United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Developmen
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA-600/7-76-023
October 1976
MEETING REPORT
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS
SECTOR GROUP
LasVegas, 25 August 1976
(0 -n
o> m
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 effecto
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
analysis 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 Lhrouph the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161'
-------
EPA-600/7-76-023
October 1976
MEETING REPORT
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP (AFFSG)
IAS VEGAS
25 August 1976
Prepared by:
Stanford Research Institute
1611 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Contract No. 68-01-1981
Co-Project Officers:
Dr. Gary J. Foley, and
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr.
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
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.
-------
FOREWORD
Hie Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group (AFFSG) is currently
composed of approximately 46 members who represent interested groups
involved in the advanced fossil fuels research and development (R&D)
marketplace--government, and consultants and contractors to the
government who are involved in the development of energy conversion
technology. Membership includes representatives from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and all other U.S. government
agencies having input to EPA regulatory functions.
The Sector Group serves mainly in a management advisory capacity
and also contributes toward assuring that the research, development and
demonstration (RD&D) program reflects user requirements through providing
input to the planning activities of the Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry (OEMI).
-------
Mr. Kelly Janes (EPA/IERL-RTP) and Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr. (EPA/OEMI),
incoming Sector Group Chairman, at the podium following Mr. lanes'
presentation.
Participants in the Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group (AFFSG) meeting,
Las Vegas, Nevada, August 25, 1976.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD iii
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES vii
HIGHLIGHTS, ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING 1
Importance of Sampling 3
Potential for Foreign Plant Data Utilization 4
Standards Setting Considerations 5
Interagency/International Coordination/Cooperation 6
Economic Factors in Fossil Fuels Technology Development ... 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MINUTES, ADVANCED FOSSIL
FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING 9
SESSION I: ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PREVIOUS
MEETINGS AND DISCUSSION 11
SESSION II: EPA/ORD ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 15
A. Advanced Oil Processing (CAFB) 15
B. Advanced Oil Processing: Desulfurization/
Demetallization/Denitrification 15
C. Oil Shale 17
General Discussion . 18
D. Chemical Coal Cleaning 19
E. Synthetic Fuels Environmental Assessment 20
F. Synthetic Fuels Control Technology Development ... 21
H. Environmental Process and Effects 23
MINUTES, ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP MEETING 27
SESSION I: ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PREVIOUS
MEETINGS AND DISCUSSION 29
Discussion—Session I 43
v
-------
SESSION II: EPA/ORD ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 45
A. Advanced Oil Processing—The Chemically
Active Fluid Bed (CAFB) 45
Discussion—Session II(A) 54
B. Advanced Oil Processing (Desulfurization/
Demetallization/Denitrification) 55
Discussion—Session II(B) 59
C. Oil Shale 60
Discussion—Session II(C) 66
General Discussion—Session II(A, B and C) 68
D. Chemical Coal Cleaning 71
Discussion—Session II(D) 75
E. Synthetic Fuels Environmental Assessment 78
Discussion—Session II(E) 83
F. Synthetic Fuels Control Technology Development ... 86
Discussion—Session II(F) 89
G. High Temperature/Pressure Particulate Control .... 92
Discussion--Session II(G) 96
H. Environmental Process and Effects 97
Discussion—Session II(H) 107
ATTACHMENTS 109
Attachment I—Agenda 109
Attachment II—List of Attendees Ill
By Name Ill
By Organization 115
vi
-------
FIGURES
Title
1. Kosovo Coal Gasification Plant
2. Flow Chart, Kosovo Gasification Plant
3. Commercial Coal Preparation Plant
Under Construction by the General
Public Utilities Corporation in
Homer City, Pennsylvania
4. TRW Process Flow Diagram for Fine
Coal Processing (Meyers Process)
5. Reactor Test Unit, Meyers Process for
Coal Desulfurization
6. Paraho Retort—Indirect Mode
7. CAFB Schematic
8. CAFB Gasifier Regenerator
9. Comparison of Petroleum Refinery
Growth and Projected Synthetic
Fuel Growth
10. Projected Energy Funding
11. Comparison of Organic Compound Spectra
Speaker Page
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr. 31
" 33
Mr. Sam Rakes
Mr. William Rhodes
Mr. Gerald Rausa
35
40
40
42
48
48
80
80
101
TABLES
Title
Speaker
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Page
ERDA Coal Gasification Development
Plans Currently Being Reviewed by EPA Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr. 36
Capital Investment (Meyers Process)
Interagency Health and Ecological
Effects Program Energy R&D
Surrogate Standard Reference Materials
Carcinogen-Related Studies Funded by
OEMI/EPA Interagency Program
Mr. Gerald Rausa
39
99
103
105
vxi
-------
HIGHLIGHTS
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS
SECTOR GROUP MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
25 August 1976
-------
Several topics which received considerable and repeated attention
during the Sector Group Meeting and seem to warrant attention by the
Executive Committee and/or OEMI staff members for possible recommenda-
tions and/or actions are:
• Importance of Sampling
• Potential for Foreign Plant Data Utilization
• Standards Setting Considerations
• Interagency/International Cooperation/Coordination
• Economic Factors in Fossil Fuels Technology Development
IMPORTANCE OF SAMPLING
The necessity for the importance of sampling and the handling of
samples in developing control technology (CT) for potential synthetic
fuel production facilities has been raised at each Sector Group meeting.
Some of the cogent points made at the Las Vegas meeting were:
• Samples are a major concern of both the agencies
involved and industry.
• A centralized materials repository was suggested
to avoid duplication, and is under consideration.
Following Mr. Christiansen's presentation, Dr. David Coffin of
EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park
stated that the greatest problem encountered to date has been that of
obtaining specimens, with the result that evaluation of the biological
effects is out of phase with the engineering, (See p» 67.)
There is an effort underway by EPA, ERDA and NIOSH to set up a
cooperative program to collect samples (including shale) for a materials
repository. It would provide:
• Standard reference materials
• Sufficient numbers of identical samples to
permit interested agencies to work with the
same materials.
-------
Several points which were made with regard to foreign plant sample
collection in the discussion following Mr. Ehodes* presentation on Syn-
thetic Fuels Environmental Assessment are applicable to domestic sample
collection as well. There should be a cooperative effort in planning
how to obtain and utilize samples—the mechanisms for obtaining them and
the kind of data sought. * For such a program to work, all parties concerned
must have confidence in the program.
POTENTIAL FOR FOREIGN PLANT DATA UTILIZATION
It was generally agreed that acquisition of information from foreign
operations is highly desirable and worthwhile.
Specific foreign installations discussed were:
* Yugoslavia's Kosovo coal gasification plant. (See
McCarthy, p. 28). Participants felt that this was
an excellent opportunity to gather data and should
be encouraged. The gasifier's waste water system
is poorly designed from the water pollution point
of view. EPA plans to make a thorough measure-
ment of the contents of the plant's waste streams
in the future.
• South Africa's SASOL gasification plant. (See
General Discussion, p. 71 and Rhodes, p. 82).
This plant has been operating 20 years, is large,
technically well staffed, and employs a good deal
of CT, including a very good water treatment plant.
It was suggested that the politically sensitive
situation not be allowed to preclude acquisition
of data from this advanced facility and it was
pointed out that some U.S. commercial groups have
politically free access to SASOL, which could
facilitate an industry-government approach if a
government-government approach should prove in-
feasible.
• USSR's shale oil development in Estonia. (See
Christians on, p. 68.) The shale oil in/Iustry in
Estonia has proven viable, supplying most of the
electric power to the city of Leningrad and its
environs. A joint EPA/KIOSH trip is planned for
January 1977 to survey plants, identify points of
human contact with effluents and plan health
studies.
* Italics indicate possible issues and/or policy Implications,
-------
There have been discussions between EPA and NIOSH relative to a
possible joint program to explore both health and environmental data with
foreign interests, but NIOSH1s specific needs have not yet been delineated.
Battelle has prepared a report covering published information on
chemical coal cleaning techniques (both those which have been demonstra-
ted and those under study) around the world.
Some considerations that were raised regarding data collection from
foreign sources included:
• Transferability of technology was questionable in
some instances, e.g., European shale is two to three
times as rich as U.S. shale and thus portions of
that technology may not apply.
• U.S. retrofitting of foreign plants—Diversion of a
part of a stream of an existing foreign plant for CT
study would be a possibility. Foreign plant personnel
are well aware of potential pollution problems,
although they may be less aggressive than the United
States in seeking solutions.
• Problems involved in foreign plant utilization include;
cost of retrofit, distance and control.
In utilization of foreign plants, the expense of retrofitting an
operating plant with a new technology must be weighed against other alter-
natives .
In view of these factors, tine tradeoffs between U.S. investment in
overseas operations versus building a universal test site here in the
United States to address CT problems was brought up as an issue.
STANDARDS SETTING CONSIDERATIONS
Industry representatives cautioned that final standards should not be
set for an infant industry., since they are not easily changed, once set,
and may preclude the development of an economically feasible technology.
Dr. Coffin considered it desirable, however, to get into a develop-
ing industry before major capital investments have been made to obviate
serious toxicological problems that might arise.
-------
Relative merits of bench scale and pilot plants were discussed. The
need and ability to exercise extreme flexibility in bench scale opera-
tion was brought out and compared with the likelihood of inflexibility
once a technology reached pilot plant scale. Mr. John Tatty of NIOSH
expressed concern that much of the -industrial health data from pilot
facilities may be atypical3 and therefore not fully adequate for use in
addressing health problems.
Robert Bauman (EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards)
indicated that there is no program to set particulate standards at
present.
INTERAGENCY/INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION/COOPERATION
Interagency
Sector Group participants seemed to feel that there was cause for
optimism in this area, that there has been a steady increase in communi-
cation and cooperation, expecially between EPA. ERDA and NIOSH. The
importance of continuing and increasing this cooperation was stressed.
It was pointed out that work done by one agency should reflect ongoing
work in other agencies, avoiding even the appearance of duplication of
effort. EPA, ERDA, NIOSH, the Department of the Interior and others are
involved in different aspects of the same areas (e.g., both ERDA and
Interior are concerned with in-situ studies). ERDA is mandated to develop
environmentally sound technologies; EPA, to environmentally assess
technologies developed by others. NIOSH has a regulatory role similar
to EPA, but geared specifically to health aspects and with a different
legislative base.
There are efforts being made by EPA, ERDA and NIOSH to draw up
memoranda of understanding, protocols, or agreements to develop joint
programs where possible.
EPA/OEMI and ERDA/Environment and Safety are cooperating in the
area of waste disposal.
Coordination in sample collections should facilitate the coopera-
tion of technology developers, both domestic and foreign.
-------
International
The USA/USSR Interagency International Program involves assessment
of plants to determine where health effects should be studied, and how
to interact with the plant staff. This program offers a precedent for
interaction that could be spread to other programs with relative ease.
ECONOMIC FACTORS IN FOSSIL FUELS TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
Cost benefit tradeoff considerations were brought up throughout
the presentations and discussions indicated a great deal of concern with
the economic factors involved in the programs.*
TRW/Meyers Chemical Coal Cleaning Process
In discussion the Meyers process, it was indicated that funding
should be available to complete the reactor test unit (RTU). Efforts
are, however, underway to reduce the reaction cost through more effective
processing.
EPA representatives expressed the opinion that funding for such
studies should come from an agency other than EPA, e.g., Bureau of Mines
or ERDA. It was pointed out that there -Is little -incentive for producers
to fund such testing* since additional cleaning costs would have to be
added to consumer costs3 rendering their product less competitive with
that of producers complying with minimum standards.
Attempts have been made to measure the economics of the Meyers
process vs. alternative cleaning technologies. The process is apparently
significantly less costly than Battelle's process, although there was some
question as to their comparability. It is competitive with flue gas
desulfurization (FGD), although chemical coal cleaning should prove
less expensive for the smaller industrial or commercial use since the cost of
* In discussions among Sector Group Members during meeting breaks,
considerable concern was expressed concerning the fact that tax
incentives are not now available for pretreatment efforts such as
coal cleaning. See also, footnote on p.
-------
FCD Control Technology is percentage wise, proportionally greater as systems
become smaller. This suggests a crossover point at which chemical coal
cleaning would become cost effective.
Chemically Active Fluid Bed (CAFB)
As of the last evaluation, it appeared that CAFB costs are compe-
titive with flue gas desulfurization techniques when applied to high
sulfur oils, although little has been said about the economic aspects
because of the rather rapidly varying economic situation with regard
to energy costs and availability and costs of retrofitting.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MINUTES
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS
SECTOR GROUP MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
IAS VEGAS, NEVADA
25 August 1976
-------
SESSION I: ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PREVIOUS
MEETINGS AND DISCUSSION
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr., the Sector Groups Coordinator and
incoming AFFSG Chairman, introduced the outgoing Chairman, Dr. Gary J.
Folev, who has accepted a post in Paris, France with the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development. Dr. Foley welcomed the AFFSG
members and members from the Electric Utilities Working Sector Group (EUWSG),
Mr. McCarthy summarized current Sector Group activities which include
efforts to:
• Prioritize pollutants,
• Publicize the cooperative effort underway with the Yugoslavs
at their Kosovo coal gasification plant,
• Promote EPA-ERDA interaction,
• Publicize the Meyers coal cleaning process,
• Promote information transfer on national oil shale efforts, and,
• Update on a continuous basis the problems and programs "Blue Book."
With regard to setting pollutant priorities, Mr. McCarthy reviewed
the Sector Group Executive Committee's development of a memorandum to
Dr. Gage recommending the establishment of a "Wise-Man Panel". Dr. Gage
indicated that this approach was in line with an Office of Research and
Development (ORD) recommendation for what might be called a "Wise-Man
Task Force", a broader multi-media, multi-disciplined approach. The Task
Force may include implementation of the approach suggested by the Sector
Group Executive Committee.
Mr. McCarthy then reported in detail on the EPA trip to the Kosovo
coal gasification plant in Pristina, Yugoslavia and plans for a Yugoslav
team to visit the United States.
He presented a brief update of EPA-ERDA interaction: EPA visits to
ERDA demonstration plants, plans for joint environmental testing, exchange
of information on ongoing and planned projects and EPA provision of
11
-------
membership on ERDA task forces for the development and analysis of
the Coalcon process.
In the area of Standards, Mr. McCarthy indicated the status of new
source performance standards (NSPS) for coal gasification plants. Relating
to the gaseous emissions of sulfur and hydrocarbons from coal gasifica-
tion plants, Mr. McCarthy described the status of the recommended NSPS.
No water standards are currently being considered because it is hoped
that there will be no liquid discharge.
EPA is proceeding with funding for construction of a Reactor Test
Unit (RTU) using the TRW/Meyers process. Mr. McCarthy gave an overall
rundown of cost estimates, status, and efforts to make potential users
aware of the process.
A cooperative sampling and analysis effort for the oil shale program
is underway at the Paraho facility, with participation by TRW, Denver
Research Institute (DRI), Paraho Oil Shale Demonstration, Inc., and
ERDA's Laramie Energy Research Center (LERC). A related effort to amass
an information base on oil shale for Sector Group use includes compila-
tion and distribution of a bibliography, distribution of a Smithsonian
Science Information Exchange (SSIE) computer listing of government-funded
oil shale R&D projects.
The latest Environmental Problems and Research and Development Pro-
gram document ("Blue Book") updates were reviewed, with a request for
membership evaluation of the usefulness of this book.
Discussion
Two notes of interest brought out in the discussion following Mr.
McCarthy's presentation were:
• EPA is helping to support the Fourth National Conference on
Energy and the Environment, October 5-7 in Cincinnati. Presen-
tations scheduled for the October 6 morning and afternoon
sessions will present the EPA Interagency Coal Cleaning
Program's resource aspects and cleaning processes.*
A report on these sessions will be available in November, 1976 (EPA-
600/7-76-024).
12
-------
EPA has a $5 million contract with TRW to design and
construct a coal cleaning plant and to perform a one-year
test program on the economic feasibility and effectiveness
of the process.
13
-------
SESSION II: EPA/ORD ADVANCED FOSSIL
FUELS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Dr. Gary Foley, Chairman of the meeting, began the second session by
urging active audience participation.
A. Advanced Oil Processing: CAFE
Mr. Sam Rakes, OEMI/IERL-RTP, presented an overview of work being done
by EPA in advanced oil processing using chemically active fluid bed (CAFB)
technology. He gave a brief history of the process from its inception at
the ESSO Research Center in England in 1966 to EPA?s present involvement,
which includes a demonstration plant at the La Palma generating station,
San Benito, Texas for the gasification and utilization of high-sulfur
residual oil. This demonstration project will be based on a proprietary
process for sulfur recovery. It is hoped that the La Palma station will
provide reasonable estimates of the economics of the CAFB process for
use as yet another control alternative to flue gas desulfurization (FGD).
The effort also addresses possible options available in the handling
of spent sorbent. Mr. Rakes pointed out various retrofit difficulties
that have been encountered in modifying the San Benito site and how they
have been solved. He also indicated several advantages of the CAFB pro-
cess. Information on CAFB technology is being provided to ERDA and to
other interested parties.
The discussion after Mr. Rakes' presentation covered possible utili-
zation of used crankcase oil, the Btu content of the product gas, status
of the proprietary Resox process, the economic viability of CAFB and an
elaboration of the environmental monitoring program associated with CAFB
development.
B. Advanced Oil Processing; Desulfurization/Demetallization
Denitrification
Mr. William Rhodes, OEMI/IERL-RTP, summarized other advanced oil pro-
cesses: desulfurization, demetallization and denitrification. Based on
past experience, pretreatment of liquid fuels is expected to be:
15
-------
• less expensive than treatment after combustion
• cost effective for smaller area source users
• beneficial to oil refinery operations, and
• applicable to synthetic fuel liquids.
Currently, the thrusts of the programs are the development of improved
scavengers for heavy metal contaminants in residual fuels, and the development
of removal methods. The proprietary nature of most industrial R&D has been
a major problem in relation to such development.
Domestically, a bench scale evaluation is underway with Hydrocarbon
Research, Inc. utilizing molybdenum (1%) on activated bauxite as the
scavenger prior to conventional hydrodesulfurization (HDS). In the
denitrification area, EPA has a research grant with MIT to study hydro-
denitrification (HDN) and hydrodesulfurization kinetics and reaction
mechanisms on generic compounds. EPA also has a cooperative program
with the Soviet Union for pretreatment cross testing which involves
Soviet and U.S. catalysts and oils.
The sulfur, nitrogen and metal contents of synthetic liquid fuels and
the effectiveness of combustion control techniques are either unknown or
unpublished. Simultaneous removal of nitrogen and sulfur appears to be
desirable, but extensive research is necessary to determine the feasibility
of this approach.
Still in the early stages of this research, there has not, as yet,
been much interaction with other programs and agencies, although this will
be desirable as work progresses.
Items of interest during the discussion period included the level of
program funding (currently about $200K per fiscal year), screening catalysts,
application of the scavenger technology to synfuels, the cost of this tech-
nology as an alternative or complement to combustion modification, and the
availability of data on the nitrogen, sulfur and metals' content of shale
and coal oils.
16
-------
C. Oil Shale
Mr. Alden Christianson (OEMI/IERL-CINC) presented an overview of
EPA's oil shale R&D program which includes environmental assessment,
control technology development, studies of pollutant transport, ecological
effects, health effects and measurement and monitoring.
He emphasized that although oil shale processing is, as yet, essen-
tially nonexistent as an industry, its potential importance stems from
the fact that oil shale is one of the United States' largest natural
energy resources, second only to coal. The oil shale industry has an
uncertain future because of process costs and problems posed by water
requirements.
Mr. Christiansen described the efforts of the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, both in-house and with TRW/Denver Research
Institute (DRI), and Colorado State University (CSU), relating to retorting,
emissions characterization and control, solid waste, revegetation, air
quality modeling, underground aquifers modeling and socio-economic
impacts. A sampling and analysis program has been conducted at ERDA's
Paraho facility by TRW. Revegetation and leaching studies are continuing,
air quality models are being developed and tested, and meteorological data
are being accumulated.
In spite of the fact that the oil shale program has been in a constant
state of flux as a result of an undefined national energy policy, con-
gressional indecision, escalating costs and the influence of environmental
groups, Mr. Christiansen indicated that EPA would continue research efforts
on oil shale appropriate to the commercialization potential of the industry.
Interagency cooperation in these efforts is necessary, since no single
group or interest will likely have either the resources or the capability
to do all of what must be done.
In the discussion that followed, Dr. David Coffin, EPA/HERL-RTP,
amplified Mr. Christiansen's remarks, commenting on planned actions in
the health and ecology areas and the advisability of obviating toxicolo-
gical problems before large capital investments are made. He stressed
the difficulties of obtaining specimens and the value of a central reposi-
tory both as a reference and source of research samples.
17
-------
Dr. Coffin also informed the group of a USSR/USA cooperative agree-
ment on oil shale development and the health effects problems to be
studied.
General Discussion
Advanced oil processing, oil shale, coal gasification and alternative
technologies to flue gas desulfurization with emphasis on problems
relating to in-situ processing of oil shale were further discussed.
Plant characteristics and considerations of foreign coal gasification
efforts and the value of data derived from these efforts received con-
siderable attention.
ERDA, EPA and NIOSH areas of responsibility were indicated, and it
was emphasized that the activities spanning several federal agencies
should be coordinated in an attempt to avoid unnecessary duplication of
effort.
D. Chemical Coal Cleaning
Mr. Kelly Janes, Chief of the Fuel Processing Branch, Energy Assess-
ment and Control Division, IERL-RTP began by explaining that the Coal
Cleaning Program differs from other EPA synthetic fuels programs in its
responsibility for basic technology development. It is based on the
technological development of the process(es), environmental assessment
and control technology development (CTD) for the purpose of increasing
the size of U.S. coal resources acceptable for meeting emissions
regulations, and developing methods of producing a clean fuel for small
users. Environmental assessments are intended for any process for which
commercialization is intended.
The assessment will include studying the residues from the coal
cleaning processes from the environmental point of view.
It is hoped that results from operation of the TRW's Reactor Test
Unit (RTU) utilizing the Meyers Process will solve some of the economic
uncertainties and disposal problems connected with present knowledge.
18
-------
Evaluations of techniques are underway and state-of-the-art background
documents are being prepared. Possible economic advantages of combining
physical and chemical coal cleaning are being considered.
Mr. Janes' presentation elicited extensive discussions related to
the completion of the Meyers RTU, preparation techniques and the com-
parative costs of the available processes.
E. Synthetic Fuels Environmental Assessment
Mr. William Rhodes was reintroduced to discuss the environmental
assessment aspects of synthetic fuels from coal liquefaction and low-
and high-Btu coal gasification.
He identified the objectives of the program as:
• characterizing and quantifying the environmental
aspects of synthetic fuels technology
• determining the applicability and effectiveness
of available control technology (CT), and
• identifying needed new CT.
The program consists of (1) review of current technology, (2)
acquisition of environmental data, (3) characterization of feedstocks,
(4) control technology state-of-the-art, (5) engineering, .and environ-
mental and cost analysis.
One problem connected with the program is the limited number of
commercial plants, thus requiring data to be acquired from pilot scale
units. Another limitation is that the potential for adverse effects to
health and the environment from such plants is relatively undefined.
The engineering analysis and technology background portions of the
program are completed. The environmental impact statements (EIS) and
proposed EPA gasification system standards are now being evaluated.
The Synthetic Fuels Program interacts with other programs within
EPA Headquarters and Regions, and has cooperative sampling programs with
ERDA, OSHA and NIOSH.
19
-------
The discussion after Mr. Rhodes' presentation included;
• amplification on bench scale and pilot plant
considerations related to pollutant research
• evaluations of foreign plants—planned or in
progress—and
• ERDA activities relating to environmental
assessments of coal synthetic fuels.
F. Synthetic Fuels Control Technology Development
In his second presentation, Mr. Kelly Janes discussed control tech-
nology development (CTD) which makes up the remaining portion of the
Synthetic Fuels Program. In this area the program covers:
• water and waste management
• fugitive emissions, coal treatment and feeding
• converter output cleanup and purification, and
• products and byproducts.
The purpose of the CTD program is to: (1) evaluate existing control
techniques, (2) modify existing or develop new control techniques as
necessary, and (3) perform engineering and cost analyses of alternative
control techniques.
Program limitations are similar to those affecting the Environmental
Assessment Program:
• lack of commercial facilities
• questionable reliability of pilot plant data when
applied to full scale facilities
• undefined, potentially adverse environmental and
health effects, and
• although accelerated, uncertain commercialization
timetables.
Evaluation of existing technologies is well advanced, but R&D is still
in a very early stage.
Problems which are similar to those encountered by the assessment
program include: (1) no concerted effort to examine controls, (2) few
20
-------
pilot plant facilities, and (3) the proprietary nature of most existing
state-of-the-art techniques. An important consideration is whether or
not to build a major test facility designed only to develop better control
techniques. A basic question is whether or not the United States should
develop systems designed for the fewest environmental problems or the most
energy efficient systems, regardless of the control problems resulting.
The Synfuels Program interfaces with EPA's Regional programs, the
standards development program and various engineering programs. It is
also involved in joint CT work with ERM and cooperative CT programs at
OSHA and NIOSH. Joint programs with industry are desirable, but to date,
have been difficult to establish.
The discussion related to facility options for CT development.
Among the possibilities suggested were:
• utilization of part of a stream of an existing
foreign plant
• construction of a universal test site in the
United States
• development of equipment to retrofit existing
pilot plants
• reliance on bench scale operations, and
• examination of technology as it is applied in
analogous situations.
G. High Temperature/Pressure Particulate Control
Mr. Dennis Drehmel focussed attention on high temperature and
pressure (HTP) particulate control. He stressed the point that the
Particulate Technology Branch is device rather than process oriented,
unlike the other branches within the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory at RTP.
The, two main objectives of the program are:
• to ensure that emissions from advanced energy
processes meet future standards, and
• to develop particulate collection devices that will
ensure the success of these advanced energy processes.
21
-------
Development and evaluation of particulate control devices have been
going on for some time. These include:
• electrostatic precipitators
• metallic and ceramic fabric filters
• mechanisms for HTP particulate removal, and
• mechanisms based on dry scrubber control.
Finding sufficient time to develop particulate removal techniques to
meet EPA requirements in conjunction with ongoing development of processes
is a major problem. Particulate removal techniques must be compatible
with gasification technology or pressurized fluidized bed combustion. In
addition, size and economic constraints and the cost of HTP particulate
control devices for bench scale and/or pilot scale facilities must also
(and are) being considered.
Work currently in progress is primarily at the bench scale or explora-
tory level. An R&D coordination meeting between EPA, ERDA and appropriate
contractors is planned for the Fall of 1976 and another, to report progress,
for the Spring of 1977.
It has been indicated that the high temperature/pressure portion of
the process may not be the best place to control particulates. Alternatives
are tail-end cleanup or cooling of the gas in order to clean it. However,
the gas might subsequently require reheating. Trade-off evaluations are
difficult at the current stage of development because of uncertainties.
Careful evaluation of ongoing programs are conducted on a continuing basis
to determine whether or not the advances being made provide a means of
meeting current standards more economically.
Future tasks involve: (1) finding economic levels of particulate
removal at gasifier exit temperatures, (2) determination of operating con-
ditions and process requirements and (3) inclusion of health effects
research.
In the discussion. Mr. Robert Bauman (EPA, Office of Air Quality,
Planning and Standards) indicated that there is, as yet, no program to
set particulate standards.
22
-------
A protocol between EPA and ERDA/Fossil Energy is being negotiated
to allow the two agencies to swap facilities on an equal-number-of-test-
hours basis.
H. Environmental Processes and Effects
Mr. Gerald Rausa gave an overview of this portion of the interagency
program indicating:
• general research objectives within the processes
and effects categories
• specific research problems with respect to
advanced fossil fuels, and
• accomplishments and difficulties.
The Environmental Processes and Effects Interagency R&D Program
addresses:
• pollutant characterization
• measurement and monitoring
• environmental transport processes
• health effects
• ecological effects, and
• integrated assessment.
Although the characterization of sources is the responsibility of the
CT program, pollutant characterization, and measurement and monitoring of
field or ambient data are under the purview of the Environmental Processes
and Effects groups.
The environmental transport processes area covers: (1) rates,
(2) routes and (3) reservoirs of pollutants. The health effects area
covers: (1) pollutant identification, (2) development of more rapid
biological screening, (3) metabolism and fate studies and (4) impact of
long-term, low-level exposures on humans and mechanisms of damage and
repair. The ecological effects area covers: (1) impact studies on
habitats, (2) populations and (3) the food chain pathway.
23
-------
Integrated assessments, initially managed only from OEMI Headquarters,
are now also managed in the two IERL laboratories. The Environmental
Processes and Effects Program coordinates these efforts.
The basic problem of the overall Environmental Processes and Effects
Program is the extremely difficult development of an index of toxicity
for organics because of the large number of complex variables involved.
Other problems include the need for more accurate instrumentation,
the measurement of environmental quality trends, the identification of
secondary sources, the development of a systematic monitoring methodology
and the procurement of surrogate standard reference materials. Currently,
a list of standard reference materials is being compiled as a joint effort
with EKDA and the National Bureau of Standards. However, it is primarily
for calibration of instrumentation rather than for toxicity testing.
Advanced fossil fuels residuals and products are being characterized
physically and chemically.
Experiments on directional modeling and shale oil adsorption are
ongoing in the transport and fate area, but little has been done to address
transformation of organic materials with respect to atmospheric transport.
In the case of aquatic transport, the focus is essentially nonspecific with
a small effort on transformation being made between solubles and particulate
materials.
In the health effects area, products used in carcinogenic-related
studies are being screened for toxicity and mutagenicity. For the last two
years, EPA, ERDA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
have been cooperating in a study in the
carcinogenic-related program is now also addressing questions of inorganics
and trace metals involvement, including the multiplicity of stressors.
In the ecological effects area there are studies being conducted on:
aquatic toxicity, bioaccumulations of metals and organics and food web
accumulation and transformation.
24
-------
During the discussion period Mr. Rausa referred interested persons
to an SSIE abstract listing, organized according to the five program
categories. He concluded the discussion by asking for comment on possi-
ble shifts of emphasis and on problems not being addressed.
The meeting was then adjourned.
25
-------
MINUTES OF
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR
GROUP MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
25 AUGUST 1976
-------
SESSION I: ACTIVITIES RELATED
TO PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND DISCUSSION
Dr. Gary J. Foley, outgoing Chairman of the Advanced Fossil Fuels
Sector Group (AFFSG) was introduced by Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr., who
is assuming the chairmanship of the Sector Group.
Dr. Foley welcomed and introduced Sector Group members and visitors,
drawing attention to the broad participation of various federal agencies,
industries and interest groups in Sector Group activities.
He then asked Mr. McCarthy to present a summary of the ongoing
efforts being pursued by the Sector Group.
Introduction
Mr. McCarthy indicated that current Sector Group activities include
efforts to prioritize pollutants; publicize the effort underway with the
Yugoslav government at their Kosovo facilitiy (which has already had some
effects on the Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry's (OEMI) overall
program); EPA-Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) inter-
action, specifically that relating to ERDA's coal gasification development
plans; publicize the Meyers coal cleaning process; information transfer
on national oil shale efforts; and the continuing update of the problems
and programs "Blue Book."
Pollutant Prioritization
As a result of discussions at previous meetings relative to ways and
means of prioritizing pollutants, the Sector Group sent a memorandum to
OEMI Deputy Assistant Administrator, Dr. Stephen Gage, recommending the
establishment of a "Wise-Man Panel" to prioritize pollutants in the order
of their importance in environmental assessment and development of control
technology for synfuel plants.
This recommendation was the result of Sector Group consideration of
a number of possible prioritization methods, most of which depend upon
information derived from a study of pollutant toxicity or health
effects. Since such information requires extended research, it is
29
-------
apparent that control technology development (CTD) and perhaps even the
establishment of standards for pollutants, will have to precede the
completion of this research.
The Sector Group membership generally felt that, under the circum-
stances, delineation of the major areas of concern could best be accom-
plished by a "Wise-Man Panel" of senior experts in the pollution field.
The panel would consist of 10 line managers from various EPA R&D and
regulatory programs that interact with synthetic fuels development. They
would meet and compose a list of pollutants to be measured, studied and
controlled within the EPA R&D programs, in the order they considered most
appropriate from the standpoint of synfuel development plants, both
gasification and liquefaction. They would determine which pollutants
would be likely to be most detrimental to the commercialization of that
industry, and advise the Deputy Assistant Administrators (DAAs) of their
findings. With the DAAs' concurrence, these findings would be implemented
within their programs.
Dr. Gage considered this approach excellent. However, at about the
same time, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) came up with a
recommendation for what might be called a "Wise-Man Task Force," a broader
multi-media, multi-disciplined approach, directed towards developing a
toxic strategy for the agency. So, although the Sector Group did not
propose the approach first, Sector Group thinking is in line with that
of ORD. The ORD task force has proposed a straw man for developing an
agency strategy and a toxic evaluation methodology which will address
synfuel toxics on a high priority and which may include implementation
of the "wise-man" approach as suggested by the Sector Group.
Yugoslav Plant
Figure 1 shows the Kosovo coal gasification plant in Pristina,
Yugoslavia. It is located about midway between and 75 miles from the
borders of Albania and Bulgaria, and about 135 miles north of Greece.
Several Sector Group members visited the plant June 14-22 to initiate
30
-------
Figure 1
Kosovo Coal Gasification Plant
-------
effort and technical discussions including a tentative plan to address
both criteria and trace pollutants in the waste stream, under the aegis
of the Special Foreign Currency Programs.
Paperwork on this agreement began as far back as July 1974, but
there was no real progress until Dr, Gage joined OEMI and he, with staff
members Frank Princiotta and Gary Foley, headed an effort resulting in
an agreement approved by EPA in January 1976, and by the Yugoslav govern-
ment in May 1976. The program actually began in July 1976 and is scheduled
to run for three years, through 1979. U.S. funding has been set at $290K
with a similar amount to be provided by the Yugoslavs.
Dr. Gary Foley (who is now with the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris), Kelly Janes and William
Rhodes (both of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory at
Research Triangle Park, NC (IERL/RTP)) made the June 14-22 trip, visiting
the several entitites involved in the program—the Rudarski Institute in
Belgrade, personnel from the Kosovo Combine (another government owned
institute) and the plant itself. The purpose of the visit was to confirm
the details of the agreement and to outline a plan for sampling and
analysis. Sector Group members had been informed of the impending trip
at the Cincinnati meeting, and as will be remembered, were asked for
suggestions and comments. One comment regarding the disposal of solid
waste, resulted in significant changes in IERL thinking about municipal
regulations that might be needed when the industry is commercialized.
The Kosovo plant employs Lurgi technology to produce low-Btu gas.
It has six gasifiers, of which only three are currently in operation, and
is processing 80 tons of dry lignite per hour. When operating at capacity,
it will produce 90,000 Cu.M/H of raw generated gas and 60,000 Cu.M/H
of clean gas for remote users. It also produces tar, heavy oil, medium
heavy oil, light oil, raw phenol and ammonia water (2.2 T/H, 0.12 T/H,
1.15 T/H, 0.65 T/H, 0.36 T/H and 0.96 T/H, respectively). Figure 2 is
a schematic diagram or flow chart which shows the steam and the lignite
going through the gasifier and the various related streams. At the time
of the visit, only one factory was using Kosovo's gas, but it was also
32
-------
Figure 2 FLOWCHART OF THE KOSOVO GASIFICATION PLANT
co
LO
PROCESSING SCHEME
1. PRE-HEATED STEAM
2. DRY LIGNITE
3. AIR DECOMPOSING
4. GAS GENERATORS
5. CONDENSATION
6. COOLING OF RAW GAS
7. TAR SEPARATION
8. GAS TREATMENT
9. PRODUCTION OF PHENOL
10. TAR
11. RAW PHENOL
12. MEDIUM HEAVY OIL
13. PURIFIED LIGNITE GAS
14. PURE NITROGEN
15. AMMONIA WATER
16. HEAVY OIL
17. LIGHT OIL
18. WASTE GAS
-------
being piped to locations in Pristine for home use. Apparently, it is
economical for a Communist regime or economy to use low-Btu gas for homes,
although it has not proven economically feasible in the United States.
A Yugoslav team from the Rudarski Institute and the Kosovo Combine
will visit the United States in October to further review the detailed
work plan and to visit some U.S. synfuel installations. Suggestions or
comments for discussion during the Yugoslavs' U.S. visit can be directed
to Kelly Janes.
EPA-ERDA Interaction
Much of the current interaction between EPA and ERDA can probably
be traced to Sector Group activity. The first real interaction was an
ERDA tour of some of the in-development, on-going commercial gasification
plants. The group visited the Synthane plant in Pittsburgh, the HYGAS
plant in Chicago and the Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) Liquefaction Plant in
Richland, Washington in January 1976.
EPA's RTF laboratory is currently evaluating data from ERDA's
demonstration plants at Fort Lewis, Washington and Homer City, Pennsylvania
(Figure 3), as a result of this trip. Mr. McCarthy suggested that as a result
of subsequent changes in personnel, it might be useful to arrange another
such trip in the near future.
A protocol is now being drafted for joint environmental testing
which will initially concentrate on the HYGAS and SRC plants. This
effort resulted largely from the cooperative spirit exhibited on the
January trip. A final draft of this protocol should be available some
time in September. Its implementation will be reported to the AFFSG
membership at the next meeting.
In addition, ERDA is now providing EPA with information on ongoing
and planned environmental programs in their synthetic fuels pilot plants.
EPA/OEMI is reviewing the information which is outlined in Table 1 in
order to develop a plan for the general development of synthetic fuel
data bases in general.
34
-------
*"*".*>m"t'~'.r>~®
^T^n*---eiv' ''*^>^^
Figure 3
Commercial Coal Preparation Plant Under Construction
by the General Public Utilities Corporation
in Homer City, Pennsylvania
-------
Table 1
ERDA COAL GASIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PLANS
CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY EPA
REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN FOR STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFLUENT DATA BASE
REVIEW OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
PROCESS AND/OR GROUP
LOCATION
PLAN
o\
BI-GAS
HYGAS (IGT)
C02-ACCEPTOR
(CONOCO COAL)
SOLVENT REFINED COAL
CONOCO
ILLINOIS CONSORTIUM
HOMER CITY, PA
CHICAGO, IL
RAPID CITY, S D
FT. LEWIS, WA
NOBLE COUNTY, OH
PERRY COUNTY, IL
SAMPLING POINT
STATEMENT OF WORK (ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT)
STATEMENT OF WORK (ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT)
PROCESS EVALUATION
CONTRACT TERMS WITH REGARD TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
CONTRACT TERMS WITH REGARD TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
-------
EPA is also providing membership on ERDA task forces for the devel-
opment and environmental analysis of the Coalcon process.
Coal Gasification Standards Considerations
Preliminary air New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for sulfur and
hydrocarbons are out for review. Comments received relative to these
preliminary air standards are of interest and value to both the Standards
and R&D groups. One item being reviewed is whether or not these standards
should apply to all of the new technologies or only to the Lurgi process.
It was noted that the first four plants to become commercial will employ
the Lurgi technology. Therefore, a major reason for EPA interest in the
Yugoslav plant is that data can be obtained which will indicate some of
the problems to be expected in the U.S. commercialization of the Lurgi
technology. This will permit inclusion of the environmental considerations
in the design rather than requiring the more expensive retrofit. EPA's
draft standard will be reviewed with ERDA in September 1976. It has
already been reviewed with the National Air Pollution Control Technology
Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) at their August 11, 1976 meeting in Chicago,
and possible revisions are now under consideration within EPA. Hopefully,
proposed standards can be published on schedule in February of 1977.
There are no plans now for water standards, mainly because it is
impossible to know what demands the various air pollution control tech-
nologies will impose on plant water use. In spite of this, OEMI is going
forward with a multi-media approach to standards in the synfuels area.
Meyers Coal Cleaning Process
EPA is proceeding with the funding for the construction of the Reactor
Test Unit (RTU), a small demonstration unit using the TRW/Meyers process.
In terms of coal cleaning resources, through use of the Meyers
process, some 90 billion tons of Appalachian coal reserves could be
processed to meet New Source Performance Standards. There are cost
estimates indicating that it is at least comparable in cost to flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) for small installations or for medium-sized utility
plants. Commercialization of the Meyers process would also allow
37
-------
Increased use of Eastern coal at an overall efficiency of 86 percent
without flue gas desulfurization to meet NSPS at a cost of approximately
$12/ton, and a 90-95 percent efficiency for pyritic sulfur removal.*
Another cost study (EXXON) was slightly higher. This cost also applies to
cleaning fine coal. For cleaning coarse coal, TRW estimates half that
cost. It was noted that the process does not remove organic sulfur.
EPA has funded $5M for design, construction and a one-year test of
an 8-ton/day pilot plant. The construction started in July of 1976 at
TRW's Capistrano test site, about 8-10 miles north-northeast of San Clemente.
The unit is scheduled to begin operations in March 1977. In the interim,
EPA has requested that TRW seek user interest'during the one-year test
phase. TRW recently submitted a proposal to the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) for support of this demonstration.
The Potomac Electric Power Company recently indicated an interest in
EPA's Memorandum of Understanding with General Public Utilities (GPU) and
New York State Electric and Gas. The discussion indicated that PEPCO had
no prior knowledge of the Meyers process. Obviously, an important phase
of this project is to make potential users, particularly the electric
utilities, aware of the technology that is being advanced. A publication
on EPA's Fuel Processing Program which recently became available highlights
this process.
The Meyers process basically removes pyritic sulfur, some iron and
alkaline ash using an aqueous ferric sulfate solution. Table 2 shows the
capital investment involved in the Meyers process. Total operating cost
is estimated at $100 per kilowatt of power plant name plate capacity.
Figure 4 is a flow diagram of the process. Essentially, the coal is
ground, reacted, washed to remove the sulfur and then the leach solution
is regenerated. The first reaction removes 80 percent of the pyritic
sulfur, and a subsequent reaction raises the removal to 90-95 percent.
Figure 5 is an artist's conception of the RTU (including the holding
pond) and the housing facility, where the analysis will be done.
* EPA estimate
38
-------
Table 2
CO
VO
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(MEYERS PROCESS)
ITEM
REACTION
WASHING
SULFATE REMOVAL
SULFUR REMOVAL
PROCESS TOTAL
OFF SITE
CONTINGENCY
PERCENT OF TOTAL
25
9
12
7
53
27
20
-------
Figure 4
TRW Process Flow Diagram for Fine Coal Processing
(Meyers Process)
IEACTION
OXYGEH
flOCESS SECTION
S3X OF TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
WASHING
SULFUIIEMOVAL
CONTINGENCY
20% OF OPITAl
OFf SUES
Z7% OF CAPITAL
Figure 5
40
-------
Economically, the Meyers process may be combined with physical coal
cleaning as a means of reducing the capital costs of the plant. Physical
coal cleaning removes only 25 percent of the sulfur which for some coals
may meet the New Source Performance Standards. Therefore, some computer
modeling is planned to determine the best mix, considering the economics,
between physical and chemical coal cleaning. Meeting NSPS most inexpensively
and avoiding customer rate increases is the prime objective of potential
utility users.
Oil Shale Program
A preliminary assessment of the sampling and analysis for the oil
shale program is being carried out at the Paraho facility by TRW and
Denver Research Institute (DRI) in cooperation with Paraho Oil Shale
Demonstration, Inc., and ERDA's Laramie Energy Research Center (LERC).
EPA's Environmental Assessment Program's purpose is to provide a starting
point in defining sampling points, sampling methodology, analytical
methods and an interpretation of operating parameters. Some tests of
the retort have been completed and the results should be available soon.
It must be realized, however, that data were collected under atypical
conditions. Figure 6 is a flow chart of the retort. (See Alden
Christiansen's presentation, page 64.) The overall oil shale program
represents a cooperative effort between ERDA and industry.
As a result of the discussion at the last Sector Group meeting, it
became apparent that there was a great deal of information on efforts of
oil shale development, environmental factors, etc., of which individual
Sector Group members were collectively aware. Therefore, Stanford
Research Institute (SRI) was asked to make a preliminary survey of the
information available and compile a bibliography for Sector Group use.
Draft copies of the bibliography were then made available to the group.
The members were asked to review it and add any publications, reports
or other information available of which they were aware but that had
not been included.
4.1
-------
D
Figure 6
PARAHO RETORT - INDIRECT MODE
RAW SHALE
OIL MIST SEPARATORS
MIST FORMATION
AND PREHEATING
RETORTING ZONE
HEATING
RESIDUE COOLING
AND GAS PREHEATING
STACK
v w
oc
UJ
CO
T
f
OIL GAS
HEATER
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
RECYCLE GAS
BLOWER
PRODUCE GAS
AIR BLOWER
RESIDUE
-------
In addition, a Smithsonian Science Information Exchange (SSIE)
computer listing of various ongoing government funded efforts in the oil
shale area which had been obtained was distributed to the Sector Group.
Modifications to the Environmental Problems Research and Development
Program Document (Blue Book)
An update of the Blue Book had been mailed to Sector Group members
several weeks before the meeting. The Blue Book is the working handbook
of the OEMI and interagency Advanced Fossil Fuels programs, including
allocation of funds and an outline of problems. The update was necessi-
tated by program milestone setbacks resulting from delays in legislation,
funding revisions and changes in ORD strategy with respect to advanced
fossil fuels processing.
As a result of discussions at the Executive Committee and Sector
Group meetings in March, it was determined to include related program
areas within EPA—air quality, water quality, policy implications and
integrated assessment—that are affected by OEMI's R&D efforts. Drafts
of this material have been completed and will be made available to the
Sector Group at or before the January 1977 meeting.
A questionnaire was distributed with the Blue Book update as a means
of ensuring that the Blue Book contents are as practical as possible.
Members were asked to critique the book, its emphasis, structure, and
contents for optimum usefulness. If the Blue Book does not meet the
need for which it has been intended, the funds will be diverted to
other uses.
Discussion
Two points brought out in the discussion following Mr. McCarthy's
presentation were:
• EPA is partially supporting the Fourth National Conference on
Energy and the Environment, October 4-7 in Cincinnati. There
will be a morning session and an afternoon session devoted
43
-------
primarily to the EPA Interagency Coal Cleaning
Program on October 6. The morning session will discuss
the resource aspects and the afternoon session,
cleaning processes.
TRW has a contract with EPA (to date close to $5 million)
to design and construct a coal cleaning plant and perform
a one-year test program to determine the economic
feasibility and effectiveness of the Meyers' process.
The project will be monitored by EPA's Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory in Research Triangle
Park, NC.
44
-------
SESSION II: EPA/ORD ADVANCED FOSSIL
FUELS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The second session, chaired by Dr. Foley, was an overview of the
various advanced fossil fuels research and development programs that are
ongoing in EPA's laboratories. He urged member participation in the
discussion periods following the presentations.
A. Advanced Oil Processing—The Chemically Active Fluid Bed (CAFB)
—Mr. Sam Rakes
Dr. Foley then introduced Mr. Sam Rakes, Project Officer with the
Advanced Processes Branch of the Energy Assessment and Control Division
at EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park, who discussed Advanced Oil Processing, specifically, the
Chemically Active Fluid Bed (CAFB) technology.
Background
Mr. Rakes explained that CAFB refers to a process that was initiated
by the ESSO Research Center in England about 1966. The entire research
and development effort was an in-house project of the ESSO Petroleum
Corporation until 1970. (ESSO has now become EXXON except in the
United Kingdom where they have retained the original name.) It became
evident that the process showed promise in late 1969 and 1970, but
since further development offered no particular advantage for a petro-
leum company, EPA's predecessor undertook a joint project with the ESSO
Research Center at Abingdon, England, based on a contract signed in
June 1970. Since then, work has progressed on a cooperative basis with
both ESSO (EXXON) and EPA providing funding. The work has now been
underway for about 10 years; six with EPA sponsorship. Mr. Rakes
pointed out two significant differences between this and the usual
EPA R&D program:
• It is now going into a development phase; and
45
-------
• The utility is not involved directly with EPA,
but rather with an EPA contractor, resulting
in a unique relationship, in that EPA does not
have direct arrangements with the host utility,
at the request of the utility.
Objectives and Rationale
This advanced oil processing is based on the development of chemi-
cally active fluid bed (CAFB) technology, involving the production of
low-sulfur gas from high-sulfur residual oil. The process works with
oil of high metal content, presents a relatively low solid waste problem
and offers a retrofit control mechanism for existing gas- or oil-fired
boilers requiring conversion to high-sulfur fuels.
This is of importance because there is a large inventory of gas-
fired boilers throughout the southwest that are not readily convertible
to any other fuel. For example, in Texas, natural gas will probably not
be available for many more years, while the boilers already installed
have a remaining useful life of about 20 to 30 years.
Environmental Objectives
Environmental objectives include development of a means of comparing
process costs and capabilities with conventional flue gas desulfurization
technology, determination of emissions and the environmental impact of
the process, evaluation of appropriate waste disposal methods and a
comparative evaluation based on an environmental assessment of alterna-
tive technologies.
Program Description
Mr. Rakes explained that the demonstration plant for gasification/
cleanup of high-sulfur residual oil in lime or limestone fluidized bed
is the La Palma station of Central Power and Light (CPL), located in San
Benito, Texas. CPL is one of four subsidiary utilities of the Central
and Southwestern Corporation, which has its home offices in Corpus Christi,
Texas.
46
-------
The experimental test program involves both performance and emission
testing. The demonstration project is a nominal 10 megawatts in size
("Nominal" depending on the fuel used, the air velocity and several other
factors). Performance testing will include that which is normal for any
new utility boiler. Emissions testing will be related to New Source
Performance Standards where applicable but will include other environmental
testing. Some emissions testing will be carried out by the EPA contractor,
some sub-contracted and, for certain specific analyses, independent
contractors will be used.
Figure 7 is a non-quantitative schematic of the CAFB process as
it was planned for the demonstration. Mr. Rakes stated there have been
some minor changes, but this is basically the process. It is significant
that the sulfur recovery step is proprietary (Foster-Wheeler's Resox
process). The rest is fairly straightforward, noting that the gasifier
and regenerator shown here as two separate vessels, are actually in one
vessel, separated by a dividing wall.
Figure 8 is a conceptual drawing of the main vessel planned for
the Texas demonstration project. It is based on standard boiler design
technology with the exception of the fluidized bed. The vessel, a refrac-
tory lined steel box with a dividing wall, is square because the pressure
is essentially atmospheric, although there is some differential pressure
(on the order of a few inches of water forge) inside to move things around.
Mr. Rakes indicated that in evaluating the economics of the CAFB
process as a control alternative to flue gas desulfurization (FGD), paper
studies have been carried out, but obviously cannot be considered defini-
tive. Hopefully the La Palma station will be on a scale adequate to pro-
vide reasonable certainty of the economics and cost of the process. Paper
studies were carried out for the ESSO England pilot unit which is rated a
nominal 0.75 megawatt. Actually, it has a rating of about 2900 kilowatts
gross thermal output, the 0.75 megawatt representing the projected electri-
cal equivalent if a conventional boiler and turbine were used, thus there
is a size factor of 10-20 for the La Palma unit. The actual thermal out-
put of the CAFB unit is in excess of 2900 kilowatts. It over fires a 10
47
-------
Figure 7
CAFB SCHEMATIC
BOILER
PRODUCT
GAS
REGENERATOR WATER, STEAM
BY-PASS OFF GAS
SULFUR
Figure 8
CAFB
GASIFIER/REGENERATOR
PRODUCT GAS
TO BURNER
REGENERATOR
Off GAS
TO RESOX
PRODUCT GAS
TO BURNER
GASIFIER
^-<
REGENERATOR
REFRACTOR
AIR NOZZIE
(TVP.)
AIR TO
REGENERATOR
BUCKSTAVS
AIR* F1UE GAS
NOZZIES (TYP.)
REFRACTORS FIOOR
Oil
BED MATERIAL
TRANSFER
'Oil INJECTION IINE
COMBUSTION PIT
DRAIN
48
-------
million Btu/hour boiler, and thus turns out to be more efficient than was
expected. The pilot unit cannot be extended to its full potential since
the boiler is not large enough to take the full output of the bed as it
was constructed.
Aside from the contract with ESSO England, EPA has had contracts with
Westinghouse Research Labs since 1969 for engineering support studies, and
also has a contract with Foster-Wheeler Energy for the present demonstra-
tion project.
Mr. Rakes stated the Foster-Wheeler effort addresses handling of
spent sorbent. Limestone was chosen because of its availability and usa-
bility. The selection process is at the point of determining which lime-
stone available to the site is best ("best" being defined as the cheapest
limestone delivered at the site that is usable in the process).. Most of
the limestone tested has proven usable.
ESSO England began work on spent sorbent processing, utilization and
disposal, about a year and a half ago. They took some of their spent
sorbent, heat treated it, ran some controls, put thermocouples in it,
left it outside for a year and carried out monitoring and chemical analysis
to trace what happened.
There are a number of options for disposing of spent sorbent since it
is a dry product. It could be returned to the quarry from which the raw
stone was mined and used for fill. Various other approaches, alternatives
and options are being investigated.
As indicated, a sulfur recovery program (Foster-Wheeler's proprietary
Resox process) will be used for the Texas demonstration. Other sulfur
recovery steps are being examined to determine if a better process now
exists or is being developed.
Right now the plan is to take the gas produced, bum it in a normal
boiler and produce electricity. One of the alternate concepts being con-
sidered is combined cycle. Paper studies are being conducted to determine
other possible uses of the process.
49
-------
Limitations and Constraints
Earlier it was indicated that there is a large inventory of gas-fired
units, in this case 120,000 megawatts, which cannot burn heavy oil or
coal directly. Although some gas-fired plants were designed so as to be
able to burn alternate fuel (solids as well as residuals), many were not.
However, even some of those that were designed to burn alternative fuels
are proving unable to do so. In at least one case, even the firing of
number 2 oil presented a problem, let alone number 6 or heavier oils such
as some of the other residuals. Some of the residual oils used in CAFB
are solids at room temperature.
Economic and environmental factors, when developed, need to be compared
with those of possible alternative technologies such as demetallization,
hydrosulfurization (which will be discussed later), partial oxidation with
low- temperature cleanup and flue gas cleaning,
Program Status
San Benito Demonstration Plant conversion design is more than 90
percent complete, indicated Mr. Rakes. Excavations have begun for addi-
tional footings. Data of fuels and limestone are being obtained from the
ESSO pilot facility. Number 6 oil and heavier oils are being considered
for use, including some fuels that the refineries usually cut back with
distillate to number 6. If such oils can be used directly without cutting,
more distillate will be available to refineries and for heating or diesel
fuels. Solid fuels, including some coals and lignites, are also being
considered.
Westinghouse is providing specialized engineering manpower and exper-
tise (unavailable in EPA and impractical to obtain on short notice) in
such areas as sorbent selection, sulfur recovery schemes and other alter-
nate concepts.
Environmental assessment has been planned for all phases and has been
initiated. All three basic contracts connected with the demonstration
include environmental assessment tasks and two contracts have been
50
-------
approved which are entirely associated with environmental assessment. One
of the later has been awarded, the other is in the negotiating stage.
Problems and Issues
Retrofit difficulties associated with modification of existing gener-
ating plants were a very real problem in setting up the San Benito project.
The plant itself is old, and a large number of local pipelines are no
longer in use. The exact location of many of those in use was not known.
Three sets of drawings by two different contractors were found which did
not match.
The problem was overcome by:
1) Flying aerial survey with bench marks and scales painted
on the ground. Often, even if a pipeline has been buried
20-30 years and no evidence of it remains from an on the
ground view, an aerial photo will reveal its trace.
2) Constructing a 3/8" to 1* scale model, permitting routing
ducts and piping through existing piping.
The plant also posed one particular environmental problem—an avocado
tree that could be trimmed back, but not removed. The main compressor
housing site was initially planned for that spot. As was mentioned earlier
in discussing the ESSO England pilot facility, the burner design was fine,
except that when it was scaled up, it proved to be too large for the
existing boiler and necessitated redesign of the burner. Those are a few
of the retrofit difficulties that may occur and should be considered when
introducing new technology into an old plant. They are, however, not
insurmountable.
Another possible problem is that the CAFB process removes any trace
metals from the fuel to the spent stone which may lead to disposal prob-
lems—virtually 100 percent of the vandium was retained in the fluid bed
along with a high retention rate of nickel, sodium, some of the alkali
metals, and various other trace metals, These were present as impurities
in the initial limestone or were sequestered from the oil during gasifica-
tion processing.
51
-------
Mr. Rakes stated that sensible approaches are needed to handle such
process characteristics as coke deposits, stone dust carry-over, solids
handling, and high volume/high temperature gas ducting/combustion. Again,
these are not insurmountable problems. In fact, workable solutions have
been found for most of them. The process is now at the point where only
a relatively large scale demonstration such as that planned in the San
Benito will determine whether or not the results of the paper studies and
the bench scale model studies at ESSO England are adequate in terms of
accuracy of results and capability to predict results of further development.
One problem avoided by the CAFB process is the need for cooling and
scrubbing to remove sulfur in partial oxidation processes (which loses sen-
sible heat and lowers efficiency). The CAFB process does not cool the gas
once it is generated and there is no scrubbing step, so CAFB offers poten-
tial advantages in efficiency, environmental impact, and in capital equip-
ment costs. The San Benito demonstration plant is expected to provide
confirmation of this.
CAFB may also be a viable control approach if trace metal standards
lower the amount of usable residual oil. For example, if a standard is
set on the emission of trace metals into the air thus restricting the use
of oils with greater than a certain percentage of trace metals, CAFB is a
process where the problem is solved at the same time the fuel is burned.
It must be emphasized, however, that CAFB is strictly a produce onsite,
use onsite, proposition at this time.
Options for Future Work
There are numerous options for future work. One (including solid
fuels), is in progress as part of a letter contract with ESSO England.
Some good results have been obtained with solid fuels, both under EPA
sponsorship and inhouse at ESSO and Foster-Wheeler. Both ESSO and Foster-
Wheeler have agreed to make their work and its results available to EPA.
Alternate stone disposal/utilization options for the demonstration are
being considered. They offer many possibilities, and there is some indica-
tion that EPA may have a saleable product in this area by the end of 1977.
52
-------
After determining the capabilities of the CAFB process and the stan-
dards of practice or control technology, recommendations for supporting
standards development will be framed, either for CAFB, or, if one becomes
available, for a better technology. Long-term environmental monitoring—
3-5 years as opposed to the current 1% year program—is indicated.
The development and demonstration of promising process and optimum
control and disposal systems, modifications, fine tuning and refining
processes to achieve their utmost potential, is another area for future
work.
Technology transfer to potential users is a never ending future work
load. Currently, more than one paper on the CAFB process is presented each
month to various societies (i.e., the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME), the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)) and
to groups such as this Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group (AFFSG). This
is an extremely important part of the Advanced Processes Branch's job, to
ensure that users know the process, its limitations and particularly its
potential,
Interaction with Other Programs
Information on CAFB and samples of the fuels proposed for use, are
being provided to other EPA programs and to several contractors for their
information and evaluation.
Mr, Rakes indicated a strong data base on the CAFB process is being
developed so that should a standard be challenged, there will be a strong
base from which to defend it. IERL itself is not in the standards setting
business, but is required to provide a data base for EPA program offices
to use in setting and successfully defending a standard.
IERL has been providing monthly reports to ERDA since the start of
the contract with Foster-Wheeler. ERDA's cold model facility was used at
Foster-Wheeler to do some solids transfer work. The facility is scheduled
to be dismantled in mid-October and sent to the Morgantown Energy Research
Center.
53
-------
As part of the contract between Foster-Wheeler and CPL, access,
samples and required information are to be provided as requested by EPA.
This project is, therefore, a good example of interaction with industry.
It is jointly funded by ESSO, Foster-Wheeler, the utility and EPA.
Foster-Wheeler's main contribution is that they are doing this project on
a cost reimbursable contract with no fee. Central Power and Light is
contributing something in excess of $3 million to this project, as well
as absorbing various other costs associated with provision of two full-
time participants on the Steering Committee, supplying engineering
drawings, operators, operating the plant, etc. The exact amount of this
contribution cannot be determined but it is obviously significant.
Discussion
The discussion following the presentation involved several areas
of concern:
• The utilization of used crankcase oil--While Mr. Rakes
indicated that crankcase oil has not been tried in the
process, he could see no reason that it could not be,
since it is more volatile than the residual number 6
oil which has been tried. The ESSO group in England
has addressed that question and came to the conclusion
that crankcase oil could be fed and gasified and no
research to date has indicated otherwise. To verify
that it is usable under present circumstances may
present a problem, since it would be necessary to
ship the crankcase oil to England and/or collect appro-
priate samples over there. Since the process is
efficient in relation to the handling of trace metals,
it was pointed out that it should be close to ideal
as a means of utilizing used crankcase oil.
• The Btu content of the gas produced—It was stated that
the Btu content varies widely within the low-Btu range,
but in round numbers was of the order to 200 to 250
Btus. It was further indicated that the output gas is
at about 1600 degrees and thus about 25 percent of its
value is in sensible heat.
• Resox status—It was indicated that there had been
problems with plugging, which appear to have been
resolved. Concern was expressed as to how well the
process would work despite assurances from Foster-
Wheeler. It was agreed that the situation would be
followed closely through monthly reports and that
presentations on the subject which had previously
been planned for the Electric Power Research Insti-
tute (EPRI) would be carried out.
54
-------
Economic viability of CAFB—It was stated that not
much had been said about the economic aspects because
of the rather rapidly varying economic situation as
regards energy costs and availability as well as the
variation associated with the costs of retrofitting
which depends to a great extent upon the type and
condition of each plant under consideration. As of
the last evaluation, it appeared that costs were
competitive with flue gas desulfurization techniques.
CAFB Specimens—Dr. Coffin said that he had gained
new information in that he had not been aware that
specimens (samples) had been sent to him (or to his
laboratory). Apparently, Foster-Wheeler was to have
sent them directly and it was agreed that the situa-
tion would be checked out.
Elaboration on the environmental monitoring program
associated vi'th CAFB development—This discussion
involved program intent, type of activity and defini-
tion of terms. In general, it was stated that the
main objective is that of determining systems impurity,
removal effectiveness at or shortly after start-up
as a means of determining comparative effectiveness
after years of operation. It was pointed out that
such an effort.appeared to be more associated with
waste treatment characterization than field monitor-
ing to which Mr. Bakes responded that there was to
be some field monitoring even though such an effort
was not necessarily within their charter and that
the extent of the activity would depend on the interest
and support available from other (EPA) laboratories.
It was indicated that the output product (low-Btu
gas) would be monitored as well as the waste streams
and that product monitoring is considered part of
performance testing.
B. Advanced Oil Processing (Desulfurizatibn/Demetallizatibri/Denitrifica-
tion)~-Mr« William Rhodes
Next, Dr. Foley introduced Mr. Bill Rhodes. Program Manager, Synthetic
fuels, OEMI/IERL~RTP, Mr. Rhodes presented a brief summary of work on
advanced oil treatment (other than the CAFB process) that is in progress
at EPA's IERL-RTP.
Objectives and Rationale
Mr. Rhodes began by stating that the objectives of the work are the
development of methods of removing heavy metals, sulfur, nitrogen and
other contaminants from the liquid fuels prior to their combustion.
55
-------
The rationale for this work is that based on past history, the pre-
treatment of liquid fuels is expected to be less expensive than treatment
after combustion, since waste gas control techniques have not been easy
ter cost effective for smaller area source users (future developments may
change the picture, but at present waste gas control techniques become
increasingly expensive as they are scaled down); technology development
would be beneficial to the oil refinery operations, both from a cost view-
point and also from expanding the types (grades) of oils that they would
be able to treat; and the technology should be applicable to synthetic
fuel liquids. The last of these items is under consideration during the
initial work.
Environmental Objectives
The environmental objectives include the development of environmen-
tally sound advanced oil treatment techniques that would potentially reduce
emissions of harmful health and ecological contaminants in fuels.
Program Description
The program at this point consists of the development of improved
scavengers for heavy metal contaminants in residual fuels; i.e., fuels with
600 or more parts per million of vanadium and nickel, and perhaps three
and one-half percent or more of sulfur. It also includes research on tech-
niques for removing nitrogen from fuels and determining the relationship to
nitrogen removal or researched techniques for removing metals from liquid
fuels.
Constraints and Limitations
There are very limited financial and manpower resources in this area.
In addition, most industrial R&D is proprietary, particularly in the area
of catalyst development, which poses a problem since the latest catalysts
which are under development are not usually available for purposes of
evaluation.
56
-------
Program Status
In heavy oil demetalllzation, EPA has ongoing bench scale evaluations,
primarily at Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., in Trenton, N.J. Hydrocarbon
Research has been looking at a one percent molybdenum on an activated
bauxite as the scavenger for use prior to conventional hydrodesulfurization.
EPA also has a cooperative pretreatment program with the Soviet Union.
At present, a joint report is being written on the results of this work.
EPA has conducted tests with Soviet catalysts on some U.S. oils, as well
as tests with U.S catalysts on Soviet oils, and the Soviet* performed
similar tests.
In the denitrogenation area, EPA has a research grant with the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to study the hydrodenitrogenation
(HEN) and hydrodesulfurization (HDS) kinetics and reaction mechanisms on
generic compounds (sulfur and nitrogen). The work is expanding slowly
to include operation at pressure and additional multi-ring type sulfur
and nitrogen compounds.
Hydrocarbon Research is reviewing and evaluating catalyst characteris-
tics for optimum denitrification as an offshoot of the work they did for
EPA on sulfur and trace metal removal.
EPA has also performed a survey of the chemistry involved for alter-
nate methods of sulfur, nitrogen, and other contaminant removal to deter-
mine whether there are other approaches, not currently under consideration,
which could be viable,
Problems and Issues
Mr. Rhodes pointed out that the sulfur, nitrogen and metal contents
of synthetic liquid fuels are either unknown or unpublished. Quantifica-
tion of nitrogen oxide contribution by the nitrogen contained in the fuel,
and the degree of control by combustion control techniques, are still in
the development stage, so their effectiveness is unknown and the possible
contributions of fuel pretreatment in this area are uncertain. Simultaneous
removal of nitrogen and sulfur seems to be a desirable direction whether or
57
-------
not simultaneous removal is feasible. There is limited information on
disposal and utilization of recovered heavy metal residuals from the processing
of heavy oil and coal based feedstocks.
Some of the issues under consideration are: 1) should great emphasis
be placed on studies of contaminant removal from synthetic liquid fuels?
and 2) what is the degree and type of utilization of processed synthetic
fuel liquids? (Perhaps synthetic fuels could be directed to particular
market areas depending on the process to be utilized and other relevant
factors. Depending on the market, different standards might be met based
on variations in precombustion control.)
Options for Future Work
Options for future work include: 1) continuation of demetallization
evaluations at bench scale level, 2) design of a pilot or demonstration
facility as an add-on to an existing HDS unit based on existing bench
scale data, 3) performance of additional R&D on other possibly viable
approaches, and 4) the recovery and utilization of process contaminants
such as vanadium and nickel, that are deposited on the scavengers.
Interactions with Other Programs
Other EPA programs that should eventually be interacting with those
in advanced oil processing include those associated with health and ecolog-
ical effects, transport processes and characterization and monitoring.
Due to the early stage of the research, there has not been much basis for
interaction as yet.
Outside EPA, OSHA-NIOSH would obviously be involved in sampling and
evaluation within a plant as work progresses.
Certainly industry, looking toward possible utilization of their
expertise in the pretreatment area and toward joint development problems
where feasible, should be involved.
58
-------
Discussion
Matthew Reilly. ERDA; Stephen Brown, SRI; Gary Foley, EPA; and
Gerald Rauaa, EPA, were actively involved in the discussion following
Mr. Rhodes' presentation which provided the following additional
information on the advanced oil processing programs:
Level of Funding; The level of funding for all the programs mentioned
is about $200,000 a year.
Screening of Catalysts; Initially, various metals and scavengers were
screened to arrive at the approach currently being evaluated—a one percent
molybdenum on an activated bauxite. Some preliminary testing has been
done to optimize the level of contaminant removal in pretreatment so as to
minimize the combined cost of the total desulfurization process (to include
costs of later stage hydrodesulfurization).
Application to Synfuels: The scavenger technology is being considered
for possible application to synthetic liquids, basically for hydronitroge-
nation since the oil shale or coal liquids used may contain about two per-
cent nitrogen. The plan involves evaluation of various catalyst character-
istics to determine optimum pore size distribution, metal loadings, etc.,
to arrive at a more optimum HEN scavenger. This is seen as a rather firm
requirement because of the direction the current coal liquefaction develop-
ment process appears to be taking.
The possible need for or advantage to pretreatment earlier in the
process stream is being considered. However, the objective is not to
develop a process for obtaining coal liquids but to make such fuels, if
developed, more environmentally sound.
Costs of Application; This technology could be considered an alter-
native or complement to combustion modification. Until firm standards for
the nitrogen content of coal liquids and shale oil are set, the effective-
ness of the combustion modification technology under development cannot
be evaluated. If a significant amount of the fuel nitrogen can be removed,
the combustion modification job may be that much easier.
59
-------
Economics is always an issue and economic competitiveness is an
objective for this technology. The process is not yet far enough along
to project the economics based on HDN, other than in a gross sense, but
it certainly appears that it will be less than the $4/barrel for shale
oil denitrification mentioned by an industrial representative at the
March 1976 Sector Group meeting.
Availability of Pertinent Data; Data on nitrogen, sulfur and metals
in shale oil and coal oils is now becoming available. Carl Beers at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory has several publications on the subject.
Detailed data, especially in relation to the processes and the different
conditions under which they may eventually be run, is still lacking.
C. Oil Shale—Mr. Alden Christiansen
Mr. Alden Christianson, Director of the Energy Systems Environmental
Control Division at EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio was introduced by Dr. Foley to discuss EPA's oil shale
program.
Introduction
EPA is supporting work in several R&D categories that relate, either
directly or indirectly, to oil shale—environmental assessment, control
technology development, pollutant transport, ecological effects, health
effects and measurement and monitoring. These all apply in some way to
oil shale development and some are specifically related to oil shale.
There is a great deal of interest in this non-existent industry.
Much emphasis was placed on oil shale—problems, issues and activities—
at the last Sector Group meeting. This information was documented in the
Sector Group meeting report. The Energy Systems Environmental Control
Division of IERL-CINC is involved primarily in the area of assessment and
control technology development.
The AFFSG has put together two draft publications: an oil shale
bibliography intended to be a comprehensive list of up-to-date litera-
ture for the oil shale industry, and a listing of ongoing shale R&D
60
-------
projects (including some for which published information is not yet avail-
able). Mr. Christiansen felt that this represents an excellent attempt to
set up a source of contacts, so that communications can be established and
followed through, and is an appropriate activity for the Sector Group to
undertake. It might be worthwhile expanding this document to serve as a
reference list to include other Sector Group areas of interest.
Background
The program involved broad environmental assessments of synthetic
fuel from oil shale. The assessment activities are oriented toward eval-
uation and development of control technology options needed to mitigate
adverse environmental impacts from oil shale development. The Cincinnati
laboratory has responsibility for the control technology program.
Program Rationale and Environmental Objectives
The overall rationale behind the program is that oil shale is an
extremely large national resource, second only to coal in estimated
reserves. Assuming that a viable technology can be developed, the United
States has an estimated 200 billion barrels of oil recoverable from shale.
Demonstrated extraction technology does exist. Retorting technology
is being pursued at large pilot scale almost constantly, depending on the
status of the industry and associated activities. That refined shale oil
is a usable product has been demonstrated for ships and jet aircraft. Some
of these demonstrations, including test results, were discussed at the last
Sector Group meeting. So, potentially, oil shale development could lead
to considerable industrial activity.
Mr. Christiansen mentioned a number of needs and objectives related
to oil shale from an environmental standpoint, for which studies are
underway. These include solid waste leaching and revegetation studies
receiving EPA support. Ambient air quality is being monitored at leased
sites. While not directly funded by EPA, these monitoring efforts repre-
sent ongoing studies relating to environmental objectives. EPA is
also funding ongoing programs relating to ground water pollution problems.
61
-------
Although socio-economic impacts are in a somewhat nebulous state, they are
causing concern, particularly in EPA's Region VIII, which includes most
of the coal and oil shale deposits receiving attention. Boom towns,
changing life styles, and related problems are perceived under rapid
energy development.
Attempts are underway to describe and mitigate harmful effects of the
potential oil shale industry before development occurs at too rapid a rate
to allow careful evaluation. Overall objectives include process/environ-
mental evaluation studies, specific discharge characterizations, and
evaluation and development of needed control technology.
Program Description
Retorting emissions characterization and control is primarily handled
through the Cincinnati Laboratory's contractual effort with TRW/DRI. They
are looking at off-gas effluent monitoring, water pollutant identification,
and evaluation and/or development of needed controls.
In terms of solid waste activities, the Cincinnati laboratory is
managing leaching and revegetation studies through the Resource Extraction
and Handling Division, and has several ongoing efforts with Colorado State
University (CSU). CSU is investigating the spent shale from various retort-
ing methods as related to erosion and percolation control» and salt, toxics
and carcinogenic concentrations in runoff and leachate.
CSU is also evaluating revegetation potential through identification
of plant species that can be used to refurbish spent shale piles and pro-
vide top soil coverage. They are looking at plant survival under normal
rainfall conditions and the concentration of toxics in those plants that
may be reestablished. These activities are also being funded by EFA
through the Cincinnati laboratory's Resource Extraction and Handling
Division.
In the realm of air quality modeling, there are ongoing transport
process modeling efforts within EPA for assessing the transport behavior
of the emissions. Data is being gathered for input to the types of models
62
-------
under development. These pursuits are not oriented specifically towards
oil shale, but are relevant to oil shale technology development.
Factors relating to socio-economic impacts are being pursued primarily
through the integrated assessment work related to western energy develop-
ment, including changes in lifestyle, overloading of existing facilities
and land use impacts. As for ground water studies, the leaching and
hydrology modeling and stream desalinization is primarily oriented
toward the solid waste leaching activities carried out under the aegis of
the Cincinnati laboratory, while modeling of possible pollution of under-
ground aquifers is being done under the direction of the Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory in Las Vegas. There is a five-year,
ongoing program for that underground aquifer modeling effort.
Limitations and Constraints
The oil shale industry has an uncertain financial future, Mr.
Christiansen stated, and the status of this non-existent industry changes
almost daily. There are other complications that must be considered,
particularly in regard to the water rights of the Colorado River (the
allocation of water rights—who gets what, where and when), which are
complicated even more by the variation in the estimates of water require-
ments for oil shale development. Salinity is also a problem, or at least
a potential problem, in terms of leachate runoff and discharges and the
ways in which they may affect salinity, which is already a concern in
the Colorado River basin.
Program Status
A large-scale regional impact study is being carried out by Radian,
along with the University of Oklahoma. This is one of the larger overall
assessments.
In addition, there is a study on process evaluations, pollutant
characterizations, etc., which is primarily covered by the TRW/DRI
effort handled through the Cincinnati laboratory. The project is barely
into the second year of a three-year contract. There is a preliminary
report in draft assessing the environmental impact from oil shale develop-
ment that is now being reviewed and revised. It should be close to
63
-------
camera-ready copy by the end of September (1976), and should pull together
most factors relating to environmental assessment and potential control
technology needs. It will contain in-depth status reports on some of
the technologies, their potential impact on the physical environment,
some of the refining and end-use implications of shale oil and descrip-
tions of some ongoing monitoring programs. It is hoped that there will
be significant output from that effort within a few months.
As part of the TRW activity, a sampling and analysis program was
conducted at the Faraho facility by TKW/DRI with close cooperation between
Paraho Shale Demonstration, Inc. and ERDA (the federal agency responsible
for overseeing oil shale activities on leased federal land) through the
Laramie Energy Research Center (LERG). The Paraho facility is leased
under such an arrangement. At the Paraho site, both indirect and direct
retorting processes were sampled. Sampling locations were selected to best
describe the overall process streams, mostly in terms of those that could
become waste streams in a full-scale plant or those that could be fed to
downstream units that would generate waste streams. A preliminary report
has been written, reviewed with the Paraho Corporation and ERDA's Laramie
Energy Research Center and the revised document is now in preparation. It
will again be put through the entire review process and it is hoped that
the final document will be available in a few months. The report incor-
porates a lot of good information and experience (e.g., how and where to
sample), although not as much in the way of quantitative results as had
been hoped. Valid quantitative results were obtained in some cases, but
in others the operating modes were not typical, or steady state had not
been achieved or was not achievable at the time the testing was done. It
did provide, however, a good preliminary sampling experience for the
processes.
Revegetation and leaching studies have been'underway for two years.
These programs are slated to run for a total of five years and will
cover toxics concentration in relation to vegetation, including evalua-
tion of the effects of natural rainfall and snow melting. Groundwater
monitoring and transport models are being developed and tested through
64
-------
EPA programs for oil shale and for other applications as well. Data
from various studies mentioned will be helpful in such development and
in verifying models. Air quality models are being developed and tested
and meteorological data is being accumulated. Hydrology models under
development need the results of leaching and runoff studies from spent
shale disposal. The study results will be used to develop overall base
lines for these types of model developments.
Problems and Issues
Environmental programs are in a state of relative infancy. There is
much work to be done, depending on the industry and how it progresses.
There are solid waste disposal problems including possible saline and
toxic runoffs or leachate from spent shale. Emissions and discharges
must be addressed for all potentially viable processes, at least. The
entire program is currently in a state of flux because of an undefined
national energy policy and the failure of a Congressional loan guarantee
support bill for oil shale. All of this has resulted in several major oil
companies delaying, if not withdrawing, their support for oil shale acti-
vities. For those who are still interested, costs are escalating. Envi-
ronmental groups pose many problems. Those interested in a potential oil
shale industry should be very careful how they handle this now non-
existent industry. Implications downgrading or killing it should not be
established before a realistic look is taken at what it is, what it can
do and what its impacts are. Problems exist because of the semi-arid
environment, the potential water availability and associated pollution
potential or possible impacts.
Options for Future Work
Mr. Christiansen felt that EPA will probably continue to monitor and
support environmental studies and evaluate processes as the industry
progresses, depending on the status of the industry or any given process
within it. There will be additional work on control technology for in-
situ extraction, which is also receiving attention from ERDA and others
(e.g., Occidental).
65
-------
Experimental validation of hydrology and air quality models will have
to continue. This involves conducting studies, accumulating data and using
the best modeling techniques available, which will be no small task.
Interaction with Other Programs
EPA would like to cooperate as closely as possible with ERDA, the
Bureau of Mines, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) and others in activities related to in-situ, development. Due to
the overall environmental effects area being in an infancy state, no single
group or interest is likely to have the resources or the capability to do
all that needs to be done. A coordinated effort would be most effective
from the standpoint of both government and industry.
Interaction with regard to other programs depends on future events.
EPA is trying to keep current, continue sampling and analysis, and inte-
grate this sampling with environmental assessment and control technology
development whenever possible, but at least needs to get data with which
to evaluate the environmental implications of various processes. The EPA
thrust must depend on the given status of any process at any given time.
Discussion
In the ensuing discussion, Dr. David Coffin of EPA's Health Effects
Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park (RTP) supplemented
Mr. Christiansen's report by indicating actions that had been carried out
or were planned in the health and ecology area, particularly at RTP and
Gulf Breeze. He reiterated the industry being considered is a developing
one, and commenting on its current state of flux, said that it seemed
that it would be very desirable to get into a developing industry before
huge capital investments were made so that serious toxicological problems
which might arise could be obviated. At this-time, problems involving
carcinogenesis and some phases of water ecology are underway. The water
ecology program is being conducted at Gulf Breeze.
The greatest problem encountered to date has been that of obtaining
specimens. As a result, evaluation of the biological aspects is somewhat
out of phase with the engineering. There is an effort underway to set up
66
-------
a cooperative program with ERDA and NIOSH, and possibly other government
agencies, for a materials repository for various forms of energy products
including (but not limited to) shale. The site will probably be established
at Oak Ridge. He indicated that the only shale products they have been
able to obtain thus far have been some Navy-controlled materials contributed
by LCDR Leigh Doptis. They are being examined from the standpoint of product
carcinogenicity and, although it might not be considered part of EPA's
responsibility, it is the only material available. Hopefully, in the next
phase they will be able to look at effluents—sidestream and final—of
shale oil combustion products.
Ecologically, the Gulf Breeze group would like to be able to look at
what might happen should shale oil products (some final products, e.g.,
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel as well as crude) be spilled into estuaries
or the open seas during transportation. They are looking at possible
effects on marine animals, and also the influence on humans through the
food chain.
In answer to a question, Dr. Coffin indicated that the repository
was intended to serve two purposes: to provide standard reference materials
on samples, and to store a sufficient number of samples to allow a number
of investigators (from various interested agencies) to work with the same
materials.
Dr. Coffin later informed the group of a USSR/USA cooperative agree-
ment program. He, Roy Albert of EPA, Bill Wagner of NIOSH, and Mick Carter
of ERDA recently made up a delegation to Estonia to discuss health effects
problems related to shale and oil shale development, as part of the pre-
liminary stages of the project. Shale oil development in Estonia, which
began in 1945, is now a sizeable and viable industry in the Soviet Union,
supplying most of the electric power to the city of Leningrad and its
environs. The delegation did not view any of the processes--they were
invited for health discussions only—but they were told that about two-
thirds of the shale is directly incinerated for production of power and
about one-third is retorted underground. The Soviets were concerned with
health effects and have collected some data on a chronic pulmonary disease
apparently related to the dust. They have also looked at the carcinogenic
67
-------
content of both their shale and the products. Their oils apparently
contain a large amount of phenols, so they are investigating their effects.
Other areas of concern are lung cancer in an epidemiological situation and
ash revegetation studies. Dr. Coffin and Bill Wagner hope to return in
January to survey the plants and identify the points at which there is
human contact with the various effluents, so that health studies can be
planned.
During the discussion it was indicated that the European shale is
2-3 times as rich; therefore, there are doubts as to the transferability
of the technology. The status of direct combustion of oil shale was brought
up—whether or not it was in the process development stage. Dr. Coffin
answered that the tentative agreement called for an exchange of products
which would permit us to determine the potential for technology transfer.
Dr. Coffin indicated that the funding level for the TRW three-year
effort (about $1M) might not be adequate to cover field sampling and
analysis since such activity had not been planned initially.
General Discussion
Dr. Foley opened the floor to discussion of the presentations on
Advanced Oil Processing (CAFB and Desulfurization/Demetallization/Denitri-
fication) and Oil Shale, saying that they summarized EPA's work in the oil
and oil shale area. In the oil area, EPA is looking for alternative tech-
niques to flue gas desulfurization and for control of emissions from the
combustion of the oil products. One of the technologies being considered
is the CAFB process which is a two-stage combustion-type of system. The
gasifier feeds directly into an existing boiler as a retrofit to clean
the very dirty high-sulfur oils. EPA is also interested in methods of
removing pollutants from fuel prior to combustion, and would like industry's
opinion as to the viability of these areas of study.*
* During informal discussions between Sector Group members at meeting
break periods, it was noted that IRS determination of what is and
what is not considered environmental improvements could have a
major impact. Tax incentives at the present time are provided
only for post-treatment efforts (i.e., treatment of effluents),
not for pretreatment efforts (e.g., coal cleaning).
68
-------
In-Situ Studies
In the oil shale area, EPA intends to carry out environmental
studies related to some of the in-situ processes. Normally, in studying
the environmental problems posed by a process, there are pipes or stacks
or vents—something from which or where direct measurements can be made.
EPA is interested in suggestions as to methods and approaches to environ-
mental measurements for in-situ processes.
What needs to be done by any one agency should reflect the ongoing
work in other agencies. ERDA and the Department of the Interior are both
working in the in-situ area. Activities that span many Federal agencies
should be coordinated to avoid the appearance of duplication of effort.
ERDA is the focal point for developing environmentally sound tech-
nology and EPA is the focal point for environmental assessments of
technologies that have been developed by others. EPA and ERDA must also
be cognizant of the many active interest groups.
ERDA has been taking environmental measurements on in-situ gasifica-
tion and in the areas of water and air characterization. ERDA is also
required to prepare environmental impact statements, and set requirements
for permits and other approvals. They must do environmental studies to
support these activities as well as to assure that their process is envi-
ronmentally sound.
EPA needs to develop a data base to provide information to the dif-
ferent programs in EPA that can use the data as well as to provide an
independent perspective to advise ERDA of EPA's viewpoint. NIOSH's
regulatory role is very similar to EPA's, but has a different legislative
base. They need very similar data (though it differs to some extent), in
order to perform their roles and advise ERDA.
With regard to oil shale and in-situ processing of oil shale, EPA,
ERDA and NIOSH are trying to draw up appropriate memoranda of understand-
ing, protocols or agreements to facilitate the development of joint
69
-------
programs where possible. From the EPA standpoint, at least in the control
technology area, it is desirable to define the limits of the in-situ
process in order to identify the process emission and effluents.
In developing this cooperative program it seems worthwhile to put
the basic program together and circulate it for review by industry and
supporting users and request feedback before the program is finalized.
Foreign Plant Characteristics and Considerations
The Yugoslav gasifier has a water waste stream which is through an
open sewer into the river. The water that is condensed out of the outlet
of the gasifier runs through a phenol solvent plant that removes phenols
and some hydrocarbons, and then goes into the sewer. The system operates
much better than had been projected in the design stage. There is also
an ash quench system in which the hot ash comes out of the bottom of the
gasifier and simply drops into the sewer (releasing a large quantity of
fugitive emissions). This joins the water from the phenol solvent unit
and flows down to the river. It is a poorly designed process from the
water pollution control point of view. They do have a biox unit, which
is not being used because they do not think it is needed as yet. The
plant is currently running at less than half capacity because of the lack
of demand for their product. When they are running near capacity, they
will probably use the biox unit. EPA intends to make a very thorough
measurement of the contents of the stream.
The South African gasification plant was visited by an EPA team
about a year and a half ago. It is a very large process, technically
better staffed than any of the others, with a good deal of environmental
control technology. It is probably the best run of the foreign gasifica-
tion plants. Their water treatment plant is very good, but it still may
not be acceptable by U.S. standards. Their data has been made available
to industry, but not to the U.S. government as yet.
70
-------
D. Chemical Coal Cleaning—Mr. Kelly Janes
Mr. Kelly Janes , Chief of the Fuel Processing Branch of the Department
of Energy Assessment, Control Division, IERL-RTP, began by explaining
that within EPA, the Cincinnati laboratory is responsible for the problems
associated with extraction of coal as well as other fossil fuels, while
the Research Triangle Park laboratory's responsibility begins after the
coal is mined, in the coal cleaning treatment area. The Coal Cleaning
Program is based on three areas of concern—the technological development
of the process or processes, environmental assessment and environmental
control development. It differs from the rest of the EPA synthetic fuels
programs, because it involves responsibility for development of basic
technology.
Objectives and Rationale
The objective is to develop, and/or aid in developing, chemical
coal cleaning techniques for removing sulfur and other contaminants from
coal in a way that is environmentally sound. The rationale behind the
development of chemical coal cleaning is to increase the size of U.S.
coal resources; meet emission regulations (Federal, state and local);
and develop methods of producing a clean fuel for what EPA calls area
sources (the smaller user who, due to cost or size, would probably be
unable to use other techniques such as flue gas desulfurization,
gasification or conversion).
Program objectives include environmental assessment and control
technology development for chemical coal cleaning processes—to include
those developed by other organizations as well as those developed by
EPA. Other objectives are the development of environmentally sound
processes that would comply with emission and discharge regulations,
identification of streams and compounds that would have adverse health
and ecological effects and development of emission guidelines based on
estimated permissible concentrations of compounds. These estimated
permissible concentrations would be based on health and ecological effects,
and would be guidelines that developers could use in trying to determine
71
-------
whether a process is environmentally sound or environmentally controlled.
These would not be based on best practice or best available control,
but on potential estimates—at the limit, based on health effects. The
program would also determine the composition of solid, liquid and gaseous
discharges from chemical coal cleaning technologies.
Program Description
The program will involve the study of residues from an environmental
point of view, residuals from chemical coal cleaning processes and
potential problems and restrictions on the utilization of chemically
cleaned coals.
In the Meyers process, the largest process development, the reactor
test unit (RTU) should be started up early in 1977. Some construction
work has already begun. Concurrent with the Meyers process, would be
the bench scale support and applicability studies. In any type of power
plant unit, it is useful to have a small unit to do exploratory problem
solving, rather than trying to do everything in the larger unit.
Study of the flash desulfurization process, a treatment of coal
which uses a sulfur acceptor in a fluid bed (FB) reactor, is ongoing at
the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) in Chicago. Final determination
of this process's potential has not yet been made.
Some work in the use of microwave energy has been initiated with
General Electric of Philadelphia, taking a look at techniques that were
highly visible about 10 years ago to see if technologies have developed
to a point where they may have greater potential applicability now.
Battelle Laboratories in Columbus is proceeding with work on their
hydrothermal process. The initial work involved looking at the effects
of process variables on product utilization—composition effects on
emissions, etc.--and other types of application studies.
Figure 5, page 40, is an artist conception of what a Meyers process
installation will look like. It has the standard ingredients of an
extractor, filter, washers, purifiers, sulfur removers, driers, etc.
Basically it is Battelle's hydrothermal coal process, on which a good
deal of published information is available,
72
-------
Limitations and Constraints
The size of the resource base and how it can be affected to meet
present and future regulations is the basic goal of the technology
development. Mr. Janes pointed out that especially in the coal burning,
it is very difficult to interface with area source users because they
have no concentrated group R&D effort. EPA is considering both industrial
and commercial users for whom this process may have an exceptionally high
use potential, but communication is difficult since they are individuals,
with little or no organizational affiliation.
In the past, there has been a lack of interest in providing finan-
cial support for coal cleaning R&D programs especially in the chemical
area. Before industry's uncertainty can be evaluated, the cost of
coal cleaning must be defined.
Status of the Program
Environmental assessment programs have been initiated and control
technology development is underway in various areas. Construction on
the Meyers RTU unit has begun. Some construction has been started with
the money that TRW was putting into site preparation, utilities, etc.
Mr. Janes indicated that EPA will continue flash desulfurization
experiments for a while to try to determine its real potential and its
problems. Evaluations of other techniques are also underway. These
include techniques being developed and other types of chemistries, to see
if there are better methods of removing contaminants and ranges of
contaminants, e.g., sulfur and nitrogen.
State-of-the-art background documents are being prepared. Some,
especially the one on chemical coal cleaning, are close to final draft
form.
Problems and Issues
In regard to a technology such as the Meyers process, economics
are always a concern. The cost analysis results vary from $12 to $16/ton.
73
-------
Some of the main items in that cost are the leaching, regeneration and
dewatering/drying (which is a separate problem). It is hoped that the
reactor test unit will help to alleviate the uncertainties in some of
these areas. Of course, there are also solid waste and gaseous S0_
disposal problems. Both the EPA laboratory and TRW have looked indepen-
dently at several systems that seemed potentially viable. The problem
appears to be a little less severe than those associated with solid
waste programs from some of the other control systems. Of course, the
availability of suitable coal that, when cleaned, will meet the required
regulations is always a factor.
Economics is probably the main problem in flash desulfurization
according to Mr. Janes, There is concern about emissions and other
potentially hazardous products that could be present but unidentified.
The issues are more program than technology based. Should there be
an increased emphasis on chemical coal cleaning processes? Is there a
need to address area source control, i.e., is there enough interest to
justify giving it a program priority and increased funding? Is
chemically cleaned coal of interest to the utility sector? Would the
utility sector ever consider using this type of technique? Should
chemical coal cleaning processes be considered for conversion technology?
These are questions the developers must consider. The attributes of
combining physical and chemical coal cleaning should be considered—using
chemical cleaning where physical cleaning does a poor job, as with fine
particle coal.
Options for Future Work
One option, certainly, is to complete the pilot unit of the Meyers
process plant in California by adding to the'RTU. The unit is now
confined to leaching and regeneration. All the operations after that—
dewatering, drying, sulfur removal'—will be simulated in the
74
-------
laboratory using samples from the RTU, If the present program achieves
the goals expected of it, that will have to be considered very seriously.
If the potential to scale up the demonstration is there, the RTU unit
can be used to further define applicability, costs and design data.
Mr. Janes felt that this is an area in which the industrial utility segment
could be extremely supportive using the test unit to identify and solve
some of their own problems.
Environmental evaluations could continue for the Battelle hydrothermal
process and some work should also support improved process technology to
reduce costs and/or environmental problems, but alternative technologies
should be scaled up.
Interactions with Other Programs
The chemical coal cleaning program will be appraised for the benefit
of the health and ecological effects group, regional programs and
standards development groups in EPA. It interfaces frequently with other
government agencies, particularly the U.S. Bureau of Mines process
development group, funding most of their physical and some of their
chemical work. There are cooperative sampling programs with OSHA/NIOSH
and program personnel solicit interest in joint development programs
from the industrial segment.
Discussion
There was considerable discussion of Mr. Janes' presentation which
included completion of the Meyers pilot unit, the EPA/ERDA Cooperative
Coal Cleaning Program, conversion techniques, comparative costs of the
available processes, nitrogen intensification problems, information
available on existing technologies and microwave energy.
75
-------
Completion of the Meyers Pilot Unit
If the data gathering evaluation from the RTU supports the
hypothesis that the leach time can be reduced to cut costs, a recommen-
dation will probably be made to go ahead and complete the rest of the
pilot unit. Funding may be a problem, since the program is in competition
for EPA funds. If the results show a significant decrease in costs and
hold-up time and more effective processing, the laboratory would seriously
recommend complete construction of the pilot facility. The degree of
interest or lack of interest in the industrial segment would also
influence such a decision.
The opinion was expressed that the bulk of the funding for
pilot plant construction should really come from the Bureau of Mines or
some other agency not EPA, and that EPA should be in a position to
concentrate on assessment of the environmental aspects of this technology.
In response, it was indicated that for the past 10 years,
little has been spent by the coal industry or the Bureau of Mines to
support this type of activity and that it is difficult to generate
interest in this sort of program. There is little incentive for coal
producers to fund such testing, since the cost of any additional cleaning
would have to be added to the cost of the coal, and users will buy the
cheapest coal they can get that will meet regulations. *
EPA/ERDA Cooperative Coal Cleaning Program
EPA has only one cooperative program with ERDA's Environment
and Safety group which is through the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
and addresses waste disposal. ERDA is not very active in the area of
coal preparation. This is the result of a decision that was made when
ERDA legislation was drawn up, e.g., coal preparation would remain the
province of the Department of the Interior.
* Note that this may also be the result of adverse tax rulings.
76
-------
Conversion Techniques
Some of ERDA's combustion work, their fluidized bed work,
magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) work, etc., could be considered conversion,
but ERM has not indicated thus far that they are interested in pursuing
physical or generic types of coal cleaning development.
Comparative Costs
The Meyers process is, apparently, significantly less costly
than Battelle's process. However, the processes themselves are not really
comparable, since the Meyers process operates at atmospheric, ambient
conditions, whereas Battelle's has been geared toward high temperature
and pressure studies.
Some attempts have been made to measure the economics of the
process to compare it with other alternatives. The Meyers process is
competitive with flue gas desulfurization. Chemical coal cleaning
should be much cheaper for the smaller industrial or commercial user,
due to the comparative escalation of the cost of flue gas control tech-
nology as user size decreases.
Nitrogen Intensification Problems
Concern was expressed with regard to the potential for nitrogen
intensification in fuel as a result of removing other materials, which
could lead to combustion problems. It was pointed out that it is impor-
tant that consideration be given to the compatibility of cleaning process
products with conventional boilers. Clean fuels involve much more than
simply sulfur removal, such as increase in the fuel's nitrogen content.
Technology Information
Battelle should have a background report which contains pub-
lished information on all the so-called chemical coal cleaning technologies
around the world.
77
-------
Microwave Energy
Microwave energy is the induction of a high level energy in the
coal through use of microwaves. It is just like heating hot dogs. The
pyrites seem to be very sensitive to microwave energy whereas carbon is
not. A lot of work has been done in this area. The volatile part of the
pyrite can be easily released with microwave energy. GE reviewed other
work that had been done and found that in their laboratory samples they
were getting pyrite along with some organic sulfur. There is still the
problem of analyzing the sulfur types—one may ask whether it is really
organic sulfur that is being released or is it only that pyritic sulfur
is being attached in the process?
E. Synthetic Fuels Environmental Assessment—Mr. William Rhodes
Dr. Foley reintroduced Mr. William Rhodes. Program Manager, Synthetic
Fuels, OEMI/IERL-RTP to discuss the environmental assessment aspects of
synthetic fuels.
The environmental assessment for the coal synthetic fuels program
consists of three main areas: coal liquefaction, low-Btu coal gasification
and high-Btu coal gasification. Each is the subject of a prime contract
that has been or is about to be awarded. Hittman Associates, Inc. is
the prime contractor for the liquefaction area and Radian Corporation for
low-Btu. The high-Btu proposals are currently being reviewed.
Objectives and Rationale
The objectives of the program are to:
• Characterize and quantify the environmental impacts of
synthetic fuel technology,
• Determine the applicability and effectiveness of
available control technology and
• Identify needed new control technology.
78
-------
The United States has initiated a large scale program to accelerate
commercialization of synthetic fuels from coal. This developing technology
is known to have some adverse health and environmental effects, the
seriousness of which are, in many cases, yet to be determined. It is
EPA's responsibility to insure that the synthetic fuels industry, as
it develops, will be environmentally sound.
Figure 9 illustrates the pattern that synthetic fuels growth may
take compared to the growth in petroleum refineries since 1950. Figure
10 shows the projected energy funding taken from the Project Independence
Report, which is now somewhat outdated. The upper curve should probably
be displaced by a factor of 10 upward, and Mr. Rhodes thought that in
light of potential investment in that area, the dollars spent for research
into the technology development and the environmental assessment and
controls are certainly not in excess.
Environmental Obj ec tives
The environmental objectives of the various contractual areas are
to: determine the compositions of solid, liquid and gaseous discharges
from synthetic fuel plants or processes; identify streams and compounds
that would have adverse health, ecological or terrestrial effects;
assess alternative technologies and control technologies; develop cost
effects of some of the alternative controls; identify process modifications
to eliminate undesirable discharge streams or reduce them; eliminate or
reduce specific components in the discharge streams, and develop emission
guidelines based on estimated permissible concentrations which, in turn,
could be based on health or ecological effects.
Program Description
The assessment consists of: review of the current technology
and background, acquisition of environmental data, characterization of
feedstocks for the purpose of determining the potential pollutants
being introduced into the process and development of environmental
objectives (based on the effects of local and national standards and
79
-------
Figure 9
Comparison of Petroleum Refinery Growth and
Projected Synthetic Fuel Growth
1950
2000
Figure 10
Projected Energy Funding
dpftal Investment
for Synthetic Fuel
PI«K>
1930
1035
1030
Year
80
-------
estimated permissible concentrations), control technology state-of-the-art,
engineering and cost analysis, and environmental analysis.
Limitations and Constraints
The United States has a very limited number of commercial plants.
Pilot plant operations represent emerging technologies where data acqui-
sition may be less reliable than for more established technologies
because of the array of unit operations and the fluctuations that are
involved in investigating various experimental conditions that may differ
considerably from commercial conditions.
The environmental and potential health effects are relatively
undefined, thus providing a moving or almost invisible target for various
goals. Although the commercialization timetable has been accelerated,
U.S. commerical technology is not yet well defined and data acquisition
sites are scarce.
There has been some effort put into locating foreign data acquisition
sites and determining whether the owners and their countries would be
willing to cooperate in a program to support U. S. assessment efforts.
Some of these sites are the Yugoslav plant, the SASOL complex in South
Africa, a gasification plant in Kutahya, Turkey and a Lurgi plant in
Westfield, Scotland.
Program Status
Engineering analysis and technology background are well advanced.
In the Yugoslav gasification plant, the data acquisition and planning
for analyses of streams and products has been initiated. At Research
Triangle Park, N.C. a bench scale system for problem identification and
quantification of pollutants is under development.
Evaluations of environmental impact statements (EIS) and proposed
EPA gasification plant standards are now being conducted. Some of the
problems result from the general lack of hard data on plant emissions,
the high cost of sampling and analysis for both chemical and health
81
-------
effects, incomplete data on the health, ecological and terrestrial
effects, a lack of data on transport fate and reactions of pollutants
and a lack of test opportunities in the United States.
One issue Mr. Rhodes identified as causing concern is the degree to
which coal hydrogenation products and their residuals are hazardous.
Obviously, the answer to this will affect the level of effort for
assessment in this area as well as the direction of the associated
control technology development.
An associated issue is whether or not development efforts should
be aimed at indirect liquefaction and high temperature gasification
processes since they may be environmentally safer.
Level of Control
Potential goals in relation to control range from simple compliance
with current emission standards using effluent guidelines and/or best
available control technology to meeting a zero discharge criterion.
Between these extremes, compliance with current or proposed ambient
standards or controls at some level below the estimated permissible
ambient concentrations which could be based on health effects might be
required.
Options for Future Work
Future work options involve consideration of increasing sampling
and analysis efforts at bench scale level, foreign data acquisition
activities, engineering evaluations based on ERDA and developers'
reports and data, data acquisition on pilot plant facilities and
technology transfer to potential users.
Interactions with Other Programs
Within EPA, the Synthetic Fuels Program provides samples and
associated data to the Health and Environmental Effects Program. There
is also interaction with regional programs. Recommendations on control
82
-------
and disposal options, based on what are felt to be best practices, are
supplied to the standards development area.
Sampling and analyses of pilot operations as well as environmental
programs for the demonstration programs are provided to ERDA and OSHA/NIOSH
in cooperative sampling programs.
Industry has a great deal of expertise that could be utilized.
The Synfuels Program would like to take advantage of joint programs among
interested groups whenever possible,
Discussion
Information brought out during discussions subsequent to Mr. Rhodes'
presentation included the following topics.
Pollutant Research; Bench Scale and Pilot Plant Considerations
EPA's pollutant identification and evaluation project would
utilize non-isothermal kinetics in studying coal reactions to determine,
through use of a programmed temperature-time profile, the pollutants that
might be generated first in gasification and later in liquefaction
processes. The project will not be totally in-house but will probably be
based on a grant to an institution and thus will not be located within
EPA laboratories or facilities.
It was noted that NIOSH has expressed concern with a considerable
amount of the industrial health data from some of the pilot facilities
because they believe it to be atypical, and therefore, not fully adequate
for use in addressing industrial hygiene problems.
ERDA's main concern in relation to pilot plant operation is to
be certain that the product is satisfactory when operating under
environmentally acceptable conditions. Based on the timing and resources
required, they believe they may have to somewhat minimize the excursions
in which only the generated environmental pollutants would be affected.
83
-------
One problem with pilot plants is that by the time the process
is on line, the plant has become inflexible with regard to operating
conditions. Therefore, it is worthwhile to be able to re-evaluate by
varying conditions over a very wide range, even wider than normal, to
find out if, in fact, one can build a better process. Bench scale
facilities are intended to be very flexible so that many different
temperature/pressure conditions can be studied under strictly controlled
conditions as opposed to a pilot plant where conditions are changed, for
the most part, to optimize product outputs rather than for study of
environmental concerns.
Foreign Technology Evaluation
SASOL, with 20 years of operating data, is a gold mine that
should be tapped. If it is not possible government-to-government for
political reasons, perhaps a joint government-industry approach could be
taken. Some U.S. industrial groups have direct and politically free
access to SASOL information.
It was generally agreed that the acquisition of information from
foreign operations is highly desirable and worthwhile. EPA has discussed
participating with NIOSH in a joint program to explore health data as
well as environmental data with foreign operations, but NIOSH's specific
interests have not as yet been delineated.
It was pointed out that EPA is not interested in simply getting
samples. It is also necessary that ERDA, EPA and the developers cooperate,
not only in obtaining samples, but also in planning to obtain and utilize
them. The need for cooperation should not be underestimated—something
has to be worked out that is generally believed in by all the parties
concerned if the programs are to be worthwhile. The main questions
in a cooperative effort are what are the mechanisms for doing it and what
kind of data are being sought.
84
-------
It was suggested that an appropriate model for this sort of
program might be the USA/USSR Interagency's International Program, in
which NIOSH is active. Assessments of the plants are to be made to
determine where health effects should be studied, how to interact with
the working populations, etc. This offers a precedent for interaction
among ERDA, EPA and NIOSH which could be spread to other programs
relatively easily.
Major ERDA Activities
ERDA has three major activities underway relating to environmental
assessments of coal synthetic fuels. First, a draft environmental
impact statement was published in January 1976 for the synthetic fuels
commercialization program. The statement addresses a number of different
processes, the impacts of a single plant, and various ways to structure
the initial phase of the program. Second, an environmental assessment
for the first fossil fuel demonstration plant was prepared, and finally,
as announced in the June 20, 1976 Federal Register, a draft EIS is being
prepared for ERDA's entire R&D program that goes beyond synthetic fuels
to address direct combustion and other components of the full program.
A large part of the EIS will be related to synthetic fuels and will have
the latest information available characterizing emissions from ERDA's
pilot plants.
85
-------
F. Synthetic Fuels Control Technology Developmentr«-Mf. Kelly Janes
Mr. Kelly Janes then presented the Control Technology Development
Program for synthetic fuels.
Background
The control technology and environmental assessment programs together
make up the Synthetic Fuels Control Technology Development Program.
Mr. Janes emphasized that these are not isolated programs, but an inte-
grated group. The assessment program covers high- and low-Btu gasification
and liquefaction. In the control development area, the program has heen
split into areas of control technology that are considered to have some
degree of general applicability to any conversion technology. These are
water and waste management, fugitive emissions and coal treatment and
feeding; converter output, cleanup and purification; and generated
products and byproducts. Prime contractors (60,000 man hours over
three years) will take the lead in developing centers of expertise to
study these areas. None of the contracts have as yet been signed, but two
are in final negotiations and the third is nearing the final negotiation
stage.
Objectives of the Program
The program has been established to evaluate and modify existing
control techniques for applicability and effectiveness, develop new,
improved control techniques as requirements are identified by environ-
mental assessment programs, and perform engineering and cost analyses of
alternative control techniques. EPA does not assume that it has sole
responsibility for control development,
EPA does have a responsibility to ensure that control techniques
will be available for the development of an environmentally sound
synthetic fuels industry, to provide support and information for the
setting of standards or regulations, and to assure that control technology
development does not result in increased adverse effects.
86
-------
Some of the environmental objectives are very similar to those in
the assessment area. They include identification of the compositions of
solid, liquid and gaseous discharges from synthetic fuel processes,
identification of streams and compounds that would have adverse health or
ecological effects, environmental assessment of alternative control
technologies, and development of cost effectiveness of alternative control
techniques of process modifications to eliminate undesirable discharge
streams or components.
Program Description
As a starting point, the initial activity under the program is that
of considering the current technology background of available controls.
An engineering and cost analysis of alternative controls has been initiated,
and the development of new/improved control techniques required for
advanced processes are now in either planning or development stages.
Test facilities for evaluation of existing and new control technologies
and identification of emission/discharge problems are major elements of
the program.
Constraints and Limitations
The constraints are very similar to those affecting the Environmental
Assessment Program. There are no commercial plants in the United States
and pilot operations represent emerging technology, with the result that
data acquired are open to question as to applicability to full scale
production plants. Other constraints are that the environmental and
potential health effects are still relatively undefined, the commercial-
ization timetables have been accelerated but are uncertain at best and
U.S. commercial technology is certainly not finalized.
Program Status
The R&D is in a very early stage. Evaluation programs of existing
technologies are well advanced, but more hard data is required. Again,
bench scale systems for control evaluations are under development pursuing
two major areas—one is a bench scale facility to study generic raw and
87
-------
acid gas cleanup systems, and another will be set up to begin water
treatment studies. There is a high temperature/pressure particulate
control program which includes such things as the definition of particle
and gas properties and evaluation of various control techniques such as
electrostatic precipitators, granular bed filters and novel devices of
various types,
Problems and Issues
Problems, once again, are very similar to those of the sister
assessment program. Basic technology developers are concentrating on
conversion reactor development. There is no concerted effort in the United
States to examine controls such as the acid gas clean-up systems, which are
basically control units and also the center of most pollutant problems.
There is a lack of pilot plant facilities for evaluation of control
techniques, and most of the applicable state-of-the-art techniques in
existence are also proprietary. The data is therefore difficult to
obtain. Development of such controls is very costly, especially with the
almost complete lack of data and information on stream pollutants (media,
concentrations, toxicities) resulting from application of the control
technique.
An important issue is whether a major test facility should be
developed for evaluation and development of control techniques that is
not tied in with a conversion, gasification or liquefaction development,
but is simply a facility designed to develop better control techniques.
Should the development effort be aimed at converter technologies with
minimum environmental degradation potential or at the technology with the
maximum problem potential? This is always a serious consideration.
Fixed bed gasifiers tend to have larger potential environmental problems
than high temperature gasifiers which eliminate most of the organic
materials and tar. Simply stated, the United States must consider whether
to develop the systems with the least number of apparent environmental
problems or the systems that are the best available (in terms of production)
regardless of the number or magnitude of the problems involved.
88
-------
Options for Future Work
Options under consideration include increased development of bench
scale facilities or units, development of pilot plant scale facilities,
increased engineering analysis on ERDA and developers' designs and data,
and, again, the support of control technique developments with appropriate
foreign organizations.
Interactions with Other Programs
Within EPA, the Synfuels Program interfaces with regional programs,
the standards development program and various engineering programs. The
Synfuels Program is involved in joint control technology work with ERDA
in both engineering and pilot plant operations and in cooperative control
development programs at OSHA/NIOSH.
Industry could provide a substantial amount of information on control
of the main species they are treating. EPA would like to have joint
programs with industry in order to utilize their expertise, but again, this
is a difficult area because most of their control techniques are proprietary.
Discussion
When the floor was opened for discussion, it centered largely on
options for facilities to be used in control technology development.
The possibility of diverting some part of a stream of one of the
existing foreign plants for control technology study was brought up as
a possible option. Foreign operations have as many environmental problems
as the United States, and the personnel involved are well aware of the
potential pollution aspects, although they may not be as aggressive as the
United States in looking for solutions. There have been opportunities for
this type of cooperative effort, but the cost must be considered—putting
new technology into an operating plant is extremely expensive. There are
also the problems of distance and control. One must, finally, consider
whether it is better to invest money in overseas operations, or build
a universal test site here in the United States to address these problems.
89
-------
Control technology will be developed and evaluated on a generic
basis rather than on a specific process basis. It has been suggested that
it might, perhaps, be most practical to build a small scale piece of
control equipment that could be tapped onto existing pilot plants through
diversion of a small sidestream on which to perform studies, rather than
to perform this function at a bench scale facility. The difficulty is in
finding an existing pilot plant that operates for a sufficiently long
period to allow control technology studies to be completed. One must
also consider whether it is possible to base the study of a control
process on a system that has been set up for quite a different purpose.
For example, if the pilot plant was intended to study the effects of
changing feed rates, temperatures, pressures, etc., the compositions of
the stream will vary. Thus, this is an option, but the opportunity
has not yet arisen to attempt such a study. It seems preferable to
concentrate effort solely on evaluation of control technique development.
There is enough flexibility in bench scale facilities to provide a
range of conditions, and therefore allow for the study of a range of
gases. Therefore, the controls that are developed will not be uniquely
applicable to a particular product, but to other designs and processes
as well.
One of the prime reasons EPA prefers to have its own facility,
even if at bench scale, is that they can then monitor the effects of the
control technology on the stream for any transformations of the waste
materials that might take place within the control system itself. The
effort is not restricted to the study of an effluent stream or a
discharge stream, but can look at the basic chemistry of the system
itself, and make correlations based on the stream's temperature, chemistry,
etc., identifying pollutants formed or generated and the causes and
effects of their generation. It would be helpful if a U.S. commercial
system existed so that a sidestream of that system could be utilized for
such a study.
90
-------
In some cases, technology may be examined as it is applied in analo-
gous situations, such as refineries, where some of the streams may have
similar characteristics. The Synfuels Program will use any available
approach to the study of problems in the absence of large operational
facilities in which to examine each potential control system available.
The non-hydrothermal facility is applicable to more than the study of
the effects of coal conversion. Absorption, and chemical reaction can
be studied under very controlled conditions. The resultant data can
then be applied to bench scale facilities to see if the correlation of
chemistries can be maintained in order to determine what the changes will
be if the system is scaled up. Each successive scaling up further clouds
the effects of temperature and the array of potential pollutants will
probably also change (perhaps not the general constituents, but many of
the pollutants of concern). It does offer a mechanism to develop a
data base related to correlation potential and the chemistry kinetics
of certain materials. Enough information can be obtained to predict the
product characteristics and what should be looked for.
In regard to the petroleum industry, so much technical capability
exists that a pilot plant is unnecessary. The problem is to obtain
information on what the industry is doing. They, potentially, have the
base and could identify the problems involved. The petroleum industry
is probably the most aggressive and technically oriented industry in the
United States.
EPA's bench scale facility for study of the acid gas cleanup
system should be operational in eight to nine months. The water treatment
facility is expected to be ready much sooner, in six months or less.
Pollutant identification and isothermal work should be ongoing in three
to four months at an optimum level.
All of the studies discussed are being done through grants, since
EPA lacks both the space and the personnel to man such studies.
91
-------
These facilities will be available for interaction with ERDA. ERDA and
EPA have different approaches and objectives for their studies, so there
seems to be little likelihood of any great degree of overlap or duplication.
The gas source (for the bench scale facility) will be fluidized bed,
since that is the most feasible for bench scale studies. IGT is
designing the gasifier to have minimal problems, since the project will
not be studying gasification, but potential problems with raw and acid
gas cleanup systems.
G. High Temperature/Pressure Particulate Control—Mr. Dennis Drehmel
The next speaker, Mr. Dennis Drehmel. (OEMI/IERL-RTP) discussed high
temperature and pressure particulate control. He stressed the difference
in structure between the Particulate Technology Branch and other branches
at IERL-RTP. The work of the Particulate Technology Branch has been in
developing control devices, hence, the branch is not process- but rather
device-oriented. It is responsive to the particulate control needs of
other parts of the laboratory as well as other organizations.
The program is directed toward the improvement of standard control
device efficiency as well as the development of new concepts for the
achievement of higher particulate removal efficiencies. The AFF
portion of the program activities relates to the areas of fluidized bed
combustion, pressurized fluidized bed combustion or coal gasification.
Program Objectives
Mr. Drehmel delineated the program's two main objectives as:
(1) to ensure that emissions from advanced energy processes meet future
standards, and (2) to develop particulate collection devices which will
ensure the success of these processes. The near-term objectives are to
develop fundamental information on collection mechanisms of aerosols at
high temperature/pressure (HTP) and to determine the environmental and
process particulate cleanup requirements. Once this background is
established, the objectives are to determine the best way to approach
92
-------
time required is from two to three years (i.e., from development of
extension of technique to operational stage). However, if it is necessary
to go back to the basic mechanisms, the time required is from three to
five years and would not be compatible with ongoing process development.
Another constraint is that removal techniques must be compatible with
gasification technology or pressurized fluidized bed combustion. There
are constraints on size and economics which must be considered. Also,
pilot test facilities—even bench scale test facilities of HTP particulate
control devices—are very expensive.
Program Status
Primarily, work is at the bench scale, or exploratory level.
Verification of the required capabilities of control is ongoing; however,
the data in some cases are contradictory. Feedback from manufacturers of
turbines indicates that the allowable particulate concentration is a
function of the particle size distribution.
An R&D coordination meeting between EPA, ERDA, and appropriate
contractors is planned for Fall 1976 in order to examine requirements for
technology so that problems may be solved in the most efficient and
least duplicative manner possible.
In December, 1976, APT will submit recommendations as to the most
effective mechanisms in terms of HTP control.
In the Spring, a meeting will take place between EPA/ERDA personnel
in order to consider results both agencies have obtained from various
concepts relating to particulate control.
Problems and Issues
The basic issue is that it is not yet clear that the best place to
control particulates from a gasifier is at the high temperature/high-
pressure portion of the process. There are at least two alternatives:
93
-------
the problem, find the best path for HTP control, and determine where
research emphasis should be placed, in order to get to the demonstration
stage as quickly as possible.
The technical objective is to develop particulate control dev es
which will ensure the environmental acceptability of the advanced
processes and maximize efficiency and economy.
Program Description
The evaluation and development of particulate control devices has been
going on for some time, including the early stages of HTP. In FY74,
funds were allocated to develop HTP (here defined as 1700°F) electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs). (Normal precipitators operate at 300-800°F).
This work is being carried on by an EPA contractor, Research Cottrell.
One project has been completed at MRI on mechanisms for HTP particulate
removal. An advanced mechanisms study is being conducted by Air
Pollution Technology, Inc., (APT), another EPA contractor. They are to
make recommendations as to which mechanisms appear to be the most effective
for HTP particulate removal. APT, in addition to the mechanisms study,
has a dry scrubber contract. This contract involves a device which
allows large spheres to go into the venturi section of a scrubber. The
spheres intercept the particles as drops would in an ordinary scrubber.
There is a hot filtration contract with Aerotherm to look at metallic
and ceramic fabric filtration, A granular bed systems study contract is
being negotiated. A ceramic filter contract is underway with Westinghouse
to look at ceramic membranes for particulate control.
Constraints and Limitations
Among the constraints and limitations involved, Mr. Drehmel identified
the problem of having ample time in which to develop particulate removal
techniques which will meet EPA requirements in conjunction with the
development of processes that are ongoing (e.g., the Exxon FBC miniplant).
If it is possible to utilize devices which are already available, the
94
-------
one is tail-end cleanup of the process; and another is to cool down the
gas, clean it, and then reheat it. The latter is equivalent to a low
temperature/high pressure particulate removal process. It is difficult
to assess trade-offs at this point since the state-of-the-art of HTP
particulate control is virtually unknown.
A major concern is that condensibles produce particulates and
therefore HTP control by itself may not be sufficient to ensure adequate
environmental control.
The other basic issue is how to interact with the process as it
already exists. Desulfurization of hot gas is being developed and will
involve high temperature particulate removal. Another factor to consider
is whether HTP particulate removal will be more suited to some gasifiers
than to others or to other processes. A careful evaluation of other
programs must be conducted on an ongoing basis since advances in fluidized
bed direct combustion might meet current standards and be less expensive
than combined-cycle, low-Btu generation. Cooling of product gas before
particulate cleanup might be economically attractive, and high temperature
particulate removal alone may not prove environmentally acceptable.
Options for Future Work
Options being pursued are as follows. The first major task involves
finding economic levels of particulate removal at gasifier exit
temperatures: this will be accomplished. Second, EPA/EKDA programs are
being coordinated to determine operating conditions and process requirements.
The third task is to coordinate with health effects research to determine
which requirement drives particulate removal, blade erosion or health.
For instance, the indications from turbine manufacturers are that they
are worried about particulates greater than two microns in terms of
hardware deterioration. From a health standpoint, however, the concern is
with two microns and down. Therefore, the interests do not overlap.
The situation may exist that although particulates are adequately removed
for protection of the turbine, they are not removed to the extent
95
-------
necessary to protect the environment* Fourth, economics must be determined
for high temperature versus low temperature particulate removal for
gasifiers. This is a major issue which needs clarification.
Interaction with Other Programs
As indicated previously, this program lends support to other areas
in IERL and other government agencies.
Discussion
Mr. James Jones (Peabody Coal) inquired as to the status of standards
setting for fine particulates, Robert Bauman (EPA/Office of Air Quality
Planning & Standards) replied that although chemical analysis research is
underway, there is no program to set particulate standards at the present
time.
Al Fry (EPA/Policy Planning) asked whether a coordinated program with
ERDA exists to study particulate emission when the Reisnel plant's
fluidized bed combustor comes on line. Dr. Foley replied that an inter-
agency agreement with ERDA/Fossil Energy is being negotiated to become
effective next calendar year which would allow agencies to "swap facilities
for an equal number of hours" (i.e., the Reisnel plant & EPA's mini-plant).
In reply to a query as to Cottrell's activities under their EPA/IERL
contract, Mr. Drehmel stated that an effort is directed at maintaining
a stable corona using synthetic gas at high temperatures and pressures.
He also explained activities dealing with the problems of low sulfur
fuel. Two years ago it became obvious that in the case of low sulfur
coal or cleaned fuels, particulate removal by standard devices such as
ESPs will be made more difficult. In order to respond to this difficulty
a number of approaches are being considered. .One approach is to enlarge
the precipitator so that it is possible to collect fly ash from low
sulfur coal; however, other types of control devices may then begin
to compete. Another approach may be to change the mechanisms of the
precipitator to precharge the aerosol so that particulate collection
becomes more efficient. The improvement of precipitator technology in
the areas of low sulfur and cleaned coals is a major concern.
96
-------
H. Environmental Process and Effects—Mr. Gerald Rausa
The final speaker, Mr. Gerald Rausa. OEMI, is one of several persons
at headquarters working to coordinate EPA health effects research efforts
with those of other agencies.
Mr. Rausa stated that the intent of his presentation was to give an
overview of the interagency program, indicate general research objectives
within the processes and effects categories as well as specific research
problems with respect to advanced fossil fuels, inform the audience of
accomplishments and difficulties encountered, and entertain suggestions
as to possible changes of emphasis in the program.
Background
The Environmental Effects Interagency R&D Program has evolved from
a request made of 15 to 18 Federal agencies by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to examine
the recommendations of the Dixie Lee Ray Report with regard to bringing
new energy technologies on line. As a consequence, the King/Muir
Committee addressed itself to various categories (such as pollutant
characterization, measurement and monitoring) for each technology. The
proposed interagency program which evolved was planned as a supplement to
ongoing Federal programs.
Interagency Program Areas
The categories addressed by the Interagency R&D Program are:
Pollutant Characterization, Measurement and Monitoring; Environmental
Transport Processes; Health Effects; Ecological Effects; and Integrated
Assessment. The first category was addressed by the Gage and King/Muir
Committee and agreement was reached that the characterization of sources
would be done within the control technology groups, and pollutant
characterization, measurement, and monitoring which concerns itself with
field (or as defined within EPA ambient) measurements, would fall under
the purview of the Environmental Processes and Effects groups. This is
essentially the format followed by EPA programs. However, ERDA's program
in pollutant characterization, measurement and monitoring addresses both
97
-------
aspects. Monitoring quality assurance and instrumentation development
as well as provision of well-defined materials for calibration of
instrumentation are components of this category.
The second category, Environmental Transport Processes, addresses
the problems of "rates, routes and reservoirs": the questions of how
fast and where the material travels after entering the air, land or water
and its ultimate destination and interaction with the target species as
well as transformations.
The Health Effects category has been divided into five subcategories.
The first is pollutant identification using available techniques. The
second involves development of new, more rapid, biological screening
systems to evaluate damage. The third addresses metabolism and fate
studies—i.e., metabolism in biological systems, test models which are
used to evaluate health effects to man. The fourth subcategory—to assess
the impact on humans of long-term, low-level exposures—receives the major
effort. This requires use of a variety of experiments and approaches
including classical toxicological, clinical and epidemiclogical studies.
The fifth category, mechanisms of damage and repair, must be considered in
making attempts to extrapolate from animal and other biological data
to the ultimate effect on man.
The Ecological Effects Program concerns itself with the impacts on
habitats and populations, and the food chain pathway. The environments
include fresh water, marine, atmospheric and terrestial.
Integrated Assessment for the Interagency Processes and Effects
Program, within EPA, is addressed within the Energy Processes Division of
OEMI and> therefore, falls under the administration of the control
technology group. The division essentially operates as a program office.
Table 3 reflects the FY76 pass-through budget-emphasis for the various
areas addressed by the Interagency Processes and Effects Program. To
date, only 30 percent of the recommended five-year budget of $200
million has been authorized.
98
-------
Table 3
INTERAGENCY HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS PROGRAM
ENERGY R&D
(FY-76 RESOURCES: $40,300,000)
AGENCY
EPA
ERDA
NIEHS
NOAA
DOI
NIOSH
TVA
USDA
NBS
USGS
NASA
TOTAL %
MONITORING AND
INSTRUMENTATION %
8.6
1.8
-
2.8
-
0.9
0.7
-
2.8
2.6
1.9
22.1
HEALTH
EFFECTS %
15.1
6.9
8.0
-
-
5.0
-
-
-
-
-
35.0
ECO TRANSPORT
AND FATE %
9.7
1.2
-
1.2
0.1
-
0.8
0.1
-
-
-
13.1
ECO EFFECTS
%
9.7
3.3
0.5
3.7
6.0
-
2.9
3.7
-
-
-
29.8
TOTAL
%
43.1
13.2
8.5
7.7
6.1
5.9
4.4
3.8
2.8
2.6
1.9
100
VO
-------
The impact of this program on advanced fossil fuel development will
be felt in terms of the emphasis placed in the Processes and Effects
Program that is, essentially the same areas of concern as in normal
combustion situations, with modification essentially of the spectrum of
materials—both in the chemical nature of the pollutants and the magnitude
of the emissions, EPA Report No. 650-2~75~038, developed by Radian
Corporation, conjectures about what materials might be coming out of AFF
facilities. ERDA's base program plan (conversion technology) developed
by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, published in May 1976, contains a review
which addresses the question of agents not only in terms of conjecture,
but indicates actual data. Research Triangle Institute's Report
No. 31U-1214, "Identification of Components of Energy Related Waste and
Effluents" is another good report in the subject area (specifically R&D in
in-situ shale oil).
Problem Areas
Figure 11 (borrowed from an article by Mike Guerin and Jim Esler
of Oak Ridge Laboratory) illustrates the complexity of the problem with
respect to organics. Each peak represents a different organic component.
The top portion of the figure shows the spectrum developed by Oak Ridge
in the work associated with analysis of components of cigarette smoke; the
middle portion was developed for coal liquefaction products; the third is
the spectrum found for polyaromatic hydrocarbon (pAH) standards. This
example indicates the difficulties associated with attempting to develop
an index of toxicity for materials where many complex variables are
involved. The nuclear industry faced similar problems in the area of
fission products' varying contributions. The approach they developed
might be applied to development of indices which consider synergism of
pollutants from the synthetic fuels industry.
100
-------
Figure 11
Comparison of Organic Compound Spectra
ORNL-DWG 75-7368R
I I
(a) CONDENSED CIGARETTE SMOKE
36(?)
29 2G 232|222>
ztfJLiSV^
14
4 3
(b) COAL LIQUEFACTION PRODUCT
19 ,18
TIME (hr)
-------
Other problems specific to synthetic fuels characterization,
measurement and monitoring include development of more accurate instru-
mentation, measurement of environmental quality trends, identification
of secondary pollutants from new sources, development of a systematic
monitoring methodology for organic compounds, and procurement of surrogate
standard reference materials.
The transport and fate problems involve transport and transformation
of emissions from synthetic fuel processes. The primary concern with regard
to advanced fossil fuels are the organics: increased concentration of sus-
pect carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic agents; the metabolic products
resulting from the introduction of hydrocarbons into animal food chains.
Program Status
Under the category of characterization/measurement/monitoring, a
list of surrogate Standard Reference Materials is being compiled as a
joint effort with ERDA*s Pacific Northwest Laboratories (contacts:
Richard Perkins and Michael Peterson) and the National Bureau of Standards
(contact: Phillip LaFleur). EPA contacts for this effort are Mr. Rausa
and Dr. Gregory D'Alessio of EPA's Measurement Program. The list is
primarily being developed for purposes of calibration of instrumentation
rather than for toxicity testing. Table 4 illustrates the recommendations
resulting from that effort—compounds, concentration and the bases used.
The n-heterocyclics are to be addressed in the future.
Advanced fossil fuel residuals and products are to be characterized
chemically and physically. The major portion of this effort has been
undertaken by the Oak Ridge contingent, however EPA and ERDA's Pacific
Northwest Laboratories have also contributed information. (Mr. Rausa
offered to provide references to interested persons.)
A series of experiments are ongoing in the transport and fate area
with regard to directional modeling and shale oil .adsorption but data
is not yet available. With regard to atmospheric transport problems,
little attention has been given to addressing transformation of organic
materials. A question which has arisen is whether unburned hydrocarbons,
102
-------
Table 4
SURROGATE STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS
1 - 100 PPM
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATICS (ORGANIC BASE)
- 2 - METHYLNAPHTHALENE
- BENZO (a) PYRENE
- CHRYSENE
- FLOURANTHENE
- PHENANTHRENE
PHENOLS (ORGANIC BASE AND AQUEOUS MEDIUM)
- PHENOL
- P-CRESOL
- 0 - CRESOL
- 1, 3, 5 - TRIMETHYLPHENOL
- 2 - NAPTHOL
- CATECHOL
N - HETEROCYCLICS
- TO BE DETERMINED
-------
together with NO could be responsible for production of nitrosoamines—
Ji.
a question which is causing significant concern.
With regard to aquatic transport, the focus of organic studies is
essentially nonspecific with a small effort ongoing in the areas of
transformation between solubles and particulate materials.
With respect to toxicity in carcinogens-related studies, products
have been screened through toxicity and Ames mutagenicity tests using
the acid base extraction approach to fractionation. There is a problem,
however, in attempting to extrapolate information obtained in this sort
of testing to the real world. The health effects aspects of the program
are attempting to make such data more meaningful in that sense. For
instance, one might expect that there is no discernible difference
between sweet crude and syncrude product oils; however, an Ames test has
demonstrated that it appears that syncrude is 10 times as mutagenic per
unit as sweet crude.
For the past two years a program has been ongoing in the area of
carcinogenicity: contributors are EPA, ERDA, NIOSH, and NIEHS. An
evaluation of the EPA/ERDA program in health effects research is being
coordinated in order to avoid duplication of effort. Table 5 indicates
the emphasis of this interagency program. The majority of emphasis is
on the hazards analysis (i.e., long-term, low-level dose effects rela-
tionships). The identification of hazardous materials does not, however,
define the dose-response relationship—it does answer whether there is a
response in a given situation. New screening systems may need to be
developed which can more adequately predict effects of long-term rather
than the classical acute response systems. The metabolism and fate and
the mechanisms of damage and repair must be adequately understood in
order to extrapolate from animal experiments to human. In determining
dose-effects relationships one tries to estimate the risk to the individual.
There is risk involved in using dose^-effect curves because of the tre-
mendous uncertainty associated with them.
104
-------
Table 5
CARCINOGEN-RELATED STUDIES
FUNDED BY
OEMI/EPA INTERAGENCY PROGRAM
(FY 75/76 RESOURCES: 10,991,000)
IDENTIFICATION OF
HAZARDOUS AGENTS
RAPID BIOLOGICAL
SCREENING SYSTEMS
METABOLISM AND FATE
HAZARDS ANALYSIS
(DOSE-EFFECT)
MECHANISMS OF DAMAGE
AND REPAIR
EPA
FY 75/76 %
3.6
7.6
-
30.8
-
ERDA
FY 75/76 %
3.5
11.0
-
12.0
2.8
NIOSH
FY 75/76 %
-
-
-
20.6
-
NIEHS
FY 75/76 %
-
2.4
2.0
3.3
0.4
TOTAL
FY 75/76 %
7.1
21.0
2.0
66.7
3.2
o
Ol
-------
The carcinogen-related program also addresses the questions of
inorganics and trace metals. Ongoing activities include chemical
dosimetry at both the cellular and organ levels.
An additional activity is ongoing in the area of multiplicity of
stressors, e.g., polyaromatic carbons with N0« or H_SO,, Dave Coffin
(HERL-RTP) is a project officer for several such tasks. The activity
includes demonstrations of rate effects in some animals (i.e., subacute
pulse of a stressor combined with low-level, chronic administration of a
carcinogen). Results indicate apparent differences in response. Therefore,
it is likely that a single number or rate may not be the only constraint
applied on the ambient level. An ambient level consists of a random
distribution of a variety of agents being pulsed at different times—that
is, the real world situation. However, in the laboratory normally one
agent at a time is varied.
In the area of ecological effects, aquatic toxicity studies on
zooplankton and fish have been conducted by ERDA and EPA using whole
effluents and fractions. Bioaccumulations far both metals and organics
have also been undertaken. Food web accumulation and transformation is
being undertaken in Gulf Breeze Laboratory. NIEHS is also conducting
ecological effects studies.
Problems-—Summary
Contractual difficulties present a major problem with respect to the
initiation of programs. Another is the procurement of samples in large
volumes. Some approaches have failed to answer the question of how to
extrapolate information from animal experiments to man and from laboratory
models to full-scale facilities (i,e., whether signatures of effluent
streams can be understood by conducting small experiments).
106
-------
Discussion
In reply to a request for further delineation of the program's
scope, Mr. Rausa suggested that Dick Laska or he could provide interested
persons with an SSIE abstract listing which has been organized according
to the five program categories. The listing is a useful referral service
although it is not valuable as a management tool.
A suggestion was made that copies of discussion items be distributed
prior to the presentation as a guide to aid attendees in following the
presentation.
Mr. Rausa asked that ideas as to shift of emphasis and problems not
being addressed be submitted since this sort of feedback is a primary
purpose of the Sector Group meetings.
As there was no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
107
-------
ATTACHMENT I
AGENDA
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP (AFFSG) MEETING
25 August 1976
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL)
Las Vegas, Nevada
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:45
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
Coffee and Registration
Welcoming Remarks
SESSION
Activities Related to
Previous Meetings &
Discussion
Dr. Gary J. Foley, Chairman AFFSG
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr. &
Dr. Gary J. Foley
OEMI/Headquarters
Coffee Break
SESSION II
EPA/ORD AFF Research and Development Program
Advanced Oil Processing
(CAFB)
Advanced Oil Processing
(Desulfurization/Demetal-
lization/Denitrification)
Oil Shale
Discussion
Lunch
Chemical Coal Cleaning
Synthetic Fuels Environ-
mental Assessment
Synthetic Fuels Control
Technology Development
High Temperature/Pressure
Particulate Treatment
Mr. Sam Rakes
OEMI/IERL-RTP
Mr. William Rhodes
OEMI/IERL-RTP
Mr. Alden Christiansen
OEMI/IERL-CINC
Dr. Gary J. Foley
OEMI/Headquarters
Mr. Kelly Janes
OEMI/IERL-RTP
Mr. William Rhodes
OEMI/IERL-RTP
Mr. Kelly Janes
OEMI/IERL-RTP
Mr. Dennis Drehmel
OEMI/IERL-RTP
109
-------
3:30 Coffee Break
3:40 Environmental Process and Mr. Gerald Rausa
Effects OEMI/Headquarters
4:00 Discussion Dr. Gary J. Foley
OEMI/Headquarters
4:30 Closing Remarks Dr. Gary J. Foley
OEMI/Headquarters
4:45 Walking Tour of Office of Monitoring &
Laboratory Facilities Technical Support's
EMSL Staff
110
-------
ATTACHMENT II
LIST OF ATTENDEES
(Alphabetical Listing by Name)
Mr. Robert N. Allen
Senior Engineer
Environmental Dept., Florida Power
& Light
P. 0. Box 013100
Miami, FL 33401
Mr. Robert Bauman
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, EPA
Energy Strategy Branch -
Mail Drop 12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Ms. Julie F. Bishop
SRI Washington
1611 North Kent Street
Arlington, VA 22901
Dr. Joshua Bowen
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (MD 61), EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. Stephen L. Brown
Stanford Research Institute
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dr. John K. Burchard, Director
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (MD 60), EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. Robert E. Butz
Public Service Electric and
Gas Company
80 Park Place
Newark, NJ 07101
Mr. Alden Christiansen
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, EPA
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Dr. David Coffin
Health Effects Research Laboratory, EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. James U. Crowder
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, EPA
Durham, NC 27701
Mr. Ronald L. Dickenson
Stanford Research Institute
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
LCDR Leigh E. Doptis
Naval Medical Research and Development
Center (Code 47)
National Naval Medical Center
Bethesda, MD 20014
Mr. Dennis Drehmel
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (MD-61), EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. John Eckert
EPA Environmental Monitoring Support Laboratory
Remote Sensing Division
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Mr. William Elder, Director
Stack Gas Emissions Studies Staff
National Fertilizer Development Center
Tennessee Valley Authority
Mussel Shoals, AL 35660
Mr. Henry F. Enos
Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30601
Dr. Gary J. Foley
Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry, EPA
Waterside Mall (MD-681)
Washington, DC 20460
111
-------
Mr. Al Fry
Policy Planning Division, EPA
Waterside Mall, Room 3006
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. William C. Galegar
Environmental Research Laboratory»
EPA
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Mr. Phillip Gallo, Chief
Division of Synthetic Fuels
Federal Energy Administration
Federal Building
Washington, DC 20461
Mr. Robert Gerzetich
Consumers Power Company
1945 W. Parnall Road
Jackson, MI 49201
Mr. Donald B. Gilmore
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Dr. Myron Gottlieb
Environmental and Safety
Research, ERDA
Washington, DC 20545
Dr. David Graham
Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry, EPA
Waterside Mall, RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Arne Gubrud
American Petroleum Institute—
Environmental Affairs
2101 L Street, N. W.
Washington, DC 20037
Mr. Robert P. Hangebrauck
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dr, H. R. Hickey
Tennessee Valley Authority
401 Chestnut STreet
Chattanooga, TN 37401
Mr. Everett Huffman
Southern Services
P, 0. Box 2625
Birmingham, AL 35202
Dr. Charles W. Hulburt
Stanford Research Institute
1611 North Kent Street
Arlington, VA 22209
Mr. Kelly T. Janes
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. James R. Jones
Director, Environmental Quality
Peabody Coal
301 North Memorial Drive
St. Louis, MO 63102
Mr. Richard Kennedy
The MITRE Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Boulevard
McLean, VA 22101
Mr. Richard Laska
Director, Program Operations Staff, EPA
Waterside Mall RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Robert M. Lusskin
Technical Director
Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
44 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Mr. Blair Martin
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (MD-65), EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr.
Office of Energy, Minerals & Industry, EPA
Energy Processes Division
Waterside Mall
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Billy G. McKinney
Tennessee Valley Authority
1320 Commerce Union Bank Bldg.
Chattanooga, TN 37401
112
-------
Dr. David McNeils, Deputy Director
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, EPA
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Mr. George B. Morgan
Acting Director
Environmental Monitoring & Support
Laboratory, EPA
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Mr. David R. Myers
Stanford Research Institute
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dr. L. G. Neal
TRW
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 94025
Mr. H. Ray Newsom, Director
Energy Conversion Development
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company
3000 Bissonnet Avenue
Houston, TX 77005
Mr. S. R. Orem, Technical Director
International Gas Cleaning
Institute
P. 0. Box 1333
Stanford, CT 06904
Mr. Robert K. Oser
Office of Program Management
and Support
Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, EPA
P. 0. Box 15027
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Dr. William E. Pepelko
Health Effects Research
Laboratory, EPA
Waterside Mall, RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Frank T. Princiotta
Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry, EPA
Waterside Mall, RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Dick Prouty
Synthetic Fuels Editor
Cameron Engineers
1315 S. Clarkson Street
Denver, CO 80210
Mr. Sam Rakes
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. Gerald Rausa
Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry, EPA
Waterside Mall (RD-681)
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Matthew J. Reilly
Assistant Director of Environmental
Safety
ERDA/Fossil Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. George Rey
Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry, EPA
Waterside Mall, RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Steven Reznek
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry, EPA
Waterside Mall (RD-681)
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. William Rhodes
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
113
-------
Mr. Sam Ruggieri
American Electric Power Service
Corporation
P. 0. Box 487
Canton, OH 44701
Mr. Frank C. Schora, Jr.
Vice-President, Process Research
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 South State Street
Chicago, TL 60606
Dr. Richard Sheppard
U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, Mail Stop 933
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Mr. Richard Stern
Chief, Process Technology Branch
Industrial,Environmental Research
Laboratory (MD-61), EPA
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Mr. Jerome A. Stipanov
Southern California Edison Company
P.O. Box 800
Rosemead, CA 91770
Mr. John Talty
NIOSH
Division of Physical Sciences & Engineering
Robert A. Taft Laboratories
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226
Mr. Robert P. Van Ness
Louisville Gas & Electric Company
P.O. Box 354
Louisville, KY 40201
Mr. Balfour Wallace
David Taylor Naval Ship Research & Development
Center
Air Contamination Control Branch, Code 2852
Annapolis, MD 21402
Mr. William B. Willsey
Philadelphia Electric Company
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Mr. Kurt Yeager
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hill view Avenue
P.O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA 94303
114
-------
ATTACHMENT II (Continued)
LIST OF ATTENDEES
(By Organization)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration
Office of Environment and Safety
Dr. Myron Gottlieb
Office of Fossil Energy
Dr. Matthew J. Reilly
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Land and Water Use
Environmental Research Laboratory—Athens, GA
Mr. Henry F. Enos
Environmental Research Laboratory—Ada, OK
Mr. William C. Galegar
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Mr. Robert Bauman
Mr. James U. Crowder
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Headquarters
Dr. Gary J. Foley*
Mr. David Graham
Mr. Richard M. Laska
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr.
Mr. Frank T. Princiotta
Mr. Gerald Rausa
Mr. George Rey
Dr. Stephen R. Reznek, Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory—Las Vegas, NV
Mr. John Eckert
Mr. Donald B. Gilmore
Dr. David McNelis
Mr. George B. Morgan, Acting Director
Mr. Robert K. Oser
* New address: Organization of Economics Cooperation and Development
(OECD), Paris, France
115
-------
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory—Cincinnati, OH
Mr. Alden Christiansen
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory—Research Triangle
Park, NC
Dr. Joshua Bowen
Dr. John K. Burchard, Director
Mr. Dennis Drehmel
Mr. Robert P. Hangebrauck
Mr. T. Kelly Janes
Mr. Blair Martin
Mr. Sam Rakes
Mr. William Rhodes
Mr. Richard Stern
Office of Health and Ecological Effects
Health Effects Research Laboratory—Cincinnati, OH
Dr. William E. Pepelko
Health Effects Research Laboratory—Research Triangle Park, NC
Dr. David Coffin
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Mr. Al Fry
Federal Energy Administration
Division of Synthetic Fuels
Mr. Phillip Gallo, Chief
Navy, Department of the
David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center
Mr. Balfour L. Wallace
Naval Medical Research and Development Center
LCDR Leigh E. Doptis
Health Education and Welfare. Department of
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
%. Mr- John Talty
Tennessee Valley Authority
Mr. William Elder
Dr. H, R. Hickey
Dr. Billy G. McKinney
U.S. Geological Survey
Dr. Richard Sheppard
116
-------
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS
Cameron Engineers
Mr. Dick Prouty
The MITRE Corporation
Mr. Robert N. Allen, Consultant (Florida Power and Light)
Mr. Robert E. Butz, Consultant (Public Services Electric and Gas
Company)
Mr. Robert Gerzetich, Consultant (Consumers Power Company)
Mr. Richard Kennedy
Mr. S.R. Orem, Consultant (International Gas Cleaning Institute)
Mr. Sam Ruggeri, Consultant (American Electric Power Service Corp.)
Mr. Jerome A. Stipanov, Consultant (Southern California Edison
Company)
Mr. Robert P. Van Ness, Consultant (Louisville Gas and Electric
Company)
Mr. William B. Willsey, Consultant (Philadelphia Electric Company)
Resource Planning Associates
Dr. Robert Lusskin
Stanford Research Institute (SRI)
Ms. Julie Bishop
Mr. Stephen L. Brown
Mr. Ronald L. Dickenson
Mr. Arne Gubrud, Consultant (American Petroleum Institute)
Mr. Everett Huffman, Consultant (Southern Services, Inc.)
Dr. Charles W. Hulburt
Mr. James R. Jones, Consultant (Peabody Coal)
Mr. David R. Myers
Mr. H. Ray Newsom, Consultant (Director, Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company)
Mr. Frank C. Schora, Jr., Consultant (Institute of Gas Technology)
Mr. Kurt Yeager, Consultant (Electric Power Research Institute)
TRW
Dr. L.G. Neal
117
-------
TECHNICALREPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-76-023
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Meeting Report: Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group,
Las Vegas, 25 August 1976
5. REPORT DATE , ,-,-, ,•
October 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(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.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-1981
Task 004
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mim.
tor
13. TYPEjOF REPORT AND fERIO
.tes/Advancea Fossil F\
Group Meeting, 25 Augi
D COVERED
.ugus
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Contact: Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr.
(202) 755-2737
'The minutes of the fourth Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group Meeting cover the
content of the presentations which were made and the discussion which followed.
general areas of concern were:
The
(1) Indications of actions taken as a consequence of issues raised at
the third Sector Group Meeting; review of OEMI activities related
to previous meetings
(2) Review of EPA/ORD Advanced Fossil Fuels Research and Development
Program
(a) Advanced Oil Processing:Chemically Active Fluidized Bed
(CAFB) and Desulfurization/Demetallization/Denitrification
(b) Oil Shale
(c) Chemical Coal Cleaning
(d) Synthetic Fuels Environmental Assessment
(e) Synthetic Fuels Control Technology Development
(f) High Temperature/High Pressure Particulate Treatment
(g) Environmental Processes and Effects
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
u±l shaleooal uleaning
Denitrificat ion
Demetallization
Desulfurization
Particulates
Conversion
Coal Gasification/Liquefaction
Fossil Fuels
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Synthetic tuels
Environmental assessment
Control technology
TRW/Meyers Process
Chemically Active Fluid-
ized Bed (CAFB)
Health Effects
Homer City,.PA
c. COSATI Field/Group
08PI4~B
06T 14D
07A 2ID
07B
07C
07D
10A
14A
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
Available free from OEMI/EPA while the
supply lasts
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. £E CURITY CLASS. (This page)
Unclassiti.ea1
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
119
------- |