0 wt percent. The L inch x 0 size is that
typically used for rail and barge transport in both West Virginia and
Kentucky_.

4.2.2 Coal Conversion Plant Coarse Coal Inlet Boundaries

Two :conversion pl'ant site inlet boundaries were established for initiation
"6f coal ~andling·and preparatio~ flow sheets; ohe for coal from an adjacent
integrated coal mine' complex and one -for coal transported from remote min'es
to 'the conversion .plant site. The boundary for coal mined from an inte-
grated mine complex is the discharge point(s) of a surface coal receiving
facility. The receiving facility provides surge storage between the mine·
transport· system and the ·conversion plant conv~ying system. It would include
a silo or large bunker. The discharge ·point(s) of the conveyor(s) used to
convey coal from this silo or bunker constitutes the coal conversion plant
inlet boundary. From this boundary, coal (12 inches x 0) is fed to a
breaking facility.

The conversion plant inlet boundary for coal transported by rail and/or
barges to the plant site is the discharge point(s) of rail car and/or
barge unloading facilities. (Development of flow sheets for any rail and
barge unloading facilities was excluded from the project covered by this
report.) From this. boundary .coarse .coal. (2 inch x 0) would normally

4-5
be conveyed to live or dead storage. In the event, however, that oversize
or frozen coal is received, it would be conveyed to a crushing facility and
then to storag~.

4.2.3 Coal Conversion Processes

r.onc.eptual flow sheets have been developed which meet the coal handling,
prepa~ation, and conversion reactor feeding requirements of nine coal con-
version processes. These processes, specified by Union Carbide, and their
reported coal feed requirements are presented in Table 4-1. lnformaciuu
presented in this table is consisl~11L with each proccoc develup~r's
latest coal feed specifications. However, it should be recog-
nized that all nine conversion processes are developmental. Future process
development-demonstration could result in specification of different coal
feed requirements and conversion reactor coal feed systems.

Coal feed requirementR presented in Table 4._1 are based on design studies
using one of the two coals specified in Subsection 4.2.1 or similar bitumi-
nous coals. With the exception of H-Coal, the processes do riot require
coal drying or coal drying is an integral part of the conversion process.
To indicate this condition, the term "as received" has been used to identify
conversion reactor coal feed moisture requirement. Processes, such as
Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS), in which coal drying is part of the conversion
re6ctor 3yotcm arc identifiQd in thP t~hlP nntRR. Ac.t11al coal total mois-
ture concentrations considered to be "as received" total moisture range
from 7 co 10 wl !Jt:!iCen t.

The reactor coal feed size consist presented in Table 4-1 for SRC-1 and ~rr

is only one of several size consists.currently being investigated as part

of SRC-II demonstration plant engineering. Others include (2):

• Simultaneous coal drying and fine crushing to 100 percent

minus 50 mesh to 100 percent minus 20 mesh

• Fine crushing without drying to 100 percent minus 6 mesh

to 100 percent minus 12 mesh

4-6
 Table 4-1
i
•
COAL CONVERSION PROCESSES COAL
FEED REQUIREMENTS

Conversion Reactor Coal Conversion Reactor

Conversion
Process Conversion Reactor Coal Feed Total Moisture Conversion Reactor Design Operating
Process Notes References ( 1)
No. Feed Size Requirements Requirements Coal Feed System Pressure
and Type Wt Percent psig

1 U-Gas 100 percent minus 1/4 As received Lock Hopper 50-350 (1) Cleaned and uncleaned 1,2
Fluidized-Bed inch Kentucky No. 9 Seam coal
Gasification May contain up to has been succes'sfully
I
10 percent minus 200 gasified in a p~ilot gasi-
mesh coal fier (3 ft diameter) without
pretreatment to control
1
agglomeration during
gasification. /1

(2) Pittsburgh .Seam coal may 1,3

• I
requ~re pretre~tment to control
agglomeration during
gasification. '

2 COGAS 100 percent minus 1/8 As received Hot Flue Gas 50 (1) The COGAS ~rocess uses mul-
Fluidized-Bed inch. Injection tiple-stage fluidized-bed
Gasification pyrolysis. CoalI
is dried in
the first-stag~
. I
fluidized-bed
reactor(s). I

3 HYGAS
Fluidized-Bed
100 percent minus 14
mesh with minimum
As received Low-Pressure Lock
Hopper (Feeds Coal
1,155-1,165 '
(1) Both Pittsburgh Seam and
Kentucky No. 9 lseam coal were
1,4,5

Gasification minus 100 mesh to a Pretreatment assumed to req~ire pretreatment

Vessel) to control agglomeration during
gasification. j
(2) Coal is dried during
pretreatment. 'I
11
.

li
4 Texaco 100 percent minus 20 As received Water Slurry 500-1,500 (1) Operating temperature and 1,6
11
Partial mesh with minimum Injection from a pressure for tlie Texaco Par-
Oxidation ultrafines Slurrying and tial Oxidation~gasifier depends
Surge Storage . I .
Entrained on syn th es~s gas requ~rements
Flow Vessel and feed coal 1omposition.
Gasification

5 Exxon Donor 100 percent minus 8 As received Donor Solvent 1,485 (1) Coal is dr±ed to less than 7
Solvent mesh Slurry Injection 4 wt percent t~tal moisture
Liquefaction from Slurrying and after fine cruS,hing during
Drying Vessel slurryj_ne :i.n hqt (27 .50F)
recycle donor solvent.

6 Exxon 100 percent minus 8 As received Lock Hopper 500 (1) Coal is dr~ed after fine 8
Catalytic mesh crushing and c~talyst addition.
GasHication Catalyst is added as an aqueous
Fluidized-Bed solution. I
Gasification !
'!
( 1 ) Presented in Report References. section
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK .
 Table 4-1 (Continued)

I
I
Conversion Reactor Coal Conversion Reactor
Conversion Conversion Reactor I
Process Conversion Reactor Coal Feed Total Moisture Design Operating References(!)
Process ~Notes
No. Feed Size Requirements Requirements Coal Feed System Pressure
and Type
Wt Percent psig
I

7 and 8 SRC- I and 100 percent minus 12 As received Solvent Slurry 2,400 (1) Gulf MinJral Resource Co. 9,10
I
SRC-II mesh Injection from a is currentlylevaluating a
Liquefaction Slurrying and range of conversion reactor
Drying Vessel coal feed siie consists for
SRC-I and IIidemonstration
I
plants. These range from
100 percent ~inus 6 mesh to
100 percent ~inus 50 mesh.
(2) In some dommercial-scale
I
conceptual conversion plant
designs, pulverized coal
(nominally 70I percent minus
200 mesh) has been specified
for the SRC-~I process.
(3) Coal is 4ried after fine
crushing during slurrying in
hot recycle solvent. -
I
9 H-Coal 100 percent minus 40 2 wt percent Solvent Slurry 2,700 (1) Coal is dried quring 10
Liquefaction mesh Injection from a pulverizing. [
70 percent minus 200 ·. Slurrying Vessel !
I

mesh

(l) Presented in Report References section

4-9
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
F~r gasification of Pittsburgh Seam, Kentucky No. 9 Seam, and similar coals
by the HYGAS process, a pretreatment operation is required. This pretreat-
ment produces a nonagglomerating char which is then fed to the multistage
HYGAS gasifier. In the pretreatment operation, coal is contacted with air
in a fluidized bed at 750-850°F. This results in coal oxidation which greatly
reduces its tendency to agglomerate at the temperatures used for gasification.
Gasification of Pittsburgh Seam coal by the U-Gas process may also require
pretreatment similar to that required for HYGAS.

Conversion reactor pressures presented in Table 4-1 are order-of-magnitude

values. They are provided only to indicate the pressurization that must
be achieved by conversion reactor coal feed systems. Actual conversion
reactor operating pressures depend on the coal being converted, reactor
product requirements, and other conditions.

Table 4-2 presents design information used to establish ash/slag removal flow
sheets starting (inlet) boundaries and ash/slag characteristics for the nine
coal conversion processes. In the Exxon Donor Solvent, SRC-II, and H-Coal
liquefaction processes some form of fractionation is used tq recover gas and
liquid products from the slurry resulting from coal liquefaction. An addi-
tional product of liquefied coal fractionation is a high boiling point slurry
frequently referred to as bottoms. This slurry (the solid phase consists of
coal mineral matter products and undissolved organics) is gasified to produce
synthesis gas which is used for hydrogen production and in-plant fuel gas.
The EDS process also recovers additional gas and liquid products from
fractionation bottoms using Exxon Flexicoking technology (3). In Table 4-2
the gasifier designs identified for the EDS, SRC-II, and H-Coal processes
are those believed to be currently favored by the respective process de-
velopers, for fractionation bottoms gasification. Different gasifiers
could, however, be used with these processes.

In the SRC-I process, a low-ash solid fuel is produced by removal of solids

from liquefied coal. The separated solids may or may not be suitable for
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTEN.TIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 Table 4-2

!COAL CONVERSION PROCESSES ASH/SLAG

:REMOVAL SYSTEMS DESIGN INFORMATION

Gasifier ,,

Process Gasifier Design Operating Gasifier Ash or Slag Ash or Slag

Conversion Process ·i Notes References< 2
No. Design(l) Temperature Removal Method Characteristics
OF !
I

1 U-Gas Nons lagging 1,800-2,000 The U-Gas gasifier is Reported mean particle (1) :iGasifier operating 1,2,11
Fluidized Bed designed to agglomerate sizes for agglomerated temperature is dependent
fine ash particles in a ash range from 6 to on doal ash fusion tem-
specially designed 14 mesh perdture
,[
characteristics.
spout or spouts located Ash agglomerates contain Steam and oxygen fed to
at the bottom of the 5-10 wt percent carbon the !gasifier ash ~gglom-
1
gasifier fludized bed. era~ing spout(s) located
When ash particles grow at the
:I
bottom of the
to sufficient mass they fluidized bed are con-
deentrain from the trolled to maintain ash
fluidized bed and fall par~icles near their
into a water-filled softening temperature.
lock hopper located at (2) Agglomerated ash
the gasifier bottom. size consist depends on
Agglomerated ash-water feedI coal size consist,
.
slurry is periodically gasifier temperature,
discharged from the ash and agglomerating spout
lock hopper. configuration.
I

2 COG AS Fluidized Bed 1,600-1,700 Char from multiple- Granulated slag con- (1) !operation of cyclone 1,3,12
and a Cyclone stage coal pyrolysis is tains less than 0.5 wt combustors is dependent
Char Combustor gasified with steam in percent carbon. upori slag viscosity which
a fluidized bed. Heat is dependent on coal ash
for char gasification composition. Fluxing
is obtained by burning compounds could be re-
char fines in a ver- qui~ed to control slag
tical, cyclone, slag- vis~osity of char pro-
ging combustor operat- duc~d by pyrol~sis of
ing at moderate pres- somE! coals.
sure. Molten slag from
the combustor flows to
a water-filled vessel
located below the com-
bustor where it is
quenched and granu-
lated. Granulated
slag-water slurry is
periodically discharged
from the quench vessel
by means of a valve
system.

4-13
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 Table 4-2 (Continued)

Process Gasifier
Gasifier
Design Operating Gasifier Ash or Slag Ash or Slag
I
References( 2)
Conversion Process Notes
No. Design (1) Temperature Removal Method Characteristics
op
I

3 HYGAS Vertical 1,500-1,800 The HYGAS gasifier pro- Reported char ash con- (1) Ttie HYGAS gasifier 1,4,5,13
'
Multi-stage (Steam-Oxygen duces a high ash char centration is on the is no~-slagging.As a
Fluidized Bed Gasification which can be burned for order of 65 wt percent resul~ coal and char
Stage) steam generation and/or Reported char higher ash fusion temperatures
disposed of as solid heat value is on the must ~e sufficiently
waste. Char removed order of 5,400 Btu/lb, high to prevent slagging
from the steam-oxygen dry basis. or siJtering during
gasification stage is hydrogasification and
water-quenched in the steam~oxygen
gasifier bottom. Char- gasiffcation.
r
water slurry is period-
ically discharged from
the gasifier by means
of a water-filled lock
hopper system.

4 Texaco ·Partial Oxidation Slagging 2,000-2,800 At the temperatures Granulated slag size (1) T~e Texaco Partial 1 '6
Entrained used in this oxygen- consist is coal Oxida~ion gasifier oper-
1
Downflow blown gasifier most dependent ates at a temperature
coal ash is converted Slag carbon concentra- appro~imately .SOF 0 above
to slag. Most of this tion is 2 wt percent coal feed ash fusion
slag is captured, or less tempe~ature. Coals with
quenched, and granu- high ~sh fusion tempera-
lated in the water- tures 1require more oxy-
1

filled bottom of the gen than coals having

gasifier, Granulated lower:ash fusion
slag passes to a water- temperatures.
,,
filled lock hopper sys-
tem located below the
gasifier. Granulated
slag-water 1:;lullY ls
periodically discharged
from the lock hopper
system.

4-15
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 Table 4-2 (Continued)

Gasifier
Process Gasifier Design Operating Gasifier Ash or Slag Ash or Slag
Conversion Process ~otes References(2)
No. DesignCl) Temperature Removal Method Characteristics
OF

5 Exxon Donor Solvent Fluidized Bed N.A. Three types of coke re- Estimated total coke ash (1) Several approaches 7
sult from the EDS is 66 wt percent. for treatment of frac-
Flexicoking approach to Dry Coke Fines: Bulk tionation bottoms are
treatment of liquefaca- Density, 25 lbs/ft3 being eval~ated for
tion process fraction- Size Consist, 100 per- the EDS Process. Other
ation bottoms: dry cent minus 20 microns coke gasification
coke fines, coke Coke Slurry: 60 wt per- processes include
slurry, coke chunks- cent moisture after Texaco Par~ial Oxida-
agglomerates. Dry coke vacuum filtration .
t 1on Gas1.fl.~cat1on.
.
fines are removed by Chunk Coke: Bulk Den- I
I
cyclones from the low- sity, G~ 1L~/fl3 ·:
Btu fuel gas resulting Size Consist, 1/4-1 '
from coke gasification. inch mean size
Coke slurry results
from water scrubbing of
the low-Btu gas result-
ing from coke gasifiGa-
tion •. Coke chunks and
agglomerates are peri-
odically removed from
the gasifier bed.
..I
6 Exxon Catalytic Fluidized Bed 1,300 Char resulting from Not Available (1) This is a relatively 8,14
Gasification gasification is water new gasifi~ation process
quenched at gasifica- and has no~ been devel-
tion pressure and fed oped to the same extent
to ~ digester using a as the other gasifica-
lock hopper system. tion processes consid-
Char is digested at ap- ered in this table.
I>
proximately 300°F with I

Ca(OH)2. After diges- 'i

tion, the char slurry !I
is washed countercur- I
rently with water in
multiple vessels.
Vacuum filtration would
likely be used for
final char dewatering.

7 SRC-I and SRC-II Slagging 2,000-2,800 For development of con- See Process No. 4 (1) For SRy-I Texaco
and Entrained ceptual ash/slag re- Partial Oxidatio~ gasi-
8 Down Flow moval flow sheets fication of coal was
'SRC-II fractionation assumed to'be used for
bottoms are assumed hydrogen production.
gasified using the
Texaco Partial Oxida-
tion (Process No. 4).
SRC-I solids are
removed from liquified
coal by filtration.

4-17
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 Table 4-2 (Continued)
I

Gasifier !
Process Gasifier Design Operating Gasifier Ash or Slag Ash or Slag References (2)
Conversion Process Notes
No. Design (1) Temperature Removal Method Characteristics
OF

9 H-Coal Slagging 2,000-2,800 For development of con- See Process No. 4 - -

·\
Entrained ceptual ash/slag '
Down Flow removal flow sheets 'I
fractionation bottoms :
from the H-Coal Process
are assumed gasified
using the Texaco Par-
tial Oxidation Process
(see Process No. 4).
,,
i!
(1) All liquefaction conversion processes except SRC-I considered in this table gasify solids resulting from coal liquefactibn and subsequent liquefied
coal fractionation. For these processes, this column identifies the type of gasifier currently being considered for suc4 gasification.
!
(2)
Presented in Report References section

4-19
 'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
gasification. Therefore, for ash/slag removal flow sheets development,
these solids were specified to be disposed of without gasification. Hydro-
gen for SRC-I coal liquefaction was specified as being produced from coal
gasification. The Texaco Partial Oxidation Gasifier is considered a likely
gasifier for this purpose.

Gasifier design operating temperatures presented in Table 4-2 are approxi-

mate values. Actual operating temperatures would be determined by both
feed coal properties, particularly ash fusion-slagging characteristics
and synthesis gas requirements. This is specially true for the liquefaction
processes. Huch remains to be learned about gasification of fractionation
bottoms and other slurries that might result from liquefaction processes.

Two basic types of gasifiers are identified in Table 4-2; slagging (COCAS
combustor and Texaco Partial Oxidation) and non-slagging (U-Gas, HYGAS,
EDS, and Exxon Catalytic Gasification). Operation of both types are
affected by ash fusion or slagging characteristics. Obviously, in the case
of liquefied coal fractionation bottoms gasification, other factors will
affect gasifier operation, but conversion reactor feed coal mineral matter
composition is probably the most significant. In.the notes portion of
Table 4-2 an attempt is made to qualify coal ash fusion characteristics
effects. However, detailed consideration of the effect of coal ash fusion
characteristici on gasifier operation is outside the scope of this report.

In addition to the information presented in Table 4-2 concerning gasifica-

tion. and feed ash fusion-slagging charncteristics, a bri.P.f survey was made
of reported ash fusion temperatures for both Pittsburgh and Kentucky No. 9
coals. Typical ash compositions and fusion temperatures for these coals
are presented in Table 4-3. Figure 4-1, taken from a U.S. Bureau of
Mines Report of Investigations (4), presents the predicted large-scale
variability of ash softening temperature for the Pittsburgh Seam in northern
West Virginia (including Monongalia County), western Pennsylvania, and

i Preceding p~ge bl'ank ]4-21

---~Y-----' ~----- -- ---~-----~
 Table 4-3

SELECTED COAL ASH ANALYSIS AND

FUSION TEMPERATUREs(2)

Kentucky Illinois
Pittsburgh
Coal Ash No. 9 No. 5 (1) Seam Coal
Seam Coal Seam Coal

Coal Ash, wt. percent 7.9 10.3 9.0

Coal s, wt .. percent 3.3 3.6 2.9
.. - ····~~-· ··-·~···"- .... ·--

Ash Component Ash Analysis - Wt. Percent

3.i.02 43.7 48.0 41.1

Al 20J 22,1 1 A. 7 2~.0

Fe o 29.0 18.7 27.5

2 3
Ti0 1.0 0.6 1.1
2
P205 0.23 0.44 0. 18
CaO 0.9 10.4 1.7
MgO 0.9 0.6 0.8
Na
2
o 0.2 0.2 0.8
K 0 7.3 1.8 l.G
2
so 3 0.8 2.1 i.6

Ash Fuoion Temperatures

Initial Deformation
Temperature, Op 2,050 1,940 2,000
Softening
Tempel" d. l:u• t:-!, oF 2,140 2,000 2,120
Fluid
Ten1perdtu1. t:, Of 2,4.30 2,230 2,400

NotP.s:

(1) Illinoi~ No. 5 and Kentucky No. 9 are the same coal seam.
(2) Data taken from Reference (5).

4-22
 ·--~--~.

12N

.: .. ; ' :

0
,, '' 9E IOE
Soolo, •"" 4E 5E OF PITTSBURG
8 2E 3E 6E 7E
EMPERATURES H SEAM COAL(4)
IE 4-1 FORECAST OF ASH-SOFTENING T
Figure .

4-23
eastern Ohio. The Figure 4-1 forecast is based on SO independent mine
samples. The ash softening temperatures of these samples ranged from
1,960°F to 2,940°F. Mean softening temperature for the SO samples was 2,378°F
and their standard deviation was 271F 0 • No large-seale investigation of
ash fusion temperatures, such as that used to develop Figure 4-1, was
located for Kentucky No. 9 Seam coal.

Comparison of the Table 4-3 ash fusion temperatures with the approximate
gasifier design operating temperature~ presented in Table 4-2 indicates
that both coals appear to be compatible with thP. specified gasifiers. Data
for fixed-bed slagging gasification of Pittsburgh Seam coal (6,7) indicates
that the viscosity-temperature characteristics of the slag are acceptable
for the COGAS char cyclone combustor. Inasmuch as Kentucky No. 9 Seam
coal is successfully fired in cyclone utility steam generators, this coal
also appears to be suitable for the COGAS combustor. (Note: the design
operating temperature shown for COGAS in'Table 4-2 is for the fluidized-
bed gasifier, not the char combustor.)

Coal ash fusion temperatures and slagging characteristics, being dependent

on ash composition, are affected by coal cleaning. Table 4-4 indicates
how ash fusion temperatures can change as a function of degree of cleaning.
In general, cleaning appears to increase the ash fusion temperatures of
Eastern bituminous coal. (Coal cleaning is discussed further in Subsection
l,. 2. s.)

4.2.4 Coal Conversion Processes Coal and Ash/Sl~g Handling Boundaries.

Table 4-1 identifies three basic methods for feeding coal to a pressurized
coal conversion reactor or pretreater: lock hopper system, gas injection,
and slurry injection. Outlet coal boundaries (the points at which the coal
handling-preparation conceptual flow sheets terminate) established for each
of these basic methods are as follows:

4-24
 Table 4-4

TYPICAL ILLINOIS NO. 5 COAL ASH FUSION TEHPERATURES

REDUCING ATMOSPHERE(!)

Initial Deformation Softening Hemispherical Fluid

Temperature (OF) Temperature (oF) Temperature ( 0 F) Temperature (OF)
LGF( 2 ) IGF(3) HGF( 4 ) LGF .IGF HGF LGF IGF HGF LGF IGF HGF

1, 890 1,910 1,900 2,150 2,160 2,080 2,170 2,170 2. 100 2,485 2,430 2,280
2,020 2,020 ·1, 970 2,230 2,230 2,090 2,260 2,260 2. 115 2,560 2,570 2,260
1, 950 2,030 1, 960 2,290 2,240 2. 100 2,320 2,260 2,130 2,1i20 2,600 2,350
2,000 2,010 1,970 2,150 2,160 2,100 2,200 2,200 2,150 2,320 2,350 2,310
1,960 1 '940 1 '880 2, OL10 2,050 1,960 2,130 2,125 2,000 2,300 2,400 2,100
2,060 2,050 1,980 2,480 2,370 2,265 2,500 2,405 2,280 2,620 2,610 2,480
1,850 2,320 1,850 2,500 2,520 2,310 2,530 2,540 2,340 2,680 2,650 2,600
1,915 1,900 1,975 2,135 2' 150 2' 110 2,155 2' 180 2,140 2,410 2,425 2,360
1,955 2,022 1,936 2,246 2,235 2,126 2,283 2,267 2,156 2,500 2,504 2,342

Notes:

(1) Dat~ are ·for 1~ inch- 0 size range. Illinois·No. 5 and Kentucky No. 9 are
the ~arne coal seam.
(2) LGF- lowest gravity float fraction (1.23 to 1.31 specific gravity).
(3) IGF- intermediate gravity float fraction (1.26 to 1.355 specific gravity).
(4) HGF- highest gravity float fraction (1.60 specific gravity).

.•_\,
Reference:

Sulfui Reduction of Illinois - Coals Washability Studies, Part I, R.J. Helfinstine,

N.F. Shimp, J.A. Simon, and M.E. Hopkins, State of Illinois, Circular 462 (1971).

4-25
 • Lock Hopper Coal Feed Systems - The coal inlet of the
vessel or vessels used to provide crushed coal surge
storage for the lock hoppers (Any particulate or other
emission control systems associated with the lock hopper
receiving vessels are not considered part of coal
handling-preparation.)

• Gas Injection Coal Feed Systems (COGAS Process Only) - The

coal inlet of the vessel or vessels used to feed the first
stage, fluidized-bed pyrolyzer(s)

• Slurry Injection Coal Feed Systems - The coal inlet of

the slurry preparation vessel or vessels used for slurry-
ing coal in recycle solvent or water (Any slurry prepara-
tion vessel off-gas treatment and sgitatiou sygtems ate
not considered part of coal handling-preparation.)

As discussed in the previous subsection, pretreatment to control ngglomera-

tlon is believed to be required for HYGAS. As a ~esult, the coal outlet
boundary for this process was specified to be the pretreatment coal feed
system, not the gasifier coal feed system. When pretreatment is used with
HYGAS, the resulting pretreatment char is slurried in a process-derived
oil and injected into the gasifier.

Except for the EDS process, ash, char, or slag produced by the gasifiers
identified in Table 4-2 is quenched in water at gasifier operating pr.essure
and then periodically r.emoved through a lock hopper ur similar mechani~Al

depressuLl:.dug sysr~m. ln these removal systems, steam generated by quench-

ing flows back into the gasifier where it reacts or exits as part of the
gasifier gases. The ash or slag quench-removal systems identified in
Table 4~2 form an integral P9t"t of thf'. eA~i fi,P.r~. Ao 0. rc::Jult' f,H Lln:!St!
processes, the ash or slag removal flow sheets inlet boundary was specified
to be at the point or points where quenched ash or slag is periodically
discharged from a lock hopper or similar pressure letdown syatcm.

Most of the ash produced by the EDS process fluidized-bed gasifier leaves
entrained in the synthesis gas. This gas flows through a coke heater and
then to a waste heat boiler. After heat recovery, ash particulates nrc

4-26
 removed from the synthesis gas in two stages. First, coarse particles are
removed in a dry collection system. The coarse collected dry ash is
cooled in an indirect solids cooler and then pneumatically conveyed to a
transfer point for transport to disposal. In the second ash removal stage,
wet scrubbing is used to remove fine ash particulates. Slurry resulting
from synthesis gas scrubbing is dewatered on a vacuum filter.

Ash inlet boundaries for the EDS process ash removal flow sheets were
specified to be at the discharge of the dry ash pneumatic transport system
and at the slurry discharge of the wet synthesis gas scrubbing system. A
l-imited amount of coke chunks are periodically removed from the EDS gasi-
fier. These chunks were assumed to be combined with dry ash for transport
to disposal.

4.2.5 Coal Cleaning

·Development of conceptual coal handling-preparation flow sheets which in-

clude c·onventional, physical coal cleaning was a project requirement
specified by Union Carbide. However, to avoid duplication of work being
performed by other DOE contractors, heavy-medium coal cleaning was ex-
cluded from the clean~ng processes to be considered for flow sheet develop-
mer:tt.

In order to deveiop coal cleaning flow sheets, typical coal washability

data were developed for both Pittsburgh and Kentucky No. 9 coals. These
data are presented in Tables 4-5 through 4-8 and are plotted in Figures 4-2
through 4-5. Tables 4-5 and 4-7 represent analysis of channel coal
samples. These samples were taken from an actual mine in a manner that
avoids their contamination with extraneous mine roof and floor material.
In actual mining, some roof and floor material is unavoidably or purposely
taken Wit:h the c.:oal. In certain areas of the Pi.t.tsburgh Seam, for example,
as much as 18 inches of roof draw slate is mined in order to obtain adequate
roof support.

4-2'7
 Table 4-5

PITTSBURGH SEAM COAL·

WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS WITHOUT ROOF AND FLOOR DILUTION

Elementat·y Data Cumulative Data

! Sulfur Sulfur
Specific
Gravity
I Percent
Weight Ash
Percent Pyrit:lc Total
HHV
Btu/lb
Weight
Percent
Ash
Percent
I Pyritic Total
HHV
Btu/lb
Percent: Percent I Percent Percent
i I
----- -. ···---
1.5 inch
1-------- ..
38 mm) x 200 mesh
-·· .. iI
I

-1.30 57.85 4.83 0.40 1.77 14,413 57.85 4.83 0.40 1.77 14,413
1 30~1 .liO
1. 40-l. 60
32.08
6.07 I
10.02
19.65
1.10
2. 72
2.47
4.00
I B,630
I 11,682
8Y.Y:J
96.00
I 6.61!
7.50
0.6S
0.82
2.02
2.15
'14,134
13,979
+1.60 4.00
I 51. 7'i 11, 8~

l. 26
12.65
2.57
7. 729 100.00 9.~:;
I 1. 26 2. ~I 11,719
Total lUU.UU
! 9.35 13.729
I
! J/8 inch (9.5 nun) x 200 mesh
!
I
-1.30
1. ~0··1.40
62.13
26.50 I 4. 70
9.98
0.35
1.04
1.77
2.47 I 14,432
13,639
I 62.13
88.63
4.70
6.28
0.35
0.58
). 77
l. 97
14,432
14. 195
l. 40-l. 60 6.35
I 18.99 2.82
12.82
3.91
13.06
11,592
7,228
94.98
100.00
7.13
9.63 iI
0.73
l. 31
2.10
2.65
14,021
13,680
+1. 60
Total
5.02
100.00 I
56.93
9.63 II
I l. 31 2.65 13,680
!
14 mesh ( 1. 4 mm) X 200 mesh

-1.30 59.60 3.90 0.23 l. 62 14,553 59.60 3.90 0.2l 1. E'2 1'1 ,553
1. :.o-1. 40 28.60 I 10. lf:i u.n 2.02 13,612 81!.20 .5.93
I 0.39 l. 75 14,248
1.40-1.60 6.40 II 21.45 2.90 4.12 11,55 7 94.60 6.98
I 0.56 1. 91 14,066
+1. 60 5.40 52.35 12.60 14.69 7,67.1 100.00 9.43 1. 21 2.60 13,718
Total lUU.UU 9.43 1. 21 t,.lin 13,718

Roof Floo
D:~:::oll2o Percenr
by Weirt
+1.90 20.00 73.50 10.50 11.80

4-28
 Table 4-6

PITTSBURGH SEAM COAL

WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS WITH ROOF AND FLOOR DILUTION

Elementary Data Cumulative Data

Specific Sulfur Sulfur

Gravity Weight Ash HHV Weight Ash HHV
Percent Percent Pyritic Total Btu/lb Percent Percent Pyritic Total Btu/lb
Perc'ent Percent Percent Percent

1.5 inch (38 mm) x 200 mesh

-1.30 46.28 4.85 0.40 1.77 14,413 46.28 4.85 0.40 1. 77 14,413
1. 30-1.40 :.!5.66 10.02 .1.18 2.47 l3,630 71.94 6.69 0.68 2.04 14,133
1. 40-1.60 4·. 86 19.65 2. 72 4.00 11,682 76.80 7.51 0.81 2 . .15 13,978
1. 60-1. 80 3.20 50.75 9.82 10.62 8,510 80.00 9.24 1. 17. 2.49 13,759
+1. 80 20.00 73.50 10.77 12.09 3,179 100.00 22.09 ).09 4.41 11,643
Total 100.00 22.09 3.09 4.41 11,643

3/8 inch (9.5 mm) X 200 mesh

-1. 3o 4<J. 70 4. 70· 0.35 1.77 14,432 49.70 4. 70 0.35 1.77 14,432
1. 30-1.40 21.20 9.98 1. 04 2. 47 13,639 70.90 6.27 0.56 l. 98 14,194
l. 41J-l. 60 5.08 18.99 2.82 3.91 11,592 75.98 7. 13 0. 71 2. 11 14,020
1. 60-1.80 4.02 54.93 9.92 10.62 8,358 80.00 9.53 l. 17 2.54 13,316
+1. 80 20.00 73.50 11.07 12.24 4,759 100.00 22.32 3.15 4.48 lt. 603
Total: 100.00 22.32 3. 15 4.48 11,603

14 mesh (1.4 mm) X 200 mesh

::1.30 47.68 3.90 0.23 l. 62 14,553 . 4 7. 68 3.90 0.23 l. 62 14,553

1. 30-1.40 22.88 10. 16 0. 72 2.02 13,611 70.56 5.93 0.39 l. 75 14,247
1. 40-l. 60 5.12 21.45 2.90 4. 12 11,557 75.68 6.98 0.56 1. 91 ·14. 065
l. 60-1.80 4.32 50.35 9.60 10.40 8,480 80.00 9.32 l. OS 2.37 13,763
+1. 80 20.00 73.50 1 t'. 10 12.72 3,118 100.00 22.15 3.06 4.44 11,634
Total 100.00 2L. 15 3.06 4.44

4-29
 Table 4-7

KENTUCKY NO. 9 SEAM COAL

WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS WITHOUT ROOF AND FLOOR DILUTION

Elementary Data Cumulative Data

Sulfur Sulfur
Specific Weight Ash HHV Weight Ash HHV
Gravity Percent Percent Pyritic Total Btu/lb Percent Percent Pyritic Total Btu/lb
rei"C.efil P~rc~nl Percent Percent

1.5 inch (38 nun) X 200 mesh

I
-1.30
1.30-1.40
52.251
32.38 j
4.10
9.00
i 0.50
1.14
3.00
3.41
13,880
13,397
52.25
84.63
4.10
5.97
0.50
0. 74
3.00
3.16
13,880
13,695
1. 40-1.60 4.75 21.30 I 2.65 4.68 1(,),601 89.18 6. 79 0.76 3.25 1.3' 530
1. 60-1.90 2.12 i 36.40
I
).46 7.16 9,124 91.50 7.48 0.83 3.34 13' 426
+1. 90 8. 50 I 74.20 I 4.33 6.21 3,618 100.00 13. 15 1. 28 3.58 12,592
Total I 100.00 I 13. 15 I 1. 28 3.58 12,592

I I 3/8 inch (9.5 min) x 200-mesh

i
-1.30
1. 30-1.40
54 • 87 I
29.25 I
3.20
8.60 I 0.40
1. 03
2.89
3.29
13,959
13,193
54.87
84.12
3.2p
5.15
0.40
0.62
2.89
3.03
13,959
13,692
1.40-1.60 6. 00 I 18.90 2. 12 4.23 11,755 90. J?. 6.06 0. 72 3.11 13,563
1. 60-1.90 1. 75 I39.60 4.40 5.74 8,629 91.87 6.70 0. 79 3.16 13,469
+1. 90 8.13 ' 74.20
I
I 4.68 6.52 3,618 100.00 12. 19 . 1.10 3.43 12,668
Total 100.00 !12.19 1. 10 3.43 12,66!!

14 mesh (31.4 nun) x 200 mesh

-1.30 43.50. 2.70 0.35 2.81 14,053 43.50 2.70 0.35 2.81 14,053
1. 30-1.40 35.24 7.40 0.84 3.26 13,:178 78.74 ''· 80 0.57 3.01 13,750
J 't.0-1. 60 10.38 19.40 1.77 3.53 11 '766 8'l. I Z 6.50 0.71 3.07 13,519
1.60-19.0 2.25 4.1. 70 1. 93 5.10 9,174 91.37 7,112 0.74 J.l:.! 13,412
+1. YO 8.6) 74.20 4.93 6.69 3,618 100.00 13.18 1.10 3.43 12,255
Total 100.00 13.18 1.10 3:43 12,255

Roof-Floor! Dilutionll20 Percen. by Wef.Tt

+1.90 20.00 75.30 4.60 6.40 3,100

4-30
 Table 4-8

KENTUCKY NO. 9 SEAM COAL

\YASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS WITH ROOF AND FLOOR DILUTION

Elementary Data Cumulative Data

Sulfur Sulfur
Specific Weight Ash HHV Weight Ash HHV
Gravity Percent Percent Pyritic Total Btu/lb Percent Percent Pyritic Total Btu/lb
Percent Percent Percent Pe-rcent
- 1.5 inch (38 mm) x 200 mesh

-1.30 41.80 4.10 0.50 3.00 13,880 41.80 4.10 0.50 3.00 13,880
l. 30-l. 40 26.70 9.00 1.14 3. 41 13,397 68.50 6.01 0.75 3.16 13,692
l. 40-l. 60 3.80 21.30 2.65 4.68 10,601 72.30 6.81 0.85 3.24 13,529
l. 60-l. 90 l. 70 36.40 3.46 7. 16 9,124 74.00 7.49 0.91 3.33 13,428
- +1. 90 26.00 74.20- 4.33 6.21 3,618 100.00 24.83 l. 80 4.08 10,878
Total 100.00 24.83 l. 80 4.08 10,878

3/8 inch (9.5 mm) x 200 mesh

-1.30 43.90 3.20 0.40 2.89 13,959 43.90 3.20 0.40 2.89 13,959
l. 30-l. 40 23.40 - 8. 60 1.03 3.29 13,193 67.30 5.08 0.62 3.03 13,693
l. 40-l. 60 4.80 18.90 2. 12 4.23 11,755 72.10 6.00 0. 72 3.11 13',564
l. 60-l. 90 1.40 39.60 4.40 5.74 8,629 73.50 6.64 0.79 3.16 13,470
H. 90 2fi.50 74.20 4.68 6.52 3,618 100.00 24.54 l. 82 4.05 10,859
Total 100.00 24.54 l. 82 4.05 10,859

14 mesh (1.4 mm) x 200 mesh

-1.30 34.80 2.70 0.35 2.81 14,053 34.80 2.70 0.35 2.81 14,053
l. 30-l. 40 28.20 7.40 0.84 3.26 13,378 63.00 4.80 0.57 3.01 13,751
l. 40-l. 60 8.30 19.40 l. 77 J.5J 11,766 71.30 6.50 0. 71 3.07 13,520
l. 60-l. 90 l. 80 43.70 l. 93 5.10 9,174 73. 10 7.42 o. 74 3.12 13,413
+1. 90 26.90 74.20 4.92 6.69 3,618 100.00 25.38 l. 83 4.08 10,778
Total 100.00 25.38 l. 83 4.08 10,778

4-31
 SPECIFIC GRAVITY
1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
or-------------------------------~r-_,~-T~~--~--~------,

10

20
..
.

'
30

1- 1:
z I:
w I:
~ 40 I:
w
a..
I:
I:
_J
<{ I~
8f- 50
II \:
<{ I : SPECIFIC GRAVITY
g I :.
u..
u..
0 60
0
_J
w : ELEMENTARY
>- I \ SULFUR
70 I :
I :
I :
I I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
1. ELEMENTARY
1 •• ASH
FLOAT
ASH \~a~~JR ·-----_.. . . -.,. ________________
100~----~~----~------~------~----~------~------._----~
5 20 30 40 50 60 70
ASH, PERCENT

TOTAL SULFUR, PERCENT

Figure 4-2 PITTSBURGH SEAM COAL WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

WITHOUT ROOF AND FLOOR DILUTION

4-32
 ORNL-DWG 80-4215 ETD

SPECIFIC GRAVITY
1.6
0 -

l
1:
1:
1:
.....
z I:
w I:
u
a:: I~ SPECIFIC
w I:
0.. I: GRAVITY
_j I :
<( I :
8 I :
I :
.....
<(
9 ..
LL..
..
'
LL..
0 ..
0
....J ..
w
>- ..
...
...
... ................ . .
ELEMENTARY ASH

90

ASH, PERCENT

TOTAL SULFUR, PERCENT

Figure 4-3 PITTSBURGH SEAM COAL WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

WITH ROOF AND FLOOR DILUTION

4--33
 SPECIFIC GRAVITY
1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 •1.4 1.3
0~----------------------------~--r-~~~--~---r--~------,

10
ELEMENTARY
ASH,

20
.1::
''

1:
llI,
I
I
I
1-
I
zw I
u
I
a: I
w
Cl..
_j SPECIFIC GRAVITY
<(
0
u
1-
<(
0
....J
u. ELEMENTARY
u. SULFUR
0
0
..J
w
>-

''
I

''

I _____/
90

\ FLOAT
SULFUR
·-~---
··.,,
'•..
----
- - - - - - - . . : . __ __
.._
\ ',
\

b.

2 4 6 8 TOTAL SULFUR, PERCENT

Figure 4-4 KENTUCKY NO.9 SEAM COAL WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

WITHOUT ROOF AND FLOOR DILUTION

4-34
 SPECIFIC GRAVITY
------------------~--------~1~.9--~1.~8~1~.7~~1~.6~~1~.5--~1.~4~1~.3~----~
Or

.
'
. t.
, a:a: ..
·a:
1:a:
. I'I: .'
I:
I:I : SPECIFIC GRAVITY

I-
z
n
I:
w
(.)
'-.1 :.
a: I :
w
Cl..
I :
I :
...J I :
<(
0(.)
I :
.I :
50
I-
<(
g
I:
u. ' \.ELE~ENTARY SULFUR
u..
0 60 .• I \.
0
...J
w I\
>-
70
······....
''
80. '.
'' '
.
'' ..
.
90

100~----~~----~--~--~----~~----~~----~----~~------
30 40 50 60 70
ASH, PERCENT
4 6 8
fOTAL SULFUR, PERCENT

Figure 4-5 KENTUCKY NO. g·sEAM COAL WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

WITH ROOF AND FLOOR DILUTION

4-35
Coal washabilities based on channel samples have been adjusted to account
for roof and floor dilution during mining. The adjusted washabilities are
presented in Tables 4-6 and 4-8 and plotted in Figures 4-3 and 4-5.

The five curves presented on the washability plots.show theoretical coal

yield, ash content, and sulfur content as a function of the specific
gravity at which the coal floats.. In these figures the term "float coal"
is synonymous with clean coal.· The float ash and sulfur curves are used
to determine clean coal ash and sulfur contents as a function of theoretical
yield. These two curves are plotted from the cumulative data presented
in the washability tables. The elementary ash and sulfur curves show the
u1eau ash and sulfur contents of each specific gravity fraction. indicated
in the washability tables.

Comparison of the specific gravity, float ash and float sulfu~ curves·
presented in Figures 4-3 and 4-5 shows that both coals as mined have very
similar washability characterisitcs. In general, conclusions regarding
the cleanability of one coal are valid for the other. Because of this,
the washability data presented for the Pittsburgh Seam were used to
develop the coal cleaning flow sheets material balances presented in
Section 5.

ln both Figures 4-3 Rnd 4-5, a~ below a specifi~ gravity of apprb~imately

1.5, the float ash and sulfur curves become nearly vertical. This means
that cleaning at lower specific gravities would not res11lt in significantly
improved RSh or sulfur removal. Also, at below 1.5 specific gravity yiPld
begins to deteriorate rapidly for both coals. Because of the shape of
the washability curves, use of heavy-medium cleaning would not result in
significantly better cleaning performance than that expected by the cleaning
flow sheets presented in Section 5.

4-36
 A considerable amount of research has been performed on both Pittsburgh
and Kentucky No. 9 coals related to ash and sulfur removal using conven-
tional coal cleaning methods. These methods are well developed and have
been used commercially to_clean both coals, but with emphasis on ash
rather than sulfur removal. "Best" sulfur removals reported for both
coals are on the order of 30 percent. Sulfur removal is limited by the
fact that significant amounts.of the sulfur in the two coals is present as
organic sulfur and fine, widely disseminated pyritic sulfur.

Design conditions, in addition to washability data, used in development of

coal cleaning flow sheets and material balances are presented in Table 4-9.
Run-of-mine coal size consist data used to estimate a split between coarse
and fine coal fractions are presented in Figure 4-6. Each line represents
a size analysis for a specific bituminous coal sample broken to a top sizeof 3
to 6 inches; the feed coal size selected for cleaning. Mean values were
used to estimate flow sheet size splits. For example, screening of coal at

,. 1/2 inch results in an approximate coarse/fine coal split of 65 percent/35

percent.

10

20

30

0
w
z
<(
1--
w
a:
1-- 60
z
w
u
a: 70
w
11.

150m 48m 28m 14m 1/8 1/4 3/8 11/4 2 4 6 INCHES

Figure 4-6 ESTIMATED BROKEN COAL SIZE CONSIST

4-37
 Table 4-9

COAL CLEANING FLOW SHEETS DESIGN CONDITIONS

Design Clean Coal Capacity 16.5 million short tons/year

Design Operating Schedule

Daily: 20 hours/day
Weekly: 5 days/week
Annual Capacity
Determination: 250 days/year

Design Separation Specific

Gravity 1.8

Design Coal Weight Recovery

Theoretical: 80 percent
Actual: 75.6 percent
•.
Design Clean Coal Composition
Ash: 9.0 wt percent
Total Moisture: 8.0 wt percent

Design CoAl Feed Size Consist ~--

(Also se.e Fignre 4~6)

6 inch x 1/2 inch: 65 percent .X:

1/2 tnch x /H mesh: 2.J p~;rr.ent

28 mesh x 0: 10 percent

4-38
Coal cleaning plant annual operation is specified as 250 days per year.
This annual op~ration is consistent with current coal cleaning and mining
practice. If annual mine operation could be increased in the future, a
cleaning plant with a smaller hourly throughput than that result.ing from t~e

Table 4-9 calculations could be used.

4. 2. 6 Power/Steam Plant Coal Requirements

Many current concep~ual designs for commercial-scale coal conversion plants

using the processes identified in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 include. large power/
steam plants.or require purchase of large quantities of electricity. The
coal requirements for either onsite power/steam generation or for purchased
electricity generation is frequently of sufficient magnitude that common
integrated facilities for both power/steam and conversion coal handling-
preparation appear to be economically attractive . .Because of this, several
comniercial-scale conversion plant conceptual designs. were reviewed to
roughly estimate the quantity of coal-generated electricity and process steam
that might be required for conversion of 50,000 tons .per day of coal.

Results of the ·brief electricity and steam requirements survey.are presented

in Table.4-10. These estimates are very approximate and are dependent on
the specific conceptual designs from which they were developed. Further,
the estimates are not based on detailed evaluation of conversion plant
material and enthalpy balances nor electricity requirements, but on
summary information presented in the cited references.

Insufficient information was found for two processes: U-Gas and Exxon
Catalytic Gasification. However, from brief review of information for the
proposed Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division- DOE Industrial Fuel Gas
De~o~stration Plant (8) , it appears that the U-Gas process may require only
limited electricity or process steam from a coal-fired power/steam plant.

Estimated conversion processes total steam requirements range from zero for
COCAS which uses extensive process energy recovery to 7.2 billion Btu/hour

4-39
for H-Coal liquefaction. These steam requirement estim~tes do not include
electricity for the coal handling-preparation operations covered by this
report or for coal mining. For SRC-II, an additional 115 ~~ of electricity
is estimated to be required for coal handling-preparation and for operation
of an integrated coal mine complex located adjacent to the conversion plant
site. Total estimated power/steam plant steam generat:i.on requirement for
an SRC-11 plant is 6.8 billion Btu/hour. The quantity of coal required
for such a power/steam plant is estimated to be 15 percent of that supplied
to the conversion plant. This is equivalent to 7,500 tons per day of rnRl.
The 7,500 tons per day coal value has been useci as the pnw8r/steam plant
coal requirement for conceptual flow sheets development.

For the conversion plant steam/power plant, Union Carbide specified use of
an atmospheric pressure fluidized-bed steam generator. This is consistent
with the steam generator design selected for the DOE coal mine-coal conversion
plant interface project. As a result, the basic steam generator perform-
ance data developed for that project was used for preparation of the flow
sheets presented in this report. The interface project steam/power plant
design was based oil information provided directly to Bechtel by Foster
Hhccler Eoetgy Corporation and information presented in the final report
of the Gener>al Electr>ic Ener>gy Conver>sion AUP.rn.at'i.t,~s Study(ECAS) sponsorerl
by ERDA, NASA, anrl the National Sdeuc.;e Foundation (NASA-CR 134949).

4.3 CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT APPROACH

Conceptual coal handling-preparation and ash/slag removal flow sheets were

dcvelopeu uslng a modular approach. The resulting individual flow sheets
can he joined in a vuri~cy uf ways to obtain numerous alternative flow
sheets which meet the coal feed and ash/slag removal requirenients of all
nine specified coal conversion processes. As an aid for assessing alterna-
tfve flow sheets and flow sheets description, a reference flow scheme has
been defined. This reference flow scheme is for provision of coal.to the
SRC-II liquefaction process.

4-40
 I
I
;Table 4-10
!
SELECTED COAL CONVERSION PROCESSES ESTIMATED
ELECTRICITY AND STEAM REQUIREMENTs(!)
I

Estimated Conversion Estimated Conversion

Process Requirement Reported Conversion Proces~ Requirement
Process
Process Electricity( 2 ) Steam Conditions Total Steam( 3 ) References(5)
Conversion Process and Type Process Steam
No.
Million Billion Temperature Pressure Billion
MW
lb/hr Btu/hr ~F psia ~tu/hr

2 CO GAS In the current COGAS commercial plant conceptual design all steam required for klectricity
I
15
Fluidized-Bed Gasification generation and process use is obtained from process heat recovery and not from any coal-

~
fired power/steam plant.

3 HYGAS
Fluidized-Bed Gasification
150 5.7 5.4 1,500 925 16.6 16

I
4 Texaco Partial Oxidation 210 3.0 2.9 1,500 925 '14.5 16
•I
Entrained Flow Gasification

5 Exxon Donor Solvent 350 0 0 2.7 7

Liquefaction

8 SRC-II 550 1.3 1.0 615 488 17

Liquefaction
0.4 0.3 75 308
1.3 I 5. 6

9 H-Coal
Liquefaction
790 1.1 0.8 615 488 1-
,
I
17

0.5 0.3 75 308 r-

1

1.1

Mean Value( 4 ) 410 2.1

I
Notes: (1) All estimates are for a coal conversion plant converting 50,000 tons/day of coal having a higher heating value bf 11,320 Btu/lb-dr·y.
(2) This excludes any electricity required for coal handling, preparation, and mining. I
(3) A value of i, 769.5
Btu/kW-hr was used to estimate steam required for generation of· estimated c_onversion processr electricity requirement.
This value was developed from information presented in the General Electric Energy Conversion Alternatives Study for a power plant using
an atmospheric pressure fluidized-bed steam generator. i
(4) Excludes COGAS Process. I
(S) Presented in Report Refer·ences section.
·r

4-.41
 ' '

'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Figure 4-7 presents a _block flow diagram which identifies the coal handling-
preparation operations for which conceptual flow sheets have been developed.
It also shows the relationship between individual flow sheet modules or
operations. Specific operations covered by the block flow diagram are
grouped:into four general areas: coal cleaning, coal storage and blending,
coal fine crushing, and coal pulverizing or grinding. The heavy line run-
ning through the first three areas identifies operations which constitute
the reference SRC-II flow scheme. FS numbers above the coal cleaning
operations ~rea and in other areas over individual operations are flow
sheet numbers c::orresponding to _these operations.

To develop Figure 4-7, three general coal size consist ~lasses.were devel-
oped from consideration of coal feed requirements for the identified con-
version processes and other coal conversion processes. The three classes
are:

• ·Coarse Coal Coal 'containing particles greater than

1/4 inch in size

• Fine Coal - Coal containing particles not greater than

l/4 inch, but not containing particles all smaller than
20 mesh in size
• Pulverized or Ground Coal - Coal which is 40 percent or
greater minus 200 mesh in size

All of the conversion processes, except H-Coal liquefaction, require fine

coal feed. H-Coal requires coal pulv~rl~eu ur ground ro nominally 70 per-
cent minus 200 mesh. Coal delivered to the conversion plant from both
coal source alternatives is coarse coal; 2 inches or larger top size.

Estimated capital investment for a nominal 50,000 tons per day coal conversion
plant is several billion dollars. Most of this cost is associated with
actual coal conversion, product(s) upgrading, and environmental emission
control facilities. · Because of this large investment and the quantity of
product(s) produced, any unplanned interruption in conversion reactor coal
feed would be extremely costly. In fact, this cost is of such magnitude
that substantial investment in high reliability coal handling and prepara- .
tion facilities would be fully justified. Therefore, in developing con-
ceptual flow sheets, high operating reliability achievement was a prime
consideration.

For proven processes, well engineered and constructed plants, and well
managed plants, all of which were postulated, high operating reliability
can be achieved by providing appropriate maintenance time or by equipment
redund~n~y. Both approaches were used. For all operations before coal
live storage (primarily coal cleaning) single conveyor iines, when prac-
tical, were deemed consistent with high operating reliability. These
operations have an annual operating requirement of only 250 days (nominally
5 days per week). This is sufficient time for required maintenance. Also,
the clean coal live storage design capacity specified is sufficient to
accommodate most failures that could occur before live storage.

For coal live storage and all following coal operations redundant equip-
ment is specified. These facilities must operate 365 day~ ~er year,
24 hours per day. The redundancy specitied is believed sufficient to meet
this requirement. Spare equipment and excess equipment capacity would be
used to compensate for equipment out of service for maintenance or un-
scheduled repair.

Any commercial coal conversion plaul will probably conoict of SPo;>1rPr::~l

inP.ntical, independent conversion trains. Both operating reliability con-

siderations and equipment size limitations are principal reasons. Review
of current commercial conversion plant conceptual design studies indicates
that four to six ·parallel conversion reactors (liquefaction reactors or
gasifiers) appear reasonable for converting 50,000 tons per day of high
rank bituminous coal. As a result, a cunver_sion plant consisting of five
identical, parallel conversion reactors was used as a general basis for

4-44
 NOTES:

COAL TRANS~OATED TO CONVER&ION PLA"'T ::i1TE- THUS COAL IS

TRANSPORTED IN RAIL CARS AND/OR BARGES fROM DISTANT
MINES TO THE COAL CONVERSION PLANT SITE. THE COAL IS SIZED
Pnwi'RffiTFAM TO 2 IN. X 0 BEFORE TRANsPORT. IF COAL CLEANING IS JUSTI·
COAL. STORACE
PLANT ~ltU. 11 1:lo f'tHfUAMfCI "RIOA TO LOH0·013TANeE TRAN!J"ORT.
COAL CLEANING AND BLENDING COAL FINE CRUSHING COAL PULVERIZING OR GRINDING

REfERENCE FLOW SHEET: FS-1 ALTERNATIVE fLOW SHEETS: FS·1·1 AND FS·1·1 ' ATMOSP ... ERIC
PRESSURE
f"LUIOIZEO 8(0
AUN.OF-UINE COAL- TI-llS COAL IS PROOUCEOSY A LARGE. INTE-
GRATED COAL MINE COMPLEX LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE COAL
TO POWER} STEAM GENERATOR CONVERSION PLANT SITE. AFTER RUN-QF·MINE COAL BREAKING,

-
STE4U PL.IINT
v CLEANING. ,V,D CAlJSHING TO 2 IN. X O. THE COAL HANDLING
AND PREPARATION O~ERATIONS REQUIRED FOR BOTH RlJN-OF·
l
I'
FS-7 F&B

I I. '· I PI!I!DINQ
_f MIN( COAL 4.NO COAl ":RAN!:r'OnTCO TO THE CONVE:RiiiON

r
B'IIITOTAL 0 tAL TERNATE: 1/41N. i· 100 MESH! 161 U.(jAS

I
1(41N. •
I
1/4\N, MO
.I
rl DEAD
STORACE
MOISTURE
TODRV
THERMAL
DRYING 191
3"-. TOTAL
MOISTURE
DRY SCREENING
-1/&IN. I PARTICULATE
COLLECTIONI91
PARTICULATE COAL LOCK
• PRESSURIZED
~LANT SITE JI\RE IDE~TICAL.

CLASSIFICATIO~ e fLUID BED

r I
ill NO COAL CU:ANINCi OR PARTIAL COAL ClEANING - IF RUN-QF.

J
I eCYCLONE

I I fLUE GAS 1~1 ~- L----~

DRYER e VIBRATING
SCREEN
I •BACHOUSE
I FEEDING
1./8 '"'- COG AS
MINE COAL CLEANINCi IS NOT ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED OR
CLEANING QF ONLY PART OF THE RUN-OF-MINE COAL IS JUSTI-

l OAS
•0 FIED. BROKEN RUN-Of-MINE COAL WOULD BE CONVEYED 01

L!....".R!~.TATNC~
~T -"" ./ - ., COARSE COAL I I FS~ !• I~~~:· PARTICULATE
• HOT FLUE

I
AECTL V TO CRUSI-II"'C "'NO THEN TO COARSE COAL STOR ... GE.
RECEIVINCi
21N. • 0
12g\ ~:~~~~t~~~~G I
COAl..
INJECTION
1•1 COARSE AND FINE COAL CLEANING ALTERNATIVES- CONSID·

> LOCAL MINt II'ICJTYIITHIN

J- ERATION OF HEAVY-MEDIUM COARSE AND FINE COAL CLEAN·

J:
PROJECT SCOPE I TOTAL I_

I I CLASSOFICATION ·~"':'=·!A: -.':,: -,.: :.,:-1 f""' COALIULTAA<IN<S I

TRA.NSPQRT
-----+f._
I'EEDING 181 lNG WAS EKCLUDEO FROM THE PROJECT SCOPE.
MOISTU E t CAt>!: MILL I& MESH o Q !ALTERNATE: U , 100 MFSHIIfil HYGAS
14MESH•O
t HAMMER MILL

l._(; ~LT~~~~N
SEPARATION ,.JA00L0MERATI0Nj
LOCK
• LOW.PRESSURE
j L
lSI FLUE GAS :SOURCE -FLUE GAS Flt.UUIHt.U 1-UH t'Un ANI.J f'UL·
VERIZEO COAL DRYING AND TRANsPORT IS PROVIDED FROM
THE POWER/STE4M PLANT.

r
TOfiNE '\...,..-

LINE O[:;IGNATIONS
CRU~INCi _./ -----...
FLUEGASI51
CLASSIFICATION
~ , GAS PHASE
CLASSIFIER
~·2'!i.T
A tBRIOUf.TTINCij
OISTURE • PELLETIZING
........
[L_• lO WESH • 0 (ALTERNATE: 20 • 100 MESH! 161 l SLURRYING
FEEDIN(i
I:>OMESH•O
TEKACO
PARTIAL UlTRAFINES SEPAR ... TION ALTERNATIVES- THE ALTERNATE

::0 •<LURRVINO
FS-3, FS ... FS..·I. • SLIJFIRY OXIOATION CONVERSION REACTOR COAL FEED SIZE CONSISTS ARE EST!·.
INJI:CTION
J~~0'~~ATCR I

?r . . . ··-·. ,
AND "S-5 MATES OF 51ZE CONSLST5 THAT MIGHT Elf sPECIFIED IF COA.l
- - SIZED COAL TRANSPORTED TO CONVERSION PLANT SITE Ill
. FINE COAL ULTRAFINES SEPAHATION IS REQUIRED DR ECONOMICALLY
-- RUN 0~ MINi< COAL FRCIW llo MININr':OPFRAT!ON LOCATED ADJACENT
TO THE CONVi:RSION PLAN1 SITE 111 ....lJN.oO I I JUSTIFIED FOR CONVERSION PROCESSES REQUIRING FINE COAL
- - SOLID REFUSE
-+-+-
COARSE COAL fOR ELECTRICITY AND CONVERSION PROCESS
SHAM GENERATION L._c_•_c'_"_'L_L_ __Jr- 8 foH:SII • 0 IAL TtOnNATEI II • 100 MliSHI 161 :~~:~~G 9MfSH ~ (XXON
OONOR
:>ULVLN:
FEED.

8ALL TUBE MIL\. COAL I"ULVERIZING - BAI..L TuBE MILL COAL

- - COAL FLOW FOR SRC·I AND SAC-11 LIQUEFACTION PROCESSES SLURRY
12MESH • 0 PULVERIZING SYSTEMS INCLUDE IMPACT CRUSHEFI·ORVERS
WHICH ARE AN INTI!CiRAl. PART OF THE MILL SYSTEM, THE IW·
~~~~~Y~NCI 18 MESH • 0
exxor. PACT CRUSHER-DRYERS REDUCE COARSE COAL TO NOMINAI.L Y

L. J
CATIILYTIC

I
1• MESH X 0 AND PARTIALLY DRY IT BEFORE IT IS SWEPT INTO

J
GA~Ir ICA TION
TO WET MESH~ 0 PRESSURIZED THE BALL TUBE MILL.
l
2Q
GRINDING ., eRQQ, LOCK.
,....;l.:Lc:;--"'"''"'"'us,.e_ ~-=:: I HYCAS COAL FEEDING - FOR THE HVGAS GAIIFICATIOfo~ f'i-10·

I
REFUSE
COLLECTION TREATMENT
rs-11
I y SLURRYING
FEEDING
LI1MESH. 0 CESS, COAL IS ASSUMfD TO BE FED TO A PRfTREATMUfT 'VESSEL
70'11. MINUS 200 MESH
ICDAU .I RATHER THAN TO THE HYGAS CONVERSION REACTOR. PRE-

I
AND TRANSPORT TO SOLVE "'T SRCoANO 1

~~g;~liON ~=':::":L:UE:N:::T=-~:2!:~......1
1 • SLURRY SOLVENT TREATMENT IS REQUIRED TO REDUCE COAL AGGLDI'-ERATION

IL____ REFUSE
j+-~=:O....l•OIL
28'-'ESH 0
K
I INJECTION SLURRY DURING GASIFICATION

I:
AGGLOMERATION
t FILTERATION (91 A CVCLONE-GACHOUSE SYSTEM IS PROVIDED FOR .. ARTICULATE

t~F~LU~E~C~AS~IS~;t~~~~·~u~LV~E~Ro~<o~NO~~
l======~t:~o~e!~N~TR~A~I·~-~'N:T:~~,~~-~,N~US~~~~=:~~~===
SLURRYING
t CYCLONING 110'Ji.MINUS COLLECTION. THf COAl FAOiol THE CYCLONES IS fED TO ULTRA·
FEEDING
• CLARIFICATION 100 MESH H.COAL FINES SEPARATION AND COAL PAATICUL.ATE FROM THE a.r.GHOU$1
•f
~-~.;·~U~LV~E;::Ro~zo:;:NG~=====================::;;;;;;;==================================~J:::::~==~
TO

•
21N.•O eSOWLMILL tCVCLONE 100ME511 :::rJ • SLURRY
INJECTIO"' J~~~ENT -I IS TAANSPOATIEDTD UL TRAFINIES AGGLOMERATION.

~1--CO-.-l-ST-O-RA-G-E-~
BAI..L. TUBE MILL 171 t BAG HOUSE SLURRY
J . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . , . C O : - , - l - : C - L E : - . , . - , - - - , . - : G : - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... COAL FINE CRUSHING COAL PULVERIZING OR GRINDING
AND BLENDING . igure 4-7
Coal Handling and preparation operations
block flow diagram

4-45
 . 'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK

·'
flow' sheets development. This, however,. does not mean that following live
storage all coal handling-preparation flow sheets consist of five identical,
parallel, equipment trains. When acceptable reliability was judged possible,
less than five ~oal handling-preparation trains are specified for supplying coal
to five conversion reactor coal feed systems. Likewise, when current equip-
ment capacity limitations indicate that more than five coal handling-prepar-
~tion·trains would ~robably.be required, more than five are specified.

·Establishment of best coal handling-preparation facilities designs for any

of the nirie specified coal conversion processes will require major ~rade­

off studies in several important areas .. These trade-offs frequently in-

volve whether or not a specific operation is justified for a coal conversion
plant and, if so, the degree justified. Ultimately such justification be-
comes, a question of economics. The cost of these coal handling-preparation
operations, both capital and operating costs, must be offset by cost
sayings in the a~tual conversion. process or subsequent conversion plant
operations. In addition to cost trade-offs associated with coal handling-
preparation operations reliability, ~ajar areas where trade-off assessment
is required include coal cleaning, blending, and, in some case, conversion
reactor coal feed requirements.

Unfortunately for many conversion processes, the process data required to

asse·ss the economic trade-offs between not obvious coal handling-preparation
operations and actual conversion operations has yet to be developed. That
is, conversion process data that would allow determination of the cost
savings associated with converting, for example, blended versus unblenged
coal, simply blended versus fully blended coal, or cleaned versus uncleaned
coal have generally not been developed. In using the conceptual flow sheets
it should be recognized that at some pqint in development of coal conversion
processes such trade-offs will be made. Their results could significantly
affect design of actual coal conversion plant coal handling-preparation
facili~ies.
One area where limited trade-off assessments have been attempted is coal
cleaning. Both Exxon Research and Engineering Company, for .the Exxon Donor
Solvent (EDS) Process, and Ashland Synthetic Fuels, Inc., for the H-Coal
Process, have made preliminary investigations of potential coal cleaning
benefits. For one version of the EDS process and an Illionois No. 6 coal,
Exxon estimates that. cleaning to approximately 9 wt percent ash could be
justified. This preliminary conclusion is the result of an economic trade-
off between coal cleaning cost and the amount of c1 /c 2 product required to
supplement plant requirements for low-Btu fuel gas produced by gasification
of liquefaction solids. Ashland has indicated for one set of process
conditions that approximately 8 wt percent ash appears justified.

4.3.1 Coal Cleaning

Run-of-mine coal received from the adjacent coal mine complex is broken ·
·.
from 12 inch x 0 to 6 inch x 0, conveyed to cleaning plant surge storage,
and then screened at 3/8 inch. Screening at this size results in a coarse
coal size consist that is well suited for a coarse coal cleaning jig. If
screening were not used, minus 3/8 inch coal would reduce coarse coal jig
separation efficiency.

Jigs were the only conventional coarse. coal cleaning method considered.
The other possibility, heavy-medium cleaning, was excluded from consideration.

Three alternatives were considered for fine coal cleaning! fine coal jigs,
water c·yclones, and tabling. Fine coal cleaning flow sheets were developed
for each of these alternatives.

Coal transported to the conversion plant site, if cleaned, was postulAted to

be cleaned, if justified, at the mine site or in regional cleaning plants
serving several neighboring mines. Such cleaning would result in reduced
coal transport costs and possibly lower cost disposal of cleaning plant
refuse. Coal cleaning alternatives identified for the conversion plant site
are applicable for any at mine and/or regional cleaning plants.

4-48
4.3.2 Coal Storage and Blending

Main coal live and dead storage is provided·after coal cleaning. Not only
is the area required for storage reduced by refuse removal, but coal crushed
to a nominal 2 inch top size is easier to handle and pack than coarser coal.
Coal si6rage-blending facilities could also be ~ocated ahead of coal cleaning
facilities. Advantages associated with this arrangement include reduced
co~l cleaning facilities surge storage· requirement, possibly smaller clean-
ing facilities due to the possibility of longer annual operation, and
cleani~g·of blended coal~ -In some situations, these advantages may outweigh
those associated with live-dead storage after coal cleaning. The flow
schemes·and cle~ning major·equipment list~ presented in this report are
genetally applicable· to both cleaning location alternativ~s.

Blending can improve operation of some types of coal cleaning plants, but those
using cleaning·methods identified in Figure 4-7 are·not significantly improved.
In fact, the identified methods accomplish some blending during cleaning.
Heavy-medium coal clean1ng would benefit most from feeding of blended coal.
For coal' conv~rsion plants where heavy~medium cleaning is justified, the
beneficial effects of cleaning blended coal may be of sufficient magnitude
to justify location of live storage-blending ahead of coal cleaning.

In the coal mine-coal conversion plant interface evaluation project, a

limited investigation was made of the cost trade-offs associated with dif-
ferent live stor.age facility design capacities. The main,. but tentative
and.very situa~ion-specific, conclusion of this investigation was that coal
storage-blending facilities having live storage capacitle~ ~ufficient to
avoid any use of dead storage facilities, other than during emergertcies, are
less expensive to operate than those which normally require periodic use
oi dead storage· facilities. The main reason for this conclusion is. that
when'· both capitiil and operating costs ar~ considered, the cost pet ton of
moving coal in and out of dead storage is much higher than for a welt
designed live storage facility.

4-49
Because of the live-dead storage economics conclusion resulting from the
interface project, a live storage design capacity of 500,000 tons was
established for conceptual flow sheets development. Analysis of probable
differences between coal production by a mine complex located adjacent _to
a conversion plant site and actual conversion plant· coal consumption on a
daily basis· indicates that this capacity is sufficient to limit any dead
storage facility use to only emergency situations. Emergency situations
are defined as no coal production or below planned production due to labor
grievances, unforeseen mining conditions, or a mine disaster. The actual
analysis was part of the interface project. For the particular conditions
assumed, such as mine complex operation of 250 days per year and conver-
sion plant operation of 365 days per year with 35 days maintenance allow-
ance for individual conversion plant trains, this analysis show~d that at
live storage capacities below approximately 500,000 tons, coal had to be
periodically moved in and out of dead storage to balance mine production
·with conversion plant consumption. This use of dead storage w.as not a
consequence of any emergency situations. A ·graph of how live storage
coal inventory could change with time over a period of 780 days is pres-
ented in the interface project final report. (1).

In addition to hopefully limiting any dead storage use to emergency situa-

tions, establishment of 500,000 tons as the live storage-blending design
capacity allows identification of equipment limitations that might not .be
apparent at lower capacities. If adequate equipment is available for
handling and blending 500,000 tons, it is available for less.er tonnages.

Dead coal storage is postulated to consist of multiple, carefully built,

Luge piles built: by mobile equipment; rubber-tired tractors and scrapers.
After construction these piles, on-the-order of 250,000 tons of ~nAl, Are
covered with an airtight seal of asphalt, roan tAr, or water-~uluble acrylic
polymer crusting agent. These piles are only reclaimed in emergency situa-
tions or where their age dictates.

4-50
4.3.3 Coal Fine Crushing

Eight of the nine'specified coal conversion processes require coal crushed

to 'between 1/4 inch x0 and 20 mesh x 0. Further, the developers of pro-
cesses requiring coal crushed to a top size'of 8 mesh or finer indicate in
variou.s ways that "fines minimization" is required or is desirable. Just
what constitutes "fines minimization", however, has apparently yet to be
quantified by any· of the process· developers. It is likely that eventual
e~tablishment of specific coal fines or ultrafines limitations requirements
will involve both technical and economic considerations. For most processes
where fines are of concern, there appears to be a cost trade-off between
fines removal before 'coal conversion and fines or fines products removal
from conversion reactor products.

In developing coal fine crushing flow sheets, reduction of fines production

was a prime consideration in equipment selection and selection of alterna-
tive fine crushing methods. In addition, a flow sheet for ultrafines
separation 'following fine· crushing was also developed. This flow sheet
could be used with any of the actual fine crushing flow sheets if ultrafines
removal is required or justified. To develop the ultrafines separation
flow sheet, ultrafines were defined to be coal particles ioo mesh or finer
in size. This definit'ion is only an estimate of what individual process
developers might ultimately define as ultrafines.

Coal fines can reportedly also be a problem in some types of proposed or

existing fluidized-bed steam generators; the type of steam generators
postulated for the conversion plant steam/powe.r plant. Fines or ultra-
fines can be swept from the fluidized bed after only very short residence
time. If this time is too short, these particles may not undergo complete
combustion. And if particles containing appreciable heat value are not
captured and returned to the fluidized bed or a carbon burnup cell, steam
generator efficiency will be reduced. Some fluidized-bed steam generators
reportedly eliminate or reduce to acceptable limits partial fine~ co~bustidfi

by feeding coal below the fluidized bed rather than from the bed top.

4-51
4.3.4 Coal Pulverizing and Grinding

Only one process in Table 4-1 requires pulverized coal; H-Coal. There are
two obvious ways to meet this feed requirement: dry pulverizing and solvent
grinding. Of these two approaches, dry coal pulverizing is a well developed
technology, while coal solvent grinding has only been attem~ted experimentally.

Dry pulverizers (mills) are used exclusively for pul~erized coal-fired steam
generators., utility and· industrial; and for many other coal-fired prpcesses. ·
Currently, several different designs of dry coal mills are commercially
available. The individual capacities of these mills for bituminous coals
range up to 100 tons per hour. Further, current dry mill design can prob-
ably be scaled up, when markets st,u;:h as coal conversion exist, to ·c:apac.ities
in the 200 to 300 tons per hour range without sacrificing reliability.
Mills of similar design to coal mills with capacities in excess of 300 tons
per hour are currently used for pulverizing cement.

Conceptual designs and cost estimates were developed for two coal pulveriz-
ing alternatives in the toal mine-coal conversion plant interface project~

The flow sheets and major equipment lists, which are part of .these concep-
tual designs, are believe to be adequate for Union Carbide's coal handling-
preparation equipment requirements survey. Therefore, no additional con-
ceptual coal pulverizing flow sheets were. developed.

With one exception, as far as could be determined, coal grinding, in coal

liquefaction solvent, water, or other liquids has never been used in any
large-scale commercial operation. There simply has never been any require-
ment for large-scale slurry coal grinding. Large-scale wet grinding, how-
ever, is widely used in mineral ore beneficiation. Wet ore mills have been
built with larger capacities than any dry coal mill. And, it is expected,
on the basis of present design practices. that very large wet c:nAl mills
could be built. Ball mills having 25 foot diameters and drive systems rated
at 14,000 hp are currently being considered for ore grinding. The ability

4-52
to build very large wet mills could have a direct bearing on the minimhm
number of grinding lines ~n projected conversion plants and on their cor-
responding capital cost.

Wet grtnding is used at the Black Mesa, Arizona, coal mine to prepare coal
for slurry pipeline transport. The coal size consist produced at Black
Nesa is, however, considerably coarser than the 70 percent minus 400 mesh
size consist required for H-Coal and is purposely skewed - 16 to 20 percent
minus 325 mesh and 30 to 35 .percent plus 48 mesh.. To accomplish this special
size consist, open-circuit, rod mill grinding is used. From Black Mesa,
slurried, ground coal is piped 273 miles to the 1,580-MW Mohave power plant.
Here it is dewatered and pulverized further in conventional dry coal mills
~q a nominal size consist of 70 percent minus 200 mesh.

Kennedy Van Saun Corporation (KVS) is currently performing an extensive in-

vestigation.of coal pulverizing and grinding for DOE. As part of this proj-
ect, KVS has perfo.rmed a limited amount of grinding tests using Kentucky
No. 9 coal and No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oil. Results of this work were used
to develop a single conceptual coal-solvent grinding flow sheet which matches
H-Coal coal feed requirements (70 percent minus 200 mesh coal dried to
2.0 wt percent or less total moisture).

4.3.5 Conversion Reactor Ash/Slag Removal

All nine coal conversion processes specified produce significant quantities

of solid wastes which must be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable
manner. The main sources of these wastes are: conversion process gasi-
fiers, power/steam plant steam generators, and coal cleaning operations.
As discussed in Subsection 4.2, the liquefaction processes, with exception
of SRC-I, gasify re~idues resulting from coal liquefactibn and subsequent
products recovery. The gasifiers used to gasify these fractionation bottoms
produce the ash or slag wasces associated with liquefaction. Solid wastes
resulting from SRC-I are the result of a liquefaction reactor liquids-solids

4-53
separation operation. For flow sheets development, the SRC-I solids were
assumed to be disposed of directly, i.e., they were not considered to be
an acceptable gasifier feed.

Figure 4-8 presents possible operations that could be used for ash/slag
removal. In reviewing the ash/slag operations required for each of the
nine specified conversion processes, the possibility of energy recovery
was evaluated. However, in all cases where it appeared warranted, it is
already part of the conversion reactor (see Subsection 4.2). Therefore,
only flow sheets for ash or slag dewatering, when required, and transport
to a disposal site were developed.

To facilitate ash/slag removal flow sheets development two types of gasifier

solid wastes were defined: granulated slag and ash. The type produced by
specific gasifiers is shown in Figure 4-8. Granulated slag is formed hy
rapid quenching of molten gasifier slag in water. It is relatively coarse
in size, typically contains less than 4 wt percent combustibles, and dewaters
easily. With the possible exception of U-Gas, ash from the ash producing
gasifiers has a finer size consist that granulated slag and contains con-
siderably more combustible material (principally carbon).

In both slagging and nonslagging gasifiers the possibility exists of ash/

slag removal channel pluggage due to tormation of agglomerates or oversize
chunks of solidifi~d slag. To·prevent such pluggage some coal conversion
process developers have proposed use of ash/slag crushers or grinders in-
stalled at appropriate locations 1n their ~asifier ARh/RlAe rPmnvRl Ay~tem5-

ln developing conceptual ash/slag removal flow sheets, any ash/slag crushers

or grinders were considered to be part of the gasifier and not part of ash/
slag removal, i.e., any crusher or grinders were considered to he on thP
gasifier side of th~ ash/ slag handU.ng. hn11nclrlri PS r:lefin._.d in Subsection /1.2./1.

If ash/slag crushers or grinders are used to control ash or granulated slag

top size, for most gasifiers listed in Table 4-2 they would need to operate

4-54
 >"

COAL COAL AND FRACTIONATION

LIQUEFACTION BOTTOMS GASIFICATION v
/
NOTES:
111 HYDROGEN FDA COAL LIQUEFACTION IS ASSUMED TO BE PRODUCED
POWEA/STE.~M BY COAL GASIFICATION USING TEXI\CO PARTIAL OXIDATION GASIFICATION.
PLANT
/ 12) LIMESTONE IS USED TO CONTROL FLUIDIZED BED STEAM GENERATOR SULFUR
ATMOSPHERIC OXIDES EMISSIONS. AS A RESULT THE SOLID WASTES FROM THE POWER/STEAM
PRESSURE DAY SOLIDS 121 PLANT CONSIST OF ASH, CALCIUM SULFATE, AND CALCIUM OXIDE.
FLUIDIZED BEC /
STEAM GENER~.TOR 131 THE ASH-WATER SLURRY PRODUCED BY HYGAS CONTAINS APPRECIABLE CARBON
AND COULD BE CONSIDERED AS CHAR-WATER SLURRY.
/
/ 141 IN ADDITION TO THE SOLID WASTES SHOWN IN THIS BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM, A
U·GAS ASH-WATER LARGE QUANTITY OF COAL CLEANING SOLID REFUSE COULD HAVE TO BE TRANSPORTED
SLURRY TO A DISPOSAL SITE. ANY OF THE SOLIDS TRANSPORT METHODS SHOWN COULD BE USED
/ FOR THIS PURPOSE.
/ F·12
/ ASH/SLAG
ASH-WATER
,..... DEWATERING
DEWATEAED
DEWATERED SOLIDS TRANSPORT
DEWATEAED
SOLIDS DISPOSAL
HYGAS >
SLURRY(3) a:
"z
0
.... •SCREEN
eFILTER
SOLID
WAS!:... •CONVEYOR • LANDFILL

z .
::J
0
•CENTRIFUGE
• SPIRAL
• RAIL CARS
•TRUCKS
• MINEFILL

0
;::.,
<1::0
EXXON
CATALYTIC
ASH-WATER "s~
zo GASIFICATION SLURRY ~
:r
Q~
"'
>-o
~ .. "a:
EXXON DONOR I ff' EXXON DO~OA
SOLVENT
ASH·WATEA
SLURRY
~ ....
SOLVENT

I GASIFIER
DAY ASH
"
~___...,r- 1--,r-

z z
0
0
;::., u;
a:
<1::0
~ ....
TEXACO GRANULATED
zo PARTIAL
F-13
Q~ SLAG·WATEA TRANSPORT
>-o
~ .. OXIDATION
SLURRY
0
u
~ PA~}~f!ooN
SOLID
WASTE
SLURRY PIPELINE
OLIOS TRANSPOR
SOLID
WASTE
IMPOUNDMENT
DISPOSAL

SAC·II
ff' v
v -- - ___,. •SCREEN
SLURRY
• PIPELINE
SLURRY

- e LANDFILL

IJ
• THICKENING
vv •SLURRYING
eFIXATION
14-- • LANDFILL WITH
FIXATION
TEXACO GRANULATED • MINEFILL
PARTIAL
OXIOATICW SLAG·WATER
v
SLURRY
v RECYCLE WATER
H·COAL
v
v
v
COG AS I CHAR COGAS
GASIFIER ~NO
GRANULATED t::
v
I COMBUST DR SLAG-WATER
SLURRY
v
SAC·I Ill
I SOLID WASTES
t::
I v
Fi.,re 4-8
ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM (41
 THIS PAGE·
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 at or near gasifier operating pressure and_could be exposed to high
temperatures. To reliably operate under these severe conditions new
or modified ash/slag crusher or grinder designs may have to be developed
and demonstrated.

iri order to estimate equipment desigri ~apacities, the granulated slag

~nd ash char~cteristics presented in Table 4-11 were adopted.· In the case
6f ~sh produ~ing ~asifiers, the res~lting mate~ial balances r~present
maximum values. The quantity of gasifier ash that would have to be dis-
posed of decreases with ash combustibles concentration.

Table 4-11

ESTU1ATED GASIFICATION ASH AND GRANULATED

SLAG CHARACTERISTICS

Ash Producing Slagging

Characteristic
Gasifiers Gasifiers
Gasifier Slurry Solids
·: Concentration •,
40 wt percent 40 wt ·percent
..
Ash.or Slag Combustible
Concentration :
30 wt percent 2 wt percent
-· ,;
.. -
Dewatered Ash or Slag
. ·Hoisture Concentration
,;".
30 wt percent 10 wt percent

As presented in Table 4-9, coal feed to conversion reactors has an esti-

mated ash concentration of·9.0 wt percent, wet basis. After allowance
for coal diverted to thP pnwP.r/steam plant (7 ,500 tons per day of clean
coal), this.results in acombustibles free gasifier solids wastes production
of 159 tons per hour. · lfuen slag and ash combustibles concentrations are
-consider-ed, the. fo'llowing quantities are obtained for· gasifier· solids wastes
production on a dry solids basis:

• Granulated slag producing gasifiers: 163 tons per hour

(3,912 tons per d~y)

[!_receding page blank 4-~ 1

 • Ash producing gasifiers: 228 tons.per hour
(5,472 tons per day)

The 15 percent of conversion plant feed coal diverted to the power/steam

plant is fired in atmospheric pressure fluidized-bed steam generators. To
control flue gas sulfur oxides emissions, limestone is injected into these
steam generators. As a result, 41 torts per hour (984 tons per day) of dry
solid wastes having the following estimated composition would be produced
in the power/steam plant:

Component Weight Percent

Ash 63.5
Calcium Oxide 14.5
Calt.:ium Sult'ar:~ 20.6
Residual Carbon 1.4

If coal cleaning. is part of a conversion pl<;mt·,. ~arge q11r~ntHies of clean-

ing plarit refuse would be produced. Cleaning refuse quantity estimated for
flow sheets presented in this report for cleaning Pittsburgh Seam. coal is
1,200 tons per hour (24,000 tons pet day) at 15.7 wt percent total moisture.
This is over five times the amount of solid wastes produced by the conver-
sion process gasifiers. If coal cleaning ~ere not used, much of t;:hi~ solid
waste would be fed to the conversion reactors.

Numerous approaches are used to transport solids having characteristics

similar to those estimated for conversion plant solid wastes. Obviously
of importance in selecting a best Approach is the diGtancc wastes ell:!:! Lu
be transported. Therefore~ a nnm:inr~l rH,'!ltancQ of 5 mileo wa15 esta.Ll.it:;ht!tl
for flow sheets development. This distance is judged to be reasonable for
conversion plants located in areas underlain by either thP. Pittsh11rp,h or
Kentucky No. 9 coal seams.
As shown· in· Figure 4-8, two general solid w·astes transport approaches were
judged suitable to handle the quantities of wastes that would result·from
coal conversion ·(on the order· of 30' 000 tons per day under the conditions
established for flow sheets development); transport as dewatered solids
a·nd slurry pipeline transport. Selection of the best approach for a
specific coal conver'sion plant would depend largely on economics. Major
factors, -in addition to waste quantities and transport distance, that would
affect relative economics are:

• The type of disposal operation

• Terrain betwe~n the conversion plant site and the disposal

site and at the disposal site

• . Environmental requirements which must be met at the

disposal site

• Solid wastes physical and chemical characteristics

As presented in Figure 4-8,: two alternatives were considered as possible

ultimate solid wastes disposal methods: landfill and underground mine
fill. (Surface mine fill was considered analogous to landfill.) Of these
two alternatives, landfill would be the simplest and probably the least ex-
pensive approach at most sites provided necessary permits could be obtained.
Filling of mined out portionf) of coal mines used to produce conversion coal
would be complicated, particularly if longwall mining is ,used. As far as
is known, no effort has ever be~n made in the United States to return the
quantity of wastes that would be associated with coal conversion plants
to coal mii1es. Considerable development/demonstration t..rould be required
before mine fill is considered feasible.

A considerable amount of materials handling could be required at the actual

disposal site to meet environmental and aesthetic requirements. This would
be particularly true for the dewatered wastes transport alternatives and
underground mine fill disposal. Extensive environmental monitoring would
also be required. Consideration, however, of materials handling operations
at the disposal site was not within the scope of the work covered by this

4-59
report. With the possible exception of equipment required .for underground
mine fill dispos.al, existing materials handling equipment, such as doz.ers and
scrapers, are capable of meeting disposal site materials handling requirements.

Because of the presence of environmentally ~armful compounds_, some solid

wastes may require special treatment before actual disposal. Wastes con-
taining leachable compounds which are toxic or poiential ground or surface
water pollutants are apt to require such special treatment. Also, wastes
containing compounds such as oils which can form films on water are also
apt to require some treatment. One type of treatment that might be used
to render environmentally harmful compounds safe for disposal is the addi-
tion of "fixing" agents such as lime, silicates, cement, o:r; ce,~;·tain type.s ·

of ash. These agents can, for some types of wastes; tie ·up physically or
chemically harmful compotinds in a solid matrix from which their leachability
is very low. Use of such agents, some of which are proprietary, for large
quantities of solid wastes is relativelynew, but a considerable amount of
research is currently being done in this area. Fixation of sl11dges produced
by lime and limestone flue gas sulfur oxides control processes is an example
of one area where fixation is being seriously evaluated.

The solid wastes handling conceptual flow sheets are compatible with use
of fixing should its use be required. However, no equipment is provided
for addition and mixing of fixing compounds.

4-60
 Section 5

CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEET DESCRIPTIONS

This section \iesc·ribes ·conceptual flow sheets for coal handling and prepa-
ration and ash/slag removal operations that will be required by commercial
c·oal conversion plants. Accompanying these flow sheets are major equipment
lists. Design bases established for the flow sheets ~nd the general approach
used in their development are presented in Section 4.

All flow sheets are keyed ·to ·the coal handling and preparation operations
block flow diagram, Figure 4-7, or the ash/slag removal operations block
flmv diagram, Figure 4....;8, presented in Subsection 4. 3. F S designations
on these· block flow diagrams are flow sheet numbers. These numbers are
located over the coal cleaning general operations area and over individual
operations:· When more than one single dash FS number, such as FS-3 and
FS-4, are shown for an operation, multiple flow sheets are required to
meet the coal feed requirements for· all coal conversion processes. In
general, flow sheets with double dash numbers, such as FS-4-1, are alt·er-
n~tiv~ flo~ sheets for specific operations.

Most flow sheet operations require multiple equipment of the same type.
These are frequently arrange~ into independent trains consisting of several
operations. In such flow sheets, only a single piece of equipment is shown.
··Numbers in parantheses after equipment titles are the actual equipment
quantities required for a specific operation.

To facilitate presentation, this section is divided into subsections corre-

sponding to the four general coal operation areas identified in the Figure 4-7·
block'diagram, plus a subsection which presents ash/slag removal flow sheets.
These subsections are preceded by some general qualifications.

5-l
5.1 FLOW SHEETS AND MAJOR EQUIPMENT LISTS GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS

All coal flow sheets presented in this repor.t involve handling and prepara-
tion of very large quantities of material. Only one United States coal
mine, a western strip mine, currently produces the quantity of coal speci-
fied for these conceptual flow sheets; 16.5 million tons per year. None
of the mines currently operating in either the Pittsburgh or Western Kentucky
coal seams have productions which even approach this tonnage. A coal-fired
power plant capabl,e of annually consuming 16.5 million· tons of coal would
have a capacity rating on the: order of 6,200 MV1. This is nearly twice the
rated design capacity of the largest U.S. coal-fired power plants •.

Design of facilities with the capacities dealt wi,th in this report will
require considerable engineering effort. ·Fina~ equipment sP.lPrtions ~ . . ..
and facilities designs will be the result of numerous trade-off studies
involving both technical and economic considera.tions. Flow sheets and
equipment specifications for these facilities will reflect the results of
these studies and detailed engineering.

In comparison with the engineering effort required for actual plant design,
that associated with the flow sheets and equipment lists presented in this
report is small. Further, these flow sheets are not site-specific, provide
cual fur nine different conversion prncesses plus fluidizcd~bed steam gen~

erators, and were developed without the aid of engineering drawings. As a

result, flow sheets and equipment performance specifications presented in
this report should be used with discretion. The flow sheets and equipment
performance specifications are based on ~ngineering jt1dgments, desien t?Xper.,..
ience with similar coal and other materials handling-preparation facilities,
information provided by equipment manufacturers, and information developed
in other Bechtel coal conversion plant conceptual design projects.

Majo~equipment lists presented contain estimated equipment design capac~

ities and, where appropriate_, such information as estimat·ed installed

5-2
 equipment power, major overall dimensions, recommended materials of con-
struction, specification requirements, and gener.al comments. In the
Specification Requirements and Comments part of these lists, frequent
reference is made to equipment of "standard design." This ter·m is used to
identify equipment that is currently used comme.rcially for coal operations
at or above the equipment's s~ecified design capacit~: No further develop-
ment or demonstration is required for reliable use of equipment so speci-
fied. However, because of capacity requirements, most equipment specified
as standard would not be available as off-the~shelf items. Most would have
to be custom fabricat~d from proven· design d~~a. As a result, purchase
lead times required for standard equipment can be substantial even though
no development or demonstration is required.

For selected major equipment that are repeatedly specified, general perform-
ance requirements specifications were prepared. These.are presented in
Appendix A and equipment covered by them are identified in the equipment
lists. The general performance requirements specifications are for large
belt conveyors (including tripper conveyors), gravimetric belt feeders, and
cage mill fine crushers.

As ~iscussed at the beginning of Subsection 4.3, Conceptual Flow Sheet

. De~eldp~ent Approach, high operating reliability was a prime consideration
in flow sheet development and equipment specification. All equipment
specified in major equip~ent lists is considered ~o have high operating
reliability or, through further development, be able to achieve high oper-
ating reliability. For individual pieces of equipment, high operating reli-
ability was defined to mean an expected equipment annual availability of.at
least 90 percent. That is, maintenance requir1ng a piece of equipment to
b.e take·n out of service or not be available would not exceed 875 hours per
year.

5-3
Actual equipment reliability depends on four main factors, all of which
must be adequate if high reliability is to be achieved. These are:

e Equipment design and manufacture including accessories

and controls

e Plant design and construction - Equipment must be properly

installed, adequate access provided for rapid maintenance,
and acceptable service facilities, such as cranes, tools,
and shops provided

e Consistent, thorough preventive maintenance

o S~are parts and maintenance materials inventories

In some plants, one or more of the latter three factors have been neglected.
As a result, though all equipment is compatible with high operating reli-
ability, high reliability is not achieved. Considering the costs associated
with coal conversion, neglect of any reliability dependent -factors would
probably be economically disastrous.

Conveyors, fine crushers, feeders, pulverizers, and dryers of th~ types

specified in this report have demonstrated high reliability in coal
applications. In some flow sheets, large air classifiers, grinding mills,
and baghouse particulate collectors are used. The reliability of this equip-
ment has been demonstrated only in applications other than coal, principally
in minerals beneficiation. Some design modifications or further development
may be required for reliable use of this equipment in coal preparation.

In large scale materials handling-preparation, plant operating reliability

is not dependent only on individual equipment reliability. The number
6f successive operations is fr~qtt~ntly of ~uch magnitude that provision of
alternative flow paths, excess capacity equipment, redundant equipment, and
storage facilities are required to guarantee high plant operating rAli-
ability. All four approaches are used in the conceptual coal handling-
preparation flow sheets. Particular use is made of full capacity redundant

5-4
equipment such as conveyors. An important consideration in this approach
is the reliability of equipment, such as flop gates, used to alter coal
flow path.

Determination of the best approach to obtain a specific plant operating

reliability when individual equipment operating reliability can be adequately
predicted is a complicated problem and is an area where additional research
could result in economic benefits for large-capacity coal handling and
preparation. As a result, the flow sheets presented in this report, though
based on actual plant experience, ~o not necessarily represent optimum
designs. Much remains to be learned about the best way to engineer large
capacity coal handling-preparation facilities. In this regard, reliability
evaluations of existing operations, such as power plant coal handling-
preparation facilities, could provide data for improved future coal conversiqn
plant designs.. Equipment and plant reliability assessment should also be
part of all coal conversion plant demonstration programs.

In the equipment lists presented in this report, design capacities are

shown for coal surge storage silos and bins. These capacity values are
only rough estimates. Extensive equipment layout studies, coal flow de-
sign calculations, structural analysis, and cost estimating would be re-
quired to arrive at final design dimensions and capacities for coal
silos and bins of types and capacities specified for conversion coal storage.
All bins and silos would be designed for mass flow operation. This flow
pattern results in a first-in and first-out flow sequence which minimizes
coal size segregation as a result of storage and avoids spontaneous com-
bustion fires due to formation of dead regions within bins and silos.
To avoid fires, coal would not be held in any surge storage silos or bins
for prolonged periods. Though not shown on flow sheets, all bins dis-
charging to crushing would be equipped with emergency unloading chutes.
If for some reason a bin could not be emptied normally or a fire were to
occur, they could be quickly and safely emptied by means of these chutes.

5-5
In the conceptual flow sheets extensive use is made of large-capacity
belt conveyors. Design of conveyor systems of the capacity specified,
like design of storage bins and silos, requires extensive layout studies
and design calculations. In fact, conveyor design is greatly affected
by storage requirements and is a principal cost associated with storage
facilities. Bin and silo heights frequently determine the length of
conveyors and obviously affect conveyor power requirements. Because of
the engineering required to completely specify conveyor systems, conveyor
power requirements presented in the equipment lists are only rough
estimates. Conveyor belt widths are also estimates, but are not as sub-
ject to change as much as the conveyor power estimates.

Transfer of coal between operations, such as from conveyors into bins,

from bins onto feeders, and from crushers onto conveyors, usually re-
quires use of metal-enclosed chutes. The shapes of these chutes can be
quite elaborate and, in addition to their containment function, they may
contain flop gates or other solids diversion devices for flow direction
switching and sampling equipment. The conceptual flow sheets presented in
this report do not show chutes or, with minor exception, how chutes would
be used to divert coal to alternative or parallel equipment. The existence
of suitably designed chutes and associated equipment is only implied in
these flow sheets. Their design, however, is an important part of the
engineering of large, high reliability coal handling-preparation facil-
ities.

An important requirement in ~ll ~oa.l handling opeba.tions is particulates

control. Baghouse dust collection systems are specified for this purpose
for coal surge storage and for coal breaking. Actual sizing of these
systems depends on the dimensions of the structure they serve, the amount
of coal involved, the oper~tion resulting in dust creation. and coal Rize

5-6
consist. Since the first tw~ are plant layout dependent, the baghouse
design capacities and power requirements specified in the equipment lists
are only rough estimates.

A problem associated with use of baghouses for coal pprticulates control

is coal dust explosion. Though development-demonstration is required,
it is believed that coal particulates explosion can be controlled through
~pecial baghouse design, including baghouse ducting design, and use of
explosion detection-suppression systems. Current baghouse explosion detec-
tion-suppression systems which appear suitable for coal baghouses consist
of a sensor capable of_ detecting the initial pressure buildup after coal
ignites and a chemical extinguishing system capable of suppressing the
explosion before it reaches damaging proportions. The sensor can be either
a radiation or pressure type; or, both types can be used together. These
sensors and their control units are capable of detecting an explosion and
activating an extinguishing system in milliseconds. The suppression system
rapidly, by means of explosive discs or bolts, releases a chemical, such as
bromochloromethane, which inhibits combustion reactions. Explosion sup-
pression systems are presently successfully used with baghouses handling
dusts similar to pulverized coal such as wood dust.

In addition to use of baghouses for particulate emissions control, extens-

ive use would be made of spray dust suppression systems. These systems,
though not shown on the conceptual flow sheets or specified in the equip-
ment lists, would be used at most coal conveyor and feeder transfer points
and in the coal breaking area. Each coal dust suppression system would
consist of a proportioning-pumping unit, piping, and a series of spray
heads. The proportioning-pumping unit provides a water-wetting agent
solution to the spray heads at sufficient pressure to cover coal discharged
at transfer points with a fine, mist-blanket. Wetting agent is added to
dust spray water in order to lower its surface tension from 65 dynes/em to
less than 25 dynes/em. This results in a solution which has increased

5-7
wetting·, penetrating, and spreading properties. It is more effective in
contacting, confining, and agglomerating the micron sized dust than water
alone. Actual design of individual spray systems depends on their location,
the quantity of dust to be suppressed, and whether or not they are used in
combination with other dust control equipment.

5.2 COAL CLEANING CONC:EPTUAL FLOW SHEETS

Three conceptual flow sheets and major equipment lists were developed for
coal cleaning. One set provides for both coarse and fine coal cleaning.
The other two represent alternative methods for. fine coal cleaning. Mate-
rial balances for these flow sheets are based on the Pittsburgh Seam coal
washability data presented in Table 4-6 and Figure 4-3 in Subsection 4.2.
This washability data is very similar to that developed for KP.ntnrky No. 9
Seam coal. And, as a result, the material balances are also applicable for
the Kentucky No. 9 coal.

The coal cleaning operations, coarse plus fine, are designed·to clean
21.8 million tons per year of ROM coal to produce 16.5 million tons per
year of clean coal. Clean coal is conveyed to live storage-blending or
dead storage. Coal cleaning design conditions are presented in Table 4-9.

5. 2. 1 g_uarse Coal ~_r_eaking, CJ.e;:m:i.ng, Hnd. C.r1J lihing

Fluw sheet FS-1 presents the flow scheme and material balance developed for
coarse coal breaking, cleaning, and coarse clean coal crushing. It also
presents one alternative for fine eo.:tl cleaning. The inlet boundary for
this fl?w sheet is at thP. rlischar~e point(c) of the int~grated coal mine
complex transport coal receiving facility discharge r.nmrPynr(c:) (iii!Q

Figure 4-7, Coal Handling and Preparation Operations Block Flow Diagram).
This conveyor(s) delivers coal to the breaking operation at a design flow
rate of 4,353 tons per hour, 20 hours per day.

5-8
 >--~---- -- ~ -.-- ~
I
I
I
I ~
mtl
FLOTATION
I REAGOe;l~ln
s;~
FLOCCULANT
I ~SYSTEMIII
TO REFUSf COLLECTK:IN I
~
ANO TRAHIPORT

REfUSE
MOISTURE TRAP lilt

TO ~~.TMjOSPHERE

RAW COAL
-..on~
SAM~LE VACUUM
PUMP_!II

RAW COAL
CONVEYOR NO. 2 111

--·
LINE DUIGMAT!O!fl

- - - REFUSE AND PARTICULATE COAL

----WATER

"'
z
;;
;
u

~
w
z
;;:
CLEAN COAL
2 IN. • 0

CLEAN COAL
SAMPLING STATION 111 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL lABORATORY
2 IN. X 0
CLEAN COAL CONVEYOR 111 CONCE."'UAL FLOW SHEEn DEVUQf'MEHT FDA COAL
28MESH X 0 CLEAN COAL
.SAMPLE CONVERSIOH I'UoHT COAL HAHOUNG-PAEPARATIOH
AH0 ASHJSLAG A(M()VAL DP'EAATIONS
CONTRACT NO. lUX- .sn•v'

JIG COARSE AND FINE COAL CLEANING

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
STREAM NO.

·- ....
~ 0 0 0 0 0
.....
0 0
......
0
,.
~
...
~
,.
.....,
<&
,.... ~
,.
<& <8> <& <8>
... ~ ·~

... ~,.
0>
...
4} ~ ~ ~ ~
,.
~ ~ ~

..
~ ~ ~

.....
- - - - - - - (036 '·""' -
.....- ..""...- -
-
... I
526 26 2 278 1,707 1.S29 1,649 347 1,182 38 >.038 >.038 324
ORY SOLIDS, TONS/HOUR 2 1,4'19 2,612 254 I .SIS 3"

.,."'- "' 1,012 2

,., 8£CHTELNATIONAL.IJ4C... SAHFAAHCISC:0041111
WET TOTAL, TONS/HOUR
WAUJ:I.CPM
WATER, WT PERCENT
'·"'
1.7'lU
7
1,417

-
., 2,d58
tl,IIO
50
2.912

..•
'·'""
5,318
i•..lll
-
m
282

"'
>0
7.384
lt.IIOI
75
>.883
070
3.6
5,481
;1!.020
-
,.,.
80

70
5,401
~~.~

- '·""'
-
926
.7,S97
70
3.784
R.1nll
55
2.184
7R10
30
,
>.800 2.383
9.452
-
4.697
12.192
65 30
120
20
4,0S2
p,4$0
" .
""'
220 372
12
>.285
),036
26 ..
2.757
10.444
1,164

'"
It
-
-
-
4.D7S
18,604

""
740

,.
2.220
..
4,23:5
16.384
2!i2

"'
"
467 4.607 4,U4
16.456
585
1,632
iU
250
300

"'
333
1,332
-
...,
3.300

I o.o
752
IG.f
9.515
39,CZ2 8£CKT£t..oa OATE
JULY 1171
IFLOWSHEETNU¥8(111
I fl·1

5-9
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 i
I
MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
JIG CO~SE
I
AND FINE COAL CLEANING
REFERENCE FLOW SHEET FS-1
i

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification R~quirements and Comments
Required Each
:
COAL BREAKING EQUIPMENT
2 ROM Coal Receiving Hopper - Design Capacity: 150 tons 1
Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
.

promotion. I .
2 ROM Coal Feeder 20 Design Capacity: 2,600 tph Standard design ap'ron type feeder.

2 ROM Coal Grizzly 7~ Design Capacity: 2,600 tph Grizzlies of this ~apacity
are s~andard
equipment.
Nominal Opening: 4-3/4 in. Manganese steel abrasion resistant deck.
Size: 60 in. X 12 ft

2 Rotary Breaker 150 Design Capacity: 600 tph Breakers of this c~pacity are standard equipment.
Diameter: 14 ft Screen material islabrasion resistant steel.
Length: 30 ft
Openings: 6 in.

1 Raw Coal Conveyor No. 1 200 Design Capacity: 5,400 tph See General Conve~or Specification.
Width: 60 in.
Estimated Length: 600 ft
i
1 Coal Breaking Area Baghouse 150 Design Capacity: 50,000 acfm Standard Baghouse ~System.
Dust Collection·system I
I
I

CLEANING PLANT SURGE COAL STORAGE EQUIPMENT

1 Raw Coal Conveyor No. 2 500 Design Capacity: 5,400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Width: 60 in.
Estimated Length: 800 ft I
I
I
I
4 Raw Coal Silo - Design. Capacity: 5,000 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
I
promotion. I

16 Raw Coal Feeder 10 Design Capacity: 300 tph Vibratory-Activatdr Feeders.

Width: 48 in. This is a new type of feeder.
Length: 10 ft

1 Raw Coal Silo Area Baghouse 60 Design Capacity: 20,000 acfm Standard Baghouse System.
Dust Collection System I
I

I·

5-11
 I .

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
JIG COARSE AND FINE COAL CLEANING
REFERENCE FLOW SHEET FS-1

Number HP !
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each

COARSE COAL SCREENING EQUIPMENT

1 Cleaning Plant Feed Conveyor 500 Design Capacity: 5,400 tph See General Conveyori Specification.
Width: 60 in. I
I
Estimated Length: 500 ft I

16 Raw Coal Screen Feeder 20 Design Capacity: 300 tph Standard Design Vibrlting Feeder.
I
Width: 36 in.
J
16 Raw Coal Screen 30 Design Capacity: 300 tph Standard Design Double Deck Vibrating Screen.
Type: Double Deck Vibrating Rubber deck construction.
Size: 8 ft X 20 ft
Openings: 1~ in. and 3/8 in.

COARSE COAL CLEANING EQUIPMENT

3 Coarse Coal Jig 350 Design Capacity: 1,000 tph Baum Jigs of this capacity are standard equipment,
Type: Baum but are custom des~gned for each coal. Actual
Size: 180 sq ft design is based primarily on coal washability
data and clean coal ~equirements.
The specified jig isi a three product unit
with two elevators and five compartments.

1 Middlings Crusher 250 Design Capacity: 280 tph Standard Design Ha~ermill.
Type: Hammermill i

9 Clean Coal Dewatering Screen 20 Design Capacity: 250 tph Standard Design Single Deck Vibrating Screen
Type: Single Deck Vibrating Stainless Steel Wedge Wire Deck.
Size: 6 ft X 10 ft

2 Clean Coal Crusher 600 Design Capacity: 900 tph Standard Design Four Roll Crusher.
Type: Four Roll Crusher
Size: 36 in. X 60 in. I
I
10 Thickening Cyclone - Diameter: 24 in. Several standard deJigns of coal classifying
cyclones are currently available.
Cast Ni-Hard constrJction with cast
refractory apex noz~les.
I
1 Clean Coal Conveyor 200 Design Capacity: 5,400 tph See General ConveyorI Specification.
Width: 60 in. I

1 Refuse Conveyor 50 Design Capacity: 1,600 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
I
Width: '48 in.

5-13
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
JIG qOARSE AND FINE COAL CLEANING
~FERENCE FLOW SHEET FS-1

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification ~equirements and Comments
Required Each

FINE COAL COAL CLEANING AND DEWATERING EQUIPMENT

9 Desliming Sieve Bend - Design Capacity: 180 tph Standard Design Fixed Sieve Bend.
Opening: 28 mesh

3 Fine Coal Jig 350 Design Capacity: 600 tph A three product, Batac, air-pulsed jig is
Size: 180 sq ft specified for finJ coal cleaning due to the
Type: Batac even bed air disttibution achievable with this
jig design. /
The specified jig~has six compartments and
two elevators. ~
600 tph Batac jig~ are currently used for fine
coal cleaning.
·i
3 Fine Refuse Dewatering Screen 10 Design Capacity: 120 tph Standard Design Horizontal Vibrating Screen.
Type: Single Deck Vibrating Stainless Steel Wedge Wire Deck.
Size: 4 ft X 8 ft

6 Fine Clean Coal Dewatering Screen 15 Design Capacity: 165 tph Standard Design Single Deck Vibrating Screen.
Type: Single Deck Vibrating Stainless Steel Wedge Wire Deck.
Size: 8 ft X 20 ft
I
6 Clean Coal Vibrating Centrifuge 75 Design Capacity: 165 tph Standard Basket Type Coal Centrifuge.
I
Stainless Steel Wedge Wire Basket.
I

COAL CLEANING EFFLUENT TREATMENT EQUIPMENT I'

'
12 Flotation Cells 15 Design Capacity: 320 tph Standard Design Coal Cleaning Flotation Cells.

rl
Size: 2 banks of six cells 1:
:r

1 Clea11 Coal Vacuum Filter 200 Design CAparity: 200 tph Standard Design Disc Vacuum Filter.
Type: Disc Filter
Size: 12~ ft diameter x 13 discs

1 Refuse Thickener 15 Design Capacity: 150 tph

I
Standard Design Rake Mechanism.
Size: 200 ft diameter :I
I

2 Refuse Solid Bowl Centrifuge 300 Design Capacity: 100 tph Standard Design s.9lid Bowl Centrifuge.
Size: 36 in. X 96 in. II
---

5-15
 'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Coal conyeyed to breaking (12 in. x 0) is discharged into receiving hoppers.
From here it is fed by apron feeders onto fixed grizzlies having nominal
bar spacings of 4-3/4 inch. Grizzly oversize, nominally plus 6 inch coal
falls into a rotary breaker where it is reduced to a top size of 6 inches.
Rock and mine debris not crushed are rejected from the breaker. This re-
ject material is discharged to refuse collection and transport.

Coal from the rotary breaker discharges onto a conveyor where it combines
with grizzly undersize coal. Broken coal is then conveyed to a sampling
station where it is continuously sampled . . A flow diagram for a typical
coarse coal three stage sampling station is presented in Figure 5-l. As
coal discharges from raw coal conveyor No. 1 onto conveyor No. 2, a primary
sample is cut by a primary sample cutter. This sample is crushed to a top.
size of 3/4 inch in a hammermill. Crushed primary sample is discharged
from a surge hopper onto a belt feeder where it is sampled by a secondary
sample cutter. Excess crushed primary sample is diverted to the main coal
flow. The secondary sample is crushed to 8 mesh x 0 and sampled by a con-
tinuous rotary tertiary sampler. The tertiary samples are statistically
representative of the entire coarse coal flow and are reasonable quantities
for laboratory analysis. To avoid chute plugages during winter operation,
the raw coal sample station should be totally enclosed in an insulated. and
heated building.

r.n~l (n inch x 0) is conveyed to a scrico of four row coal surge 5torage

silos. These silos at their feed and dishcarge points are equipped with
a baghouse coal dust collection system for particulate emissions control.
Collected coal from the baghouse system is fed to at least one of the
silos. Vibratory-activator feeders located under the raw coal surge
storage silos feed coal onto the coal cleaning plant feed conveyor.
The feeder disch~rge points constitute the outlet boundary for the
cleaning plant surge storage operation identified in Figrire 4-7. The boundary.

I Preceding page blank. \ 'i-17

L-~-----~--~--------·-----
 •.

CD PRIMARY SAMPLE CUTTER @ SECONDARY SAMPLE COLLECTING HOPPER

.@ PRIMARY SAMPLE COLLECTING HOPPER @) TERTIARY SAMPLE BELT FEEDER

@ PRIMARY SAMPLE BELT FEEDER QY SECONDARY SAMPLE CRUSHER

@ SAMPLE ELEVATING SCISSORS CONV. 1110. 1 @ TERTIARY SAMPLER

@SAMPLE ELEVATING SCISSORS CONV 110. 2 @ SAMPLE COLLECTING BOX

(~PRIMARY SAMPLE CRUSHER

(i) SECONDARY SAMPLE BELT FEEDER
@ SECONDARY SAMPLE CUTTER
FIGURE 5-1
TYPICAL COAL SAMPLING STATION

5-18
between this operation and the preceding breaking operation is at the raw
coal'sampl.ing.station .. As indicated in Figure 4-7, an alternative raw coal
surge storage method to use of silos is use of an open stockpile.

From raw coal surge storage coal is conveyed ~rid distributed to a

•series of .16 parallel raw. coal screens. The, feed conveyor is equipped
,with· a belt scale to measure the quanti'ty of coal fed t9 the clean-
ing plant·a,nd to·pro'\(ide a signal fol;' control of the raw coal screening
operation. Wet vibrating screens are used to split cleaning plant feed
coal into coarse and fine fractions for separate cleaning. Screening is
performed at 3/8 inch u~i~g double-deck screens to reduce screen wear and
to obtain . high screening efficiency. Top screen deck apertur:e is 1-1/2
inch a~d.the bottom 3/8 inch. qne and one-third gpm of water is applied to the
screens. for each ,ton/hour of coal feed. Screening oversize, 6 inch x 3/8 inch,
flqws ·by gravity to coarse coal .cleaning.. Undersize, at 50 wt percent
solids and 3/~.inch x 0, ,reports to a..fine coal cleaning .operation.

Only.one method was considered for coarse coal cleaning; jigging followed by
clean coal screen dewatering. Consideration of the other general method
used commercially for coarse coal cleaning, heavy-medium cleaning, was not
part of project scope (see Subsection 4.2.5). An automatic, two-compartment
..
Baum-type jig, is specified for coarse coal cleaning. This jig produces
three products: clean coal, mid~lings, and refuse. Middlings and
refuse are removed from the jig by bucket elevators and do not require
additional dewatering. Refuse is discharged onto:a refuse conveyor.
Middlings are crushed with a hanunermill crusher to 3/8 inch top size,
slurried in water, and pumped to the fine coal cleaning operation.

C.lPRn coal from the coarse coal jigs is dewatered on vibrating screens.
Screen oversize is crushed to 2-inch top si.ze in roll crushers aud
discharge~ onto a clean coal.conveyor. Undersize from the clean coal
dewatering screens, 1/4 inch x 0, are fines created in the jigs or mis-
placed in the initial raw coal screening operation. These fines are

5-19·
pumped to thickening cyclones. Overflow water from these cyclones is
directly reused. Cyclone underflow is combined with crushed middlings
for cleaning in the fine coal cleaning operation.

The clean coal conveyor collects both coarse and fine clean coal and conveys
it to live storage-blending or dead storage. As clean coal discharges from
this convPynr, it is sampled in a sampling station identical to that de-
~.:ribcd for 'rH"T f'nr:~l sampling.

With one exception, all equipment specified in the FS-1 major equipment list
for coal breaking, surge storage, coarse coal screening, and coarse tuul
cleaning are of standard design and are widely used commercially for coal
.cleaning. The vibratory-activator feeders specified for. the raw cual ·silos
are relatively new, but do not require further development. These feeders
represent an improvement over existing vibrating feeders for feeding large
quantities of coarse coal.

5.2.2 Fine Coal Cleaning anq Dewatering

Concept11.o~.l flow sheets and major equipment lists Y;'ere ueveloped for three
fine coal cleaning alternatives. These are.: jig fine coal cleaning -
Flow Sheet FS-1; hydrocyclone fine coal cleaning- Flow Sheet FS-1~1; and,
t8hl~ fine coal cleaning- Flow Sheet FS-1-2. All three flow sheets provide
for fine rl~r~n coal dewatering.

The fine coal cleaning circuit presented in FS-1, like the coarse clean~ng

circuit, uses a jig, but of differenl uesign from that used for c.oarse
coal cleaning. Before cleaning, however, fine coal (3/8 inch x 0) is ne.-
slimed at 28 mesh with sieve bends. Deslimihg permits control of the
quantity of water introduced to the fine cleaning operation.

5-20
 > FINE COAL

FROM RAW COAL SCREEN

.
FLOW SHEET FS-1

> FINE COAL

FROM CRUSHED
CL.ASSIFYI.N~r-- I.-
CYCLONE
(20) b--

:)
MIDDLINGS PUMP
FLOW SHEET FS-1
FINE 'Ii
CLEAN
COAL
SECONDARY
HYDROCYCLONE.-~~
(5) ....
DEWATERING
SIEVE
~END (61
l
r-----¥~;._-.....;28::;..,;M;.;.E;;;;S;.;H.;..;.;X:..;0:....._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"-. MINUS 28 MESH
4
0 ~ .----, ~ ~~ / COAL
~
X
\_/ TO FLOTATION CELLS
z
PRIMARY
HY DROCYC LON;,..;..;;.E._~
' ' . . ~------*<.6~
1,.------l """................
./
!l
FLOW SHEET FS-1

(25) ~I CLEAN COAL

VIBRATING CENTRIFUGE (6)
0

~
X
\7 FINE
z TO CLEAN COAL CONVEYOR

>
'------
WATER

FRvM WATER HEAD TANK

>- --- T
I
r-
\
REFUSE
DEWATERING
SIEVE BEND
AND
SCREEN
3/81N.X
28 MESH

/
FLOW SHEET FS-1

CLEAN COAL

A ~
FLOW SHEET FS-1

~
I
\ (3) 3/81N.X
~"'-'~...,/~~t~·-=-=-~-~J--··--.....;~~9;.__1----------~~------~------------~~2~8~M~ES~H~---)YV~59:.....____________£))~------R-E_Fu_s_E____ -J:>
~ TOREFUSECONVEYOR
I · FLOW SHEET FS-1
J:
I II)
w
I :::!!
re
I
I

~ r+· ~·

PRIM~~ (
HYDROCYCLONE PRIMARY
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
FEED SUMP 111 HYDROCYCLONE
FEED PUMP (2)
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
CONTRACT NO. 112X - 45724V
r-------------~r---.----,---~----r---.---.---.---.---.---.---.---.---,---~--~--~--~--~----~
STREAM NO.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <& ~ <U> <B>
FLOOR~
SU~P DRY SOLIDS, TONS/HOUR
WET TOTAL, TONS/HOUR
1,429
2,858
278 - 1,751 - 1,360 391
1,303
391
2,650
347
1,156
44 36
790
311
366
1,182
3,377
178
7,827
1,036
1,381
146
1,996
1,036
1,164
ALTERNATIVE: HYDROCYCLONE FINE
COAL CLEANING
426 7229 12,507 1,130 11,204 1.494
WATER, GPM 5,716 2,592 28,916 43,024 4,520 39,376 3,648 9,036 3,236 5,800 3,016 220 8,780 30,596 1,380 7,400 512
BECHTEL NATIONAL. INC.• SAN FRANCISCO 94119
LINE DESIGNATIONS "// //~ . WATER, WT PERCENT 50 70 100 86 100 88 70 86 70 97 95 15 65 98 75 93 89
BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER
COAL
13022 JULY 1979 FS-1-1
REFUSE AND PARTICULATE COAL
----WATER
5-21
 'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
HYDROCYCLONE FINE COAL CLEANING
'
ALTERNATIVE FLOW SHEET FS-1-1
I
Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification R~quirements and Comments
Required Each
!

25 Primary Hydrocyclone Design Capacity: 2,000 gpm slurry

I .
Several standard designs of water only coal
Diameter: 24 in. cleaning cyclones dre currently available.
Cast Ni-Hard consti.uction with cast refractory
apex nozzles. I .
5 Secondary Hydrocyclone Design Capacity: 2,000 gpm slurry Several standard designs of water only coal
Diameter: 26 in. cleaning cyclones ~re currently available.
Cast Ni-Hard construction with cast refractory
apex nozzles. I
3 Fine Refuse Dewatering Sieve Bend Design Capacity: 120 tph Standard Design Fi~ed Sieve Bend.
Opening: 28 mesh
·i
3 Fine Refuse Dewatering Screen 10 Design Capacity: 120 tph Standard Design Ho~izontal Vibrating Screen.
Type: Single Deck Vibrating Stainless Steel Wedge Wire Deck.
Size: 4 ft x 8 ft
i
;
20 Classifying Cyclone Design Capacity: 2,000 gpm slurry Several standard designs of coal classifying
Diameter: 26 in. cyclones are curredtly available.
Cast Ni-Hard const~uction with cast refractory
apex nozzles. !
I
6 Fine Clean Coal Dewatering Sieve Design Capacity: 200 tph Standard Design Fixed Sieve Bend.
Bend Opening: 28 mesh
i
6 Clean Coal Vibrating Centrifuge 75 Design Capacity: 165 tph '
Standard Design Basket Type Coal Centrifuge.
I
Stainless Steel Weqge Wire Basket
I

I·

5-23
 'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 FINE COAL

FROM RAW COAL SCREEN

FLOW SHEET FS-1

FINE COAL

FROM CRUSHED 81 CYCLONE

MIDDLINGS PUMP CLASSIFIER (20)
FLOW SHEET FS-1 0
X
z
co
M"

15 28MESH XO MINUS
28MESH COAL
TO FLOTATION CELLS
FLOW SHEET FS-1

> WATER
..c.____----=--'
FROM WATER HEAD TANK
>- - .... -- ~------ -~---- ~
87 3/8 IN. X 28 MESH
FLOW SHEET FS-1 REFUSE

TO REFUSE CONVEYOR
0 FLOW SHEET FS-1
I X

~
~
co
I M"
I 88 28MESH X 0
REFUSE

TO REFUSE THICKNER
FINE CLEAN FLOW SHEET FS-1
COAL
DEWATERING
SIEVE
BEND lr----1
(6)

CYCLUNI:: 3/81N. X 20 MC&II

CLEAN COAL
FEED PUMP
TO CLEAN COAL CONVEYOR
28 MESH X 0 FLOW SHEET FS-1

FLOTATION CELLS
FEED PUMP 'I UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

STREAM NO.
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,
'I
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
DRY SOLIDS, TONS/HOUR 1,429 278 1,707 1,529 178 347 1,182 311 36 1,036 146 1,036 324 CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V
WET TOTAL, TONS/HOUR 2,858 926 8,192 12,193 3,822 8,371 711 1 '156 3,377 366 790 1,381 1,996 817 1,164 10,367
WATER,GPM 5,716 2,592 32,768 41,944 9,172 32,772 2,894" 3,236 8,780 220 3,016 1,380 7,400 868 512 40,172
LINE DESIGNATIONS WATER, WT PERCENT 50 70 100 86 60 98 100 70 50 15 95 25 93 100 11 97
COAL ALTERNATIVE: TABLE FINE COAL CLEANING

RFFIJSE AND PARTICULATE COAL

----WATER
BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

13022 JULY 1979 FS-1-2

s-2s
 'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
TABLE FINE COAL CLEANING
ALTERNATIVE FLOW SHEET FS-1-2

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each

20 Cyclone Classifier Design Capacity: 2,000 gpm slurry Several standard designs of coal classifying
Diameter: 26 in. cyclones are curr~ntly available.
Cast Ni-Hard cons~ruction with cast refractory
apex nozzles. I
60 Shaking Table 3 Design Capacity: 25 tph This table is the .!largest capacity table that
Type: Suspended Double Deck can presently be built due to feeding limitations.
I
Rubber Deck Construction.
I
ii
2 Refuse Spiral Classifier 15 Design Capacity: 160 tph Standard Design Spiral Classifier.
Type: Spiral
Spiral Diameter: 84 in. I

6 Fine Clean Coal Dewatering Sieve Design Capacity: 160 tph Standard Design Ftxed Sieve Bend.
Bend Opening: 28 mesh
i
6 Clean Coal Vibrating Centrifuge 75 Design Capacity: 165 tph Standard Design B~sket Type Coal Centrifuge.
Stainless Steel W~dge Wire Basket.

5-27
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 Jig fine coal cleaning is· accomplished with three parallel, Batac-type
jigs. The specified jigs are each designed to clean 600 tons per ho~r of
coal. These air-pulsed jigs allow even, regular pulsing of the entire jig
width which results in improved bed stratification compared with a Baum-
type jig. Each jig has six air pulse compartments and two bucket eleva-
tors; one elevator for middlings and one for refuse. Clean fine coal over-
flows at the jig ends. Middlings, which are· mainly misplaced material,
are rec~c~ed directly to the jig feed. Refuse~ partially dewatered by
the refuse elevators·, is further dewatered on 28 mesh opening, single-
deck, vibrating screens. Oversize refuse discharges to the refuse con-
veyor~ Uridersi~e refuse flows to an effluerit treatmerit operation.

Cleari ~oai overflowing the fine coal jigs is dewatered to 15-20 wt per-
cent total moisture on 28 m_esh opening, single-deck vibrating dewatering
screens. Oversize from these screens~ 3/8 inch x 28 mesh clean coal, is
further dewatered to approximately 11 wt percent total moisture with vi-
brating basket centrifuges. Dewatered coal is discharged to the clean coal
conveyor where it combines with crushed, clean coal from the coarse coal
cleaning operation. Water removed by the dewatering screens and centrate
is pOmped to effluent treatment.

"Flow Sheet FS-1-1 presents the hydrocycloning fine coal cleaning alternative.
Fine coal from the raw coal screens plus coarse coal cleaning operation
crushed middlings and thickened clean coal dewatering fines are initially
combined in a sump. Sufficient make-up and hydrocyclone circuit recycle water
is added to this sump to proc:h.1ce a coal slurry containing approximately
14 wt percent coal. This slurry is pumped into 25 parallel primary hydro-
cyclones. Underflow from these hydrocyclones is diluted with water and
recleaned in 5 parallel secondary hydrocyclones. Underflow from these
hydrocyclones is refuse. Overflow from the secondary hydrocyclones is
recycled to the primary hydrocyclone· feed sump.

[Preceding pa~e~ank/s-zg
Fine refuse resulting from hydrocycloning. is dewatered on sieve bends in
combination with single-deck vibrating screens. Oversize refuse is dis-
charged onto the refuse conveyor (see FS-1). Undersize refuse, minus 28
mesh, flows to an effluent treatment operation.

Overflow from the primary hydrocyclones, which contains clean fine coal, is
classified at 28 mesh in 20 parallel_classifying cyclones. A minus 28 mesh
coal fraction- is classified into the cyclone overflow and a 3/8 inch x
28 mesh fraction is obtained in the underflow. Underflow is dewaterecl on
parallel sieve bends. Sieve bend oversize, 3/8 inch x 28 mesh, .is further
dewatered to approximately 11 wt percent total moisture in 6, p~ralleL,

vibrating basket centrifuges. Cake from the centrifuge$ is discharged to

the clean coal conveyor (see FS-1) where it combines with crushed, clean
coal from the coarse coal cleaning operation. Centrate flows to the sec-
ondary hydrocyclone feed sump for recovery of. any misplaced coal. Over-
flow from the classifying cyclones is combined with dewatering sieve bend
underflow in a sump. From here it is pumped to an effluent treatment
operation.

FS-1-2 presents the table fine coal cleaning alternative. As in FS-1-1,

fine coal·· tram the raw coal screens plus coarse coal cleaning operation
crushed middlings and thickened clean coal dewatering fines ~re combined in A

sump. Sutticient water is added to this sump to produce a .i4 wt percent

coal slurry. This slurry is pumped into 20, parallel classifying cyclones
for desliming at 28 mesh. The overflow slimes are collected in a sump and
then pumped to an effluent treatment operation.

Deslimed fine coal, 3/8 inch x 28 mesh, is distr.i.h11tPn tn 60, parallQl,

double-deck shaking tables for cleaning. A large number of tables are
required b.ecause of table design limitations. As fq,r as known, thP
. tables specified are the largest in use for coal d.ee.:1ing. Olean
coal ·overflows the table sides opp.osite the fee.d points into launders

5-30
which transport it to 6, parallel~ dewatering sieve bends. Sieve bend
oversize, 3/8 inch x 28 mesh, is further dewatered in six parallel, vi-
brating, basket centrifuges. Cake from the centrifuges is discharged to
the· clean coal conveyor (see FS-1) where it combines with crushed clean
coal from the coarse coal cleaning operation. Centrate flows to the cy-
clone ·feed sump for recovery of any mi·splaced coal.

Undersize from the clean coal dewatering sieve bends, minus 28 mesh coal,
flows to the same sump as the cyclone classifier overflow. From here·it
is pumped to an effluent treatement operation.

Refuse'overflo~s the iables into launders which transport it to spiral

classifiers.. Refuse from these classifiers i& discharged to the refuse
conveyor (see FS-1). Spiral classifier overflow flows to an effluent
treatm~nt operation.

Like equipment specified for coarse coal cleaning, equipment for all three
'fine coal cie~ning· alternatives is of standard design and is widely used
co~mercialiy for coal cleaning. Of the three alternatives, all can produce
clean coal of nearly equal quality and at comparable recoveries. Total
dperating cost, including approptiate capital charges, would be the main
factor in selecting a best alternative.·

Considering the quantities of equipment required, jig fine coal cleaning

is probably the least.co~plicated of the three alternatives. For an actual
·coal convers~on pl~nt, hPAvy-mediurn fine coal cleaning would be considered,
as-well as, the three alternatives for which flow sheets were developed.

I
5.2.3 Coal Cleaning Effluent Treatment

Future cbal cleaning plants may require closed loop water systems without
ponds. Effluent emission regulations may not allow release of any polluted
water from such plants. As a result, effluent treatment will be an important
operation in all future coal cleaning plants.
FS-1, in addition to presenting flow schemes for coarse coal cleaning and
one fine coal cleaning alternative, presents a conceptual flow sheet for
one cleaning plant effluent treatment approach. This treatment operation
recovers water for reuse and clean coal. Feed to the effluent treatment
operation is produced by all three fine coal cleaning flow sheets and con-
sists of: slimes (minus 28 mesh raw coal), fine clean coal dewatering under-
flow, and minus 28 mesh refuse. The slimes and clean coal dewatering
underflow are pumped to froth flotation cells for coal r~covery. Minus 28
f .

mesh refuse is sent to a refuse thickener.

Float coal from the flotation cells, clean 28 mesh ~ 0 coal, is dewatered
on a disc vacuum filter. Filter cake is conveyed to the cleaning plant
clean coal conveyor where it combines with clean coal from the coarse and
fine cleaning operations. Filtrate is recycled directly to the flotation
cells.

Flotation refuse is pumped to a refuse thickener. Together with the other

minus 28 mesh solids from fine coal cleaning, it is thickened with the aid
of a flocculant. Underflow from this thickener is dewatered to approximately
30 wt percent moisture in solid howl centrifuges. Centrifuge cake dis-
charges onto the refuse conveyor. Centrate and refuse thickener overflow
are pumped to the cleaning plant head tank for reuse.

Froth flot~tion is only one of many methods that could conceivably be part of
a system to recover coal and produce recyclable water from cleaning plant
effluents. However, it is the most common approach currently uGed when any
coal cleaning plant effluP.nt. tre8tment is provided. Other po.~.~i.ble t:~~h~

nologies that might be used are indicated in Figure 4-7. nPtPrmination of

the best effluent treatment approach for use in commercial coal conversion
plant cleaning operations will depend on economics, applicable plant effluent
emission regulations, coal cleaning plant design, raw coal characteristics,
and refuse disposal considerations.

5-32
5.3 COAL STORAGE AND BLENDING CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS

Two basic types of large-capacity coal storage will likely be required for
coal conversion: live storage with or without blending and dead stora&e·
As discussed in Subsection 4.3.2, live storage design capacity was estab-
lished at 500,000 tons and dead storage is intended for emergency use only.
However, differentiation between what constitutes live-and dead storage
for some storage configurations is difficult. As a result, both basic types
of storage are discussed together.

As discussed in Section 4, the need for blending and the degree required
has yet to be quantified for an,y of the nine coal conversion processes
considered. Process in"formation required to dete-rmine the cost savings,
if any, that might be realized for converting blended versus unblended
coal has yet to be developed. Once this information is available, these
·savings can be compared with the cost for different coal blending levels.
Three general blending levels can be considered for coal conversion: simple,
intermedt.ate, and full.

Table 5-l and Figures 5-2 and 5-3 present major alternatives for large-
scale, high-capacity coarse coal storage. The three general blending
levels and equipment required to achieve them are also presented. Two
general storage alternatives are identified: open stockpile storage and
enclosed storage.

For a given storage capacity, open stockpiles are inevitably less expensive
than enclosed stor:age. A primary reason for considering enclosed sto:b;L,ge
for commercial coal conversion plants is fugitive particulates emissions.
Current coal open stockpile fugitive particulates emission regulations are
vague. However, in the future, particularly when the time frame for con-
struction of .commercial coal conversion plants is considered, they are liable
to become more precise and stringent. Further, current methods used to
control open stockpile fugitive emissions appear to be both expensive and

5-33
limited to their ability to achieve significantly lower particulate emis-
sions. If future permitted fugitive particulate emissions are significantly
lower than those specified by current regulations, totally-enclosed live
storage facilities and possibly new dead storage facility designs will likely
be required. This could be particularly true for storage facilit~es as large,
both in the quantities of coal handled and area required, as those judged
required for commercial coal conversion plants. In addition to allowing
better fugitive particulates control, use of enclosed storage in locations
where long or severe winter conditions exist, would reduce problems asso-
ciated with handling of frozen and wet coal.

A'::> :.ngure 5-:L indicates. many npl"n stockpile configut alluns are possible.
Major factors which influence that best suited for a given ~ituaLlnn 1n~l.ude:

• Required coal flow in and out of storage

8 Live storage design capacity

• Dead storage design capacity

• Coal handling criteria: continuous or ·intermittent

• Blending requirements

• Land availability

o Ec:ouuudcs

For open stockpile blending, at least two stockpiles are required; one to
be reclaimed while the other is built. There are two Approaches for buildiug
of blending stockpiles: chevron layering and winclrow layering. ~iml-'1~

blending is achieved when a pile built with a chevron pattern :i.s red.<1imed
in small sections, such as by a bucket wheel reclaimer. When a chevron
stockpile fs reclaimed in full cross section, by·such equipment as a
dn.tm :n~ulnimer, intt!nuediare blending is achieved. Full blending is
achieved when a stockpile built in windrow layer.s is reclaimed in full

5-34
 Table 5-l

LIVE COAL STORAGE

ALTERNATIVES SUMMARy(!)

Live Storage Type Stacking Methods Reclaim Methods Comments

OPEN STOCKPILE STORAGE ALTERNATIVES

1. Simple Storage Stationary Stacker with Tele- Bucket Wheel Reclaimer • No Blending Achieved,
scopic Chute Belt or Vibrating Feeders • Dead Portion ReclaimI. Requires Mobile Equipment
Conveyor with Telescopic Mobile Equipment • Stockpile Arrangements:
1
Ramped Pile, Conical,
Lowering Well Kidney-Circular, or Single Wedge
Stationary Stacker with Luffing
Boom(s)
Tripper Conveyor with Tele-
scopic Chute
Mobile Equipment

2. Simple Blending - Chevron Traveling Stacker with Luffing Bucket Wheel Reclaimer • Possible Coal Segregation
Layers Boom(s) Stacker-Reclaimer • Stockpile Arrangeme~ts: Single Wedge, Multiple
Stacker-Reclaimer with Luffing Rotary Plow Wedge, Wedge-Flat Top, Flat Top with Active
Boom(s) .
S ect1on, or S em1-
. Act1ve
I.

Tripper Conveyor with Tele- • For Wedge-Flat Top, Flat Top with Active Section,
scopic Chute and Semi-Active Stodkpiles
I
Mobile Equipment is
Required for Reclaim of Semi-Active and Dead
Portions

3. Intermediate Blending - . Traveling Stacker with Luffing Bridge Type Bucket Wheel • Stacking and Reclai$ing Can Be Highly Automated
Chevron Layers with~ Full Boom(s) Reclaimer • Stockpile Arrangeme~ts: Single Wedge, Multiple
Cross Section Reclaim Scraper Reclaimer Wedge, or Wedge-Flat Top
Drum Reclaimer • For Wedge-Flat Top Stockpile Mobile Equipment is
Required for Reclai~ of.Semi-Active Coal

4. Full Blending - Windrow Layers Traveling Stacker with Luffing Drum Reclaimer • Best Bed Blending
with Full Cross Section Reclaim and Slewing Boom(s) • Entire Blending Operation can be Automated
• Stockpile Arrangeme~ts: Multiple Wedge

ENCLOSED STORAGE ALTERNATIVES I

i
1. Silo (s) Belt Conveyor Belt or Vibrating Feeders • Low Capacity Storag~
Rotary Plow • Simultaneous Dischatge from Multiple Silos Pro-
vides Full Blending!.
. I
I
2. Circular Barn Belt Conveyor Belt to Vibrating Feeders • Low Capacity i
Rotary Plow • No Blending Achieved
.,l
I
3. Geodesic Dome Rotating Belt Conveyor Bridge Type Bucket Wheel • Simple Blending
Reclaimer • Luw Capacity

4. Wide Span Barn Tripper Conveyor Bridge Type Bucket Wheel • Large Capacity Stor~ge
Traveling Stacker Reclaimer • Intermediate Blending
Drum Reclaimer • Stockpile Arrangemertt: Circular
1.

5. "V" Dunker Tripper Conveyor Rotary Plow • Large Capacity Storage

• Simple Arrangement
• Intermediate Blending
~----------------------------------~------------------------------~--------~~----------------~-~-----------------------------------------------------~
(1) Stockpile arrangements are presented in Figure 5-2 and enclosed storage structures are presented in Figure 5-3.
5-35
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
OPEN STOCKPILE ARRANGEMENTS___. RAMPED PILE CONICAL KIDNEY OR CIRCULAR SINGLE WEDGE MULTIPLE WEDGE

I
·~
I II
i..J
I
J

-:::?'~
m~o
TRAVELING STACKER
TRAVELING STACKER
STACKER-RECLAIMER
MOBILE EQUIPMENT RADIAL STACKER STACKER-RECLAIMER
Sl'OCKPILE CONSTRUCTION METHOD_. DRAG LINE BELT CONVEYOR TRIPPER-CONVEYOR
TRIPPER CONVEYOR

STOCKPILE RECLAIM METHOD ---1•• MOBILE EQUIPMENT LIVE PORTION: BELT OR VIBRATING FEEDERS
DEAD PORTION: MOBILE EQUIPMENT TO LIVE
LIVE PORTION: BELT OR VIBRATING FEEDERS STACKER-RECLAIMER
BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMER
STACKER-RECLAIMER
BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMER
DEAD PORTION: MOBILE EQUIPMENT TO LIVE.
PORTION PORTION BRIDGE TYPE BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMER BRIDGE TYPE BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMER
BRIDGE TYPE DRUM RECLAIMER BRIDGE TYPE DRUM RECLAIMER
SCRAPER RECLAIMER I $CRAPER RECLAIMER
I
WEDGE-FLAT TOP COMBINATION FLAT TOP WITH ACTIVE SECTION. SEMI-ACTIVE PILE

1111111111~
-
w- w 0
SEMI-ACTIVE z
>~ (I)
w w
-o
t-o
0
0
COMPACTED ..J ..J
ii:
~=
.J u.
0 0
~
~ w
w 0
0

STOCKPILE CONSTRUCTION METHOD_. TRAVELING STACKER TRIPPER CONVEYOR AND MOBILE EQUIPMENT TRAVELING STACKER AND MOBILE TRAVELING STACKER AND MOBILE
STACKER-RECLAIMER EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
MOBILE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR SEMI-ACTIVE PORTION

STOCKPILE RECLAIM METHOD ---t•• STACKER-RECLAIMER

BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMER
ROTARY PLOW
MOBILE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR RECLAIM
MOBILE BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMER i
I
TRACK MOUNTED BUCKET WHEEL
RECLAIMER
OF DEAD PORTION& l
BRIDGE TYIIE BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMEn
BRIDGE TYPE DRUM RECLAIMER
SCRAPER RECLAIMER Figure 5-2 OPEN COAL STOCKPILE ALTERNATIVES
(MOBILE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR
RECLAIM OF SEMI-ACTIVE PORTION)

5-37
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
ENCLOSED STORAGE ARRANGEMENTS 4 SILO CIRCULAR BARN GEODESIC DOME WID-E SPAN BARN "V" BUNKER
(MASS FLOW BOTTOM)

I
I

t--- /

///'ii;f/12-

ENCLOSED STORAGE FEED METHOD--+ BELT CONVEYOR BELT CONVEYOR ROTATING BELT CONVEYOR TRAVELING STACKER TRIPPER CONVEYOR

ENCLOSED STORAGE RECLAIM _METHOD_. BELT OR VIBRATING FEEDERS BELT OR VIBRATING FEEDERS BRIDGE TYPE BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMER BRIDGE TYPE BUCKET WHEEL RECLAIMER ROTARY PLOW
ROTARY PLOW ROTARY PLOW DRUM RECLAIMER

I
Figure 5-3 ENCLOSED COAL STORAGE ALTERNATIVES

5-39
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
, LEF·T BLANK
cross section. Building of windrow piles is more complicated than chevron
piles due to the sle~ing movement required by the traveling stacker booms.
Booms on stackers for windrow layering are also usually longer than those
on stackers used to build chevron piles.

Unless future fugitive particulate emission regulations

, . prevent it or the
conversion plant is located ip an area with severe winters, open stockpiles
would most likely be used for live storage. AJ,.~o, it is believed that at
least intermediate blending would be justified. No conceptual flow sheet,
however, is presented for this type of live storage-~lending operation.
The open stockpile flow sheet .and major equipment list presented in the coal
mine-coal conversion plant interface evaluation project final report (1)
are believed sufficient for Union Carbide's equipment requirements survey.
The interface project open stockpile consists of four, long wedge piles
which are built with two _traveling stackers and reclaimed in full cross
section by two rotary drum reclaimers. Coal design feed rates to and from
this live storage-blending facility are slightly larger than those required
for .the flow sheets presented in this report. The specific
'
interface f:i,nal
.
repo~t flow sheet showing the live storage-blending facility and draw~ng~

of this facility are:

·• Live storage-blending facility .flow sheet:. PFD-1 ,

(Volume 1)

• Live storage-blending facility plot plan: Drawing D-20

(Volumes 1 and 2)

• Open stockpile live storage facility sections: Draw-

ing D-22 (Volume 2)

• Open stockpile live storage facility major equipment

list: Section 10.2 (Volume 2)

A conceptual flow sheet has been developed for enclosed coarse coal live
storage-blending. This flow sheet, FS-2-1, is considered as an alternative
to multiple wedge open stockpile storage-blending. It consists of three
V-bunkers. This type of enclosed storage structure and wide span barns
are best suited for storage of the extremely large quantities of coal
judged to be required for coal conversion. As shown in Figure S-3, a
wide span barn is essentially a covered wedge stockpile. It would use
stackers very similar to those used for building open wedge stockpiles.
These rail-mounted stackers would move along one barn side only and, hence,
would have only a single boom. Bridge-type bucket 'wheel and drum reclaimers
used with wide span· barns are identical to those for open stockpiles. Con-
veyor systems required for wide span barns are very similar to those re-
quired for analogous wedge open stockpile facilities. The main deciding
factor between use of V-bunkers and wide span barns for large-capacity
enclosed live storage-blending is cost.

In addition to three concrete and steel construction V-bunkers (Drawing D-23

in Volume 2 of the coal mine-coal conversion plant interface evaluation final
report presents a conceptual design for a typical V-bunker), the V-bunker
storage-blending facility consists of the conveying systems required to
feed coal to and reclaim it from these bunkers and to divert it to coal
conversion or to the steam/power plant. Total combined design live storage
capacity for the three identical V-bunkers is SOO,OOO.wet tons; a 10 day
supply of conversion plant coal. These bunkers could receive coal from
either a cleaning plant or tram a rail and/or barge receiving facility or,
from dead coal storage.

Coarse coal (2 inch x 0) is fed to the V-bunker facility by a 72-inch-wide

live storage feed conveyor which terminates at a transfer tower (see flow
sheet FS-2-1). Here a flop gate diverts coal to either the No.1 V-bunker
or to a 72-inch-wide live storage feed transfer conveyor. The transfer
conveyor conveys coal to bunker No.2 or to another transfer conveyor which
feeds bunker No.3. One V-bunker is filled while one of the other two
is being reclaimed. Tripper conveyor systems, consisting of a conveyor
and a mobile tripper car which moves along the conveyor, are used to

5-42
 I.

LIVE COAL STORAGE LIVE COAL STORAGE LIVE COAL STORAGE

FEED CONVEYOR 111 FEED TRANSFER TRIPPER CONVEYOR (31
CONVEYOR 121

2 IN. X 0 CLEAN COAL

FROM CLEANING PLANT

CLEAN COAL CONVEYOR 0
FLOW SHEET FS-1
ALTERNATIVE: CLEAN COAL I
FROM DEAD STORAGE
ALTERNATIVE: COAL FROM
LONG-DISTANCE TRANSPORT
COAL V.SUNKER 131
500,000 TON (TOTAL COMBINED CAPACITY)
I
COARSE COAL RECEIVING

COAL RECLAIM
ROTARY PLOW FEEDER 131
I
t - t .. . . ., LIVE COAL STOAAG£;
~---.L.--....,....Q \ U,-~-----r-.o \\RECLAIM CONVEYOR 131

LIVE STORAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 1\

DESIGN COAL FEED RATE: 3,300 TONS/HOUR COAL
\ \ i"-""_____..._SAMPLE
DESIGN COAL FEED ANNUAL OPERATION:
MEAN FEED COAL MOISTURE:
DESIGN CONVERSION PROCESS COAL RECLAIM
RATE: 1,771 TONS/HOUR
DESIGN CONVERSION PROCESS RECLAIM ANNUAL
5,000 HOURS
8.0 WT. PERCENT
LIVE COAL STORAGE
TRANSFER CONVEYOR (2)
\ \
~-....::!L.....--------~---------~----t-"'T"'' COAL
rSAMPLE
- ' ·
'I
. POWER/STEAM PLANT
. FEED TRANSFER
I
......_CONVEYOR (2)

I \ -
/I
OPERATION: 7,920 HOURS PER YEAR
DESIGN POWER/STEAM PLANT COAL RECLAIM I ' \I
RATE: 312 TONS/HOUR
DESIGN POWER/STEAM PLANT I
ANNUAL OPERATION: 7,920 HOURS PER YEAR I I
f/\ /\ POWER/STEAM PLANT
TWO-WAY / \ I \FEED CONVEYOR (2)

>
SWITCHOVER BIN (1)
I /... .. } ./.:'\. TO POWER/STEAM PLANT

0
t / oJt/
I
-~
4
z
. . ."---_s~ 2 IN. X 0 COAL

1, - - +
u--o 0t ~ TO FINE COAL CRUSHING,

Jr~--------
Q -
------- }--....:..-~~
0
. . . ,......------P...;U~LVERIZING, > 21N.XO COAL
FLOWSHEETS FS-3
THROUGH FS-11
>
OR GRINUINu

I
SWITCHOVER BIN CONVERSION COAL
RECLAIM BELT FEED CONVEYOR (2)
FEEDER (21
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL

CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V

STREAM NUMBER ALTERNATIVE: COARSECOAL

LIVE STORAGE - V-BUNKERS
COAL- TONS/HOURS- DRY 3,036 1,916 1,629 287 I
PERCENT MOISTURE
TONS/HOURS -WET
8.0
3,300
8.0
2,083
8.0
1,771
8.0
312 ·I BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC.• SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

13022 JULY 1979 FS-2-1

5-43
 'j

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 I
MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
COARSE COAL LIVE STORAGE-V-BUNKERS
ALTERNATIVE FLOW SHEET FS-2-1
I
Number Equipment Title HP
Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each
i
1 Live Coal Storage Feed Conveyor 750 Design Capacity: 4,400 tph See General Conveyqr Specification.
Belt Width: 72 in.

2 Live Coal Storage Feed Transfer 250 Design Capacity: 4,400 tph See General Conveyqr Specification.
Conveyor Belt \-lid th: 72 in. r

t
3 Live Coal Storage Tripper Conveyor 500 Design Capacity: 4,400 tph See General Conveyir Specification.
Belt Width: 72 in.

3 Coal Reclaim Rotary Plow Feeder 30 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph Rotary plow feeder~ of this capacity are avail-
able as standard equipment.

3 Live Storage Reclaim Conveyor 150 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph

I
See General Conveyor Specification.
Belt Width: 60 in. I
2 Live Coal Storage Transfer Conveyor 200 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Belt Width: 60 in.

2 Power/Steam Plant Feed Transfer 75 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Convey9r Specification.
!
Conveyor Belt Width: 36 in.
I
1 Two-Way Switchover Bin Dimensions: 30 ft X 15 ft X 25 ft Mass flow surge bi~.

2 Switchover Bin Reclaim Belt Feeder 50 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Belt F~eder Specification.
Belt Width: 72 in.

2 Power/Steam Plant Feed Conveyor 75 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Belt Width: 36 in.
'
2 Conversion Coal Feed Conveyor 300 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conv·eybr Specification.
Belt Width: 60. in. ·,1

5-45
 'i

THIS PAGE

WAS INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK
evenly fill each V-bunker. These tripper conveyor systems are located in
the center of the bunker enclosing structure in a conveyor gallery. Coal
is discharged into a bunker on both sides of the tripper car through chute
work and. continuous slots_ in the gallery floor. Continuous seal belts on
th~ floor slots control escape of dust from the actual bunker into the
'
conveyor gallery.

Coal i& reclaim~d from a V-bunker by a rotary plow feeder which travels the
entire length of the bunker. Reclaimed coal is discharged from this feeder
onto a reclaim conveyor located in a tunnel under the bunker. These con-
veyors, one per bunker, discharge to one of two transfer conveyors. These
conveyors can divert coal to either the power/steam plant or to a two-
way switchover bin which feeds coal to conversion. As coal discharges
from the transfer conveyor, it is sampled by a sampling system identical
to that presented in Figure 5-l.

V-bunker .facility filling and reclaiming is completely automatic. High-

and low-level instrumentation, tripper car, and reclaimer position indicators
provide necessary information to the coal storage operations control room
for monitoring and scheduling filling arid reclaiming activities. Coal temper-
ature is continuously monitored by thermocouples built into the bunker
walls. The thermocouples are connected to a microprocessor which can
locate the place.of any dangerously elevated coal temperature. To remove
hot coal' the rotary plow reclaimer is positioned _under its location ancl
is used to reclaim coal from the entire section involved.

In order to obtain high availability, good operating flexibility, and,

rapid surge bin filling, two conveyors, each capable of meeting normal
conversion plant feed requirements, are fed from a two-way switchover
bin. Bin dis<.;hafg~ outlets are stainlcac steel l,ined.

~r~eceding page blarJkl s-4 7

- -. ~----~~~-~ . -· ' I
No flow sheets have been developed for dead coal storage. The multiple dead
pile arrangement presented in the coal mine-coal conversion plant interface
final report is judged to be well suited for coal conversion plants. In the
scheme developed in the interface project, unit dead piles are built, main-
tained, and reclaimed as follows:

e Dead pile construction - Coal placed in a loose pile by a

stacker is ·spread by rubber-tired dozers and then picked
up by 40-cubic-yard scrapers. The scrapers are used to
build square packed piles containing approximately 250,000
tons of coal. Once built, the pile tops and sides are covered
with an airtight seal of asphalt, road ta~, or water-soluble
gC~ylic polymer crusting agent.

8 Dead pile maintenance - Piles are inspected visually and by

an infrared sranner at leaRt once a week. Pile seal· cracks
are repaired as soon as located.

8 Dead pile reclaim - For reclaim, dozers are used to cut a ramp
in a sealed pile nearest a reclaim slot. A r~claim slot con-
sists of a rotary plow feeder capable of reclaiming coal piled·
over it and a below-grade conveyor to which the rotary plow
discharges. Once a ramp is built, scrapers are used to move
coal to the reclaim slot.

5.4 COAL FINE CRUSHING CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS

Nine conceptual flow sheets and ma.i or equipment lists have been developed ';~

tor coal crushing and grinding. Reasons for development of this number of
firie crushing flow sheets are: eight of the nine coal conversion processes
considered require fine coal feed; the range of different required coal
feed size consists within the fine coal classification; possible alterna-
tive fine coal crushing approaches; and, a possible need to minimize ultra-
fines formation during coal fine crushing. Coal fine crushing equipment
is also required to prepare coal for the power/steam plant atmospheric
pressure fluidi~ed bed (AFB) steam generators. The fee.rl ~o;.~J top size
desirable for AFB steam generators, however, could be as high as 1/2 inch.
Though this is a slightly coarser top size than that defined for fine
coal flow sheets development, it is well within the capabilities of the
type of flow sheets developed to provide 1/4 inch x 0 and 1/8 inch x 0 coal

5-48
 for the U-Gas and COGAS processes, respectively. (Fine coal, previously,
defined in Subsection .4.3, is. coal which contains particles not greater
than l/4 inch, but not all smaller than 20 mesh in size. Note: a less
specific definition of fine coal is used in Subsection 5.2, Coal Cleaning
.. ~.

:conceptual Flow Sheets, to be consistent with ~oal cleaning indu~try

terminology.)

Table 5-2.summarizes mos't of the different approaches- different fine

crushing circuits ~ for whic~ flow sheets and major equipment lists are
:presented. These circuits are arranged according to the coal conversion
processes for which they were developed. The table also.identifies crusher
'designs specified for each circuit.

In Table 5-2, the proposed· fine·crushing circuit for each conversion pro-
cess is" that judged, on current technical information, to provide the best
combinat~on of r~liability and operating flexibility. For most processes
this judgement is subjective, could change if ultrafines minimization is
:important, and is not based on direct comparison of actual costs for com-
peting crushing circuits. ·Many factors could result in replacement of a
proposed circuit by an alternative or completely new circuit. These factors
include more definitive conversion reactor coal feed requirements (partic-
ularly for the SRC-1 and SRC-II processes), detailed circuit cost estimates,
conversion proc,ess demonstration plant results, ·and possible advances in
fine crushing technology.

A further principal factor that would determine fine crushing circuit design
and equipment specification for an actual commercial coal conversion plant
is results of a fine crushing test program. Such a test program would be
completely justifiable for crushing facilities of the capacities required
for coal conversion. A possible exception would be when the commercial
plant feed coal is used in a demonstration plant . . In this case a fine
crushing assessment program would be part of the demonstration plant test

5-49
 Table 5-2

COAL FINE CRUSHING ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

Exxon Donor Solvent

Texaco Part lal
Coal Conversion Process u..:cas COCAS HYCAS
Oxidat lon
And Catalytic SRC- I And SRC- II
Gasification

I, 0 CONVERSION REACTOP
COAL FEED
REQUIREMENTS
1. 1 Size Consist 100 Percent t-tinus lOO Percent ~linus 100 Percent l'linus 100 Percent Minus 100 Percent Minus 100 Percent Hinus
1/4 Inch l/8 Inch 14 Hesh 20 Hesh 8 Hesh 12 Nesh(l)
1.2 Fines Limitations Up to 10 Percent None Reported Minimum Minus Minimum Ultrafines _!ione Reported None Reported
Minus 200 Mesh 100 Hesh
1. 3 Total Moisture As Received (Pitts- Drying is Part of COal is Dried During As Received Dry_ing is Part of Drying is Part of
burgh Seam Coal May Conversion Process Pr~tree.tmli:nt Bcoth Cunval'alon Dotll Ounvll!:t"!:tluu
R~l'lhU'A t'rM.t'P.8tment Processes Processes
to Control
Agp:lome.r.,ti.nn)

2. 0 FINE CRUSHING
CIRCUITS

Rec;~~!d< 2 ) Rec:~~:d Rec!~::d( 2 ) Rec~~~:d( 2 ) Rec~~~~d( 2 ) - RPr~~:~,;

2.1 P fuvu~l:!d Fluw
Sheet ard Circuit As As (2) As As ;. AA ( 2) -
Oii:t 5 le-:JLage O&Jen• .Hngle-Stase upt!!n- 'l'wo-~~@Be O"en- Onen=
Two-~t.IJVP. c:;.inglo-~r-non nrna. !'!ftAh h.;.e;• Op.ar,•
l...ll'I.!UU: LruantHg CirCuit Ciuohing Cat-cuit Clu~hlng Circuit cruShing Circuit Crushing Circuit Crushing

a!~:~:!d ( 2 ) Rec!~:!d Rec!~~!d(Z)

FS-8
a!~;~~!d
2.2 Alternative Flow
Sheet and Circuit Dry to 3 Percent As <2 > As As ( 2) As
Total Moisture, (3) Two-Stage Open- Two-3tag~ Oplm- Single-Stage Closed- Single-Stage Closed•
Screen, and Crush Circuit Crushing, Circuit Crushing, Circuit Crushing Cirtuit Crushing
Oversize Coal in Stacked Hills Stacked Hills
Slngle-Stage, Open-
Circuit to Minimize
Fines

2 -.
Rec~i:!dt ) Rec~~v~d
2.3 Alternative FlOw
Sheet and Circuit As As (l) -
Single-Stage Clo:~cd­ ~ingle-Stage C1used-
Circuit Crushing Circuit Cru~hing

Re~:;!~d
2.4 Altem.utve t'low
Sheet and Circuit As ( 2)
Single-Stage Open-
CU'cuit Grinding

3. 0 TYPE OF FINE
C~USHJNG EC}UTPMF..NT

3.1 Proposed Circuit Four 72-Inch, 2-Rov Four 72-Inch, 2-Row First-Stage Crush- First-Stage Crush- Six 72-Inch, 4-Rov Six 72-Inch, 4-Row
Cage Mills, 600 tph Cage Mills, 600 tph ina: Four 72-T.nt:h, ing: Four 72-lnch 1 Cage HUh, 400 tph Cttge HUla, 400 tph
Each Mill Each Mill 2-Row Cage Mills 2-Row Cage Hills Each Hill Each Hill ·
600 tph ~<h Mill 600 rph F.ar.h Mi 11
Secorld-Stage Crush- Second-Staae Crush-
Ana; Eiaht 72-Tnr:.hl ina: Efght 7'l•Tnr;h,
4-Row Cage Mills 4-RotJ Cage Hills
300 tph Each Hill 300 tph Each Mill
3.2 Alternative Four 60-lnch x First-Stage Crush- First-Stage Crush- Six 72-Inch, 2o.Row Six n.- Tnch, 2-Row
Circuit 110- Inch-Wide ing: Six 72-Inch, ing: Six 72-lnch, Cage Mills, 400 tph Cage Hills, 400 tph
Center Feed, 2-Row Cage Mills 2•Ruw Cage Mills Eaeh Hill Each Hill
Reversible Hammer- 400 tph Each Mill 400 tph Each Hill
~!ii(~) 600 tph Each Second-Stage Crush- Second-Stage Crush-
ing: Six 72-Inch ing: Six 72-lnch
'1 Rov Ool&ii UUl.:. 4-ft.uw Cage Mill!!
400 t{'lh F.arh Mt 11 hnn trh ~""J> ~f.11

3.3 Alternative Four /2-lnch, 2-Rov Six 72-lnch, 2-Rnw Siv 77 .. tnr.h, 1 .. v.,...

~:~~ ~~~~H> ~oo

1~1 l"l'li, t Cagt! HUls, 400 tpl't cage Hills, 400 tph
eph Ecu.:h Mill Eafh Hili
3.~ Alternative Thirtliium 111~-fr-.
l.l.L'CUll Diameter x 20-ft-
Long Rod Mills
180 tph Each Hill

Nnr.es:
(1) Culf Mineral Resources Co. is cu-rrently evaluating a range of conversion reactor coal feed size consists for SRC-I and SRC-II demonstration plants.
These range from 100 percent minus 6 mesh (approximately 1/8 inch) to 100 percent minuS SO mesh.
(2) As Received coal has a nominal size consist of 2 inch x 0 and can have up to 10 wt percent total moisture.
(3) Flow Sheet FS-7 is for ::oa=-se coa! thcrm.:l1 drybg.
(4) This alternative crushing equipment is for Flow Sheet FS-6.
(S) This alternative crushing equipment is for Flow Sheet FS-8.

5-50
program. A typic~l fine crushing test program would be performed using a
large representativ~ conversion coal sample and involve testing of several
crusher designs, a wide range of crusher operating conditions, and probably
different crushing circuits. Its results would quantify for a specific
coal the.effect of crusher designs and operating cond~tions on crushed
coal size consist. From this information and cost estimates a best crush-
ing circuit design would be achieved.

Unfortunately, as far a's could be determined, results of any comprehensive

fine crushing test program on either Pittsburgh or Kentucky No. 9 Seam
coals has not been publi~hed or .otherwise made available in the public
domain. As a r~sult, the flow sheets and crusher selections presented
in this report are based .on general coal fine crushing experience and
crusher manufacturer perfprmance .estimates.

With.one exception (Flow Sheet FS-10 in Table 5-2), all fine crushing flow
sheets use multi-row cage mills. These mills are well suited to .conversion
coa~ fine crushing because:

• They have high capacities -on the order of 50,000 tons

per day of coal can be crushed_ with a reasonable number
of mills (eight is the maximum number of mills specified
for any of the fine crushing flow sheets)

• Compared with other types of fine crushers, ultrafines

production is usually lower

• They are of relatively simple design

• Reliability is high

• Maintenance is comparatively easy (cage mills can be

designed for rapid cage and lining replacements)

• They are compact in size

• They accept coal with as-received total moisture (crushed

coal quality and mill capacity, however, deteriorate as
coal ·moisture GOncentration increases)

5-51
 • They readily accept 2 inch x 0 and coarser coal

• Within limits, mill operating conditions, particularly

cage speeds and configuration, can be easily changed,
if necessary, to accommodate changes in coal comminution
characteristics

• Coal conveying-drying gas is not required

• They have comparatively low capital cost

Cage mills crush material primarily by impaction. A typical, high-capacity,

multi-row cage mill consists of two or more contentric cages with adjacent
cages rotating in opposite directions. Each cage consists of rows of
round bars supported at both ends by rings. Alternate rings are connected
through shafts to separate drives for counter-rotation of adjacent cages.
Coal is gravity fed into the center of the revolving inner cage. Centri-
fugal force impacts it against the inner cage bars and successive cages
until it finally impacts against breaker plates lining the mill housing.
After some rebounding back into the cages, crushed coal exits at the
mill base.

Major cage mill variables which affect final product size consist are:

• Cage bar spacing

• Number of cages (rows)

• Whether or not the mill is in an open or closed crushing

circuit. (in closed-circuit crushing, mill product is
classified and oversize material is returned to the mill
for further crushing.)

• Number of crushing stages

Hith exception of FS.;..iO, in which wet rod mills are used to produce 100 percent
minus 20 mesh coal slurry, all fine crushing flow sheets use belt conveyors for
coarse and fine coal transport; bins for coal surge storage; gravimetric

5-52
belt feeders for. cage mill feeding; and, cage mills~ Design capacities
established for these components are based on reliability considerations
and the need to provide coal to a postulated five-train coal conversion
plant .. With exception of FS-4, two cage mill capacities were judged to
meet these general requirements: 600 and 400 tons per hour. Use of
these two design capa.cities results in:

• A reasonable number of cage mill trains

• No extrapolation of current cage mill designs

• Sufficient excess mill capacity when required

9 Specification of fine coal conveyors well within existing

conveyor capacities

-• Flow sheets that are consistent with the level of current

cage mill coal crushing performance data

Major equipment list specified cage mill power requirements are based on
use of the largest drives (multi-row cage mills require two drivers, one
for each cage, set) recommended by manufacturers for a given mill size.
-Actual mil,l power consump.tion would normally not reach the specified. rates.
However, the. cost savings associated with specifying lower power drives,
such as 1,000 inst.ead of 1,200 hp, is insignificant compared with fine
crushing facillty capital cost and sacrlfices operating flexibility. Speci-
fication of maximum design power for crushers is normal practice in the
minerals beneficiation industry.

The number of cage mills required for a flow sheet establishes the number
of mill feeders and surge bins required. Each mill is supplied by a
single gravimetric belt feeder and a single surge bin. Belt feeders
capable of feeding up to 600 tons per hour of coal appear to be techni-
cally fe~sible. However, ~f necessary multiple feeders could be tised
for ~ single c~ge mill.

5-53
Fine crushing surge bin design capacities are based on providing an approxi-
mate coal residence time of one hour. This is sufficient for the surge
storage filling tripper conveyor systems to maintain bins sufficiently
full at all times. Design of multiple surge bin systems of the types·
presented in the flow sheets is very involved. In addition to the bin
design considerations mentioned in the beginning of this section, it
requires design of the complete system used to sequentially fill all bins.
The bin design capacities presented in the major equipment lists are only
estimates. Detailed engineering and .cost trade-offs could result in
somewhat different bin capacities~

Coal is conveyed to and from all fine crushing operations by belt conveyors.
For both applications two full-capacity conveyor systems are provided.
Each coal conveyor system has a 1.33 equipment design capacity to plant
design capacity ratio. The equipment design capacity is that specified
for equipment procurement. (Equipment design capacities are the capacities
presented in major equipment lists.) Plant design capacity for all fine
crushing flow sheets is 1,771 tons per hour (tph) of coal having a total
moisture concentration of 8.0 wt percent. This is equivalent to 42,500 tons
per day of conversion reactor feed coal or 85 percent of the entire con-
version plant design daily coal t:uusuuilJtion of 50,000 torte per day. 'l'liP

other 1~ percent of daily coal consumption is consutned in the power/steam

plant. Plant design capacities at various points in the fine crushing
flow sheets are presented in the material balances associated with each
tlow she~t:.

The conveyor system equipment design/plant design capacities ratio of

1.33 was established because it provides:

• Extra conveyor capacity to avoid spillage due to inad-

vertent overloading

• Faster fine crushing surge storage filling when required

5-54
 • A safety margin for off-specification crusher performance

• For near plant design surge storage bin filling with a

single conveyor system, i.e., when the other bin filling
conveyor system is out of service

In all coal fine crushing flow sheets, surge storage bins were postulated
as being located in a single row. This configuration is well suited for
providing coal to a conversion plant consisting of five, parallel coal
conversion tr~ins. Efficient transfer of coal to the conversion reactor
feed systems couid be achieved by location of the fine crushing facility
at the coal feed ends of the conversion trains with the surge bin row
perpendicular to the train centerlines. Obviously, many layouts for
matching of coal fine crushing and conversion reactor feed systems are
possible. However, evaluation of such layout alternatives is beyond the
~cup~ of this report.

Use of an in-line bin layout results in an uncomplicated filling tripper

conveyor system and bin discharging operation. It also would be easy to
expand in stages; new bins be.ing added at one end. Feed to the entire
row of surge bins was postulated as being at one end of the row. A center
reed point could, however, have advantages for a large number of in-row
bins.

The coal fin~ crushing flow sheets provide both high operating reliability
and operating flexibility. However, it should be recognized that different
design approaches could result in flow sheets with comparable operating
reliability and flexibility. Actual commercial fine crushing plant designs
are always a compromise between achievement of high reliability, operating
flexibility considerations, capital costs, and operating costs.

5.4.1 Coal Fine Crushing Without Ultrafines Removal

Flow Sheet FS-3 is the proposed fine crushing circuit for preparing
8 mesh x p coal (co.al feed for the Exxon Donor Solvent and Exxon Cata-
lytic Gasificqtion Processes) and 12 mesh x 0 coal (coal feed for the

5-55.
SRC-I and SRC-II Processes). These two different crushed coal size dis-
tributions could be obtained by use of different cage mill speeds and
possibly slightly different cage bar spacings. Cage mill design capac-
ities and installed powers would, however, be identical or very similar
for both size distributions.

Coarse coal (2 inch x 0) is conveyed from live storage by a parallel con-

veyor system consisting of two, 2,400 tons per hour, 60-inch-wide convey-
ors. Length of these conveyors is dependent on live storage facility
type and layout, coal conversion plant layout, and fine crushing surge
storage height. Since plant layouts are not part of conceptual flow
shP.ets development, no lengths, and as a result no installed power, have
been estimated for these conversion coal fine crushing feed conveyors.
Suitable conveyors for this service are commerically available.

Fine crushing feed conveyors are provided with tramp iron magnets, and for
non-magnetics removal, electronic type metal dectectors. The tramp iron
magnets are self-cleaning. Removed metal is collected in a bin and period-
ically removed. When a metal detector senses a: sufficiently large piece
of metal it marks its location with a paint spray and sounds an alarm.
Frequently such metal detectors are interlocked with their conveyor to
stop it when metal is detected. Metal is then removed manually. Removal
of tramp metal is important for protection of the cage mills and other
coal handling equipment.

Each fine crushing feed conveyor discharges onto a surge storage tripper
conveyor system. Two independent tripper conveyor systems are provided
for filling of fine crushing surge bins. Each system is similar to those
described in Subsection 5.3 for V-bunkcr live coal s~orage. Each conHiHLs
of a level belt conveyor running over the tops of in-line surge bins and a
self-propelled tripper car. The tripper car can discharge coal from the
conveyor into any bin. When one bin is full the car is moved to anoth~r

bin where coal is required. Tripper cars of the capacities required for

5-56
 TO ATMOSPHERE

TRIPPER BAG HOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM (1)

CONVEYOR (2)

CRUSHING SURGE BIN 161

21N. X OCOAL
CONVERSION COAL
CLEAN COAL FINE CRUSHING
FROM COARSE FEED CONVEYOR (2)
COAL LIVE STORAGE-
BLENDING 6

GRAVIMETRIC 21N. X 0
BELT FEEDER (6) 8WT PERCENT
TOTAL MOISTURE

COAL FINE CRUSHER (61

72 IN. CAGE MILL
4 ROW TYPE

SRC I AND II: 12 MESH X 0

LINE NO.1
EXXON DONOR SOLVENT: 8 MESH X 0
EXXON CATALYTIC GASIFICATION: 8 MESH X 0
FINE COAL
FINE COAL CONVEYOR (2)
TO CONVERSION
REACTOR FEED
SYSTEMS

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION

OAK R!DGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

STREAM NUMBER
0 0 0 CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
COAL- TONS/HOUR - DRY 1,629 271 1,629
CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V
PERCENT MOISTURE 8.0 8.0 8.0
TONS/HOUR - WET 1,771 295 1,771
SINGLE STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING
SRC I AND II, EXXON DONOR SOLVENT,
AND EXXON CATALYTIC GASIFICATION

BECHTEL NATIONAL. INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

13022 JULY 1979 FS.3

5-57
 · THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK ·
 MAJOR
I
EQUIPMENT LIST.
SINGLE-STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING
I
FLOW SHEET FS-3

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description S pec1'f'1cat1on
. Riequ1rements
. an d Comments
Required Each
'I
2 Fine Crushing Surge Storage 150 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveytr Specification.
Tripper Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in.

6 Fine Crushing Surge Bin Design Capacity: 300 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
1

1:
(1,800 tons, total combined capacity) promotion. '!
~~

1 Fine Crushing Surge Bins Baghouse 60 Design.Capacity: 20,000 acfm Standard Baghouse System.
I
Dust Collection System

6 Fine Crushing Gravimetric Belt 25 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Gravimetric Belt Feeder Specification.
Feeder Belt Width: 72 in.

6 Coal Fine Crusher 1,400 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Cage Mill Specification.
Type: Four Row Cage Mill
Size: 72 in. diameter

2 Fine Coal Conveyor 300 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Belt Width: 60 in.

5-59
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
surge ~tqrage filling would be specially designed. Their design would
provide for such features as minimization of dust genetation during con-
. .
veyor di$Charge, rapid movement, and highly automated, and possible com-
puter controlled, bin filling. Tripper car operation could be monitored
by a closed-circuit television system.

Coal is discharged from the mass flow surge bins by sealed gravimetric
belt feeders. Height of the downspout connecting feeders and bins is
designed to provide a head seal against feeder operating pressure. Each
feeder discharges directly into a cage mill feed chute. Spinning of
mill cages produces a certain amount of air flow which must be controlled.
This is accomplished oy the pressurized, sealed feeders.

Actual coal crushing is accompl~shed in six, 72-inch, four-row cage mills

(72 inch is the diamete~ of the outer mill cage). Each mill is driven by
two motors: an 800-hp motor for the large cage and a 600-hp motor for the
. . . . .
small cage. Crushed coal is di$charged from each mill b~ m~ans of flow
. .
switching chutes onto one of two fine coal conveyors. ror !=he EOS Process,
SRC-I, and SRC-II t):lese conveyors convey coal to a series of coa;t.-solvent
slurrying vessels.

Flow sheet FS.,..4 is the propos~d fine crushing circuit for preparing 14 mesh
X 0 coal (HYGAS coal feed) 'and 20 mesh X 0 coal (Texaco Partial Oxidation
Gasification coal feed). , First-st~ge crushing is very s:i,milar to FS-3;
the main difference being use of larger capacity, 2~row-type cage mills.

Coal from f~rst~stage crushing is conveyed by a scissor'conveyor system to

;,

a second tripper conveyor system which fills eight, in-line second. ~tage

crushing surge bins. Feed of coal from these bins is identical to that
for fi~st-stage crushing. Second-stage crushing is accompl:i.sh~d ~n

I.P.receding page blank! ,5-61

--·----- --~ -·----------· -~---. ~~---
eight, 72-inch, four-row cage mills. These mills discharged to one of
two fine coal conveyors.

Flow sheet FS-4-1 presents an alternative two-stage open-circuit fine crush-

ing arrangement. It makes use of stacked mills which avoids use of con-
veyors and surge bins between first and second stage crushings. Capital
cost of this arrangement is usually less than for that presented in FS-4.
However, it has less operating flexibility and is less efficient than the
FS-4 arrange~ent.

Flow sheet FS-5 is an alternative flow sheet for both FS-3 and FS-4. Instead
of open circuit crushing, it uses closed-circuit fine crushing. The main
advantages of this flow scheme are reduced ultrafines production and higher
crushing efficiency, i.e., the power consumption required for closed-circuit
crushing is less than for comparable open-circuit crushing. A disadvantage
is its greater complexity compared with open-circuit crushing and, as a
result, higher cost.

In FS-5 coal classification is achieved in air classifiers. Classification

oversize is conveyed by a scissor conveyor system to surge storage before
additional size reduction. Coarse coal feed from live storage is also con-
veyed by this same scissor conveyor system to surge storage. Coal is fed
from surge storage to cage mills in a manner analogous to that described
for FS-J and YS-4.

Crushed coal .~ravity flows from each cage mill into the feed spout of an
air classifiet'. Here it: is plcke<.l U[J uy i::l i'ulating di.,tributing plats hub.
Centrifugal force, imparted to the coal particles by rhe hub, Llu:uwl:; Ll~t:~m

through a series of openings onto a distributing plate. The coarsest

(heaviest) particles after leaving this plate settle into a tailings cone.
Finer particles are entrained iu ascet1ding air currents created by an
internal classifier fan. These·particles are swept through radial selectdr
blades which impart additional centrifugal force. In this secorldary classi-
fication, the finest particles are retained in the classifier circulating air.

5-62
 TO ATMOSPHERE

BAG HOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM ( 11

FIRST STAGE FINE SECOND STAGE FINE
CRUSHING·TRIPPER CRUSHING TRIPPER
CONVEYOR (21 CONVEYOR (21

METAL DETECTOR (21

TRAMP IRON MAGNET (21
ca~FIRST STAGE
FINE CRUSHING
SURGE BIN (41
21N. X 0 COAL
SECOND STAGE
FINE CRUSHING
CLEAN COAL SURGE BIN (81
FROM COARSE
COAL LIVE STORAGE-
LINE NO.1
BLENDING

FIRST STAGE FINE ~!-.----....., SECOND STAGE FINE

CRUSHING GRAVIMETRIC CRUSHING GRAVIMETRIC
BELT FEEDER (4) ~,..-;;;....._ _ _""1 BELT FEEDER (8)
21N. XO SECOND STAGE
BWT PERCENT FINE CRUSHING
TOTAL MOISTURE SCISSOR CONVEYOR
SYSTEM (2)

FIRST STAGE FINE CRUSHER(4)

72 IN. CAGE MILL SECOND STAGE FINE CRUSHER (81
2 ROW TYPE 72 IN. CAGE MILL
4 ROW TYPE

HYGAS: 14 MESH X 0
II::XACO PARTIAL OXIDATION: 20 MESH X 0
I
LINE NO.1 NO.2 i TO CONVERSION REACTOR
FEED SYSTEMS

FINE COAL.

I
STREAM NUMBER
0 0 0 0 0 I
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
CO/\L- TONS/HOUR- DRY 1.629 407 1,629 204 1,629
PERCENT MOISTURE 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
TONS/HOUR- WET 1,771 443 1,771 221 1,771 'CONCEPTUAL I-LOW SHEETS DEV!!LOPMENT FOn COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V
1

!
TWO STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING
HVGAS AND TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION
:

, BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

; 13022 JULY 1979 FS.4

5-63
 'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR;EQUIPMENT LIST
TWO-STAGE CAGE'MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING
FLO\i SHEET FS-4

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each
I
2 First-Stage Fine Crushing Surge 150 .Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Storage Tripper Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in. I

'I
4 First-Stage Fine Crushing Surge - Design Capacity: 225 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
Bin (900 tons, total combined capacity) promotion. I
I

4 First-Stage Fine Crushing Gravi- 30 Design Capacity: 600 tph See General Gravimetric
I
Belt Feeder
metric Belt Feeder Belt Width: 72 in. Specification. i
j
i
4 First-Stage Coal Fine Crusher 1,200 Design Capacity: 600 tph See General Cage Mill Specification.
Type: Two Row Cage Mill
Size: 72 in. diameter

2 Second-Stage Fine Crushing 500 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Scissor Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in.
I
2 Second Stage Fine Crushing Surge 200 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
i
Storage Tripper Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in.

8 Second-Stage Fine Crushing Surge - Design Capacity: 225 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even. flow
Bin (1,800 tons, total combined capacity) promotion.

8 Second-Stage Fine Crushing Gravi- 20 Design Capacity: 300 tph See General Gravimetric Belt Feeder
metric Belt Feeder Belt Width: 72 in. Specification.

8 Second-Stage Coal Fine Crusher 1,400 Design Capacity: 300 tph See General Cage Mi~l Specification.
Type: 4 Row Cage Mill I
'I
Size: 72 in. diameter ·i

2 Fine Coal Conveyor 300 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph

I
see General conveyor Specification.
Belt Width: 60 in.

1 Fine Crushing Surge Bins Baghouse 150 Design Capacity: 50,000 acfm Standard Baghouse System.
Dust Collection System I
I

5-65
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY.
LEFT BLANK
 TO ATMOSPHERE

BAGHOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM (1)

TRIPPER
CONVEYOR (21

METAL DETECTOR (2)

TRAMP IRON MAGNETIC (2)

21N. X OCOAL
~ CRUSHING SURGE BIN (6)

CONVERSION COAL
CLEAN COAL FINE CRUSHING
FROM COARSE FEED CONVEYOR (2)
COAL LIVE STORAGE-
BLENDING 6

GRAVIMETRIC 21N.XO
BELT FEEDER (6) 8WT PERCENT
TOTAL MOISTURE

FIRST STAGE FINE

CRUSHER (6)
72 IN. CAGE MILL
2 ROW TYPE

SECOND STAGE FINE

CRUSHER (6)
72 IN. CAGE MILL HYGAS: 14 MESH X 0
4 ROW TYPE
TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION: 20 MESH X 0

0 N0.21
TO CONVERSION REACTOR
FEED SYSTEMS

LINENO.l~------~----------------------------~~~~~~~9------------~------~~~------------'>
0
""'"
FINE COAL CONVEYOR (2)
- FINE COAL

I
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
I OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
STREAM NUMBER
0 ~ 0 '
COAL- TONS/HOUR- DRY 1,629 272 1,629 CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
PERCENT MOISTURE 8.0 8.0 8.0 CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
COAL- TONS/HOUR -WET 1,771 295 1,771
CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V
I

ALTERNATIVE: TWO STAGE CAGE MILL COAL

i FINE CRUSHING STACKED ARRANGEMENT
HYGAS AND TEXACO P~RTIAL OXIDATION

BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTELJOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

I 13022 JULY 1979 FS-4-1

5-67
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 i
MAJpR EQUIPMENT LIST
TWO-STAGE edGE MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING
STACKED' CRUSHER ARRANGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE FLOW SHEET FS-4-1
I
Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Jequirements and Comments
Required Each
I
2 Fine Crushing Surge Storage Tripper 150 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph I
See General Conve~or Specification.
I
Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in.

6 Fine Crushing Surge Bin Design Capacity: 300 tons Mass flow bin witJ lined bottom for even flow
(1, 800 tons, to tal a.ombined capacity) promotion.
'I
6 Fine Crushtng Gravimetric Bel.t Feeder 30 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Gravi~etric Belt Feeder
Belt Width: 72 in. Specification. '
'
6 First-Stage Coal Fine Crusher 1,200 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Cage Mill Specification.
;
Type: Two Row Cage Mill I
Size: 72 in. diameter
I'
6 Second-Stage Coal Fine Crusher 1,400 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Cage ~ill Specification.
Type: 4 Row Cage Mill I
Size: 72 in. diameter '
I

I
2 Fine Coal Conveyor 300 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Convey,or Specification.
Belt Width: 60 in. :
1 Fine Crushing Surge Bins Baghouse 60 Design Capacity: 20,000 acfm Standard Baghouse pystem.
Dust Collection System I
I

5-69
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 TO ATMOSPHERE

BAG HOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM ( 1)

CRUSHING SURGE BIN (6)

~ METAL
~"'J DETECTOR (2)

GRAVIMETRIC 21N. X 0
BELT FEEDER (6) 8WT PERCENT
TOTAL MOISTURE

COAL FINE CRUSHER (6)

72 IN. CAGE MILL
2 ROW TYPE

I
CRUSHED COAL COAL FINE CRUSHING
AIR CLASSIFIER (6)
l RECIRCULATION
SCISSOR CONVEYOR
1 SYSTEM (2)

)~--------------------------------~~~-'~rN~~~·-~~1~----N-
1

! -·-~1~------------------------------------------------~J~---~~~~~
02
>
__
21N.XOCOAL

CLEAN COAL
FROM COARSE
_ CONVERSION COAL
FINE CRUSHING FEED
CONVEYOR (2) LINE NO.
1
NO.2
~
~
V"
;
\ )
CJ~--------------~--------------------------------~------------------4
COALLIVESTORAGE·
BLENDING FINE COAL CONVEYOR (2)
FINECOAL
A-------~ ~- ...
TO CONVERSION REACTOR
HYGAS: 14 MESH X 0
TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION: 20 MESH X 0 FEED SYSTEMS i
EXXON DONOR SOLVENT: 8 MESH X 0 I
EXXON CATALYTIC GASIFICATION: 8 MESH X 0 !
STREAM NUMBER
0 0 SCR I AND SCR II: 12 MESH X 0 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
COAL-TON~HOUR-DRY 1,629 1,629
PERCENT MOISTURE 8.0 8.0
TONS/HOUR -WET 1,771 1,771 CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING·PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
I
CONTRACT NO. 62X - 46724V

ALTERNATIVE: SINGLE STAGE CAGE MILL

CLOSED CIRCUIT COAL FINE CRUSHING
TO MINIMIZE ULTRAFINES PRODUCTION

BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

13022 JULY 1979 FS-5
i 5-71
 'i

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJpR EQUIPMENT LIST
SINGLE-STA~E CLOSED-CIRCUIT CAGE
MILL ~OAL FINE CRUSHING
TO MINIMIZE ULTRAFINES
IPRODUcT:;:ci~
ALTERNATIVE FLOW SHEET FS-5

,,'
Number HP 'I

Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each 'I ,
I
'I
2 Coal Fine Crushing Recirculation 300 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyrr Specification.
Scissor Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in.
I
2 Fine Crushing Surge Storage Tripper 200 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveypr Specification.
Conv!ilyor System Belt Width: 60 in. '
I
6 Fine Crushing Surge Bin Design Capacity: 300 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
.(1, 800 tons, to tal combined capacity) promotion.

6 Fine Crushing Gravimetric Belt 30 Design Capacity: 400 tons See General Gravimetric Belt Feeder
Feeder Belt Width: 72 in. Specification.

6 Coal Fine Crusher 1,000 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Cage M~ll Specification.
Type: 2 Row Cage Mill

6 Crushed Coal Air Classifier 400 Design Capacity: 400 tph Air separators of ~p to 24 ft in diameter are
Type: Mechanical Centrifugal currently used for closed-circuit cement
Air Separator grinding.
Size: 22 ft diameter Abrasion resistant steel lined.

2 Fine Coal Conveyor 300 Design Capacity: 2,400.tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Belt Width: 60 in.

1 Fine Crushing Surge Bins Baghouse 60 Design Capacity: 20,000 acfm Standard Baghouse ~ystem;
I
Dust \.oll eC'.tion System
I!

. I

5-73
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Oversize particles are thrown out of the accelerated ascending air and
settle into the same tailings cone· as the coarses.t particles. From ·here
they are discharged to a recirculation scissor conveyor system by means
of rotary valves and flow switching chute work. Fines swept through secondary
classifi.cation are cycloned in a fines chamber formed by the conical classifier
housing. Removed fines are collected in a fines cone from which they are dis-
charged by rotary valves and flow switching chute work to one of two fine
. '
coal conveyors.

Air classieiers of the type s~ecified are widely used in closed-circuit

cement grinding. Curre~tly these classifiers are available in diameters up
to at least 24 feet. Particle classification size is controlled primarily by
changing the number ~nd size of the secondary classification selector blades.
During operation classification size is controlled by adjusting air circulation
volume. This. is accomplished with a series of peripheral vanes which are
actuated remotely.

Flow sheet FS-6 is the proposed fine crushing circuit for preparing 1/4 inch
x 0 coal (U-Gas coal feed) arid 1/8 inch x 0 coal (COCAS coal feed). Except
for the number of .parallel trains and fine crusher
.
spec·ification,
.. this flow
sheet is similar to FS-3. The FS-3 general coal flow pattern description
also applies to this flow sheet.

Two crusher alternatives are specified for production of 1/4 inch x 0 coal:
two-row-type cage milis and harnrnermills. Use of harnrnerrnills would result
in more fines, but save in power comsumption. Harnrnerrnills, however, are
not recommended to produce minus 1/8 inch x 0 coal du~ to their excessive
produc·tion of oversize material.

In addition to closed-circuit fine crushing, FS-5, two other flow sh~e~s

were developed wi~h ultrafines m~nimization in mind. Buth of these require

relatively dry coal feed. Therefore, a coarse coal drying flow sheet was

l!receding page ·blank /5-75 .

developed. This flow sheet, FS-7, uses a conventional fluid-bed coal dryer.
Drying gas for this dryer is, however, obtained from the power/steam plant.
This approach has two main advantages compared with the conventional approach
of using dryer product coal as an energy source. It is more energy-efficient.
And, second, since the power/steam plant uses fluidized-bed steam generators
with limestone injection, the drying flue gas does not require sulfur
0xides removal following coal drying.

In FS-7, before drying, coal is handled in equipment very similar to that

described for FS-3. GravimQtric belt feeders are used tu fe~d coal ftofu
three in-line surge bins to three identical, parallel fluid-bed coal dryers.
Fin~ coal entrained in dryer flue gas is removed by cyclones and baghouses
in series. Fine coal recovered by the dryer cyclones is discharged through
rotary valves and flow switching chute work to one of two parallel fine
coal conveyors. Here it combines with coarse coal discharged directly from
the dryers. Ultrafine coal removed by the dryer baghouse systems could
be combined with the coarse coal on the fine coal conveyors without further
preparation if ultrafines are acceptable conversion reactor feed. If ultra-
fines are detrimental to conversion reactor operation they could be con-
veyed by mass flow conveyors to an ultrafines treatmP.nt. operation. Thic
second ultrafines alternative is the one shown in FS-7.

FS-8 is a flow sheet for minimizing ultrafines in 1/4 inch x 0 crushed coal
(U-Gas coal feed). Dried coarse coAl, 2 inch x Ot is ~ii~ened i~ duuble-
ueck, vibrat:ing screens to separate minus 1/4 inch coal. Undersize .-o.al
il::l discharged directly to fine coal conveyors for conveying to thP. n-r:A~

reactor lock feed system or pretreater. Screen oversize is conveyed by a

scissor conveyor system in series with a tripper conveyor system . to surge···
l::ltorage. From here it is crushed to minus 1/4 inch top size in two-row
cage mills.· These discharge directly to the fine coal conveyors where
crushed coal and screening undersize are combined.

5-76
 iMAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
SINGLE-STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING
I FLOW SHEET FS-6

i
Number HP i
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each I

I
2 Fine Crushing Surge Storage 150 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Convei~r Specification.
Tripper Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in. I'
I

4 Fine Crushing Surge Bin Design Capacity: 225 tons Mass flow bin witJ lined bottom for flow
(900 tons, total combined capacity) promotion.
I
1 Fine Crushing Surge Bins Baghouse 60 Design Capacity: 20,000 acfm Standard Baghouse:system.
Dust Collection System

4 Fine Crushing Gravimetric Belt 40 Design Capacity: 600 tph See General Gravimetric Belt Feeder Specification.
Feeder Belt Width: 72 in.

4 Coal Fine Crusher 1,200 Design Capacity: 600 tph See General Cage Mill Specification.
Type: Two Row Cage Mill
Size: 72 tn.. diameter
I
4 Alternative U-Gas Process Coal 600 Design Capacity: 600 tph See General Cage Mill Specification.
I
Fine Crusher - Hammermill Type: Center Feed, Reversible i
Size: 60 in. diameter X !
110 in. wide II
-
2 Fine Coal Conveyor 300 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Belt Width: 60 in.
.
I

5-77
 THIS PAGE.
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 TO ATMOSPHERE

BAG HOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM ( 1)

METAL DETECTOR (2)

. TRAMP IRON MAGNET (2)

CRUSHING SURGE BIN (4)

21N. X OCOAL

CLEAN COAL
FROM COARSE COAL 1/4 AND 1/8 IN.
COAL LIVE STORAGE- LINE N0.1 4 FINE CRU:SHING
BLENDING MILL SPECIFICATIONS
f
I
j
U-GAS COG AS
GRAVIMETRIC 21N. X 0 I
BELT FEEDER (4) 0 8 WT PERCENT
TOTAL MOIS'i"URE COAL SIZE CONSIST
MILL SIZE AND TYPE
1/4 IN. X 0 I
FOUR 72 IN. CAGE MILL
1/81N.XO
FOUR 72 IN. CAGE MILL
2 ROW \TYPE 2 ROW TYPE
600TPH EACH 600 TPH EACH
ALTERNATIVE FOUR 60 IN.~ 110 IN. WIDE
HAMMER MILL
CENTER FEED
COAL FINE REVERSIBLE TYPE
CRUSHER (4) 600 TPH EACH
I
CAGE MILL OR
HAMMERMILL
(SEE MILL
SPECIFICATION
DATAl

U-GAS
COG AS

"' FINE COAL )

FINE COAL CONVEYOR (2) ..._z_~
TO CONVERSION
REACTOR FEED
SYSTEMS
i
1

i
lUNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
: OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
:t

:iTREAM NUMBER
0 .0 0 I CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING.PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
COAL- TONS/HOUR - DRY 1,629 407 . 1,629 CONTRACT NO. 62X - 41i724V
PERCENT MOISTURE 8.0 8.0 8.0 I
TONS/HOUR -WET 1,771 443 1,771
I
SINGLE STAGE CAGE MILL COAL FINE CRUSHING
,I
U-GAS AND COGAS
j

BECHTEL NATIONAL. INC.• SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

I 13022 JULY 1979 FS~

5-79
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
COARSE COAL THERMAL DRYING
FLOW SHEET FS-7

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification' Requirements and Comments
n.equired Each

2 Coal Dryer Surge Bin 100 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyo:r Specification.
Tripper Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in.

3 Coal Dryer Surge Bin 3 Design Capacity: 135 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
(400 tons, total combined capacity) promotion.

3 Coal Dryer Gravimetric Belt 50 Design Capacity: 600 tph See General Gravime~ric Belt Feeder
Feeder · Belt Width: 72 in. Specification. I
3 Fluid Bed Coal Dryer 2,300 Design Capacity: 850 tph Fluid bed coal drye'rs of this capacity are currently
(Total Size: 16 ft diameter available. 1
System) Use of flue gas from a power/steam plant instead of
direct firing of co.al will require some design
modifications. ·
Dryers of this capacity are all specially engi-
neered and custom
.
f,abricated.
I

18 Coal Dryer Cyclone Design Capacity: 62,500 acfm Cyclones of this size are of standard design.
Size: 84 in. diameter Cyclones are manifolded together in a single
cluster which share a single underflow bin.

3 Coal Dryer Baghouse Design Capacity: 500,000 acfm Baghouse collectors of this capacity are custom
Particulate Coal Collection Area/Baghouse: 250,000 ft2 designed and fabriqated.
System Number of Compartments: 16 The baghouse is eq~ipped with an explosion detec-
Bag Material: Fiberglass tion and suppression system.
The baghouse syste~s include coal collection bins
and interconnecting mass flow conveyors.

6 Fiuid Bed Dryer Induced Draft Included in Design Capacity: 250,000 acfm Fans of this capacity and head are used in power
Fan Fluid Bed Static Pressure: 20 in. wat.er plants for flue ga~.
Dryer Power
I
2 Coal Dryer Discharge 300 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveygr Specification.
Conveyor
!I
i
1 Coal Dryer Surge Bin 60 Design Capacity: 20,000 acfm Standard Baghouse System.
Baghouse Dust Collection I
I
System '

5-81
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 TO ATMOSPHERE

BAGHOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM (11

METAL DETECTOR (2)

21N. X 0 COAL TO ATMOSPHERE

CONVERSION COAL
FINE CRUSHING
CLEAN COAL FEED CONVEYOR (2) .I
FROM COARSE ~ TO UL TRAFINES AGGLOMERATION
COAL LIVE STORAGE-
BLENDING COAL DRYER '------------------i~~~COAL PARTICULATE
CYCLONE (18) f "--------J

GRAVIMETRIC
BELT FEEDER (3)

LINE LINE
FLUE GAS N0.1 NO.2
,.....1..---..1..----.....;r.,__ _.....;r.,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~---...:.-~ DRY COARSE COAL.
FLUID BED DRYER (3)
COAL DRYER DISCHARGE
CONVEYOR (2)
TO COAL FINE CRUSHING
DRY SCREENING
FLOW SHEET FS-8
OR
SINGLE STAGE FINE CRUSHING
FLOW SHEET FS-6

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL

CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V
STREAM NUMB6R
0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~
COAL- TONSlHOUR - DRY 1,629 1,566 100 63 - 163 -
PERCENT MOISTURE 8.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 - COARSE COAL THERMAL DRYING
TONS/HOUR - WET 1,771 1,614 103 65 - 168 -

FLUE GAS- MILLION ACFM - - 1.60 1.07 1.06 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119
TONS/HOUR - DRY - - 2180 2180 2180
TEMPERATURE - - 450 150 145 RF.C:HTF.t .JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER
ABS. HUMIDITY LBS H20/LB DRY GAS - - 0.038 0.08 0.08 13022 JULY 1979 FS-7

5-83
 THIS PAGE
. WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 I
I MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
I SINGLE-STAGE CAGE MILL COAL
~FINE CRUSHING WITH PRESCREENING
I ALTERNATIVE FLOW SHEET FS-8

Number
Equipment Title
HP
Design Rating and Description
I
Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each I
I

2 Dry Coal Screening Surge Storage 200 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
Tripper Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in.

8 Dry Coal Screening Surge Bin Design Capacity: 62 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
(500 tons, total combined capacity) promotion.

8 Dry Coal Screen Gravimetric Belt 30 Design Capacity: 300 tph

I
See General cravimrric Belt Feeder Specification.
Feeder Belt Width: 72.in.

8 Vibrating Coal Screen 50 Design Capacity: 300 tph This is the largest double deck coal screen
Type: Double Deck currently manufactured in the United States.
Vibrating Low head floor-mounted-type screen.
Size: 10 ft X 24 ft Spring steel woven ;wire deck construction.
Deck Opening Size: 3/4 in. top
5/16 irl. bottom

2 Coal Crushing Scissor Conveyor 500 Design Capacity: 1,700 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
System Belt Width: 60 in.
I
2 Screened Coal Crushing Tripper Design Capacity: 1,700 tph See General Conveyor Specification.
I
Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in. I
i
4 Screened Coal Crushing Surge Bin Design Capacity: 100 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
I
(400 ton, total combined capacity) promotion.

4 Coal Crushing Gravimetric Belt 30 Design Capacity: 600 tph See General Gravimetric Belt Feeder Specification.
Feeder Belt Width: 72 in. !,·

4 Coal Fine Crusher 1,200 Design Capacity: 600 tph See General Cage Mill
I!
Specification.
Type: Two Row Cage Mill
Size: 72 in. diameter

2 Fine Coal Conveyor 300.: Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyqr Specification.
Belt Width: 60 in. t
ir
1 Screening and Fine Crushing Surge 150 Design Capacity: 50,000 acfm Standard Baghouse System.
Bins Baghouse Dust Collection I
System

-·

5-85
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 TO A TMOSPH ERE

BAG HOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM ( 1)

SCREENING SURGE BIN CRUSHING TRIPPER

TRIPPER CONVEYOR (2) CONVEYOR (2)
-·
(

21N. X OCOAL

CLEAN COAL
FROM COARSE COAL
THERMAL DRYING
FLOW SHEET FS-7

CRUSHING GRAVIMETRIC
·sCREEN 0 BELT FEEDER (4)
GRAVIMETRIC
BELT FEEDER (8)

VIBRATING SCREEN (B)

10FT X 20FT, DOUBLE DECK COAL FINE CRUSHER (4)
72 IN. CAGE MILL
2 ROW TYPE
CRUSHING
+1/4 IN.
SCISSOR
CONVEYOR
SYSTEM (2)

LINE !OVERSIZE
NO.1 NO.2

-1/4 IN. -1/4 IN.

II,(;AS· 1/4 IN X 0
·UNDERSIZE
LINE NO. 1 NO.2 LINE NO.2 TO CONVERSION REACTOR
N0.1 FEED SYSTEMS

FINE COAL

STREAM NUMBER
0 0 0 0 ~ 0 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR· DIVISION
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
COAL- TONS/HOUR- DRY 1,566 196 59 1,094 274 1,566
PERCENT MOISTUR.E 3.0 3.0 3.0. 3.0 3.0 3.0
TONS/HOUR - WET 1,614 202 61 1,126 282 1,614 CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
CONTRACT NO. 62X - 46724V

ALTERNATIVE: SINGLE STAGE CAGE MILL COAL

FINE CRUSHING WITH PRE-SCREENING U-GAS

BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB. DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

13022 JULY 1979 FS-8

5-87
 THIS PAGE ·
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Dry coal screenill:g at 1/4 inch represents an approximate practical lower
size limit and requires relatively dry coal. Because of this, FS-8 was only
considered as a possible ultrafines minimization approach for U-Gas and
the coal entering FS-8 was spec~fied as coming from FS-7, Coarse Coal
Thermal Drying._ Screening of coal at sizes finer than 1/4 inch results in
rapidly d~creased scr~en .loadings, i.e., the s~xeen area required increases
rapidly. Also, the amount of coa~ surface moisture that can be tolerated
without deterioration of screen efficiency becomes increasingly smaller.
Coal surface mo~stures on the order of several_percent are sufficient to
blind fine dry screens.

The Texaco Partial Oxidation Gasification Process uses a coal feed system
in which a high solids conc'entration coal-water slurry is injected by posi-
tive dispiacement pumps into an entrained flow gasifier. Gasifier operating
pressure is 500-1,500 psig depending on synthesis·gas requirements arid coal
composition. To produce feed slurry for their gasifier Texaco has proposed
rod mill wet grinding. (Because of rod mill use the term grinding is used
even though the coal size consist produced fits the definition of coal fine
~rushing established in this report. This usage is consistent with current
mineral beneficiation industry terminology.)

FS-10 is a po~sible Te*aco Pa~tial Oxidation wet grinding ~r-fine cr~Shing

"flow sheet. Coarse coal, . 2 inch X 0, after surge storage is grol,lnd to

100 percent minus 20 ~esh in wet rod mills in open circuit. Water is· slurried
w1rh coal fed to the mills to produce a slurry containing 60 wt percent
coal. Thirteen, 14-1/2 foot-diameter by 20-foot-long rod mills are speci-
fied to grind 1,771 toris per hour of coarse coal. These rod mills were
specified using an estimated power consumption of 10 hp/hr-ton of
coal feed.

The reason for spec1f1carion of rod mills rather than ball mills in fS-10
is that tpey produce a narrower size range product. They produce very
little oversize and few ultrafines. A disadvantage of rod mills and the
reason so many are specified is that they·are capacity limited. Due to
the unavailability of rods that will perform properly in large rod mills
their length is limited to approximately 20 feet. Rods longer than this
will not stay straight during_ grinding and. break into pieces that are dis-
charged from the mill as iarge chunks. The largest rod mills currently
installed are 15 ·teet in diameter.

5.4.L Coal Fine Crushing With Ultrafirtes Removal

As indicated in Subsection 4.3.3, a conceptual fine coal ultrafines separa-·

tion flow sheet was developed. This flow sheet is presented in FS-9. It
could be used with any of ·the other fine crushing flow sheets provided the
crushed coal is sufficiently dry. The FS-10 plant design material balance
is a continuation of that presented i~ FS-3 for S~C-I and ti feed coal
crushing. Crushed ultrafines separation feed coal total moisture is 8.0
wt percent.

In FS-9 fine coal is conveyed to a series of surge bins. From each bin it
is fed by a gravimetric belt feeder to an air classifier. These air
classifiers are similar to those described in FS-5, Cage Mill Closed-Circuit
Coal Fine Crushing. The main difference i~ that hot flue gas (450°F) from
the power/steam plant is injected into the ultrafines classifiers to reduce
coal moisture. Ultrafine coal is discharged from each classifier at two
locations: the classifier fines cone and entrained in exiting dry flue
gas. Ultrafines collected in the tines cone are discharged by rotary lock
valves to one of two mass flow conveyors. Ultrafines entrained in the drying
flue gas are removed by cyclones in series with multicompartment baghouses.
Collected coal from both the cyclones and baghouses are discharged to the
same mass flow conveyors as ultrafines coll~~t.ed in tLc ·...:1.:~:..-sifier fines
cones.

5-90
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
FINE COAL ULTRAFINES SEPARATION
FLOW SHEET FS-9

Number HP i
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description SpecificationiRequirements and Comments
Required Each

Design Capacity: 2,400 tph i

2 Ultrafines Separation Surge 150 See General Conveypr Specification.
Storage Tripper Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in. i
6 Ultrafines Separation Surge Bin Design Capacity: 300 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
(1,800 tons, total combined promotion.
capacity) ·,
'I

6 Air Classifier Gravimetric Belt 30 Design Capacity: 400 tph See General Gravim~tric Belt Feeder Specification.
I
Feeder Belt Width: 72 in. I

li
·I
6 Crushed Coal Air Classifier 500 Design Capacity: 400 tph Air Classifiers of: up to 24 ft in diameter are
Type: . Mecharii:cal' :centrifugal currently used fori closed-circuit cement grinding.
Air Classifier with Hot flue gas is ad~ed to control coal surface
Drying Gas Injection moisture for efficient classification.
Size: 22 ft diameter 1. Abrasion resistant steel lined.

24 Air Classifier Exhaust Gas Design Capacity: 20,000 acfm Cyclones of this size are of standard design and
Cyclone Type: Centrifugal Gas Cyclone are widely used for gas particulate separation.
Number of Cyclone Clusters: 6 Cyclones are manifolded together in clusters of
Size: 6 ft diameter four cyclones which have a common underflow bin.
Abrasion resistant steel lined
'
3 Particulate Coal Collection 60 Design Capacity: 200,000 acfm Baghouse collector~ of this capacity are custom
System Multi-Compartment Number of Compartments: 6 designed and fabricated.
Bag house Design Pressure Drop: 8 ~.n. H20 The baghouse is equipped with an explosion detec-
Area: 120,000 ft tion and suppression system.
I
Bag Material: Fiberglass The baghouse systems include coal collection bins
and interconnecting mass flow conveyors.
I

3 Baghouse Induced Draft Fan 1,000 Design Capacity: 200,000 acfm Standard Design F}~e Gas Fan.
II
Design Head: 30 in. H20 'I

Design Temperature: 180°F

I,
2 Ultrafines Mass Flow Conveyor 300 Design Capacity: 600 tph This type of tota1ly enclosed conveyor has not been
Type: Chain flight mass flow demonstrated on ultrafine coal.
Width: 40 in. Equipment develop~ent may be required.

2 Fine Coal Conveyor 300 Design Capacity: 1,800 tph See General Conveypr Specification.
Width: 60 in. I

1 Ultrafines Surge Bins Baghouse 150 Design Capacity: 50,000 acfm Standard Baghouse System.
Dust Collection System

5-91
 THIS PAGE
WAS.INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 ORNL-OWG 80-4208 ETO
TO ATMOSPHERE

TRIPPER BAGHOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM (11

CONVEYOR (2.

FINE COAL

FROM SINGLE STAGE OR

DOUBLE STAGE FINE CRUSHING
FLOW SHEETS FS-3, FS-4, FS-4-1, FS-5,
ROTARY LOCKS FS--6,0A FS-8

AIR CLASSIFIER
GRAVIMETRIC EXHAUST GAS
BELT FEEDER (61 CYCLONE (241

PARTICULATE COAL
COLLECTION
MUL TICOMPAATMENT
CRUSHED COAL BAGHOUSE (31
AIR CLASSIFIER
(61

ROTARY LOCK

BAGHOUSE I.D FAN (31

ROTARY LOCKS
I
~
L
I

LINE N0.6 N'-0-.2.....L.--.......,j I I

MINUS 100 MESH COAL
I
!
TO. u·LTRAF,INES AGGLOMORATION

ULTRAFINES
ULTRAFINES
MACC FLOW
CONVEYOR (21 I
HOT FLUE GAS (450°1

~ (~~
I~---------------------~------------~- ' FROMPOWERfflTEAMPLANT

N0.2 ~ - FLUE GAS

0 l
I FINE COAL
TO CONVERSION REACTOR
FEED SYSTEMS
FINE COAl .. CONVEYOR (2)

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
STREAM NUMBER
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
COAL TONS/HOUR - DRY 1629 1222 272 204 68 407 - - - CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
PERCENT MOISTURE 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 - - - AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
TONS/HOVR -WET 1771 1314 295 219 73 438 - - - NOTE:
CONTRACT NO. 82K - 45724V
FLUE GAS- THOUSAND ACFM 54,000 3-'30.000 2n.OQQ Materi;;~l
mlanr.P. is based on removal of
TONS/HOUR -DAY 76 454 454
TEMPERATURE
ultrafines from single-stage cage mill coal t
450 460 150 fine crushing for SAC land II -Fiowsheet FS-3.
ABS. HUMIDITY LBS H2'l/LBS DAY GAS 0.038 0.038 0.08 FINE COAL ULTRAFINES SEPARATION

BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

i3022 JULY 1979 FS-9
•. 5-93
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
ROD MILL COAL WET GRINDING
FLOW SHEET FS-10

Number· HP
Required
Equipment Title
Each
Design Rating and Description Specification R~quirements and Comments
;f

2 Grinding Surge Storage Tripper 200 Design Capacity: ' 2,400 tph :I
S ee Genera 1 Conveyq,r spee~"f"~cat~on.
.
Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in.

13 Grinding Surge Bin Design Capacity: 140 tons MasS flow bin with !lined bottom for even
(1,800 tons, total combined capacity) flow promotion. I
13 Rod Mill Gravimetric Belt 20 Design Capacity: 180 tph See General GravimJtric Belt Feeder Specification.
i
Feeder Belt Width: 72 in. I

13 Coal Grinding Rod Mill 1,800. Design Capacity: 180 tph \vet rod mills of this size are currently used
Type: Overflow Discharge for ore and coal gtinding.
Size: 14~ ft rliameter. by 20 ft 20 ft is an approx~mate maximum length for a
long rod mill. ·I
Volume Load~ng: 35 percent
Operating Speed: 13 rpm
(64 percent critical speed)
Rod Charge: 200 tons

13 Rod Mill Discharge Sump Design Capacity: '

I
Concrete Construction Sump.
I
13 Rod Mill Discharge Pump 40 Design Capacity: 1,000 gpm Construction: Ni-~ard Impeller and Casing.
Design Head: 50 ft
Type:. Horizontal centrifugal

1 Grinding Surge Bins Baghouse 150 Design Capacity: 50,000 acfm Standard Baghouse ~ystem.
Dust Collection System
i

. 5-95
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 BAGHOUSE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM (1)

GRINDING SURGE BIN (131

2 IN. X 0 COAL

CLEAN COAL
FROM COARSE COAL
LIVE STORAGE
BLENDING
LINE NO.1

ROD MILL GRAVIMETRIC

BELT FEEDER (131 ...._ ___., 2 IN. X 0
8 WT PERCENT
TOTAL MOISTURE

WATER
3716 GPM (TOTAL FOR 13 LINES)
FROM CONVERSION PLANT
WATER TREATMENT
AND SUPPLY COAL GRINDING ROD MILL (13)
TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION: 20 MESH xo COAL PRODUCT
9040 GPM (TOTAL 13 LINES.)
I

>
14~ FT DIA. X 20FT. LONG @ 60% SOLIDS Tl) CONVERSION REACTOR

ROD MILL DISCHARGE SUMP (13IQ--EjJ~---0;wS~-----------------~~~EO ·:~::M:OAL

ROD Ml LL DISCHARGE PUMP ( 131

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

CONCEPTUAL FLOWSHEETS OEVELOPMENT FOR COAL

CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
STREAM NUMBER
0 0 0-
0 0 CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V

COAL TONS/HOUR - DRY 1,629 125 125 1,629

PERCENT MOISTURE a.o 8.0 - 40 40
RQD MILL COAL WET GRINDING
TONS/HOUR- WET 1,771 136 72 208 2,715
TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION
~~~NCE~

BECHTEL NATIONAL. INC .. SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE DRAWING NUMBER

13022 JULY 1979 FS-10

s-·97
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Ultrafines free GOal is discharged from the air classifiers by rotary lock
valves and flow switching chutes to one of two fine coal conveyors. These
conveyors convey it to conversion reactor coal feed systems.

Reliable and efficient operation of air (gas) cl~ssifiers is very dependent

on feed coal surface moisture. How much moisture is acceptable depends on
the coal, classifier feed size consist, and separation particle size. By
hot flue gas injecti9n both Pittsburgh and Kentucky No. 9 Seam coals can
prcibably.·b~ succ~ssfully classified at feed sizes down to 100 pertent minus
20 mesh; the finest crushed coal size consist·considered. · Actual·quantities
of drying flue gas required and clasiffier internals design would for actual
classification facilities be determined by testing. The material balance
values presented in FS-9 are only estimated values.

Depending on feed coal size consist a different number of classifica.tion

trains than the six shown in FS-9 could be required. The number of trains
also depends on the ultrafines size. For development of FS-9, ultrafines
coal was defi"ed to be coal containing particl~s all 100 mesh or ·firter.

In assessing flow sheet FS-9 it should be recognized that, as far as could

be determined, dry coal· classification at the sizes and capacities that
would be required for conversion coal ·ultrafines removal has never been
commercially practiced. Large-scale fine particulates classification is,
however, used for production of other materials, notably cement. .This
technology, totally or partially,may be adaptable to large-scale coal
classification if it is required.

If fine coai ultrafin~s removal is required or justified for a specific

conversion process, something must be done with the ultrafine~ .. Considera-

..
tion of processes for treating ultrafines, however, was not part of the
undertaking covered by this project. Possible ultrafines uses include:
 e Direct firing in pulverized coal-fired steam generators

e Possible firing in fluidized-bed steam generators by injection

of ultrafines into the bottom of the fluidized bed by entraining
them in the fluidizing air

• Agglomeration followed by combustion in a fluidized-bed steam

generator or feeding to a conversion reactor

Ultrafines could be agglomerated by either briquetting or pelletizing.

Briquetting with a binder would probably be used if a high strength agglomerate
is required. Coal briquetting technology ~s well developed, but is expensive.
Conversion of agglomerated coal in any of the conversion reactors identified
in Table 4-1 has, as far as k~own, never been tested. Coal briq~etts have,
however, been successfully gasified in fixed bed gasifiers.

In addition to ultrafines utilization, another potential pt9blem that could

be associated with ultrafines removal is their transport. Both ultrafines
size consist and explosion characteristics complicates their transport. In
FS-9 mass flow conveyors are specified for ultrafines transport. This
type of conveyor has been successfully used to transport very fine, hazardous
solids and can be designed to minimize air infiltration. However, they
have never been used to transport large quantities of ultrafine. coal.
And, development/demonstration would be required before actual .use of mass
flow conveyors. This is·particularly true if ultrafines require signifi-
cant elevation as part of their transport.

Other transport alternatives that could be considered for coal ultra-

fines include:

e Dilute phase transport in inert gas

@ Dense phase transport in inert gas

Screw conveyors
·-
g Water or other fluid slurry transport if compatible
with ultrafines utilization

5-100
s·. 5 COAL PULVERIZING AND GRINDING. CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS

As reviewed in Subsectio~ 4.3.4, there ire two ways of produ~ing pulverized

or giound coal as reportedly required by H-Coal: dry ~~lverizirig and lique-
faction solvent grinding. This subsection ·presents a conceptual flow sheet
for the latter alternative. Conceptual flow sheets, materiai and ~nthalpy
balances, and major equipment lists for two drying-pulverizing alternatives
are presented in the coal mine-coal conversion plant interface evaluation
and conceptual design project final report {1)·.

The two coal pulverizing alternatives presented in the coal mine-coal conver-
sj_on plant interfCl.ce final report· are: ball tube mill and roller mill coal
puiverizing. In both ~lternatives lat~e qtian~ities oi hot flue gas (450°F)
·frorri the pow~r/steam plant are u.sed.to transport coal.through the mills
arid sim~ltaneoriilj dry it from a~ r~ceived to ~.0 wt percent total ~oisture.
After pulverizing to 70 percent minus 200 mesh, coal is deentrained from
th~·convey1ng~dry{ng flue gas in cyclone clusters iri series with large,
multicompartment baghouses. Specific interface report flow sheets and
,. ·.·. ..
conceptual drawings concerned with coal pulverizing and pulverized coal
separation are:

• Conversion reactor coal pulverizing ball tube mill flow

.sheet: PFD-5 (Volume i)

• Gas flow schematic - ball tube mill system: Figure 5-9

(Volume 1)

• Conversion reactor coal pulv~ri:zine T!"J.l,lP.r mill flow sheet:

PFD-6 (Vol~me i)

.• Gas flow schematic-roller m~ll system: Figure 5-10

(Volume 1)

• Ball tube mill coal pulverizing/separation facility descrip-

tion, ·rna] or equipment list, and conceptual design drawing$:
. (Section 11.1 (Volume 2)

• Roller mill coal pulverizing/separation facility descrip-

tion, major equipment list~ and conceptual design drawings:
Section 11.2 (Volume 2)

5-101
Both the ball tube and rollet mills specified in the interface pulverizing
flow sheets are rated at 250 tons per hour of feed coal. To date, the
largest coal ball tube mill is rated at approximately 80 tons per hour
and the largest coal roller mill at approximately 100 tons per hour.
Scale up of both mill designs to the 250 ton per hour range judged re-
quired for commercial coal conversion plants does appear technically
feasible. This conclusion is based on discussions with major, large
coal mill designer-manufacturers; Bechtel experience with dry coal mills
for the utility industry anrl lArge wet and dry mille for the metal~

industry; and, reported experience .with large dry mills in the cement
inductry. Certain design areas, ~atllcularly mill driVe syste~s, will,
however, require additional development and demonstration. To date there
has been no incentive to develop coal mills larger than 100 tons/hour. This,
rather than technical reasons, is why larger coal mills have not been built.

Pulverized coal produced by both interface report flow sheets would have
to be transported from the cyclones and baghouses used to deentrain it
from mill system transport drying flue gas to the H-Coal coal feed system.
Comments in Subsection 5.4.2 concerning ultrafine coAl transport alto apply
to the 70 percent minus 200 mesh, dried coal produced by these flow sheets.
However, in the case of H-Coal the pulverizerl cnal transport distances could
probably be kept short and the need for excessive coal e]evRtion avoided.

FS-11 presents a conceptual flow sheet for grinding of coal in liquefaction

process recycle solvent. In order to meet the H-Coal Process feed coal
moisture requirement, coal fed to FS-11 is shown as first being dried in
FS-/, .Coarse Coal Thermal Drying. If grinding recycle solvent is sufficiently
hot this drying may not be required. However, use of solvent heat for
::;.i.tuullaueuus coal drying-grinding would require a steam flash separation
following grindin&.

5-102
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
SOLVENT COAL GRINDING
FLOW SHEET FS-11

i'
Number
Required
Equipment Title
HP
Each
Design Rating and Description Specification R~quirements and Comments

2 Coal Grinding ·Surge Storage Tripper 200 Design Capacity: 2,400 tph See General Conveyo:r Specification.
Conveyor System Belt Width: 60 in. I

9 Coal Grinding Surge Bin Design Capacity: 200 tons

I
Mass flow bin with Qined bottom for even flow
(1,800 tons, total combined capacity) promotion.

9 Coal Grinding Gravimetric Belt 30 Design Capacity: 300 tph See General Gravime,tric Belt Feeder Specification.
Feeder Belt Width: 72 in.
I
Coarse Coal Crusher 800 Design Capacity: 300 tph See General Cage Min Spe.ctftcat:i.on.
Type: 2 Row Cage Mill
Size: 72 in. diameter I
I

i
9 Crushed Coal Screw Conveyor 40 Design Capacity: 300 tph Screw Conv~yors of :1this capacity are standard
Type: Double Helicoid Flights equipment. I
Flight Diameter: 10 in.

9 Coal Ball Mill 6,000 Design Capacity: 300 tph Wet ball mills of t~is size are currently used for
Type: Overflow Discharge ore grinding, but riot coal.
Size: 18 ft diameter by Solvent coal grindihg has yet to be demonstrated.
28~ ft long Mill system vapor s~aling is an area where devel-
Volume Loading: 40 percent opment is required.,
Operating Speed: 13 rpm
(68.7 percent critical speed)
Ball Charge: 393 tons

9 Ball Mill Discharge Sump - Design Capacity: 300 ft 3 This sump would require a vapor control system.
Construction: Concrete

9 Ball Mill Discharge Pump 75 Design Capacity: 1,800 gpm Pumps for handling '.of pulverized coal-solvent
Type: Horizontal Centrifugal slurry are being de,veloped as part of coal con-
Construction: Ni-Hard Impeller version process deV,elopment and demonstration
and Casing projects. 1
1 Coal Grinding Surge Bins Dust 60 Design Capacity: 20,000 acfm Standard Baghouse System.
Collection System
J

5-103
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 TO ATMOSPHERE

TRIPPER BAGHOUSE OUST COLLECTION SYSTEM (1)

CONVEYOR (2)

GRINDING SURGE BIN (9)

21N. X OCOAL
COAL DRYER DISCHARGE
CLEAN COAL CONVEYOR (2)
FROM COARSE
COAL THERMAL
DRYING FLOW
SHEET FS-7

GRAVIMETRIC 21N. X 0
BELT FEEDER (9) 3 WT PERCENT
TOTAL MOISTURE

COARSE COAL CRUSHER (9)

72 IN. DIA. CAGE MILL
2 ROW TYPE

SCREW CONVEYOR (9)

SOLVENT

FROM COAL CONVERSION BALL MILL (9)

PROCESS 18FT 0X 28% FT LONG
H-COAL: 70 PERCENT MINUS 200 MESH
TO CONVERSION REACTOR
FEED SYSTEMS

BALL MILL DISCHARGE SUMP (9) GROUND COAL

SLURRY

BALL MILL DISCHARGE PUMP (9)

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION

~
OAK RIDGI& NATIONAl lABORATORY
STREAM NUMBER
0 0 0
COAL- TONS/HOUR- DRY 1629 181 - 181 CONCEPTUAL FLOI(V SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
PERCENT LIQUID PHASE 3.0 3.0 - 55 CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
TONS/HOUR - WET 1,648 183 219 402 AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
I CONTRACT NO. 82X- 45724V
I
'
I
I
SOLVENT COAL GRINDING
H-COA!. PROCESS

II!CHTEL NATIONAL, INC,, &AN FRANCIS(':O 11411A

I

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

13022 JULY 1979 FS-11

5-105
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
In FS-11 dry coal is coriveyed by two, parallel, full design capacity con~

veyors to two, parallel surge storage tripper conveyor systems which dis-
charge it into.in-line surge bins. From here it is discharged by gravi-
metric belt feeders to fine crushing cage·mills~ Surge storage, mill
feeding, and fine crushing operations are very similar to those described
in FS-3~ Single-Stage Cage Mill Fine Crushing. Fine-crushing is used be-
fore grinding to reduce overall conuninution power requirement, Le,, power
required for the approach shown in FS-11 is considerably less than direct
feeding of 2 inch x 0. coal-to a ball mill.

Coal· crushed to 11ominally 1/8 ·inch x 0 is discharged from the cage m;i.lls .
to screw conveyQrs which convey it to 18~foot-diameter ·by 28 1/2 foot-long
ball mills. Estimated installed power requirement for each mill is 6,000
hp. Ball mj_lls of the specified size are currently available conunerc:i;ally.
Two copper concentrators, Bougainville in Papua New Guinea and Pinto Valley
in Arizona, used 18 foot-diameter ball mills for primary grinding. Use of
ore grinding ball mills with diameters in excess of 20 feet and lerigths of
up to 40 feet is anticipated in the near future. The 6,000 hp miJ;l power
specified is slightly higher than that for currently operating ball mills -
5,000 hp, but within the capability of current mill drive systems.

Pulverized·coal as· a 45 wt percent coal-solvent slurry .discharges from the

bal.l mills to sumps, From here i t would likely be pumped· t'o high pressure
conversion reactor coal-solvent injection pumps.

In FS-11 coal is assumed to be. dried .before grinding. The material balance
feed coal total moisture c6ncentration is 3.0 wt percent; one p~rcentage

point more than the H-Coal feed moisture requirement presented in Table 4-1.
This 'difference is not considered significant, but, 'if required, coarse
coal ~ould probably be dried to 2.0 wt percent moisture in FS-7 o~ a similar
drying flow sheet. In the EDS, SRC-1, and SRC-II conversion p.rocesses coal

Q!eceding page blank] 5-lo7

is dried after solvent slurrying by heating ~nd steam flashing. This
drying method could also presumably-be used with H-Coal. This would not
affect ball mill solvent grinding, i.e., 8.0 wt percent total moisture
coal is acceptable ball mill feed.

As stated in Subsection 4.3.4, Kennedy Van Saun Corporation is under a

DOE contract performing limited testing of solvent-coal slurry grinding (9).
To simulate a coal liquefaction recycle solvent, No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oil
are being used in these tests. Test results to date indicate that thete
may be significant differences between wet grinding of coal in oil and
wet grinding of coa1 in water. One result ls LhaL IJUW~t c~yu.it'~m~uL::;

appear to be higher for oil grinding.·However, much additional research

is required to quantify power re~uirements and product size distributions
in terms of mill design and operation for solvent-coal slurry. grinding.

Grinding of coal in iiquefaction process solvent is clearly a new grinding

approach whose technical feasibility has yet to be demonstrated. Major
potential problems associated with solvent-coal grinding include:

control of coal solv~nr temperature ~ Most liquefaetlurt

..,,
processes· use recycle slurrying solvents that would have
to be heated to reduce their viscosity to values suitable
for grinding. To prevent ~xcessive energy los~ mill insulation
could be required.

e Mill system sealing - The entire mill system would have tn

be sealed in order to prevent solvent vapor losses. In
addllluu Lu ~u::;::;lbly ~epr~setltin8 product and ~nergy los~es,
the solvent vapor could contain carcinogenic compounds.

e Mill coal feeding - A system for feeding large quantities of

crushed coal to a sealed mill system would have to be demon-
stra.ted.

o Coating of balls by a coal-solvent paste that would reduce

grinding efficiency.

5-108
5.6 ASH/SLAG REMOVAL CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS

As presented in Table 4-2 and Figure 4-8, ash and slag are discharged from
conversion reactors in two general forms:· as water slurries-and as dry
solids. These are also the two forms considered for moderate distance, on
the order of 5 miles, transport to an ultimate, environmentally acceptable
disposal site. That is, transport as low-moisture concentration solids or
as a water slurry.

Solids from the SRC-1 process represent a special case. Solid waste from
this process was postulated to be washed and dried filter cake from pressurized
filtration of SRC-1 liquid."· Further, this filter cake was postulated to
contain significant amounts of unreacted carbon and liquids that could dis-
solve or be extracted by water slurrying. Because of these characteristics,
only transport as a solid was considered practical for SRC-1 solid wastes.

Flow SQeet FS-12 presents two ash and slag dewatering alternatives to
produce· m&terial suitable for transport in trucks, rail cars, or on cross
country conveyors. These two alternatives are vacuum filtration and spiral
separation. Filtration would be used to dewater fine ~sh slurries, such
as those believed to result from the HYGAS, Exxon Donor Solvent, and Exxon
Catalytic Gasification gasifiers. Spiral separators are suited to dewatering
only coarse solids, such as granulated s~ag from the Texaco Partial Oxidation
gasifier and COGAS cyclone char-combustor, and possibly U-Gas agglomerated
ash. Separate material balances are presented for each alternative. The
unlettered balance is for ash-water slurry dewatering and the 'A' balance
applies to granulated slag slurry dewatering~

As indicated ~n Table 4-2, ash and slag character~stics for a specific

gasifier depends on· the material gasified and gasifier operation cbnditions.
Also, for most of the gasifiers, ash/slag characteristics have yet ~o be
quantified. Therefore, the rough estimates of ash and slag characteristics
presented in Table 4-11 were used -to -develop FS-12.

5-109
In FS-12 ash or slag after dewatering is combined with dry solids produc.ecl
at the power/steam plant. The dry steam generator solids (see Subsection
4.3.5 for estimated composition) would likely be conveyed to the solids
mixing operation by some type of pneumatic conveying system. Such systems
capable of handling the quantities of steam generator solids estimated for
coal conversion are currently available.

Combined gasifier slag or ash and power/steam plant solids are conveyed
to a surge storage silo. Depending on gasifier type, slagging or aoh pro
ducing~ estimated feed to surge storage is 367 or 222 tons per hour of
wastes. This quantity of dewatered solid wastes plus the larger quantity
(1,200 tons per hour) of coal cleaning solid refuse would prob@bly be trans-
ported to a disposal site by either a closed-circuit, dedicated rail system
or a cross country conveyor system. Though technically feasible, trucking
would probably not be economically feasible for a transport distance on the
order of five miles. A very large fleet of trucks would be required to trans-
port the quantity of solid wastes shown in the two FS-12 material balances.

Loadout for rail transport is shown in FS-12. In thP. rrn~=:~=: rm.mtry con-
veying alternative, the surge silo feeder would discharge coal directly to
the conveyor system. Coal cleaning plant refuse would be discharged onto
this conveyor system directly from the coal rleaning plant refuRP rnnvcyor
or ir1termediate conveyors, if required. Cross country conveyor systems of
the capacities required to meet the conditions presented in FS-12 are
currently used for moderate distance transport of coal and ore.

FS-13 presents a conceptual flow sheet for slurry transport of gasifier

ash or slag, power/steam plant dry solids, and coal cleaning solid refuse.
As in FS-12, two tHaLerlal balances are presented; one for ash producing
gasifiers and one for slagging gasifiers ('A' material balance). Both
material balances are based on the gasifiers producing 40 wt percent waste
solids slurries. If the ash or granulated slag slurries resulting frum

5-110
 FILTRATION
DISTRIBUTION
ASH-SLURRY L-r--r-r-""T""' BOX I 1I TO ATMOSPHERE
FROM COAL CONVERSION GASIFIERS:

cl
HYGAS
EXXON DONER SOLVENT (11
FILTRATION FEED
EXXON CATALYTIC GASIFICATION
PUMP (21
ASH-SLURRY (1 OPERATING- FILTER VACUUM PUMP (8)
COLLECTION 1 STAND BY) (6 OPERATING- I
AND MIXING
TA.NK (1) t---++ 2STAND BY) I
COLLECTION AND MIXING I FILTRATE
TANK AGITATOR (11
....__ _ _--t~ TOEMERGENCY FILTRATE PUMP (12) TO RECYCLE OR TO
STORAGE POND (6 OPERATING- CONVERSION PLANT
6STAND BY) WATER TREATMENT

0 NOTE (2)
DRY SOLIDS >------------~-------------------------------------------------------------<QR>-------~~ NOTES:
FROM POWER/STEAM PLANT SOLIDS (1) THE EXXON DONOR SOLVENT PROCESS
MIXER (2) PRODUCES DRY ASH IN ADDITION TO AN

)>--------------<3>~-·---------------------------------------------------------------------
7

>
·I
ASH-WATER SLURRY. THE DRY ASH
COALCLEANING
! WOULD BE HANDLED IN THE SAME WAY
- REFUSE
FROM COAL CLEANING
.
i
I
I
AS SHOWN FOR POWER/STEAM PLANT
DRY SOLIDS.
REFUSE CONVEYOR I
FLOW SHEET FS-1 SOLID (21 DEPENDING ON CONVERSION PROCESS
WASTE GASIFIER, POWER/STEAM PLANT DRY
SAMPLING SOLIDS WOULD BE COMBINED WITH
STATION DEWATERED ASH OR DEWATERED SLAG.
r-------"'----,1
131 THE CONVEYING, SURGE STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL SITE TRANSPORT FACILITIES
ASH OR SLAG ARE SIMILAR FOR BOTH DEWATERED
SLURRY ASH/SLAG ASH AND SLAG
DISPOSAL
FROM COAL CONVERSION GASIFIERS:
SURGE SILO
U-GAS

~) * J ~ ~~~~EREO >
TEXACO PARTIAL OXIDATION
COG AS

BELT FEEDER I
100 TON HOPPER TO SOLID WASTES
'
RAILICAR LOADING RAIL CARS DISPOSAL SITE
CON~EYOR
ALTERNATIVE: IN PLACE OF RAIL
i CARS A CROSS COUNTRY CONVEYOR
SYSTEM COULD BE USED TO TRANSPORT
DEWATERED SOLIDS TO A DISPOSAL SITE.

WATER UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
TO CONVERSION.·PLANT
WATER TREATMfNi
CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING.PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
STREAM NUMBER
0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V

DRY SOLIDS, TONS/HOUR 228 228 - 41 269 163 163 - 41 204 1012 ; 1281
PERCENT MOISTURE 60 30 100 0 27 60 10 100 0 8 15 18 ASH AND SLAG DEWATERING
WET TOTAL, TONS/HOUR 570 326 244 41 367 408 181 227 41 222 1200 1567 AND TRANSPORT

BECHTEL NATIONAL. INC., SAN FRANCISCO 84119

.i
BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER
13022 JULY 1979 FS-12

5-111
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY-
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
ASH AND SLAG DEWATERING AND TRANSPORT
FLOW SHEET FS-12

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each

ASH SLURRY VACUUM FILTER DEWATERING

I
1 Ash Slurry Collection and - Design Capacity: 36,000 gal Concrete circular t~nk - partially covered by floor
Mixing Tank Effective Volume: 4,955 ft3 for mount.ing of a~itator mechanism and··.access
Overall Dimensions: 20 ft diameter i
by 18 ft high I
I
1 Ash Slurry Collection and Mixing 50 Type: Propeller Rubber lined shaft 1nd propeller
Tank Agitator

2 Filtration Feed Pump 125 Design

Design
Capacity:
Head:
2,300 gpm
100 ft
Wetted parts to beL NiHard
Two required of whith one will be an installed
I
Type: Horizontal-Centrifugal-Slurry standby
Slurry Specific Gravity: 1. 35 Slurry pumps of this capacity are standard
i
equipment

6 Ash Vacuum Filter 20 Design Capacity: 46 tph Solids Standard design disc vaccum filter with standard
10 .Type: Disc Vacuum Filter accessories
Disc Size: . 12 ft1 6 in. diameter by
15 discs
Overall Dimensions: 15 ft by 29 ft
by 14 ft 6 in.

6 Ash Vacuum Filter Filtrate - Overall Dimensions: 84 in. diameter Steel construction
Receiver by 84 in. long

12 Ash Vacuum Filter Filtrate 10 Design Capacity: 200 gpm Slurry duty - horizontal filter pump
Pump Design Head: 50 ft Wetted parts to be NiHard
,,
Type: Centrifugal-Slurry Handling
Vacuum Service
Slurry Specific Gravity: 1.0
(turbid)
I
8 Ash Filter Vacuum Pump 400 Design Capacity: 8,000 cfm at Wet type standard v~cuum pump
20 in. of Hg '
i
Type: Horizontal-Centrifugal Slurry I

I
2 Solids Mixer 75 Design Capacity: 500 tph Double-paddle type standard design solids mixer
Several types of solids mixers are available for
this application

ASH OR SLAG SPIRAL SEPARATOR DEWATERING

5 Dewatering Spiral Separator 15 Pool Area: 200 ft2 Standard design steel
I
tank with hydraulic lift
Spiral Diameter: 60 in. for spiral
Tank Slope: 3 1/2 in./ft Complete with accessories
Pitch: Double

5-113
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
ASH SLURRY DEWATERING
FLOW SHEET FS-12

Number HP I .
Equipment Title Each
Design Rating and Description Specification Regu1rements and Comments
Required !
I

1 Ash-Water Slurry Mixing Tank - Design Capacity: 160,000 gallons

Size: 30 ft. diameter by I

40 ft.

2 Ash-Water Slurry Mixing Tank 150 Type: Propeller

Agitator

3 Filter Feed Pump 150 Design Capacity: 3,000 gpm

Design Head:

2 Filter Distribution Box - Size: 11 ft. diameter by

7 ft. I

12 Ash-Water Slurry Dewatering 20 Design Capacity: J I

Filter Ty:pe: Disc Vacuum Filter I

Size: 12 1/2 ft. diameter by a

I

15 discs I
I
I
Overall Dimensions: 15 ft X 29 ft
X 14 1/2 ft
:

I
12 Filtrate Receiver - Size: 84 in. X 84 in. i
i
24 Filter Vacuum Pump 400 Design Capacity: 8,000 scfm ,)1

12 Filtrate Pump 40 Design Capacity: 500 gpm :I

I
5 Granluated Slag Separ.atj_on Tank, 15 Design Capacity: 200 ft2
Equipped with Spiral Rake surface area
Spiral Size: 60 in. diameter by I

28 ft. long I
I
Tank Slope: 3 1/2 in. /ft

5 Excess Water Sump - Design Capacity: 200 ft3

I

5 Excess Water Return Pumps 75 Design Capacity: 1,200 gpm i

5 Slag Transfer Conveyor 10 Design Capacity: 200 tph I

f
Size: 24 in. X 30 ft
I
!
I

2 Slag Disposal Conveyor 100 Design Capacity: 750 tph

Size: 4R in.

1 Overland Conveyor - Design Capacity: 750 tph

Size: 48 in. ;

5-115
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 FLOW SHEET FS-12 (Continued)

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each
\

s Overflow Water Pump 10 Design Capacity: 2SO gpm Standard design PUJ!lp
Design Head: 80 ft
Type: Horizontal-Centrifugal
Water Pump
Slurry Specific Gravity 1 (turbid)
I

2 Dewatered Ash/Slag Transfer 10 Design Capacity: 2SO tph See General Conveyor Specification
Conveyor Belt Width: 48 in. I
I
2 Solids l1ixer 7S Design Capacity: soo tph Double-paddle type, standard design solids mixer
Several types of 'solids
,, mixers are available for
this applicatiom
'I
,,
ASH/SLAG SURGE STORAGE AND LOAD OUT ':

2 Ash/Slag Surge Storage Feed so Design Capacity: soo tph See General Conveyor Specification
Conveyor Width: 48 in.

1 Ash/Slag Disposal Surge Silo - Design Capacity: SOO tons Concrete mass flow design
I

1 Ash/Slag Disposal Surge Silo Belt so Design Capacity: 2,000 tph Variable speed stahdard design belt feeder
Feeder Width: 72 in. I

1 Rail Car Loading Conveyor 30 Design Capacity: 2,000 tph

I'
See General Conveyor Specification
Width: 60 in. '
,,

S-117
 .'

THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 DRY SOLIDS
WATER SUPPLY TANK."
DRY SOLIDS
FROM POWER/STEAM PLANT BIN Ul
COAL CLEANING
REFUSE

FROM COAL CLEANING

REFUSE CONVEYOR

ASH OR SLAG
-- ~'""""
HAMMER
MILL
FLOW SHEET FS-1

SLURRY

FROM COAL CONVERSION

GASIFIERS
SEE NOTE (1)

REFUSE SLURRY

SLURRY DISPOSAL SUMP

OVERFLOW TO
WITH AGITATOR (1)
EMERGENCY POND
(EMERGENCY ONLY)

ASH/SLAG SLURRY COLLECTION SUMP (1)

ASH/SLAG SLURRY TRANSFER PUMP (21
I
EMERGENCY AND PUMP (1 OPERATING AND 1 STANDBY) NOTES:
SEAL WATER
(11 DRY ASH PRODUCED BY THE
EXXON DONOR SOLVENT
WATER PROCESS WOULD BE SLURRIED
IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THAT
FROM CONVERSION PLANT SHOWN FOR POWER/STEAM
MULTI-STAGE ASH/SLAG DISPOSAL PUMP (3 SETS) PLANT DRY SOLIDS.
WATER TREATMENT AND SUPPLY
(2 SETS OPERATING AND 1 STANDBY) .
(5 PUMPS/SET)

WATER ASSUMED 15 PERCENT

EVAPORATION AND
OTHER WATER LOSSI;S
TO CONVERSION PLANT
WATER TREATMENT

DISPOSAL AREA

• TURN
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION- NUCLEAR DIVISION
WATeR SUMP
RETURN WATER . . OAK RIDGE NATioNAL LABORATORY
PUMP (21
(1 OPERATING
AND 1 STANDBY) CONCEPTUAL FLOW SHEETS DEVELOPMENT FOR COAL
CONVERSION PLANT COAL HANDLING-PREPARATION
AND ASH/SLAG REMOVAL OPERATIONS
CONTRACT NO. 62X - 45724V

STREAM NUMBER
0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <& ~
ASH AND SLAG SLURRY
DRY SOLIDS, TONS/HOUR 228 41 101;2 - 1281 - - - 163 41 1012 - 1216 - - - PIPELINE TRANSPORT
PERCENT MOISTURE 60 0 15 100 50 100 100 100 60. - 15 - 50 100 100 100
WET TOTAL, TONS/HOUR 570 41 1200 751 2562 1084 752 332 408 41 1200 783 2432 1034 783 251
- BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC., SAN FRANCISCO 94119

BECHTEL JOB DATE FLOW SHEET NUMBER

13022 JULY 1979 FS-13

'5-119
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
 MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
ASH AND SLAG,SLURRY PIPELINE TRANSPORT
FLOW SHEET FS-13

Number HP
Equipment Title Design Rating and Description Specification Requirements and Comments
Required Each
I

1 Slurry Collection Sump Design Capacity: 3,700 gal Standard design with one side sloping with AR
steel liners :

2 Slurry Transfer Pump 60 Design Capacity: 2,100 gpm Wetted parts to be NiHard
Design Head: '50 'ft
Type: Horizontal-Centrifugal
-Slurry
Slurry Specific Gravity: 1. 35

1 Slurry Disposal Sump Des~ignVolume: 7,000 gal Concrete constructions

Overall Dimensions: 11 ft diameter
by 11 ft high
I

1 Slurry Disposal Sump Agitator. 50 Type: Propeller Rubber lined shaft;and propeller
I

1 Dry Solids Bin Design Capacity: 100 tons Mass flow bin with lined bottom for even flow
promotion
2 Dry Solids Bin Screw Feeder 10 Design Capacity: 25 tph Standard design for dry abrasive solids
1 Coal Cleaning Plant Refuse 800 Design Capacity: 1,250 tph Standard design re~ersible hammermill
Hammermill Feed Size: 3 in. by 0 '
Product Required: 1/8 in. by 0
I

3 sets Ash/Slag Disposal Pump 300 Design Capacity: 2,000 gpm/train Two sets operatingland 1 set standby
Design Head: 5 by 120 ft = 600 ft Wetted parts in Ni~ard
Type: Horizontal-Heavy Duty-
Centrifugal-Slurry Pumps
Number of Pumps/Set: 5
1 Return Water Sump Design Capacity: 65,000 gal '
Concrete construction
2 Return Water Pump 250 Dccign Capacity: 5~500 gpm One operating and ·?ne standby
Design Head: 500 ft :r
Type: Hor.izontal-Mul tis tage Standard design water pump
-Centrifugal Pump
·l

5-121
 THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
gasification are of significantly lower solids concentration, it could be
practical to concentrate them up ~o 40 wt percent solids or higher. Waste
solids could be concentrated by methods similar to those used in FS-12 or
by use of thickeners~

The impoundm~nt site shown in FS-13 would probably have to be fully lined
with hypalon or similar lining material for impermeability. Decant from
this impoundment could be recovered with a barge and floating pipe system.
From here it would be returned to the conversion plant water treatment
facility or part of it reused directly for solid wastes slurrying.

Slurry pipelines could be advantageous if use of fixing agents is required.

Fixing compounds could be added to the FS-13 disposal sump. These com-
pounds would be thoroughly mixed with the solid wastes during pipelining.
This fixation approach is currently being used at the 1,760-MW Bruce
Mansfield power plant of Ohio Edison for stabiiization and disposal of flue
gas desulfurization sludge. At the plant site, sludge is mixed with a
proprietary stabilizing agent, transported approximately seven miles by
pipeline, and deposited at a surface landfill site behind an earthfiil
impoundment dam. The treated sludge cures at the disposal site, forming a
stabilized landfill mass. Design capacity of the entire Bruce Mansfield
sludge slurry disposal system is 21,000 wet tons per day.

Equipment identified in flow sheets FS-12 and FS-13 and their major equip-
ment lists are currently available in the presented design capacities.
Areas where additional data would be of value in engineering actuai con-
version plant solid wastes preparationI and transport facilities are:

8 Chemical composition and physical properties of conversion

processes solid wastes

• Conversion processes solid wastes size consist uata

• Establishment of requirements for environmentally acceptable

disposal of conversion processes solid wastes
e Establishment of fugitive particulates emissions per-
missible during solid wastes transport

e Investigation of materials for fixing of conversion. pro-

cesses solid wastes if required to control leaching of
harmful compounds

5-124
 GENERAL CAGE MILL SPECIFICATION

1. 0 GENERAL

Cage mills of the capaciti~s specified-i~ the major equip~ent lists would be
purchased from a l~mited number of manufacturers which have provided similar
mills. Each manufacturer has his own proven design, parts of which may be
protected by patents, and fabrication methods. 'Provision of mills. that
depart significantly in design from that used by a given manufacturer is
unlikely and would probably not result in any guarantees.

This general specification identifies some major components that are

recommended for conversion coal fin~ crushing cage mj_lls.· A detailed
procurement specification would likely contain more design d~tails than
covered here. These could include drive design specification, assembly
and erection procedures, safety devices~- finish details, and performance
and workmanship guarantees.

2.0 CAGE MILL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

2. 1 Cage mills· will be manufacturer's normal. design for the service

specified. Standard replacement parts shall be readily ayailable.

2.2 Cage mill will be provided with quick-opening ins~ection doors,

fitted with dust-tight seals for easy access. to in·ternals and rotor-type
assemblies.

2.3 The feeder box will be designed to ensure positive penetration of

feed into the cage path.

2.4 Rreaker pl.;ttes and impact bars will be of the reversibie type to
dist~ibute wear evenly.

A-1
2.5 All parts subject to.wear will be cast in wear-resisting steel
alloys.

2.6 Each rotor assembly will be balanced statically and dynamically for
smooth operation.

2. 7 All bearings will be heavy duty and equipped with. taconite dust-
tight seals.

2.8 All welding will be in accordante with the latest issue of the
Structure Welding·Code of the Welding Society- AWS-Dl.
 GENERl\1 CONVEYOR SPECIFICATION

1.0 GENERAL

Conveyors specified in major equipment lists are really transport systems.

Each conveyor system would be specially engineered, but would use standard
components -belting, idlers, pulley as~emblies, take-ups, drives, belt
cleaners, and controls.

This general specficiation identifies some major design requirements recom-

mended for large-capacity coal and solid refuse c.onveyor syst.ems .. Items
covered in this specification represent only a small selection of the
design requirements that would constitute the technical portion of an
actual conveyor system procurement specification. The technical portion
of such a specification is typically in excess of 10 pages;

2.0 CONVEYOR SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

2. 1 .General Design Requirements

2. 1. 1 The conveyor design will, in general, be based on ·standards

adopted by CEMA (Conveyor Equipment Manufacturer's Association, 1000
Vermont Avenue, N.W., \.Jashington, D.C. 2005, U.S.A. Reference: "Belt
Conveyors for Bulk Materials", Cahners Publishing Co. Inc., Boston, Mass.,
·o2116,U. S.A.).

2. 1. 2 Conveyor belt sizes and belt speeds .wil;l be established in accor-

dance with the CEMA load cross-section tabulations and coal design data
as defined in Section I Paragraph 5.0. A belt is considered 100 percent
loaded when the coal is at the CEHA standard distances from the edge of
the belt and angle of repose is 20°. Conveyor belt percentage loading
will be as follows:

• For controlled fe~d conditions, e.g., from a qelt feeder

ar from another cuuveyor: 95 percf!nt.

• For uncontrolled feed condition, e.g., from a reclaimer:

80 percent.

A-3
2. 1.3 _ Hherever possible, all conveyors will be installed in enclosed
galleries and supported from the gallery ceiling. All outside conveyors
operating with rail-mounted stackers and reclaimers will be covered
(except where interference occurs) or equipped with removable windboards.

2. l. 4 Co_nveyor components will be specified for .which replacements are

readily available.

2. 2 Conveyor- Idlers

2. 2. 1 tmpact idlers will be provided at all-conveyor loading points

except for tunnel reclaim conveyors and will b~ f:>ized to sutt maximUm
load conditions in the overall conveyor system.

0
2.2.2 Carrying idlers will be rigid frame, 35 trough, three equal roll-
type minimum 6-inch~diameter.rolls.

2. 2. 3 Transition-idlers will be provided adjacent to head and tail

pulleys to provide proper support uf the loaded belt without excessive
stress and stretch of the belt edges and will be adjustable in not over
0
L-l/L increments.

'1..'1...4 Training idlers will be provided, ·as necessary, for belt training
purposes on the carrying side of fabric belts only and will be. installed
so as to prevent disturbance to material flow.

2.2.5 Return idlers will be of thP. rigicl-frRmP-mounted, two (2) squ.:~.l

roll "Vee" type, with minimum 15° troughing angle. The idler rolls wi 11
be mounted off-set on their respective frames to minimize build up of
dribble.

A-4
2.3 Pulley Assemblies

2.3. 1 It is intended to have a minimum number of pulley assemblies on

each conveyor. Therefore, all drive pulleys will have 180° angle of wrap
and snub pulleys will be provided only on secondary drives.

2. 3. 2 All conveyor pulleys for steel :cord and fabric belting will be
custom designed to the specific loads and will be flat face type. The
pulleys will be of the rigid and disc design with. hub construction suit-
able for Ringfeder type locking devices. The face of all conveyor pulley~?

will be 8 inches wider than the belt. The face of pulleys for belt feeders
will be 6 inches wider than the be+t.

2. 3. 3 All drive pulleys will have herringbone grooved, 1/2 inch thick,
rubber lagging.

2. 3. 4 All pulley assemblies within their respective class (drive, tail,

snub) will be standarized for interchangeability to the maximum extent
possible.

2.4 Take-Ups

2.4.1 Take-ups will be located at the tail pulley wherever possible and
will be carriage-mounted motorized-winch type for take-:up .travel over 4
feet and motorized-screw type for take-up travel of less than 4 feet.

2.1.r.2 Gravity or automMir t.AkP.-'-nps will he inst;alled on fabric belts,

when the belt elongation does not permit the use of fixed take-up devices.
Gravity or automatic take-ups will also be installed where:

• Control of curve radius is critical.

• A precision scale is installed on the conveyor-.

2.4.3 Gravity;take-ups will include provision for supporting the counter-

weight. High overhead counterweights will be avoided by the use of suspen-
sion cables. Safety guards or fences will be provided.

A-5
2.5 Conveyor Drives

2. 5. 1 Drives will be located at the head end unless conveyor complexity

dictates otherwise.

2.5.2 All drives and conveyor components will be sized to start the con-
veyor under full design load.

2. 5. 3 All motors 100 hp and below will be squirrel-cage type with fluid
couplings to provide a controlled acceleration.

2.5.4 Conveyor drive motors over 100 11P w:Ul be wound-rotor type ~ompl ete

with secondary resistor accelerating controls.

2.5.5 The average conveyor acceleration torque will not ·exceed 150 per-
cent of the normal running torque.

2.5.6 Where required, the drive unit will have a braking system to con-
trol the coasting time and to prevent roll back.

2. 5. 7 All speed reducers will conform to AGMA or other buyer approval

national standards, and must have helical or double he] irr~l eer~rR t.d th
ground toulli fa~.:~o.

2.6 .Conveyor Belting

2. 6. 1 The maximum us~ of standardization wiJ] be made for belt construc-

tion, consistent with economy of purchase and spare inventory.

2.6.2 Belting will provide adequate load support while allowing suffi-
cicnc cran9VCrac flexibility.

2. 6. 3 Conveyor belts will be selected so that the maximum conveyor

accelerating belt tension will not exceed 150 percent of the rated belt
tension.

A-6
2. 6. 4 Climatic conditions and material characteristics will be given
careful consideration in selection of the belt. All conveyor belts will
be oil and fire resistant and remain flexible at freezing temperatures.

2.6.5 Steel Cord Belting

(1) Steel cord belts will be selected to provide an ultimate

· tensi"le: strength of at least eight (8) times the maximum
running tension calculated for each conveyor.

(2) Steel cable diameter and cable spacing will be of seller's

standard design to suit the duty specified. Cable dia-
meter and strand will be uniform throughout the entire
length of the belt. Cable centers will lie in a plane
parallel to the belt cover surfaces, and will not vary
from thi.s plane by more than plus minus 1 mm. Five percent
of the total cables will be allowed to exceed this toler-
ance by plus minus 0.5 mm.

2.6.6 Fabric Belting

(1) Fabric belting will be selected to provide an ultimate

tensile strength of at least 10 times the maximum
running tension.

(2) Molded belt edges will be supplied on all cotton, cotton-

nylon, rayon, rayon-nylon beltings. Cut edge belting
will be considered on other synthetic fabric beltings.

( 3) Belt rubber cover thickness will be consistent with the

operating conditions, type and length of belt and with
economy.

2. 7 Miscellaneous

2. 7. 1 Each conveyor will be furnished with a belt cleaner at the head

pulley, so located that the dribble will fall into the discharge chute.

2. 7. 2 Expanded metal safety guards will be provided at all pulleys on

the conveyor unless cov~r·eu by chutes, or other means.

A-7
2. 7. 3 Adjustable baffle boards will be provided at each transfer chute
to regulate flow trajectory.

2. 7. 4 Belt vulcanizing facilities, including power, water and air supply,

and access space will be provided.

2. 7. 5 Provision will be made to accommodate portable motorized belt

reels at each conveyor for belt replacement.

2. 7. 6 All conveyor belts which are not installed i.n P.nrlnsed galli!ries
will have removable wind boards;

A-8
 GENERAL GRAVIMETRIC BELT FEEDER SPECIFICATION

1. 0 GENERAL

Gravimetric belt feeders are specified to control discharge of coal from

storage bins and silos and to measure the quantity of coal fed to conver-
sion. Sirice these feeders provide the most accurate measurement of the
quantity of coal fed to conversion reactors, they should be carefully
specified.

The feeder capacities specified are above or at the upper limits of

current feeders. However, current gravimetric feeder designs can be
applied to development of higher-capacity feeders when there ts demand for
such large-capacity feeders. In some situations, multiple feeders could
be used in place of the single feeders specified in the major equipment
lists. Use of multiple feeders would provide greater operating flexibility
since partial capacity feeding w.ould be possible while a single feeaer is
out ·of service for maintenance or calibrating. Multiple feeders would also
provide greater tum-down accuracy.

This general $pecification· identifies some major components that are recom-
mended for conversion coal gravimetric feeders. A detailed procurement
specification.would probably contain more design requirements than covered
here. These could include varial;>le speed drive design specification,
control-sensing system design, calibration procedures·, assembly and erec:-
tion procedures, finish details, and performan~e and workmanship guarantees.

2.0 GRAVIMETRIC FEEDER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

2.1 Gravimetric belt feeders will be totally-enclosed feeders specially

constructed for coal service.

2.2 Gravimetric belt feeder accuracy will be at least± 0.5 percent

of design rating.

A-9
2.3 Gravimetric belt feeders will be heavy duty type, will be horizon-
tally, and designed for a maximum belt speed not exceeing 190 feet per
minute.

2.4 All gravimetric belt feeders will have fixed screw type take-ups
located at the tail pulley.

2.5 Gravimetric feeders will be provided with guide rollers for posi-
tive belt tracking and be designed for rapid belt replacement.

A-10
 REFERENCES

GENERAL

1. Coal Mine-Coal Conversion Piant Interface Evaluation and Conceptual

Design, Volumes 1 and 2, Prepared by Bechtel Corporation for the Department
of Energy, November 1977, FE-2370-16.
2. Letter to Bechtel from L.J.Kirby of Gulf Mineral Resources Company,
Februaty 22, 1979.
3. Exxon Research and Engineering Company, "EDS Coal Liquefaction Prqcess
Development Phase IliA," Exxon Donor Solvent Coal Liquefaction Commercial
Plant Study Design, January 1978, FE-2353-13.
4. U.S. Bureau ~f Mines, Forecasts of Chemical'· Physical, and Utilization
Properties of Coal ·for Technical and Economic Evaluation o.f Coal Seams,
RI 7824, 1974.
5. Coal Conversion Systems Technical Data Hook, prepared for DOE by the
Institute of Gas Technology, HCP/T2286-0l, 1978.

6. Verner, R.A. and Sudbury, J:D., "Slagging Coal Gasification·in Industry

and Government," Proceedings of the Tenth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Sym-
posium, Chicago, .Illinois, October 30- November 1, 1978.
.·.
7. Trials of Amer.i.c.an Coals in a Lurgi Gasifier at Westfield, Scotland,
ERDA, FE-105, 1974:
8. Gray, R;W., "MLGW-DOE Industrial Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant," .
Proceedings of the Tenth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicag~.•
Illinois, October 30 - November 1, 1978. · ·
9. Luckie, P.T., "Developing/Modifying Coal Gri~d:ing Procedures Anu
Equipment To Produce Predictable Size Distributions During Coal
Preparation," Quarterly Progress Report For The Period April-June 1978,
prepared for ERDA by Kennedy Van Sauri Corp., FE-2475-22, July 15, 1978.

REFERENCES FOR TABLES 4-1, 4-2, and 4-10

1. Handbook of Gasifiers and Gas Treatment Systems, DRAVO Corporation,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1.976, FE-1772-11.
2. Gray, R.W., "MLGW-DOE Industrial Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant,"
Proceedings of the Tenth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago,
Illionois, October 30 - November 1, 1978. ·
3. Bloom, Ralph, Jr., "The Illinois Coal Gasification Group Project Incor-
porating the COG.AS Process," Proceedings of the Eighth Synthetic Pipe-
line Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 18 - 20, 1976.

R-1
4. Lee, Bernard S., "Current Development of the HYGAS Program," Pro-
ceedings of the Eighth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Sympos1um, Chicago,
Illinois, October 18 - 20, 1976.
5. Bair, Wilford G., "HYGAS Process Update," Proceedings of the Tenth
Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 30 -
November 2, 1978.
6. Confidential reports, Bechtel National, Inc.
7. Exxon Research and Engineering Company, "EDS Coal Liquefaction
Process Development Phase.IIIA," Exxon Donor Solvent Coal Liquefaction
Commercial Plant Study Design, January 1978, FE-2353-13.
R. Furlong, L.E. and Nahas, N.C., 1'Catalytic Coal Gasification-Process
Research and Deve l.opment," P r.oceeding::; of th·e '!'~nth SynthPtic Pipeline
G~s Sympo::lium, C:ltl;:::~go, Illinois, OcLuher 10- November 1, 1978.·

9. Letter to Bechtel from L.J.Kirby of Gulf Mineral RP.sources Company,

February 22, 1979.
10. "Process Engineering Evaluations of Alternative Coal Liquefaction
Concepts and a Supplemental Report on the Effect of Purchased Power
and Steam Turbine Drives on the Solvent Refined r.oal Process," The
Ralph M. Parsons Company, EPRI Final Report AF-741, Volume 1, April 1978.
11. Patel, J.G., "Clean Fuel From Coal Is Goal of U-Gas Process," The
Oil and Gas Journal, August 1, 1977, Volume 75, No.3!.
12. Eby, R.J., McClintock, N., and Bloom, R. ,Jr., "The Illinois Coal
Gasification Group Project - COGAS Process," Proceedings of the Tenth
Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 30 -
November 1, 1978.
13. Bair, W. G., "Status of the HYGAS Program," Procaeding3 of the N:tnth .,_
Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 31 ""'"
November 2, 1977.
14. "Synthetic Fuels," Quarterly Report, Cameron Engineers, Inc., March
1979, Volume 16, No.1.
15. Discussions with COGAS Development Company.
16. Confidential Bechtel Study.
17. Prot~ss Engineering Evaluations of Alternative Coal Liquefaction
Concepts, prepared by Ralph M. Parsons Company for EPRI, EPRI AF-741,
April 1978.

R-2
I
I

TABLE REFERENCES

1. Handbook of.Gasifiers and Gas Treatment Systems, DRAVO Corporation,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1976, FE-1772-11.

/.. Gray, R. W., "MLGW-DOE Industrial Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant,"

Proceedings of the Tenth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago,
Illinois, October 30-November 1, 1978.

3. Bloom, Jr., Ralph, "The Illinois Coal Gasification Group Project

Incorporating The COGAS Process," Proceedings of the Eighth Syn-
thetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 18-20,.
1976.

4. Lee, Bernard S., "Current Development of the HYGAS Program," Pro-

ceedings of the Eighth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago,
Illinois, October 18-20, 1976.

5. Bair, ~-lilford G. , "Hygas Process Update," Proceedings of the Tenth

Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 30-
November 2, 1978.

6. Confidential reports, Bechtel National, Inc.

•'. 7. Exxon Research and Engineering Company, "EDS Coal Liquefaction

Process Development Phase 111A," Exxon Donor Solvent Coal Liquefac-
tion Commercial Plant Study Design, January 1978, FE-2353-13.

8. Furlong, L. E. and Nahas, N. C.," Catalytic Coal Gasification-Process

Research and Development," Proceedings of the Tenth Synthetic Pipe-
line Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 30-November 1, 1978.

9. Letter to Bechtel from L. J. Kirby of Gulf Mineral Resources Co.,

February 22, 1979.

10. "Process Engineering Evaluations of Alternative Coal Liquefaction

Concepts and a Supplemental Report on The Effect of Purchased Power
and Steam Turbine Drives on the Solvent Refined Coal Process," The
Ralph H. Parsons Company; EPRI Final Report AF-741, Volume 1.
April 1978.

R-3
11. Patel, J. G., "Clean Fuel From Coal Is Goal of U-Gas Process," The
Oil and Gas Journal, August 1, 1977, Volume 75, No. 31.

12. Eby, R. J., McClintock, N. and Bloom, Jr., R., "The Illinois Coal
Gasification Group Project-COGAS Process," Proceedings of the Tenth
Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 30-
November 1, 1978.

13. Bair, \.J. G., "Status of The HYGAS Program," Proceedings of the Ninth
Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 31-
November 2, 1977.

14. "Synethetic Fuels," _Qu~rterly Report., Cameron Engineers, Inc. ,

March 1979j Volume 16, No. 1.

,,-· .

. ,,
,.

R-4
_'(
ORNL/SUB-79/45724/l
REPORT JOB 13022

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

1. P. K.
Carlson 29. M. D. Silverman
2. D. Dyslin
A. 30. 0. W. Thomas
3. D. M.
Eissenberg 31. F. C. Zapp
4. J. Horton
R. 32. ORNL Patent Office
5. J. E. Jones, Jr. 33. Central Research Library
6. w. A. McAuley 34. Document Reference Section
7. R. E. Mac~herson 35-36. Laboratory Records Department
8. B. Niemann 37. Laboratory Records, ORNL RC
9-28. L. F. Parsly

EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545

38. ·T. K. Lau
39. J. L. Powell
40. K. Youssef

DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, TN 37830

41. Office of Assistant Manager for Energy
Research and Uevelopment

DOE Morgantown Energy Technology Center, P.O. Box 880,

Morgantown, WV 26505
42. Don Freeburn

43. Fred V. Karlson, Bechtel National, Inc.,

P.O. Box 3965, San Francisco, CA 94119

44-45. Technical Information Center, Oak Ridge, TN 37830