United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-82-035 August 1982
Project Summary
A Compendium of Synfuel
End-Use Testing Programs
M. Ghassemi, S. Quinlivan, and M. Haro
This document summarizes "A Com-
pendium of Synfuel End-Use Testing
Programs," which provides information
on major recently completed, current,
and planned synf uel end-use testing pro-
jects. The compendium is intended to
promote flow of information among
various synfuel testing programs, there-
by reducing the chances for duplication
of effort and enabling design and imple-
mentation of cost-effective and system-
atic approaches to the collection of ap-
propriate environmental data in conjunc-
tion with on-going and planned perfor-
mance testing projects. EPA intends to
update this compendium to include re-
sults from current and future testing
programs.
Projects described in the compendium
involve testing of shale-derived fuels,
SRC-II middle distillates, EDS fuel oils,
H-coal liquids, and methanol/indolene
mixtures in various equipment such as
utility boilers, steam generators, diesel
engines (laboratory- and full-scale), auto
engines, and various other combustors.
Published reports on various testing ef-
forts and discussions with test sponsors/
contractors are the sources of data for
the compendium.
Based on the data presented in this
compendium, the thrust of the synfuel
testing program which has been carried
out to date has been to assess equip-
ment performance and fuel handling
characteristics. Where some emissions
have been monitored, such efforts have
been limited in scope and have primarily
emphasized measurement of criteria pol-
lutants (NOX, SOX, particulates, etc.).
Essentially no data have been collected
on emissions of non-criteria/non-regu-
lated pollutants.
This Profect Summary was developed
by EPA's Industrial Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC, to announce key findings of
the research project that Is fully docu-
mented In a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering infor-
mation at back).
Introduction to and Objectives
of the Compendium
A recent synfuel utilization background
study * identified a great need for better
coordination among various agencies in-
volved in synfuel end-use testing so as
to promote more systematic approaches
to the collection of environmental data in
connection with such testing and to re-
duce the duplication of effort. As recom-
mended by the background study, a
compendium of synfuel end-use testing
programs has been developed as an in-
formation source on major recently com-
pleted, ongoing, and planned synfuel
end-use testing programs. Availability of
the document to agencies/organizations
engaged in various aspects of synfuel
production, testing, utilization, and reg-
ulation, coupled with regular symposia/
workshops on synfuel utilization and
end-use testing, should greatly enhance
coordination and flow of information
among various programs and, in the long
run, contribute to the goal of more rapid
establishment of an environmentally ac-
ceptable commercial synfuel industry in
the U.S.
*M. Ghassemi and R. Iyer, "Environmental Aspects
of Synf uel Utilization," Report No. EPA-600/7-81-
025 (NTISPB81-175937), March 1981.
-------
Data Base Used and Data
Presentation
Information on the synfuel testing pro-
grams has been obtained from published
documents and by telephone calls and/or
interviews with organizations involved
in the testing programs. The key individ:
uals/agencies providing most of the re-
ports and data used in the compendium
are listed in Table 1.
A separate data sheet is devoted to
each project covered in this compen-
dium to permit periodic updating of the
document to include additional projects
and incorporation of further results from
ongoing studies. The data sheets are
grouped into four categories, covering
projects for which the key sponsors/par-
ticipants are Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), Department of Defense
(DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), and
miscellaneous agencies (e.g., EPA). Data
sheets cover 45 projects: 7 are in the
EPRI-sponsored category, 16 in the DOD
category, 13 in the DOE category, and 9
in the miscellaneous category.
Where data are available, each data
sheet provides the following information
on a test project: type of fuel tested
(both synfuel and the reference petro-
fuel, where indicated), test equipment
used, test site, test objectives, sponsor-
ing agency, contractor, test conditions,
environmental monitoring, project status,
summary of results, and references
(where a report or reports have been
published on a project).
Table 2 summarizes the data contained
in the data sheets. Tables 3 and 4 briefly
describe some of the recently initiated
and tentatively planned synfuel testing
programs. Two sample data sheets are
shown.
Table 1. List of Organizations/Individuals Providing Information Used in the Development of the Compendium
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Al Do/bee
Air Force Wright Aeronautical
Laboratory, Aero Propulsion Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB/POSF
Dayton, OH 45433
Charles Delaney
Navy Air Propulsion Center
P.O.Box 7176
Trenton, NJ 08628
C.J. Nowack
David W. Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center
Code 2 7 05
Annapolis, MD 21402
Carl A. Hershner
Army Mobility Equipment Research and
Command CenterAttn: DRDME-GL
Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060
F. Schaekel
U. S. Air Force HO. AFESC/RDV
TyndallAFB
Tyndall, FL 324O3
J. Tom Slankas
DOE, Bartlesville Energy
Technology Center
P.O. Box 1398
Bartlesville, OK 74003
Dan Gurney
DOE, Conservation] and Solar Energy Div.
Washington, DC 2O585
Gene Ecklund
DOE, Office of Coal Utilization
Fossil Energy Research Center
Washington, DC 2O454
John Fairbanks
DOE, Laramie Energy Technology Center
P.O. Box 3395
Laramie, WY82071
R. Poulson
DOE, Pittsburgh Energy Technology
Center, Analytical Chemistry Division
Pittsburgh, PA 15236
Curt White
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Lewis Research Center
21000 Brook Park Drive
Cleveland, OH 44135
Rick Niedzwiecki
EPA, Special Studies Office
Industrial Environmental Research Lab.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
G. Blair Martin
EPA, Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
2625 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
Robert Garbe
EPA, Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology
Industrial Environmental Research Lab.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
W.S. Lanier
EPA, Mobile Sources Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Frank Black
Southwest Research Institute
Automotive Research Division
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, TX 78284
Charles T. Hare
Southwest Research Institute
Mobile Energy Division
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, TX 78284
John A. Russell
U.S. Department of Transportation
Systems Center
Kendall Square
Cambridge, MA 02142
Joe Sturm
U. S. Department of Energy and
Coordinating Research Council
Atlanta, GA 30309
Al Zingle
Carson Associates for
Bank of America
4117 Robertson Boulevard
Alexandria, VA 22309
Gavin McGurdy
Energy and Environmental Research
Corporation
80011rvine Boulevard
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Dave Pershing
Ford Motor Company
Scientific Research Laboratory
Dearborn, Ml 48121
W.D. Tallent
Vulcan Cincinnati, Inc.
2900 Vernon Place
Cincinnati, OH 45219
R. W. Duhl
-------
Table 2. Synfuels-Combustion System Combinations Tested and Emissions Monitored
Test No. Agency
Synfuel
Reference Fuel Combustion System Emissions Monitored
General Conclusions
1
EPRI
SRC-II fuel
oil
No. 6 fuel oil
Tangentially fired
utility boiler
NOX, CO, THC, S03,
POM, particulates,
particle size, panicu-
late composition
No adverse boiler performance
effects with SRC-II fuel.
NOX emissions nominally 70%
higher than No. 6 fuel.
EPRI
SRC-II fuel
oil
H-Coal
EDS oil
No. 6 and No. 2
fuel oils
Scaled-down utility
boiler
NO, CO2, CO, S02,
SO3, THC, smoke,
particulates, particle
size
Higher fuel nitrogen content of
SRC-II fuels produced higher NO
emissions than reference fuels.
NO emissions from H-Coal and
EDS liquids were lower than
SRC-II.
No unique differences in com-
bustion or emission characteris-
tics of SRC-II fuel blends.
EPRI
SRC-II fuel
oil
No. 2 and No. 5
fuel oils
Babcock & Wi/cox
package boiler
NOX, CO, CO2, SO2,
hydrocarbons, 02,
and dust
NOX emissions consistent with
fuel nitrogen content.
Combustion performance of
SRC-II fuel oil was similar to No.
2 and No. 5 fuel oils.
EPRI
SRC-II fuel
oil
H-Coal
No. 2 diesel fuel
Three catalytic
reactors
NO, and CO
Coal-derived liquids can be
burned catalytically but SRC-II,
and to a lesser degree H-Coal,
appeared to degrade reactor
performance significantly as
evidenced by higher CO
emission.
NOX emissions were consistent
with fuel nitrogen content.
EPRI
Hydrogenat-
ed shale oil
and various
liquid fuels
for SRC-I, H-
Coal, EDS,
and SRC-II
No. 2 distillate
fuel
Full-scale and sub-
scale turbine
combustors
NOX, CO, UHC, par-
ticulates, and smoke
A selected number of coal
liquids and shale oil fuels can be
used in current turbines.
Emission levels of CO, UHC, and
particulates for synfuels were
about the same as for No. 2
fuelnot significant.
Significant quantities of fuel-
bound nitrogen are converted to
NOX, causing emissions higher
than EPA limits.
EPRI
Solvent
refined coal
Bituminous coal Utility boiler
NOX, SO2, CO2, par-
ticulates, paniculate
composition
The boiler stayed much cleaner
with SRC than with coal, pro-
ducing an equivalent boiler effi-
ciency as coal at full load.
The quantity of SRC flyash was
10 to 15% of that of coal flyash
with no bottom ash accumula-
tion from SRC.
Particulates, SO2 and NOX emis-
sions from SRC were all under
EPA limits.
EPRI
Jet-A fuel,
natural gas,
methanol
Two utility gas
turbines
NOX, CO, SO2, THC,
POM, sulfates, par-
ticulates, aldehydes,
opacity
Methanol is a suitable fuel for
gas turbines; turbine perfor-
mance and NO x and paniculate
emissions are improved over the
other fuels.
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
Test No. Agency Synfuel Reference Fuel Combustion System
Emissions Monitored
General Conclusions
8
DOD
DOD
Shale-
derived JP-5
and blends
with
petroleum
JP-5
Shale-
derived
diesel fuel
marine
(DFM)
Petroleum JP-5
Petroleum diesel
fuel
(MIL-F-
16884GI
DOD helicopter
engine: Allison
T63-A-5A turbo-
shaft
NOX, CO, CO 2
THC
and
U.S. Navy LM2500
turbine engine
NOX, CO, THC, and
smoke
NOX emissions increased with
increasing fuel nitrogen content;
conversion efficiency was about
45%.
No significant effects were
noted on engine performance or
CO, CO2, and THC emissions
due to the presence of high
levels of fuel bound nitrogen.
Combustor and engine operating
characteristics were identical
when using marine diesel or
DFM shale oil; thus, DFM shale
oil would be suitable for use in
LM2500 engines.
NOX emissions followed fuel
nitrogen content; CO and THC
levels were essentially the same
for both fuels.
10
DOD
11
12
13-15
DOD
DOD
16
17
JP-5 from,oil
shale, coal,
and tar
sands
Jet-A, JP-5,
DFM, leaded
gasoline, and
blends of the
above
Two high tempera-
ture/pressure re-
search combustors
NOX, CO, UHC, and
smoke
DOD Shale fuel oil Petroleum DFM Steam generator
diesel engine
Shale- Petroleum
derived distillate
diesel fuel
Lab-scale diesel
engine
Shale- Petroleum DFM 3 different types of
derived DFM prototype steam
generators
Particulates and par-
ticulate composition
NOX, THC, and
smoke
NO,, SO2, CO, CO2,
THC, O2, and smoke
DOD Oil shale- Petroleum-
derived JP-5 derived JP-5
DOD Unifined Petroleum-
kerosene derived JP-5
derived from fuel
tar sands
DOD helicopter
engine: Allison
T62-A-5A turbo-
shaft
DOD helicopter
engine: Allison
T63-A-5A turbo-
shaft
NOX, CO, and THC
NOX, CO, and UHC
In all performance areas, the
synfuels correlated in the same
manner as petroleum-derived
fuels except for NOX emissions
from the shale oil fuel.
Smoke formation was depen-
dent on hydrogen content; com-
bustion efficiency, CO, and UHC
depend more on higher boiling
point components than fuel
viscosity.
No significant differences
between paniculate emission
products measured in the study
from the combustion of DFM or
shale fuel oil.
There was no significant differ-
ence in performance or emis-
sions with the shale-derived
fuel.
There were no significant differ-
ences in measured pollutant
emissions resulting from the
combustion of petroleum DFM
or shale-derived DFM on the
CVA-60, DDG-15, and the
FF-1040 boilers. In each case,
SO2, NOX, and smoke were
below levels set by EPA.
Performance, CO, and THC
emissions were equivalent for
both fuels.
NOX emissions followed fuel
nitrogen content.
Unifined kerosene was a satis-
factory substitute for petroleum
JP-5 fuel.
NOX emissions were slightly
higher when using unifined kero-
sene than with JP-5.
-------
Table 2.
(Continued)
Test No. Agency
Synfuel
Reference Fuel Combustion System Emissions Monitored
General Conclusions
18
DOD Distillate,
aviation, tur-
bine, and
diesel fuels
derived from
coal, tar
sands, and
oil shale
Various petro-
leum-derived
fuels
Wide variety of Army Various pollutants
power-plant systems
Product quality of many syn-
fuels tested and other results
are described in individual
abstracts.
19
DOD
Shale-
derived
JP-5, JP-8,
andDFM
JP-S, diesel
fuel No. 2, and
Jet A
20-22
DOD
13 petroleum
derived fuels:
JP-4, JP-8 die-
sel No. 2, &
various blends
DOD helicopter
engines: Allison T-63
gas turbine, Detroit
Diesel 6V-53T, LDT-
465-1C diesel
engine, Teledyne-
Continental A VDS-
1790 diesel engine,
and Detroit Diesel
3-53
CO, NOX, UHC, and
smoke
General Electric
Ft 01 turbo fan, J 7 9-
17C turbojet, and
J79 turbojet engines
23
DOE
12 petroleum- TF41 turbofan
derived fuels: combustor
JP-4, JP-8, and
various blends
NOX, CO, UHC, and
smoke
NOX, CO, UHC, and
smoke
The CO emissions followed the
same trend as combustion
efficiency. At the lower power
points, DFM showed slightly
higher CO than JP-5 and Jet A.
There were no fuel property
effects on the emissions of UHC
and NOX. The flame radiation
and exhaust smoke levels for
the synfuels were higher than
those of Jet A and are attributed
to differences in hydrogen
content.
The shale JP-5 in the DD6V-53T
engine showed a 6% average
loss in maximum power output
when compared to the reference
diesel fuel which approximates
the 6.5% power loss observed
in the same engine with petro-
leum-derived JP-5. The shale-
derived JP-5 and DFM per-
formed in the CUE-1790 engine
like similar petroleum-derived
fuels. Evaluation of DFM from
shale in the LDT-465- 1C engine
resulted in no difference be-
tween the maximum power pro-
duced by this fuel and that of a
petroleum No. 2 diesel fuel.
The results from the 210-hour
test in the DO 3-53 engine are
indistinguishable from those
that may result from tests with
conventional petroleum-derived
diesel fuel with similar
properties.
Shale-derived fuels met virtually
every military specification with
the exception of the failure of
JP-5 to meet copper corrosion
requirement and DFM to meet
maximum pour point limit.
In all three engines, fuel hydro-
gen content strongly affected
smoke and NOX emissions. NOX
emissions were also highly de-
pendent upon combustor operat-
ing conditions.
All pollutant emissions measured
were highly dependent upon
operating conditions. CO and
smoke levels were also strongly
affected by hydrogen and
aromatic content of fuels.
-------
Table 2.
Test No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
(Continued)
Agency Synfuel
DOE SRC-//
middle
distil/ate
DOE SftC-ll
middle
distillate
DOE SRC-II
middle
distillate
DOE SRC-II
middle
distillate
DOE SRC-II
middle
distillate
DOE SRC-II
middle and
heavy
distillate.
fuel oils &
three blends
of the above
Reference Fuel
Low quality
residual oil, and
petroleum refer-
ence distillate
fuel
Petroleum
distillate
Low quality
residual oil and
distillate fuel
Low quality
residual oil.
petroleum oil.
petroleum refer-
ence distillate
oil, and natural
gas
Low quality
residual oil.
petroleum refer-
ence distillate
oil
No. 2 and No. 6
petroleum
based fuel oils
Combustion System
Combustor sized for
use with industrial
gas turbine
Various combustor
concepts
Seven combustors
of varying designs
for use in utility gas
turbine engines
Combustors for use
in utility gas turbine
engines
Experimental com-
bustor for use with
utility gas turbine
engines
A 20-hp Johnston,
fire-tube boiler
Emissions Monitored General Conclusions
NOX, CO, CO 2, THC, The combustor was able to
and smoke achieve low NOX with all fuels.
CO and smoke varied directly
with rich zone equivalence ratio
and inversely with lean zone
equivalence ratio.
NO x smoke Values of NO x were reduced for
the smaller diameter quench
zone and increased for larger
diameter quench zone.
Rich-lean burn stage combus-
tion system can meet EPA
emission standards.
NOX, smoke, CO, A lean-lean combustor has
UHC potential for achieving ultra-low
NOX emissions with distillate,
residual, or other fuels contain-
ing up to 0.25% (wtj fuel
nitrogen. CO and smoke met
program goals from this com-
bustor also.
NOX, CO, THC, Lean-lean combustor NOX emis-
smoke sion levels were higher than
emission goals using SRC-II fuel.
CO emissions remained low
using SRC-II fuel, while no
smoke was detectable and UHC
levels were negligible through-
out these tests.
Rich-lean combustor NOX emis-
sions appeared to reach a mini-
mum below the NOX emission
goal for rich primary zone
condition.
NOX, CO, UHC, Five combustors have been
smoke found adequate for further de-
velopment: rich-lean diffusion-
flame venturi quench burner,
ceramic-lined piped lean burner.
multiannular swirl burner, Rolls-
Royce combustor, and lean
catalytic combustor. These
meet NOX emission limits set by
EPA with petroleum distillate
and/or residual oils.
SRC-II fuel NOX emissions were
close to meeting EPA limits in
only two combustors: rich-lean
diffusion and ceramic-lined pipe
lean burners.
NOX, SO 2, CO, HC, The levels of NOX and SO2 pro-
and PAHs duced were proportional to the
amount of nitrogen and sulfur in
the fuel.
There appear to be two sources
of trace organics in the exhaust
gases: small amounts of the fuel
itself not burned during combus-
tion, and the products of com-
bustion. For the petroleum fuels.
n-alkanes and PAHs are seen in
the exhaust gas; for the SRC-II
fuels, the alkanes are absent or
present at very low levels, and
PAHs not seen in the petroleum
exhaust gases are present.
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
Test No. Agency Synfuel
Reference Fuel Combustion System Emissions Monitored
General Conclusions
30 DOE
31 DOE
32 DOE
33-35 DOE
36 DOE
37
Vulcan
Cincin-
nati
38
39
Ford
Motor
Co.
DOT
Shale-
derived DFM
Indolene and Two light duty
10% methanol/ vehicles
90% indolene
Unleaded gaso- Auto engines (10)
line and
methanol/indo-
lene mixtures
10% methanol/
90% gasoline
blends
Ethanol,
methanol, and
gasoline blends
Indolene, indo-
lene/methanol
blends, and
ethanol/indo-
lene blends
No. 6 residual
oil, natural gas,
and methanol
Methanol, indo-
lene, and blends
Auto engines 171
Fleet vehicles
Pontiac 4-cylinder
modified engine
Small scale boiler
test stand and a 49
MW utility boiler
Ford 400 CID engine
and 1975 Ford LTD
with 400 CID engine
No. 2 diesel fuel VW Rabbit engine
Evaporative emis-
sions (hydrocarbons
and methanol)
NOX, CO, THC, alde-
hydes, and methanol
NOX, CO, and evapo-
rative emissions (HC
and methanol)
Evaporative and tail-
pipe HC emissions
Total aldehydes and
specific organics
NOX, CO, and
aldehydes
THC and specific
organics
NOX, CO, THC, par-
ticulates, Ames test
on particulates
Using methanol 10% blend in-
creased evaporative emissions
by 130% for short term use and
220% for long term use.
Aldehyde, methanol, and HC
emissions increased with higher
concentration of methanol in the
fuel.
CO was reduced by the addition
of methanol to the base fuel
Data show consistent reduction
in CO emissions with use of
methanol blends.
Significant increases in evapora-
tive emissions with methanol
blends.
75% increase in evaporative
emissions with methanol blends
over a straight gasoline.
Emissions were lower for vehi-
cles fueled with gasohol but
data was inadequate to con-
clude a significant difference.
Total aldehydes increased 25%
in going from indolene to
ethanol/indolene and methanol/
indolene blends.
Formaldehyde is the largest
component of the total alde-
hydes (up to 90 mole % of the
total).
In the utility boiler, methanol
NOX levels were 7-14% of those
measured during residual oil
combustion.
CO emission levels of methanol
were less than 100 ppm and
generally less than those
observed for the residual oil.
Aldehyde emissions during
methanol combustion were
generally less than 1 ppm.
Methanol/indolene blends gave
significantly higher HC and aro-
matic emissions than indolene
without a catalyst, but only
slightly higher emissions with a
catalyst.
HC and CO emissions were
found to be lower and NOX
levels higher for the shale-
derived fuel as compared to the
petroleum-derived fuel. Particu-
late emissions were similar for
both fuels.
Mutagenic activity of the
organics from the paniculate
matter was similar for the two
fuels.
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
Test No. Agency Synfuel
Reference Fuel Combustion System Emissions Monitored
General Conclusions
40
Bank of
America
Methanol/gaso- Fleet vehicles
line blends
NO. CO, UHC
Blends of 2 to 18% methanol
decrease emissions of CO and
UHC and result in improved
mileage in new cars.
Certain blends result in operat-
ing cost decreases of
41
EPA
Shale-
derived DFM
No. 2 fuel, and
No. 2 fuel with
0.5% nitrogen
Two configurations
of a full-scale proto-
type (25-MW
engine-size) gas tur-
bine combustor util-
izing a rich-burn/
quick-quench com-
bustor
NO., CO, UHC
Both combustor configurations
met program emissions goals
using both reference fuels and
synfuel.
UHC emissions from one com-
bustor ranged from 0.9 to 7.3
ppmv for No. 2 fuel; 1.1 to
21.8 ppm for No. 2 fuel with
0.5% nitrogen; and 1.3 to 15.3
ppmv for shale-derived DFM at
15% O2.
42
EPA
SRC-II
middle
distillate fuel
oil and shale-
derived
residual oil
43
EPA
No. 2 fuel oil
and Indonesian/
Malaysian
residual oil
Residual and
distillate oils,
natural gas, pro-
pane, isopro-
panol, methanol
Prototype full-scale
(2 5-MW engine-size)
rich-burn/quick-
quench gas turbine
with two gas com-
bustor configurations
Experimental wall
furnace and proto-
type industrial boiler
NOX, CO, UHC, and
smoke
NO,, NO, CO, HC,
and aldehydes
All emissions exhaust goals
met.
Relationship demonstrated be-
tween primary zone residence
time and attainable NOX emis-
sion concentrations.
NO emission levels for the five
fuels were as follows: distillate
oil > propane > isopropanol >
alcohol mixture > methanol.
A/though there was consider-
able scatter in the data, alde-
hyde concentrations were
around 10 ppm for methanol.
NO emissions for all fuels
decreased with increasing frac-
tion of flue gas recirculation.
CO and HC emissions were
always below 50 ppm and
smoke was not observed for any
fuel.
44
EPA
No. 5 residual
oil, natural gas,
and methanol
Industrial water-tube
and fire-tube boilers
NOX
Flue gas recirculation was capa-
ble of reducing NOX emissions
during methanol combustion.
Methanol NOX emissions were
significantly lower than during
residual oil combustion and
were also less than during
natural gas combustion.
45
EPA
Indolene and
ethanol blends
Two light duty
vehicles
NOX, CO, THC,
ethanol, and evapo-
rative emissions
The addition of ethanol to in-
dolene reduced tailpipe emis-
sions of THC and CO, but in-
creased NOX.
Use of gasohol increased evapo-
rative emissions substantially.
"Because of the unavailability of synfuels, the fuels used in some of these programs were not "true " synfuels (e.g., methanol-derived from natural
gas was used instead of coal-derived methanol}. These studies, however, are included in this report because they were conducted to show what
might be expected from the combustion of actual synfuels in the indicated combustion systems.
8
-------
Table 3. On-Going Synfuel Testing Programs
Sponsoring Agency Test Fuels
Schedule*
Project Description'
EPA, Motor Vehicle
Emission Laboratory
Shale-derived diesel fuel
and SRC-II fuel versus
National Average Baseline
Diesel Fuel, and Mobil-M
gasoline
EDS and H-coal liquids
SRC-II fuel
1981-
late 1982
Late 1981-
September 1982
1982
Volkswagen Rabbit diesel engine testing. Emis-
sions monitored to include particulates, NOX,
CO/CO2, HC, and aldehydes.
Large standing diesel engines and a GE research
engine. Emissions monitoring includes collection
of particulates.
Electronically controlled internal combustion
engine at Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, TX.
EPA, Industrial Environ-
mental Research
Laboratory (RTF)
SRC-II middle and heavy
distillates, EDS middle
distillates, and shale-
derived No. 2 fuels
November 1981-
April 1982
North American package boiler and Caterpillar
Model D334 stationary diesel engine testing.
Package boiler represents small-to-medium
sized fire-tube boiler for industrial and commer-
cial applications; boiler can be equipped with
low NOX burner which may be tested with syn-
fuels. The stationary diesel represents medium-
sized industrial and commercial engine used for
backup power generation, pumping, and other
applications. Emissions monitored include par-
ticulates, NOX, CO/CO 2, SO 2, and HC.
DOE, Bartlesville
Energy Technology Center;
Contractor/test site:
A. General Electric,
Erie, PA
SRC-II middle distillate
and oil shale distillate
1981
early 1982
H-coal liquids
January
April 1982
Testing of GE EDI-8, 8-cylinder "V" configura-
tion, 5344 cu. in. standing diesel engine for
electric power, rail and marine applications.
Parameters evaluated include: starting ability,
injection timing, fuel rate variation effects, and
internal engine temperatures. Emissions moni-
tored include 02, CO/CO 2, NOX, SO 2, HC,
and particulates.
Limited testing with single cylinder diesel
engine. Emissions monitored include O2,
CO/CO 2, NOX, SO 2, andHC.
B. Transamerica
Defaval,
Oak/and, CA
SRC-II middle distillate
1981 Testing of Delaval DSR 46, 6-cylinder in-line
early 1982 configuration, 28,6OOcu. in. standing diesel
engine for electric power, compressor, and
marine applications. Performance parameters
being evaluated include starting ability, precom-
bustion chamber effects, and ignition delay. The
engine has been operated at full load using a
pre-mixed blend of 60% SRC-II liquid and 40%
diesel oil which had been injected into the com-
bustion chamber with no modification of the
engine, followed by increasing proportions of
SRC-II liquid up to 100%. Emissions monitored
include O2, CO/CO2, NOX, SO2, THC, and
smoke.
-------
(Continued)
Sponsoring Agency
Test Fuels
Schedule'
Project Description'
C. A.D. Little,
Beloit, Wl
SRC-II middle distillate
1981-1982
Various H-coal and EDS
liquids
March
November 1982
Fairbanks-Morse 38 to 8V», 6-cylinder opposed
piston design, 3-108 cu. in. standing diesel
engine for electric power and marine applica-
tions, compressors and pumps being tested.
Parameters evaluated include effects of load
variations, combustion pressure vs. time, and
engine delay. Emissions monitored include
CO/C02, NO, NO2, SO2, SO* HC, PAH, par-
ticulates, and oxidants.
Testing of Fairbanks piston engine at NAVSSES
test facility, Philadelphia, PA. Emissions moni-
toring to include gaseous pollutants and collec-
tion of sizable (i.e., 5 g) quantities of paniculate
matter.
D. Energy and Environ-
mental Research,
Springfield, OH
Shale-derived distillate oil
1981 Testing of Superior 6-cylinder in-line configura-
early 1982 tion turbo-charged 4120 cu. in. standing diesel
engine for use in compressors, pumping, and
electrical power generation. The purpose of the
tests is to compare engine performance param-
eters during synfuel and conventional fuel com-
bustion. Tests with shale-derived distillate oil
and a baseline No. 2 diesel fuel include SASS
train sampling for PAH and particulates. Other
emissions monitored include CO, HC, NOX, and
smoked.
E. Acurex,
Shoreham-by-the-Sea,
England
Shale oil residuals
1981 Testing ofA.P.E. Allen BSC 128 6-cylinder, in-
early 1982 line configuration, 5101 cu. in. standing diesel
engine for marine, pumping, compressor, and
electric power applications. Tests include injec-
tion, starting, combustion duration, and
steadiness. Emissions monitored include
CO/CO2, NOX, NO 2, THC, and smoke t.
DOE, Conservation and
Solar Energy Division
Various shale-and coal- 1978-1984
derived fuels
SRC-II distillates and 1981 to
shale-derived JP-5 and
DFM mixed with pow-
dered carbon, sawdust, or
other cellulosic material
Coal-derived methanol 1981 to
and gasohol
Auto engine dynamometer testing being con-
ducted at SWRI. Particulates, NOX, CO/CO2,
HC, and aldehydes being monitored.
Slurry/fuel project involving diesel engine
testing. Particulates, NOX, and other emissions
being monitored.
Testing in 1,000 fleet vehicles; program cur-
rently constrained for lack of fuel samples.
DOE, Office of Coal
Utilization
SRC-II and shale-derived
fuels
1980 to Medium speed diesel engine testing conducted
by SEMT-Pielstich, Paris; Baumester Wain,
Copenhagen; Grand! Motor! Trieste, Trieste; and
Selzer, Switzerland.
10
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
Sponsoring Agency
Test Fuels
Schedule'
Project Description '
DOE, Office of Coal
Utilization
(Continued)
DOE, Pittsburgh Energy
Technology Center
Air Force/Navy/FAA
(under the direction of
H. Cewell, USAF Civil
Engineering and Services
Center, TyndallAFB)
Department of
Transportation and
Rutgers University
Sandia Laboratories
Bank of America
SRC-II middle distillates,.
2.9 to 1 blend of SRC-II
middle and heavy
distillate, and shale-
derived fuels
SRC-II middle distillate
Biomass fuel, H-coal,
Exxon Donor Solvent, and
shale fuel oils
Shale-derived JP-4 and
JP-8
Coal- and shale-derived
diesel fuel
Petroleum-derived synfuel
simulation fuels, with
higher hydrocarbon/
aromatic content than
conventional fuels
Methanol/gasoline blends
1980 to Program conducted at Norwegian Technical
Institute in various ships.
1981 to Continuation of low NOX fuel combustor
concept program (see Tests 24-28). Several
combustors to be tested by Westinghouse;
staged combustor to be tested at several
operating loads at Detroit Diesel Allison; testing
of 5 combustors planned at GE.
1981 Continuation of small scale combustion of syn-
October 1982 thetic fuels program (see Test 29). A 20-hp
firetube boiler is to be tested with the above
synfuels using No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oils as a
baseline. The purpose of the program is to
assess the possible environmental impact of
substituting synfuels for petroleum in utility and
industrial boilers.
1982-1984 Testing of CF-6 and CFM-56 turbine engines.
Emissions monitoring to include NOX, SOX,
CO/CO2, HC, and particulates. Limited Ames
mutagenicity testing to be performed on panic-
ulate samples, as well as photochemical reac-
tivity testing on exhaust gases.
1981-1982 Testing of a recently designed and constructed
one cylinder diesel engine, including collection
of particulates and other combustion products.
1981 to Testing being conducted in single-cylinder diesel
systems and auto/truck engines from Cummins
Engine Co. Emphasis on measurement of flame
fronts and other engine/burn parameters.
Limited emissions monitoring performed.
1980 to Testing being conducted in blends ranging from
2 to 18% methanolin fleet vehicles, with em-
phasis on blends of 2 and 4%. CO, NO, and
UHC being monitored.
* The schedules and some of the activities listed under Project Description are tentative and subject to modification.
t Test results to date indicate that the performance of the shale-derived fuel was comparable to the No. 2 diesel fuel, although easier
atomization and lower fuel consumption were observed with the shale-derived fuel.
t The test engine satisfactorily burned residual shale oil when heated above the wax melting point and with agitation; emissions were
comparable to a No. 2 diesel fuel except for an increase of cylinder deposits of fine carbon.
Overview of Synfuel Testing
Programs
Based on the data in the test program
data sheets and summarized in Table 2,
and on the discussions with a number of
synfuel developers, trade associations,
and potential major users of synfuels,
general observations on the status, na-
ture, and thrust of the synfuel testing
programs include:
Since synfuel products are expected
to be used primarily as combustion
fuels, nearly all synfuel end-use test-
ing programs have involved evalua-
tion of fuel suitability for use in com-
bustion systems (auto engines, in-
dustrial/utility boilers, turbines,
etc.).
Reflecting the developmental status
of the synfuel technologies, the
thrust of the synfuel testing pro-
grams which have been carried out
to date has been to assess equip-
ment performance and fuel handling
characteristics. Where some emis-
sions have been monitored, such ef-
forts have been limited in scope and
have primarily emphasized measure-
ments of gross parameters such as
particulates, NOX, and SOX emis-
sions. The limited scope of the mon-
itoring programs has also been due
11
-------
Table 4. Tentative Synfuel Testing Programs
Sponsoring Agency
Fuels to be Tested
Time Period
Project Description *
Army, MERADCOM,
Ft. Belvoir, VA
Navy Air Propulsion
Test Center,
Trenton, NJ
AF Wright Aeronautical
Lab, Aero Propulsion
Laboratory, Wright-
Patterson AFB,
Cincinnati, OH
EPRI
Diesel fuels and other 1982 to
synfuels (high aromatic
content fuels, low lubricity
fuels/
Various shale-derived 1982 to
fuels
Various shale-derived 1982-1983
fuels
Various liquid and solid Fall 1982 -
synfuels, including shale- 1986
derived heavy and middle
residuals, and methanol
Development of accelerated fuel qualification
test procedures, including matrix of specific
Army equipment components and candidate
fuels; project is part of Army Alternative Fuels
Program.
Testing of synfuels in various test burners and
aviation equipment.
Engine augmenter tests and whole engine tests
on 3 engines; emissions monitoring for NOX,
CO/CO2, and hydrocarbons.
Testing of synfuels in various diesel engines,
turbines, and boilers; limited emissions monitor-
ing forSOx, NOX, CO/CO2, O2, and/or par-
ticulates.
* Tests pending receipt of synfuel samples.
in part to: (a) no clear definition of
the specific environmental data
which would be required on synfuel
products by regulatory agencies
(e.g., by EPA's Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances in connection
with the Premanufacturing Notifica-
tion Section of the Toxic Substances
Control Act); and (b) no standard
protocol for testing for environmen-
tal data acquisition.
Most synfuel end-use testing pro-
grams have been, or are being, con-
ducted/funded by DOD, EPRI, and
DOE. The programs of these agen-
cies have, respectively, emphasized
the use of shale oil products in mili-
tary aviation and ship equipment;
use of coal liquids in boilers; and
testing of methanol and methanol/
gasoline blends in auto engines and
use of coal and shale-derived fuels
in stationary diesel engines.
Many synfuel developers appear to
have in-house synfuel testing pro-
grams; the emphasis of these pro-
grams is primarily on synfuel char-
acterization and not on end-use
testing. The data generated in these
programs are generally considered
company proprietary and are not
published.
Nearly all the refined shale oil pro-
ducts which have been used in com-
bustion testing to date have been
from the refining of the 100,000
barrels of Paraho shale oil at Sohio's
Toledo (OH) refinery. Since this re-
fining operation apparently did not
involve the use of typical unit opera-
tions which would be employed in
commercial refining of shale oil, the
refined products from this operation
are not considered to be representa-
tive of products from any future
commercial refining of the shale oil.
To date the synfuel testing effort
has been severely curtailed by lack
of adequate quantities of fuel for
testing. Some of the planned testing
programs will utilize shale oil pro-
ducts from the forthcoming refining
of 50,000 barrels of shale oil by
Union Oil for the Defense Fuel Sup-
ply Center.
Synfuel products (especially the
shale-derived materials) which will
be marketed in the future will most
likely be blends and not 100% pure
products. The use of 100% pure
products in the initial synfuel testing
programs has been justified on
grounds that it would simulate a
possible extreme/worst case condi-
tion (at least from the standpoint of
emissions and their environmental
implications).
Although performance testing is
continuing, the limited data which
have been gathered to date indicate
that the tested synfuels are gener-
ally comparable to petrofuels and do
not present any unique problems
from the standpoint of fuel handling
and combustion characteristics. Po-
tential problems with long-term fuel
storage stability (observed with cer-
tain shale- and petroleum-derived
middle distillates) and durability and
material compatibility problems (e.g.,
possible increase in the engine wear
with methanol use) are under inves-
tigation.
The very limited data which have
been collected on the emission of
criteria pollutants (particulates,
NOX, SOX, etc.) indicate that, ex-
cept for a higher emission of NOX
with synfuels having a higher con-
tent of fuel-bound nitrogen, the
emissions of such criteria pollutants
are similar to both synfuels and their
petrofuel counterparts. For most
synfuels, however, no data have
been collected on emissions of non-
criteria pollutants such as polycyclic
organic matter (POMs), primary aro-
matic amines, nitropyrenes, and
other organics. There is also very
limited data on overall trace element
composition of emissions.
Combustion and Emission
Characteristics of Coal-Derived
Liquid Fuels
1. FUELS TESTED
Synfuels: SRC-II fuel (5 ratios of
medium and heavy boiling range
components); H-Coal (syncrude
mode of operation, full-range distil-
12
-------
late); EDS (full-range distillate).
Reference fuel: No. 6 and No. 2 pe-
troleum-derived fuels.
TEST EQUIPMENT
An 80-HP f iretube boiler system ex-
tensively modified to simulate a
utility boiler including an indirectly
fired air preheater, a scaled-down
utility boiler burner, radiation shields
to increase the thermal environment
in the combustion chamber, and
capabilities to implement staged
combustion.
TEST SITE
KVB Combustion Research Labora-
tory, Tustin, CA.
TEST OBJECTIVES
Develop an understanding of the
effect of compositional variations
of a particular coal liquid and the
resulting effects on the imple-
mentation of combustion modifi-
cations for pollutant emission
reductions;
Establish an understanding of the
difference in the combustion and
emission characteristics of coal li-
quids produced from various pro-
cessesspecifically the SRC-II
Process, the Exxon Donor Solvent
Process, and the H-Coal Process;
Establish a standard test method,
using a small-scale facility, to pre-
dict the response to changes in
operation of smoking tendency,
CO, and NOX. This will be used to
differentiate various fuel proper-
ties and the performance of each
fuel in a large variety of commer-
cial boilers.
5. SPONSORING AGENCY
Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI)
Power Generation Program
Advanced Power Systems Division
Palo Alto, CA
EPRI Project Manager: W.C. Rovesti
Telephone No: 41 5-855-2519
6. CONTRACTOR
KVB Inc.
Irvine, CA
Principal investigators: L.J. Muzio,
J.K. Arand
Telephone No. 714-641-6200
7. TEST CONDITIONS
A systematic set of experiments
was conducted which investigated
the following variables: excess air
with single stage combustion, bur-
ner stoichiometry with two-staged
combustion, firing rate, air preheat
temperature, fuel temperature (vis-
cosity), and atomizer (mechanical,
steam).
8. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
O2, CO2, CO, NO, S02, S03, UHC,
smoke number, participate size dis-
tribution.
9. PROJECT STATUS
Completed.
10. RESULTS
Emissions from the various synfuels
combustion tests in this program
are summarized in Table A. A brief
description of other emission test
results is shown below.
SRC II
Particle size data indicate that SRC-
II fuel blends produced finer-size-
distribution paniculate than No. 6
oil, the exception being SRC-II
heavy distillate component under
single-stage combustion. Measured
S02 emissions were consistent
with the fuel sulfur content, with
nearly all fuel sulfur emitted as S02.
An S03 concentration of 2 ppm for
heavy distillate component was the
only SRC-II test detecting this pollu-
tant. Reference fuel No. 6 oil burn
test also emitted 2 ppm S03. UHC
concentrations measured for SRC-II
combustion tests were 1-14 ppm.
H-Coal
Average particle size of participate
matter proved to be less than 0.4
fxm. Measured S02 emissions were
consistent with fuel sulfur content
in that the SO2 emissions were the
lowest of all synfuels tested. SO3
was not detected. UHC emissions
were from 1-4 ppm.
EDS
Two particle sizing tests showed
the average particle size to be less
than 0.4 ^m. Measured S02 emis-
sions were consistent with the fuel
sulfur content. EDS flue gas samples
showed no detectable levels of SO 3.
Measured UHC emissions were 1
and 2 ppm.
Table A. Summary of Emissions
Single-Stage
Fuel Type
No. 6 oil
SRC-II 5. 75/1
SRC-II Medium
Distillate
SRC-II 2. 9/1
SRC-II 0.4/1
SRC-II Heavy
Distillate
Fuel Ash
Content
Ib/ 106 Btu
0.0045
0.0017
O.OO12
0.0041
0.018
0.034
02
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.8
Part.
lb/106
Btu
0.024
0.014
O.O11
0.012
0.031
0.029
0.037
NO
ppm @
3%02
270
400
476
361
509
381
392
Two-Stage (Low 02)
02
3.6
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.3
3.5
Part.
lb/106
Btu
0.037
0.022
0.017
0.015
0.039
0.184
NO
ppm @
3%O2
199
303
307
308
279
249
Two-Stage (High O2)
02
4.9
4.2
4.5
4.7
4.6
Part.
lb/106
Btu
0.020
0.012
0.017
0.039
0.090
NO
ppm @
3%O2
382
342
371
375
269
SRC-II Heavy
Distillate {210°F
fuel temperature!
H-Coal
EDS fuel
0.034
0.0095
0.0045
2.8
2.8
0.022
0.022
247
259
3.2
3.1
3.2
0.065
0.037
0.0184
339
226
270
4.95
5.15
0.034
0.0154
202
216
13
-------
11. REFERENCE
Muzio, L.J. and J.K. Arand. Com-
bustion and Emission Characteris-
tics of Coal-Derived Liquid Fuels.
EPRI AP-1878, Electric Power Re-
search Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
1981.
Effect of Fuel Bound Nitrogen on
Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions
from a Gas Turbine Engine
1. FUELS TESTED
Synfuel: JP-5 type fuel derived from
crude shale oil.
Reference fuel: JP-5 derived from
petroleum.
2. TEST EQUIPMENT
Allison T63-A-5A turboshaft engine
(free turbine type used in Army OH-
58A and Navy TF-57A helicopters).
3. TEST SITE
Naval Air Propulsion Test Center
Trenton, NJ
4. TEST OBJECTIVES
Confirm the presence of high
levels of NOX in engine exhaust;
Obtain information on conversion
efficiency of fuel bound nitrogen
into NOX;
Assess the impacts of high nitro-
gen fuel on meeting pollution con-
trol regulations.
5. SPONSORING AGENCY
Deputy Chief of Naval Material
(Development)
Department of the Navy
Washington, DC 20361
Project Manager: L. Maggitti
Telephone No: 202-545-6700
.CONTRACTOR 9
Naval Air Propulsion Center
Fuels and Fluid Systems Division,
PE71
Trenton, NJ 08628
Authors: A.F. Klarman, A.J. Rollo
Telephone No. 609-896-5841 10,
TEST CONDITIONS
The T63-A-5A engine was installed
in a sea level test cell using a three-
point mounting system. A flywheel
and an Industrial Engineering Water
Brake, Type 400, were connected
to the engine gearbox assembly at
the forward power output pad to ab-
sorb the engine power. The brake
reaction was measured by a Bald-
win load cell. All parameters to de-
termine the engine starting and
steady-state performance with the
fuels were measured using standard
test cell instrumentation. Engine
performance data is contained in
the reference report.
Fuels of varying nitrogen content
were tested in a T63-A-5A engine
to measure their effects on exhaust
gas emissions. Five test fuels vary-
ing in fuel bound nitrogen content
from 3 jjg (nitrogen)/g (fuel) to 902
jjg (nitrogen)/g (fuel) were evalu- 11,
ated. The nitrogen content in the
fuel was adjusted by mixing a JP-5
type fuel derived from shale oil (902
ng (nitrogen)/g (fuel)) and regular
petroleum JP-5 (3 fig (nitrogen)/g
(fuel)).
. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
HC, CO2, CO, and NOX.
PROJECT STATUS
Project report completed November
1977. This is part of an ongoing
Naval program to evaluate fuel pro-
ducts derived from alternate
sources.
RESULTS
Table B shows the results of the ex-
haust gas measurements performed
during the test program. Additional
results include:
NOX emissions for the same en-
gine power rating increased with
increasing fuel nitrogen content.
The conversion efficiency of fuel
bound nitrogen to NO and NOX
was approximately 45 percent
for the test data in which the NO
and NOX values could be accu-
rately measured.
No significant effects were noted
on engine performance or CO and
UHC emissions due to the pre-
sence of high levels of fuel bound
nitrogen.
The use of shale-derived JP-5 fuel
with a high nitrogen content will
make it more difficult to meet the
EPA NOX standards for aircraft
gas turbine engines.
REFERENCE
Klarman, A.F. and A.J. Rollo. "Ef-
fect of Fuel Bound Nitrogen on Ox-
ides of Nitrogen Emission From a
Gas Turbine Engine," Naval Air Pro-
pulsion Center, Trenton, NJ, NAPC-
PE-1, November 1977, 32 pp.
Table B.
Emission Data Summary
Fuel
Nitrogen
lig/g fuel
3
47
267
515
902
Engine
Power
Rate
IDLE
60% MR
MIL
IDLE
60% MR
MIL
IDLE
60% MR
MIL
IDLE
6O%MR
MIL
IDLE
60% MR
MIL
C02
%
1.98
_
3.03
2.08
2.43
3.03
2.08
2.43
3.03
2.10
2.43
3.03
2.10
2.43
3.03
ppm
1035
140
985
430
130
1005
3.80
140
950
445
130
992
460
135
CO
g/s
0.714
0.227
0.692
0.482
0.207
0.698
0.438
0.224
O.688
0.482
0.210
0.710
0.500
0.218
g/kg fuel
99.2
9.25
90.5
35.0
8.60
92.3
31.0
9.26
86.7
36.2
8.60
90.4
37.4
8.93
ppm
6.7
21.9
7.7
12.7
24.3
9.1
16.5
27.6
11.6
17.8
31.6
14.9
22.1
35.9
NO
g/s
O.00495
0.0416
0.00579
0.0152
O.O415
0.00677
0.0204
0.0473
0.00900
0.0206
0.0547
0.0114
0.0257
O.O621
NOX fas NO2)
g/kg fuel
0.688
1.69
0.758
1.11
1.72
0.895
1.44
1.96
1.11
1.55
2.24
1.45
1.92
2.55
ppm
6.7
23.9
7.3
13.1
24.3
9.4
16.7
27.6
12.3
18.4
31.6
16.O
22.5
36.3
g/s
O.OO690
0.0637
0.00887
0.0241
0.0635
0.0108
0.0315
0.0726
0.0146
0.0327
0.0838
0.0188
O.O4O1
0.0962
g/kg fuel
1.06
2.59
1.16
1.75
2.64
1.42
2.24
3.00
1.85
2.47
3.44
2.39
3.01
3.95
ppm
157
5.6
131
18.3
8.4
134
14.5
11.1
109.6
18.6
8.7
116
18.2
8.4
NC
9/s
O.0503
0.00422
0.0427
O.00952
0.00621
O.0432
0.00775
0.00825
O.O368
0.00935
0.00652
0.0385
0.00918
O.00629
g/kg fuel
6.99
0.172
5.59
0.692
0.258
5.71
0.549
0.341
4.65
0.702
0.267
4.91
0.687
0.258
F/A
/calculated)
0.00979
0.0 146
0.0105
0.0119
0.0146
O.O105
0.0119
0.0146
0.0106
0.0119
0.0146
0.0106
O.O119
0.0146
14
-------
M. Ghassemi, S. Quinlivan. and M. Haro are with TRW, Redondo Beach. CA
90278.
Joseph A. McSorley is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "A Compendium of Synfuel End-Use Testing
Programs," (Order No. PB 82-236 936; Cost: $19. SO, 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. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
*USGPO: 1982 559-092/0485
15
-------
-of
=3
< VI
0» M
CD
c
o
5'
3
O
z
CJ1
M
O>
cx>
m > TJ m -I
J'Ssi.
" 3
------- |