United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA-600/7-76-001
June 1976
•030
MEETING REPORT:
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS
SECTOR GROUP
Cincinnati, 31 March 1976
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into seven series.
These seven broad categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental technology. Elimination
of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The seven series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from
the effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/ Environment
Research and Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's
mission to protect the public health and welfare from adverse effects
of pollutants associated with energy systems. The goal of the Program
is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an
environmentally—compatible manner by providing the necessary
environmental data and control technology. Investigations include
analyses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health
and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of, control
technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide
range of energy-related environmental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-76-001
June 1976
MEETING REPORT
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP (AFFSG)
CINCINNATI
31 March 1976
Prepared by:
Stanford Research Institute
1611 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Contract No. 68-01-1981
Task 004
Technical Monitors:
Dr. Gary J. Foley, Chairman
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr.
Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Project Officer:
Mr. Albert Pines
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND INDUSTRY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Energy, Minerals, and
Industry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES . v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MINUTES, ADVANCED FOSSIL
FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING 3
SESSON I: PREVIOUSLY DEFINED ISSUES,
OPTIONS AND PROGRAM IMPACT 3
Discussion—Session 1 4
SESSION II: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR OIL SHALE PROCESSING 5
A. Health Effects and Environmental Assessment. ... 5
Discussion—Session II (A) 7
B. Environmental Measurements and Technology 8
Discussion—Session II(B) 9
C. Industrial Considerations 9
GENERAL DISCUSSION 10
HIGHLIGHTS ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING 13
EPA/Industry Interaction 13
Pollution Ranking Method 14
Yugoslav Lurgi Plant Program 14
MINUTES OF ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING 19
SESSION I: PREVIOUSLY DEFINED ISSUES, OPTIONS
AND PROGRAM IMPACT 19
Summary and Analysis of Issues Raised at Previous
Sector Group Meetings 19
Discussion—Session I 26
SESSION II: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR OIL SHALE PROCESSING 31
iii
-------
A. Health Effects and Environmental Assessment 33
Discussion—Session II(A) 37
B. Environmental Measurements and Technology 39
Discussion—Session II(B) 55
C. Industrial Considerations 58
Discussion—Session II(C) 63
GENERAL DISCUSSION 65
ATTACHMENTS 67
Attachment I - Agenda 67
Attachment II - List of Attendees 69
By Name 69
By Organization 73
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
1. Role of R& D in Meeting BAT Guidelines
for Water Effluents
2. Critical Timing (Water Standards)
3. Role of R&D in Development of New
Source Performance Standards for Air
Pollutants
4. Considerations and Recommendations (Standard
Setting)
5. EPA/ERDA Interaction (Control Technology
for Synthetic Fuel Plants)
6. Additional Recommendations/Considerations
7. Research on Pollutant Hazards
8. "Wise-Man" Approach
9. Shale Oil Development Program
10. TRW/DRI Task Breakdown
11. Oil Shale Environmental Control Technology
12. Pollutants of Interest
13. Navy R&D Program Toxicology of Synthetic
Fuels
14. Efforts to Date
Dr,
Speaker
Gary J. Foley
Mr. Thomas Powers
Mr. Balfour Wallace
Page
20
21
21
22
23
23
25
26
40
41
44
48
49
50
LIST OF TABLES
Title
1. Particulate Data
2. Gaseous Emission Data
3. Compartment Survey Test Results (Synthetic
Fuels)
4. Test Results (Conventional Fuel)
5. Synthetic Liquid Fuels Currently Produced
or Production Expected in FY 1975
Speaker
Mr. Balfour Wallace
Page
51
52
53
54
56
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MINUTES
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING
CINCINNATI, OHIO
31 MARCH 1976
-------
SESSION I: PREVIOUSLY DEFINED ISSUES,
OPTIONS AND PROGRAM IMPACT
Dr. Gary Foley, Chairman of the Sector Group, introduced Dr. David
Stephan, Director of EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
in Cincinnati (IERL-CINC) who gave the welcoming remarks. Dr. Stephan
noted the importance of enhancing communication among the various groups
involved in the advanced fossil fuels area and of avoiding a "catch up"
environmental situation in regard to energy development. He indicated
that IERL-CINC is evaluating the environmental aspects in various energy
fields.
Dr. Foley reviewed the content of the November meeting of the
Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group (AFFSG) and gave a summary and analysis
~<-
of the more pertinent issues raised.
Dr. Foley stated that, based on concerns expressed at that meeting,
it was recommended to Dr. Gage, Deputy Assistant Administrator for EPA's
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry (OEMI), that:
• OEMI carefully review the regulatory approach of the
Air Standards office for gasification plants
• R&D assume a role in promoting the integration of
air and water standards.
He also indicated that the Synthetic Fuels Environmental Assessment
Program is moving along. OEMI is conducting tests (primarily measurement
of sulfur and nitrogen compounds and particulates) on the Lurgi process
at a plant in Yugoslavia. Other groups were invited to participate in
this program.
In addressing the concern for greater EPA/ERDA cooperation, he said
that a joint program is now being developed to take environmental measure-
ments at HYGAS and solvent refined coal (SRC) facilities.
*See EPA Report No. 600/9-76-006; Meeting Report: AFFSG, Research Triangle
Park, 13 November 1975; February 1976.
-------
Dr. Foley asked the Sector Group to consider whether it would be
useful to establish a "wise-man" panel as the basis for achieving com-
monality in the various programs in the area of establishing pollutant
priorities.
Opinions and recommendations were solicited from the Sector Group,
particularly in respect to actions proposed or taken which resulted from
the November meeting.
Discussion—Session I
The discussion following Session I addressed these major points:
• EPA Program at Yugoslav Plant. Considerable interest
was expressed in the plans for the Yugoslav plant.
Various group members inquired regarding the extent
to which studies would be conducted, samples obtained,
etc.
• Standard Setting. A recommendation was made that R&D
efforts should concentrate on determining what emissions
result after the best control technology is applied.
There were mixed opinions on the integration of air
and water standards; however, it was thought that it
might be possible to integrate sequences or timing of
approaches.
• EPA/ERDA Cooperation. This was felt to be very impor-
tant, especially in the environmental measurement
activities; it was recommended that OEMI establish
early communication with developers, so that modifi-
cation of process rather than application of add-on
technology could be utilized to the maximum degree
possible.
• "Wise-Man" Panel. The group appeared to be unanimous
in support of the "wise-man" panel concept. It was
suggested that such a panel include someone who is
thoroughly acquainted with the legislative and poli-
tical framework. The importance of providing the
panel experts with information on the effluent volume
released to the environment and the toxic properties
to aid them in defining pollutant priorities was
pointed out.
-------
SESSION II: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR OIL SHALE PROCESSING
Mr. William McCarthy of EPA/OEMI and chairman of Session II, intro-
duced Dr. Foley who opened the session by indicating that OEMI desires
input from the Sector Group in order to determine what emphasis should
be put on the environmental R&D oil shale program.
Mr. Eugene Harris of IERL-CINC presented a summary of the work being
carried out by the Oil Shale Working Group (a subcommittee of the Western
*
Energy Resources Development Sector Group ) and explained that most of the
effort so far has been in the area of resource handling and extraction.
The extraction program is presently addressing the following areas:
stream surveys, down-the-road health and ecological effects, establishment
of groundwater monitoring protocol, revegetation of spent shale, and de-
velopment of a model for prediction of runoff and leachate effects on
receiving streams. He indicated that an interface with the Energy Research
and Development Administration (ERDA) is being worked out and encouraged
anyone interested in obtaining specific information regarding ongoing
projects to contact him.
In the discussion which followed, he stated that his group hopes to
have access to processing information on the Oil Shale Corporation (TOSCO)
process and Occidental's in-situ process. He said that the short operating
lifetime of oil shale facilities has made it difficult to carry out mean-
ingful measurement and monitoring.
A. Health Effects and Environmental Assessment
Dr. David Coffin, senior scientific advisor for health effects at
EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park
(HERL-RTP), spoke on the subject of the EPA Health Effects and Related
*Clint Hall of OEMI is the Chairman of the Western Energy Resources Develop-
ment Sector Group.
-------
Environmental Assessment Programs. He indicated that a systems and inter-
agency approach is being used in the health effects area, with greatest
emphasis on carcinogenesis. He stated that HERL-RTP is establishing a
central repository for products and effluents in conjunction with the
National Cancer Institute. A number of shale oil samples have been
provided by the Navy Department. He indicated that there is a need for
input from other agencies concerning what to test and what priorities
should be applied. He recommended that an interagency committee be estab-
lished to review the data so that toxicological input can be fed back into
the technologies and to consider processes from the standpoint of commer-
cialization. He indicated that there are difficulties in obtaining suf-
ficient specimens to conduct definitive biological standard testing of
whole animal systems.
Dr. Richard Pelroy of ERDA's Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL)
(Battelle) described the major project areas under study at PNL stating
that the greatest progress has been made in studying the mutagenicity
and carcinogenicity of compounds derived from oil shale. He stated that
through using the salmonella testor strains, it has been demonstrated
that raw shale oil, tar and retort waters are potentially carcinogenic
and that the shale oil produced is very likely carcinogenic. He also
indicated that a great deal of effort should be spent in studying the
effluent waters. He did not feel that the selection of a process for
sampling was important, but that effort should be made to determine sam-
ple variability over time. He mentioned that waste stream samples are
badly needed for testing and recommended that a great deal of effort
should be spent in studying the effluent waters from the processes. In
the discussion which followed, several points of contact for sample pro-
curement were mentioned — companies may be contacted directly for samples
and the Bureau of Land Management and Pete Rutledge (Area Oil Shale
Supervisor, U.S.G.S., at Grand Junction, Colorado) may be contacted for
publications pertaining to companies' work in carcinogenesis.
LCDR Leigh Doptis, of the Navy Department's Occupational and Pre-
ventive Medicine Division, summarized Navy concerns related to the health
-------
effects of oil shale and synthetic fuels. He gave a brief history of
Naval involvement in synthetic fuel development. As part of Project
Independence, five fuels have been refined from shale oil crude with
minimum modification to a commercial refinery for Navy studies. Crude
shale oil (30,000 barrels) has been designated for processing through
an improved refining procedure that may solve problems of wax, gum and
particulate content and storage and thermal instability. He then stated
that the Navy is particularly concerned about the health effects problems
associated with the product fuels since there is a high probability of
personnel exposure. He described the two-phase approach developed by
the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery which is designed to evaluate
existing fuels as well as candidate fuels derived from oil shale in order
to determine how these fuels compare from the standpoint of personnel
exposure risk. LCDR Doptis stated that the greatest present need is to
further assess the chemical composition of synthetic fuels and their
combustion products. He recommended that better procedures be considered
for health effects assessment of combustion products.
Discussion—Session II(A)
The following major points were addressed during the discussion
relating to oil shale:
• The lack of sufficient samples is of concern. Some
possible sources were given and the proposed estab-
lishment of certain repositories was discussed.
• Industrial concern regarding release of samples was
expressed--!.e., misinterpretation of test results
can lead to premature public alarm. It was suggested
that the agencies or groups requesting these samples
take measures to prevent release of incomplete or
erroneous information. It was also suggested that
samples which are representative of commercial oper-
ations be taken during pilot plant operations and
that a complete description of process operation
and measurement technique accompany the sample.
-------
B. Environmental Measurements and Technology
Mr. Thomas Powers of EPA's Fuel Technology Branch, IERL-CINC, re-
viewed the EPA program being carried out under contract with TRW-Denver
Research Institute (DRI) which will obtain data on air, water, and solid
waste streams from oil shale processing operations. He briefly mentioned
the environmental testing which has recently been performed at the Paraho
facility and that testing is planned for in-situ and other retort process-
ing activities when those operations get underway.
Mr. Powers stated that EPA's strategy for environmental control R&D
for oil shale extraction and processing places strong emphasis on charac-
teristics of air, water, and solid waste discharges, assessment of avail-
able control technology and the development, demonstration and/or evaluation
of appropriate control methodologies.
Mr. Rober Kerr of ERDA's Laramie Energy Research Center (LERC),
explained that the ERDA/LERC desires to carry out environmental research
concurrent, with process research in the areas of oil shale, coal gasifi-
cation and tar sands extraction. He described an environmental charac-
terization approach which the LERC will be using in addressing these areas,
Mr. Balfour Wallace of the David Taylor Naval Ship Research and
Development Center spoke on the subject of DoD/Navy environmental mea-
surments and associated technology in relation to the qualification of
synthetic fuels for use in naval propulsion systems. He stated that two
areas of interest are the impact of pollutants in populated areas and
exposure of personnel who work in close proximity to the fuel. He listed
the pollutants of interest and gave the general approach to qualifying
fuels for Navy use.
Mr. Wallace described the Navy efforts to date and presented some
of the data collected from stack emission studies conducted on a marine
propulsion system burning synthetic shale oil from the Paraho process.
He stated that the fuel burned well and that only the oxides of nitrogen
exceeded the EPA limits.
-------
He indicated that the main problem encountered was that of deter-
mining the best method of collecting and analyzing the samples from the
shipboard environment which were to be taken in conjunction with a com-
partment survey to be conducted by his group and the Naval Environmental
Health Center on a FF 1052 class destroyer in April of this year.
Discussion—Session II(B)
In the discussion, industry representatives indicated that the oxides
of nitrogen are a major problem, both economic and environmental, and ex-
pressed the need for the development of markets for nonhydrotreated
shale oil.
C. Industrial Considerations
Dr. Charles Prien of Denver Research Institute commented on approaches
outlined in earlier presentations from an industrial point of view. He
pointed out that it is not economical to produce shale oil at the present
time and that opinions are diverse within industry as to its future. In
response to previous discussion, he explained that developers are not
reluctant to supply samples but that researchers must recognize their
need to guard against misinterpretation of test results. Commenting that
the problem is one of communication, he suggested that the formation of
EPA/ERDA/industry panels for carcinogen studies would be a step toward
establishing a closer working relationship between the three groups.
Dr. Prien stated that, in his opinion, control technology will have
to be developed in coordination with the process development itself. Care
must be taken not to overregulate an industry which doesn't exist and
communication between EPA and developers is required.
He cited several environmental factors which should be taken into
account in oil shale R&D. He also indicated that the problems of in-
situ processing can be as troublesome as those of aboveground retorting,
and cited the ERDA program at the Laramie Energy Research Center and
-------
the Occidental Petroleum program as good opportunities to examine what
those problems might be.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Dr. Foley observed that it appeared from comments made earlier in
the sessions that there will be ample opportunity to obtain environmental
data and samples and that coordination and standardization to assure all
pertinent information is recorded and transmitted with the samples could
be accomplished.
He asked whether passage of the Synthetic Fuels Commercialization
Bill could possibly turn the economic picture around and result in put-
ting one or several plants into operation in the next five years. Mr.
Grossman (Shell Oil) replied that TOSCO feels confident that they could
borrow money on the market based on loan guarantees, but that it remains
to be seen whether investors would be willing to take the risk even then.
The meeting was adjourned.
10
-------
HIGHLIGHTS
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING
CINCINNATI, OHIO
31 March 1976
-------
The following issues were raised at the meeting and are being con-
sidered by the Executive Committee and/or staff members of OEMI in terms
of possible recommendations and/or actions which might be taken as a
consequence.
EPA/Indus try Interaction
Concern was expressed regarding improving EPA/industry communication
in the following areas:
• Sector Group members indicated that there is a need for
EPA (and ERDA) to communicate with the industrial devel-
oper early in a project to permit process modification
and thereby reduce the probability of the need for add-
on techniques.
This is being considered in terms of who within EPA
and/or ERDA could best assure that such communication
channels are provided, and by what means.
9 It was suggested that available gasification process
and environmental control technology designs be re-
viewed to identify possible improvements (e.g., Mr.
Schora, IGT, indicated that there may be more effi-
cient means of treating hydrocarbon emissions than
by incineration).*
The Executive Committee is considering this as a pos-
sibility for the future as a review such as this would
entail significant effort.
• Concern was expressed by industry representatives that
indiscriminate release of information generated by
sample testing could be misleading and result in pre-
mature public alarm.
Dr. Coffin (EPA/HERL-RTP) suggested that a coordin-
ating committee be formed to review test results
at an early stage to reduce the likelihood of pre-
mature release of findings to the press.**
« There was concern that government agencies may not
be aware of work being done by industry in evaluation
*See page 28
**See page 38
13
-------
of the carcinogenicity of the oil shale, processing
effluents and products.
The Executive Committee recommended that a list of
such studies be compiled.
e Concern was expressed that realistic process condi-
tions be established prior to sampling and that there
be enough known about process conditions so that re-
liabile sampling repeatability is possible.
• Sector Group members suggested that EPA consider in-
dustry development timetables as a basis for estab-
lishing research program priorities and schedules.
Subsequent to the meeting, it has also been suggested
that increased attendance by industry representatives
would be of value for this purpose and others.
Although industrial representatives currently attend Sector Group
meetings on a contract associated basis, obtaining Advisory Committee
status is being pursued as a possible means through which industry could
be represented on an invitational basis.
Pollution Ranking Method
It appeared to be the consensus of the Sector Group that the estab-
lishment of a panel of experts (i.e., "wise-man" panel) to develop
methodology by which pollutant priorities could be determined would be
useful. This would aid EPA in developing effective programs to assess
effects of pollutants, appropriate control technologies, and appropriate
new source performance standards (NSPS).
The Executive Committee is preparing a recommendation to this effect
to be sent to Dr. Stephen Gage. Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA's
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry.
Yugoslav Lurgi Plant Program
Considerable interest was shown in EPA/OEMI arrangements to conduct
tests at a Yugoslav coal gasification plant (Lurgi process). There was
considerable discussion regarding how best to maximize the benefits of
such an opportunity.
14
-------
Other groups are encouraged to participate in defining what types
of studies might be conducted and to consider direct participation
should it prove possible to further expand the present program.
15
-------
MINUTES OF
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING
CINCINNATI, OHIO
31 MARCH 1976
-------
SESSION I: PREVIOUSLY DEFINED ISSUES,
OPTIONS AND PROGRAM IMPACT
Summary and Analysis of Issues Raised at Previous Sector Group Meetings
The Director of EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
in Cincinnati (IERL-CINC), Dr. David Stephan, was introduced by Dr.
Gary Foley, Chairman of the Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group (AFFSG).
Dr. Stephan noted the breadth of representation within the Sector Group
of those groups involved in energy development and the importance of the
efforts being made to enhance communication among the various sectors.
He noted that the task of attempting to develop priorities with regard
to environmental R&D needs associated with advanced fossil fuels devel-
opment is a difficult one and that it is important to avoid playing a
"catch up" environmental game in regard to energy development. He
indicated that IERL-CINC is evaluating environmental aspects in various
energy fields: coal mining, oil and gas extraction, oil spills, indus-
trial pollution control, the practices of energy conservation in industry,
waste as fuel, development of non-coal-based synthetic fuels, advanced
energy systems, energy conversion processes, and oil shale extraction
processing.
The chairman of the meeting, Dr. Gary Foley of EPA's Office of
Energy, Minerals and Industry (OEMI), reviewed his previous comments
*
concerning the sector group concept. OEMI was formed in 1975 to better
implement interagency coordination in the area of energy environmental
R&D. The AFFSG serves as a forum for the exchange of ideas and infor-
mation between the various agencies and private interests and acts in an
advisory capacity to OEMI and the Energy Processes Division in planning
for environmental control technology and processes and effects programs.
He also reiterated that there are two additional sector groups within
^Presented in greater detail in EPA Report No. 600/9-76-006; Meeting
Report: AFFSG. Research Triangle Park, 13 November 1975; February,
1976.
19
-------
the office: the Electric Utilities Working Sector Group, chaired by
Frank Princiotta, Director of the Energy Processes Division; and the
Western Energy Resources Development Sector Group, chaired by Clint
Hall, Director of the Energy Coordination Staff.
Dr. Foley gave a summary and analysis of the more pertinent issues
raised at the AFFSG November meeting. In the area of R&D strategies for
control technology the following key points were discussed:
e In relation to the role of R&D in meeting best avail-
able technology (BAT) guidelines for water effluents
(see Figure 1) , it was pointed out that the task of
developing the basis for the BAT guidelines for first
generation synthetic fuel processes is of immediate
concern if one is to meet the July 1983 deadline.
Figure 1
ROLE OF R&D IN MEETING BAT GUIDELINES
FOR WATER EFFLUENTS
e Effluent standards are technology based.
» BPT by July 1977
• BAT by July 1983
e Ten industrial developers have paid a great deal
of attention to first generation plant design.
of these designs may define BPT for Lurgi
gasification.
« EPA R&D has an objective of developing a best
practices manual for water pollutant control in
the coining year.
• EPA R&D plans to develop needed water pollution
control technology (BAT) over the next several
years.
The critical timing involved in the water standards
area was addressed and recommendations were solicited
as to where the emphasis should be placed in the
water R&D program (see Figure 2) .
20
-------
Figure 2
CRITICAL TIMING
(Water Standards)
• A short time frame is associated with BAT standards
and regulations (five-seven years).
• Long time franes are normally associated with R&D .
0 To maximize the likelihood of developing the best
available control technology in this short time
frame, how should emphasis be placed in the syn-
thetic fuel water pollution technology R&D pro-
gram?
- new ideas and concept development
- optimization and combination of existing
control technologies
- dependence on ERDA demonstration plants to
develop BAT
- transfer of knowledge available from other
industries
• Key points were discussed relating to the role of R&D in
the development of new source performance standards (NSPS)
for air pollutants (see Figure 3). Dr. Foley noted that
since the November meeting an agreement has been signed
with Yugoslavia and work is being initiated there through
the special foreign currency program.
Figure 3
ROLE OF R&D IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS
• The EPA preliminary approach to standards for sulfur
emissions from coal gasification plants is to be pub-
lically reviewed this year.
• The importance of setting standards early in the
development process was noted.
• An industry representative suggested that they should
be involved in the standards setting process early
because of the long lead times required for control
technology development.
21
-------
Figure 3 (Continued)
ROLE OF R&D IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS
• Another industry representative suggested that
standards should not be set for second generation
plants until demonstration plants have been tested
and found commercially viable.
• An agreement has been made with Yugoslavia to test
emissions on the Lurgi process.
Based upon the concerns expressed at the November meeting
as to appropriateness of standards for coal gasification
plants at this time, several recommendations were made
to Dr. Stephen Gage, Deputy Assistant Administrator of
OEMI (see Figure 4). Comments were solicited regarding
these recommendations. Other groups were invited to
participate in the program relating to the Yugoslav
plant.
Figure 4
CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Standard Setting)
• A recommendation was made to Dr. Gage that a very
careful look be taken at the preliminary approach
to standards.
• A recommendation was also made to Dr. Gage that
R&D take a role in promoting the integration of
air and water standards, possibly through publi-
cation of a multi-media background document for
the synthetic fuel industry.
• Ways of taking maximum advantage of availability
of the Yugoslav plant were selected:
- air standards
- water standards
- health effects
- ERDA interests
22
-------
Steps to further EPA/ERDA interaction, particularly
with regard to control technology for synthetic fuel
plants, are being taken (see Figure 5). Meeting
participants were asked whether EPA should encourage
ERDA to utilize pilot and demonstration plants to
aid in the development of environmental control tech-
nology R&D, rather than emphasizing process technology
and considering environmental control only as necessary
to satisfy local and Federal regulations.
Figure 5
EPA/ERDA INTERACTION
(Control Technology for Synthetic Fuel Plants)
• Consultants representing industrial points of view
encouraged EPA/ERDA cooperation and coordination.
• ERDA and EPA each have several groups with a strong
interest in environmental aspects of synthetic fuel
development.
• In January, representatives from ERDA and EPA groups
made a joint visit to the Synthane, Solvent Refined
Coal and HYGAS process facilities.
*
• As a result of the joint visit, a coordinated program
is being developed to take environmental measurements
at two of these facilities.
Additional recommendations and considerations brought out
at the November meeting are summarized in Figure 6.**
Figure 6
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
Ten industrial developers have paid a great deal of
attention to environmental control and it was stated
that it would be difficult if not impossible for EPA
R&D to make significant additional contributions.
*Kelly Janes of EPA/IERL-RTP is the project officer.
**Pertaining to Figure 6, Gerald Rausa of EPA/OEMI, is the coordinator of
an ongoing EPA/NIOSH program.
23
-------
Figure 6 (Continued)
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
« Should EPA be spending R&D money in studying the
control technology in the designs of the 10 gasi-
fication processes which are ready for full-
scale commercial development?
• With regard to in-plaat fugitive emission, a
NIOSH representative recommended:
- that occupational chemical and physical agent
exposure standards recommended by NIOSH and
promulgated of OSHA need to be directly fac-
tored into the design of advanced fossil fuel
plants
- that there should be an EPA/NIOSH cooperative
R&D effort.
Dr. Foley reviewed approaches toward establishing pollutant priorities
which were presented during the afternoon session of the November meeting:
• Extrapolation of effects from known emission streams in
order to draw analogies
• Determination of the pollutants of concern, the sources
of these, and the level to which the pollutants must be
controlled to provide safety for the general public
• Addressing emissions on a broader basis than as pure com-
pounds (with the exception of those known to be haz-
ardous) .
• Averaging of emissions over operating periods and
making provision for emissions during start-up in
order to reduce industry's burden
» Utilization of a group of knowledgeable researchers
to determine the best strategy for toxicity research
(i.e., the "wise-man" approach)
• Development of a scheme, such as the one used by EPA's
Health Effects Research Laboratory at RTP, which is
general enough to apply to pollutants from several
different sources and routes of exposure.
24
-------
Problems associated with establishing priorities which were noted
were that:
» Not enough data are currently available .
* Thousands of chemical compounds are potentially toxic
and it is too costly to treat each separately and with
equal weight.
• Little correlation exists among priority lists.
• It is difficult to weight the relative importance of
different classes of criteria.
Presentations relating to research on pollutant hazards (see Figure 7)
were summarized and comments regarding the possibility of establishing
"wise-man" panels as the basis for achieving commonality in the various
programs were solicited (see Figure 8). For example, should one central
panel be established, or are several needed? If several, should they be
based on the conversion processes to be evaluated, or on health effects
versus control technology concerns?
Figure 7
RESEARCH ON POLLUTANT HAZARDS
• Population-at-risk
- immediate: industrial workers
- long term: general population
• Basic results needed
- concentrations which produce health hazards
- biological effects produced by pollutant con-
centrations
• Compounds of interest (mainly polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons)
« Key elements of research
- rapid screening to select dangerous pollutants
- rapid bioassay techniques
25
-------
Figure 7 (Continued)
RESEARCH ON POLLUTANT HAZARDS
- quantification of risk element
- development of models
The ERDA stepwise research plan described is
actually a series (set) of continuous inter-
relations
Figure 8
"WISE-MAN" APPROACH
Purpose of panel(s)
- determine, which pollutants (present in feed-
stock and/or formed in process) should have
priority
- determine from health measurements which are
short-term concerns (i.e., industrial) and long-
term (i.e., general public)
- determine those pollutants for which to test at
each emission source, to develop control tech-
nology and to determine health effects
How many panel(s) should there be?
Should the panel(s) operate from within EPA's R&D
program?
- one from each lab?
- central one for EPA and ERDA?
Who would serve on the panel(s)?
Discussion—Session I
The following points were raised:
• As a result of a query relative to use of American
coal, Dr. Foley indicated that initially the testing
at the plant in Yugoslavia will be carried out using
native coals rather than American coals. The initial
thrust will be to measure sulfur and nitrogen com-
pounds and particulate matter. Program resources
26
-------
do not allow for looking at ash burial at the present
time; however, it is hoped that the program will be ex-
panded. The suggestion was made by James R. Jones,
(Peabody Coal) that it would be useful to bring back
quantities of ash for study in this country particularly
for leaching studies. It was also suggested by David
Coffin of EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory at
RTF (EPA/HERL-RTP) that health and ecological impact
studies be done at the plant site. Dr. Coffin also
cited another problem--the lack of chemical backup
data--biologists need more input from chemical engineers
who are involved in the petroleum industries, etc. He
commented that although the Yugoslav plant uses different
coal than is used in most processes in the U.S., it pro-
vides a starting point for gathering samples and acquiring
the needed chemical backup data. In answer to another
query, Dr. Foley replied that no health effects research
from an air pollution standpoint is planned at the pre-
sent time. Kelly Janes (EPA/IERL-RTP) was identified
as the project officer,
* J- F- Stars (EPA/HERL-CINC) commented that standards are
needed for hazardous pollutants for which no control
technology yet exists, and the necessary control tech-
nology should be developed.
• James Durham of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) replied to a query regarding existing
standards that the only standards which have been
set at this time for coal gasification plants are New
Mexico standards.
• J. F. Stara (EPA/HERL-CINC) commented that cooperation
of EPA/ERDA in measurement activities is important.
• Jack Johnston (DoI-U.S. Geological Survey) informed the
Sector Group that a Coal Working Group under the Inter-
national Energy Agency plans to establish a coal data
bank which will receive, arrange and store information
available from any nation on the characteristics and
amount of coal. He commented that as pilot plants
are developed, it will be important to assess the
chemical quality of the resource before large amounts
of money are put into the operational systems.
• Frank Schora (Institute of Gas Technology) emphasized
that EPA/ERDA coordination and early communication with
the developer was important so that modification of
process rather than add-on techniques could be utilized.
He indicated that EPA/ERDA should work to improve exist-
ing control technology where it is not adequate and
27
-------
believes that developers are also in favor of this and
would support such a position.
• Mr. Schora also pointed out that review of the coal
gasification designs which already exist may still
be useful since it is possible to effectively treat
hydrocarbon emissions by other than incineration—a
method which decreases process efficiency.
• Dr. Foley (EPA/OEMI) indicated that the joint EPA/
ERDA measurements program will take place at the
HYGAS and Solvent Refined Coal facilities and that
ERDA has not yet determined when the program will
begin.
• Steve Brown (SRI-Menlo Park) commented that the sup-
port of an acknowledged expert community lends cred-
ibility to R&D efforts and that it is important to
develop a body of information, including volume of
effluents and toxic properties, to be used by the
experts in their efforts in defining pollutant
priorities.
• For the shorter term priority setting efforts, James
Durham (EPA/OAQPS) suggested that work should be con-
centrated on finding out what the emission would be
after control processes have been applied.
• Arne Gubrud (American Petroleum Institute) recommended
that at least one member of the "wise-man" panel be
thoroughly acquainted with the legislative and poli-
tical framework which will affect to what extent any
good idea can be implemented in the real world. The
pending amendment to the Clean Air Act concerning
nondeterioration was cited as an example of legisla-
tion which should be considered.
• From the control system design point of view, it was
indicated by Jack Cotter (TRW) that it is essential
to obtain samples of the actual effluents produced
in synfuel processes.
• One view (James Durham, EPA/OAQPS) was that the inte-
gration of air and water standards would require a
major restructuring of EPA. However, Alden Chris tensen
(EPA/IERL-CINC) suggested that it may be possible to
integrate the sequences or timing of approaches with-
out restructuring the organization in a different
manner.
28
-------
• Gerald Rausa (EPA/OEMI) noted that EPA's R&D office has
an integrated presentation of the data. The STAR re-
ports (Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports) are
supposed to use a comprehensive approach in presenting
the information regarding individual pollutants. How-
ever, it was indicated that program offices may or may
not wish to use the STAR documents since standard set-
ting is their responsibility.
29
-------
SESSION II: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR OIL SHALE PROCESSING
The chairman of the second session, William McCarthy of OEMI,
stated that the Sector Group concept is still evolving and that feedback
from the participants regarding the content and structure of the 31
March meeting would be helpful to the Executive Committee in planning
for the next meeting. He recommended that meetings of the three Sector
Groups be held on consecutive days in the future. He called on Dr.
Foley to give the introduction for the environmental research and
development for oil shale processing portion of the meeting.
Introduction--Dr. Gary J. Foley. Dr. Foley explained that oil
shale R&D has been preempted, for the most part within EPA, by coal
liquefaction/gasification and electric utilities work. While meetings
have been held on oil shale commercialization and technologies, little
has been done to get people tegether who are concerned with the envir-
onmental aspects. From the OEMI point of view, the future of oil shale
versus other synthetic fuel technologies is not clear and thus it is
not certain what emphasis should be placed on the program. Therefore,
input from the Sector Group in the area would be helpful.
Background; Information Available from Oil Shale Working Groups
of the Western Energy ResourcesDevelopment Sector Group—Eugene T. Harris.
The first speaker, Eugene Harris of EPA's Industrial Environmental Re-
Search Laboratory in Cincinnati (IERL-CINC), presented a summary of the
work being done by the Oil Shale Working Group (a subcommittee of the
Western Energy Resources Development Sector Group).
The Oil Shale Working Group is composed of EPA representatives
working in the following areas:
• Stream survey (Duluth)
• Down-the-road health and ecological effects (Corvallis)
• Establishment of a protocol in the area of groundwater
monitoring (Utah and Las Vegas)
31
-------
• Revegetation of spent oil shale and development of a
model for prediction of runoff and leachate effects
on receiving streams from disposal of spoil materials
and spent shale (IERL-CINC)
• Processing methods and other developments as they occur
(IERL-CINC contract with TRW) .
Region VIII (Denver) projects include those associated with work going
on at meteorological stations and keeping up-to-date on industrial,
state, regulatory and academic study or research efforts. He stated
that new representatives in the group will most likely include those
involved in a coal and oil shale groundwater project (Ada, OK) and a
carcinogenic survey-type study (Athens, GA) .
Mr. Harris explained that, although the group's membership was
originally intended to include only EPA personnel, there is a need to
communicate with industry and other government agencies. Therefore,
an interface with ERDA is being worked out and a representative from
the U.S. Bureau of Mines attended the last meeting.
He encouraged anyone interested in obtaining specific information
as to ongoing projects and associated personnel to call him at (513)
684-4417.
The following points were made during the discussion period:
• Mr. Harris stated that his group hopes to have access
to Union Oil's TOSCO (The Oil Shale Corporation) pro-
cessing of Utah coal shales and Occidental's in-situ
processing. He also indicated that it has been dif-
ficult to do meaningful measurement and monitoring
due to the short operating lifetime of oil shale
facilities.
• He indicated that most of the effort, so far, has been
in the area of resource handling and extraction, and
that the more recent effort is related to the pro-
cessing aspects.
32
-------
A. Health Effects and Environmental Assessment
1. The EPA Health Effects and Related Environmental Assessment
Program—David Coffin.
Mr. McCarthy introduced the next speaker, Dr. David Coffin, who
is senior scientific advisor for health effects at EPA's Health Effects
Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park (HERL-RTP).
Dr. Coffin indicated that a systems and interagency approach is
being used by HERL-RTP in the health effects area, with greatest emphasis
on carcinogenesis. Efforts include presumptive tests (in vitro models,
etc.) and work on animal lung exposure to air effluents and definitive
skin carcinogenesis. A broad approach has been taken in order to measure
the possible interactions of materials. In the future more refined cuts
will be examined. The Gulf Breeze models are being developed to determine
the effect on animals of possible spills into the marine environment and
the impact of such occurrences on man through the food chain. HERL is
establishing a central repository for products and effluents, thus assuring
that scientists are working on the same materials. The repository affords
an opportunity to do chemical analyses where backup work in certain areas
is needed. Fractionation can also be carried out. The repository will
be shared with the National Cancer Institute. The Navy Department has
provided shale oil samples.
Dr. Coffin stated that there is need for input from other agencies
concerning what to test and the priorities which should be applied to the
effluent. He asked if a committee should be developed to look at pro-
cesses in terms of their commercialization possibilities in order to
avoid putting effort and money into processes which may not prove to
be commercially viable. He recommended that an interagency committee
be established to review the data so that toxicological input could be
fed back into the technologies.
He noted the difficulty in obtaining sufficient specimens to
conduct definitive biological standard testing of whole animal systems
and suggested that arrangements with Yugoslavia might somewhat alleviate
this problem.
There was no discussion at this point.
33
-------
2. The ERDA Health Effects and Related Environmental Assessment
Program—Richard Pelroy.
Subsequent to Dr. Coffin's presentation, Mr. McCarthy reiterated
that communication among Sector Group members can serve to avoid dupli-
cation of effort and determine areas where efforts are lacking, thus making
it possible to plan more cost-effective programs. He then introduced
the next speaker, Dr. Richard Pelroy of ERDA's Pacific Northwest Laboratories
(PNL) (Battelle).
Dr. Pelroy described the major project areas now under study
at PNL—acute toxicity and associated range of effects of consequence,
carcinogenesis and mutagenesis (under his direction), teratogenesis, or
embryotoxicity (just getting underway) and a delayed health effects pro-
gram which deals mainly with particulates and inhalation of spent shale
particles.
The greatest progress has been made in studying the mutagenicity
and carcinogenicity of compounds derived from oil shale. In the system
employed by Battelle, at PNL, mutagenesis is being investigated as a
presumptive measure of carcinogenicity. Ninety percent of the known
carcinogens are frameshift mutagens; however, the converse is not
necessarily true. The basis for the testing program is to discover
whether a material which is a frameshift mutagen is also a carcinogen.
Using the salmonella tester strains it has been demonstrated that raw
shale oil, tar and retort waters clearly contain frameshift mutagens
and thus are potentially carcinogenic. Polar fractions — acidic,basic
and tar--exhibited very strong killing of the tester strain which sug-
gests direct attack on cellular DNA (deoxyribunucleic acid). He indi-
cated that it is also clear that the oil shale product is very likely
carcinogenic. Tests conducted on eight chemicals known to be present
in spent shale have resulted in the identification of two chemicals,
not previously known to be dangerous, as mutagenic and potentially
carcinogenic--anthanthrene and benzo(ghi)perylene.
Dr. Pelroy indicated that shale oil which is kepi, contained
or used for combustion can be more easily controlled, however, little
is known about the effluent water, therefore a great deal of effort
should be spent in that area.
34
-------
Dr. Pelroy pointed out that in the area of environmental assess-
ment and measurement the following considerations are pertinent:
• Election of a particular process from which to take
representative samples may not be important since
testing can be conducted on samples from any number
of procedures with little increase in funding or
effort.
• Data must be time correlated in order to determine
sample variability and attempt correlation of what
is observed with pyrolytic temperatures, oxygen con-
centration and other physical factors such as pressure
which are likely to affect shale oil composition.
• Samples from government agencies and industry are
desperately needed.
Discussion. During the discussion following Dr. Pelroy's pre-
sentation the following most pertinent point was made:
• Allan Grossman (Shell Oil Company) indicated that a
great deal of work in carcinogenesis has been done by
the companies involved in oil shale R&D. Contacts for
publications are the Bureau of Land Management and
Pete Rutledge, (Federal) Area Oil Shale Supervisor
at Grand Junction, Colorado. He suggested contacting
companies directly for samples.
3. Navy Concerns Related to the Health Effects of Oil Shale and
Synthetic Fuels--LCDR Leigh Doptis.
Mr. McCarthy next introduced the third speaker, LCDR Leigh
Doptis of the Navy Department's Occupational and Preventive Medicine
Division.
After concurring with Dr. Coffin's recommendations regarding
interagency cooperation, LCDR Doptis gave a brief history of Naval
involvement in synthetic fuel development. As part of Project Seacoal
(November 1973), the Navy and the Office of Coal Research investigated
the feasibility of using coal-derived fuel with the USS Johnston as the
demonstration platform. Naval laboratories have studied fuels derived
from Canadian tar sands and found them to have the necessary physical
and chemical requirements for marine diesel and jet fuels. As part of
35
-------
Project Independence, five fuels have been refined from shale oil crude.
This effort resulted in producing 5,765 barrels of various military
operational fuels this past Spring from the 10,000 barrels of crude
shale oil produced by the Paraho process using shale mined from the
Naval Oil Shale Reserve located in Colorado. The various fuels did
not meet all military and Federal specification requirements. Storage
and thermal instability problems were encountered and a great deal of
wax, gum and particulate matter was found in them. It is expected that
military specification fuels could be obtained from industrial refining
facilities with minimum modification. Crude shale oil (30,000 barrels)
has been designated for processing through an improved refining procedure
which may successfully solve these problems.
LCDR Doptis indicated that the Navy ia particularly concerned
about the health effects problems associated with the product fuels
since there is high probability of personnel coming into contact with
the fuels. Little is known about chronic and long-term effects of
exposure, even to existing fuels. Literature searches have indicated
that carcinogenic properties are associated with shale oil fuels, and
that increased boiling points of the fuels are associated with an in-
crease in carcinogenic potential. He stated that the health effects
of these fuels would most appropriately be ascertained by examination
of the entire fuel product, as opposed to studying only fuel fractions
such as might be desirable for developing process controls.
He pointed out that the constituents of oil shale vary with
geographic location and that effects of exposure to U.S. sources may not
correlate with exposure to oil shale from other countries.
He described a two-phase approach which has been developed
by the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.
• Phase I: Designed to answer the question, "How bad is
what we have?" Efforts have involved defining toxicity
of existing naval fuels, examining health experience
of personnel, and evaluating exposure conditions that
presently exist aboard ships.
• Phase II; Designed to answer the question, "How bad
is what we will have in comparison to what we have
now?" Due to limited resources, this answer will de-
pend on interagency cooperation. Efforts include:
36
-------
- BuMines/Navy report on the separation of
polynuclear aromatics and compositional
analysis of the various candidate fuels
derived from oil shale.
- Gulf Breeze and RTF studies on effects on marine
life (shale oil fuel samples provided by the
Navy).
- The National Cancer Institute has been encouraged
to consider representative fuels from shale oil
which meet military specifications for their bio-
assay program. Acute and chronic inhalation effects
studies, sponsored by the Navy, focusing on hand-
ling and logistics problems.
LCDR Doptis stated that the greatest need, at present, is to
further assess the chemical composition of synthetic fuels and their
combustion products. He also recommended that better procedures be
considered for assessment of health effects related to combustion pro-
ducts .
Piscuss ion--Session II(A)
The general discussion in the area of oil shale associated
health effects and environmental assessment encompassed the following
points:
• The lack of sufficient samples appears to be a major
obstacle. A concentrated effort must be made by all
concerned. (David Coffin, EPA/HERL-RTP)
• The National Bureau of Standards' Standard Reference
Materials Group is running a series of workshops
looking into the possible need for setting up a
repository there; therefore, the need for establishing
another repository was questioned. Another source for
samples of crude oil is the Bureau of Mines repository
at the Bartlesville Energy Research Center. (William
Mott, ERDA/Environment and Safety Research).
* Dr. Mott made a plea that when dealing with emissions,
effluents and feedstock from oil shale operations,
there be reference to the process under consideration.
He also suggested that very careful controls be used
in the gathering, storage, and handling of samples.
37
-------
It is important to recognize that shale oil samples
will vary greatly according to process conditions,
feedstock and storage and handling procedures.
• Dr. Coffin commented that presumptive tests of the
type being conducted at PNL-Batelle (see presentation
by Richard Pelroy, p. 34), though they serve a valuable
function in providing a basis for further study, do
not provide the definitive answers needed at this
point; therefore, more definitive tests are also re-
quired to determine if presumptive test results are,
in fact, valid.
• Dr. Pelroy pointed out that the advantage of micro-
bial testing is that it is exquisitely sensitive (will
detect mutagenic agents presumed to be carcinogenic
down to sub-gram levels) and as a consequence only a
small sample is needed and the testing can be accom-
plished in a fairly short time.
® Dr. John Garner (EPA/HERL-CINC) agreed that communica-
tion is important among those involved in energy devel-
opment and research, but stated that efforts should
also be made to communicate with groups who are working
with very similar problems in non-energy-related con-
texts .
« A definition of terms was given by L'CDR Poptis: shale
oil connotes a product or a derived crude, whereas
oil shale is the basic mineral.
• Jack Cotter (TRW) and Al Grossman (Shell Oil) noted
that developers are cautious regarding release of
samples as misinterpretation of test results can lead
to undue public alarm. Public releases should be made
only after careful screening. Mr. Grossman also in-
dicated that economic effects must be taken into
consideration--in-plant controls could result in higher
cost to consumers for the product and in some cases the
consumers (e.g., naval ships) could apply the controls
themselves at lower cost.
• Dr. Coffin agreed that caution must be used regarding
public releases--e.g., the presence of carcinogens
does not necessarily imply a health hazard. He sug-
gested that a coordinating committee be formed to
determine what the data mean at aa early stage rather
than everyone going in his own direction and releasing
findings to the press. A committee could also over-
see sample collection and handling to assure con-
trolled analyses and results. Several members of the
38
-------
Sector Group indicated interest in and support for
Dr. Coffin's suggestion.
• A member of the Sector Group suggested that the selection
of samples should be based on relevant pilot plant oper-
ations, and possibly include side stream material, waste
products, final products, and products produced from
the combustion of the fuel.
c Arne Gubrud stated that the American Petroleum Insti-
tute has a modest budget for a health effects pro-
gram in oil shale and coal gasification under Dr.
Neill Weaver. He suggested that the members of this
group and Dr. Weaver consider a combined effort to
establish a repository of representative material from
shale technology. Mr. Rausa (EPA/OEMI) stated that
initial contacts have been made with Dr. Weaver's
group.
B. Environmental Measurements and Technology
1. EPA Environmental Measurements and Control Technology-^Thomas
Powers.
Mr. Thomas Powers of EPA's Fuel Technology Branch, IERL-CINC
gave the first presentation in the area of environmental measurements and
technology associated with oil shale development.
Mr. Powers opened his remarks with the comment that activity
in oil shale is highly dependent upon the synthetic fuels commercializa-
tion program and more specifically the aspects of loan guarantees, fuel
costs, and shale oil processing costs. Oil shale processing may be
carried out either underground (in-situ) or on the surface. Several
key in-situ and surfa processing developments, as well as EPA, ERDA
and other government ^ncy programs, have been projected through 1981
(Figure 9). Surface accessing of oil shale (retorting) involves three
basic methods. In each of the methods the shale is heated to 900 -
1000°F and the oil vapors cooled to produce crude shale oil. Surface
processing may include the recovery of by-products.
He reviewed the TRW-Denver Research Institute (DRI) contract
which is providing EPA with a preliminary assessment of environmental
impacts of oil shale processing and a pollutant characterization based
on the results of field testing. An outline of the tasks involved is
shown in Figure 10.
39
-------
Figure 9 SHALE OIL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENTS
EPA FUNDED
PROGRAMS
ERDA
DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAMS
(IN-SITU)
OTHER
GOVERNMENT
AGENCY
PROGRAMS
1976
• UNION "B" RETORT,
IPARAHO800 PILOT
TPD
Pilot Plant
Sampling
Opportunities
I
• OCCIDENTAL, IN-SI CU
• WESTCO, IN-S
T DE
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
• UNION "SGR" RETORT, PILOT • UNION 10,000 TPD DEMO, UNIT • UNION 50,000 TPD
• PARAHO 10,000 TPD (Ua/Ub, ANVIL POINTS)
TOSCO II, 10,000 TPD SS K TOSCO II, 10,000 TPD (Ca) TOSCO II 10,000 TPD (Cb).(COLONY) •
(COLONY) "SUPERIOR, 6000 TPD SUPERIOR, 30,000 TPD •
DEMO DeSi9" °ata " °CCIDENTAL' 40'00° BPD
ITU
MO Mme
Development
l
I [
» U. ^ANALYSIS*
I T
r ASSESSMENT* L->- CONTROL • TRW STUDY
r
» SHALE LEACHING AND HYDROLOGY MODELING • COLO. STATE UN I V
• AIR POLLUTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (RADIAN) _^-^^RCSOURCE DEVELOPMENT (UNIV OKLA /RADIAN)
» -^ •
IN-SITU TEST DATA
»
Mine Design Inputs R
To Emission Models..,
Wa1
, ROCK SPRINGS OIL PRO
DUCTION TEST (200 Ft)
2.5TPD SIMULATED
* GAS PRODUCTION TEST
RELATED REGION VIM PROGRAMS - AQMP, 208 PLANNING, DRINKING WATER, ETC
ieline Air,
er Data
I
• 50-ACRE DEMONSTRATION TEST (500 Ft)
• DEMONSTRATION TEST OF MODIFIED HORIZONTAL OIL PRODUCTION
• DEMONSTRATION GAS PRODUCTION TEST
• DEVELOP FRACTURING METHODS AT 1000 Ft
CONVERSION OF SHALE OIL TO FUEL PRODUCTS
AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATE OF COLO., UTAH
I |
| I
AIR QUALITY MONITORING GROUNDWATER MONITORING USGS (FEDERAL LEASES)
I • Study
GEOCHEMICAL AND GROUNDWATER MODELING USGS • Implementation
• SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND MINING ANALYSIS - DOI (Bu MINES)
-------
Figure 10
TRW/DRI TASK BREAKDOWN
Project Management
Oil Shale and Recovery Process Characterization
- Characterize Oil Shale Resources
- Characterize Mining Technology
- Characterize Surface Processes
- Characterize In-situ Processes
- Develop Data Management
Engineering Analysis and Problem Definition
- Mining and Feed Preparation Analysis
- Process Analysis
Field Testing and Laboratory Analysis
- Planning and Execution of Field Testing Requirements
- Analytical Laboratory Analysis of Site Samples
Environmental Evaluation
- Oil Shale Development Scenarios
- Air and Water Impact Analysis
- Spent Shale Disposal
Existing Environmental Control Technology Evaluation
- Investigation of Existing Control Technology
- Determination of BPT/BAT for the Shale Industry
41
-------
TRW has conducted process emission and effluent testing at
the Paraho oil shale demonstration plant at Anvil Points, Colorado.
The personnel on site were from the TRW Environmental Engineering
Division in Redondo Beach, California, and the principal subcontractor,
Denver Research Institute in Denver, Colorado. The testing program is
being done in close cooperation with both Paraho and the Laramie Energy
Research Center/ERDA. The data will be used to estimate the qualita-
tive characteristics of air, water, and solid waste streams from shale
recovery operations of the Paraho type for control technology R&D needs.
Additional field testing is planned for in-situ and retort processing
evaluations when those operations get underway.
The characteristics of emissions, effluents, and solid waste
residues depend upon the oil shale processes employed in developing
the resource. Specific processes depend on such factors as geology,
economics, and governmental regulations. Environmental control tech-
nology will vary depending on specific processes. Prior to retorting,
preparation of the oil shale involves primary and secondary crushers.
The fines from secondary crushing can be utilized directly in the TOSCO
process but not in the Paraho process.
Processing of oil shale involves retorting and refining to
recover the hydrocarbons present in the shale. The oil shale retorting
stage is the part of the process where the major technological choices
are being made. Shale oil refining operations will involve a number
of processing and product options somewhat similar to those in petro-
leum refining.
Shale oil is formed by the pyrolysis or distillation of the
organic matter (kerogen) found in shalelike rock. This material has limited
solubility in ordinary solvents and cannot be easily recovered. At high
temperatures, the organic material decomposes into gas and condensible
liquids. Residual carbonaceous material remains on the spent shale.
Retorting of oil shale may be classified in four categories:
gas combustion, solid heat transfer, in-situ and miscellaneous processes.
Efforts to provide economically attractive processes have resulted in
42
-------
proposals for literally hundreds of retorting processes over the years,
each of which offers a somewhat different choice of operating conditions.
Leading retorting operation developers include: Paraho, Union "B'rs
TOSCO II, Occidental (in-situ), WESCO (in-situ) and Superior.
Information essential to environmental control technology
planning includes geology, location, process selection, and pollutant
identification. "Add-on" pollutant control requirements must be com-
pared to the pollution abatement possibilities inherent in process
modifications.
The major emissions, effluents and solid wastes depend on the
processes employed to develop the resource. The current testing at the
Paraho Oil Shale Demonstration area was to obtain quantitative data re-
lated to emissions from the crushing, retorting and disposal of oil
shale. Emission data were collected from the recycle gas, thermal
oxidizer exhaust, and crusher area exhaust. Water samples were collected
from process effluents. Leachate studies will be carried out with sam-
ples of spent and raw shale from the material handling belts. The test
team registered plant operating conditions in effect during effluent
sampling. Factors which were evaluated included the raw shale feed
rate, feed size range, gas recycle rate, air rate and average retorting
temperature.
The factors relating to environmental versus process control
could not be addressed in this study.
As shown in Figure 11, a preliminary evaluation jf the possible
environmental impacts of oil shale processing is currently underway and
will result in an interim report scheduled for completion in June
1976. A TRW concurrent effort is being carried out to provide an up-
dated assessment to include pollutant characterization and the results
of field testing by July 1977. A manual of the best available control
technology practices is to be prepared by November 1978. A report on
pilot-scale testing of possible control devices and methods should be
available by early 1979, to be followed by an updated assessment based
on new concepts as well as state-of-the-art. This is to provide the
-------
IT
01
tn
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1975
1976
1980
1977
1978
1981
1982
1979
1980
1981
382
'1983
1984
Preliminary
Assessment
-~
Pollutant
Characterization
&
Field Testing
Manual of
Practice
Best
Available
Control
Technologies
Pilot
Scale
Control
Methods &
Devices
Updated
Assessment
Full Scale Demonstrations
of Pollution Control
Techniques
I
I
19831
1984
Figure 11: OIL SHALE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
-------
basis for demonstration of advanced pollution control techniques required
under Federal and state regulations which is to be completed in 1980. The
final effort is that of demonstrating advanced pollution control techni-
ques which are adequate for environmental protection during the evolution
of the shale oil industry in the United States.
In conclusion, Mr. Powers indicated that the oil shale process
development program has been underway since the early 1950's and will
continue into the 1980's. EPA's strategy for environmental control R&D
for oil shale extraction and processing places strong emphasis on char-
acterization of air, water, and solid waste discharges, assessment of
available control technologies and the development, demonstration, and/
or evaluation of appropriate control methodologies. The environmental
control methods to be emphasized by EPA will be associated with the
leading process technologies expected to be employed for shale oil
development.
There was no discussion at this point.
2. ERDA Environmental Measurements and Associated Technology--
Robert Kerr.
Mr. Robert Kerr of ERDA's Laramie Research Laboratory dis-
cussed the strategy presently employed at the Laramie Energy Research
Center for carrying out environmental research concurrent with process
research in the areas of in-situ and surface retorting of oil shale,
coal gasification and tar sands extraction.
The ERDA approach is to tie the process research, technology,
environmental research and economic factors together. The environmental
program progresses from guidelines to strategy and then to implementation
of the strategy.
The first part of the effort is to design a system which will
serve as an environmental characterization research mode to take samples,
analyze them and complete an evaluation of the data at each opportunity
during the process development.
45
-------
The following types of samples are to be taken:
• Combustion products in the process lines
• Gaseous products that are going to be directed toward
a stack or incinerator
• Samples that will reflect what is exiting the stack
• Samples of effluent water, particulates and residues
(Liquid streams, such as water, are not considered
products).
This stage of research is to provide needed data on the process products
so that decisions can then be made on recovery and control systems. This
also provides a basis for planning more process research (i.e., exper-
iments can be carried out based on what is found--the effects of changes
in temperatures, etc.--as compared to variations in results.
The next phase of interest is the transport and deposition of
the products of combustion and processing. Aqueous products would be
evaluated for treatment and reuse. The particulates exiting from the
stack would be modeled for dispersion and disposition. The retorted
shale would be cored and tested for residuals. Long range research
efforts are initiated for handling of products and the overall health
effects of the processing of products. Cooperative efforts with
Eugene Harris regarding revegetation of retorted shale are ongoing.
Mr. Kerr stated that, at this juncture in the strategy, long
range research associated with the handling of the products, as well as
inhalation and ingestion, must be initiated. Consideration must be
given to coordinating the right effort at the right time with the right
process.
The ERDA program for environmental measurements associated
with the process research can best be summarized, according to Mr.
Kerr; as a coordinated effort which would keep the oil shale efforts
moving forward while looking critically at environmental concerns.
An environmental plan is normally presented to the process group. This
plan is incorporated into their process plan in order to develop an
46
-------
overall working plan for research at the site. This results in an assess-
ment based on data which is to be made available to anyone who has use
for it.
Mr. Kerr then addressed some of the major points raised at the
morning session as follows:
• ERDA groups (Fossil Energy Division and the Division
of Biomedical and Environmental Research (DBER) and
Control Technology (CT) groups of the Environmental
and Safety Division) are using the field research
projects to take environmental measurements.
• Other research groups such as EPA are being contacted
as quickly as possible in order to determine whether
they want to work in conjunction with ERDA experi-
ments. ERDA must, however, work with these groups
on a one-to-one basis. There is a funding problem
and ERDA is interested in pooling the money in coop-
erative efforts.
• ERDA relies heavily on industry expertise to provide
the answers regarding what happens to the shale oil
after it becomes available for use.
• Although cause and effect, long term, carcinogenic and
mutagenic studies, etc., will be incorporated, LERC's
primary efforts now are to develop the process and
technology. Companies who have had to present plans
for commercialization have had to proceed further in
delineating possible long-term effects.
There was no discussion at this point.
3. DoD/Navy Environmental Measurements and Associated Technology--
Balfour Wallace.
The next speaker, Mr. Balfour Wallace of the David Taylor Naval
Ship Research and Development Center, spoke on the subject of DoD/Navy
environmental measurements and associated technology in relation to the
qualification of synthetic fuels for use in naval propulsion. Mr.
Wallace stated that the objective of the Navy R&D Synthetic Fuels Pro-
gram (in the area of toxicology) is to determine toxic volatiles and
other constituents released into the atmosphere from the use of synthetic
fuels aboard Navy ships. Two areas of interest are environmental
47
-------
pollutants in populated areas such as shipyards and exposure of per-
sonnel who work in close proximity to the fuel. Pollutants of interest
in these areas are listed in Figure 12.
Figure 12
POLLUTANTS OF INTEREST
I. Exhaust Emissions
• Smoke
0 Particulate matter
® Carbon monoxide
» Sulfur oxides
• Nitrogen oxides
© Total hydrocarbons
II. Personnel Exposure
® Liquid fuel from use, storage, and handling
e Vapors from thermal degradation during pre-
combustion stages
• Possible polynuclear aromatics
& Suspended particulate matter
e Exhaust emissions
He gave the general approach to qualifying fuels for Navy use.
First, the shale oil goes through a prescreening test in which the physical
properties are evaluated and compared to the properties of an existing fuel
of the same category. If MILSPECS are met, the next step is a chemical
identification and evaluation of liquids and vapors (leached in water such
as that found in the bilges of ships and during combustion) simultaneously
with the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery evaluations (long and short term
anmial tests). The results of the two investigations are then compared and
if go-ahead is indicated, the human toxicology and engine testing programs
are initiated. Assuming the fuel favorably passes the tests, standards are
issued, the fuel is recommended for use, and regulations are issued. This
is depicted in greater detail in Figure 13.
48
-------
CURRENT
EXPOSURES
CONSUL-
TATIONS
LIST OF
TOXIC MATLS
CHEMICAL
IDENT
LEACHED
IN WATER
EVALUATE
RESULTS
ENGINE
TESTS
DURING
COMBUSTION
RECOMMEND
FUEL USE
RECEIVE
SYNFUEL
CHARAC-
TERIZE
ISSUE
STANDARDS
ISSUE
REGULATIONS
WORK/ \WORK
ANIMAL
TESTS
RECOMMEND
MODIF
CLINICAL
EVALUATION
EVALUATE
RESULTS
HUMAN
TOXICOLOGY
INDUSTRIAL
HYGIENE
Figure 13: NAVY R&D PROGRAM TOXICOLOGY OF SYNTHETIC FUELS
-------
Mr. Wallace listed the Synthetic Fuel Program efforts to date
(see Figure 14 below).
Figure 14
EFFORTS TO DATE
I. Established a fully equipped source emission test
(set) team for monitoring pollutants from ship-
board propulsion exhaust systems
II. Developed laboratory capabilities for analyzing
synthetic fuels physical and chemical properties
III. Developed procedures or adopted existing ones to
determine trace quantities of hydrocarbons and other
hazardous constituents that may be present in ship-
board atmospheres
IV. In progress, development of chromatographic pro-
cedures for separation and identification of PNAs
V. Completed first stack emission study on a marine
propulsion system burning synthetic shale oil
(steamer Edward B. Greene)
He presented some of the data collected from stack emission
studies conducted on a marine propulsion system burning synthetic shale
oil from the Paraho process (i.e., the steamer, Edward B. Greene).
(See Tables 1 and 2.) It was found that the fuel contained 25 percent
water, the source of which is undetermined; however, once the water problem
was dealt with, the fuel burned well, and smoke was very negligible. In
relation to gaseous data taken, the sulfur dioxide content was found to be
very low; however, the oxides of nitrogen exceeded the EPA limits as was
to be expected considering the nitrogen content (1.4 percent of the fuel).
Compartment surveys were also conducted using the charcoal tube method,
carbon disulfide (desorbers) and analysis based on gas chromotograph pro-
cedures. The results are shown in Table 3 and tests are now being carried
out to determine possible carcinogen presence. Tests run on conventional
fuel yielded almost identical aromatic content in parts per million
(expressed as benzene). (See Table 4.)
50
-------
Table 1
PARTICULATE DATA
Edward B. Greene
Shale Oil (Synthetic Fuel)
Particulates
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Power
Condition
2/
P.P.
F.P.
F.P.
F.P.
F.P.
F.P.
Hotel ing
Hoteling
No. of
Burners
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Percent
Isokinectic
105
103
103
106
107
102
93
100
grains /SCF— '
.0217
.0128
.0135
.0367
.0274
.0310
.0256
.0236
gr/SCF
@127o CO?
.0230
.0147
.0155
.0421
.0311
.0352
.0256
.0236
Ib/hr
2.15
1.30
1.34
3.49
2.65
2.93
0.595
0.512
Ib/ft
-6 x 10
3.113
1.826
1.934
5.25
3.921
4.44
3-. 66
3.38
3/
Particulate
PARTIGULATET DATA^-'
1 F.P. 2 105 .050
2 F.P. 2 103 .030
3 F.P. 2 103 .031
4 F.P. 2 106 .082
5 F.P. 2 107 .062
6 F.P. 2 102 .069
7 Hoteling 1 93 .073
8 Hoteling 1 100 .063
— Grains per standard cubic foot.
21
— Full power.
3/
—Based on API Gravity of 13.8 which is equivalent to 8.11 Ibs/gal.
47
— Lbs per million Btu.
51
-------
Table 2
Power
Condition
F.P.
P.P.
F.P.
Number
of
Burners
GASEOUS EMISSION DATA
Edward B. Greene
Oil Shale Fuel
Excess Smoke
Air Ringleman Sulfur Dioxide
(Percent) Number
5/21/75
25 0.22
5/23/75
36 0.23
5/24/75
37 0.21
(ppm) (#/MBtu)*
233
200
149
0.45
0.43
0.32
Oxides of
Nitrogen
(ppm) (#/MBtu)
421 0.59
245 0.37
260 0.40
AVERAGE
194
0.40
309 0.44
Source: EPA's Standards of Performance of New Stationary Sources,
Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 247, Part II of 23, December 1971.
Particulates.
Smoke .
Sulfur.
Oxides of N_ and N0?
0.1 Ibs/MBtu
1.0 Ringleman Number
0.8 Ibs/MBtu
0.3 Ibs/MBtu
FUEL ANALYSIS
(Percent)
C = 85.8
H = 11.3
N = 1.4
S = 0.5
HHV = 18,330
API = 13.8 or 8.11 Ib/gal
* Lbs. per million Btu.
52
-------
Table 3
COMPARTMENT SURVEY TEST RESULTS
(Synthetic Fuels)
* # * * *
LA 2A 3A 4A 5A
Liters per minute of
air sampled 0.60 0.60 0.60 Q.60 0.60
Total volume of air
sampled (liters) 180 180 180 121 120
Micrograms of total
hydrocarbons in air
sampled** 78.3 310 700 145 146
Parts per million
(Expressed as
benzene) .14 .54 1.20 0.37 0.38
* lA-Sampled between two boilers and fire room level.
2A-Sampled left of port boiler.
3A-Sampled one level below fire room next to day tank pump.
4A-Sampled at bilge right at shale oil leak.
5A-Sampled between two boilers and fire room but two decks up.
**Based on detector response calibrated for benzene.
53
-------
Table 4
TEST RESULTS
(Conventional Fuel)
•& Vc Vc if
M 2A 3A 4A
Liters per minute of air
sampled 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8
Total volume of air sampled
(liters) 56 155 131 671
Micrograms of total hydro-
carbons in air sampled** 28.7 92 112 7070
Parts per million (expressed
as Benzene) 0.16 0.19 0.27 3.3
* lA-Sampled between two boilers and fire room level.
2A-Sampled left of port boiler.
3A-Sampled one level below fire room next to day tank pump.
4A-Sampled at bilge right at shale oil leak.
** Based on detector response calibrated for benzene.
54
-------
Mr. Wallace indicated plans to conduct compartment (fire rooms,
j-
engine and auxilliary diesel compartments) surveys on a FF 1052 class
destroyer in April of this year. He indicated the main problem was in
trying to determine the best method of collecting and analyzing the
samples. This is to be a joint effort with the Naval Environmental
Health Center.
Mr. Wallace also included Table 5 in a handout prepared for
distribution, which depicts yields from various synthetic fuel plants.
Discussion—Session II(B)
The discussion following the oil shale environmental measurements
and technology portion of the meeting addressed the following major
points:
« To illustrate the importance of careful sample selection,
Allan Grossman (Shell Oil) referred to the Paraho (process)
produced shale oil used in the naval tests which was
processed by the Gary Western Refinery near Fruita,
Colorado. He explained that the Gary Refinery does
not have hydrotreaters of the quality to take out ni-
trogen, whereas Colony (a consortium) and the Federal
lease tract, designated as Cb-"1', plants would have the
capability of reducing nitrogen to very low levels and
saturating some of the aromatics. He stated that ex-
isting Navy fuels present no environmental problems
and that the fuels from hydrotreated shale oil should
exhibit no problems either (with 98 percent assurance).
He further stated that there is interest in developing
markets for the nonhydrotreated shale oil since ade-
quate hydrotreating costs approximately $4.00 a barrel.
This is the cost of removing the high amount of bound
nitrogen from the fuel by hydrotreating methods. At
this point the shale projects are not economically viable
and industry is not likely to go ahead commercially
given the high project cost, product price controls,
present lack of a clear Federal policy encouraging
synthetic fuels, and other uncertainties.
* 1200 psi steam generator propulsion system.
** Cb is one of a number of lease sites in Colorado.
55
-------
Table 5
SYNTHETIC LIQUID FUELS CURRENTLY PRODUCED
OR PRODUCTION EXPECTED IN FY 1975
RAW MATERIAL PROCESS/COMPANY
Tar Sands Great Canadian
Oil Sands, Ltd.
Oil Shale Tosco
Paraho
Devel. Corp.
Paraho
Devel. Corp.
Laramie Energy
Res. Center
(In-Situ)
Laramie Energy
Res. Center
(Above ground)
Petrobras
Coal COED (FMC)
SRC (GULF)
Synthoil
(BuMines )
H-Coal (HRI)
SRC (Southern
Services )
SASOL
LOCATION OPERATION DATE
Alberta,
Canada
Denver ,
Colorado
Anvil Pts.
Colorado
Anvil Pts.
Colorado
Laramie,
Wyoming
Laramie,
Wyoming
Brazil
Princeton,
New Jersey
Tacoma ,
Washington
Bruceton,
Pa.
Trenton, N.J.
Wilsonville,
Alabama
S. Africa
On Stream
On Stream
On Stream
1974
(Sept-Oct)
1974
(Sept)
1974
On Stream
1974
(Sept)
1974 (Sept)
1975 (Jan)
On Stream
1974 (Nov)
On Stream
On Stream
CAPACITY
(Bbl/day)
45,000
15
22
250
800
(Total)
500
(Total)
1,000
30
53
150
1.5
7
3*
6,600**
* Tons of solid produced per day
** Tons of coal processed per day
56
-------
To a question regarding whether plans are being made to
develop air standards for oil shale processing, Mr. James
Durham (EPA/OAQPS) answered that work will proceed in this
area when it appears that oil shale development is break-
ing out of its present holding pattern.
Mr. Robert Kerr's (ERDA/LERC) response to a question of
calculating process efficiency for in-situ oil shale
processing, was that one would have to go back and take
core samples over the whole area and compute a recovery
percentage on that basis to determine how much of the
resource may have been burned.
A question addressed to Mr. Kerr concerning the cost of
environmental measurements elicited the following re-
sponse :
A coal burn monitoring and measurement effort to
characterize gases produced and particulates
ahead of the stack and also downstream of the
stack is estimated at $100,000 for the required
work and that an all out effort, i.e., looking
at water, offgases, characterizing core and
residue samples, analyzing dust, modeling on
dispersion, is estimated at $200,000 to $300,000
for assessment alone--an amount of funding which
is not available for each experiment. He further
indicated that one should have $125,000 available
every time field measurements are to be carried
out.
Studies for characterizatin of in-situ processing
and the relationship to groundwater studies for
an in-situ experiment could involve $600,000 over
a period of three to four years.
Mr. Kerr further commented that there is a retort lo-
cated in Laramie which can handle up to 150 tons, that
has been set up to simulate conditions which one might
expect under in-situ conditions. ERDA/LERC has on-
site engineers who observe the surface retorting pro-
cessing at the Anvil Point facility (Paraho process)
but cannot release the data. The Anvil Point facility
may go to zero effort which will be a blow to surface
retorting research. The facility may be turned back
to ERDA, and ERDA will have to look for a way to fund
the effort.
John Talty of NIOSH asked Mr. Kerr whether the measure-
ments program considers the potential worker exposure
involved in the process. Mr. Kerr replied that it is
57
-------
realized that dust could be generated and be of con-
cern; therfore ERDA is attempting to develop a pro-
gram to address the question and would welcome
technical input and funding from NIOSH.*
C. Industrial Considerations
The industrial considerations portion of the meeting consisted of
a presentation by Dr. Charles Prien of Denver Research Institute (DRI),
who gave an industrial point of view and comment on approaches outlined
in earlier presentations. Dr. Prien reiterated that it is not economical
to produce shale oil at the present time, and stated that there are
diverse opinions within industry as to the future of shale oil. Dr.
Prien explained that the University of Denver's Research Institute
could act as spokesman for industry because the majority of DRI's work
in oil shale over the years has been for these industries. The first
10) years of research on the TOSCO was carried out at DRI; this was prior
to the formation of the Oil Shale Corporation's own research group.
He addressed the comments made earlier in the session concerning
the difficulty of obtaining samples of shale oil and the reluctance of
some developers to furnish it, by stating that DRI would not have been
willing to say that oil produced by the TOSCO process (even near the
end of the 10-year effort) would be typical of that produced by a full-
scale plant. Developers are not reluctant to supply samples--DRI has
spent shale samples from every developer--but researchers need to be
persistent in their requests, realizing the causes for concern and
therefore the need for proper negotiations. There is a communication
problem, rather than an attempt by anyone to hide anything. A close
working relationship between EPA, ERDA and industry should be developed.
He suggested that the formation of ERDA/EPA/industry panels as Dr.
Coffin suggested for carcinogen studies would be an excellent step in
this regard. For example, the TOSCO group alonehas spent over $400,000
* Dr. Foley has since made the NIOSH Energy Coordinating Committee aware
of this and such work is being considered in current NIOSH discussions
with ERDA.
58
-------
carcinogen research and the results should be a part of the efforts
now going on; and, DRI has also, independent of the TRW-EPA contract,
been engaged in examining polycyclic organic materials for about four
years. The possibilities of misinterpretation of data are of concern.
Most of the processes which are becoming viable have evolved over
long periods of time. The Bureau of Mines research in the gas combustion
process began in the early 1940s--this is the process which Paraho is
now utilizing but with specific modifications developed by Paraho to
the inlet and outlet systems of that process. The TOSCO process work
began in 1956. The Union RetortA process was at a 1,200-ton level in
1958. Their Retort B process (using indirect mode of heating) has been
under investigation1for at least seven to eight years. Many of the ERDA
activities did not consider environmental impacts because it did not seem
to these developers that there was much point in talking about environ-
mental impacts until there was a process. Once there is a process, then
it can be refined and the necessary control technologies imposed. Dr.
Prien's opinion is that this will have to be the history of development
of oil shale processes — control technologies developed in cooperation
with the process development itself. Again, the more communication
between EPA and the developer as the developments occur (at lt-ast through
the first generation stage), the more closely they are going to be able
to assess what control technologies are available for the first generation
plants, and also to look at what might be the possible future control
technologies for second generation plants. Care must be taken not to
over-regulate an industry that does not exist. While industrial devel-
opers might not be invironmentalists per se, they are not going to
pollute the atmosphere knowingly, especially in this day of enlightened
attitude toward the fragility of the environment.
Dr. Prien indicated that care must be taken when considering the
question of nondeterioration of pristine air quality due to the fact
that extreme air problems already exist at some locations. A great deal
of data on ambient background information are being obtained on tracts
Ca, Cb, Ua, and Ub (sometimes designated as C-a, C-b, U-a, U-b), which
are available from the Federal Area Oil Shale Supervisor's office,
59
-------
U.S.G.S., Grand Junction, Colorado providing it can be correlated as
it should be. (See Figures 15 and 16.)
Dr. Prien referred to Dr. Coffin's mention of the possibility of
synergistic effects with respect to carcinogens, which occur when two
compounds A and B (neither of which when taken separately are carcino-
genic) come together and become carcinogenic. He pointed out that this
problem could be faced with respect to the particulates resulting from
oil shale processing.
Dr. Prien stated that if effluent water is used to wet the shale
pile, precautions must be taken to assure that materials do not migrate
from the pile, and that this will require testing over a period of time
in the context of a full-scale field program.
The variation in quantity and characteristics of aqueous effluents,
solid waste and air emissions occurring as a result of the various pro-
cesses was mentioned early in the session, and Dr. Prien emphasized
this point by commenting that there were at least eight oil shale pro-
cesses in varying degrees of development at the present time. TOSCO II
is probably closest to scale up to commercial size. The Superior Oil
process is still fairly small in scale as far as the retort itself is
concerned. Other processes (Paraho--350 tons a day; Union, Retort A--
1,000 tons a day; Union Retort B B—50 tons a day, to be scaled up) have
a smaller capacity than TOSCO II, but larger than the Superior process.
He added that there should be ample opportunity for industry, EPA and ERDA
to cooperate on proper environmental control of the new industry, because
most processes will go through a modular stage with a 10,000-ton prototype
plant being built prior to reaching a full-scale operational stage.
Dr. Prien agreed that one must be very careful of the history of
samples and the source materials due to their fugitive nature. Crude
shale oil, store even under ideal conditions, undergoes significant changes
over a period of time.
*
Figures 15 and 16, showing the locations of prototype oil shale tracts
are contributed by Roger A. Tucker, Area Oil Shale Supervisor's Office,
U.S.G.S., Conservation Division, Grand Junction, Colorado,
60
-------
Superior
Meeker
GRAND /Debeque
JUNCTI
FIGURE 15
OIL SHALE PROPERTIES
61
-------
i •;
OGOEN •*" f^
FFtT COUNTY V
Jo-'f'A
•^-^ US 40 /%fJ..«•'•.
.4°yv^8"TI T°
Figure 16
REGIONAL MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF TRACT C-a
-------
Dr. Prien does not agree that in-situ processing provides an answer
to environmental problems in the oil shale business. He stated that
although in-situ is a way of handling certain of the oil shale strata,
the problems of in-situ processing can be as troublesome as those of
aboveground retorting. He stated that the opportunities to examine what those
environmental problems will be, as provided by the ERDA program at LERC and
the Occidental Petroleum program, are welcome ones since some of these
problems are completely unknown at the present time.
Discussion—Session II(C)
Following his presentation a question was asked as to whether addi-
tional surface processes have been developed for the handling of special
quality shale. Dr. Prien replied that in surface processing, one would
normally like to use as rich a shale as possible because of the higher
yields. However, certain of the retorting processes have problems with
the very rich shales (40-45 gallons per ton of shale)—when such rich
shale was used in a conventional gas combustion retort, bridging occurred.
The Union Oil Company retort was developed specifically to break up
such bridging. The TOSCO process has a very inherent advantage in its
ability to handle fines. He further stated that in-situ t,recesses would
probably develop in much the same way--i.e., where 40-50 feet thick strata
of shale exist, horizontal in-situ retorting may be applied, as opposed
to the vertical methods used by Occidental, where a cavern is mined out,
explosives are placed above, and rock broken down into the open space.
Just prior to the general discussion Mr. Kerr (ERDA/LERC) clarified
earlier statements he had made:
0 When a budget is developed to do a series of experiments
within a fiscal year, that money is set aside from the
ERDA budget for research relating to a specific process.
An environmental plan is then associated with that
process. If the process costs more than was estimated,
the environmental monitoring effort may have to give
up some of its funding. Sharing funds is then a means
of obtaining auxilliary funding dedicated to a parti-
cular environmental measurement program which could not
be diverted for use in other critical RD&D areas of
concern.
63
-------
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Dr. Foley opened the general discussion period with the observance
that previous presentations and discussions indicated that there will be
ample opportunity to obtain the necessary environmental data and samples
for health effects and that coordination and standardization will be
needed to assure all pertinent information is recorded and transmitted
along with the samples. He commented that whereas such a task will
require a great deal of effort, it could be accomplished with relatively
little difficulty.
He indicated that a question of concern appears to be whether environ-
mentalists should be worried as yet, considering the uncertain future of
the industry. He asked the Sector Group to respond to the following
question: If the Synthetic Fuels Commercialization Bill (which would
provide government loan guarantees and price guarantees in certain
cases) is passed by Congress and signed by the President, will this
completely turn around the economic picture for the oil shale industry
and result in putting one or several plants into operation in the next
five years? Sector Group response was as follows:
• Allan Grossman (Shell Oil) replied that some people
in industry feel that congressional action would be
a significant factor in getting one or two demon-
stration plants, or a module of each, started. It
was his understanding that TOSCO feels confident
that on the basis of loan guarantees, they could
borrow money on the market to get something started.
However, he remarked that it remains to be seen
whether people who would be providing that money
would be willing to take the risk, even with govern-
ment loan guarantees.
There were no further comments or questions and the meeting was
adjourned.
65
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
AGENDA
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING
31 March 1976
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:30 Welcoming Remarks Dr. David G. Stephan
IERL, CINC
Session I
PREVIOUSLY DEFINED ISSUES, OPTIONS AND PROGRAM IMPACT
8:45 Summary and Analysis of Issues Raised Dr. Gary J. Foley
at Previous Sector Group Meeting OEMI
9:30 Program Modifications Dr. Gary J. Foley
10:00 Coffee Break
10:15 Discussion
Session II
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR OIL SHALE PROCESSING
Chairman, Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr., OEMI
11:00 Introduction Dr. Gary J. Foley, OEMI
11:15 Background: Information Available from
Oil Shale Working Group of the
Western Energy Resource Development Mr. Eugene F. Harris
Sector Group IERL, CINC
11:30 Lunch
A. HEALTH EFFECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
12:45 The EPA - Health Effects and Related
Environmental Assessment Dr. David Coffin
Program HERL, RTF
1:00 The ERDA - " Dr. Richard Pelroy,
Pacific Northwest
Laboratory (Batelle)
67
-------
AGENDA (Continued)
1:15 DoD/Navy -
1:30
Navy Concerns Related to
the Health Effects of Oil
Shale and Synthetic Fuels
Discussion
LCRD Leigh E. Doptis
Occupational and
Preventive Medicine
Division, Navy Dept.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND TECHNOLOGY
2:00 EPA Environmental Measurements and
Control Technology
2:15 ERDA Environmental Measurements and
Associated Technology
2:30 DoD/Navy Environmental Measurements
and Associated Technology
2:45 Coffee/Soft Drink Break
3:00 Discussion
Mr. Thomas Powers
IERL, CINC
Mr. Robert Kerr
Laramie Research
Laboratory, ERDA
Mr. Balfour Wallace
David Taylor Naval
Ship Research and
Development Center
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr.
OEMI
C. INDUSTRIAL CONSIDERATIONS
3:30 Industrial Point of View and Comment
on Approaches Outlined in Earlier
Presentations
4:00 General Discussion
4:30 Adjournment
Dr. Charles Prien
Denver Research
Institute (DRI)
Dr. Gary J. Foley
OEMI
68
-------
ATTACHMENT II
LIST OF ATTENDEES
(Alphabetical Listing by Name)
Rob e rt Bauman
EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning & Standards
Energy Strategy Branch - Mail Drop 12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 629-5345
Julie F. Bishop
Stanford Research Institute
1611 N. Kent Street
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 524-2053
Stephen L. Brown
Stanford Research Institute
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 326-6200
Alden G. Christensen
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-4207
David L. Coffin
EPA, Health Effects Research
Laboratory
Mail Drop 52
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 489-1623
Richard C. Corey
ERDA, Fossil Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, DC 20545
(202) 376-4687
Jack Cotter
TRW
Environmental Services Division
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(213) 535-0962
Ronald L. Dickenson
Stanford Research Institute
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 326-6200
LCDR Leigh E. Doptis
Naval Medical Research and
Development Center (Code 47)
National Naval Medical Center
Bethesda, MD 20014
(202) 295-1140
James F. Durham
EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning & Standards
Mail Drop 13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 688-8146
Gary J. Foley
EPA, Office of Energy, Minerals
& Industry
Waterside Mall RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 755-0207
R. John Garner
EPA, Health Effects Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-7401
Allan P. Grossman
Shell Oil Company
Two Shell Plaza
P. 0. Box 2099
Houston, TX 77001
(713) 220-4732
Arne Gubrud
American Petroleum Institute
Environmental Affairs
2101 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
C202) 457-7070
69
-------
Eugene F. Harris
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-4417
George L. Huffman
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-4252
Charles W. Hulburt
Stanford Research Institute
1611 N. Kent Street
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 524-2053
John E. Johnston
U.S. Geological Survey, DOI
National Center Stop 956
Reston, VA 22092
(703) 860-6432
James R. Jones
Director, Environmental Quality
Peabody Coal
301 N. Memorial Drive
St. Louis, MO 63102
(314) 342-3628
Robert Kerr
ERDA, Laramie Energy Research
Laboratory
Box 3395
Laramie, WY 82071
(307) 742-2115
Robert M. Lusskin
Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
44 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 661-1410
William N. McCarthy, Jr.
EPA, Office of Energy, Minerals
& Indus try
Waterside Mall RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 755-0635
B.C. McKinney
Tennessee Valley Authority
1320 Commerce Union Bank Bldg.
Chattanooga, TN
(615) 854-3381
William E. Mott
ERDA, Division of Environmental
Control Technology
Mail Stop E-201
Washington, DC 20545
(301) 353-5225
L.G. Neal
TRW
Environmental Services Division
One Space Park R4-2120
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(213) 535-0962
Richard A. Pelroy
Biology Department
Batelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories
Richland, WA 99352
(509) 942-3251
William E. Pepelko
EPA, Health Effects Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-7437
Fred Pfeffer
EPA, Environmental Research
Laboratory
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
(405) 332-8800
John D. Powderly
ERDA, Fossil Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20545
(202) 376-4496
Thomas J. Powers
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-4363.
70
-------
Charles H. Prien
Chemical Division
Denver Research Institute
University of Denver
Denver, CO 80210
(303) 753-2912
David G. Stephan
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-4402
Gerald Rausa
EPA, Office of Energy, Minerals
& Industry
Waterside Mall RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 426-4567
Robert H. Rea
Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
44 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 661-1410
Matthew J. Reilly
ERDA, Fossil Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20545
(202) 376-4782
Frank C. Schora, Jr.
Vice-President, Process Research
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 South State Street
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 567-3748
Murray Schulman
ERDA, Division of Biomedical &
Environmental Research
Washington, DC 20545
(301) 353-3681
Lowell Smith
EPA, Office of Energy, Minerals
& Industry
Waterside Mall RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 755-0655
J. F. Stara
EPA, Health Effects Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-7408
John T. Talty, P.E.
Chief, Control Technology Research
Branch
Division of Physical Sciences and
Engineering, NIOSH
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226
(513) 684-4221
Balfour L. Wallace
David Taylor Naval Ship Research
& Development Center
Code 2852
Air Contamination Control Branch
Annapolis, MD 21402
(301) 267-2640
71
-------
ATTACHMENT II (Continued)
LIST OF ATTENDEES
(By Organization)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
Energy Research Centers
Laramie
Robert Kerr
National Laboratories
Battelle Pacific Northwest
Richard Pelroy
Office of Environment and Safety
William Mott
Murray Schulman
Office of Fossil Energy
Richard Corey
John Powderly
Matthew Reilly
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air, Land and Water Use
Environmental Research Laboratory--Ada, OK
Fred Pfeffer
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Robert Bauman
James Durham
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Headquarters
Gary Foley
William McCarthy
Gerald Rausa
Lowell Smith
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory--Cincinnati, Ohio
Alden Christensen
Eugene Harris
George Huffman
Thomas Powers
David Stephan
73
-------
Office of Health and Ecological Effects
Health Effects Research Laboratory--Research Triangle Park, N.C.
David Coffin
Health Effects Research Laboratory—Cincinnati, Ohio
John Garner
William Pepelko
J. F. Stara
Health, Education and Welfare, Department of
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
John Talty
Interior, Department of the
U.S. Geological Survey
John Johnston
Navy, Department of the
David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center
Balfour Wallace
Naval Medical Research and Development Center
LCDR Leigh Doptis
Tennessee Valley Authority
B. G. McKinney
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS
Denver Research Institute
Charles Prien
Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
Robert Lusskin
Robert Rea
Stanford Research Institute
Julie Bishop
Stephen Brown
Ronald Dickenson
Allan Grossman, Consultant (Shell Oil Company)
Arne Gubrud, Consultant (American Petroleum Institute)
Charles Hulburt
James Jones, Consultant (Peabody Coal)
Frank Schora, Consultant (Institute of Gas Technology)
TRW
Jack Cotter
L. G. Neal
74
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-76-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Meeting Report: Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group,
Cincinnati, 31 March 1976
5. REPORT DATE
June 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOH(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Stanford Research Institute
1611 North Kent Street, Rosslyn Plaza
Arlington, Virginia 22209
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Task 004
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND,PEfllOD_pO V£ RED
Minutes/Advanced TossfT Fuel:
Grnnn Mp-pfing/31 Mar
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Contacts: Dr. Gary Foley -- (202) 755-0207
Mr. William McCarthy — (202) 755-0635
16 A BSTR ACT — ~ ~ ~ • ~ ^^^^^ ..^——^«^^^— r _^^__^^^^_
The minutes of the third Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group Meeting cover the
content of the presentations which were made and the discussion which followed. The
general areas of concern were:
(1) A review of the content of the second Sector Group Meeting with indica-
tions of action taken
(2) The development of oil shale processing in which the following
wprp arMrpsspH
areas
(a) Health effects and environmental assessment programs at EPA,
ERDA, and DoD
(b) Environmental measurements and technology programs at EPA, ERDA,
3nH nr>T)
and DoD
(c) Industrial point of view
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Oil shale development
Coal gasification and liquefaction
Environmental control technology
Pollutant prioritization
Pollutant characterization
Water standards
Air standards
Environmental standards
Control technology
Pollutants
Synthetic fuels
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
75
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
75
------- |