CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOW SULFUR COAL BLENDING

AT B. L. ENGLAND STATION
J. M. Russell
M. B. Gillespie, P.E.
MPR Associates, Inc., 320 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-323
W. C. Gibson
V. N. Bhamidipati
Conectiv, B. L. England Station, 900 North Shore Road, Beesleys Point, NJ 08223
D. Mahr, P.E.
Energy Associates, P.C., 150 River Road, Suite J4, Montville, NJ 07045

Abstract

On-site blending of coal to produce an economical, lower sulfur fuel is one compliance approach
to SO2 emissions regulation. At existing generating stations, implementation of on-site blending
has a major impact on the coal stockpile arrangement and equipment required to unload, store,
reclaim, blend, and deliver fuel to the boiler. The on-site coal blending system for B. L. England
Station must produce a blended coal that satisfies (1) environmental limits on sulfur emissions,
(2) operational limits on ash fusion temperatures, slagging, and heat content, and (3) limitations
of a non-redundant fuel supply system. At B. L. England Station, the design and operating
concerns are complicated by the need to supply different fuels to the two cyclone-fired units.
Unit 2 is equipped with a wet flue gas desulphurization system that does not require the same
low sulfur coal as Unit 1.

This paper describes the factors that control the implementation of an on-site coal blending
facility at the B. L. England Station. The features of the existing coal stockpile and handling
system arrangement that impact the blending alternatives are also discussed. The paper details
the evaluations performed to compare the blending control options, including coal storage, on-
line fuel analysis and mass-based blending. In addition, the approach used to incorporate the
existing equipment and control system at B. L. England Station to reliably produce a consistent,
controlled coal blend is described. Finally, the paper provides a comparison of the estimated
costs and schedules required to implement the on-site coal blending alternatives.

Background

Atlantic City Electric (ACE) operates two similar coal fired, cyclone boilers at the B. L. England
Station, located in Beesleys Point, New Jersey. The B. L. England Station Unit 1 (BLE-1) and
Unit 2 (BLE-2) boilers, which were designed by Babcock and Wilcox in the 1960s, are both
equipped with electrostatic precipitators to control particulate emissions. BLE-2 is also equipped
with a wet flue gas desulphurization system designed by General Electric to control SO2
emissions from the unit. Both units were retrofit with Nalco NOXOUT selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) systems in the mid-1990s and over-fire air systems in the late 1990s to
comply with the requirements to control NOX emissions during the ozone season. The design
characteristics of the coal-fired units at B. L. England Station are listed in Table 1.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 1 of 18

at B. L. England Station
 Table 1. Unit Specifications Maximum Continuous Rating

Unit 1 Unit 2
Nominal Generating Capacity (MWGROSS) 138 170
Superheater Outlet Steam Conditions:
Flow Rate (Mlbs/hr) 980 1,125
Temperature (F) 1005 1005
Pressure (psig) 1850 1850
Reheater Outlet Steam Conditions:
Flow Rate (Mlbs/hr) 840 985
Temperature (F) 1005 1005
Pressure (psig) 424 475
Nominal Operating Pressures:
Windbox (in. w.g.) 43 32
Furnace (in. w.g.) 16 - 0.2
Excess Air at Economizer Outlet (%) 16 16
Fuel Heat Input (MBtu/hr) 1,162 1,515
Number of Cyclones Three (3) Four (4)
Boiler Efficiency (%) 89.86 89.96

As detailed in Table 1, the two coal-fired units at B. L. England Station are similarly designed,
cyclone units. The firing rate for BLE-2, the larger unit equipped with four cyclones, is
approximately 20 percent higher than BLE-1, which is equipped with three cyclones. Both units
operate with similar efficiencies and heat rates. Because both units are generally cycled to the
same minimum load during the evening hours, BLE-2 consumes approximately 10 percent more
fuel than BLE-1 per day.

Low Sulfur Coal Test Program

As part of the effort to obtain renewal for the BLE-1 fuel permit in 2001, ACE initiated a
program to test burn lower sulfur coals. This testing program, conducted from November 2001
through October 2002, identified the ability to burn a blended fuel of eastern bituminous coal and
Powder River Basin (PRB) sub-bituminous coal that (i) achieved fuel sulfur limits acceptable to
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), (ii) was reasonably available
in sufficient quantities, and (iii) would burn successfully in the BLE-1 wet-bottom, cyclone
boiler.

The testing results demonstrated the need to maintain consistent properties in the fuel blend to
prevent any impact on the operations and emissions from BLE-1. The higher moisture content,
increased quantity of coal fines, and differences in ash characteristics of the blended fuel had a

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 2 of 18

at B. L. England Station
significant impact on the boiler operation during testing. The fuel ash characteristics under
reducing furnace conditions were particularly important to ensure proper slag tapping while
operating the BLE-1 over-fire air system for NOX emissions control. Table 2 identifies the
characteristics of the blended fuel that was selected for continuous operation at BLE-1

Table 2. Comparison of Fuel Characteristics

Fuel Characteristics Units Current Fuel Blended Fuel

Proximate Analysis
a. Moisture % 5.15 10.29
b. Ash % 9.80 7.46
c. Volatile Matter % 35.79 35.29
d. Fixed Carbon % 49.59 46.95
Ultimate Analysis
a. Hydrogen % 5.21 5.70
b. Carbon % 71.54 67.70
c. Nitrogen % 1.31 1.23
d. Sulfur % 2.39 1.57
e. Oxygen % 9.44 16.35
f. Ash % 9.80 7.46

Heating Value Btu/lb. 12855 12053

Free Swelling Index 7.8 7.2
Hardgrove Grind Index 57 51
Ash Fusion Temperature Reducing Atmosphere
o
a. Initial Deform F 2115 2124
o
b. Softening F 2190 2178
o
c. Hemi F 2340 2236
o
d. Fluid F 2400 2337
o
Slag Viscosity Factor (T250 value) F > 2500 2494

Chlorine % 0.06 0.05

Fouling Index 0.17 0.22
Slagging Index 0.83 0.60
Base/Acid Ratio 0.34 0.39

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 3 of 18

at B. L. England Station
The blended fuel permitted for use in BLE-1 was limited to 30 percent PRB. This blend
provided the necessary regulatory improvement in sulfur emissions without adversely impacting
unit operations. Fuel blends with a higher percentage of PRB coal would have required
extensive modification to the boiler and electrostatic precipitators that were not part of the fuel
permit renewal process.

During the low sulfur coal test program, the coal was blended at an off-site facility in sufficient
quantities to support BLE-1 operation for a 30-day test burn. The off-site blending involved
unloading the PRB coal at an intermediate trans-shipping facility and then layer-loading the PRB
coal into a second train whose cars were partially loaded with the contract coal (i.e., eastern
bituminous coal). This method of blending resulted in some unacceptable variations in the fired-
fuel properties. The additional fuel handling and transportation also increased the cost of this
alternative. Table 3 compares the cost of the fuel for BLE-1 between on-site blending and off-
site blending.

Table 3. Fuel Sulfur and Cost Comparison

Fuel Sulfur Normalized

Fuel
(% as-received) Delivered Fuel Cost
Contract Coal 2.39 1.00
Off-site Blending with PRB 1.57 1.22
On-site Blending with PRB 1.57 1.06

The costs are normalized to the cost of the current, contract coal. Based on this economic
evaluation, ACE concluded that an implementation plan should be developed for on-site
blending of PRB coal for BLE-1.

Existing Coal Handling System

The coal handling system at B. L. England Station was originally constructed to support the
operation of BLE-1 in 1961. This system was expanded in 1964 to support the operation of a
second unit, BLE-2. Figure 1 shows an overview of the existing coal handling system.

The coal handling system extends from the coal stockpile adjacent to the rail yard to the bunkers
for BLE-1 and BLE-2. The material handling system (shown to the left of the main conveyor in
Figure 1), located adjacent to the crusher house, is for handling tire derived fuel, a supplemental
fuel that is not currently fired at B. L. England Station. It should be noted that the coal stockpile
is surrounded by environmentally protected wetlands, visible at the top of the Figure 1.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 4 of 18

at B. L. England Station
 Wetlands
Coal Stockpile
Rail Line
Rail Car
Unloader

Crusher
Material
House
Handling
System

Main
Conveyor

Figure 1. B. L. England Station Coal Handling System

Although design provisions were included in the original coal handling system for a future
upgrade to a redundant system, both units continue to be supplied using the common, non-
redundant coal handling system shown in Figure 1. Therefore, the addition of on-site coal
blending requires modifications to the existing systems that accommodate the unloading, stack-
out, and storage of two different coals. The on-site coal blending system must also provide a
means for reclaiming and controlling the blend of coals supplied to BLE-1 without interrupting
the ability to supply a single coal to BLE-2. Furthermore, the common system for preparing the
fuel for firing (i.e., crushing) and delivering this fuel to the coal bunkers must be modified to
accommodate the handling characteristics of two different fuels.

Proposed Coal Handling System

Blending of the coal on-site is achieved using bed-blending technology. This technique layer
loads the appropriate percentages of contract coal and PRB coal from separate piles onto the
conveyor belt system. Based on the 30-day test firing, the mixing that occurs at the crushers and
at transition points in the conveyor system provides sufficient blending of the coal into the boiler.
More importantly, this method for transporting the blended coal minimizes the equipment
required for on-site blending and allows continued use of the existing conveyor arrangement to
supply both BLE-1 and BLE-2. Figure 2 shows the layout of the coal handling system and the
transition points responsible for mixing the two coals prior to loading into the bunker. Control of
the blend depends on accurately loading the conveyor belts with each of the coals.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 5 of 18

at B. L. England Station
 Figure 2. Layout of B. L. England Station Coal Handling System

Existing Coal Stockpile

Figure 3 shows that the existing coal stockpile was designed for operation with a single fuel. A
non-redundant conveying system is used for receiving, stacking-out and reclaiming coal. The
coal stockpile is managed as a common coal storage area for both BLE-1 and BLE-2.

Active storage in the coal stockpile is provided using two reclaim conveyors, Conveyor #15 and
Conveyor #16. Eight reclaim feeders, each nominally sized to feed 40 tons per hour, supply each
of these conveyors. The stockpile reclaim conveyors are rated for 420 tons per hour. However,
a flow restriction at the transition from Conveyor #15 to Conveyor #16 limits the reclaim rate
from Conveyor #15 to 320 tons per hour. From these conveyor capacities, coal is normally
supplied to the bunkers at a rate of 400 tons per hour. This capacity allows bunkering for both
units, which is typically 2000 tons per day, to be completed in one 8-hour shift. If the coal is
difficult to handle (e.g., wet or cohesive), the time required for bunkering coal in both units can
increase by as much as four hours for a total of 12 hours of operation.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 6 of 18

at B. L. England Station
 N

Conveyor
#16

16-1

16-2

16-3 Radial Stackout

16-4 Conveyor
16-5 Reclaim
Feeders
16-6

16-7

16-8 Conveyor
#15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
ACTIVE 15-5
15-6
15-7
AREA 15-8

INACTIVE
B.L. England Coal
Storage Area AREA

Figure 3. Existing Coal Storage and Reclaim System

The remainder of the coal stockpile provides inactive storage. Inactive storage ensures that
sufficient coal (typically a 60-day supply) is available on-site to allow B. L. England Station to
continue to operate in the event of an interruption in coal delivery (e.g., severe winter conditions,
rail strike, or mine accident). Coal can be stockpiled using the radial stack-out conveyor
immediately to the east of Conveyor #15. It should be noted that there are no reclaim facilities in
this area. Management of the coal stockpile outside the active storage area is performed using
mobile equipment. Bulldozers are used to (1) move coal from the discharge of the radial stack-
out conveyor to create the inactive storage area and then (2) retrieve this coal, moving it to the
reclaim feeder, as required. The process of reclaiming coal from the inactive storage area
requires twice as much manpower (typically two bulldozer operators).

The coal stockpile is located adjacent to an area of wetlands that extends along the southern and
western boundaries of the B. L. England Station site. The coal stockpile is separated from the
wetlands by a run-off collection and containment system, as shown in Figure 1. No enlargement
of the coal stockpile is possible due to the environmental restrictions on the use of this wetland
area. B. L. England Station is currently committed to a program for the remediation of any
existing effects of the facility on the wetlands.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 7 of 18

at B. L. England Station
New Coal Stockpile

To accommodate on-site coal blending, two separate coal stockpiles must be maintained in a
location where they can be reclaimed for the blending process. Because the PRB coal is only
used in BLE-1 and in a quantity significantly less than the capacity of the unit, less storage area
is required for the PRB coal than for the contract coal.

Three options are evaluated for maintaining a two-coal stockpile. In the first option, two
separate coal stockpiles are maintained above the existing two sets of reclaim feeders (see
Figure 4). The PRB coal is located over the Conveyor #16 feeders and the contract coal is
located over the Conveyor #15 feeders.

Conveyor #16

16-1

16-2

16-3 Reclaim Radial Stackout

Feeders Conveyor
16-4
Blending 16-5
Coal Conveyor #15
Stockpile 16-6

16-7

16-8

15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
15-6
15-7
15-8

Contract Coal
Stockpile

Figure 4. Coal Stockpile Layout for On-site Blending (Option 1)

This option utilizes the existing reclaim feeders and conveyor belt configuration. In addition, the
arrangement provides space between the storage piles by blanking off, or closing, several of
the existing reclaim feeders to ensure pile separation and control (see Figure 5). It should be
noted that this separation does not require empty space between the two coal piles, though some
commingling of the two coals will occur if the piles are not separated. The closed reclaim
feeders assist in physically separating the two coal piles and provide an area to add a belt scale,
which is needed for accurate blending control. Similar arrangements for segregating coal
stockpiles have been observed during site visits to other generating facilities using on-site
blending.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 8 of 18

at B. L. England Station
 Two Roller Belt Scale
Operating Feed Location
Point

Convex Curve

Blanked Reclaim
Feeders
Contract
Blending Coal Coal

Coal Blend Contract Coal

25' 25'

Conveyor #16 Conveyor #15

Figure 5. Separation of Adjacent Coal Piles (Option 1)

The second option incorporates a retaining wall to separate the two coal piles, which indirectly
increases the coal stockpile storage capacity. While this arrangement marginally increases the
storage capacity (i.e., 21 percent more PRB coal storage and nine percent more contract coal
storage), it provides a more controlled and definitive separation of the two different coals (see
Figure 6). However, this option involves substantial construction expense and scheduling
difficulties to provide uninterrupted fuel supply to the B. L. England Station units during the
construction of the retaining wall.

Conveyor #16

16-1

16-2

16-3 Reclaim Radial Stackout

Feeders Conveyor
16-4

PRB Coal 16-5

Pile Conveyor #15
16-6

16-7

16-8

15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
15-6
15-7
15-8

Bituminous
Concrete Wall Coal Pile

Figure 6. Coal Stockpile Layout for On-site Blending (Option 2)

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 9 of 18

at B. L. England Station
The third option evaluated for stockpiling two coals at B. L. England Station involves installing a
new reclaim conveyor, Conveyor #14, to add reclaim capability to the inactive storage area of
the coal stockpile (see Figure 7). This option includes the addition of three new reclaim feeders
to transport coal from the stockpile. This design alternative implements the expansion capability
envisioned for the original coal handling system design at B. L. England Station. However, this
option requires that the conveyor capacity restriction at the transition from Conveyor #15 to
Conveyor #16 is corrected to fully utilize the new system capability. This arrangement provides
the most space for the incorporation of blending control equipment, but also requires the largest
capital investment and impacts plant operations for the longest period. It should be noted that
the new reclaim feeder may be required for higher percentage blends with PRB coal.

Figure 7. Coal Stockpile Layout for On-site Blending (Option 3)

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 10 of 18

at B. L. England Station
Table 4 provides a comparison of the coal stockpile capacity as well as implementation costs and
schedule for each of the three options evaluated. It should be noted that the modification costs
include the costs for controlling the coal blending process that are discussed in the next section.
Although none of the options for on-site blending provide as much on-site storage of the two
coals as ACE desires, the differences between the storage capacities were not considered
significant. Option 1 provides the lowest cost alternative and requires the least time to
implement due to the limited changes required. As a result, implementation of Option 1 was
agreed by the NJDEP and ACE as part of the new fuel permit to support continuous on-site
blending for BLE-1 by January 2004.

Table 4. Comparison of Coal Stockpile Options

Stockpile Capacity Modification Implementation

Options
PRB Contract Costs Period
Option 1: Side-by-Side Stockpiles
Weight (tons) 11,610 51,250 Low 6 mo.
Operating Time (days) 36 36
Option 2: Concrete Retaining Wall
Weight (tons) 14,010 55,770 Moderate 11 mo.
Operating Time (days) 43 39

Option 3: New Reclaim Conveyor

Weight (tons) 15,935 48,125 High 18 mo.
Operation time (days) 49 34

Control of Coal Blending Process

Blending of the PRB and contract coals must be effectively monitored and controlled to ensure
acceptable fuel properties for boiler operation and to prevent unacceptable variations in stack
emissions. The agreement between the NJDEP and ACE requires control of sulfur in the fuel
based on periodic sampling and analysis of the coal. Three options for controlling the coal blend
were evaluated for BLE-1: volumetric (e.g., feeder output), gravimetric (e.g., belt scale), and
parametric (e.g., on-line nuclear coal analyzers).

Volumetric

Coal blending at B. L. England Station can be controlled using the existing vibratory reclaim
feeders (i.e., volumetric feeders). Though these feeders operate in the range of 5-100% to
control coal flow, typical reclaim feeder accuracy is limited to 10-15%. As a result, the
unpredictability and inaccuracy of the individual reclaim feeder controls require an additional
control to improve the accuracy of the coal blend. The operation of the reclaim feeders would be
adjusted to achieve the specific coal blend based on this additional control signal.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 11 of 18

at B. L. England Station
Gravimetric

The existing coal handling system uses a four-idler belt scale (Scale #1) on Conveyor #17 (see
Figure 2) to measure the total coal flow to the bunkers. This scale provides a measurement
accuracy of one percent. To control the ratio of coals in the blend gravimetrically, an additional
belt scale (Scale #2) is necessary in the reclaim system to provide information about only one of
the coals. Based on the selected coal stockpiling alternative (Option 1), the appropriate location
for an additional scale is either at the end of Conveyor #15 or the beginning of Conveyor #16
(i.e., between the reclaim feed points of the contract coal and PRB coal). A scale at this location
provides a measurement of the contract coal alone. The amount of PRB coal supplied for the
blend is controlled based on the difference of the measured weight of contract coal (Scale #2)
and the total weight of the blend (Scale #1). The reclaim feeders on Conveyor #16 are then
controlled based on the signal provided by the existing belt scale on Conveyor #17 (Scale #1).

Installing a two-idler belt scale on Conveyor #16, as shown in Figure 5, provides a measurement
of the contract coal flow with a three percent accuracy. The accuracy of the scale is limited by
its proximity to the reclaim feed points and the convex portion of the conveyor belt. However,
the accuracy of the new scale on Conveyor #16 can be improved by removing an additional
feeder from service to provide space for the installation of a more accurate four-idler belt scale
(see Figure 8). A four-idler belt scale at this location has a measurement accuracy of one
percent. It should be noted that this arrangement significantly reduces the reliability and feed
rate for the PRB coal reclaimed onto Conveyor #16 since four of the reclaim feeders are removed
from service.

Proposed Belt Scale

Location
Operating Feed
Point

Convex Curve

Inactive Reclaim
Feeders
Bituminous
PRB Coal
Coal

Coal Blend Bit. Coal

35' 35'

Conveyor #16

Conveyor #15

Figure 8. Proposed Four-Idler Belt Scale Installation

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 12 of 18

at B. L. England Station
A comparison of the impact of the belt scale accuracy on the control of fuel sulfur was also
performed. This comparison is impacted by both the accuracy of the two belt scales operating in
parallel and the variability of the coal sulfur content. Table 5 summarizes the results of this
evaluation.

Table 5. Impact of Coal Sulfur Content Variation on Blend Accuracy

Coal Blend Sulfur Content (%)

Based on Differences in Individual Fuel
Conveyor #16 Scale Type Sulfur Variations
Minimum Maximum Average
Two-Idler (Figure 5)
1.44 2.09 1.73
3% Accuracy
Four-Idler (Figure 8)
1.46 2.05 1.73
1% Accuracy

This evaluation illustrates that the higher scale accuracy has only a limited impact on the range
of sulfur content of the blended coal. The higher cost of the four-idler scale and the operational
impact of removing another reclaim feeder from service makes this option less attractive to
supply BLE-1 with a blended coal.

Parametric

The most direct method of controlling the coal blending process requires an on-line nuclear coal
analyzer. These analyzers utilize gamma radiation to determine the elemental composition of
coal. On-line nuclear coal analyzers provide fast, accurate, real-time information concerning the
elemental composition of coal including identification of sulfur, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.
In addition, these analyzers can measure moisture and ash content. Based on the measured
constituents, the analyzer includes software to determine the heating value (Btu/lb) of the coal.
As a result, on-line nuclear coal analyzers have the potential to optimize the sulfur content and
the heating value of the coal blend, with corresponding environmental and economic advantages
for the operating plant.

On-line nuclear coal analyzers have a sulfur content accuracy of 0.5%. Coupling the control of
the feeders with the existing belt scale and a new on-line nuclear analyzer located in the crusher
house provides the most accurate control of the fuel blend. However, equipment costs combined
with installation costs make this blending control alternative more than nine times the cost of the
two-idler belt scale. Further, implementation of an on-line analyzer requires installation of a belt
sampling system (cutter) to route a reduced portion of the coal flow to the equipment for analysis
as well as to provide a means to calibrate and verify the nuclear analyzer. This sampling system
increases the total cost by roughly 35%. Although the on-line nuclear coal analyzer provides the
most accurate means for controlling a coal blend, the higher capital costs and complexities of
integrating such a system are not justified for the BLE-1 on-site blending installation. The
recommended approach is the addition of the two-idler belt scale for control of the fuel blending.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 13 of 18

at B. L. England Station
PRB Coal Handling Modifications

The use of PRB coal in the blended fuel for BLE-1 significantly complicates the modifications
required for on-site blending at B. L. England Station. Specifically, PRB coal is very dusty and
has a propensity for spontaneous combustion. Particular emphasis was needed in two areas to
safely handle PRB coal, specifically:

Dust suppression systems to reduce fugitive coal dust, and

Effective wash-down techniques to prevent the accumulation of PRB coal along the coal
handling system.

The following changes are required in the coal handling system to safely and effectively operate
BLE-1 with a PRB coal blend.

Rotary Dumper Dust Suppression

During the low sulfur coal testing, the PRB portion of the test coal blend generated significant
dust in the rotary dumper building. The existing spray nozzles, which apply water to coal as it is
unloaded, were ineffective. The following changes to control PRB fugitive dust from the rotary
dumper building were recommended by dust suppression system vendors:

An effective dust suppression system that applies a water/surfactant solution to the coal at
the level of the rotating train car and at the level of the hoppers below is required (top and
bottom spray).

The areas around the grizzly screens in the dumper building need to be covered or
blocked-off with steel plates to limit the amount of dust that can resurface after the coal
has passed through the screens.

Although this change is not planned, dust curtains may be installed at the openings of the
dumper building to limit airflow inside, as well as to prevent fugitive dust from exiting
the building.

The Johnson-March dust suppression system currently installed in the rotary dumper house at
B. L. England Station is not fully operable. This system is equipped with top and bottom sprays
to provide a water/surfactant solution to the rotating car and coal hoppers at a rate of about 1.5
gallons per ton of coal. To effectively suppress PRB coal dust at the rotary dumper building, this
system requires refurbishment to improve its dust suppression capabilities.

Crusher House

The crusher house is another area along the coal handling system with the potential to generate
and accumulate significant amounts of PRB coal dust. Many plants that fire PRB coal have dust
suppression systems that apply foamed surfactants to the coal at the transfer point out of the
crushers. Currently, B. L. England Station has a ChemLink dust suppression system (i.e., foam

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 14 of 18

at B. L. England Station
system) installed at the crusher house, but it is not operable. A new foam dust suppression
system is recommended for this location.

The crushers are periodically operated without any coal flow when switching between the
bunkering of BLE-1 and BLE-2. This operation generates significant amounts of dust in the
crusher house. To control the dust inside the crusher house during this type of operation, a new
windmilling dust suppression system is required.

Besides dust suppression, housekeeping in the crusher house is critical to prevent PRB coal dust
accumulation. The crusher house needs to be washed down daily with water hoses to clear any
accumulated dust. To facilitate this process, high dust collecting areas (i.e., flat surfaces and
corners) must be filled with lightweight concrete on a slope to ensure that the washed down coal
will run-off. In addition, the bottom floor of the crusher house requires modification to allow the
wash down water to drain out of the crusher house and into the sumps.

Conveyors and Transition Points

Housekeeping of coal dust around the conveyors and at the transition points is also important
while handling PRB coal blends. Based on the experience of using the fire protection system as
a temporary wash-down technique during the test burns with PRB coal, it was concluded that a
dedicated wash-down system along all conveyor belts is required. The system consists of hoses,
strategically installed at 50-foot intervals along the coal handling system, which are supplied
from a dedicated wash-down system source. At least 30 hose stations along the coal handling
system are required. In addition, the water distribution system (i.e., tank, piping, and pumps) for
wash-down use is needed.

An effective wash-down system also requires adequate drainage. Currently, the run-off system
in the coal handling area consists of a series of sumps leading to a coal stockpile settling pond.
Water is periodically pumped from the coal stockpile settling pond to the water treatment
facility. During the test burns, this run-off system was capable of handling the wash-down that
occurred. However, the drainage network requires changes for continuous wash-down use,
including new drainage ditches, increased sump capacities, upgraded pumps and controls, and
delivery piping. One identified source of the water for the wash-down supply tank is the water
treatment system.

Bunker House

The final area along the coal handling system that requires PRB coal dust control and clean up is
in the bunker house. Similar to the crusher house, the bunker house contains many flat surfaces
that allow for the accumulation of PRB coal. Therefore, to facilitate housekeeping and prevent
accumulation of coal dust, B. L. England Station must fill in areas prone to dust collection with
lightweight concrete placed on a slope.

The wash-down method discussed for the crusher house is not an effective method for collecting
and removing accumulated dust in the bunker house because there is no provision for drainage.
In particular, the tripper conveyor tensioning pit, which is located between Conveyor #2 and the

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 15 of 18

at B. L. England Station
tripper, accumulates large amounts of coal that cannot be cleared by washing. B. L. England
Station personnel periodically remove accumulations of coal from this area using the existing
vacuum system or by manual collection. However, the existing vacuum system is not reliable
and has pluggage problems. To prevent accumulation of PRB coal, B. L. England Station must
consider a more effective vacuum system that accesses all areas of the bunker house and safely
disposes of the collected coal.

As a means of limiting the amount of coal dust generated in the bunker house, the tripper must
be equipped with a cover to seal the entire length of the bunker opening, except for the area
where the tripper is dispensing coal. The B. L. England Station tripper has this capability, but
the bunker cover is not currently installed on the tripper. To assist in dust control in the bunker
house, these bunker covers must be reinstalled.

Fire Protection

Because PRB coal has a propensity to spontaneously combust, the fire protection system along
the coal handling system must be equipped with adequate fire suppression and detection
capabilities. A robust fire protection system is particularly important at B. L. England Station
since the coal handling system is not redundant and any fire event would impact operations at
both BLE-1 and BLE-2.

The current fire protection system at B. L. England Station protects most of the area along the
conveyor belts with automated nozzles that run the length of the conveyors. A hydrant located at
the southeast corner of the rotary dumper provides fire suppression in the car dumper and for the
coal pile. Additional dry chemical extinguishers are required for controlling the local hot spot
fires typical of PRB coal stockpiling. In addition to fire suppression, adequate fire detection is
important when handling PRB coal. Combustible gas detectors and CO detectors can be
installed at BLE-1 to prevent potential fires and detect active fires, respectively.

Conclusion

Detailed design of the changes for on-site blending of PRB coal was initiated at the conclusion of
the negotiations for the new three-year fuel permit for BLE-1 in May 2003. Figure 9 illustrates
the changes necessary to accommodate on-site PRB coal blending and Figure 10 shows the
conceptual schedule for the implementation of these changes. The fuel permit required that these
changes be implemented to support continuous operation with on-site blending with PRB coal
starting in January 2004.

This paper summarizes all the areas of the coal handling system that require changes to
accommodate the continuous firing of an on-site blended coal to satisfy the requirements of the
current fuel permit for BLE-1. The changes include a modified coal stockpile, the installation of
on-site blending capability, and changes to accommodate the handling of PRB coal. By selecting
the least costly (less than $800,000) and least disruptive approach for implementing the changes,
B. L. England Station personnel expect to achieve on-site coal blending in approximately nine
months. Based on the lower cost of on-site blended fuel using PRB coal, the capital costs for
these changes have a payback period of less than two years.

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 16 of 18

at B. L. England Station
While this paper describes the near-term coal handling changes, B. L. England Station may face
future challenges while continuing to operate the on-site coal blending system. Specifically, the
logistics of operating with PRB coal, which is transported from Wyoming on the longest rail haul
in the United States, creates logistical and safety concerns. The PRB coal can take several days
to travel from mine to plant, which increases the likelihood of a rail car fire due to PRB coals
propensity for spontaneous combustion. In addition, the increased quantity of fines in PRB coal
creates fugitive dust concerns not only during the rail transportation but also while stockpiled on
site. Finally, B. L. England Station personnel must also evaluate plant equipment (e.g., crushers
and feeders) capabilities as higher percentages on PRB coal are fired in BLE-1, as required by
future fuel permits.

Figure 9. Changes to Accommodate On-site PRB Coal Blending

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 17 of 18

at B. L. England Station
 Q1 03 Q2 03 Q3 03 Q4 03
ID Task Name Start Finish
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1 Coal Handling Conceptual Engineering 11/20/2002 1/28/2003 10w

2 Issue Wrap-up Report 1/28/2003 1/28/2003 1/28/2003

3 Fuel Permit Negotiation 2/13/2003 4/2/2003 7w

4 Conectiv Project Approvals 1/29/2003 3/25/2003 8w

5 Coal Handling Detailed Engineering 4/3/2003 6/4/2003 9w

6 Sixth Stay Expires 2/28/2003 2/28/2003 2/28/2003

7 Car Dumper Modifications 6/5/2003 10/22/2003 20w

8 Crusher House Modifications 6/5/2003 9/10/2003 14w

9 Conveyor Modifications 6/5/2003 12/3/2003 26w

10 BLE-1 Fall Outage 9/22/2003 9/22/2003 9/22/2003

11 Coal Stockpile Reclaim Modifications 6/5/2003 12/3/2003 26w

12 Housekeeping Modifications 6/5/2003 12/31/2003 30w

13 Other Improvements 9/22/2003 12/5/2003 11w

14 Initiate On-Site Blending 1/2/2004 1/2/2004 1/2/2004

Figure 10. Initial Schedule for On-site PRB Coal Blending Implementation

Considerations for Low Sulfur Coal Blending Page 18 of 18

at B. L. England Station