x>EPA
United Si r
• nmental •
CY
Indus;
EPA 600 7 78 151
July 1978
Status of IERL-RTP
Environmental
Assessment
Methodologies
for Fossil Energy
Processes
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine 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
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses 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 environ-
mental issues.
REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-78-151
July 1978
Status of IERL-RTP Environmental
Assessment Methodologies
for Fossil Energy Processes
by
John L. Warren
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Contract No. 68-02-2612
Task Nos. 22 and 62
Program Element No. EHE623A
EPA Project Officer: Walter B. Steen
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. 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.
-------
ABSTRACT
A summary of the current status of the following IERL/RTP environmental assessment methodol-
ogies is included:
• current process technology background
• environmental data acquisition
• current environmental background
• environmental objectives development
• control technology assessment
• environmental alternatives analysis
The need for additional research in four areas—basic research, analytical methods, environmental
models, and multimedia environmental goal research—is reviewed.
Improved coordination is suggested in the following areas: contractor/EPA coordination, coordi-
nation of environmental assessment methodology development with health effects research, multi-
media environmental goal coordination, dissemination of results, and interaction with other agencies.
A bibliography of all published reports and drafts of the Industrial Environmental Research Lab-
oratory environmental assessment methodology program is included.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2612, Tasks 22 and 62, by
the Research Triangle Institute under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This report covers the period 5 July 1977 to 5 June 1978.
11 i
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Contents iv
Figures vi
Tables viii
Acknowledgments ix
1.0 Summary of the Current Status of IERL/RTP
Environmental Assessment Methodology 1
1.1 The IERL/RTP Environmental Assessment
Program 1
1.2 Current Process Technology Background 9
1.2.1 Technology Overview Report Outline 9
1.2.2 Nomenclature for Energy Technologies 9
1.2.3 Source Unit Operations 16
1.2.4 Process Assessment Criteria 18
1.2.4.1 Selection of Assessment
Criteria 18
1.2.4.2 Development of Criteria
Weighting Factors 18
1.2.4.3 DARE Weighting Procedure 20
1.2.4.4 Procedure for Use of
Methodology 21
1.2.4.5 Computation and Interpretation
of Total Process Scores 21
1.3 Environmental Data Acquisition Status 23
1.3.1 Level 1 Sampling and Analysis
Procedures 23
1.3.2 Level 1 Bioassay Procedures 25
1.3.3 Level 1 Quality Assurance 30
1.3.4 Approach to Level 2 Analysis 32
1.3.5 Level 2 Inorganic Analysis 36
1.3.6 Level 2 Organic Analysis 41
1.3.7 Environmental Assessment Data
Systems (EADS) 48
1.4 Current Environmental Background 53
1.4.1 Summary of Key Federal Regulations
That Specify Control Levels 53
1.4.2 Noncriteria Ambient Baseline
Data Base 54
1.4.3 Environmental Siting Scale
Models for Technologies 54
iv
-------
CONTENTS (con.)
1.5 Environmental Objectives Development 55
1.5.1 Development of Multimedia
Environmental Goals 55
1.5.2 Integration of Nonchemical Pollutant
Goals and Nonpollutant Goals Into
the MEG Concept 62
1.5.2.1 MEG for Noise 62
1.5.2.2 MEG for Heat 62
1.5.2.3 MEG for Microorganisms 63
1.5.2.4 MEG for Bioassay Tests on
Complex Effluents 63
1.5.2.5 MEG for Land and Water
Physical Factors 63
1.6 Control Technology Assessment 64
1.6.1 Control Assay (CA) Development 64
1.6.2 Development of the Multimedia
Environmental Control Engineer-
ing Handbook (MECEH) 67
1.6.3 Baseline Methodology for Effluent
Control Options: Textile Industry
Example 69
1.7 Environmental Alternatives Analysis 72
1.7.1 Source Analysis Models (SAM's) 72
1.7.1.1 SAM/IA 72
1.7.1.2 SAM/I 76
1.7.1.3 Extended SAM/I 77
1.7.1.4 SAM/II 77
1.7.2 Source Assessment Methodology 77
1.7.2.1 Source Severity 79
1.7.2.2 National Emissions Burden 80
1.7.2.3 States' Emissions Burdens 80
1.7.2.4 Minor Decision Criteria 81
1.7.3 Defined Research Data Base
for Standards 81
2.0 Recommendations 92
3.0 Bibliography 95
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 IERL/RTP Standards Development Support R&D 4
2 Environmental Assessment and Control Technology
Development Program 5
3 Environmental Assessment/Control Technology
Development Diagram 7
4 Environmental Assessment Methodology - A Phased
Approach 8
5 Environmental Assessment Methodology - A Phased
Approach 24
6 Basic Level 1 Sampling and Analytical Scheme
for Particulates and Gases 26
7 Basic Level 1 Sampling and Analytical Scheme
for Solids, Slurries, and Liquids 27
8 Biological Analysis Overview 29
9 Decision Logic for Phased Level 1-Level 2
Analysis 33
10 Logic Flow Chart for Initial Sample
Characterization 37
11 Logic Flow for Bulk Composition
Characterization 38
12 Logic Flow for Individual Particle
Characterization 39
13 Level 2 Liquid Sample Compound Analysis
Scheme 40
14 Organization of FPEIS Data 51
15 Control Assay Development Test Sequence
for Wastewater 66
16 MRC/EPA Wastewater Toxicity Study Plan 70
vi
-------
FIGURES (con.)
Number Page
17 Relationship of Various SAM's to SAM Output 73
18 SAM/IA Procedure 75
19 Steps in Performing a Source Assessment 78
20 Illustration of Approach for Synthetic Fuels
from Coal-Based Energy Technologies 83
vn
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Examples of Potential Support Outputs of Environmental
Assessment and Control Technology Development Activities . . 3
2 Contents of Data Sheets for Most Promising Processes .... 19
3 Level 1 Samples 34
4 Level 2 Sampling and Analysis Methods by MEG Category ... 42
5 Organic Categories Addressed by MEG's 56
6 Inorganic Chemical Substances Categories
Addressed by MEG's 57
7 Sample MEG Chart 59
8 Background Information Summary Sheet 61
9 Classification System for the Control
Engineering Handbook 68
10 Standards Support Plan for Technologies for
Producing Synthetic Fuels From Coal 84
11 Environmental Assessment Report - Lurgi Systems for
Producing Low- and Medium-Btu Gas From Coal 87
vm
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation and assistance of all of the IERL/RTP staff
and environmental assessment contractors and EPA Task
Officer, Walter Steen, are gratefully acknowledged. A special
note of thanks is due to R. P. Hangebrauck, who collected,
prepared, and extensively reviewed much of the material in this
report. This report could not have been prepared without their
timely assistance and suggestions and specific inputs from a
number of other persons including: 1) Jim Dorsey, who offered
contributions and review regarding sampling and analytical pro-
cedures plus overall review; 2) Dale Denny, who reviewed the
methodology examples for the textile industry and the source
assessment methodology; and 3) Gary Johnson, who provided
the material on the Environmental Assessment Data System.
The report was edited by Debbie Blank and Kathleen Mohar of
RTI's Report Editing and Word Processing Group.
IX
-------
SECTION 1.0
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF IERL/RTP ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
1.1 THE IERL/RTP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
This section includes a brief discussion of the overall environmental
assessment program of lERL's Energy Assessment and Control Division. The
exhibits and content of this section are based on several papers given by
R. P. Hangebrauck, Director, Energy Assessment and Control Division, IERL/
RTP. The most recent of these papers was "Environmental Assessment Method-
ology for Fossil Energy Processes," which was presented at the Environmental
Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, III, meeting held at Hollywood,
Florida, on September 13-16, 1977.
"Environmental assessment" has many meanings depending on the agency or
individual using the term. As used by IERL/RTP and as used in this report,
an environmental assessment (EA) is a continuing iterative study aimed at:
(1) determining comprehensive multimedia environmental loadings and
environmental control costs, from the application of existing and
best future definable sets of control/disposal options to a partic-
ular set of sources, processes, or industries; and
(2) comparing the nature of these loadings with existing standards,
estimated multimedia environmental goals, and bioassay specifica-
tions as a basis for prioritization of problems/control needs and
for judgment of environmental effectiveness.
The EA methodologies discussed here are very important to EPA because
they represent prototypical approaches to multimedia, multipollutant problem
identification and control effectiveness evaluation for complex effluents
from fossil energy processes. They are prototypes of potential future
regulatory approaches that are holistic and are aimed at preventing problems
before they occur. This should allow resolution of existing problems on
other than a one-pollutant-at-a-time basis, which is fraught with endless
1
-------
studies, only partially effective results, and high costs at all levels of
implementation.
The primary outputs of EA and related control technology development
activities are:
a defined research data base for standards,
quantified control R & D needs,
quantified control alternatives,
quantified media degradation alternatives, and
quantified nonpollutant effects and alternative siting criteria.
Some potential support uses of program outputs are listed in table 1, and
the relationship of these outputs to each other and to EPA Program Offices
is shown in figure 1.
Figure 2 shows the relationship of the following six functional EA
research areas to control technology development and to fossil energy tech-
nologies:
Current Process Technology Background - Provides a description of
the energy processes, of the potential for national and/or
regional use, and of development schedules. Serves as input for
developing acquisition of environmental data.
Environmental Data Acquisition - Includes: (1) sampling and
analytical techniques for process sources, effluents and pol-
lutants, (2) processes/facilities to be utilized for environmental
assessment, (3) comprehensive characterization of waste streams
and input/output materials, (4) description of source unit opera-
tions on a modular basis for each relevant energy process, and (5)
development of assays for control technologies.
Current Environmental Background - Includes: (1) a summary of key
Federal regulations and criteria; (2) a summary of literature on
transport models, occupational health studies, potential pol-
lutants, multimedia impacts, and epidemiological studies for
fossil energy technology industries; (3) development of a data
base on ambient background concentrations; and (4) construction of
scale models of fuel conversion facilities, sites, and their
environmental interactions.
-------
TABLE 1. EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL SUPPORT OUTPUTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Best Technology
1. Standards of Practice Manuals/Control Alternatives
2. Best Technology Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEG) for All
Individual MEG Pollutants
a. Existing
b. 1983
c. 1988
d. 1993
3. Reviews
a. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
b. Effluent Guidelines
c. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Hazardous
Waste Standards
B. Research Data Base for Standards Development
1. Industry/Sources Problem Definition for Potential Standards
Consideration
a. Identification of Cases Where Effluent Pollutant Concentration
Exceeds MEG
(1) Air - Criteria, Hazardous, and Non-Criteria Pollutants
(2) Water - Effluent Guidelines
(3) Solids - Hazardous Waste Standards
b. Identification of Control R&D Needs
2. Optimum Complex Effluent Controls
a. Identification of Control Approaches that Minimize Total
Toxic Unit Discharge
3. Evaluation of Potential New Regulatory Approaches
a. Minimum Acute Toxic Effluent (MATE)
b. Complex Effluent Bioassays
II. CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
A. ' Basis for NSPS
B. Basis for Effluent Guidelines
C. Basis for RCRA/Hazardous Waste Standards
-------
IERL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT/CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
IERL DEVELOPS
STANDARDS
SUPPORT PLAN
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Current Process Technology Background
Environmental Data Acquisition
Current Environmental Background
Environmental Objectives Development
Control Technology Assessment
Environmental Alternatives Analysis
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
• Gas Treatment
• Liquids Treatment
• Solids Treatment
• Final Disposal
• Process Modification
• Combustion Modifications
• Fuel Cleaning
• Fugitive Emissions Control
• Accidental Release Technology
TECHNOLOGY AREAS
Conventional Combustion
Nitrogen Oxide/Combustion Modification Control
Fluid Bed Combustion
Advanced Oil Processing
Coal Cleaning
Synthetic Fuels
Figure 2. Environmental assessment and control technology development pruyrain.
-------
Environmental Objectives Development - Utilizes the Multimedia
Environmental Goal (MEG) approach (see section 4.1 for a detailed
discussion of MEG) to develop goals for organics, inorganics,
radionuclides, microorganisms, heat, nonionizing radiation, noise,
land-related physical factors, and water-related physical factors.
Control Technology Assessment - Develops the multimedia environ-
mental control engineering manual for energy technologies and
assesses the effectiveness of various process control options.
Environmental Alternative Analysis - Includes: (1) development of
Source Analysis Models (SAM's), (2) interpretation of Levels 1, 2,
and 3 results to determine maximum potential "degree of hazard"
and "toxic-unit discharge rate," (3) assessment of compliance of
each control/disposal option with various alternatives, and (4)
ranking of effluent streams and pollutants of concern.
Figure 3 details further the relationship of these six functional EA
areas to the development of environmental assessments and control technologies.
Figure 4 outlines the phased approach to environmental assessment
methodology.
-------
CONTROL TBCHNOLOIY
OEVEIOPMENT
CUMENI PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
IAUQROUNO
• PROCESS INFORMATION
• SCHEDULES
• STATUS
• PRIONIIIESfORFUR
IHER STUDY
1 REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
< >
CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL
iAUQROUND
• POTENTIAL POLEUIANIS
AND IMPACTS IN All VEUIA
• ODSEfRESPONSEUAIA
• FEOE«AUSIATE STANDARDS
• IRAJUPOR! MODELS
> SUMMARISE INDUSTRY
REIATEO OCCUPATIONAL
LITERATURE
4 i
I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
1 TECNNOIOGY TRANSFER
i 1
\
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
• EXISTING DATA FOR EACH PROCESS
• IDENIIFYSAMPIMGANOANAIVII
CAl TECHNIQUES INCLUDING 110
ASSAYS
• TEST PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
• COMPREHENSIVE HASTE STREAM
ISHI/AIION
• com HOI ASSAYS
1
k
ENVIRONMENTAL OUICTIVES
DEVELOPMENT
• fSTAILISH
MEDIA COM
FORCONTR
MEN! CUIO/
• DEFINE DEC
PROILEHS
• DEFINE EMI
• PRIORITISE
• NONPOILUT
GOALS
• IIOASSAYC
•ERMISSI11E
ENI RATION
11 DEVELOP
LNCE
WON CRITERIA
II2ING SOURCES
(SIGN GOALS
POLLUTANTS
ANT IMPACT
RITERIA
ENVIRONMENTAl SCIENCES RtD
• HEALTH/fCOlOGICAt EffECIS
RESEARCH
• TRANSPORT/TRANSFORMATION
RESEARCH
• ENGIMIRINI
• SASIC AND Al
DEVELOPMEN
• SPECIFIC PRO
MEN! AND EV
1
ANALYSIS
VIIED PROCESSES •
T
CESS DEVELOP
ALUATION
YES
MAVII
p
CONTROL TECHNOLOtY ASSESSMENT
• CONTROL SYSTEM AND DISPOSAL
OPTION INFORMATION AND DESIGN
PRINCIPLE
• CONTROL PROCESS POLLUTION
• PROCESS ENGIN
ANTrCOSl SENS
• ACCIDENTAL R
IION IRANSIE
STUDIES
• FIELD TESTING
APPLICATIONS
• DEFINE IESI C
NIDUE FOREAC
• POLLUTANT CO
STUDIES
EERINGPOLLUT
ITIVITYSIUOIES
LEASE.MAIFUNC
II OPERATION
IN REIATEO
1NIROE TECH
HGOAL
NTROl SYSTEMS
PLANS AND GOALS
•
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSES
CHARACTERISED
k EFFLUENTS/COSTS
- FOR EACH CONTROL
OPTION
SELECT AND APttY
-» ALTERNATIVE SOURCE
ANALYSIS MODEIISI
SELECT AND APPLY
MIOIA ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
MIGi
• IEST TECHNOLOGY
. lIUKNi; AygitNl STANDARDS
• ESTIMAIEDPERMISSIIIECON
CENTRATIONIEKI
NATION OF DISCHARGE!
• SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
. MINIMUMACUIEIOHICIIY
Ef FLUENT IMAIEI
ENaiNEERINQ
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
A
frC »•
X. NCI
i
nou\ "° »
?Y^
EHVinoUHNIAl IN6IMICHMB
IICHHOLOaVIMAUIifl
]
HIA11H/ICOIOCICAI
BirACISAMAlVilS
• AIM MAIIH AMU 1 ANU
UUALIIV
• IHLHtAStUSILtNlSi
ANUOIA1HS
• [CUiUdf NtlAItU
(f fitIS
• yAltHIAI Ml AIIO
IMtLlS
ouiruis
• UOANIIHtUHlUt* 11(011*1) A TIO*
AtTfflNAIiVES
• UUANIIMIUNOMPULIIHANI KHCIi
AND SUl HI, CHiHfliA Al KNNATIVfS
• OiHN(l) HtSI AHCM DAT A MSI FOR
STANUAHOS
ourruit
fc • uu*»«iintu IMH li
* At ItHKAIlVtS
Figure 1 Environmental Assessment/Control Technology Development Diagram
-------
00
Phase
1
(Comprehensive,
Rapid Screening)
2
(Directed Detailed
Screening)
3
(Priority Pollutant/
Effluent Evaluation)
Key E. A. Methodology Components Utiliied
Sampling & Analysis
Used
Level 1
Chemical
Biological
Level 2
Chemical
Biological
Level3
Chemical
Biological
Multimedia Environmental
Goal Sets Used Source Analysis
(Assessment Alternatives) Models Used
MATE* SAM/IA
(Rapid Screening)
Bioassay Criteria
MATE* SAM/IA
(Rapid Screening)
EPC" SAM/I
(Screening Using
Standardized Source
Models)
Bioassay Criteria -
EPC" SAM/11
EPC"
Bioassay Criteria
Phase Characteristics
Health &
Concentration Ecological
Levels Effects Level
Measured Evaluated Evaluated
Effluent Effluent Acute Exposure
Effluent Effluent Acute Exposure
Effluent Effluent Acute Exposure
Effluent Estimated- Chronic Exposure
Ambient
Effluent Effluent Acute Exposure
Effluent Estimated- Chronic Exposure
Ambient
Ambient Ambient Chronic Exposure
Ambient Ambient Chronic Exposure
Accuracy,
Specificity,
Cost, Time
to Carry Out
Low
Higher
Highest
•MATE (Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluent)
"EPC (Estimated Permissible Concentrations - includes existing ambient standards)
Other Assessment Alternatives can also be applied.
Figure 4. Environmental assessment methodology-a phased approach.
-------
1.2 CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
In conjunction with methodologies developed in the environmental data
acquisition module, current process technology background methodologies will
be used to assess control technologies. Key components of the current
process technology background include: process information, schedules,
status, and priorities for further study. The systems being studied using
the methodologies discussed below include: (1) conventional combustion
systems—nitrogen oxides/combustion modification control, (2) fluid bed
combustion, (3) coal cleaning, (4) synthetic fuels, and (5) advanced oil
processing.
Four methodologies are currently being established in this area: (1)
technology overview reports format, (2) nomenclature for energy technologies,
(3) source unit operations, and (4) process assessment criteria. Their
status is reviewed in the following sections.
1.2.1 Technology Overview Report Outline
REFERENCES: E. C. Cavanaugh, W. E. Corbett, and G. C. Page,
Environmental Assessment Data Base for Low/Medium-
Btu Gasification Technology: Volumes I and II,
EPA-600/7-77-125a and -125b, November 1977.
P. W. Spaite and G. C. Page, Technology Overview:
Low- and Medium-Btu Coal Gasifications Systems,
EPA-600/7-78-061, March 1978.
These reports will compile all pertinent information for a particular
fossil energy technology at the beginning of an environmental assessment.
The outline on the following page has been suggested by Radian Corporation
for the reports, which would be about 50-80 pages in length:
1.2.2 Nomenclature for Energy Technologies
REFERENCE: R. P. Hangebrauck, Director, Energy Assessment and
Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
To facilitate discussion among users of the Technology Overview Reports
and other EA methodologies, the following standard nomenclature for energy
technologies has been developed.
-------
OUTLINE TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
II. STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
A. Applicability • Discussion of the applicability of the technology to potential product end uses such as
direct combustion, chemical feedstocks, electricity, etc. Factors affecting the technology's rate of
commercialization are also discussed. These factors consist of the total markets currently available for
the product(s), the markets that are most suitable for the product(s), the product markets not yet
developed, and other factors limiting commercialization.
B. Commercial Prospects - Current status of commercial systems is presented along with plans of industry
to install new commercial systems in the future. Discussions of the factors that may affect these plans
for commercialization, such as the time required to install these systems, are included.
C. Development Activities • Discussion of the agencies, institutions, and industries involved in the tech-
nology development activities. The types of activities (process, environmental, health effects, control
technology, etc.) are described along with the activities associated with the development of new prod-
uct markets.
D. Energy Efficiency - A discussion of thermal efficiencies, such as comparing the feedstock energy input
to the product energy output or the total energy of the input to the total energy of the output is
included. The effects of operating parameters, feedstocks, product end uses, and control technologies
on the plant's energy efficiency are also discussed.
E. Costs - Factors affecting product costs include:
1. cost sensitivity to specific processes, control technologies, and product end use;
2. plant locations, available space, and capacity;
3. availability of fuels; and
4. Federal, State, and local environmental regulations.
III. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
A. Processes/Systems • The technology of concern is characterized by dividing the technology into specif-
ic operations and modules, each module having well-defined inputs, outputs, and functions. The total
population of processes that can be used to produce the technology's products is presented along with
the specific processes that have the greatest likelihood for near-term commercialization. These pro-
cesses are then grouped by operating parameters (pressure, temperature, etc.), feedstock pretreatment
requirements, and/or specific product end uses. A generalized flow diagram of the types of systems
showing the combination of modules that represent typical commercial plants is also given.
B. Raw Materials - The raw material requirements for the processes used to produce the technology's
product, and the effects of these raw materials on the operation of specific processes and on the prod-
uct end uses are discussed.
10
-------
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND DISCHARGE STREAM SUMMARY
A. Environmental Impacts • This section presents a summary of the multimedia discharge streams and
their sources. Environmental implications and health effects associated with these streams are dis-
cussed.
B. Discharge Stream Summary • Multimedia discharge streams and their control technologies are pre-
sented. The discharge stream summary table identifies the operation and the module that is the source
of the discharge stream, summarizes the current status of the data for the stream, and indicates why
more data are required. The control technology summary table identifies (a) the discharge streams and
their sources by operation and module, (b) the input and output streams from each module that needs
to be characterized, (c) the applicable technologies for controlling the discharge stream, and (d) the
data requirements and current status for each stream.
V. APPENDIXES
A. Environmental Assessment/Control Technology Development • This section presents a discussion of
how the Technology Overview is incorporated into the Current Process Technology Background task
area in the EPA's Environmental Assessment/Control Technology Development Program.
B. Proprietary Systems - A summary table listing the total population of processes that can be used, the
process licensors/developers, and the current status of each process is given. A second table sum-
marizes the processes (including their licensor/developer and status) that have the greatest potential
for near-term commercialization.
C. Process Module Descriptions • Each module description contains the following entries: (a) general in-
formation on the processes in the module, (b) specific process information, and (c) discharge streams.
11
-------
Energy Techno!ogy--An energy technology is made up of systems
that are applicable to the production of fuel, electricity, or
chemical feedstocks from fossil fuels, radioactive materials, or
natural energy sources (geothermal or solar). A technology may
be applicable to extraction of fuel (e.g., underground gasifica-
tion) or processing of fuel (e.g., low-Btu gasification, light
water reactor, conventional boilers with fuel gas desulfur-
ization).
Operation—An operation is a specific function associated with a
technology and consists of a set of processes that are used to
produce specific products from certain raw materials. For
example, the operations for low/medium-Btu gasification technol-
ogy are coal pretreatment, coal gasification, and gas purifica-
tion. The processes used in each of these operations are:
Coal Pretreatment - drying, partial oxidation,
crushing and sizing, briquetting, and pulveriz-
ing.
Coal Gasification - fixed-bed/pressurized/
slagging; fixed-bed/pressurized/dry ash; entrained-
bed/pressurized/slagging; fixed-bed/atmospheric/
dry ash; fluid-bed/atmospheric/dry ash; and
entrained-bed/atmospheric/slagging.
Gas Purification - wet or dry particulate and
tar removal, gas quenching, and acid gas removal.
Process—Processes are basic units that make up a technology.
A process is used to produce chemical or physical transforma-
tions of input materials into specific output streams. Every
process has a definable set of waste streams that are, for
practical purposes, unique. The term "process" used without
modifiers is used to describe generic processes. Where the
term "process" is modified (e.g., Lurgi process), reference is
made to a specific process that falls in some generic class
consisting of a set of similar processes. For example, a
generic process in low/medium-Btu gasification technology is
the fixed-bed/atmospheric/dry ash gasification process. Spe-
cific processes that are included in this generic class are
Well man-Galusha, Woodall-Duckham/Gas Integrale, Chapman (Wil-
putte), Riley-Morgan, Foster Wheeler/Stoic, and Wellman-Incan-
descent.
Process Module—A representation of a process that is used to
display process input and output stream characteristics. When
used with other necessary process modules, it can be used to
describe a technology, a system or a plant. One example of the
"process module" approach to environmental studies of energy
technologies involved study of emissions from petroleum refin-
ing. A description was developed for the basic processes that
12
-------
make up a petroleum refinery; e.g., atmospheric distillation,
catalytic cracking, etc. Information on air emissions, as a
function of throughput, was collected as descriptive informa-
tion for each process module. Individual process modules were
assembled to describe plants with the process configuration
that is typical of specific areas of the country; e.g., a
refinery in the southwest United States, which maximized gaso-
line output, and another in the northeast United States, which
produced more distillate fuel. Data on emissions and weather
and air quality information from specific locations, for assumed
plant sites, were used for diffusion modelling studies aimed at
predicting the air pollution that would be experienced if a
refinery was in operation at the assumed location.
Auxiliary Process—Processes, associated with a technology,
that are used for purposes that are in some way incidental to
the main functions involved in transformation of raw materials
into end products. Auxiliary processes are used for recovery
of byproducts from waste streams, to furnish necessary util-
ities, and to furnish feed materials such as oxygen, which may
or may not be required depending on the form of the end product
that is desired. For example, some auxiliary processes for
low/medium-Btu gasification technology include (a) oxygen
production used to produce medium-Btu gas, (b) the Claus proc-
ess used to recover sulfur from gaseous waste streams, and (c)
the Phenolsolvan process used to recover phenols from liquid
waste streams.
System--A specified set of processes that can be used to produce
a specific end product of the technology; e.g., low- and medium-
Btu gasification. The technology is comprised of several
systems. The simplest system is producing combustion gas from
coal using a small fixed-bed, atmospheric, dry ash gasifier
coupled with a cyclone. One of the most complex systems has
very large gasifiers with high efficiency gas cleaning being
used to produce a fuel clean enough to be fired in the gas
turbines of a combined-cycle unit for production of electricity.
Plant—An existing system (set of processes) that is used to
produce a specific product of the technology from specific raw
materials. A plant may employ different combinations of proc-
esses but will be comprised of some combinations of processes
that make up the technology. For example, the Glen-Gery Brick
Company low-Btu gasification facilities are plants used to
produce combustion gas from anthracite coal.
Input Streams—Materials that must be supplied to a process for
performance of its intended function. Input streams will
include primary and secondary raw materials, streams from other
processes, chemical additives, etc. For example, the input
streams to a Lurgi gasifier consist of sized coal, lock hopper
filling gas, oxygen, steam, and boiler feedwater. For auxili-
13
-------
ary processes a waste stream from which a byproduct is recov-
ered is an input stream.
Output streams—Confined discharges from a process, which can
be products, waste streams, streams to other processes, or
by-products. For example, output streams from a Lurgi gasifier
include coal feeder vent gases, ash hopper vent gases, wet ash,
steam blowdown, and crude medium-Btu gas.
Raw Materials--Raw materials are feed materials for processes.
They are of two types: (1) primary raw materials that are used
in the chemical form in which they were taken from the land,
water, or air; and (2) secondary raw materials that are pro-
duced by other industries or technologies. For example, primary
raw materials for low/medium-Btu gasification technology include
coal, air, and water. Secondary raw materials include fluxes,
makeup solvent, catalysts, etc.
Process Streams—Process streams are output streams from a
process that are input streams to another process in the tech-
nology. For example, the crude medium-Btu gas from the Lurgi
gasification process is the feed (input) stream to the tar and
particulate removal quench process.
Products—Process output streams that are marketed for use or
consumed in the form in which they exit the process. For
example, the product from low-Btu gasification technology is
the low-Btu gas exiting the final gas purification process.
Byproducts—Byproducts are auxiliary process output streams
that are produced from process waste streams and are marketed
or consumed in the form in which they exit the process. For
example, tar is a byproduct produced by certain low-Btu gasifi-
cation facilities. It may either be consumed in a tar boiler
or sold.
Waste Streams—Waste streams are confined gaseous, liquid, and
solid process output streams that are sent to auxiliary proc-
esses for recovering byproducts, pollution control equipment, or
final disposal processes. Unconfined "fugitive" discharges of
gaseous or aqueous waste and accidental process discharges are
also considered waste streams. The tail gas from an acid gas
removal process is an example of a waste stream in low/medium-
Btu gasification technology. This stream can be sent to an
auxiliary process to recover the sulfur as a byproduct.
Source—Equipment that discharges either confined waste streams
(solids, liquid, gaseous, or combinations) or significant quan-
tities of unconfined, potential polluting substances in the
form of leaks, spills, and the like. Examples of sources in-
clude gasifier coal feed lock hoppers, which discharge emissions
during coal feeding, and the Glaus reactor, which recovers
14
-------
sulfur and discharges tail gases containing polluting sulfur
compounds.
Effluent Streams—Confined aqueous process waste streams that
are potentially polluting. These will be discharged from a
source.
Emission Streams—Confined gaseous process waste streams that
are potentially polluting. These will be discharged from a
source.
Fugitive Eim'ssions—Unconfined process-associated discharges,
including accidental discharges, of potential air pollutants.
These may escape from pump seals, vents, flanges, etc., or as
emissions in abnormal amounts when accidents occur and may be
associated with storage, processing, or transport of materials
as well as unit operations associated with a process. They
will escape from a source.
Fugitive Effluents—Unconfined process-associated discharges,
including accidental discharges, of potential water pollutants
that are released as leaks, spills, washing waste, etc., or as
effluents in abnormal amounts when accidents occur. These may
be associated with storage, processing, or transport of materi-
als as well as unit operations associated with industrial
processes, may be disposed of to municipal sewers, and can lead
to generation of contaminated runoff waters. They will escape
from a source.
Accidental Discharge—Abnormal discharges (solid, liquid,
gaseous or combinations) that occur as a result of upset
process conditions.
Unit Operation—Unit operations, like processes described
above, are employed to take input materials and perform a
specific physical or chemical transformation. The equipment
making up a unit operation may or may not have one or more
waste stream(s). A process is made up of one or more unit
operations that have at least one source of waste stream(s).
Examples of unit operations are: distillation, evaporation,
crushing, screening, etc.
Final Disposal Processes—Processes that are used to ultimately
dispose of liquid and solid wastes from processes, auxiliary
processes, and control equipment in a technology. Examples of
final disposal processes are landfills and evaporation ponds.
Control Equipment—Equipment such as electrostatic precipita-
tors, wet scrubbers, adsorption systems, etc., whose primary
function is to minimize the pollution to air, water, or land
that results from process discharges. While the collected
materials may be sold, recycled, or sent to final disposal,
15
-------
control equipment is not essential to the economic viability of
the process. Where such equipment is designed to be an integral
part of a process, e.g., scrubbers that recycle process streams,
they are considered a part of the basic process.
Residuals—Gaseous, liquid, or solid discharges from control
equipment and final disposal processes. Examples of residuals
include gaseous emissions from control equipment (such as
scrubbers), the tail gases from an auxiliary process (e.g., a
Claus sulfur recovery unit), and the vapors from an evaporation
pond.
1.2.3 Source Unit Operations
REFERENCE: E. C. Cavanaugh, W. E. Corbett, and G. C. Page,
Environmental Assessment Data Base for Low/Medium-
Btu Gasification Technology: Volumes I and II,
EPA-600/7-77-125a and -125b, November 1977.
In order to better characterize a technology for an environmental
assessment, a modular approach has been developed for source unit opera-
tions.
With this approach, the technology is first divided into the major
operations that are required to produce the technology's product. These
operations are then further divided into modules having well-defined func-
tions, input, and output (including discharge streams). Specific processes
that can perform the specified function of each module are then identified,
and the multimedia discharge streams from these processes are determined.
In turn, specific systems that are representative of commercial plants for
producing the technology's product can be developed. From these systems,
the discharge streams and technology required to control these streams can
be determined and data gaps can be easily identified.
A set of these modules has been developed for low/medium-Btu gasifica-
tion technology as a prototype. The technology was divided into three major
operations required to produce low/medium-Btu gas from coal.
The operations were then divided into the following specific modules:
Coal Pretreatment Operation Coal Gasification Operation
Crushing/Sizing • Gasification
Pulverizing • Oxygen Production
Drying/Partial Oxidation
Briquetting
Coal Storage and Handling
16
-------
Gas Purification Operation
Participate Removal
Gas Quenching and
Cooling
Acid Gas Removal
To identify the control devices required for the multimedia discharge
streams generated by these modules, three pollution control modules were
defined and divided into the following processes:
Air Pollution Control Water Pollution Control
Particulate Control • Oil/Water Separation
Sulfur Control • Suspended Solids Removal
Hydrocarbon Control • Dissolved Organics Removal
Nitrogen Oxides Control • Dissolved Inorganics Removal
Ultimate Disposal
Solid Wastes Pollution Control
Chemical Fixation
Sludge Reduction
Landfill
General flow diagrams for the modules in each operation and for the
processes in the pollution control modules were developed to illustrate:
(a) how these modules and control processes can be used in the technology,
(b) how they relate to each other, and (c) how the multimedia discharge
streams are generated.
In these general flow diagrams the gaseous, liquid, and solid waste
streams are indicated by a specific symbol. However, if a module is a
significant source of many hazardous discharge streams, it may be necessary
to develop a flow diagram in order to identify the specific waste streams
from specific processes in the module.
One of the major advantages of using the modular approach in charac-
terizing a technology for an environmental assessment is that the modules
can be replaced by specific processes to develop process and pollution
control systems that are representative of commercial plants. However,
before these systems can be developed and the multimedia discharge streams
identified, detailed process and discharge stream data for each process
need to be known and easily accessible.
17
-------
A technique for presenting the detailed process and emission data for a
specific process has been developed. It involves developing a concise
format for preparing data sheets for each process and pollution control
device that is or will be used in commercial low/medium-Btu gasification
facilities. The contents of these data sheets are given in table 2.
By using these process data sheets, a process-specific low/medium-Btu
gasification system can be developed. The multimedia discharge streams and
the need for pollution control processes can also be readily identified.
The module characterization developed by the Radian Corporation serves
as an input for Technology Overview Reports and for Source Assessment Method-
ology development.
1.2.4 Process Assessment Criteria
REFERENCE: Hittman Associates, Inc., Process Assessment Cri-
teria (Draft), Contract No. 68-02-2162, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, IERL, Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C., February 1978.
Because candidate industrial processes need to be prioritized according
to their commercialization and environmental degradation potentials at the
start of environmental assessment, Hittman Associates is developing a method-
ology for assessing process effectiveness.
1.2.4.1 Selection of Assessment Criteria
After review of potential criteria and their compatability with the
proposed ranking methodology, the following criteria and subcriteria for
assessing processes were selected:
Commercialization Outlook Environmental Degradation Potential
Benefit/Cost Estimates • Relative Known Hazard
Present Availability of • Number of Waste Streams
Commercial Scale Components • Pollutant Mass Flow Rate
Commercialization Schedule • Relative Effectiveness of
Potential Market Size Existing Controls
Existing Unit Size/Commercial
Unit Size
Number of Existing Units
1.2.4.2 Development of Criteria Weighting Factors
The development and assignment of appropriate weighting factors to both
criteria and subcriteria were extremely difficult. The criteria could not
18
-------
TABLE 2. CONTENTS OF DATA SHEETS FOR MOST PROMISING PROCESSES
GENERAL INFORMATION
Process Function
Development Status
Licensor/Developer
Commercial Applications
Applicability to Technology
PROCESS INFORMATION
Equipment
Flow Diagram (with Discharge Streams)
Operating Parameter Ranges
Normal Operating Parameters
Raw Material Requirements
Utility Requirements
Process Efficiency
Expected Turndown Ratio
Product Production Rate
PROCESS ADVANTAGES
PROCESS LIMITATIONS
INPUT STREAMS
DISCHARGE STREAMS AND THEIR CONTROL
Gaseous Discharge Streams
Liquid Discharge Streams
Solid Discharge Streams
REFERENCES
19
-------
be combined in any deterministic sense to give an absolute measure of a
criterion's priority for a particular process. Consequently, the system of
weights adopted gives only relative comparisons among candidate processes
and requires subjective decisions during its development.
The DARE (Decision Alternative Rational Evaluation) decision model was
used to simplify the subjective decisions required, to provide a mechanism
whereby the judgment of several technical staff members could be employed,
and to provide a procedure that could be repeated or changed if desired.
This model requires pairwise numerical relevance comparisons within subcri-
teria and criteria sets. It produces a normalized set of weights (total
equal to 1.0) for each set of criteria and subcriteria. The weights can be
easily applied to subcriteria process scores in order to obtain total process
scores that indicate the relative need for immediate further attention to
candidate processes at the start of environmental assessment.
The DARE procedure will be expanded and improved in subsequent itera-
tions to determine the final set of weights to be used.
1.2.4.3 DARE Weighting Procedure
To explain how DARE works it is appropriate to review some concepts of
scoring models and their use. Suppose that a number of processes are candi-
dates for time and resources in an environmental assessment. Assume further
that seven appropriate criteria for evaluating these processes have been
selected.
A simple evaluation technique would be to consider one process and
assign a subscore to it for every criterion. The sum of subscores would
constitute a score for the process. Algebraically this model is represented
as:
A = S-j^ + S2 + S3 + ... + S7
where A is the score of the process being evaluated and the S values are
subscores of the process for each of the seven criteria being used. Candi-
date processes could be ranked according to their total A scores.
However, it is rarely the case that all criteria are of equal impor-
tance. If an evaluator could quantify his view of the relative importance
of the criteria, he could construct a better model ascribing weights to each
of the subscores:
20
-------
A = S1W1 + S2W2 + S3W3 + ... + S7W?
where the W-values (weighting factors) reflect the relative importance of
the criteria. This is called an additive weighting model. It is satisfac-
tory provided that the criteria are independent of one another (that is, no
two represent the same factor that needs attention in an environmental
assessment).
In any real case, it is difficult to make all criteria completely
independent of one another. Dependencies can often be reduced, however, by
careful definition of the criteria.
Assuming that dependencies in our example are satisfactorily small, it
remains to determine both the weighting factors, W, and the criteria sub-
scores, S. The DARE method prescribes a simple way of assigning quantita-
tive values to these variables, based on pairwise-comparison concept.
1.2.4.4 Procedure for Use of Methodology
The subcriteria evaluation scoring scales on the following page are
suggested, though, in practice, other scales may be used for convenience or
to reflect the nature of particular environmental assessments.
1.2.4.5 Computation and Interpretation of Total Process Scores
The computation of Total Process Scores is a simple, straightforward
operation. Process subcriterion scores are totaled and normalized. The
normalized subcriterion scores are then multiplied by their respective sub-
criterion weighting factors to obtain weighted subcriterion scores. Each
weighted subcriterion score is in turn multiplied by the appropriate criteria
weighting factor and the results totaled. This value represents the Total
Process Score.
21
-------
COMMERCIALIZATION OUTLOOK
(a) Benefit/Cost Estimates
Qualitative Benefit/Cost Comparison Score
Inferior to Competition 0
Equivalent to Competition 3
Superior to Competition 6
Far Superior to Competition 9
(b) Present Availability of Commercial Scale Components
This subcriterion is scored on a seven point basis. Processes for which all purchased components are
available off the shelf in commercial scale are assigned a score of seven. For each component not
now produced in the size range needed, subtract one point. Zero can be assigned to processes with
seven or more such components.
(c) Commercialization Schedule
Number of Years to Scheduled Commercialization Score
0 39
1 38
2 37
3 36
4-5 35
6-7 34
8-9 33
10-11 32
12 or more 31
(d) Potential Market Size
This subcriterion, expressed in constant dollars, should indicate the maximum possible degree of
process commercialization by the year 1985.
(e) Existing Unit Size/Commercial Unit Size
The numerical dimensionless ratio of these two sizes is used as the process score. The ratio may
range from zero to one. If the largest existing test unit has the same general dimensions as the planned
commercial unit, score a one. If no hardware exists, score a zero.
(f) Number of Existing Units
Use the number of known existing units of hardware.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION POTENTIAL
(a) Relative Known Hazard
The process with the most hazardous discharges (when uncontrolled) is given a weight of nine and
other processes are scored accordingly on a nine-point scale.
(b) Number of Waste Streams
A process is assigned a weight equal to its total number of liquid, solid, or gaseous waste streams.
(c) Pollutant Mass Flow Rate
The mass flow rate represents the total magnitude of environmental emissions. It may be scared by
summing the quantity of all pollutants (Ib/day, etc.) discharged to the air. water, and land. The mass
flow rates should assume an uncontrolled process unit.
(d) Relative Effectiveness of Existing Control Technology
This subcriterion may be evaluated by assigning a score of nine to the least effectively controlled
process and scoring other processes on a relative basis.
22
-------
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION STATUS
Adequate assessment of the effectiveness of control technologies re-
quires judicious development of (1) existing data for control processes; (2)
sampling and analytical techniques; (3) test programs; (4) comprehensive
waste stream characterization at Levels 1, 2, or 3; and (5) input-output
materials characterization.
In order to accomplish these goals and to insure adequate and reliable
acquisition of environmental data, a phased approach (shown in figure 5) was
developed by EPA. Level 1 is a comprehensive screening; Level 2 is a direc-
ted, detailed analysis based on Level 1; and Level 3 involves the process
monitoring of selected priority pollutants based on Level 1 and 2 results.
Level 1 analysis identifies qualitatively the pollution potential of
all process streams by biological assays and chemical testing and generates
quantitative information about the organic and inorganic species of interest.
Outputs from Level 1 are used to prioritize those process waste streams or
their components for Level 1 analyses.
At Level 2, potentially hazardous substances in process waste streams
are quantified. These data are used to guide control technology and health
effects studies.
Level 3 extends Level 2 by identifying the potential for pollution from
a waste stream based on process variables.
1.3.1 Level 1 Sampling and Analysis Procedures
REFERENCE: J. W. Hamersma, S. L. Reynolds, and R. F. Maddalone,
IERL/RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental
Assessment, EPA Report No. 600/2-76-160a, June
1976 [New edition available late 1978].
The goal of Level 1 sampling and analysis is to identify a source's
pollution potential with a target accuracy of a factor of ±2 to ±3. Conse-
quently, no special procedure is employed to obtain a statistically repre-
sentative sample. The chemical, physical, and biological testing has survey
and/or quantitative accuracy consistent with the characteristics of the
sample.
The sampling and analysis are designed to show the presence or absence,
the approximate concentrations, and the emission rate of inorganic elements,
23
-------
PHASE I
RAPID SCREENING
POTENTIAL PROBLEM
PHASE II (CONFIRMATION)
DIRECTED DETAILED
SCREENING AND
COMPLIANCE TESTS
WASTE STREAMS,
RESIDUALS, AND
POLLUTANTS
WHICH ARE
NOT PROBLEMS
CONFIRMED PROBLEM
PHASE III
SELECTED
POLLUTANT/EFFLUENT
MONITORING AND
EVALUATION
QUANTIFIED PROBLEMS
WASTE STREAMS,
RESIDUALS, AND
POLLUTANTS WHICH
ARE PROBLEMS
Figure 5. Environmental assessment methodology-a phased approach.
24
-------
selected inorganic anions, and classes of organic compounds. The particu-
late matter is further analyzed through size distribution as well as micro-
scopic examination in order to determine gross physical characteristics of
the collected material. Biotesting develops information on the human health
effects and ecological effects of the sample.
The results of this phase are used to establish priorities for addi-
tional testing among a series of energy and industrial sources, streams
within a given source, and components within streams. The most important
function of Level 1 is the focusing of sampling and analysis programs on
specific streams and components for the Level 2 effort. It delineates
specific sampling, analysis, and decisionmaking problem areas, and directs
and establishes the methodology of the Level 2 effort so that additional
information needs can be satisfied. If it can be proven that equivalent
Level 1 data exist for all streams of interest, then a Level 1 effort need
not be conducted. If partial data exists, Level 1 must be performed on all
streams.
Another possible exception to the strict adherence to the Level 1
technique involves the application of slightly more sophisticated procedures
where specific pollutants of high current interest are concerned. In this
case, the approach would involve a more complex Level 2 sampling and/or
analytical strategy in the initial Level 1 plan.
Sampling and analytical schemes developed for Level 1 analysis of
particulates and gases are shown in figure 6. Schemes for solids, slurries,
and liquids are outlined in figure 7.
In addition to those interactions with other environmental data acqui-
sition projects previously outlined, Level 1 sampling and analysis procedures
provide needed input for source assessment methodologies.
Problems and complications related to the field applications of Level 1
sampling and analysis procedures have been identified and are being resolved
through the Environmental Assessment Users' Service that is coordinated by
the Research Triangle Institute (RTI).
1.3.2 Level 1 Bioassay Procedures
REFERENCE: K. M. Duke, M. E. Davis, and A. J. Dennis, IERL/RTP
Procedures Manual: Level I Environmental Assess-
ment Biological Tests for Pilot Studies. EPA-600/7-
77-043, April 1977.
25
-------
ro
ELEMENTS AND
SELECTED ANIONS
PHYSICAL SEPARATION
INTO FRACTIONS.
LC/IH/MS
ATOMIC
ABSORPTION
ELEMENTS AND
SELECTED ANIONS
PHYSICAL SEPARATION
INTO FRACTIONS.
LC/IR/MS
SEE CMAflEH IX
SEE CHAPTER X
blOASSAV
1
{OHGANICS
V» J
t
ORGANICS
SEE CHAPItH X
ALIOUOI FOR GAS
CHROMAIOGRAPHIC
ANAI VSIS
PHYSICAL StPAHAIION
INTO FRACTIONS
LC/IR/MS
•WEIGH INDIVIDUAL CATCHES
*tlllHCt i W
1 L lUyMMi. M«« R f
100/2 ffrltO. US In U»M»W imt t f.».«iMhiM*n.«f Attfw.wtt
IUIMCUMI A^niv. W«||III^I«HI. UC. JIMM Iftft
Figure 6. Basic Level 1 sampling and analytical scheme for particular and gases.
-------
ro
LEACHABLE
MATERIALS
PHYSICAL SEPARATION
INTO FRACTIONS.
LC/IR/MS
ELEMENTS AND
SELECTED ANIONS
MOASSAV
INORGANICS
OflOANICS
SEE CHAPTER X
ELEMENTS AND
SELECTED ANIONS
PHYSICAL SEPARATION
INTO FRACTIONS.
LC/IR/MS
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
ELEMENIS AND
SELECTED ANIONS
PHYSICAL SEPARATION
INTO FRACTIONS.
LC/IR/MS
BIOASSAV
INORGANICS
ELEMENTS AND
SELECTED ANIONS
SELECTED
WATER
TESTS
IAOUEOUSI
ORGANIC
EXTRACTION
OR DIRECT
ANALYSIS
UHGANICS
C .
C
{OHUANICS
...I!" I
JOA PHYSICAL SIPAHA1WN
INTO FRACTIONS IC/IR/MS
ALIQUOI f OH CAS
CHHOMAIOGHACHIC
ANALYSIS
IOUHCI J w
f PA
. I I.
MO/2 Ik IMfc U &
If HI/Hlf Au
fi»wc«MM A«Mwr
!•••< I t**o»
DC J«MM !•!•
Figure 7. Basic Level 1 sampling and analytical scheme for solids, slurries, and liquids.
-------
These procedures were developed by the Bioassay Subcommittee of the
IERL Environmental Assessment Steering Committee. They were refined further
in a usable form by the Battelle Columbus Laboratories. The Level 1 bio-
assay tests include assessments of both health and ecological effects.
These analyses are summarized in figure 8.
Health Effects Tests include the following:
• Ames Test
Salmonella/Microsome Mutagenesis Test is used as a primary screen
to determine the mutagenic activity of complex mixtures or compo-
nent fractions.
• Cytotoxicity Tests
These assays use mammalian cells in culture to measure quantita-
tively cellular metabolic impairment and death resulting from
exposure in vitro to soluble and particulate toxicants. Compared
to conventional whole-animal tests for acute toxicity, cytotoxicity
assays are more rapid, less costly, and require significantly less
sample. However, because the assays employ isolated cells and not
intact animals, they provide only preliminary, imprecise informa-
tion about the ultimate health hazards of toxic chemicals.
• Rodent Acute Toxicity Test
In vivo tests using whole animals are necessary biological test
procedures to complement data from in vitro tests and to assist in
detecting possible synergisms and antagonisms among the various
chemical compounds of a complex effluent or feedstock mixture.
The advantages of the in vivo tests are (1) the assessment is per-
formed on whole animals rather than individual tissues or organs,
and (2) the presence of significant test data on a wide range of
toxicants which supply needed information for reliable interpre-
tation of the test results.
Ecological Tests include the following:
• Freshwater and Marine Algal Tests
These tests are used to quantify the biological response (algal
growth) to changes in concentrations of nutrients and to determine
whether or not various effluents are toxic or inhibitory to algae.
• Acute Static Bioassays with Marine and Freshwater Fish and
Invertebrates
These tests are conducted by exposing the test organisms to test
solutions containing various levels of a toxic agent. These acute
toxicity tests are generally used to determine the level of toxic
agent that produces an adverse effect on a specified percentage of
the test organisms in a short period of time.
28
-------
SAMPLE FOR BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
ro
10
Gases and Suspended
Paniculate Matter
Aqueous
KO.2%
organicl
Gaseous
Grab Samples
Solvent
Exchange
Solvent Exchange
Plant Stress
Ethylene
Microbial
Mutagenesis
Microbial
Mutagenesis
Microbial
Mutagenesis
Microbial Mutagenesis
Cytotoxicity
Rodent Acute Toxicity
Algal Bioassay
Static Bioassay
Soil Microcosm
(Microbial
Mutaganesis)
(Rodent Acute
Toxicity)
Rodent Acute
Toxicity
Soil
Microcosm
Soil Microcosm
Figure B. Biological analysis overview.
-------
• Stress Ethylene Test
This test is based on the response of plants, e.g., the release of
elevated amounts of ethylene, to increased environmental stress.
It is designed for use with gaseous emissions.
• Soil Microcosm Test
Various levels of toxicant are applied to the surface of the soil
microcosms, which are enclosed systems of soil; its overlying lit-
ter; and the macro- and micro-organisms that inhabit this matrix
and remineralize organic matter to nutrients that are available to
plants. Daily carbon dioxide flux and weekly calcium and dis-
solved organic carbon in water, which has leached through the
cores, are analyzed. Toxic or inhibitory effects are determined
using ATP (adenosine triphosphate) analysis and mass balances of
nutrient pools and comparing the results with control microcosms.
The only significant problem associated with the development of reli-
able, inexpensive Level 1 bioassay tests was the difficulty in finding tests
that will work with complex mixtures, such as found in process feedstocks
and waste streams.
1.3.3 Level 1 Quality Assurance
REFERENCE: Frank Smith, Research Triangle Institute, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27709.
Quality assurance programs for Level 1 include the following key com-
ponents.
Preparation of Guidelines for Environmental Assessment Quality
Assurance Programs
A finalized set of Quality Assurance Guidelines contains the following
key sections:
A. Definition of Terms
1. Quality - "goodness" of acquired data, a data quality (DQ)
program includes the quality control and quality assurance
needed to achieve "good" data.
2. Quality Control (QC) - an "internal" system of activities to
monitor and maintain a specified quality of data.
3. Quality Assurance (QA) - "external" qualitative and quanti-
tative periodic verifications of quality control.
QA programs are designed to independently assess QC programs, with a
comprehensive DQ program embodying both QC and QA. QC components
are generally not specific to EA projects.
30
-------
B. General Guidelines for EA Project QA Programs
C. QA Procedures for Level 1 EA's and for Multi-Level Assessments
D. Reference Tables - These five tables address source gas, ambient
air, water, soil, and process measurements. Each table includes
information about measurement methods, operating ranges, bias, and
precision.
The overall QA document deals primarily with procedures for the veri-
fication of secondary standards against primary standards in the lab. IERL
is presently working with the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) in an
effort to develop standard reference material applicable to environmental
assessment projects.
• Inter!aboratory Evaluation of Level 1 Environmental Assessment
Procedures
Currently in progress is a program to test both the operation of
the Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) and the use of the
analytical scheme outlined in the lERL/RTP Procedures Manual:
Level 1 Environmental Assessment. This is essentially an inter-
laboratory evaluation among Southern Research Institute, Radian
Corp., and TRW.
The first phase consisted of a field evaluation of the SASS for a
stable source that was understood to be high in organics.
Evaluation of Level 1 procedures has included the provision of
control samples from actual field tests to the participating
laboratories.
• Environmental Assessment Users' Service
RTI is serving as a central source for IERL Environmental Assess-
ment technical information. A directory of all known IERL EA
technology users (over 50) has been prepared. This will assist in
the dissemination of updated methodologies, etc., to interested
parties, via reviews, bulletins, and telephone contacts.
• Support to Level 1 Environmental Assessment Study
RTI supported Battelle Columbus Laboratories in the Level 1 Study
of the Exxon FBC plant.
• Level 1 Data Compilation
All data available on IERL-RTP Level 1 EA will be compiled and
organized by type of source, type of test, location of testing,
time of testing, and the testing contractor. As required, the
data will be arranged in several different matrices.
31
-------
• Revision of Level 1 Procedures Manual
Inputs for the revision are being obtained from contractors and
other users of Level 1 procedures. Arthur D. Little has respon-
sibility for the organic sections and TRW for the inorganic
sections.
No specific problems were encountered during the development of the QA
procedures. The EA users' service will be available to all users of the
Level 1 analyses who may have problems and/or questions.
1.3.4 Approach to Level 2 Analysis
REFERENCES: R.I. Beimer, L. E. Ryan, R. A. Maddalone, and M. M.
Yamada, Approach to Level 2 Analysis Based on
Level 1 Results. MEG Categories and Compounds and
Decision Criteria (Draft)T Contract No. 68-02-2613,
prepared by TRW for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, IERL/RTP, October 1977.
R.I. Beimer, L. E. Ryan, R. A. Maddalone, and M. M.
Yamada, Level 2 Results on Fluidized Bed Combuster
Samples (Draft), Contract No. 68-02-2613, prepared
by TRW for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
IERL/RTP, March 1978.
Determination of whether to proceed with a Level 2 analysis depends on
inputs from Level 1 analyses, Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEG), and
Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluent (MATE) values. The decision logic for a
phased Level 1-Level 2 analysis is shown in figure 9.
Level 1 data can be used to prioritize the detailed and specific analy-
sis required in Level 2. Level 1 samples can be broken down into two dis-
tinct categories: on-site and home-site. On-site Level 1 samples are
reactive and/or volatile and cannot be retained for species specific Level 2
analysis, whereas the home-site samples can be retained. Table 3 lists the
Level 1 on-site and home-site samples and the MEG categories found in each.
The Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) components and the re-
tained water and solid samples can, depending on the total quantities ob-
tained from the Level 1 sampling effort, be retained as neat samples (un-
adulterated or undiluted) or as Level 1 prepared samples.
Retained Level 1 samples do not contain some of the MEG compounds of
interest. In some cases MEG compounds have not been included in the on-site
sample activity (e.g., ozone) or they have reacted with the SASS construc-
32
-------
OJ
to
For Each
Compound. Could
Effluent Cone. Exceed the
MATE. If Total Weight of Class
Present was the MEG
Compound?
Level 1
Chemical
Analysis on
Each Sample
Effluent
Concentration
of Level 1
Chemical
Analysis
Compound
Class
Is
Effluent
Toxic Upon Acute
(Short-term) Exposure
of Test Organisms?
Level 1
Bioassay
on Each
Sample
Level 1
Bioassay
Results
(+.-.EC60)
Utilize Source Analysis
Model to Determine
Impact and Level 3
Analysis Needs
\-^fr
/ ^"
/
Level 2 Chem-
ical Analysis
Only for MEG
SubfUnces
Potentially
Present at
Concentrations
of Concern
/nramcu x
/ Compounds \_
_1W' B. . HI. ^
~^C Present Above A
N. Levels of /
N^oncern?/^
\s
i
YES
I
\
J
HO J
General
Level 2
Chemical
Analysis
and/or
Level 2
Bioassay
(Priority
Samples
Only) to
Determine
Nature of
Problem
r
YES
Are
MEG Com
pounds Absent and
Bioassays Negative?
FINISHED
Figure 9. Decision logic for phased Level 1 -Level 2 analysis.
-------
TABLE 1 LEVEL 1 SAMPLES
Level 1
General Category
On-Site
MEG Category
(Environmental Impact)
Air
NOX
Ci -C6
C02,CO,02,N2,
H20,S02,H2S
H2S,SO2,COS,CH3SH,
CHaChhSH, etc.
Total particulate,
jzg/m3
47
1,2,4,5,7,8,9,10,
11,13,15,24,25,26
42,47, 52, 53
13,53
(General information
effluent guidelines)
Water
pH, acidity, alkalinity,
BOD, COD, dissolved
oxygen, conductivity,
dissolved and suspended
solids, specific anions
(General information
effluent guidelines)
Solids
Total output,
kg/hour
(General information —
effluent guidelines)
Level 1
General Category
Air
Water
Solids
Home-Site
SASS components
Retained aqueous sampling,
e.g., evaporation pond, cool-
ing tower, etc.
Retained bulk solid samples,
e.g., feed materials, overflow
bed materials, etc.
MEG Categories
(Environmental Impact)
All categories
All categories
All categories
34
-------
tion materials and are not sampled (e.g., HF); and in other cases, they have
been sampled but altered in composition, and their compound origin can no
longer be distinguished (e.g., AsH3).
These problematic MEG compounds not retained in Level 1 samples are as
follows:
C1-C6 compounds, e.g., methane;
Reactive organic and inorganic compounds, e.g., acrolein and hydro-
gen fluoride;
Volatile inorganic compounds, e.g., phosgene;
Sampled but altered inorganic compounds, e.g., stibene.
Two suggested approaches exist for analyzing Ci-Ce compounds: (1) inte-
grated Tedlar bag (glass sample bomb) Level 2 resampling and (2) solid
absorbent method.
Compounds detected in the Cj-Cs range are best analyzed by direct GC/MS
(gas chromatography/mass spectrometry). Samples will need to be collected
specifically for this purpose, and shipment and storage should not exceed 24
hours.
The reactive organic compounds are best analyzed on-site as they are
emitted. Category 1 reactive compounds may be detectable in the integrated
bag sample. Tests for the reactive organic compounds cannot be discussed in
generalized terms. In the phased approach when a category is implicated in
a presite literature search, choice of analytical method and presite analyti-
cal check-out should be conducted. In these cases, as well as in some inor-
ganic areas, the Federal Register may contain specific test methods.
Generally, any Level 1 reporting point (organic or inorganic) that
exceeds the most conservative MATE concentration value in a given category
will require Level 2 analysis on the particular Level 1 sample aliquot
representative of the reporting point data.
The inorganic or organic compounds listed in MEG charts are not sought
by the Level 1 scheme. However, should an inorganic element or inorganic
class exceed a concentration guideline as defined by the MEG's, then in the
phased approach to environmental assessment, a Level 2 analysis assessment
would be required to identify and quantify the compound forms of the inor-
ganic element and organic classes of environmental concern. Level 2 would
be conducted to specifically detect quantitatively the MEG compounds.
35
-------
The MATE values take into consideration a variety of factors, including
the biological data, half-lives, cumulative tendencies, and relationships
between human and animal toxicity data. The MATE levels are aimed at mini-
mizing induced effects of any type due to short-term direct exposure to a
waste stream. Levels exceeding the MATE would be of environmental concern.
Decision to conduct a Level 2 analysis can now be made based on Level 2
data and MATE concentrations and their presences in a specific MEG category.
The MEG compounds at MATE concentrations are the basis for the Level 1
data presentation and decision charts developed. These charts list MEG com-
pounds with their MATE in order of decreasing toxicity in each of the MEG
categories. A decision to conduct Level 2 tests for a specific MEG is
triggered if the Level 1 report point exceeds the most toxic MATE for that
category.
1.3.5 Level 2 Inorganic Analysis
REFERENCE: R. I. Beimer, L. E. Ryan, R. A. Maddalone, and
M. M. Yamada, Approach to Level 2 Analysis Based
on Level 1 Results. MEG Categories and Compounds
and Decision Criteria (Draft). Contract No. 68-02-
2165, prepared by TRW for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, IERL/RTP, October 1977.
Level 2 inorganic analysis is primarily concerned with compound identi-
fication.
The analysis and identification scheme for inorganic compounds in solid
materials consists of:
Initial Sample Characterization - elemental composition sample
stability and bulk morphological structure are determined.
Bulk Composition Characterization - qualitative and quantitative
anion, valence state, and X-ray diffraction information are derived.
Individual Particle Characterization - single particle elemental
composition, X-ray diffraction pattern and morphology are measured.
Figures 10 through 12 describe a logic path for identification of inor-
ganic compounds in a solid matrix. A similar approach for liquid samples is
described in figure 13. In both approaches emphasis is placed on an accurate
elemental mass balance for the MEG compounds that exceed MATE values.
After a method or series of methods has been applied, a comparison of lists
of identified to potential MEG compounds for elements that exceed their
36
-------
»*MTt VAllC!
U»-0*rt LIST O»
rOTINTIAl
COMPOUNDS
CATION run rot
i
AAS
t
W(T OVMlCAl
Oi INSTIUMCNTAL
AAMON rtsn
'
/•!« ANION 7
COMPOSITION /
t
STUDY GINUAI.
CMAiAOiasTics
of 'Ainais
*
*
1 «u TGA/OJC
1 "* (Nj O» AH)
* *
STUDY SNAKCOIOI.
SU(. KHACTIVI
INOBC
*
oiAiAcn«zi
SAMfU KX
VKICMT CAIN/ toss
•ACTION TU»fUATU«S.
»HASl CHANOfI
k *
MOOtOlUMUTY MICtO-STOT TUT
Ton ON SKGHC
{JgfJ!***- AMONs/CAnoM
*
/SOlUIUTYOf /
ufancotoun /
or numcus /
A
v -.
/usn o» /
AMON VS /
sauBurv /
f
/ STAM1 DtVINO /
/ TUMUAIVHI, VAfOt-/
/IZAT1ON TtMKUrUKS. /
/oKOMMunoN foiNn;
/AMO All STAIIUTY /
/ UST >OSSIIU
/ ASSICNfO COM
/•OUNOS AT SUSKCTtO
/ urvtu
d)
figure 10. Logic flow chart for initial sample characterization.
37
-------
ASSIGN MO4AMUTY TO
SU POTENTIAL COM-
POUNDS WITH mane
METHOD
ALLOWS
MATCH UP or
MCTHOO WITH COMPOUND*
IASIO ON CONCZNTlAnON
mi
ESCA
MWCMM Mt II SCAN rot
TRANSITION ELEMENT
ANIONS IN MAJC or SAMPLE
sutnucr INSOLMUS
SRCTU
STUDY SUVAOJ TRAQ
(UMCNT COMPOSITION
OMOAHON STATES,
CWMICAL
CNVIIONMfNT
(MKCT 10
or
COMPOUNDS
AT 0.1% Ol CKATII
ELEMCHT ANIO
L_
/
„, 1 1 ACSOMEO
*
OUANTITATE
SPECIFIC
ANIONS
*
WET CHEMICAL Ot
INSTttJMENTAL
AMON TESTS
|
LIST POSSIIU NEW /
COMPOUNDS /
FOUND /
1
SPECIES / / COMPOUN
J
DS
LIST IMNTtFMD
COMPOUNDS WITH
ESTIMATED
CONCfNTUTION
LIST ASSIGNED
ELEMENTS EXCEEDING
MATE VALLCS
Figure 11. Logic flow for bulk composition characterization.
38
-------
XtfOlM SINGU
>A*TtCU ANALYSIS
OHAIN DETAJUO MOVMOLOGiCAL
INFORMATION, SINGU
'A4TICU ELEMENTAL
SCAN AND ELEMENTAL (ATI OS
/UTAtUSMO (UMCNTAl/
IAHOS >Ot SINCU 7
numcu /
UST COMfOUNOS
WITH CONONTiATlON
EITIMAn lASIOON ,
BlMCNTAi VALUES /YES
VE AU
CNCD
GCOMPO
OEOINC MAT
AUKS KEN
FOUND
IS
Fumci
ANALYSIS COS
JUSTIFIED FOt
UNAUICNfD
EUMCNTS
EUMtNTAL
UT1OS CSTAHJSNCO
rot SINGU PAITICLO
rot eiiMf NTS t c
/LIST COMPOUNDS
' WITH CONaNTUTION
ESTIMATE IASCO ON ;
ELEMENTAL VALUES / YES
CAN
UNAS-
SIGNCO MATE
NOS K
OCNTinEO Wl
THESE
(ATI OS
1
IS THEIf
UNIDENTIFIED
OmTALUNC
MATUUL
CUMCNTAl
DATA uuo ro
QUANTIFY
Vt ALL
UNASSICNtD
C COMPOUM
IS
FUKTHCI
CTEHZATI
JUSTinED
UST UNASSIGNEO
FUCTION OF
KNOWN ClfMCNTAL
COMPOSITION
IASCD ON SOtUHUTY
AND ELCMENTAL DATA
SELECT SEFAIATION
SCMCMI
OCNSITY
G«ADIENT
SELECTIVE
nssoLLm
SEFAIAHON
MAGNtnC
SEFAMHON
LESS COMFUX
MATHX
SSMS
OF FIACTIONS
CONTAIN
UN ASSIGNED
MATE
ELEMENT
7
Rgure 12. Logic flow for individual particle characterization.
39
-------
-p*
o
SSMS LfVfL I DATA,
QUANTITATIVE Ht.
A*. Sb
r SIOP ^
MtG 1
COMPOUNDS I
IDENTIFIED AND I
QUANTIFIED I
QUANTITIES
Of INORGANIC
CATIONS AND
ANIONS ASSESSED
FOR PROBABLE
MEG COMfOUNDS
(KNOWLEDGE OF
PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES)
ENVIRONMENTAL
LEVEll
ANION DATA
AAS ON
SPECIFIC
CAPONS FROM
MEG PRORAtU
COMFOUNDS
WHAT
ARE IHl
EXACT CATION
AND ANION
RATIOS IN THIS
SAMFIE?
CATION/ANION
RATIOS CALCULATED
AND PROBABLE LIST
Of MEG SPECIES
IDENTIFIED AND
QUANTIFIED
IS A MASS
BALANCE
ACCOMPLISHED
ION E1ECTRODE.
STOf
MATE CONCEN-
TRATIONS
EVALUATED AND
I INSULTS
I ESTABLISHED
CHIOMATOGRAPHV
FOR ANIONS
WHAT
CATIONS
AND ANIONS
HAVE NOT BEEN
ASSIGNED TO
COMPOUNDS
7
WHAT
ARE THE
PROBABLE STABLE
SOLID SPECIES?
(COMPOUNDS
AND VALENCE
STATtS)
LISTING Of
UNASSIGNED
CATIONS AND
ANIONS
WITH ESTABLISHED
CONCENTRATIONS
LISTING
ESTABLISHED AND
SAMPLE EVAPORATED
AND HANDLED AS
A SOLID
WHAT IS THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
Figure 13. Level 2 liquid sample compound analysis scheme.
-------
MATE values is made. A satisfactory analysis will depend on a variety of
factors: (1) number of compounds identified versus MEG compounds exceeding
MATE values; (2) interest in identifying compounds for unknown elements that
exceed MATE values; and, (3) the cost/availability of necessary equipment.
1.3.6 Level 2 Organic Analysis
REFERENCE: J. C. Harris and P. L. Levins, EPA/IERL-RTP Interim
Procedures for Level 2 Sampling and Analysis oT
Organic Materials Guidelines. EPA-600/7-78-016,
February 1978.
The Level 1 samples - mostly extract solutions - are conveniently
available for more comprehensive organic analytical characterization using
all of the techniques discussed later. However, before proceeding to more
detailed analysis of these Level 1 samples to answer the Level 2 question,
the appropriateness of the sample for study must be carefully evaluated.
The types of samples to be collected specifically for Level 2 studies
will still come from the same basic gas, liquid/slurry, and solid groups as
to the Level 1 samples. Specific samples will be defined by the procedure
used for a particular analysis. Many of the sample types may be the same as
for the Level 1 samples, but they may be subjected to different treatment
procedures, such as alternative solvents for extraction. In addition, there
will be new samples collected to allow a better qualitative, as well as
quantitative, measurement of some species such as the low molecular weight
compounds in the Ci-Ce range. Other species-specific samples may be collect-
ed also, as in bisulfite impinger solution sampling for aldehyde determina-
tion.
Sampling methods for use in Level 2 may in many cases be the same as
those used in Level 1. It may be possible in some cases where a specific
measurement is sought to use simpler procedures than those prescribed for
Level 1. In some cases, alternative procedures will be desirable to measure
species not represented well by the Level 1 scheme and/or especially reac-
tive compounds, such as certain reactive olefins, hydrazines, etc. Table 4
summarizes Level 2 sampling methods by MEG category.
Two basically different types of Level 2 studies may be carried out.
In most cases, results from the Level 1 study will have provided chemical
class information to direct attention to specific compound categories. In
41
-------
TABLE 4 LEVEL 2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS BY MEG CATEGORY
Sampling Method
No. MEG Category/Subcategory
1 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
C,-C7
-c,
2 Alkyl Halides
b.p. < 100°C
b.p. > 100°C
3 Ethers
4 Halogenated Ethers
b.p. - 100°C
b.p. 100°C
5 Alcohols
b.p. v 100°C («-C4)
b.p. - 100°C
6 Glycols, epoxides
Air
gas bulb
SASS
gas bulb
SASS
SASS
gas bulb
SASS
gas bulb
SASS
SASS
Water
purge and trap
pentane extract
purge and trap
CH2Clj extract
CH2Clj extract
purge and trap
CH2C!2 extract
purge and trap
resin adsorption
or ether extract
direct analysis of
aqueous solution or
Et2O extraction
Analysis Method
GC/ms or GC/FID on Porapak Q
GC/ms or GC/FID on SP 2250 (or
QV \7)
GC/ms or GC/ECD (isothermal) on
Porapak Q
GC/ms or GC/ECD (isothermal) on
SP2250(orOV 17)
GC/ms on SP- 1000
GC/ms or GC/ECD (isothermal) on
SP 1000
GC/ms or GC/ECD (isothermal) on
SP 1000
GC/ms on SP 1000
GC/ms on SP- 1000
GC/ms on Porapak P (direct aqueous
injection)
ro
-------
TABLE 4. LEVEL 2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS BY MEG CATEGORY (eon.)
No. MEG Category/Subcategory
Sampling Method
Air
Water
Analysis Method
CO
7a
7b
8a,b
8c
8d
Aldehydes
b.p. v
b.p. > 100°C
Ketones
b.p. <100°CUC4)
b.p. > 100°C
Carboxylic Acids
formic, acetic
c,-cs
Amides
C,
Esters
Bisulfite purge and trap
impingers
SASS EtjO extraction
gas bulb purge and trap
SASS CH2CI2 extraction
SASS
SASS
purge and trap
direct analysis of
aqueous solution
SASS extract at pH 2
SASS direct analysis ol
aqueous solutions
SASS ether extract
SASS CH,Clj extract
lodometric titration of bisulfite imping
ers or GC/ms on SP 1000
lodometric titration of bisulfite imping
ers or GC/ms on SP 1000
GC/ms on SP 1000
GC/ms on SP 1000
Reverse phase HPLC or GC/ms on
SP 1000 after derivative formation
Reverse phase HPLC or GC/ms on
SP 1000 after derivative formation
Reverse phase HPLC or GC/ms on
SP 1000 after derivative formation
Normal or reverse phase HPLC or
GC/ms on SP 1000
Normal or reverse phase HPLC or
GC/ms on SP 1000
Normal or reverse phase HPLC 01
GC/ms on SP 1000
-------
TABLE 4. LEVEL 2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS BY MEG CATEGORY (eon.)
Sampling Method
No. MEG Catagory/Subcategory Air
9 Nitriles
b.p. < 100°C (C2 ) gas
(reactive)
. C6 SASS
.C6 SASS
10 Amines
b.p. < 100° C gas bulb
b.p. >100°CUC6) SASS
( - C6 ) SASS
1 1 Azo compounds, hydrazine, etc.
special
impinger
reagents
12 Nitrosamines SASS
I3a Mercaptans gas bulb
and on -site
GC
Water
purge and trap
direct analysis of
aqueous solution
CHjCI, extract
direct analysis of
aqueous solution
direct analysis of
aqueous solution
CHjClj extract at
pH 11
direct analysis of
aqueous solution or
CH,CI2 extraction
atpH 11
direct analysis of
aqueous solutions
or CH2CI2 extrac
tion at pH 11
direct injection
Analysis Method
GC/ms on SP 1000
GC/msonSP 1000
GC/msonSP- 1000
GC/ms on Carbowax 20M 0.8% KOH
GC/ms on Carbowax 20M 0.8% KOH
GC/ms on Carbowax 20M 0.8% KOH
GC/ms on Carbowax 20M 0.8% KOH
Normal phase HPLC or Gel Perinea
tion Chromatography or
GC/ms on SP 1000 or Tenax
GC/FPD on Teflon/polyphenyl ether/
HjPO4 (in field for reactive species) or
GC/ms on OV 17 or SP 1000
-------
TABLE 4. LEVEL 2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS BY MEG CATEGORY (con.)
No. MEG Category/Subcategory
Sampling Method
Air
Water
Analysis Method
01
13b Sulfides. Disulfides
b.p. <100°CUC4)
b.p. > 100°C
14 Sulfonic Acids, Sulfoxides
15 Benzene, Substituted
Benzene Hydrocarbons
b.p. < IOO°C
b.p. > 100°C
16 Halogenated Aromatics
17 Aromatic Nitro Compounds
gas bulb purge and trap
SASS CHjCI2 extract
SASS direct analysis of
aqueous solution
gas bulb CH2CI2 extract
SASS CHjClj extract
SASS CH,CI2 extract
SASS CHjClj extract
GC/FPD on Teflon/polypheny! ether/
HjPO4 (in field for reactive species) or
GC/ms on OV 17 or SP 1000
GC/FPD on Teflon/polyphenyl ether/
HjPO4 (in field for reactive species) or
GC/ms on OV 17 or SP-1000
Ion-pair HPLC (sulfonic acids) or
Normal or reverse phase HPLC
(sulfoxides)
GC/ms or GC/FID on SP 2250 (or
OV 17)
GC/ms or GC/FID on SP 2250 (or
OV 17)
GC/ms or GC/ECD (isothermal) on
SP2250(orOV 17)
Reverse phase HPLC or
GC/ms on SP 1000 or SP 2250
-------
TABLE 4. LEVEL 2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS BY MEG CATEGORY (con.)
No.
MEG Category/Subcategory
Sampling Method
Air
Water
Analysis Method
18
Phenols
SASS direct analysis of
aqueous solution or
resin adsorption or
ether extract at
pH2(.Cloonly)
Reverse phase HPLC or
GC/ms on Tenax (direct aqueous
injection) or
GC/ms on SP 1000 after derivative
formation
19
Halophenols
SASS direct analysis of
aqueous solution or
resin adsorption or
ether ex tract at
pH2(-C,0 only)
Reverse phase HPLC or
GC/ms on Tenax (direct aqueous
injection) or
GC/ms on SP 1000 after derivative
formation
Ok
20
Nitrophenols
SASS direct analysis of
aqueous solution or
resin adsorption or
ether extract at
pH2(^C,0 only)
Reverse phase HPLC or
GC/ms on Tenax (direct aqueous
injection) or
GC/ms on SP 1000 after derivative
formation
21
Fused Polycyclic Hydrocarbons
SASS
CH2CI2 extract
GC/ms on Dexsil 400 or
Reverse or normal phase HPLC
22 Fused Non-alternant Polycyclic
Hydrocarbons
GC/ms on Dexsil 400 or
Reverse or normal phase HPLC
23
Heterocyclic Nitrogen Compounds
SASS CH2CI2 extract at
pH 11
GC/ms on SP 1000 or SP 2250 or
Normal phase HPLC
-------
TABLE 4. LEVEL 2 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS BY MEG CATEGORY (con.)
No.
MEG Category/Subcategory
Sampling Method
Air
Water
Analysis Method
24 Heterocyclic Oxygen Compounds
b.p. < 100°C (Furan)
b.p. > 100° C
25 Heterocyclic Sulfur Compounds
b.p. • 100°C (Thiophene)
b.p. 100°C
gas bulb purge and trap
SASS CHjCI, extract
gas bulb solvent extract
SASS solvent extract
GC/ms on SP-1000 or SP 2250 or
Normal phase HPLC
GC/ms on SP-1000 or SP 2250 or
Normal phase HPLC
GC/ms on SP 1000 or SP 2250 or
Normal phase HPLC
GC/ms on SP 1000 or SP 2250 or
Normal phase HPLC
26
Organometallics
-------
those cases a specific sampling and analysis procedure may be selected. In
other cases, a need for Level 2 studies may be indicated by criteria such as
a set of positive biotest results, rather than chemical composition data.
The biotest results would not target specific chemical categories for study
in Level 2. In these cases a comprehensive set of Level 2 studies will be
required using procedures with lower detection limits than Level 1. It may
also be neccessary to analyze for species that may originally have gone
undetected because of the procedural constraints imposed by the Level 1
economic considerations.
It is expected that most Level 2 organic analyses will be directed
towards one or more specific classes of chemical compounds that were indi-
cated by Level 1 analysis to exceed their respective decision-level (or
MATE) concentration(s).
Table 4 summarizes the particular choices of sampling and analysis
methods, respectively, that are recommended for Level 2 analyses by MEG
category. The appropriate methods will, in some cases, be described in
somewhat more detail in the final Level 2 Procedures Manual. However, be-
cause each Level 2 study is likely to be unique, it is necessary to allow
for flexibility and to leave exact details—sample size, GC temperature
program, etc.—to the discretion of the analyst.
Samples to be analyzed at Level 2, for which Level 1 failed to provide
a more directed analysis, will generally have to be analyzed by methods that
have greater compound detection sensitivity than those used in Level 1 and
deal better with those areas for which Level 1 procedures are least well
suited—for instance, gases and high molecular weight species. It is diffi-
cult to devise a specific scheme that will be appropriate for all process
streams to be analyzed in this manner.
In addition, or alternatively, it is likely that Level 2 bioassay
procedures that combine chemical fractionation will be developed and util-
ized to zero in an appropriate chemical analysis.
1.3.7 Environmental Assessment Data Systems (EADS)
REFERENCES: FPEIS Reference Manual. EPA-600/8-78-005, June
1978.
FPEIS User Guide. EPA-600/8-78-006, June 1978.
48
-------
The Environmental Assessment Data Systems (EADS) are a group of inde-
pendent computerized data bases that are interlinked to provide common
accessibility to data produced by IERL/RTP environmental assessment proj-
ects. These data bases will store data pertaining to emissions from gaseous,
liquid, and solid waste streams, as well as data on site-specific ambient
conditions and data describing specific processes. The environmental assess-
ment (EA) projects now underway will produce large volumes of waste stream
data that must be analyzed in order to ascertain the total environmental
impact of various processes. The EADS provides a cost-effective means of
storing and retrieving these data for ongoing analysis. The development of
useful analytical techniques to aid the user will enhance his ability to
derive meaningful results from his analysis.
The Fine Particle Emissions Information System (FPEIS), which is now
operational on the EPA computer at Research Triangle Park, N.C., is the
first component of the EAOS to be implemented. Work has been initiated
that will provide for the development and implementation of the three
remaining waste stream components of the EAOS (Gaseous Emissions Data System,
Liquid Effluents Data System, Solid Waste Effluents Data System) and for
ancillary software to accomplish routine editing, loading, and retrieval of
data in a basic report format. These new data bases are expected to be
available in 1979.
The FPEIS contains data on primary fine particle emissions to the
atmosphere from stationary point sources as well as detailed information on
applied control systems. All the data pertaining to a source and control
device combination obtained during a certain testing period are given a
unique Test Series Number that may be used to identify the particular test
activity. Each Test Series, in turn, consists of a number of subseries,
which represent all the data pertaining to a given combination of source and
control device operating parameters, or to data taken at either the inlet or
outlet of the control device. The subseries connects different sampling
activities together and gives a complete description of the gas stream for
the various operating conditions of the source and control device.
The test run is any measurement of fine particle emissions from a
source or control device combination for a specified length of time using a
single particle size measuring equipment or method. The test run is the
49
-------
cornerstone of the data base structure of the FPEIS. Test runs are grouped
into test subseries according to the situation existing during the period of
the test.
Figure 14 details the organization of FPEIS data by Test Series, sub-
series, and run levels. The data are grouped into five general categories
of information that are listed below.
Source and Test Series Related Information - Identifies the station-
ary source that was tested, the source location, and literature
references for the test series. The FPEIS will accept the entry
"CONFIDENTIAL" for any source whose identity cannot be disclosed.
Control Device Characteristics and Design Parameters - Control
devices are characterized by category, class, generic type, commer-
cial name, and manufacturer. Specification types are provided as
standard nomenclature for the electrostatic precipitator, cyclone,
wet scrubber, and fabric filter.
Test Characteristics and Control Device Operating Parameters - Data
include test date and time, sampling location description, and
specific source and control device operating parameters.
Biological and Chemical Analysis Data - Bioassay data will be re-
ported at a later date in a form consistent with EA data analysis
requirements. Chemical species may be reported using the SOTDAT
particulate pollutant codes, the MEG numbers, the Chemical Abstracts
Services Registration Numbers, or as the appropriate Level I frac-
tion.
Particle Size Measurement Equipment and Data - Data include sampling
flow rate, temperature, pressure, and duration. Particle sizes may
be expressed in terms of Stokes1, Aerodynamic, or Impaction diameters.
The FPEIS is currently operational on the UNIVAC 1110 computer at EPA's
National Computer Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Users may
access the data base either through their own data communications terminal
or via the EPA Project Officer. Direct access is presently restricted to a
few users who have a working knowledge of the UNIVAC and the data base
management system used to implement the data base. As new user features are
added to the FPEIS, the user interface will be expanded.
FPEIS has two standard data output programs that are being used to
process data requests. The SUMMARY REPORT produces a listing of the entire
contents of the data base in order of source category. (Due to high paper
usage this program is only rarely used.) The SERIES REPORT lists the data
50
-------
TEST SERIES LEVEL
A. SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
Source Category (SCC I)
Type of Operation (SCC II)
Feed Material Clan (SCC III)
Operating Mode Class (SCC IV)
Site and Source Name
Source Address (Street, City, State, Zip Code)
UTM Zone Location and Coordinates
Test Series Start and Finish Date
Tested By and Reference
B. TEST SERIES REMARKS
C. CONTROL DEVICE(S) CHARACTERISTICS
Generic Device Type
Device Class and Category
Device Commercial Name
Manufacturer
Description
Design Parameter Type and Value
SUBSERIES LEVEL
D. TEST CHARACTERISTICS
Test Date, Start, and Finish Time
Source Operating Mode
Percent Design Capacity
Feed Material and its Composition
Sampling Location and its Description
Volume Flow Rate, Velocity Temperature
and Pressure
Percent Isokinetic Sampling
Orsat Gas Analysis and Trace Gas
Composition
Control Oevice(s) Operating Parameter
and Value Remarks
E. PARTICULATE MASS TRAIN RESULTS
Front Half and Total Mass Concentration
Mass Train Comments
F. PARTICULATE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Density
Resistivity
Others
G. BIOASSAY DATA
(Format to be determined later)
H. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION
Particle Boundary Diameters
Sizing Instrument Calibrated or Calculated
Chemical Entry Code
Chemical and Analysis Method ID
Concentration in Filter/Total
Concentration in Ranges 1 through 8
RUN LEVEL
I. MEASUREMENT PARTICULATE
Measurement Instrument/Method Name
Size Range Lower and Upper Boundary
Collection Surface
Dilution Factor
Measurement Start Time and Period
Sample Flow Rate
Sample Temperature, Pressure, and
Moisture Content
Comments
J. PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Diameter Basis (Classic Aerodynamic,
Stokes, or Aerodynamic Impaction)
Boundary Diameter
Concentration Basis (Mass or Number)
Concentration
Figure 14. Organization of FPEIS data.
51
-------
for one complete test series for which the user has supplied the unique test
series number as program input. New report software are being developed to
aid the user with specialized data presentations. Among these is a program
to calculate the fractional efficiency of particulate control devices. This
program will be available in mid-1978.
The FPEIS contains data from over 1,000 sampling runs which represent
tests conducted over 50 source/collector combinations. Additional data
acquisition activities have been conducted to identify, encode, and enclose
more data on fine particle sampling into the FPEIS. These activities will
raise the number of sampling runs to more than 2,500 and the number of
sources to over 100 by mid-1978. The routine entry of data from future
control technology development and environmental assessment sampling will
ensure the growth of the data base. Detailed documentation on the FPEIS,
consisting of a comprehensive REFERENCE MANUAL and USER GUIDE, are available
to users from the EPA Project Officer.
52
-------
1.4 CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
In order to facilitate the development of environmental objectives, the
current environmental background must be adequately described. The three
approaches summarized here include: (1) a summary of key Federal regulations
that specify control levels, (2) the development of a noncriteria ambient
baseline data base, and (3) the construction of process technology environ-
mental scale models.
1.4.1 Summary of Key Federal Regulations That Specify Control Levels
REFERENCE: J. G. Cleland and G. L. Kingsbury, Summary of Key
Federal Regulations and Criteria for Multimedia
Environmental Control (Draft), Contract No. 68-02-
1325, prepared by RTI for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, IERL, June 1977.
The following Federal regulations have been summarized:
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standards for
Air Contaminants
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
New Stationary Source Performance Standards (NSSPS)
Emissions Standards for Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations and U.S.
Public Health Service Regulations on Drinking Water
EPA Effluent Standards
EPA Toxic Effluent Standards (Proposed)
EPA Pesticide Regulations
Standards for Protection Against Radiation
Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean
Dumping of Materials
A partial list of additional items reviewed includes:
Summary Listing of Significant Regulations Promulgated by EPA in
Implementing the Clean Air Act
EPA Water Quality Criteria (Proposed)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
53
-------
EPA Hazardous Substances
Guideline Series: Control of Emissions from Lurgi Coal Gasifica-
tion Plants
1.4.2 Noncriteria Ambient Baseline Data Base
REFERENCE: Robert Handy, Research Triangle Institute, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27709.
A computer search of four files has been initiated. Files include:
APTIC, WRA, NTIS, and Pollution Abstracts. Over 100 reprints covering 350
chemicals have been ordered. These will serve as the basis for input into
the data base being developed by RTI with assistance from MRI Systems.
Computer input forms have been designed in a format that is a modifi-
cation and extension of that originally suggested by Wagoner of RTI. The
first compilation of the data base was available for review in August 1978.
1.4.3 Environmental Siting Scale Models for Technologies
Engineering data were obtained by reviewing EPA reports and contractor
reports and by discussing the program with knowledgeable individuals. Engi-
neering drawings were made illustrating the land use and environmental
impact on air quality and on surface and ground water resources due to the
air, water, and solid wastes discharged from a large coal-cleaning facility.
Following consultation with appropriate EPA personnel, a model of the basic
features of the coal processing facilities and the environmental impacts de-
picted was constructed. A brochure describing the coal cleaning model has
been prepared and is available from IERL/RTP.
54
-------
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT
By utilizing input from current environmental background projects and
additional research, RTI is developing Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEG's).
The MEG's provide reference levels including standards, estimated permissible
concentrations, minimum acute toxicity effluent values, natural background
levels, where available for chemical contaminants and for selected nonchemical
contaminants. The MEG information is presented in a format designed to
facilitate its use in the quantitative evaluation of environmental impact.
1.5.1 Development of Multimedia Environmental Goals
REFERENCE: J. G. Cleland and G. L. Kingsbury, Multimedia En-
vironmental Goals for Environmental Assessment,
Volumes I and II, EPA-600/7-77-136a and -136b,
November 1977.
Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEG's) are levels of contaminants or
degradents (in ambient air, water, or land or in emissions or effluents con-
veyed to ambient media) that are judged to be (1) appropriate for preventing
certain negative effects in the surrounding populations or ecosystems or (2)
representative of the control limits achievable through technology. The
project's central purpose is to derive MEG's as estimates of desirable
levels of control for those chemical contaminants and nonchemical degradents
included in a master list.
This Master List of over 600 chemical substances and physical agents
has been compiled using the following selection factors prescribed by EPA.
Primary Factor - The pollutant is associated with fossil fuels processes.
Secondary Factors -
(1) Federal standards or criteria exist or have been proposed.
(2) A TLV has been established or an LDSO has been reported.
(3) The substance is a suspected carcinogen.
(4) The substance appears on the EPA Consent Decree List.
Tertiary Factors (optional) -
(1) The substance is present as a pollutant in the environment.
(2) The substance is highly toxic.
A total of 85 categories (26 organic and 50 inorganic), shown in tables
5 and 6, are used to organize the substances in the Master List. Substances
are categorized based on chemical functional groups for organic compounds
55
-------
TABLE 5. ORGANIC CATEGORIES ADDRESSED BY MEG'S
1 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
2 Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
3 Ethers
4 Halogenated Ethers
5 Alcohols
6 Glycols, Epoxides
7 Aldehydes, Ketones
8 Carfaoxylic Acids and Derivatives
9 Nitrites
10 Amines
11 Azo Compounds, Hydrazine, and Derivatives
12 Nitrosamines
13 Mercaptans, Sulfides and Disulfides
14 Sulfonic Acids, Sulfoxides
15 Benzene, Substituted Benzene Hydrocarbons
16 Halogenated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
17 Aromatic Nitro Compounds
18 Phenols
19 Halophenols
20 Nitrophenols
21 Fused Aromatic Hydrocarbons
22 Fused Non-Alternant Polycyclic Hydrocarbons
23 Heterocyclic Nitrogen Compounds
24 Heterocyclic Oxygen Compounds
25 Heterocyclic Sulfur Compounds
26 Organophosphorus
56
-------
TABLE 6. INORGANIC CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES CATEGORIES ADDRESSED BY MEG'j
Group
IA
MA
IMA
IVA
VA
-
VIA
VIIA
Category
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Element
Lithium
Sodium
Potassium
Rubidium
Cesium
Beryllium
Magnesium
Calcium
Strontium
Barium
Boron
Aluminum
Gallium
Indium
Thallium
Carbon
Silicon
Germanium
Tin
Lead
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Arsenic
Antimony
Bismuth
Oxygen
Sulfur
Selenium
Tellurium
Fluorine
Group Category
VIIA 57
58
59
1MB 60
61
IVB 62
63
64
VB 65
66
67
VIB 68
69
70
VIIB 71
VIM 72
73
74
75
76
77
IB 78
79
80
MB 81
82
83
1MB 84
85
Element
Chlorine
Bromine
Iodine
Scandium
Yttrium
Titanium
Zirconium
Hafnium
Vanadium
Niobium
Tantalum
Chromium
Molybdenum
Tungsten
Manganese
Iron
Ruthenium
Cobalt
Rhodium
Nickel
Platinum
Copper
Silver
Gold
Zinc
Cadmium
Mercury
Lanthanides
Actinides
57
-------
and principal elements for inorganics. An alphabetical list of substances
is not used because it would provide no way of associating related compounds.
A six-digit number has been assigned to each MEG compound addressed.
These MEG numbers indicate the category, subcategory, and position within
the subcategory for any compound. Consequently, structurally similar com-
pounds will be assigned similar numbers. This association of structurally
similar compounds is a powerful tool in environmental assessment, especially
in the absence of complete profile data for many substances.
For each substance a MEG chart is prepared (216 have been published and
drafts are completed for an additional 200). This chart, shown in table 7,
has two interrelated tables: Emission-Level Goals and Ambient-Level Goals.
Emission-Level Goals are based on technological or ambient factors and
pertain to gaseous emissions to the air, aqueous effluents to water, and
solid waste to be disposed of in or on land. Technological factors refer to
limitations on control levels due to existing or developing technology.
Ambient factors included in the MEG's chart as criteria for Emission
Level Goals are:
(1) Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluents (MATE's) - pollutant concen-
trations in undiluted emission streams that would not adversely
affect those persons or ecological systems that are exposed for
short periods of time.
(2) Ambient-Level Goals - estimated permissible concentrations (EPC's)
of pollutants in emission streams which, after dispersion, will
not cause the level of contamination in the ambient receiving
medium to exceed a safe continuous exposure concentration.
(3) Elimination of Discharge (EOD) - concentrations of pollutants in
emission streams which, after dilution, will not cause the level
of contamination to exceed levels measured as "natural background."
Technology-based Emission-Level Goals are considered highly source-
specific; goals based on ambient factors can be considered applicable uni-
versally to any industry's discharge streams.
Ambient-Level Goals are based on the following: (1) current or pro-
posed Federal ambient standards or criteria, (2) toxicity (acute and chronic
effects considered), and (3) carcinogenicity and/or teratogenicity (for
zero threshold pollutants). "Zero threshold" is used to distinguish contam-
58
-------
MULTIMEDIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
GOALS
TABLE 7. SAMPLE MEG CHART
X
10C
2-AMINONAPHTHALENE
EMISSION LEVEL GOALS
Air. ug/m3
(pptn Vol)
Wnir. u«/l
(pern WO
Ljnd.(H/9
(pomWD
1. Btsta on 3«1 Technology
A. EanMf SundVTU
NSM. IPT. BAT
8. On«aaii| r«O»H>KiTr
,
IR»O Codtl
II. Baud on Ambwnt FKton
A Mwwmum Acuu
Tonoiv CflttM«il
•ludon
MnMtEttKn
1.65E2
2.5E3
5.0EO
Ban) on
Ecolovcjl
EHicn
1.0E2
2.0E-1
B AmtMm t«wl Go***
B««don
K«**m Cften
4.0E1
6.0EO
1.21-2
B«Md on
€coto^t*
Eff*ct»
5.0E-1
l.OE-1
C Elim*n«non of
OncA»q»
M«tva< Bxtiqrownd*
•To bt mulnpli«d by dilution tactor
AMBIENT LEVEL GOALS
Air. uglm3
(ppmVoll
Wrar. uo/l
IppmWtl
L«nd. ni)lg
' Ipnm Wtl
1. CurnntorPr
Stmdjrdi
A. Sort on
HMI
-------
inants shown to be potentially carcinogenic or teratogenic; goals specified
for these pollutants imply acceptable risk levels.
A Background Information Summary Sheet, shown in table 8, will accompany each
MEG chart.
In delineating MEG's, applicable Federal standards, criteria, or recom-
mendations are specified. For those substances not addressed by current
guidelines, consideration in arriving at MEG's was given to the following.
(1) Established or estimated human threshold levels
(2) Acceptable risk levels for lifetime exposure to suspected carcino-
gens and/or teratogens
(3) Degrees of contamination considered reasonable for the protection
of existing ecosystems
(4) Potential for accumulation and biological magnification in aquatic
organisms, livestock, and vegetation
(5) Hazards to human health or to ecology resulting from short-term
exposure to emissions.
The development of MEG's methodology has been approached from three
distinct aspects so far. These are listed below.
(1) Investigation of Federal Guidelines produced MEG's for only a
small percentage of the substances on the Master List but yielded
insight into the variety of approaches that have been utilized for
standard setting so far.
(2) Generation of two types of EPC's. Toxicity-based EPC's are based
on empirical data concerning the effects of chemical substances on
human health and ecosystems. Another set of EPC's is supplied by
a system relating carcinogenic or teratogenic potential to media
concentrations considered to pose an acceptable risk. Both types
of EPC's are calculated on the background information summaries.
A total of 22 models are used for translating empirical data into
EPC's. Only the most stringent value for a given media/criteria
combination will appear on the MEG chart for a given substance.
(3) Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluents (MATE's) refer to concentrations
appropriate for short-term exposure whereas EPC's consider life-
time continuous exposure. At present, 14 different kinds of MATE
values have been defined in the methodology.
60
-------
TABLE 8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION SUMMARY SHEET
WUN: L56J CZ
2-AM1HONAPHTHALEHE; C]QH^H (2-naphthylam1ne. STRUCTURE:
3-naphthylamine). 10C220
White crystals Chat darken on exposure to light and air; volatile with steam.
PROPERTIES:
'8
Molecular wt: 143.19; rap: 113; bp: 306; d: 1.0614*d; vap. press.: 1 m
at 108° C; volatile In steam; slightly soluble in cold water.
NATURAL OCCURRENCE. CHARACTERISTICS. ASSOCIATED COMPOUNDS:
2-iNaphthylam1ne does not occur as such in nature, but 1s formed by Che pyrolisis of nitrogen-containing
organic.matter, [t has been isolated from coal-tar (ref. 1). It has, in general, the characteristics of
primary aromatic amines, [t is a weak base.
TOXIC PROPERTIES. HEALTH EFFECTS:
Epidemiological studies have shown that occupational exposure to 2-am1nonaphtnalene is strongly associated
with the occurrence of bladder cancer. There is no doubt that the compound is a human bladder carcinogen
(ref. 1). 2-Aminonaphtnalene is also reported to cause cancer in several animal species.
The EPA/NIOSH ordering number Is 7623. The lowest dose to induce a carcinogenic response is reported
as 18 mg/kg. The adjusted ordering number is 423.8.
L0-0 toral, rat): 727 mg/kg.
Aquatic toxlcity: Tim 96: 10-1 pptn (ref. 6).
REGULATORY ACTIONS. STANDARDS. CRITERIA. RECOGNITION. CANDIDATE STATUS FOR SPECIFIC REGULATION:
2-Aminonaphthalene is recognized by ACGIH as a carcinogenic agent in humans. No TLV has been assigned.
d-Naphthylamine was the subject of a UIOSH Hazard Review Document (ref. 11 ).
OSHA standards dealing with exposure of employees to 2-naphthylamine has been established taking into
consideration substantial evidence that 2-naphthylamine is known to cause cancer (ref. 12).
MINIMUM ACUTE TOXICITV CONCENTRATIONS:
Air, Health: 7 x 10/423.3 » 165 ji
Water, Health: 15 x 165 - 2.5 x 10
Land, Health: 0.2 x 2.5 x 10
500 '
Air. Ecology:
Water, ecology: 100 x I • 100 ,-g/i
Land, Ecology: 0.2 . 100 » 20 -.g/g
ESTIMATED PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATIONS:
EPC
EPC
'AH2
'AH3
EPC.
HHl
0.107 x 727 =• 78 ag/mj
• 0.081 x 727 = 59 jg/m3
• 15 x 59 ' 885 .<;/•:
EPCWH2 - 0.4 x 727
EPC,
291 ;q
-.. u - 0.2 x 291 « 58.2 -jg/g
Ln , .
£PCAC2 • 10-7(6 x 423.8) =• 0.4 _g/mj
EPC,,, • 15 x 0.4 » 6 jg/z
T.C
0.2 '. 5 = 1.2 -.g/g
EPCW£1 * 50 x 1 • 50 jg/i
EPCL£ • 0.2 < ICO • 20 -,9/g
61
-------
The primary problem associated with the development of MEG's has been
lack of data or other information needed to generate certain MEG's; e.g.,
natural background concentrations, biological half-lives, and absorption
factors. Problems associated with chemical nomenclature have complicated
efforts to compile useful information on polycyclic organic compounds.
1.5.2 Integration of Nonchemical Pollutant Goals and Nonpollutant
Goals Into the MEG Concept
REFERENCE: B. W. Cornaby, D. A. Savitz, M. E. Stout, G. E.
Pierce, and A. W. Rudolph, Development of Environ-
mental Goals for Nonchemical and Nonpollutant
Factors in Fluidized-Bed Combustion (Draft), pre-
pared by Battelle Columbus Laboratories for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, IERL, Decem-
ber 1977.
The MEG chart was originally designed to evaluate chemical emissions in
air, water, and land, and it is now felt that the MEG concept can be extended
to both nonchemical and nonpollutant factors.
These factors include: noise, heat, microorganisms, bioassay tests on
complex effluents, and land- and water-related physical factors.
1.5.2.1 MEG for Noise
Current and proposed noise standards or regulations were reviewed for
the occupational environment (8 hours at 90dB(A) set by OSHA) and the com-
munity at large (55dB(A) proposed by EPA). No ambient standards for noise
exposures of nonhuman organisms were discovered. After a review of perti-
nent literature, a level of 60dB(A) was judged to be a reasonable environ-
mental objective.
1.5.2.2 MEG for Heat
Direct human health effects of heat are limited to the medium of air.
The most appropriate value for an ambient criterion is thought to be 30° C
(86° F) (Wet Bulb Globe Temperature). This is based on physiological param-
eters and assumes continuous light work. The suggested value for moderate
work is 26.7° C (80° F) and 25° C (77° F) for heavy work.
For man, the media of greatest interest is air, but for other forms of
life and ecosystems it is water. The Illinois standard is suggested for MEG
use—no change greater than 5° F above the ambient temperature.
62
-------
1.5.2.3 MEG for Microorganisms
The MEG format will accommodate microorganisms in the air and water
media with less emphasis on the soil media.
1.5.2.4 MEG for Bioassay Tests on Complex Effluents
These MEG's are intended to be simple decision levels for each bio-
assay, which define it as having no detectable effect, low effect, medium
effect, and high effect.
1.5.2.5 MEG for Land and Water Physical Factors
These are intended to be land- and water-related physical factors. One
example is the use of appropriate physical property measurements on a solid
waste material to place it in an equivalent soil classification category,
which would actually be the MEG in this case.
In this example, a solid waste material found to fall into a high MEG
classification would be suitable if disposed of over large areas of land
that have high enough stability to support high load-bearing land uses such
as large building construction.
63
-------
1.6 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
1.6.1 Control Assay (CA) Development
REFERENCE: Preliminary CA Development Draft submitted to EPA
in March 1978 by Catalytic, Inc., under contract no.
68-02-2167.
Control assays identify the best potential control techniques based on
Level 1 evaluation of effluent samples before and after treatment by combi-
nations of laboratory procedures that simulate control processes.
The CA approach can be most useful under circumstances where control
technology has not been defined, or where environmentally satisfactory
interim methods are being used that may not represent best technology/
economic practice on a commercial scale. Pilot plants and development units
for new coal conversion technologies are examples of these situations. In
such cases, CA pretreatment operations will be employed to remove large
quantities of pollutants, thereby rendering the waste test sample more
typical of the discharge from the commercial facility.
CA protocols will include special field analyses that aid in the selec-
tion of appropriate control assay operations. Level 1 chemical and bioassay
procedures will be used to provide test data for evaluating the effective-
ness of the treatment schemes employed.
A phased approach requires two separate levels of CA effort. The first
phase (CA 1) utilizes Level 1 procedures, which assume no previous knowledge
of waste characteristics except process background.
The second phase (CA 2) effort (with the benefit of CA 1 and Level 1
S/A results) will concentrate on those streams previously found by CA 1 to
be exceeding effluent decision criteria limitations. These problem streams
will be re-examined using additional, different control assay operations
more specifically designed to remove particular pollutant constituents.
The procedure to gather raw samples for the CA Phase 1 and 2 efforts
will be the same as the Level 1 and Level 2 sampling schemes. However,
sample sources and quantities needed for CA will be different from those
specified by Level 1 procedures.
The quantity of raw waste required from an individual source for CA
purposes cannot be specified on a generalized basis because the sample size
is dependent upon a number of variables including:
64
-------
Number of raw waste sources
Type of pretreatment
Type of control assay operation
Number of each type of control assay operation
Level 1 laboratory testing volume requirements
Flow rates of individual raw wastes.
For every raw sample processed under CA protocols, a number of treated
effluent samples will be produced. Therefore, judgment should be applied in
selecting raw samples. If it is known from previous experience that some of
the samples may not be harmful, or that their treatment schemes and ultimate
fate are well established, then they should not be included in the CA program.
Before the actual CA effort is initiated, data needs must be established
and used to help identify test requirements as well as any anticipated
problems. These requirements are similar to those identified under the
Level 1 analytical schemes.
Process data such as temperature and pressure must be known.
A pretest site survey must be made to verify process data and
tentative sample points selected.
Pretest site preparation must be specified to have sample points
accessible and outfitted with appropriate nozzles, valves, etc.
Electrical, water, and other services must be provided, where
needed.
The raw samples and the treated effluent samples will be analyzed by
the Level 1 protocols. Some of these analyses will be performed in the
field and some in the home laboratory. A test plan must identify field
analyses so that the appropriate equipment can be assembled and the mobile
laboratory outfitted.
A proposed control assay methodology has been prepared for wastewaters.
Key components include: (1) wastewater characteristics and pollutant param-
eters, (2) type of treatment technology required, (3) pretreatment unit
operation, (4) basic unit operations, (5) selection of unit operations for
CA work, and (6) test sequence for the wastewater CA.
Figure 15 details the control assay development test sequence for
wastewaters.
65
-------
SOURCE A
I
SOURCE B
BYPRODUCT
REMOVAL
1
COMPOSITE SAMPLE
SOLIDS SEPARATION
BIO-OXIDATION
CARBON ADSORPTION
ION EXCHANGE
FOR
LEVEL 1
ASSAY
CARBON ADSORPTION
3
4
ION EXCHANGE
Figure 1S. Control assay devalopmant test saquenea for vwstwwter.
66
-------
1.6.2 Development of the Multimedia Environmental Control Engineering
Handbook (MECEH)
REFERENCES: Cameron Engineers, Inc., Development of the Multi-
media Environmental Control Engineering Handbook
(Draft), Contract No. 68-02-2152, October 1977.
Cameron Engineers, Inc., Table of Contents for
Multimedia Environmental Control Engineering Hand-
book (Draft). Contract No. 68-02-2152. January
1978.
The Multimedia Environmental Control Engineering Handbook (MECEH) has
four major sections: (1) a Table of Contents, (2) a Secondary Entry System,
(3) data sheets, and (4) a general index.
The Table of Contents will categorize each specific control device or
process by the general technology and the generic device involved. Table 9
details the classification system used in the handbook. To date, the Table
of Contents has been developed for the entire handbook down to the generic
device level, third order headings. Fourth order headings have been devel-
oped for four of the nine general technology classifications shown in table 9.
The Secondary Entry System allows a user to approach the MECEH from a
problem-oriented viewpoint. The user will be able to locate the best avail-
able control technology using only the information that he has available on
the problem itself. The system will allow entry by any of the following
means:
Media (air, land, water)
Industry
Pollutant stream
Pollutant species present
General technology
Applicable generic devices
For example, an MECEH user would evaluate his specific problem and
determine the media to which the pollutant is discharged. Turning to that
specific section of the index, he would then select the industry involved
and the pollutant stream of concern. Technologies that can be used for
control will be listed under the pollutant stream according to the general
class of pollutant.
67
-------
TABLE 9. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR THE CONTROL ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
1. GAS TREATMENT
1.1 Mechanical Collection
12 Electrostatic Precipitators
1.3 Filters (fabric, granular, etc.)
1.4 Liquid Scrubbers/Contactors
15 Condensers
1.6 Solid Sorbents (mol sieves,
activated carbon)
1.7 Incineration (direct and
catalytic)
1.8 Chemical Reaction
2. LIQUIDS TREATMENT
2.1 Settling, Sedimentation
22 Precipitation, Flocculation
2.3 Flotation
2.4 Centrifugation and Filtration
25 Evaporation and Concentration
2.6 Distillation, Flashing
2.7 Liquid-Liquid Extraction
2.8 Gas-Liquid Stripping
23 ph Adjustment
2.10 Biological Processes
2.11 Oxidation Processes
2.12 Activated Carbon and Other
Absorbents
2.13 Ion Exchange Systems
2.14 Cooling Towers and Ponds
2.15 Chemical Reaction and Separation
2.16 Water Intake Structures
3. SOLIDS TREATMENT
3.1 Fixation
32 Recovery
3.3 Processing/Combustion
3.4 Chemical Reaction and Separation
3.5 Oxidation/Digestion
3.6 Physical Separation (specific
gravity, magnetic, etc.)
4. FINAL DISPOSAL
4.1 Pond Lining
4.2 Deep Well Injection
4.3 Burial and Landfill
4.4 Sealed - Contained Storage
4.5 Dilution (water)
4.6 Dispersion (air, land)
5. PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
5.1 Feedstock Changes
5.2 Stream Recycle
5.3 Process Design Improve-
ments
6. COMBUSTION MODIFICATION
6.1 Furnace Modifications
6.2 Optimum Burner/Furnace
Design
6.3 Alternate Fuels/Processes
6.4 Fuel Additives
7. FUEL CLEANING
7.1 Physical Separation
7.2 Chemical Refining
7.3 Carbonization/Pyrolysis
7.4 Treatment of Liquid Fuels
7.5 Fuel Gas Treatment
8. FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CONTROL
8.1 Surface Coatings/Covers
8.2 Vegetation
8.3 Miscellaneous Methods of
Control
8.4 Leak Prevention
8.5 Vapor Recovery Systems
8.6 Ballast Water Treatment
9. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE
TECHNOLOGY
9.1 Spill Prevention in Storage
9.2 Spill Prevention in Transpor-
tation
9.3 Spill Prevention in Oil & Gas
Production
9.4 Flares
9.5 Spill Cleanup Techniques
68
-------
The largest section of the MECEH will include a data sheet for each
control technology listed in the Table of Contents.
The general index will list devices, manufacturers, specific pollu-
tants, and other key words.
The only significant complications were associated with developing the
standardized specific device data sheet and the preparation of a Table of
Contents that contains all commercially available control technologies.
1.6.3 Baseline Methodology for Effluent Control Options: Textile Indus-
try Example
REFERENCE: Monsanto Research Corporation, Source Assessment:
Textile Plant Wastewater Toxics Study: Phase I,
EPA-600/2-78-004H, March 1978.
The Chemical Processes Branch (CPB) of IERL/RTP wanted to generate data
to be used to determine the best available technology economically achievable
(BATEA) for wastewaters from the textile industry. To this end, CPB imple-
mented two projects: (1) a jointly funded project with the American Textile
Manufacturer's Institute (ATMI) and (2) a special project on CPB's source
assessment program. The objective of the EPA/ATMI grant study is to provide
assistance in determining the BATEA for criteria water pollutants. This
project is divided into two parts: a technical study to determine the best
available technology, and an economic study to determine the costs of various
technologies.
The objectives of the second project are to evaluate the toxicity of
textile secondary effluents, the removal of toxicity by the BATEA systems,
the removal of the 129 priority pollutants established by EPA from the con-
sent decree, and the new wastewater sampling and analysis protocols estab-
lished by EPA.
This summary deals primarily with the implementation and evaluation of
new EJ>A sampling, chemical analysis, and bioassay protocols (Level 1). This
evaluation was conducted by the Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC) for EPA
and is summarized in figure 16.
Several pilot-scale BATEA systems are being evaluated to determine
their performances. The units are located in a mobile unit to enable various
wastewaters from a variety of point sources to be treated. The impact of
each treatment system can then be evaluated for a standard plant waste
stream. 59
-------
MRC/EPA Wastewater
Toxicity Study:
Phase I: Screening
Collect Secondary Effluent Samples
from Each of the 24 Plants
Perform Analyses
Bioassays
Priority
Pollutants
Level 1 Chemical
Analysis
Evaluate Analytical Procedures
and Make Recommendations
for Improvement
Prioritize Plants
Based on Bioassay Toxicity Data
Select the Plants which have
Secondary Effluents Sufficiently
Toxic to Evaluate the Effect
of BAT Systems
figure 16. MRC/EPA wastevwter toxidty study plan.
70
-------
Raw wastewater and secondary effluent samples were collected from each
of 24 selected textile plants. Each sample was analyzed using the following
tests:
Microbial Mutagenicity (Ames Test)
Terrestrial Ecology-Soil Microcosm
Freshwater or Marine Bioassays
Acute Toxicity Tests on Rats
After performing the analyses, MRC evaluated Level 1 analytical proce-
dures and made its final recommendations in December 1977.
Based on bioassays, Level 1 chemical analyses, and analyses for the 129
priority pollutants, the textile plants were prioritized. Using this ranking,
MRC and EPA selected the plants which have secondary effluents that are
sufficiently toxic to justify additional testing. The objective of this
testing was the determination of whether or not BAT processes remove the
toxic character of the waste.
71
-------
1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
1.7.1 Source Analysis Models (SAM's)
REFERENCES: L. M. Schalit and K. J. Wolfe, SAM/IA: A Rapid
Screening Method for Environmental Assessment of
Fossil Energy Process Effluents. EPA-60Q/7-78-015.
February 1978.
L. B. Anderson, M. A. Herther, and R. J. Milligan,
SAM/I: An Intermediate Screening Method for En-
vironmental Assessment of Fossil Energy Process
EffTuents (Draft). Contract No. 68-02-2160. pre-
pared by Acurex Corp. for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, IERL, June 1978.
Three different models are being developed: SAM/IA for rapid screening,
SAM/I for screening, and SAM/II for regional site evaluation.
SAM's can be used to do one or more of the following:
rank sources and effluent streams
establish Level 2 and Level 3 sampling and analysis priorities
determine problem pollutants and pollutant priorities
determine which control technology options are the most effective
determine the need for control/disposal technology development
Workbook formats and standard forms will be generated for each model.
The Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEG's) being developed by RTI are em-
ployed. The primary use of the models will be in environmental assessment
source evaluations that are conducted by the Energy Assessment and Control
Division (EACD) of IERL. Figure 17 details key characteristics and rela-
tionships of the models. At present the models utilize only chemical data;
later ones may utilize bioassay data, also.
1.7.1.1 SAM/IA
SAM/IA is based on effluent concentrations, uses only one potential
assessment alternative (the MATE, Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluent), does not
include transformation analysis, and includes only degree of hazard and
toxic-unit discharge calculations.
Development of applications for SAM/IA will emphasize: (1) interpre-
tation of Level 1 results by determining maximum potential "degree of hazard"
and "toxic unit discharge rates (TUDR)," utilizing only the MATE'S for the
most hazardous substance in each MEG compound category, primary emphasis
72
-------
SAM/IA
(Rapid Screening)
No Transport/
Transformation
MEGs: MATE Only
CO
Effluent
Stream
Concentration
SAM/I
(Screening)
Crude Transport/
Transformation
Analysis
MEGs: Add Other
Assessment
Alternatives
SAM Output
SAM/11
(Regional Site Evaluation)
Ambient Pollutant
Concentration
— Site-Specific
Transport/
Transformation
— Cross-Media Impacts
MEGs: All Alternatives
Population Exposure
Other Site-Specific
Factors
Hazard/Impact Factors
Goal Comparisons
Effluent Stream Ranking
Figure 17. Relationship of various SAM's to SAM output.
-------
being on guidance for further sampling and analysis; and (2) interpretation
of Level 2 results to determine potential "degree of hazard" and TUOR. Com-
parability with bioassay results should only be attempted when Level 2
chemical data are available.
The key steps of the SAM/IA procedure are shown in figure 18 and are
outlined below:
1. Identify specific sources within the overall system or process.
2. Identify the various effluent streams from each source.
3. Determine the concentration of each pollutant to be considered in
each effluent stream.
4. Each pollutant concentration in a given stream is divided by the
health-based MATE(s) for that pollutant. This quantity is re-
ferred to as "degree of hazard (H)". This is also done for the
ecological MATE.
5. Flags are noted on the form for all H's that exceed unity.
6. The final calculation for each pollutant in each stream takes the
product of its H and effluent stream flow rates to establish
health (or ecological) toxic unit discharge rates (TUDR) for
each pollutant in the stream.
7. The total stream hazard is calculated as the sum of the H's for
each pollutant in the stream. The total TUDR is also calculated
as a sum over all pollutants.
8. Steam hazards and TUDR's are grouped and summed by discharge
media.
Ordinarily, SAM/IA will be used for rapid screening of the difference
between an uncontrolled process and the results of the application of vari-
ous control options. Consequently, it will be applied to confined or ducted
sources.
In order to make the most efficacious use of SAM/IA it is important
that users understand the following assumptions:
The substances on the MEG list that are potential components of an
effluent stream are the only ones that need to be included.
It is assumed that such dispersion from the source to a receptor
would, in almost all cases, be equal to, or greater than, the
74
-------
-xl
01
Determine Pollutant Concentration
In Each Effluent Stream — C|fc
I = pollutant
k = stream
Choose MATE Basis, I.e., Health
or Ecological
Compare C|j to MATE MEGs;
Obtain Hazard Factor
H|k =
Clk
(C|k)
MATE
Calculate Degree of Hazard For
Each Effluent Stream
Hk =
Calculate Toxic Unit Discharge
Rate For Each Effluent Stream
Hk x Qk/N
i
Qk = stream flowrate
N = number of pollutants
Rank Streams According
To Impact
Compute Total Plant Effluent
Stream Discharges By Media
Use Results for Decisions
• Control Option Priorities
• Control Needs
• Additional Sampling
Figure IB. SAM/I A procedure.
-------
safety factors normally applied to acute (short-term exposure)
toxicity data to convert them to estimated safe, low-level,
longer-term chronic ambient exposure levels.
The MATE values (or the basic data they were developed from) are
adequate.
No synergistic effects occur.
1.7.1.2 SAM/I
Characteristics of SAM/I relative to other SAM's include the following:
Based on simple, non-site-specific relationships between ambient
concentration and effluent concentrations using a dilution
factor approach
Allows several potential assessment alternatives based on the
different MEG's
Includes simple models for transformation analysis that are not
site-specific
Includes degree of hazard/TUDR calculations.
SAM/I can be used to calculate the allowed effluent concentrations of
each pollutant species in a stream from ambient MEG values and to compare
actual effluent concentrations to the acceptable concentrations to calculate
a degree of hazard (H).
Required input data are the same as with SAM/IA: source type, effluent
concentrations, and effluent stream flow rates. However, in SAM/I a dilu-
tion factor, F, is chosen as appropriate to the source category. This
dilution factor is used to relate ambient concentration-based MEG values to
allowed effluent concentrations, and thereby allow calculating pollutant
species' degrees of hazard:
H _ effluent concentration
MEG x F
The toxic unit discharge rate for a given pollutant in a given stream is
defined (as in SAM/IA) as the product of H and the effluent stream flow
rate.
This procedure applies to all effluent stream types—gaseous, liquid,
and solid—with stated decision criteria for choosing appropriate dilution
factors. For gaseous streams source type and source size, determine F. For
76
-------
liquid and solid discharges the dilution factor is specified by the type of
interaction between the effluent stream and the receiving body (e.g., dis-
charge to surface water, ground water, or deep well injection).
It should be emphasized that the SAM/I methodology is still undergoing
development and refinement in both approach and detailed procedures. Thus,
the above discussion should be considered only qualitatively descriptive of
the final model form.
1.7.1.3 Extended SAM/I
A SAM/I-like model is being refined to include background ambient
concentrations in hazard factor calculations. In this case the hazard
factor is equal to the ratio of maximum ground level pollutant concentra-
tions from a source plus background concentration to the MEG for the par-
ticular pollutant. This extended SAM/I model will also include impact
factor calculations and urban/rural source density and population exposure
differences.
1.7.1.4 SAM/II
The needs for a regional site evaluation SAM are being evaluated, and
available techniques are being compiled. The Source Assessment Methodology
discussed in Section 1.7.2 may be utilized directly or adapted for SAM/II.
Currently, only a preliminary outline of the form of the SAM II model has
been prepared.
1.7.2 Source Assessment Methodology
REFERENCE: R. W. Serth, T. W. Hughes, and R. E. Opferkuch,
Source Assessment: Analysis of Uncertainty, Vol-
ume I: Principles and Applications, EPA-600/2-77-
107, November 1977.
A "source" is defined as an entire industry or commercial operation
that is national in scope. An "assessment" of that source determines the
extent and potential hazard of industry emissions based on all available
process, emissions, and control technology information.
Figure 19 details the steps in performing a source assessment. The
final Source Assessment Document (SAO) includes sampling and analysis re-
sults, engineering information, health effects data, and atmospheric dis-
persion information.
77
-------
WORK PLAN
PRELIMINARY SOURCE
ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT
FIELD SAMPLING
SOURCE ASSESSMENT
DOCUMENT
(SAD)
: MRC PRODUCT
EPA DECISION
EMISSIONS REDUCTION
Figure 19. Steps in performing a source assessment.
78
-------
EPA makes a decision on the need for development of additional pollu-
tion control technology based on the SAD. In arriving at a decision, EPA
has the following concerns:
Is the decision correct?
What impact does data quality have on the correctness of the
decision?
Which information areas have the greatest impact on correct EPA
decisions?
What can be done to improve the decision criteria?
EPA's criteria for determining the best decision that will achieve
emissions reduction include the following:
Major Decision Criteria Minor Decision Criteria
Source Severity • Emissions Growth Trends
National Emissions Burden • Affected Population
States' Emissions Burdens • Affected Population
These criteria are discussed in the following paragraphs.
1.7.2.1 Source Severity
The source severity is based on the resultant maximum time-averaged
ground level concentration for each pollutant, which is calculated from
Gaussian plume dispersion theory for a continuously emitting elevated point
source.
y
s _ Exposure Concentration _ max
~ Potentially Hazardous Concentration ~ F
X = maximum time-averaged ground level pollutant concentration.
inaX
F = An "acceptable" pollutant concentration (This may be a Primary
Ambient Air Quality standard for criteria pollutants or an equiva-
lent value for noncriteria pollutants utilizing threshold limit
values and appropriate conversion factors.)
If S = Xmax > 0.05, there is sufficient cause to develop additional
pollution control technology.
79
-------
V
If S = max < 0.05, there is insufficient cause to develop additional
F
pollution control technology.
1.7.2.2 National Emissions Burden
For a given source and given criteria pollutant, the national emissions
burden, NQ, is defined as follows:
M
M = annual mass emissions of given criteria pollutant from the
p given source type
M = annual mass emissions of given pollutant from all stationary
sources nationwide
In practice, the above equation is calculated as follows:
(CAPT)(EFR)
N = ! —
B MNEDS
CAPj = total production capacity of source type
EFp = representative emission factor for source type
K.EDS = estimate of M obtained from the 1972 National Emissions
report
Z M
If NQ = _ Mp x 100 > 0.1, then additional pollution control technology
n
Z M
should be developed. If ND = , u" x 100 < 0.1, then no further pollution
B Z Mn
control technology development is required.
1.7.2.3 States' Emissions Burdens
For states' emissions burdens,
5 M
s _ Mass of An Industry's Emissions in a State _ p_s
B = Mass of All Industries' Emissions in a State Z M
80
-------
_ M
If Sg = - E- x 100 > 1.0, additional pollution control technology is needed.
I M
x 100 < 1.0, no further development is needed at this time.
1.7.2.4 Minor Decision Criteria
Emissions Growth Trends (G) are defined as the ratio of future emission
rates to present emission rates. The affected population is the number of
people exposed to a potentially hazardous environment. These factors are
used to determine priorities only where a problem source has been established
from the major decision criteria.
1.7.3 Defined Research Data Base for Standards
REFERENCE: R. P. Hangebrauck, Director, Energy Assessment and
Control Division, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationships of IERL/RTP Standards Develop-
ment Support R&D to the steps the EPA program offices take in developing
standards. Three key information transfer documents will be generated by
IERL for the Administrator and all Program Offices:
A Standards Support Plan for each energy technology (e.g., syn-
thetic fuels from coal), outlining the schedule for producing a
Pollution Control Guidance Document for technology areas and
Environmental Assessment Reports on each of several specified
energy technologies for use by all EPA Program Offices and taking
into consideration mutual schedules. Information covered includes
a definition of the technologies covered, projected development
and application, requirements of the EPA Acts, EPA plans for
regulatory activities, EPA research and development activities,
and EPA Program Offices' views on R&D data needs.
A Pollution Control Guidance Document for each energy technology
area or subarea (e.g., low-Btu coal gasification) summarizing
EPA's predicted regulatory mechanisms and control requirements
plus a description of pollutants and process sources, effects of
81
-------
known pollutants, existing pollution control technology and sug-
gested discharge limits, and applicable monitoring technology.
The identification of anticipated regulatory mechanisms and state-
ment of preliminary discharge limitations require input, partici-
pation, and concurrence by the EPA Program Offices.
An Environmental Assessment Report for each specified energy
technology at the commercial or demonstration stage (e.g., Lurgi
systems for low and medium Btu gas from coal), covering in depth
all environmental assessment information relevant to existing or
needed standards development summarized for each EPA Program
Office. The report will also include a description of processes/
systems that can make up the technology, the status of development
and projected national application; process areas of environmental
concern, and the present and proposed environmental requirements.
The major sections of the report will generally be organized to
cover each Program Office area separately, as well as multimedia
integration. Major sections will include characterization of
input materials, products, and waste streams; performance and cost
of control alternatives; identification of the most effective
control alternatives; analysis of regulatory requirements and
environmental impacts; and a summary of needs for additional data
to support standards development, enforcement, effects R&O, and
control technology R&O.
Figure 20 shows an illustration of the approach for synthetic fuels
from coal-based energy technologies. Table 10 gives an example of a Standards
Support Plan (SSP) outline for technologies that produce synthetic fuels
from coal. Table 11 is an outline of an Environmental Assessment Report
(EAR) for Lurgi systems for producing low- and medium-Btu gas from coal.
82
-------
A Standards Support Plan summarizes and integrates
the status of all EPA media standards development
for the Synthetic Fuels from Coal Technology Area
and outlines EPA's schedule for producing Environ-
mental Assessment Reports on each of several prior-
ity Synfuel energy technologies for use by all Pro-
gram Offices, taking into consideration mutual
schedules. Examples of priority Synfuel technologies
which would be specified for generation of individual
Environmental Assessment Reports are as follows:
• Coal Gasification Technologies
Lurgi Systems for Low- and
Medium-Energy Gas from
Coal
00
CO
— Wellman Galusha Systems for
Low- and Medium-Btu Gas
Coal Liquefaction Technologies
— KoppersTotzek/FisherTropsch
for Producing Synthetic
Petroleum
— Solvent-Refined Coal
Environmental Assessment Report for Lurgi Systems for Low- and
Medium-Energy Gas from Coal
Provides the Administrator, Program Offices, and Policy and Plan-
ning with a recognized, authoritative document representing
OR&D's environmental assessment research input on standards
(supporting data, needs, alternatives) for a given energy technol-
ogy. The report provides a comprehensive, multimedia, multipol-
lutant data base and checklist of environmental facts concerning
the technology covered. Recognizing the evolutionary state of the
technologies and of environmental assessment methodology, the
report will be expanded, refined, and updated every 1 or 2 years as
needed for Agency purposes. Some key outputs are as follows:
• Process description of the Systems making up the
technology
• Characterization of Input Materials, Products, and
Waste Streams
• Performance and Cost of Control Alternatives
• Analysis of Regulatory Requirements and Environ-
mental Impacts by Media, with Regional Consider-
ations
• Summary of the Needs for Additional Data to
Support Standards Development, Enforcement
Health and Ecological Effects Research, and
Control Technology R&D
Figure 20. Illustration of approach for synthetic fuels from coal-based energy techniques.
-------
TABLE 10. STANDARDS SUPPORT PLAN FOR TECHNOLOGIES FOR PRODUCING
SYNTHETIC FUELS FROM COAL
1.0 INTRODUCTION (2-3 pages)
* 1.1 Purposes of the Standards Support Plan
* 1.2 Mechanisms for Preparing and Updating the Plan
1.3 Relationship to the Synfuels Environmental Assessments
2.0 DEFINITION OF THE TECHNOLOGIES (5-10 pages)
2.1 Coal Gasification Technologies
2.1.1 Overview and Generalized Flow Diagram
2.12 Coal Pretreatment Operations
2.1.3 Coal Gasification Operations
2.1.4 Gas Purification Operations
2.1.5 Conventional Technologies for Pollution Control
22 Coal Liquefaction Technologies
2.2.1 Overview and Generalized Flow Diagram
2.2.2 Coal Preparation Operations
2.2.3 Coal Liquefaction Operations
22A Products Separation Operations
22.5 Hydrotreating Operations
3.0 THE STANDARDS SUPPORT SCHEDULE (2-3 pages)
3.1 Description of the Schedule
*3.2 The Schedule
4.0 DISCUSSION OF THE STANDARDS SUPPORT SCHEDULE (10-15 pages)
*4.1 Projected Development of Synthetic Fuels Processes
4.1.1 Utility Applications
4.1.2 Non-Utility (Industrial/Commercial) Applications
*4.2 Requirements of EPA Acts
4.2.1 Clean Air Act
4.2.2 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
42.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
4.2.4 Toxic Substances Control Act
'4.3 EPA Plans for Regulatory Activities
4.3.1 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
4.3.2 Office of Water Planning and Standards
4.3.3 Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
4.3.4 Office of Toxic Substances
4.3.5 Office of Enforcement
4.3.6 Regional Offices
4.3.7 Radiation, Noise, and Other EPA Offices
4.3.8 Relationships to Other Regulatory Activities (NIOSH,
Mine Safety, etc.)
*See Notes
84
-------
TABLE 10. STANDARDS SUPPORT PLAN FOR TECHNOLOGIES FOR PRODUCING
SYNTHETIC FUELS FROM COAL (con.)
*4.4 EPA Research and Development Activities
4.4.1 Data Gathering
4.4.1.1 Tests at Government-Supported Facilities
4.4.1.2 Tests at Private Facilities
4.4.2 Environmental Reviews of Synfuels Technologies
4.4.2.1 Government-Supported Projects
4.4.2.2 Private Projects
4.4.3 Description of IERL/RTP Environmental Assessment Reports
*4.5 Program Offices' Views of R&D Data Needs
5.0 APPENDICES (1-2 pages)
5.1 References for Further Detail on Technologies
5.2 References for Further Detail on Regulatory Plans
5.3 EPA Persons Involved in Synfuels Assessment, Standards.
and Enforcement
NOTES
1.1 This section should describe the purposes briefly; for example, as follows:
• to briefly describe the technical and economic information that ORD (IER U
RTP) can provide to support standards that may result from any of the EPA
legislative Acts;
• to establish a time schedule for transmitting this information to the standards-
setting and enforcement offices in EPA;
• to serve, at least initially, as a negotiating document between IER L RTP and
the program and regional offices for determining what information is to be
developed by OR&D for standards support, and in what time frame. Eventu-
ally, the Agency may want to publicize the plan for the benefit of developers
and users of synthetic fuels technologies.
1.2 The proposed mechanism is as follows: IERL/RTP would prepare the first version
of the plan. It would reflect OR&D feelings on priorities among the various tech-
nologies; OR&D's understanding of the data needs of the program offices; and
OR&D's understanding of the various offices' (including regional offices') plans
for standards and enforcement. This first version of the Standards Support Plan
would then be circulated to the program offices (or perhaps to a committee that
includes their representatives) for comment. Several iterations of the plan (each
prepared by IERL/RTP, or jointly with the committee members) may be required
before final agreement. Thereafter, periodic revisions would undoubtedly be needed
to accommodate changes in policies or technology development trends.
3.2 This section would consist of a fold-out time chart showing:
• estimated timing of the development, demonstration, and commercialization
of various synthetic fuels processes
85
-------
TABLE 10. STANDARDS SUPPORT PLAN FOR TECHNOLOGIES FOR PRODUCING
SYNTHETIC FUELS FROM COAL (con.)
• requirements of EPA Acts that may apply to synthetic fuels plants
• major ORD milestones and transmittals of key data to the program offices
• best current estimates of the type and timing of EPA standards for various
types of synthetic fuels technologies
4.1 This section would present lERL/RTP's best estimates of the rate of development
and commercialization of various coal gasification and liquefaction processes. To
the extent possible, distinctions would be made between developments for gas or
electric utilities, industrial or commercial fuels, and industrial chemical feedstock
applications.
4.2 A very brief explanation of key requirements of the EPA Acts that may influence
the nature or timing of standards, as depicted on the schedule in Section 3.2.
4.3 Very brief explanations of milestones for standards shown on the schedule; infor-
mation based on discussions between the various program offices and IER L/RTP
(or IERL contractors).
4.4 Brief but explicit discussions of the ORD milestones and data shown on the stand-
ards support schedule.
4.5 Brief but explicit guidance on the kinds of data needed from IER L/RTP to sup-
port standards. Prepared in the same manner as Section 4.3.
86
-------
TABLE 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT-LURGI SYSTEMS FOR
PRODUCING LOW- AND MEDIUM-Btu GAS FROM COAL1"
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables
'Nomenclature
•1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Overview of Lurgi Gasification Systems
1.2 Waste Streams and Pollutants of Major Concern
1.3 Status of Environmental Protection Alternatives
1.4 Data Needs and Recommendations
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION OF LURGI GASIFICATION SYSTEMS
2.1 Technical Overview of Lurgi Systems
2.1.1 Status of Development
*2.1.2 Industrial Applicability of Lurgi Systems
2.1.3 Input Materials, Products, and By-products
2.1.4 Energy Efficiencies
2.1.5 Capital and Operating Costs
2.1.6 Commercial Prospects
*2.2 Description of Processes
2.2.1 Generalized Process Flow Diagram
2.2.2 Coal Pretreatment
2.2.3 Coal Gasification
2.2.4 Gas Purification
2.2.5 Auxiliary Processes
*2.3 Process Areas of Current Environmental Concern
2.3.1 Coal Pretreatment
2.3.2 Coal Gasification
2.3.3 Gas Purification
2.3.4 Auxiliary Processes
•3.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF INPUT MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, AND
WASTE STREAMS
*3.1 Summary of Sampling and Analytical Activities
3.1.1 IERL/RTP Environmental Assessment Activities
3.1.2 Non-IERL/RTP Site Evaluations
*3.2 Input Materials
3.2.1 Coal Pretreatment and Handling
3.2.2 Coal Gasification
3.2.3 Gas Purification
3.2.4 Auxiliary Processes
*3.3 Process Streams (same format as Section 3.2)
See footnotes at end of Table
*See Notes
87
-------
TABLE 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT-LURGI SYSTEMS FOR
PRODUCING LOW- AND MEOIUM-Btu GAS FROM COAL* (con.)
*3.4 Toxic Substances in Products and By-products (same format as Section 3.2)
•3.5 Waste Streams to Air (same format as Section 3.2)
•3.6 Waste Streams to Water (same format as Section 32)
*3.7 Waste Streams to Disposal Sites (same format as Section 32)
4.0 PERFORMANCE AND COST OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
*4.1 Procedures for Evaluating Control Alternatives
*42 Air Emissions Control Alternatives
4.2.1 Coal Pretreatment and Handling
4.2.2 Coal Gasification
4.2.3 Gas Purification
4.2.4 Auxiliary Processes
*4.3 Water Effluent Control Alternatives (same format as for Section 4.2)
*4.4 Solid Waste Control Alternatives (same format as for Section 4.2)
*4.5 Toxic Substances Control Alternatives
*4.6 Summary of Most Effective Control Alternatives
4.6.1 For Emissions Control
4.6.2 For Effluents Control
4.6.3 For Solid Wastes Control
4.6.4 For Toxic Substances Control
•4.7 Multimedia Control Systems
4.8 Regional Considerations Affecting Selection of Alternatives
4.9 Summary of Cost and Energy Considerations
5.0 ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
*5.1 Environmental Impact Methodologies
5.1.1 Multimedia Environmental Goals
5.1.2 Source Analysis Models
5.1.3 Bioassay I nterpretations
5.2 Impacts on Air
'5.2.1 Summary of Air Standards and Guidelines
'5.2.2 Comparisons of Waste Streams with Emissions Standards
*5.2.3 Impacts on Ambient Air Quality
*5.2.4 Evaluation of Unregulated Pollutants and Bioassay Results
5.3 Impacts on Water
5.3.1 Summary of Water Standards
5.3.2 Comparisons of Waste Streams with Effluent Standards
5.3.3 Impacts on Ambient Water Quality
5.3.4 Evaluation of Unregulated Pollutants and Bioassay Results
See footnotes at end of Table
'See Notes
-------
TABLE 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT-LURGI SYSTEMS FOR
PRODUCING LOW- AND MEDIUM-Btu GAS PROM COAL1" (con.)
5.4 Impacts of Land Disposal
5.4.1 Summary of Land Disposal Standards
5.4.2 Comparisons of Waste Streams with Disposal Standards
5.4.3 Evaluation of Unregulated Pollutants and Bioassay Results
5.5 Product Impacts
5.5.1 Summary of Toxic Substances Standards
5.5.2 Comparisons of Product Characterization Data with Toxic
Substances Standards
5.5.3 Evaluation of Unregulated Toxic Substances and Bioassay Results
5.6 Radiation and Noise Impacts
5.7 Summary of Major Environmental Impacts
5.7.1 Air Impacts
5.7.2 Water Impacts
5.7.3 Impacts of Solid Wastes
5.7.4 Impacts of Toxic Substances
5.7.5 Other Impacts (Noise, Radiation, Land Use)
5.8 Siting Considerations for Gasification Plants
6.0 SUMMARY OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL DATA
6.1 Data Needs
6.1.1 To Support Standards Development and Enforcement
6.1.2 To Support Effects and Control Technology R&D
6.2 Data Acquisition by Ongoing Environmental Assessment Activities
7.0 APPENDICES
*7.1 Glossary of Environmental Assessment Terms
7.2 References
7.3 Etc. Other Appendices as Appropriate
* These reports will be prepared for selected energy systems, and updated to reflect
significant changes in status of development or knowledge of environmental impacts.
Lurgi low- and medium-BTU systems have been used as an example to illustrate the
general outline of EA reports.
•NOTES
Nomenclature. A short (e.g., one-page) section defining key terms. Reference to
Section 7.1 for an expanded set of definitions.
1.0 An "executive" summary, aimed primarily at EPA regulatory offices, but presented
in a manner to also inform educated laymen in all fields having potential interest in
energy and the environment. Emphasis on objectives, key findings and conclusions,
and need (if any) for further environmental assessment work. Limited to about
20-30 pages. Liberal use of graphics; more sophisticated layout than for the remain-
der of the report. Available as a separate document, perhaps with multi-colored
printing.
89
-------
TABLE 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT-LURGI SYSTEMS FOR
PRODUCING LOW- AND MEOIUM-Btu GAS FROM COAL* (con.)
2.1.2 In addition to discussing where Lurgi systems might be used in industry, this sec-
tion should identify any EPA industrial source categories that would apply to Lurgi
installations.
2.2 Engineering descriptions of production and auxiliary- processes, with sufficient detail
for evaluation of waste stream control alternatives. Less detail for descriptions of
auxiliary processes involved in wastewater control and solids disposal. Master flow
diagram in Section 2.2.1 identifies all processes and waste streams, and serves as a
reference for the rest of the report.
2.3 Highlights of major known environmental problems. This section intended to balance
the process engineering discussions with a broad environmental perspective.
3.0 This chapter serves as a "hard-copy" data base, summarizing the best available infor-
mation on the physical, chemical, and biological effects characteristics of materials,
products, and waste streams associated with Lurgi gasification systems. Detailed
data from specific tests are to be stored in Environmental Assessment Data Systems
(EADS), and in limited-copy reports in project officer files.
3.1 This section describes sites and equipment (including operating conditions) sampled
by IER L/RTP and other organizations, but does not discuss the results (data) from
these activities.
3.2-3.7 These sections present the physical, chemical, and biological effects (bioassay)
data on a material-by-material, product-by-product, or stream-by-stream basis. Data
generated by both IER L/RTP and other organizations are compiled. Data on both
controlled and uncontrolled waste streams are presented; fugitive discharges are
covered as waste streams. All materials, products, and waste streams are tied back
to the master flow diagram in Section 2.2.1.
4.1 "Control alternatives" to include material changes, process modifications, and
waste stream treatment options. Evaluations to consider factors such as pollutant
reduction/prevention efficiency, cost, operating reliability, stage of development,
and results of analyses from Chapter 5.
4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Control alternatives to be evaluated should include: (a) those that
have been demonstrated on gasification plants; (b) those that have been demon-
strated on similar sources; and (c) those that are emerging (undemonstrated).
4.6 This section to summarize the results of Sections 4.2-4.5 for the control alternatives
that show the best balance of performance and cost, on a media-by-media basis.
4.7 This section intended for evaluation of plant-wide systems capable of controlling
waste streams to more than one medium.
5.1 A brief review of IER L/RTP environmental assessment methodologies, with reference
to basic reports.
5.2.1 Very brief review of existing or proposed standards that may be applicable to
Lurgi gasifiers.
5.2.2, 5.3.2, 5.4.2, 5.5.2 Comparisons of waste stream rates and compositions with
applicable discharge standards. Comparisons may be on a stream-by-stream basis,
or a plant-wide, as appropriate.
90
-------
TABLE 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT-LURGI SYSTEMS FOR
PRODUCING LOW- AND MEDIUM-Btu GAS FROM COAL1" (eon.)
5.2.3, 5.3.3 Projections of incremental ambient loadings by simplified environmental
transport models; and comparison with air, water, and land quality standards or
criteria.
5.2.4, 5.3.4, 5.4.3, 5.5.3 Interpretations of the degree of hazard presented by various
waste streams, using chemical composition data for unregulated pollutants and
results of bioassays.
7.1 An expanded glossary, covering all environmental assessment terms.
91
-------
SECTION 2.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on (1) consultation with IERL/RTP personnel, (2) contractor sug-
gestions, (3) the October 14-15, 1977, "Environmental Assessment Methodology
Meeting" held at EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and (4) the
February 13-14, 1978, meeting of the Environmental Assessment Steering Com-
mittee, the following discussion of additional research and/or coordination
that might be useful to the IERL environmental assessment methodology pro-
gram has been developed. These suggested approaches may not necessarily
reflect the opinion of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory or
of EPA.
• Current Process Technology Background
Expand efforts to develop a comprehensive set of nomenclature to
be utilized by all contractors in describing all energy technol-
ogies and environmental components.
Develop a uniform set of methods for defining capital and operat-
ing costs. These methods or guidelines should allow selection of
an approach based on the degree of accuracy desired and resources
available to develop the cost estimates.
• Current Environmental Background
Update Summary of Key Federal Regulations and Criteria for Multi-
media Environmental Control and add similar information for indi-
vidual states.
Collect more extensive information on the toxicological character-
istics of substances emitted from fossil energy process.
Speed up work to complete noncriteria ambient baseline data base.
Utilize IUPAC nomenclature to be compatible with MEG's.
Further fossil energy process data are needed for preparation of
environmental scale models of energy facilities. Consider a
center for study and comparison of facility siting models of the
various energy technologies for use by the interested public,
environmental scientists, and engineers.
92
-------
Environmental Objectives Development
Expand coverage on substances of concern on the MEG list.
Refine MEG EPC models to enhance effective utilization. This
applies especially to those related to carcinogenicity, land, etc.
Set up means for automatically flagging data needs from the EPA
health and ecological research labs to support MEG's development.
Accelerate application of the MEG concept to microorganism, noise,
nonionizing radiation, radionuclides, water-related physical
factors, and land-related physical factors.
Define relationship of bioassay protocol results to MEG models.
Apply a number coding system to all MEG substances.
Environmental Data Acquisition
Concentrate efforts on means of reducing Level 2 analytical load
and cost by taking advantage of existing toxicity data for sub-
stances of concern.
Do more Level 1 to Level 2 test cases.
Consider and test out methods for integrating bioassays and chem-
ical analysis procedures; for example, fractionation of sample
before applying bioassay.
Accelerate efforts to refine the Level 1 bioassay protocol and
define and develop a Level 2 bioassay protocol.
Develop specific auxiliary Level 1 or Level 2 procedures for
evaluating the presence of certain classes of compounds not pres-
ently covered by Level 1.
Continue to develop the Environmental Assessment Data System
(EADS) including integration of the to-be-developed Gaseous Emis-
sions Data System (GEDS), the Liquid Effluents Data System (LEDS),
and the Solid Waste Effluent Data System (SWEDS) with the already
developed Fine Particle Emissions Information System (FPEIS).
Control Technology Assessment
Accelerate development of standardized laboratory procedures that
simulate control processes (control assays) and their use in
connection with Level 1 evaluation procedures.
Complete development of the Multimedia Environmental Control
Engineering Handbook. Review and refine technology classification
and prepare specific device data sheets for priority control
approaches first.
Environmental Alternative Analyses
Further refine and develop the Source Analysis Models (SAM's).
Integrate bioassay interpretation into SAM/IA: A Rapid Screening
Method for Environmental Assessment of Fossil Energy Process
Effluents.
93
-------
For SAM II, consider the applicability/comparability of the Source
Assessment Model as a means of regional site evaluation.
General
Increase level of effort being devoted to development of environ-
mental assessment methodology.
Provide specific contract support to assist in this area, espe-
cially for overall systems approaches related to the entire EA
area.
Maintain and increase a participatory involvement among all labor-
atory personnel who have an interest in environmental assessment
methodology development to help gain utilization and acceptance of
preferred approaches.
Initiate an Environmental Assessment Methodology Quarterly Review
to keep all parties both within and outside EPA better informed of
the latest sources of information on approaches, changes in ap-
proaches, dissemination of results from application, etc.
Conduct frequent meetings for project officers and contractors
involved in environmental assessment methodology development and
application.
Develop a comprehensive glossary of terms associated with environ-
mental assessment.
94
-------
SECTION 3.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Batten e. IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment,
Biological Tests for Pilot Studies. EPA-600/7-77-043. PB268-484/AS.
April 1977.
Catalytic, Inc. Process Technology Background for Environmental Assessment/
System Analysis Utilizing Fuel Oil. EPA-600/7-77-081. August 1977.
Cavanaugh, E. C. , W. E. Corbett, and G. C. Page. Environmental Assessment
Data Base for Low/Medium-Btu Gasification Technology, Volumes I and II,
prepared by Radian Corporation. EPA-600/7-77-125a-1256. NTIS-PB- 274843
and 4. November 1977.
Cleland, J. G. , and G. L. Kingsbury. Multimedia Environmental Goals for
Environmental Assessment: Volumes I and II. EPA-600/7-77-136a and
-136b. November 1977.
Oorsey, J. , L. Johnson, and R. Statnick. Environmental Assessment Sampling
and Analysis: Phased Approach and Techniques for Level 1. EPA-600/2-
77-115. PB268-563/AS. June 1977.
GCA. Environmental Assessment Perspectives. EPA-600/2-76-069. PB257-911/AS.
March 1976.
GCA. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Coal-Fired Fluidized-Bed
Combustion Systems. EPA-600/7-77-054. PB269-556/AS. May 1977.
Johnson, G. L. FPEIS Reference Manual. EPA-600/8-78-005. June 1978.
Mason, H. B. , et al. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Combustion
Modification Techniques: Volumes I and II. EPA-600/7-77-119a and
Mitre 'Corporation. Environmental Assessment Sampling and Analytical Strategy
Program. EPA-600/2-76-093a. PB261-259/AS. May 1976.
Mitre Corporation. Procedures Manual for Environmental Assessment of Fluidized-
Bed Combustion Processes. EPA-600/7-77-009. PB266-564/AS. January
1977.
Monsanto Research Corporation. Source Assessment: Textile Plant Wastewater
Toxics Study: Phase I. EPA-600/2-78-004H. March 1978.
95
-------
Research Triangle Institute. Environmental Assessment of Steel-making
Furnace Dust Disposal Methods. EPA-600/2-77-044. PB264-924/AS.
February 1977.
Rogoshewski, P. J., et al. Standards of Practice Manual for the Solvent
Refined Coal Liquefaction Process. EPA-600/7-78-091. June 1978.
Schalit, L. M., and K. J. Wolfe. SAM/IA: A Rapid Screening Method for
Environmental Assessment of Fossil Energy Process Effluents. EPA-600/
7-78-015. February 1978.
Serth, R. W., T. W. Hughes, and R. E. Opferkuch. Source Assessment: Analy-
sis of Uncertainty, Volume I: Principles and Applications. EPA-600/2-
77-107. November 1977.
Spaite, P. W., and G. C. Page. Low and Medium-Btu Coal Gasification Systems:
Technology Overview. EPA-600/7-78-016. March 1978.
Stone, R., and R. Kahle. Environmental Assessment of Solid Residues from
Fluidized-Bed Fuel Processing: Final Report. EPA-600/7-78-107. June
1978.
TRW. IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment. EPA-600/
2-76-160a. PB257-850/AS. June 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Who's Who IV in the Interagency
Energy/Environment R&D Program. EPA-600/9-78-002. June 1978.
96
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT
(Please read instructions on the reverse
DATA
before completing)
t. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-151
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Status of IERL-RTP Environmental Assessment
Methodologies for Fossil Energy Processes
5. REPORT DATE
July 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
John L. Warren
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORESS
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE623A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2612, Tasks 22 and 62
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final: 7/77-6/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES JERL-RTP project officer is Walter B. Steen, Mail Drop 61, 919/
541-2825.
16. ABSTRACT
The report summarizes the status of the following environmental assess-
ment (EA) methodologies: current process technology background, environmental
data acquisition, current environmental background, environmental objectives devel-
opment, control technology assessment, and environmental alternatives analysis.
After discussing the mechanism used to prepare the report, it reviews the need for
additional research in: basic research, analytical methods, environmental models,
and multimedia environmental goals. It suggests improvement in: contractor/EPA
coordination, coordination of EA methodology development with health effects
research, multimedia environmental goal coordination, dissemination of results .
and interaction with other agencies, tt includes a bibliography of all published
reports and drafts of lERL-RTP's EA methodology program.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Croup
Pollution
Assessments
Fossil Fuels
Energy Conversion
Techniques
Environmental Biology
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Environmental Assess-
ment
Health Effects
13B
14B
2LD
10A
06F
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tins pagei
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (3-73)
97
------- |