United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-101 Sept. 1981
Project Summary
Environmental Hazard
Rankings of Pollutants
Generated in Coal
Gasification Processes
J. G. Cleland
This report evaluates and ranks
environmental hazards associated
with coal gasification. The chemical
analytical data applied toward this end
have been provided through research
conducted with an experimental
gasif ier at Research Triangle Institute,
and by sampling at four commercial
gasification processes by Radian
Corporation. Gas, liquid, tar, and solid
streams have been quantitatively
analyzed for almost 300 substances.
Levels of production, stream concen-
trations, and estimated hazard poten-
tial of individual substances are
included. Hazard potential is measured
utilizing a methodology developed by
Research Triangle Institute and the
Environmental Protection Agency,
IERL-RTP.
A "worst case" approach has been
taken in this summary, with maximum
stream concentrations emphasized
for all processes. These processes
represent packed-bed, low- to medium-
Btu gasifiers, which are known to
produce significant contaminant load-
ings relative to other gasifiers. Coals
tested ranged from lignite to anthracite.
A representative group of approxi-
mately 50 pollutants has been
emphasized and ranked according to
relative environmental hazard poten-
tials. Estimated relative hazard
potentials have been categorized for
streams and the process units investi-
gated.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Industrial Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park. NC, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
EPA's Industrial Environmental Re-
search Laboratory (EPA/IERL-RTP) has
sponsored and continues to direct a
comprehensive environmental assess-
ment of coal gasification processes.
Over the past 4 years, emphasis has
been on generation of new data for
assessment. This program has been
concerned with developing methods of
analyzing environmental assessment
data as well as with the actual experi-
mental and source sampling aspects of
assessment.
The following summary of some
assessment results addresses poten-
tially hazardous chemical species
derived from various industrial and
experimental coal gasification opera-
tions. The data summarized are taken
from a source report1 which contains: a)
tabulated chemical analysis results for
individual product/byproduct, process,
and waste streams for the processes
described; b) basic process information
such as coal types, feed and product
flow rates, and heating values; and c)
-------
listings of streams tested, with flow
rates, and indices computed which
indicate total stream potential hazard in
terms of both concentrations and mass
flow levels. The data compilation,
evaluation, and results of this summary
rank gasification pollutants in terms of
their environmental hazard potential
and control priorities.
The process streams and effluents
characterized vary considerably in their
physical and chemical natures and
quantities. Therefore, a systematic
approach was required to analyze the
results on a common basis for compari-
son and/or ranking. The approach used
here for comparing different chemical
species on the basis of their potential
environmental hazard is the Multimedia
Environmental Goals (MEGs) method.
MEGs2 (developed under a separate
EPA/IERL-RTP program) are estimated
or regulated levels of maximum chemi-
cal concentrations which can exist in
the environment without posing health
or ecological hazards. Ambient level
MEG values (AMEGs) represent ap-
proximate concentrations (e.g., in fjg
pollutant/m3 air) of contaminants in the
ambient air, water, or land, below which
unacceptable negative effects to the
surrounding populations or ecosystems
do not occur. Discharge MEGs(DMEGs)
represent approximate maximum con-
centrations for contaminants in source
emissions to air, water, or land, which
will not evoke significant harmful or
irreversible responses in exposed
humans or the ecology when these
exposures are of short duration (e.g., 8-
hour periods). DMEGsfor human health
and ecology have been developed for
use in assessing the impact of effluent
discharges.2~5 Estimated levels are
based on existing chemical toxicity data
and receptor models. Numerous appli-
cations of MEGs, including assessment
of a variety of synthetic fuels processes,
have been presented elsewhere.6
In this study the chemical concentra-
tions and production levels (in several
coal gasification product/byproduct,
discharge, and process streams) have
been compared with DMEGs. Since coal
gasification plants may require up to
30,000 tons of coal per day, undesirable
process stream constituents present in
very low concentrations can be con-
centrated or accumulated to levels
which are hazardous to human health
or the natural environment. In assessing
these hazards, however, substantial
uncertainties in receptor (plants, ani-
mals) assimilation, and other complex
factors affect chemical dilution and
synergisms. Therefore, comparison of
chemical levels with estimated, non-
hazardous maxima (DMEGs) is most
useful on a qualitative basis; e.g.,
ranking of potential hazards of different
chemicals from measured concentra-
tions.
The chemical data summarized have
been obtained from: 1) four commercial-
scale, packed-bed gasifiers, sampled by
Radiari Corporation; and 2) a laboratory
coal gasification system at Research
Triangle Institute. Along with process
stream concentrations, levels of produc-
tion of chemical species per unit coal
mass feed to the gasifiers are also
included.
Radian Corporation Source
Tests
Radian Corporation has conducted
source tests at four operating coal
gasification facilities:
1. A Wellman-Galusha gasifier con-
verting anthracite coal into fuel
gas used for brick manufacturing.7
Data from five different streams
are included: gasifier ash and
cyclone dust (solid waste); ash
sluice water (liquid effluent); and
poke hole gas and coal hopper
gases (gas emissions).
2. A second Wellman-Galusha gasi-
fier8 converting North Dakota
Indian Head lignite to low-Btu gas.
Data on several different streams
are included: gasifier ash and
cyclone dust; cyclone quench
water; ash sluice water and
service water; and product gas and
coal bin vent gas. Flow rates were
unavailable for the coal bin vent
gas.
3. A Chapman (Wilputte) gasifier
converting low-sulfur, Virginia
bituminous coal to low-Btu fuel
gas.' Data on six effluent streams
were available: cyclone dust;
gasifier ash and byproduct tar;
coal feeder vent gas and separator
vent gas; and separator liquid, a
recycled aqueous stream.
4. A Lurgi gasifier at Kosovo, Yugo-
slavia, converting Yugoslavian
lignite to medium-Btu fuel gas. A
total of 18 gaseous streams (8
discharge, 10 process) and 3 liquid
streams were sampled. The gase-
ous discharge streams were auto-
clave vent gas, coal bunker vent
gas, COz-rich Rectisol gas, tar tank
vent gas, medium oil tank vent
gas, phenolic water tank vent gas,
degassing column gas, and gaso-
line tank vent gas. Cyanic water
and the inlet and outlet from the
Phenosolvan unit are aqueous
process streams that were sampled.
No solid stream data were avail-
able.
The sampling strategies did not yield
data that were directly comparable.
Sampling was not meant to be exhaus-
tive, but focussed on streams of potential
environmental significance.
RTI Gasifier Tests'3''5
Data from 10 selected semicontinuous
fixed-bed tests with RTI laboratory
gasifier were analyzed in detail. In each
case, the solid gasifier ash and the
aqueous condensate stream were the
two discharge samples. Two additional
streams, product gas and byproduct tar,
were also sampled. The 10 selected
tests involved steam/air gasification of
North Dakota Beulah/Zap lignite;
Montana Rosebud/McKay and Wyoming
Smith/Roland subbituminous coals;
Illinois No. 6 and Western Kentucky No.
9 bituminous coals; and Pennsylvania '
Bottom Red Ash anthracite.
Objectives and Approach
Objectives
This summary:
1. Distills the voluminous data from
the sources described earlier, and
compiled and presented in the
source report.1
2. Presents a "worst case" evalua-
tion of potential pollutant produc-
tion problems from coal gasifiers,
with gravitating or fixed-bed, low-
to medium- Btu gas producers as
the baseline. The gasification
reactors are typical, with sub-
stantial coal being devolatilized at
moderate temperatures, substan-
tial tar production, and production
of practically all constituents
which can be derived from coal
treatment. The commercial units
represented are older (designed
when environmental control was
of less concern) and among the
very few such processes available
for on-srte sampling. Tests selected
for the RTI experimental gasifier
represent a wide range of operating
conditions, including low efficiency
for fuel gas production, where
pollutant output can be expected
to be increased. The data thus
-------
presented stand as a reference for
other research and commercial
operation planning.
3. Summarizes gasifier input and
output streams in keeping with the
"worst case" -approach. Toward
this end, maximum concentrations
of constituents found in process
streams are presented. The
DMEGs, especially where sup-
ported by extensive toxicity data,
also are representative of rather
stringent control limits. While
seeming to present the environ-
mental problems of coal gasifica-
tion in their worst light, this is
certainly not an objective. For
example, the "worst case" ap-
proach allows a high level of
confidence in determining (from
an extensive body of data) which
constituents never present an
apparent environmental hazard,
and which can therefore be elimi-
nated from future analysis and
concern.
4. Ranks pollutants. Using the method
of Multimedia Environmental Goals
for normalization, the environ-
mental hazards of each constitu-
ent are assessed relative to others.
Emphasis is on those constituents
which have shown consistent
potential of environmental hazard.
This relative comparison of com-
pound hazard potential offers
more well-founded, and therefore
useful, results than do absolute
values of the estimated severities.
Approach
From the source report, maximum
concentrations of all constituents in
each sampled stream were selected.
The maxima obtained retain the desig-
nations associated with their sampling
procedure, including the place of each
in the following categories:
1. Processes—including each of the
four commercial gasification plants
. and/or the composite of all RTI
experimental data.
2. Stream classifications—
a. Discharge: Streams which are
likely candidates for direct
disposal or which represent
fugitive emissions at plant
sites, for the processes con-
sidered.
b. Products/byproducts: Streams
.which are likely to cross plant
boundaries, with all or part of
the constituents intended for
srcial application. While
these streams may be intended
for further treatment or syn-
thesis, their environmental
hazard potential is based on the
further handling and transpor-
tation of the raw stream.
c. Process: Streams moving ma-
terial from one unit operation to
another'within the plant
boundaries.
3. Physical characteristics—Media
considered are gases, liquids
(aqueous), tars, and solids. Tars
are considered separately from
liquids because of their particular
properties and likelihood of sepa-
ration from other liquids in process
operations.
All individual concentrations have
been multiplied by their associated
stream flow rates and divided by total
process coal throughputs to obtain
production factors (PFs) in units of
micrograms of constituent (pollutant)
produced per gram of coal input. Pro-
duction factors serve two important
purposes in evaluation of environmental
hazard:
1. They allow comparison of potential
stream hazards on the basis of
both concentration and stream
volume; e.g., a stream which
appears hazardous, because of
high concentration levels of certain
constituents, may have a low flow
rate that actually represents a very
small production of those mate-
rials. The PF accounts for this.
2. They offer a normalization (pro-
duction per unit coal input) which
allows comparison of data obtained
from units or streams of signifi-
cantly different sizes.
DMEGs are applied as the environ-
mental standard against which stream
concentrations are measured. These
estimated maximum, short-term con-
centration goals are used because,
despite limitations, the MEG data base
provides the most comprehensive and
best supported one available for such
purposes. More than 650 chemical
substances and physical agents are
included in the system. Primary emphasis
has been on contaminants from fossil
fuel processes.
In the MEG data base, each chemical
species is assigned six Discharge Multi-
media Environmental Goal (DMEG) and
six Ambient Multimedia Environmental
Goal (AMEG) values. These values
represent target concentration limits for
air (a), water (w), or land (I), and consider
separate effects for both human health
(h) and the ecology (e). In this study, the
health-based DMEG values were used
primarily. DMEGs allow the environ-
mental assessment to avoid the complex
considerations of prolonged exposure
and possible accumulation in the envi-
ronment over long terms.
When a DMEG value is not available
for an identified chemical, the lowest
DMEG value for the particular category
of compounds into which the substance
falls is generally chosen (the most
conservative approach).
Discharge severity (DS) is an index of
tbe degree to which the concentration
of a particular substance is potentially
hazardous in a process stream effluent.16
DS is the concentration of a substance
in a potential discharge (stream) divided
by the DMEG value for that substance. A
DS value exists for all DMEG values
applicable to a substance's concentra-
tion. Wherever DS is > 1, a potential
hazard exists.
DMEG values have also been applied
to the production factors (PFs) in this
summary, in the simplest approach
possible. An index is calculated which is
referred to as Control Priority, CP = PF/
DMEG. The production factor has been
divided by the DMEG for health/water
only for each pollutant. This allows all
pollutants to be compared on the same
basis without regard to stream type
(gas, liquid, solid), since the PF for each
pollutant is its maximum total process
production for all streams in that
process.
Air, water, and land DMEGs are
typically related by constant factors, so
that choice of DMEGh,* in calculating CP
is a convenience which adequately
reflects the relative importance of each
pollutant, in terms of both its maximum
process production (per unit coal con-
verted) and its hazard potential (DMEG).
The CP value obtained is in cmVg coal
or g/g coal. Application of CP is
advantageous when ranking pollutants
from process to process since the
ranking is normalized by unit mass of
coal converted in each process.
Table 1 gives maximum concentra-
tions and maximum production factors
derived from the source report. Stream
representations (discharge, product/
byproduct, process), processes, dis-
charge severity levels (both health and
ecological), and identification of priority
pollutants are all indicated. Table 2 lists
a number of pollutants which have been
-------
Table 1.
MEG
Cate-
gory
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
+0
o
o
o
o
o
+0
o
0
+0
+
o
0
o
0
0
OM
01 A
01 A
01 A
01 A
01A
01A
01 A
01A
01 A
01A
01 A
01A
01 A
01A/B
01B
01B
01C
01C
03A
03A
OSA
•05A
05B
05B
07B
08A
08A
08D
08D
08D
O9B
IOC
IOC
10C
IOC
IOC
IOC
IOC
10C
IOC
10C
IOC
13A
13A
13A
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
ISA
15A
1SB
1SB
15B
Maximum Concentration Values in Each Stream Phase
Maximum Concentration (Source, Stream Type) log-\oDSb/log-\oDS,
Chemical
Name
methane
ethane
propane
butanes
n-butanes
isobutane
pentanes
alkanes >Ce
methylcyclohexane
alkanes >Cia
Ca-hydrocarbons
C^hydrocarbons
Ct-hydrocarbons
Ce- hydrocarbons
ethane and ethylene
ethylene
propylene
acetylene
phenylacetylene
anisoles
methylanisole
aliphatic alcohols >Ct
aliphatic alcohols >Cia
alky/alcohols >C6
alky /alcohols >Cn
acetophenone
phthalic acids
phthalic esters
adipate esters
phtha/ate esters"
>Cg aliphatic esters
cyanotoluene
(benzonitrile)
aniline
Cz-alkylaniline
Ca-alkylaniline
aminotoluene
benzofluoreneamine
methylaminoacenaphthy-
lene
melhylbenzofluoreneamine
benzidine
1 -aminonaphthalene
methylaminonaphthalene
aminotetralin
methanethiol
ethanethiol
CaWeS
benzene
Cx-alkylbenzene
Ca-alkylbenzene
toluene
ethylbenzene
styrene
Ca-benzene
Ct-benzene
biphenyl
biphenylene
diphenylmethane
indene
indan
Ca-alkylindane
Ca-alkylindane
Gas fag/m3)
1.1EG(K.S)1/1
2.1E7(K,D)0/0
1.6E5 (R.P)
6.SE4 (R.P)
—
6.5E4 (R.P)
—
6.4E2 (C,D)
—
1.0E5 IC.D)
1.3E7 (K.S)0/-
1.1E7(K.S)1/-
2.9E6(K,D,S)1/1
2.9E8 (K.D)2/2
—
5.9E6 (K,S)0/S
1.9E5 (R.P)
1.2E4 (R.P)
1.4E3 (C,D)
—
2.0E3 (C,D)
1.5E4 (C,D)
3.1 E3 (C.D)
—
—
1.8E2 (C.D)
4.3E3 (C,D)
6.8E4 (C,D)
4.9E4 (C.D)
3. 1E4 (C.D)1/1
—
1.1£3(C.D)
—
9.2E2 (C.D)
3.7E3(C.D)
—
2.7E3(C.P)1/1
—
—
—
—
2.0E3 (C.D)O/0
S.4E3 (C.D)1/1
—
/. 1E7 (K.D)4/4
2.7E7 (K,D)4/4
—
1.3E8 (K.DJ4/6
7.0E3 (C.DjO/0
2.3E4 (C.DIO/1
9.5E6(K,D)1/3
8.8E4 (R.P)
6.2E3 (C,D)
4.9E4 (R.P)
2.SES (R.PJO.O
S.1E3(F,P)1/1
1.3E4 (C.D)-/2
2.7E3 (R.PJO/0
1.SE6 (C.Dft/0
2.0E4 (C.D)
2.1E4fC.D)
3.2E4 (C.D)
Liquid (fjg/l) Solid (ug/g)
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— ' —
1.0E5 (C,S) 2.0EO (C.D)
4.0E2 (C.S) —
— 2.0EO (C.D)
— —
— _
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
1.3E6 (C.S) -
— —
— —
— —
1.2E4 (C.S) -
5.453 rCS; —
— —
4.053 (C.S) —
— —
7.954 (C.S) 3.050 (C.D)
2.254 (C.S)-/4 9.050 (C,D)-/1
— —
— —
— —
3.053 (C,S)-/0 —
1.0E3 (C.S)-/0 —
— —
3.853 (C.S)0/O —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
9.052 (K.S) —
— 1.0EO (C.D)
— —
5.052 (K,S)-/0 —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
8.253 (C.S) —
— —
— —
— —
Tar (ijg/g)
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.052 (C.P)
—
9.0E2(C,D)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— •
—
—
$.453 (C.P)
—
—
—
3.453 (C.P)
—
—
—
7.052 (C.P)
2.254 (C.P)
3.054 (C.P)0/4
4.553 (C.P)-/3
—
—
2.7E2 (R.P)-/0
1.0E2 (C.P)-/0
2.052 (C.P)-/0
9.052 (C.P)0/0
6.0£2 (C,P)0/0
2.052 (C.P)
2.052 (C,P)
6.052 (R.P)-/1
1 .053 (C,P)-/2
—
9.052 (C,P)0/1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3.953 (R.PJO/0
—
—
3.052 (C.P)
—
—
—
Maximum
Production
Factor &
Source
fjg/g coal
1.2E5
7.453
4.252
1.7E2
1.7E2
7.752
7.25-5
4.957
—
9.257
—
—
—
—
7.05-6
6.953
4.952
3.757
2.55-7
8.452
3.55-7
3.452
6.25-2
—
—
3.25-2
7.057
3.053
2.253
—
4.852
7.657
2.05-7
8.950
7.057
2.057
4.85-7
6.057
2.057
2.057
2.057
7.052
7.75-7
9.057
7.553
—
7.052
7.O52
—
4.250
2.253
2.352
7.750
7.252
8.452
9.257
—
6.550
4.452
4.457
—
- —
R
K
R
R
R
R
K
C
C
K
K
R
R
C
C
C
C
C
C 1
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
C
C
C
K
R
R
C
R
R
C
R
R
R
R
R
-------
Table 1.
MEG
Cate-
gory
755
0 755
755
755
+o 15B/A
755
+o 76X1
+o 77X1
+o 18A
o ISA
o 1SA
ISA
o ISA
ISA
o ISA
o ISA
o ISA
ISA
o ISC
ISC
o 18C
o 18C
o 18C
o 18C
ISC
o ISC
ISC
o ISC
ISC
ISC
o ISC
o ISC
o ISC
o 18C
18C
o 18C
o 205
+o 27X1
27X1
27X1
27X1
27X1
27X1
+ 27X1
27X1
27X1
+o 27X1
+o 27X1
+o 27X1
o 27X1
0 27X1
27X1
o 27X1
o 27X1
o 27X1
27X1
27X1
+o 275
o 275
0 275
o 276
(Continued)
Chemical
Name
methylindane
xylenes
o-xylene
m- and p-xylene
xylene and ethyl benzene
tetrahydronaphthalene
polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB)**
dinitrotoluenes
phenols
Cz-alkylphenol
Ca-alkylphenol
Cralkylphenol
isopropylphenol
o-isopropylphenol
cresol
xylenol
2,4. 6-trimethylphenol
trimethylphenol
1-naphthol
naphthol
1 -acenaphthol
Ct-alkylacenaphthol
Ca-alkylacenaphthol
Cz-alkylhydroxyacenaphthene
Ca-alkylhydroxyacenaphthene
Cs-alkylhydroxyanthracene
•Cz-alkylhydroxyprene
Cz-alkylnaphthol
hydroxyacenaphthylene
hydroxyacenaphthene
hydroxyanthracene
hydroxybenzofluorene
methylacenaphthol
methylnaphthol
methylhydroxyacenaphthene
indanol
dinitrocresol
naphthalene
higher aromatics
methylnaphthalenes
1 -methylnaphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
d-alkylnaphthalene
anthracene
Ci-alkylanthracene
9-methylanthracene
phenanthrene
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
d-alkylacenaphthalene
Cralkylacenaphthene
Ca-alkylacenaphthene
binaphthyl
methylacenaphthylene
methylacenaphthene
9-methylanthracene
C,SH,2:3 rings
bemo(a)anthracene
7. 1 2-dimethylbenzo(a)-
anthracene
methylphenanthracene
methyhriphenylene
Maximum
Gas (fjg/m3)
7.854 (C.D)
4.855 (R.P)-/0
4.857 (F.P)
4,857 (F.P)
7.356 (K.D)0/0
3.353 (C.D)
7.557 (F.P)1/1
2.353 (F.P)0/0
2.6E7 (K.D)3/3
2.355 (C,D)1/1
7.854 (C.D)0/-
2.1 53 (C.D)
—
—
2.7ES(C,D)1/1
6.0E5(R.P)1/1
—
—
2.453 (C.D)
—
—
—
—
7.553 (C.D)
3.7E2(C,D)
—
—
2.7E2(C.D)
—
7.352 (C.D)
5.552 (C.D)
—
—
3.553 (C.D)
—
6.452 (C.D)
7.854 (F.P)2/2
6.055 (R,P)1/1
2.854 (K.S)
7.955 (C.D)
1.2E3 (R.P)
2. 753 (R.P)
7.555 (C.D)
7.954 (C.D)
—
4.654 (C.D)
7.954 (C.D)1/1
4.1E4(C,D)1/1
2.854 (C.D)1/1
3.353 (C.D)0/0
3.553 (C.DJO/O
—
7.454 (C.P/1/1
7.354 (C.D)1/1
7.654 (C,D)1/1
—
A 057 (R.P)
1.8E3(F,P)1/1
7.355 (F.PJ-/6
—
—
Concentration (Source, Stream Type) log'ioDSh/log^DSe
Liquid (fjg/l) Solid (fig/g)
_
. 8.052 (K.S) —
— . —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
2.556 (R.D)2/3 —
3.7E5(C.S)1/3 -
5.054 (C.SJO/2 -
— —
— —
— —
7.556 (R.D)5/3 -
3.755 (R.D)5/3 —
7.854 (R.D)3/1 —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— — '
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
_ _
— —
— —
— —
7 . 754 (C'.S)-/2 3. 050 (C.D)
— —
5. 753 (C.S) 2.050 (C.D)
4.852 (R.D) —
2.252 (R.D) —
— —
4. 757 (R.D) —
— —
— —
9.657 (R.D) 7.05-7 (G.D)
— —
4. 753 (C.S) —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
Tar (fig/gi
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.254 (R51.P)1/2
5.853 (C.P)4/2
7.053 (C,P)3/1
—
7.454 (R,P)4/2
—
6.754 (R,P)3/3
7.255 (R,P)5/3
2.454 (R,P)4/2
—
7.853 (C,P)3/1
—
3.052 (C.P)-/0
7.653 (C.PJ3/1
7.052 (C.P12/0
—
—
2.053 (C,P)3/1
2. 753 (C.P)
3.052 (C.P)2/0
—
—
7.553 (C,P)3/2
3.553 (C,P)3/1
9.052 (C,P)3/1
2.053 (C,P)-/1
—
3.052 (C.P)
—
5.754 (R.P)-/3
—
7.953 (R.P)
7.953 (R.P)
7.054 (R.P)
7.654 (R.P)
2.354 (R.P)
2.1E3.(C,P)
7.654 (R.PI
2.354 (R.PJO/-
4.253 (R.P)
7.854 (R.PjO/0
—
7.253 (C.P)
5.052 (C.P)
—
2.853 (C.P)
6.052 (C.P)
—
—
7.053 (R,P)2/2
—
2.1E3(C.P)3/3
7.253 (C.P)3/3
Maximum
Production
Factor &
Source
fjg/g coal
8.052
—
—
—
6.652
3. 75-2
4.550
7.653
6.852
7.052
3.85-7
—
1.7 E 2
7.653
7.353
—
7.752
—
7.852
—
—
—
7.652
7.057
2.052
2.752
3.057
7.45-3
3.057
7.552
3.552
—
2.052
9.057
3.057
3.750
2.354
3.55-7
—
7.452
3.352
5.052
6.952
8.057
—
7.652
7.552
4.352
—
7.252
5.757
2.85-7
2.852
6.357
5.352
2.05-7
7.652
3.35-7
2.752
7.252
R
C
FS
FS
R
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
K
R
R
C
R
C
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
R
R
FS
C
C
-------
Table 1.
MEG
Cate-
gory
o 21B
o 21B
o 218
o 21B
+o 21B
21B
+ 21B
• 21B
+o 21C
+o 21C
o 21C
21C
o 21D
+ 21D
22A
22A
+ 22A
o 22A
22A
+o 22B
22B
228
22B
+ 22C
22C
22C
+ 22D
23A
o 23A
23A
23A
23A
23A
23A
23A
o 23A
23A
23A
23B
23B
23B
23B
238
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
o 23B
23B
23B
23B
23C
23C
o 23C
23C
o 23C
24A
24A
24A
o 25A
(Continued)
Chemical
Name
triphenylene
Ci6Wio.'4 rings
3-methylcholanthrene
benzo(c)phenanthrene
chrysene
methyl chrysene
pyrene
1 -methylpyrene
dibenzofa, h)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
perylene
benzo(e)pyrene
benzoperylene
benzo(g.h.i)perylene
Cz-alkylindene
Ca-alkylindene
lluorene
methylindene
methylfluorene
benzofluorene
(fluoranthene)
fluoranthene
benzo(b)fluorene
benzofajfluorene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
benzo(h)fluoranthene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
indeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
pyridine
C2-alkylpyridine
Cs-alkylpyridine
Ct-alkylpyridine
methylpyridine (picolinesl
2-methylpyridine
3 -methylpyridine
4-methylpyridine
dimethylpyridine
2-methylpyridine
3, 4 -methylpyridine
quinolines
Ct-alkylquinolines
Cs-alkylquinolines
2-methylquinoline
acridine
Ca-alkylacridine
d-alkylacririine
Cz-alkylbenzoquinoline
Ca-alkylbenzoquinoline
methylacridine
dihydroacridine
methylbenzophenanthridine
benzophenanthridine
benzoquinoline (phenanthridine)
methylbenzoquinoline
indole
methylindole
carbazole
methylcarbazole
pyrroline**
methyldioxolane
benzofuran
dibenzofuran
thiophene
Maximum
Concentration (Source. Stream Type) log^oDSt/logioDSe
•Maximum
Production
Factor &
Source
Gas (fjg/m3)
—
1 .7E2 (R.P)3/3
4.7EO (F,P)0/0
1.0E3 (F,P)0/0
7.3E3 (C,D)0/1
—
9.2E3 (C.D)
—
6. 1EO (F.PJ2/2
5.0E3 (C.D)5/6
4.9E3 (C.DIS/5
—
1.6E3(C.D)1/1
—
3.8E4 (C.D)
8.0E3 (C.D)
9. 1E3 (C.D)
8.4E4 (C.D)0/0
4. 1E3 (C.D)
9.2E3 (C.D)
—
—
—
—
—
—
3.8E2 (F.P)
—
9.2E2 (C.D)
1.6E4 (C.D)-/0
1.0E4 (C.D)
—
4.0E3 (C.D)
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.8E3 (C.D)
5.4E3 (C.D)
4.6E2 (C.D)
3.5E3 (C.D)
8.4E3 (C.D)
—
—
—
—
4.8E3 (C.D)
1. 1E1 (F.P)
2.4E3 (C.D)-/1
4.8E3 (C.D)
—
—
—
—
4.9E3 (C.D)
—
2.0E3 (C.D)1/1
—
5.5E4 '(R.P)
1.2E4 (R.P)
2.3E6 (R.P)3/3
Liquid (fjg/l)
5.0E1 (R,D)1/1
—
—
—
7.652 R.D)
—
—
—
—
3.6E1 (R,D)2/2
2. 1E1 (R.D)2/2
2. 1E1 (R.D)
3.4E4 (C,S)2/2
—
—
—
5.7E1 (R.D)
3.4E3 (C.S)
—
2.8E1 (R.D)
—
—
—
—
1.7E1 (R.P)
—
3.3E1 (R.D)
—
2.8E4 (K.S)
2.6E4 (K.S)
1.0E3 (C.S)
—
—
—
—
—
4.6E4 (K,S)-/0
2.9E4 0CS;
1.3E4 (K.S)
5.0E3 (K.S)
1.2E4 (K,S)
—
1.8E3 (C.S)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.3E4 (C.S)
8.9E3 (C.S)
—
—
—
5.050 (C.S)
—
—
—
Solid (/jg/g)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
, —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.0E1 (G.D)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Tar (fjg/g)
6.2E3 (R.P)4/4
—
—
—
8.6E3 (R.P)0/0
1.2E3 (C.P)
2.4E4 (R.P)
3.8E3 (C.P)
3.4E3 (R.P)4/4
3.SE3 (R.P)5/5
3.7E3 (R.P)5/5
2. 1E3 (R.P)
— 1/1
2.7E3(R.P)
3.0E2 (C.P)
—
8.0E3 (R.P)
—
2. 1E3 (C.P)
3.4E4 (R,P)1/-
3.8E3 (C.P)
4. 1E3 (R.P)
1.6E3 (R.P)
—
3.2E3 (R.P)
1.7E3(R.P)
—
—
1.0E2 (C.P)
2.052 (C.P)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.9E4 (C.P)
2.3E3 (C.P)
1.1E3(C,P)
6.0E2 (C.P)
1.7E3(R.P)
5.052 (C.P)
9.052 (C.P)
3.053 (C.P)
5.052 (C.P)
4.052 (C.P)
—
—
—
7.052 (C.P)
1. 1E3 (C.P)
5.8E1 (R.P)
—
2.7E3(R.P)1/-
2.052 (C.P)
—
—
—
8. 1E3 (R.P)
.—
/jg/g coal
2.352
4.3E-1
9.55-3
2.050
2.952
5.452
7.252
3.552
9.3E1
1.2E2
8.057
6.957
5.057
4.S57
3.757
7.450
2.652
7.557
—
3.S52
7.053
5.657
S.657
—
5.357
7.052
4.657
7.65-7
2.8EO
7.257
2.057
7.75-7
2.557
7.757
7.757
—
—
—
7.953
2.352
7.752
6.057
9.057
6.057
9.057
—
6.057
4.057
2.25-7
4.S5-2
9.65-2
7.057
3.052
7.950
—
5.357
2.057
4.05-2
—
7.352
2.752
3.753
C
R
FS
FS
C
C
R
C
R
R
C
R
C
R
C
C
R
C
C
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
C
C
C
C
K
K
K
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
FS
C
C
C
C
R
R
C
C
R
R
R
-------
Table 1.
MEG
Cate-
gory
o 25A
o 25A
25A
25B
o 27
o 28
o 29
30
31
+o 32
o 33
33
o 34
o 35
o 36
37
o 38
39
+ 41
o 42
o 42
o 42
o 43
44
45
+0 46
+o 47
+o 47
o 47
47
47
o 47
o 47
o 48
48
+o 49
+o 50
51
o 53
o 53
o 53
o 53
o 53
o 53
53
o 53
o 53
+o 54
55
o 56
o 57
58
59
60
(Continued)
Chemical
Name
Ci-thiophenes
methylthiophene
dimethylthiophene
benzothiophene
lithium
sodium
potassium
rubidium
cesium
beryllium
magnesium
rhenium
calcium
strontium
barium
boron
aluminum
gallium
thallium
carbonate
carbon dioxide
carbon monoxide
silicon
germanium
tin
lead
ammonia
cyanide
hydrogen cyanide
nitrate
nitrite
nitrogen dioxide
nitorgen oxide
phosphorus
phosphate
arsenic
antimony
bismuth
sulfur
carbon disulfide
carbonyl sulfide
hydrogen sulfide
sulfate
sulfide
sulfite
sulfur dioxide
thiocyanate
selenium
tellurium
fluorine
(fluoride)
chlorine
(chloride)
bromine
(bromide)
iodine
(iodine)
scandium
Maximum
Gas iitg/rr?)
7.8E4 (R,P)1/1
8.7E4 (R.PjO/0
1.5E4 (R.P)
—
4.3E3 (F,P)2/2
2.1E4(F,P)
1.0E4 (C,D)1/1
1.0E1 (C,D)
2.3E1 (F,P)
2.6EO (F.P)O/0
3.9E4 (F.P)1/1
3.0E-1 (F,P)
1.5E5 (F.PI-/1
3.9E3 (F,P)0/0
7.5E3 (F.P)1/1
5.6E2 (F.P)
2.7E4 (F,P)-/0
9.0E1 (C.D)
1.0E1 (C.D)
2.0EO (C.P)
1.8E9 (K,D)2/2
3.0E8 (R,P)4/4
8.0E3 (C.D)
7.2EO (F.P)
8.0EO (C.D)
1.7E2(F,P)0/0
3.2E8 (K.D)4/4
5.0E4 (C,D)1/1
5.8E6 (K,D)-/3
—
—
3.0E5 (C.0)1/1
4.0E4 (C.DjO/0
3.3E3(F,P)1/1
—
4.052 (F.P)2/2
4.0E2 (F.P)
2.6EO (F.P)
1.0E4 (C.D)
8.4E4 (R,P)1/1
1. 1E6 (K.S)2/2
6.9E7 (K.S)3/3
5.0E3 (C.Djl/1
2.0E5 (C,D)2/1
—
6.9E4 (G,D)0/0
1.0E5(C.D)1/1
1.5E4 (F,P)2/2
9.7E-1 (F.P)
1.3E3 (F.P)
—
3.0E4 (C.D)1/1
—
1.3E2 (F.P)
—
4.050 (F.P)
—
1.9E1 (F.P)
Concentration (Source, Stream Type) logwDSn/logwDS,
Liquid (/jg/l)
,—
—
—
4. Of 2 (F.D)0/0
(G/D)
1.7E6(F,D)1/1
2.OE4 (C.S)
2.0E2 (G.D)
4.0EO (F.D)
I.OEO(G.D)
(K.S)
1. 1E4 (F.D)
—
2.2£5 (F.D)
4.0E3 (F.D)
1.0E4 (G.D)0/0
9.0E3 (C.S)-/1
1. 1E4 (F.D)
4.0E1 (G.D)
4.0EO (K.S)
2.0E6 (C,S)1/1
—
—
/.Of 4 (G.D)
3.0E1 (K.S)
3.0E3 (F.D)
4.552 (F,D)-/0
(G.D)
7.556 (R,D)3/3
1.0E6 (R,D)3/5
(C.S)
8.653 (R,P)-/1
1.7E4(G.D)
1.0E1 (F.D)
—
—
2.054 (C.S)0/0
2.553 (K,S)
1.8E3 (R.D)3/2
2.052 (R.D)
—
9.755 (F.D)0/0
—
—
—
2.856 (F.D)- /I
1.0E4 (C,S)1/3
4.7E4 (F,D)O/O
—
2.755 (K.S)3/1
(R.D)
2.053 (C.S)1/2
—
2.055 (C.S)1/1
—
8.6E6(R,D)1/1
—
7.354 (Ft.D)
—
4.052 (K.S)
—
7.050 (G.D)
Solid (fig/g)
—
—
—
2.452 (G,D)0/0
1.8E4 (F.D)
4.055 (C.D)
2.054 (C.D)
1.5E1 (G.D)
2.7E1 (R.D)1/1
1.3E4 (F.D)
1.0E-1 (G.D)
5.054 (F.D)0/0
2.053 (C.D)
5.553 (F,D)1/1
2. 1E2 (F.D)
8.8E4 (F.D)-/1
2.252 (G.D)
2.25; (G.D)
—
—
—
7.455 (F.D)0/0
1. 1E1 (G.D)
3.052 (C.D)
2.352 (G.D)0/0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8.053 (C.D)0/0
2.OE3 (F.D)
8.5E1 (G,D)2/0
2.O52 (C.DJO/0
1.8E1 (G.D)
1.5E4 (G.D)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.S57 (R.D)1/1
9.OE-1 (G.D)
2.852 (F.D)
—
7.552 (F.D)
—
3.757 (R.D)
—
2.457 (G.D)
—
5.O57 (C.D)
7
Tar (ug/g)
—
—
8.7E3(R,P)
—
—
3.053 (C.P)
5.05-7 (C.P)
—
—
2.0E2(C,P) .
—
—
2.057 (C.P)
5.057 (C.P)
7.050 (C.P)
—
9.050 (C.P)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.057 (C.P)O/0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.450 (R51,P)1/-
8.057 (C.P)
5.0EO (C.P)
7.854 (R21.P)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.7EO(R51.P)
—
2.057 (C.P)
—
—
—
7.250 (R50.P)
—
5.050 (C.P)
—
7.050 (C.P)
Maximum
Production
Factor &
Source
fjg/g coal
3.352
2.952
5.057
2.652
4.757
7.554
7.353
7.253
6.850
7.650
7.754
6.75-7
4.454
7.653
4.753
7.852
7.554
8.050
4.85-2
3.55-4
7.256
9.855
4.352
7.75-7
7.857
7.757
8.853
2.757
9.42
9.750
5.05-4
5.357
7.350
1.7 E 3
9.657
2.757
7.357
7.750
7.653
2.852
7.353
4.754
9.757
—
7.25O
7.750
5.952
4.457
2.05-2
7.752
5.950
4.853
2.853
2.957
5.85-7
5.057
5.05-2
3.550
R
R
R
R
FS
FS
FS
C
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
GG
C
R
R
C
FS
C
R
R
R
K
K
FS
C
C
FS
GG
GS
C
GG
FS
ft
R
R
K
FS
C
R
FS
GG
FS
GG
R
R
GG
C
GG
R
FS
-------
Table 1.
MEG
Cate-
gory
61
62
63
64
65
66
+o 68
69
70
+ 71
o 72
o 72
74
+o 76
76
+o 78
+o 79
80
+ 87
+o 82
+o 83
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
85
o 85
o 99
(Continued)
Chemical
Name
yttrium
titanium
zirconium
hafnium
vanadium
niobium
chromium
molybdenum
tungsten
manganese
iron
iron carbonyls***
cobalt
nickel
nickel carbonyl***
copper
silver
gold
zinc
cadmium
mercury
cerium
dysprosium
erbium
europium
gadolinium
holmium
lanthanum
lutetium
neodymium .
praseodymium
samarium
terbium
thulium
ytterbium
thorium
uranium
hydrogen
Maximum
Gas (ug/m3)
3.057 (F.P)
7.053 (C.D)
7.053 (C.P)
2.950 (F.P)
7.052 (C.D)
4.052 (C.D)
8,052 (C,D)3/3
4.052 (C.D)
4.050 (C.D)
7.952 (R.P)
3.354 (F.PJ1/1
7.355 (G.DJ2/2
7.557 (F.P)
7.252 (F,P)1/1
2.957 (G.D)
2.053 (C.DJ1/1
7.053 (C.DJ2/2
—
7.053 (C.D)
2.7E2(F.P)1/1
6.553 (F.P)2/2
6.057 (C.P)
1.7EO(F.P)
6.45-7 (F.P)
9.75-7 (F.P)
7.950 (F.P)
9.75-7 (F.P)
7.052 (C.D)
—
9.7EO(F.P)
6.450 (F.P)
6.450 (F.P)
6.45-7 (F.P)
<3.0E-1 (F.P)
—
7.057 (C.D)
7.053 (C,D)3/3
5.457 (K.S)2/2
Concentration (Source, Stream Type) log^oDSh/log-ioDSe
Liquid (ug/l)
4.057 (G.D)
7.054 (G.D)
2.052 (G.D)
—
5.052 (G.D)
3.057 (G.D)
2.453 (R.D)3/1
4.052 (G.D)
2.057 (F.D)
4.057 (K.S)
5.053 (G.D)0/0
—
4.057 (G.D)
8.057 0CS;
—
4.952 (R.D)-/2
2.050 fG,OJ
_' /£V"
>5.4E2(R,D)
5.050 fC,SJ
ff,DJ-/0
6.352 (K.S)3/3
7.052 fG.Oy
3.050 fG,0y
7.050 fG.O/
7.050 (G.P)
2.050 fG,0;
2.050 fG.CV
5.057 (G.D)
7.050 fG,0J
7.057 (G.D)
7.057 fG.DJ
7.057 fG.OJ
7.050 (G.D)
7.050 fG,£V
2.050 (G.D)
4.057 (G,0y
4.057 0CS;
—
Solid (ug/g)
5.957 f]F,0;
4.553 (F.D)
3.552 fG.OJ
3.050 (G.D)
4.1 E2 (F.D)
5.257 CG.Oy
3.453 (R,D)4/5
5.757 fG,£y
5.050 CG,D;
5.7E2(G,D)
9.054 (F.D)2/2
—
5.057 (C.D)
3.7E2(R.P)1/1
—
7.053 (C,D)O/0
5.050 fG,0J
7.050 fG,£V
7.053 (G.D)
9.050 fC,OA/7
2.852 (G.D)3/3
7.852 rG,£V
3.050 CG,D;
7.050 (G.D)
7.050 CG.D;
2.050 fG,o;
2.0EO(G.D)
/.652 fG,o;
3.05-7 K?,D;
7. 752 fG.DJ
3.557 CG.DJ
7.357 (F.D)
6.05-7 CG,£V
2.05-7 (G.D)
2.0EO(G,D)
9.857 ffl,0;
4.052 (C,D)
—
Tar (ug/g)
I.OEO(C.P)
—
—
—
7.050 (C.P)
S.OEO(C.P)
7.952 (R.P)3/4
—
—
6.85-7 (R.P)
2.3E-2(R.P)
—
7.75-7 (R.P)
5.050 (R.P)
—
3.053 (C.P)0/0
—
— .
7.957 (R.PI
1.4EO(R,P)-/1
6.05-2 (C.P)
S.OEO(C.P)
—
—
—
—
—
S.OEO(C.P)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Maximum
Production
Factor &
Source
ug/g coal
5.057
3.853
7.552
8.65-7
3.552
2.657
5.552
7.457
s. 75-;
7.952
7.654
7.7 50
2.057
6.457
2.05-4
7.052
8.75-7
8.65-4
2.05;
6.957
7.457
9.357
7.25-2
1.3E-3
2.05-3
3.95-3
2.05-3
9.357
2.95-2
2.557
7.457
7.757
6.85-2
7.95-2
7.95-7
2.057
7.457
4.054
5S
fS
fS
FS
FS
FS
C
GG
FS
FS
FS
GG
FS
FS
GG
C
FS
GG
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
GG
FS
FS
FS
GG
GG
GG
FS
FS
K
•^•Priority pollutant
oDischarge severity exceeds 1
**Probable artifact
***1nferred concentration
- no DMEG value available
Source gasifier
G- Wellman-Galusha (Glen-Gery)
F = Wellman-Galusha (Ft. Snelling)
C = Chapman
R=RTIRun
K - Kosovo Lurgi
Source stream classification
D - Discharge
P = Product or by-product
S - Process stream
qualitatively identified (in approximately
70 experimental gasification tests at
RTI's fossil energy laboratories) but not
quantitated. MEG numbers refer to the
ordering system of chemical categories
found in the MEG reports.
Results and Conclusions
In addition to Table 1, Figures 1
through 9 summarize results from data
analysis. Of the 276 compounds and
elements quantitated in Table 1, 128
have discharge severities greater than 1
(potential hazard) in one stream or
another. Of the species quantitated in
Table 1, 39 are priority pollutants;17 of
these, 30 were detected at potentially
hazardous levels, DS < 1.
8
-------
Table 2. Additional Substances Identified in RTI Coal Gasification Effluent Streams
MEG No.
Compound
MEG No.
Compound
MEG No.
Compound
01A n-pentane 08D
01A isopentane 08D
01A cyclopentane 08D
01A n-hexane 08D
01A isohexane 08D
01A cyclohexane
01A n-heptane 08D
01A n-octane 08D
01A n-nonane 08D
01A n-decane 08D
Of A n-undecane 08D
01A n-dodecane 09A
01A dimethylcyclohexane 09 B
01A trimethylcyclohexane 09B
01A dimethyldecahydronaphtha- 09B
lene 10C
01A 3-methylpentane IOC
01A methylcyclobutane 10C
01A n-hexadecane 10C
01B 1-butene IOC
01B 3-methyl-1-butane 13A
01B pentadiene 13A
01B methylisopropanone 13B
01C acetylene 13B
01C propyne 13B
02A methylene chloride 13B
02A chloroform • 15A
03A diethylether 15A
03A phenyl-2-propynylether 15A
03A 3,6-dimethoxphenanthrene 15A
05A 3.5,5-trimethyl-1-hexanol ISA
07A acetaldehyde 15A
07A butyraldehyde 15A
07A benzaldehyde 15B
07A dimethylbemaldehyde 15B
07A n-nonanal 15B
07A phenanal 15B
07A n-octanal 15B
07A undecanal 15B
07A dodecanal 15B
07B acetone 15B
07B butanone 15B
O7B acetophenone 15B
07B dihydroxyanthraquinone 15B
07B benzophenone 15B
07B 1-phenyl-1-propanonephtha- 15B
late
07B 2-pentanone 15B
07B o-hydroxyacetophenone
07B m-hydroxyacetophenone 15B
07B tetrahydroanthraquinone
07B dihydroxyanthraquinone 15B
07B methylisopropyl ketone
08A acetic acid 15B
08A benzole acid 15B
08A 1,4-benzenedicarboxaldehyde 15B
08C benzamine 15B
08C diethyl phthalate 15B
08D ethyl acetate 15B
08D methyl benzoate 15B
08D ethylbenzyl acetate 15B
isobutylcinnamate 15B
dibutyl phthalate 1 SB
diisobutyl phthalate 15B
dicyclohexyl phthalate 17B
p-tert-butylphenoxymethyl-
acetate 17B
butylphthayl glycolate 18A
di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate 18A
butylphthalylbutylphthalate 18A
di-n-octylphthalate 18A
di-2 -ethylhexyl phthalate 18A
acetonitrile 18A
benzonitrile 18A
2,2-dicyanobiphenyl 18A
cyanobutadiene ISA
aniline 18A
aminotoluenes 18A
benzidine 18A
2-aminonapthalene 18A
n-methyl-o-toluidine 18A
benzenethiol 18C
toluenethiol 18C
2,3.4-trithiapentane 18C
dimethyl disulfide 18C
trithiahexane 18C
diphenyl disulfide 21A
diphenylethyne 21A
isopropylbenzene 21A
1,2-diphenylpropane 21A
methylphenylethyne 21A
dixylylethane 21A
phenylbenzaldehyde 21A
propylbenzene 21A
o-diethylbenzene 21A
m-diethylbenzene 21A
p-diethylbenzene 21A
o-terphenyl 21A
m-terphenyl 21A
p-terphenyl 21A
1,2.3-trimethylbenzene 21A
1,2.4-trimethylbenzene 21A
1,3.5-trimethylbenzene 21A
methylindene
methylbiphenyl 21A
dimethylindan 21A
methyltetrahydronaphtha- 21A
lene
3,5-dimethyl-1-isopropyl- 21A
benzene
5,8-dimethyl-1 -n-octyl-1,2,3,4- 21A
'tetrahydronaphthalene 21A
1 -methyl-4-n-hepthyl-1,2,3,4- 21A
tetrahydronaphthalene 21A
dimethyltetrahydronaphthalene 21B
dimethylindene 21B
trimethylindene 21B
pentamethylindan 21B
3-methylbiphenyl
ethylstyrene 21B
methylstyrene 21B
1,2-dimethylethylbenzene 21B
methyl-2,3-dihydroindene
n-pentylbenzene
trimethyltetrahydrophthalene
2-nitrodimethyl- 1,4-benzene-
dicarboxylate
1 -nitroso-2-hydroxynaphthalene
m-cresol
p-cresol
2,3-xylenol
2,4-xylenol
2,5-xylenol
2,6-xylenol
3,5-xylenon
3.4-xylenol
alkyl cresols
6-ethyl-m-tiresol
hydroxyisopropylbenzene
4-tert-butyl-o-cresol
1 -allyphenol
di-t-butyl-4-ethylphenol
2-naphthol
2-hydroxyfluorene
2-methoxyfluorene
phenanthridone
methylhydroxynaphthalene
1 -ethylnaphthalene
dimethylnaphthalenes
1,4 -diemt hylnaphthalene
2,3-dimethylnaphthalene
2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
methyldihydronaphthalene
cyclobutadibenzene
propenylphenanthrene
9 -methylanthracene
isopropylnaphthalene
4,5-methylenephenanthrene
2.7-dimethylphenanthrene
1 -methylphenanthrene
2-methylphenanthrene
2-benzylnaphthalene
trimethylnaphthalene
trans-9-propenylphenan-
threne
2 -methoxynaphthalene
1 -methoxynaphthalene
1,2-dihydro-3.5,8-trimethyl
naphthalene
1 -methy 1-7-isopropylnaph-
thalene
8-n-butylphenanthrene
ethylanthracene
3-methylacenaphthalene
methylacenaphthalene
naphthacene
benzofajanthracene
benzofcfphenanthrene
1 -methylbenzo(c)phenan-
threne
methyl chrysenoid
1-methylpyrene
methylbenz(a)anthracene
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
MEG No.
Compound
MEG No.
Compound
MEG No.
Compound
21B
21B
21B
21B
21B
21C
21C
22A
22A
22A
22A
22B
22B
22B
23A
23A
23A
23A
23A
23A
23A
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
1 ,2.3,4-tetrohydro-9, 10-
benzophenanthrene
hexhydrobenz(a)anthracene
2-methyl-9, 10-benzophenan-
threne
methylbenzofajanthracene
5, 8-dimethylbenz(c)phenan-
threne
perylene
2-n-hexylperylene
1 -methylfluorene
9-fluorenone
methylfluorene
dimethylfluorene
1 ,2-benzofluorene
1 , 2, 3. 4 -t et rahydrofluoran -
threne
benzofluorenone
coil/dines
2.4-dimethyl-6-ethylpyri-
dene
4-acetylpyridine
2-hydroxy-4-phenylpyridine
2-hydroxy-6-phenylpyridine
2. 2 -dimethyl-4, 4 -dipyridyl
3,4-diphenylpyridine
isoquinoline
phenylpyridine
azobenzene
7, 8-benzoquinoline
5. 6-benzoquinoline
2,6-dimethylquinoline
benzofh)quionline
ethylquinoline
3-methylbenzoquinoline
dimethylacridine
azafluoranthene
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23B
23C
23C
23C
23C
23C
23C
23C
23C
23C
23C
23C
23C
230
23D
23D
23D
23D
23D
23D
230
azapyrene
benzacridines
, 6-methylquinoline
3-methylquinoline
8-n-propylquinoline
ethylquinolines
3-n-propylquinoline
4-n-propylquinoline
3-methylbenzoquinoline
4 -styryloquinoline
methylphenylquinoxaline
pyrrole
phenylindole
benzothiazole
vin ylphen ylcarbazole
1, 2, 3, 4-t etrahydrocarba-
zone
methyl-3-allylhydroindole
3-methyl-3-allyldihydr-
indole
3-amino-9-ethylcarbazole
3-methyl-2-phenylindole
3-benzylindene phthalimide
1 ,4-dihydro-2,3-benzo(b)
carbazole
3,3-bliniolyl
2-ethylbenzimidazole
diphenyldiazole
methylbenzimidazol
2-methyl-5-phenyltetrazole
2-amino-5-chloro-4, 6-
dimethylpyrimidine
2-amino-4-pheny/-6 -methyl
pyrimioine
4-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-2-
naphthylf-moropholine
2-benzimilizole
24A
24A
24A
24A
24A
24B
25A
25A
25A
25A
25A
25A
25A
25A
25A
25A
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
25B
26A
53A
7-meth ylbenzofuran
dimethylbenzofuran
dihydromethylphenylbenzofuran
3.3-dihydro-2-methylbenzofuran
3, 6 -dimethylbenzofuran
xanthene
2-meth ylthiophene
3-meth ylthiophene
2, 3-dimethylthiophene
2,4-dimethylthiophene
2,5-dimethylthiophene
3.4-dimethylthiophene
trimethyl and tetramethyl thiophene
isopropylthiophene
ethylthiophene
2-n-propyl-5-isobutylthiophene
benzo(b)thiophene
dibenzothiophenes
dihydrobenzothiophene
methylbenzothiophenes
phenanthro(4, 5-bcd)thiophene
naphthothiophenes
dianphthothiophenes
methyldibenzothiophenes
trimethylbenzothiophene
methylbenzothiophene
benzodithiophene
1 ,3-dihydro-4. 6-dimethyl
thieno(3,4-C}thiophene
1 -methylbenzol 1,2-81 4.3)
dithiophene
3-methyldibenzothiophene
5-methyl-2,3-benzothiophene
methylbenzothiophene
2, 6-dimethylbenzo(b)thiophene
tributyl phosphate
ethyl isothiocyanate
The following emphasizes only those
substances possessing singularly high
levels of Discharge Severity (DS),
Control Priority (CP), and/or Production
Factor (PF). Pollutants were selected
first on the basis of health, rather than
ecological DMEG. Two other criteria
were applied to selecting compounds
for representation in the figures: 1)
where a class of compounds (e.g., two-
and three-ring fused polycyclic hydro-
carbons - MEG category 21 A) is well
represented by the analytical data and
CP or DS do not vary greatly within the
class, preference is given to those
compounds for which chemical analyti-
cal identification confidence is highest
and/or which represent high produc-
tion levels (PF); and 2) within classes of
compounds, preference is given to
those compounds for which a specific
DMEG has been derived (i.e., those not
assigned a DMEG by class association
only). These criteria compensate for the
inherent inaccuracies in DMEG estima-
tions, and also demonstrate some
important potential candidates for
elimination from consideration as
environmental hazards.
In Figure 1, 28 pollutants (from all
streams and sources investigated) are
estimated to be of first priority concern.
These are ranked in descending order of
CP. Fused polycyclic hydrocarbons and
phenols lead the list. The PF and DS
values listed show that many of the
most potentiafly hazardous substances
receive a high rank because of a low
DMEG, rather than high production.
Where PF values approach or lie to the
right of CP values, higher level of
production is an important consideration
in hazard potential; e.g., for Fe, NH3, and
H2S. Where DSh values approach or lie
to the right of CP values, maximum
stream concentration is high (e.g., for
cresols, perylene, benzene, and ammo-
nia), and it is likely that the stream
represented by the maximum concen-
tration is responsible for a high percent-
age of the total production of that
pollutant. Obviously where PF, CP, and
DS are all high, the pollutant and stream
must be given first consideration for
environmental control. Such substances
as iron and chromium may be produced
from reactor or other materials corro-
sion, rather than from the coal gasifica-
tion.
Figure 2 lists the same compounds as
in Figure 1, but evaluation is based on
ecological DMEGs, rather than health
hazard. When ecological effects are
considered, potential hazard is increased
for chromium, benzo(a)pyrene, benzene,
mercury, cadmium, and selenium (in
10
-------
benzo(a)pyrene
cresols
perylene
xylenols
triphenylene
hydroxybenzofluorene
dibenzo(a,h (anthracene
methylphenanthracene
iron
naphthol
trimethylphenol
methyltriphenylene
hydroxyanthracene
benzene
arsenic
mercury
indanol
ammonia
chromium
hydrogen sulfide
carbon monoxide
cadmium
thiocyanate
barium
selenium
hydrogen cyanide
carbonyl sulfide
benzo(a)anthracene
/o3 10*
CP x i (O );
cm
coa/
coal
Figure 1. Health hazard indices and production levels for potentially hazardous coal gasification pollutants.
terms of increased DS value). Ecological
CP values are higher for mercury,
hydrogen sulfide, cadmium, and sele-
nium. Ecological DMEGs are often
reduced for metals below the DMEGs
for health, primarily because cytotoxicity
studies are available which recommend
stringent controls.
Noted in Table 1 that, while a
preponderence of quantitations are
associated with commercial gasifiers,
many of the concentrations are at
nonhazardous levels, and indeed lie
within the realm of extremely difficult
analytical identification. Figure 3 illus-
trates the most potentially hazardous
compounds (on the basis of CP) which
were sampled andquantitatedforallthe
processes considered. These substances
are quite important because of their
consistent presence under a wide range
of gasification system conditions. RTI's
experimental program has involved
selection and emphasis of the worst and
most prevalent pollutants from coal
gasification, and observation of produc-
tion under a broad range of operating
conditions and coal types. This accounts
for most of the bias in data toward the
RTI system. Of the substances found in
Figures 1 and 2, 13 are missing in
Figure 3 because they were not always
analyzed: benzo(a) pyrene, perylene,
triphenylene, hydroxybenzofluorene,
dibenzo(h)anthracene, methylanthra-
cene, iron, trimethylphenol, methy-
ltriphenylene, hydroxyanthracene, ar-
senic, indenol, and benzo(a)anthracene.
All the maximum concentrations for the
two Wellman-Galusha gasifiers are for
inorganics.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of
significant pollutants by stream char-
acterization. As stated earlier, streams
are best characterized by discharge
severity, DS, and CP comparison is
preferred for processes. The most
important result demonstrated is that
most of the potentially hazardous pollu-
tants are found in product/byproduct
and discharge streams with a high
potential for leaving the plant boundaries
and possibly of contaminating the
environment. Ranking on the basis of
discharge severity also makes some
changes in the pollutants selected,
since some pollutants with low produc-
tion levels may have high stream
concentrations. Hazardous substances
shown in Figures 1 and 2 (but not in
Figure 4) include iron, arsenic, indanol,
cadmium, thiocyanate, beryllium, sele-
nium, hydrogen cyanide, carbqnyl
sulfide, and benzo(a)anthracene (the
last seven are at the bottom of the CP
ranking list). Compounds added on the
basis of the DS value include 7,12-
dimenthylbenzo(a)anthracene, cyanide,
uranium, isopropylphenol, C2-alkylphe-
nol, C2-alkylhydroxypyrene, C5-alkylhy-
droxyanthracene, C2-alkylacenapthol,
ethanethiol, and methanethiol. The
-------
benzo(a)pyrene
cresols
perylene
xylenols
triphenylene
hydroxybenzofluorene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
methylphenanthracene
iron
naphthol
trimethylphenol
methyltriphenylene
h ydroxyanthracene
benzene
arsenic
mercury
indanol
ammonia
chromium
hydrogen sulfide
carbon monoxide
cadmium
thiocyanate
barium
selenium
hydrogen cyanide
carbonyl sulfide
benzo(a)anthracene
A-<
-«a
•AcO
-OD
•D-
•DO
-O*
-A-O-
-A-<
D—<
-D-
— D
-D-A-
O-A-D
<0—n
10°
/O2
;o3
CPxl (O ); PF ( A );
cm3/g coal iig/g
coal
ws
?e( D )
/O6
Figure 2. Ecological hazard indices and production levels for potentially hazardous coal gasification pollutants.
phenols added are questionable because
of an unjustifiably severe DMEG asso-
ciated with that class (see following
discussion of Figure 5c).
Category discharge severities for
MEG categories are shown in Figures
5a-5e, for all streams in all processes.
The DSh values result from summation
of discharge severities for maximum
concentrations in all streams from Table
1. Trace elements are lumped into a
single category, TE. Of the 15 categories
listed, categories 18 and 21 have the
highest composite discharge severity. A
few compounds in a category can
account almost entirely for the category's
discharge severity. On the other hand,
while substances in categories such as
22 do not manifest themselves as
, individual high priority hazards, the
summation of severities of substances
in the class gives it a significant total
discharge severity.
In Figure 5b, benzene is almost
entirely responsible for the DS value of
category 15. All but one of the categories
in Figure 5a are represented in this
figure, primarily because gas streams
were emphasized in the sampling and
analysis approach for most processes
(see Table 1). Also, aerosols and particu-
lates were sampled in gas streams,
causing, for example, the high discharge
severity of category 21. Gas streams
account for all of the apparent hazard in
categories 1, 13, 17, and 25 (DS> 1).
Figure 5c shows that phenols in
aqueous streams overshadow other
hazards. However, new water quality
criteria18 have increased recommended
control levels for phenol, changing the
DMEGh-w fr-om 5 jug/I to 1.5 x 103 /ug/l.
This should also increase future DMEGs
for cresols, xylenols, and other phenolic
forms, effectively reducing discharge
severity in this category by more than
two orders of magnitude.
The same can be said for category
18's contribution to tar hazard in Figure
5d. This leaves polynuclear aromatics of
category 21 dominating the tar hazar
potential. However, limitations c
chemical analysis in determining th
data base represented by the sourc
report may cause underestimation of tz
hazard. For example, biological assays1
and chemical analyses of Coal gasifies
tion tars,20 published subsequent t
formulation of the source report dat
base, show that amines of category 1C
nitrogen heterocyclics of category 2;
and sulfur heterocyclics of category 2
have been neglected in terms of the
potential hazard. RTI bioassays shoi
that the organic base fraction (includin
categories 10 and 23) is the most highl
mutagenic fraction in some coal tan
even when compared to the polynucles
aromatic fraction.
Potential hazard for solids is entire
contributed by trace elements, as see
in Figure 5e. Trace element hazat
potential is almost evenly distribute
among stream types, due to the volatili
of many trace elements under the nig
12
-------
cresols, xylenols
benzene
ammonia
hydrogen sulfide
carbon monoxide
chromium
thiocyanate
phenol
thiophene
phenanthrene
naphthalene
anthracene
fluoranthene
mercury
cadmium
barium
strontium
sulfur
hydrogen cyanide
methanethiol
naphthol
indanol
quinoline
\ o
o
o
o
o
£>
DTI V
• ""• o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
o
Wellman Galusha *.
O
O
o
Kosovo Q
0
Chapman Wilputte Q
O
II 1 t I 1 I
10'
10'
10'
10° 701
H? 103
Figure 3.
CP (g/g coal]
Categorization of pollutant hazards by process type.
temperature conditions of coal gasifica-
tion.
Figures 6-9 show the main contribu-
tors to hazard potential by stream type.
Based on discharge severity, more kinds
of chemical species are represented in
gas streams than for any other streams.
The data confirm the widely recognized
control problems associated with mer-
captans, benzene, polynuclear aromatics
(aerosols, particulars), ammonia, hy-
drogen sulfide, and trace elements. It
can be argued that for fuel gas product
streams, removal of pollutants to obtain
discharge severities below that of
carbon monoxide is not justified, since
this primary fuel product is not a candi-
date for removal. However, for noncom-
bustion application, and indeed from a
process technology standpoint, a clean
product is desirable.
For gases and other streams whose
end use is combustion, it may also be
argued that the end use provides a satis-
factory control technology. In the case of
product gas, only sulfur species and
trace elements would be excluded by
this argument. Some particularly viru-
lent stream concentrations are asso-
ciated with Figure 6, especially ammonia.
benzene, mercaptans, hydrogen sulfide,
and Ce + hydrocarbons. Maximum
concentrations for these species were
all obtained from samples taken at the
Kosovo Lurgi plant.
For liquid stream discharge severities
(Figure 7), incorporating anticipated
increased DMEGs for phenols would
reduce maximum hazard potentials to
DS = 1035. Such substances as polycy-
clic hydrocarbons in liquid streams
obviously indicate inadequate liquid
separation of aqueous effluents from
tars, oils, and particulates. However,
low concentrations of these species
significantly reduce their contribution to
DS. The data again confirm the impor-
tance of such widely recognized con-
taminants as phenols, ammonia, cya-
nide/cyanates, and trace elements. It is
interesting that chlorine's contribution
is not significant for all the data
analyzed, and that no legitimate evidence
of polychlorinated compounds has been
demonstrated. For the worst case of all
streams sampled, ammonia hazard was
highest in a gas stream, rather than in a
liquid stream.
Constituents found in highest con-
centrations in tar (Figure 8), such as
phenanthrene, anthracene, naphthalene,
chrysene, and pyrene, contribute mini-
mally to tar hazard potential. Tar hazard
is owed to the incredible number of
organic constituents represented in
trace quantities, only a few of which are
shown in the figure. Further definition
of compounds outside the classically
researched area of fused polycyclic
hydrocarbons is needed. The lowest
relative concentration of trace elements
is found in tar, supporting its candidacy
for combustion.
Solids streams are almost entirely
represented by coal ash (Figure 9). For
this stream, as for gases, some of the
commercial gasifiers' maximum concen-
trations are at levels which strain
credulity. For example, levels of anti-
mony, selenium, and mercury greatly
exceed maxima reported in any U.S.
coal. It is not likely that these highly
volatile elements would be concentrated
in coal ash. On the other hand, potential
hazard from such elements as arsenic is
well documented and confirmed by the
data. Overall ash hazard appears to be
the lowest of any coal gasification
stream, although evaluations must ulti-
mately be reviewed in the context of
potential control technologies and
disposal options.
In conclusion, coal gasification pre-
sents potential hazards in all streams of
all processes reviewed. The compounds
indicated are certainly candidates for
first priority control consideration in
coal gasification environmental assess-
ment. Single substance, and total,
discharge severities approach seven
orders of magnitude in a few cases. For
a number of substances (where DS >
103), reduction of concentration by more
than 99.9 percent is implied—effectively
requiring, in many cases, pollutant
reduction to nondetectable limits. Such
apparent conclusions emphasize the
necessity for restating that DMEGs
must be applied in a flexible manner,
stressing qualitative appraisal. The
source report, with its extensive data
base, provides a more comprehensive
concept of gasification pollutant prob-
lems.
References
1. Cleland, J.G. Environmental Hazard
Rankings of Pollutants Generated
in Coal Gasification Processes.
EPA-600/7-81-101, Research Tri-
angle Institute, Research Triangle
Park, NC, June 1981.
13
-------
carbon monoxide
hydrogen sulfide
7,72-
-------
w7
WB
10s
704
70°
10
1 8 10 13 15 17 18 21 22 23 25 42 47 53 TE
MEG Category
MEG
Category Chemical Substance
1 aliphatic hydrocarbons
8 carboxylic acids and
derivatives
10 amines
13 thiols. sulfides, and
disulfides
15 benzene, substituted
benzene hydrocarbons
17 aromatic nitro compounds
MEG
Category Chemical Substance
18 phenols
' 21 fused poly cyclic hydrocarbons
22 fused non-alternate polycyclic
hydrocarbons
23 heterocyclic nitrogen compounds
25 heterocyclic S compounds
42 carbon-free & combined
47 nitrogen-free & combined
53 sulfur-free & combined
TE trace elements
Figure 5a. Discharge severity of all streams by MEG category.
70"
to5
104
£ 103
Q
102
10
*>
•
7 8 10 13 15 17 18 21 22 25 42 47 53 TE
MEG Category
"gure 5b. Gas streams discharge severity by MEG category.
EPA-600/7-79-217 (NTIS PB 80-
134729), September 1979.
12. Bombaugh, K. H., W. E. Corbett, and
M. D. Matson. Environmental
Assessment: Source Test and
Evaluation Report - Lurgi (Kosovo)
Medium-Btu Gasification, Phase 1.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-600/7-79-190 (NTIS
PB 80-183098), August 1979.
13. Cleland, J. G., F. 0. Mixon, D. G.
Nichols, C. M. Sparacino, and D. E.
Wagoner. Pollutants from Synthetic
Fuels Production: Facility Construc-
tion and Preliminary Tests. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/7-78-171 (NTIS PB
287916), August 1978.
14. Cleland, J. G., S. K. Gangwal, C. M.
Sparacino, R. M. Zweidinger, D. G.
Nichols, and F. 0. Mixon. Pollutants
from Synthetic Fuels Production:
Coal Gasification Screening Test
Results. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, EPA-600/7-79-
200 (NTIS PB 80-182769), August
1979.
15. Gangwal, S. K., P. M. Groshe, D. E.
Wagoner, D. J. Minick, C. M.
Sparacino, and R. A. Zweidinger.
Pollutants from Synthetic Fuels
Production: Sampling an Analysis
Methods for Coal Gasification. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/7-79-201 (NTIS PB 80-
104656), August 1979.
16. Rhodes, W. J., EPA Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
2:(4), December 1979.
17. Settlement Agreement in Natural
Resources Defense Council, et al.,
vs. Train. 8E.R.C. 2120 (1976)
Modified 12E.R.C. 1833 D.D.C.
(1979).
18. Clean Water Act, 33U.S.C. 1314[A]1.
CFR Section 307[A]1.
19. Nichols, D. G., J. G. Cleland, D. A.
Green, F. O. Mixon, T. J. Hughes,
and A. W. Kolber. Pollutants from
Synthetic Fuels Production: Envi-
ronmental Evaluation of Coal Gasi-
fication Screening Tests. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/7-79-202 (NTIS PB 81-
114308), August 1979.
20. Gangwal, S. K., and D. G. Nichols,
"Chemical Characterization of Tar
from Fixed-Bed Gasification of
Eastern and Western Coals," Pro-
ceedings of the 20th Hanford Life
Sciences Symposium, Richland,
WA, October 1980.
75
-------
10*
10s
704
10'
10
1
10
18 21
MEG Category
107r
Figure 5d. Tar stream discharge
severity by MEG
category.
10
* •
to
Q
10''
10*
10
10
1
Figure 5c.
Liquid streams dischar,
severity by MEG
category.
42 47 53 TE
8 10 15 18 21 22 23
MEG Category
47
TE
c
to
Q
70*
103
10*
10
1
•
•
•
.....•....•<
MEG Category
16
Figure 50.
Solid streams discharg
severity by MEG
category.
TE
-------
w2 to3 w* to5 w6
dibenzo(a.h)
anthracene
toluene
naphthalene
phenanthrene
biphenyl
0123456789
Log™ [Stream Maximum Concentration (ug/m3)]
Figure 6. Potentially hazardous gas stream pollutants.
'0 /O2 /O3 104 10s 10* 107
Stream Concentration (fig/l\
Figure 7. Potentially hazardous liquid stream pollutants.
17
-------
benzo(a)pyrene
cresol
dibenzo(a, h)anthracene
triphenylene
hydroxyanthracene
benz(a)anthracene
acenaphthylene
arsenic
phenanthrene
quinolines
copper
chrysene
biphenyl
lead
anthracene
pyrene
Figure 8.
1 10 10Z 103 10* 105
Stream Maximum Concentration ifjg/g)
Potentially hazardous tar stream pollutants.
18
-------
> mercury
iron
arsenic
chromium
nickel
selenium
barium
silcon
lead
antimony
phosphorus
beryllium
lithium
:alcium
Concentration (fjg/g)
Figure 9. Potentially hazardous solid stream pollutants.
\
0 W2
103
1 1
10* 10s
J. G. Cleland is with Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park. NC.
N. Dean Smith is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Environmental Hazard Rankings of Pollutants
Generated in Coal Gasification Processes," (Order No. PB 81-231 698; Cost:
$27.50, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:.
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental1'Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
it U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1981 - 757-012/7337
19
-------
n
5'
a
a
is:
a
00
-ft
&
tn
rf
•y,
n
m > T) r
------- |