CD A U-S- Environmental Protection Agency Industrial Environmental Research
ti f\ Office of Research and Development Laboratory
Research Triangle^ark, North Carolina 27711
EPA-600/7-78-025
February 1978
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF HIGH-BTU GASIFICATION:
ANNUAL REPORT
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into 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: .
> .. --- -s . .
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-600/7-78-025
February 1978
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF HIGH-BTU GASIFICATION:
ANNUAL REPORT
by
M. Ghassemi and C. Murray
TRW, Inc.
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
Contract No. 68-02-2635
Program Element No. EHE623A
EPA Project Officer: William J. Rhodes
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PREFACE
A survey of the recoverable fossil fuel reserves of the United States has
revealed that in terms of gross heat value, coal represents a full 77 percent;
crude oil, 4.5 percent, and natural gas, 3.5 percent. This information not-
withstanding, economic (and more recently, enviro-economic) pressures have,
over the past 25 years, promoted the inverse in terms of demand preferences.
Thus, with the total national demand for fossil fuels growing during that
period by 90 percent, the demand for nonmetallurgical coal experienced only a
9 percent growth while natural gas and crude oil demand grew by 260 and 71
percent, respectively, thereby outstripping domestic supply capacity.
National attention was focussed on this supply/demand disparity and on the
now-measurable lifetimes of the domestic crude oil and natural gas resource
bases by the OPEC embargo of 1973. The reaction to the impending crisis
heralded by the embargo was the formation of the Energy Research and Develop-
ment Administration (ERDA), to provide this organization with the funding and
authority to explore and develop all types of energy conversion and utilization
systems and to make policy recommendations regarding our national energy future.
Among the first actions taken by ERDA was the segmentation of the energy
future into individually addressable near-, mid-, and far-term intervals. The
ERDA program for the near-term interval, into which the period of this contract
falls, is characterized by the development of improved fossil fuel recovery
techniques; preferential consumption of the more plentiful fossil resources;
conservation; fuel form conversion development, based upon the more abundant
resources; and research and development of new and renewable energy systems.
This program is, in a sense, at odds with the EPA program goals in that it
encourages and incentivizes the use of fuel forms which are known to have a
more severe environmental impact when consumed in conventional facilities. If
ERDA is successful in implementing this portion of the near-term program and
if all new source and facility conversions are accompanied by the installation
ii
-------
of approved control systems, the total national primary and secondary emissions
will still exceed the levels projected by EPA by a considerable margin. In
addition to expanded use of plentiful fuels in conventional facilities, however,
the ERDA program is supporting the development of fuel conversion technologies
in order to assure a supply of synthetic equivalents of the less abundant
fossil fuels for those consumer sectors which by nature are fuel form limited.
Further, there is considerable pressure within ERDA and the Congress to incen-
tivize the commercial use.of proven foreign conversion technologies in the U.S.
The EPA, foreseeing the need for reliable assessment estimates and predic-
tions, and for new or modified control methods and equipment as adjuncts to a
successful near-term ERDA program, has responded by greatly expanding its
ongoing energy assessment, control technology and applications technology
development program areas. Parallel EPA efforts, aimed at establishing similar
capabilities relative to renewable energy systems, improved or new fossil fuel
recovery techniques and conservation have also been initiated with completion
scheduled for the near-to-far-term intervals. The Environmental Assessment of
High Btu Gasification contract is a part of this expanded EPA program, dealing
specifically with the conversion of coal to substitute natural gas.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This 3-year program was initiated on 3 May 1977 with the dual objectives
of assessing environmental impacts associated with technologies for converting
coal to high Btu gaseous fuel, and to identify control technologies required to
reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts associated with commercial
facility operation. The program effort consists of: a) evaluation of existing
processes and environmental data and the data which are being generated by
other EPA/ERDA contractors working in related areas; b) acquisition of supple-
mentary data through sampling and analysis of process/waste streams at selected
gasification facilities; and c) environmental assessment and necessary process
engineering support studies.
Most of the effort to date has been in connection with the acquisition and
analysis of the data base, and the location of potential sites for field '
programs. A large number of pertinent background documents have been acquired.
Nine gasification processes have been selected for detailed analysis. A
"modular" approach has been chosen for analysis and presentation of data on
gasification, gas treatment, pollution control and integrated facilities.
Draft "gasification data sheets" have been prepared for some of the processes
considered. Preliminary discussions have been held with ERDA and a number of
private process developers to enlist their cooperation in identifying potential
sites for environmental sampling and in arranging for such sampling.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE ii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLES, FIGURES vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Program Objectives 1
1.2 Technical Approach 1
1.3 Work Areas and Tasks 2
1.4 Work Authorization Via Technical Directives 4
2. WORK STATUS AND PLANS 7
2.1 Current Process Technology Background 7
2.2 Current Environmental Background 8
2.3 Environmental Objectives Development 11
2.4 Environmental Data Acquisition 12
2.5 Control Technology Assessment 17
2.6 Control Technology Development Status 21
2.7 Environmental Alternatives Analysis 21
2.8 Technology Transfer 23
APPENDICES
A KOPPERS-TOTZEK GASIFICATION MODULE DRAFT DATA SHEETS 25
B TEXACO GASIFICATION MODULE DRAFT DATA SHEETS 47
C PRELIMINARY LISTING 'OF HIGH BTU GASIFICATION INPUT
MATERIALS (OTHER THAN COAL) 65
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Work Area A Task Descriptions 3
2 Work Area B Task Descriptions 5
3 Work Area C Task Descriptions 5
4 Technical Directives, Relevant Tasks, Issue Dates and
Performance Periods 6
5 Gas Purification Processes Selected for Detailed
Review g
6 Gas Upgrading Processes Selected for Detailed
Review 9
7 Outline for Acid Gas Treatment Module Data Sheets i
10
8 Potential Test Program Sites 13
9 Summary of Gas Stream Data 20
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Preliminary Program Schedule -j^
2 Expanded View of Gas Treatment Operation 19
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Assessment of High Btu Gasification Program was
initiated in May 1977 as a 3-year study and is being supported by the EPA-
IERL-RTP. The study will provide input to the EPA for developing and demon-
strating control technologies for emerging fuel conversion industries and for
establishing the technical basis for drafting new source performance standards
for high Btu gasification plants.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The three basic objectives of the High Btu Environmental Assessment effort
are as follows:
To characterize the waste streams associated with the operation
of commercial high Btu gasification facilities using current
and developmental conversion technologies.
To identify the control technology required to reduce or elimi-
nate waste discharges.
To estimate commercial-level environmental impacts at selected
sites.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
The technical approach selected for achieving the above program objectives
consists of a sequence of interrelated activities generally ordered as follows:
1} Generation of a gasification/gas upgrading, control technology
and impact assessment data baseline.
2) Definition of information gaps and deficiencies and areas for
productive application of engineering analysis.
3) Conduct of prioritized field sampling and analysis programs
aimed at filling data gaps and providing needed information.
4) Conduct of selected engineering analyses to supplement avail-
able process and control equipment information.
vii
-------
5) Integration of all information and data into impact assessment
and technology overview documents.
Considerable overlap and interaction between these activities is planned.
In addition, extensive technical interchange with other EPA Assessment,
Support and Control Technology Development contractors is underway and is
planned to continue for the duration of the program in support of all activities.
The program schedule is shown in Figure 1.
WORK STATUS AND PLANS
CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
Ten gasification systems have been selected for detailed analysis in this
study. Even though some of the gasification systems (e.g., Texaco and Koppers-
Totzek) are more suitable for low/medium Btu gas production, they have been
included in this program because they have features and processing steps similar
to those employed in the production of high Btu gas and because some of the
environmental data on these technologies can be utilized in the environmental
I
assessment of high Btu gasification.
As a first step toward detailed environmental assessment, the existing
process and environmental data on each of the ten processes are reviewed to
identify gaps in the existing data and to define additional data requirements.
A ''modular" approach and a "data sheet" format are being used for the analysis
and presentation of data on the gasification, processes considered. Draft
gasification data sheets have been completed for the Texaco, Koppers-Totzek,
Lurgi, Synthane, Hygas, Hydrane, COGAS, and Bigas processes. Work has been
initiated on the compilation and evaluation of background information on the
processes for the purification and upgrading of raw product gas from coal
gasification.
The activities planned for the immediate future will consist of continu-
ation of the effort to complete the draft data sheets for the gas purification
and upgrading processes. These draft data sheets will be forwarded to process
developers/licensors and appropriate technical "experts" for review and
comment. Comments and suggested revisions received will then be incorporated.
-------
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEWS
2. PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
3. INPUT MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATIONS
4. PROCESS ENGINEERING STUDIES
5. CONTROL TECHNOLOGY EVALUATIONS
(APPLICABILITY OF REFINERY CONTROLS
TO GASIFICATION)
6. ACCIDENTAL AND TRANSIENT POLLUTANT
RELEASES
7. NEW CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
8. REVISED IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
9. REVISED TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEWS
B. DATA ACQUISITIONS
1. SITE LOCATIONS AND INFORMATION
2. DATA POSSIBILITIES
3. TEST PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT
4. ESTIMATES OF COSTS
5. TESTING
6. DATA REPORTING
C. GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT
1 . BACKGROUND AND EVALUATI ONS
2. REPORTING AND COORDINATION
3. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
MONTHS FROM CONTRACT START
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4
f
M 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 !
i
-4 1
~~^t
|J
10
-
VH
m
11
!
i
12
-
|
13
-
_..
14
.
r-l
^
|-
15
-_
16
17
- L
i
_L
1
1---I
.-
18
I
i
-
19
i
4
i
-^_
20
21
:
22
23
...
.._
»
24
I
25
I-
_
j;
*
-i
--
--
26
27
1
j
h - J
28
29
1
-
30
31
-
I
|
1
1
32
33
|
H
i
34
1
±
35
m
36
d
J'
37
'
Figure 1. Preliminary Program Schedule
-------
The data sheets will provide the basis for the preparation of a Data Base
Report on gasification technology and associated operations.
CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
In preparing technical data sheets on gasification, gas purification and
gas upgrading operations, information is being compiled on the type and con-
centration of environmentally significant constituents in the various input,
intermediate and discharge streams.
In connection with control technology assessment activities ("Evaluation
of the Applicability of Petroleum Refining Controls to Gasification"
discussed later in this Section), major process/waste streams in petroleum
refining with likely counterparts in coal conversion have been identified.
For these waste/process streams composition data including health effects and
toxicity information are being compiled.
A plan for compilation of available characterization information on coal,
solvents, catalysts, acids, alkalis, limestone, water/waste treatment chemicals
and other input feedstock/chemicals used in coal gasification and associated
operations has been prepared and work is in progress. '
Planned activities include continuation of waste characterization and
collection of qualitative and quantitative data on environmentally significant
constituents in input materials and intermediate and discharge process/waste
streams. In connection with the input material characterization effort, it is
planned to prepare a "chemical profile data sheet" for each of the major
chemicals/feedstocks used or likely to be employed in connection with coal
conversion and related operations. The chemical profile data sheet may include
information on toxicity, environmental persistence, bioaccumulatability,
epidomiological data, occupational health standards and federal/state/local
emissions criteria.
ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT
TRW has performed no work in this general area to date. Future program
activities will include two related efforts in this area, namely the definition
of criteria for source and pollutant prioritization and the use of Source
Analysis Models (SAM's).
-------
Source Analysis Model (SAM) Applications
Level 1 chemical analyses will be conducted on each sample to determine
the concentration of the Level 1 compound classes. Multimedia environmental
goal (MEG) indices for many compounds and existing standards will be utilized
to judge the need for specific Level 2 analysis and to evaluate control needs
and options. The MEG indices, which are derived via permissible concentration
estimation methods or TLV's and LD5Q's, serve in place of standards in evalu-
ating environmental control effectiveness. Minimum acute toxicity effluent
(MATE) values are being established by EPA, based upon ecological and health
effects factors. These MATE values provide the signal for concern regarding
emission concentrations and quantities for the MEG compounds. Level 2 analyses
for MEG substances will be conducted in those cases where the effluent con-
centration could exceed the MATE value if the total quantity of compound
measured were the MEG substance and if it can be shown that the stream involved
has a counterpart in a domestic commercial operation. SAM applications will
involve only those MEG compounds which are shown by Level 2 analysis to be
above the level of concern, and will be carried out utilizing the SAM/IA model
which prescribes direct methods for calculation of the degree of hazard
(severity) and/or the toxic unit discharge rate.
Definition of Criteria for Source and Pollutant Prioritization
Several of these criteria will be direct outgrowths of the Level I/
Level 2 chemical analytical efforts, the SAM applications and the comparison
of MEG concentrations with corresponding MATE values. Others may be derived
from bioassay data, if authorized for this program by the EPA.
More subjective criteria will be necessary, however, in order to maximize
the return on future control technology R&D expenditures and to assure coipat-
ibility of control technology capabilities and conversion process implementation.
This listing of criteria will include such items as the state of process tech-
nology development; projected commercialization schedules; probable changes in
effluents resulting from continued development; and process variables impact
on effluents.
x1
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
Activities to date have largely involved tasks which are prerequisite to
the implementation of a field data acquisition effort. These are discussed
under topical headings in the following subsections.
Site Locations and Information
A continuing effort has been underway for several months to acquire test
site access right agreements for both commercial and developmental process
facilities. This effort includes a low Btu Koppers-Totzek site. An initial
survey of operational facilities revealed that a primary site, possessing
superior process equipment and/or control devices, exists for each priority
gasifier and that the secondary site(s), where available, leave much to be
desired in terms of equipment type and size as well as feed coal types.
Attention has therefore been focussed exclusively on the primary sites and the
steps which must be taken to gain access.
The dry-ash Lurgi and Koppers-Totzek facilities are, as stated above,
being contacted through the local process licensor offices. American-Lurgi
(A-L) was formally contacted with the TRW request in August; A-L then contacted
their main office in West Germany and received approval to assist in establish-
ing the program. TRW is now making direct contact with the plant operators
through A-L.
Existing Process Data
Published conversion and control process data are being collected and
organized by operational module as discussed earlier. To date, data has been
collected, organized and analyzed for all of the gasifier designs which are
being considered for field sampling activities; and work is in process on the
shift, methanation, gas purification and waste treatment modules. These data
will be reported in detail in the Data Base Analysis Report.
Test Program Development
The first of two planned levels of test program development is in process.
The first level, required as a starting point for detailed planning and inter-
action with plant operators, is quite general. The product plan will list the
xil
-------
data acquisition objectives, referring to simplified process flow diagrams, but
indicates in full detail the sampling and analytical methodologies to be
employed.
The product of the second level of test program development evolves from
the first and is site-, process- and process module-specific; it includes and
refers to a detailed plant layout, specifying streams and sampling access
locations, sample quantities, etc.
To date, a draft of the first level program is in preparation for a
Koppers-Totzek (K-T) facility. The U.S. K-T office personnel have agreed to
assist TRW in upgrading the program to site-specific quality.
Similar first level programs will be prepared for a Lurgi facility and
for the DOE-AGA pilot (and possibly Westfield) facilities following consumation
of an DOE access agreement.
Input Materials Characterization
Input materials of interest for high Btu gasification processes are being
characterized in data sheet format for inclusion in the program data base.
Information regarding U.S. coals is being obtained from the U.S. Geological
Survey; the Illinois State Geological Survey; and the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
This information is being supplemented by data acquired by TRW under a separate
EPA contract involving chemical cleaning (desulfurization) of coal.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
TRW's control technology assessment activities to date have been directed
at the comparison of refinery waste streams with conversion plant streams and
\
the evaluation of refinery control equipment and technology for application in
conversion facilities. The task is being conducted in four segments, as
follows:
1) Characterization of Refinery Process and Waste Streams.
2) Survey and Evaluation of Present Refinery Control
Technologies.
3) Characterization of Synfuels Process and Waste Streams.
4) Evaluation of Applicability of Refinery Control Technology
to Synfuels Processes.
-------
Accomplishments include the listing and collection of characterization
data on those refinery gaseous waste streams most likely to have synfuel
counterparts and collection of a portion of the control technology data appli-
cable to those streams. Synfuel waste stream data are being collected for
inclusion in the Program Data Base. Work is in process on the refinery liquid
and solid waste characteristics and on the applicable control technologies.
Process streams which have been preliminarily characterized as having
similarity to synthetic fuels process streams are the input stream to the
refinery gas recovery plant; its off-gas, which is the input stream to the
sulfur recovery plant; the off-gas from the sulfur recovery plant, which is the
input to the tail gas clean-up; and the gas stream released to the atmosphere.
Process streams from the individual refinery process units; e.g., hydro-
cracking, thermal cracking, vis-breaking, naphtha and gas oil hydrotreating,
hydrogen production, etc., are still under study for counterparts in synthetic
fuels upgrading.
ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Specific EPA requirements for TRW involvement in this area are under/
development. The following subsections present the activities and possible
approaches by TRW as segments of the ongoing program.
Selection and Application of Assessment Alternatives
Current TRW planning is directed at the use of Best Technology (BT) and
MATE values as the basis for most emission level assessments; ambient standards,
when available, will also be employed.
BT values (aimed at existing standards and developing technology capabil-
ities) will be established during the course of the program for the streams
of interest, based upon literature data and/or field test data. Present EPA
schedules indicate that MATE values will be established for the MEG list well
in advance of need.
Sources/Controls Ranking
As a result of TRW's activities in the Control Technology Assessment and
Control Technology Development areas and inputs from the EPA's Control
Technology Development contractors, ranking of control options versus sources
x1v
-------
will be possible. It is planned to structure this program product in matrix
format with affected media, class or type of pollutant, level of control
achieved, and cost of control as variables.
Uncontrolled Pollutants
As a consequence of the novelty of the conversion processes involved and
the layouts of the facilities to be sampled, it is expected that two types of
uncontrolled pollutants will be encountered.
The first, involving heretofore unknown/unclassified (and therefore
probably uncontrolled) pollutants are expected to be found in gaseous and
liquid waste as well as in the product/by-product streams. These compounds
are expected to be identified during GC/MS analysis. They will be quantified,
characterized and reported to EPA.
The second type of uncontrolled pollutants are the fugitive emissions,
which are likely to constitute a major part of the total gasification facility
emissions. Anticipation of these emissions stems from the close relationship
of the gasification facilities and processes to conventional coal cleaning, oil
refining and coke processing plants. Because these types of commercial facil-
ities have and are being characterized with respect to fugitive emissions, it
is expected that knowledge of these similarities with respect to: a) sources;
b) composition; and c) sampling/analytical techniques will be useful in
planning gasification assessment efforts.
Plant Type Ranking
No total facility ranking is planned or considered appropriate at this
time. TRW believes that plant type rankings should be made only when equiva-
lent, fully engineered and site-specific designs are available. As a part of
the program, however, TRW will generate and provide rankings of the various
control process module configurations and options and plans to rank on an
environmental basis those gasification process modules on which both scaleable
and comparable data are available.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
TRW's activities in this area have consisted of input to a quarterly news-
letter report and the preparation and submittal of monthly contractual reports.
xv
-------
Limited planning for the acquisition, handling and use of unpublished DOE and
DOE contractor data by EPA has been accomplished with DOE.
xv1
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Assessment of High Btu Gasification program was
initiated in May 1977, as a three-year study and is being supported by the
EPA-IERL as a part of the expanded energy program. The study will provide
input to the EPA for developing and demonstrating control technologies for
emerging fuel conversion industries and for establishing the technical basis
for drafting new standards for high Btu gasification plants.
1.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The three basic objectives of the High Btu Assessment effort are as
follows:
To characterize the waste streams associated with the operation
of commercial high Btu gasification facilities using current
and developmental conversion technologies;
To identify the control technology required to reduce or elimi-
nate waste discharges;
t To estimate commercial-level environmental impacts at selected
sites.
1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH
The technical approach selected for achieving the above program objectives
consists of a sequence of interrelated activities generally ordered as
follows:
1) Generation of a gasification/gas upgrading, control technology
and impact assessment data baseline.
2) Definition of information gaps and deficiencies and areas for
productive application of engineering analysis.
3) Conduct of prioritized field sampling and analysis programs
aimed at filling data gaps and providing needed information.
4) Conduct of selected engineering analyses to supplement avail-
able process and control equipment information.
1
-------
5) Integration of all information and data into impact assessment
and technology overview documents.
Considerable overlap and interaction between these activities is planned.
In addition, extensive technical interchange with other EPA Assessment,
Support and Control Technology Development contractors is underway and is
planned to continue for the duration of the program in support of all activities.
1.3 WORK AREAS AND TASKS
For planning purposes and to provide for effective program management,
the program has been divided into three Work Areas: Work Area A, Environ-
mental Assessment; Work Area B, Data Acquisitions; and Work Area C, General
Program Support. Brief descriptions of the work and activities planned for
each Work Area are presented in the following subsections. The program schedule
is shown in Figure 1.
1.3.1 Work Area A - Environmental Assessment
The overall objective of Work Area A is to assess the environmental
impacts associated with commercial scale high Btu gasification operations.
The basis of the environmental assessment will be: 1) the published literature
on gasification processes and related control technologies; 2) data which are
being generated by other EPA contractors working in related areas (e.g., low/
medium Btu gasification environmental assessment; coal liquefaction environ-
mental assessment, etc.); 3) data to be acquired from process developers and
government agencies; and 4) data to be generated in Work Area B through
environmental sampling at high Btu gasification sites, in Work Area A through
process engineering, and in Work Area C through support studies.
Work Area A has been subdivided into a total of nine interrelated tasks.
A listing and brief description of these tasks are presented in Table 1.
1.3.2 Work Area B - Data Acquisitions
To assure technical validity, the environmental assessment of high Btu
gasification will be based, as far as practicable, on actual process and
emissions data for existing commercial and pilot plant facilities. Since only
a limited amount of such data are currently available, considerable program
emphasis is placed on data acquisitions through comprehensive environmental
-------
TABLE 1. WORK AREA A TASK DESCRIPTIONS
Task
Description
Al - Technology Overviews
A2 - Impact Assessments
A3 - Input Material
Characterizations
A4 - Process Engineering
A5 - Control Technology
Evaluation
A6 - Accidental Transient
Pollutant Releases
A7 - New Control Technology
A8 - Revised Impact Assess-
ments
A9 - Revised Technology
Overviews
Overview report on status and technical/
environmental aspects of gasification
processes.
Preliminary impact assessments to identify
data needs.
Review of physical/chemical characteris-
tics of process input materials.
Material/energy balances and other engi-
neering analyses to characterize integra-
ted facilities, resolve data conflicts
and verify data accuracy.
Review of pollution control technologies
applicable to gasification.
Identification of potential sources and
nature and quantities of pollutant emis-
sions during accidents and transient
operations.
Conceptual designs of applicable new con-
trol technologies and in-plant changes,
and/or modifications of existing control
technologies.
Detailed environmental assessment incor-
porating the data generated in the
program.
Updated technology overviews, incorporat-
ing additional data and findings.
-------
sampling and analyses at selected pilot plant/commercial facilities. Reflect-
ing this emphasis, and for planning purposes, about 40 percent of the program
funds and manpower have been earmarked for data acquisitions. The sampling
and analysis program will be aimed primarily at generating data to fill some
of the gaps identified in Work Area A.
Work Area B has been subdivided into a total of six tasks as described
in Table 2.
1.3.3 Work Area C - General Program Support
Major activities in Work Area C include: 1) collection and maintenance
of background data on the technology and environmental aspects of high Btu
gasification including preparation and periodic updating of an ''analysis of
the data base" document; 2) performance of miscellaneous document reviews,
surveys and special studies on an "as required" basis to support program
activities in Work Areas A and B; and 3) providing program management and
control functions, including reporting to EPA and coordination with other EPA
contractors working in related areas. For planning purposes, Work Area C has
been subdivided into three tasks described in Table 3.
1.4 WORK AUTHORIZATION VIA TECHNICAL DIRECTIVES
To provide maximum program flexibility and to accommodate changes in
program emphasis which may become necessary as the program proceeds, a "Work
Package" approach is used by EPA to authorize work in a specific task or
elements of one or more tasks. The scope of the effort in each work package,
the level of effort and the performance period are specified in work authori-
zation "Technical Directives" (TD's) which are issued by the EPA Project
Officer. To date a total of nine TD's have been received authorizing work
under ten tasks. These TD's, the relevant tasks covered, the TD issue dates
and performance periods are listed in Table 4.
Because the program was initiated only six months ago and some of the ,
technical directives have been issued very recently, significant progress has
not been made in all of the TD's listed in Table 4. The work authorized under
TD 001, which consisted of preparation of a work plan and initial coordination
with other EPA contractors, has been completed. Most of the remaining effort
-------
TABLE 2. WORK AREA B TASK DESCRIPTIONS
Task
Description
Bl - Site Locations and
Information
B2 - Data Possibilities
B3 - Test Program
Development
B4 - Cost Estimates
B5 - Testing
B6 - Data Analysis and
Reporti ng
Identification of potential domestic and
foreign test sites and establishment of initial
contacts.
Test site screening and prioritization and iden-
tification of sampling opportunities.
Preparation of detailed sampling plan for
Level 1 environmental assessment for selected
sites.
Estimation of sampling/analysis costs.
field testing and laboratory analyses.
Reduction and evaluation of the test data.
TABLE 3. WORK AREA C TASK DESCRIPTIONS
Task
Description
Cl - Background and
Evaluations
C2 - Reporting and
Coordination
C3 - Program Management
Collection and evaluation of background engi-
neering/environmental data, and identification
of data gaps and conflicts; special studies/
surveys in support of program activities.
Preparation of reports and coordination with
EPA, EPA contractors and other agencies.
Program management including financial control
-------
TABLE 4. TECHNICAL DIRECTIVES, RELEVANT TASKS, ISSUE DATES
AND PERFORMANCE PERIODS
TD#
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
Title
Work Plan Preparation and
Coordination
Acquisition and Analysis
of the Data Base
Technology Overview
Process Engineering
Site Locations and Infor-
mati on
Program Management
Coordination and Reporting
Applicability of Petroleum
Refining Control to Gasifi-
cation and Other Synfuel
Processes
Data Possibilities
Preliminary Impact Assess-
ment
Input Material Character-
ization
Review and Evaluation
Relevant
Task(s)*
C-2
C-l
A-l
A-4
B-l
C-3
C-2
A-5
B-2
A-2
A-3
C-l
Date
Issued
5-3-77
6-22-77
6-22-77
6-22-77
6-22-77
7-18-77
8-23-77
8-23-77
8-25-77
Performance
Period
5 mo.
6 mo.
6 mo.
7 mo.
6 mo.
r
7 mo.
9 mo.
3 mo.
6 mo. ; ,
See Tables 1, 2, and 3 for task descriptions.
-------
in the program to date has been in connection with TD 002, Acquisition and
Analysis of the Data Base; TD 004, Site Locations and Information; and TD 005,
Program Management, Coordination and Reporting.
In the sections which follow, the status and future plans for the work
authorized under various TD's are briefly reviewed.
2. WORK STATUS AND PLANS
2.1 CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
2.1.1 Activities to Date
Ten gasification systems have been selected for detailed analysis in this
study. Even though some of the gasification systems (e.g., Texaco and Koppers-
Totzek) are more suitable for low/medium Btu gas production, they have been
included in this program because they have features and processing steps similar
to those employed in the production of high Btu gas and because some of the
environmental data on these technologies can be utilized in the environmental
assessment of high Btu gasification.
As a first step toward detailed environmental assessment, the existing
process and environmental data on each of the ten processes are reviewed to
identify gaps in the existing data and to define additional data requirements.
A "modular" approach and a "data sheet" format are being used for the analysis
and presentation of data on the gasification processes considered. The
modules which will be addressed are "gasification module", "gas treatment
module", "pollution control modul(e" and "integrated facilities". The data
sheet format used for information presentation highlights engineering "facts
and figures", allows ready comparison between different processes and under-
lines areas where significant gaps exist in the available data.
To date the first draft of the gasification data sheet has been completed
for eight of the ten processes considered (Texaco, Koppers-Totzek, Lurgi,
Synthane, Hygas, Hydrane, COGAS, and Bigas). The draft gasification data
sheets on the Texaco and Koppers-Totzek processes have been forwarded to the
process developers/licensors (Texaco Development Company, New York, N.Y.; and
Koppers Company, Pittsburgh, Pa.) for review and comment.
-------
Work has been initiated on the compilation and evaluation of background
information on the processes for the purification and upgrading of raw product
gas from coal gasification. Tables 5 and 6 list the processes which will be
reviewed as minimum in connection with gas purification and gas upgrading
modules, respectively. Table 7 presents an outline of the technical data
sheet which will be used for the presentation of process data for each of the
gas purification/upgrading processes listed in Tables 5 and 6. To date, the
first draft of the gas purification data sheets have been completed for the
Sulfinol and Seloxol processes.
2.1.2 Future Activities
The activities planned for the immediate future will consist of continu-
ation of the effort to complete the draft data sheets for the remaining
gasification and gas purification and upgrading processes. These draft data
sheets will be forwarded to process developers/licensors and appropriate
technical "experts" for review and comment. Comments and suggested revisions
received will then be incorporated in the data sheets. The data sheets will
provide the basis for the preparation of a data base/status report on the
gasification technology and associated operations. Pending a reasonable quick
response from the process developers/reviewers, it is anticipated that the
data sheet preparation effort will be completed within the next two months.
Based on the information gaps identified by the data sheets, appropriate plans
will be formulated for the generation of the needed data through environmental
sampling at selected gasification sites and through process engineering
support studies.
2.2 CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
2.2.1 Activities to Date
In preparing technical data sheets on gasification, gas purification and
gas upgrading operations, information is being compiled on the type and con-
centration of environmentally significant constituents in the various input,
intermediate and discharge streams. Major pollutants in process/discharge
streams for the Texaco and Koppers-Totzek processes for which quantitative
data have been reported are identified in the draft gasification data sheets
for these processes presented in the appendix.
8
-------
TABLE 5. GAS PURIFICATION PROCESSES SELECTED FOR DETAILED REVIEW
"Physical" Solvents Mixed Solvents
Rectisol Sulfinol
Selexol
Pun'sol Carbonate Solvents
Fluor Solvent Benfield
Ami sol Catacarb
Estasolvan Vetrocoke
Amine Solvents Redox Systems
MEA Alkazid
MDEA Stretford
DEA
ADIP Solid Bed
DGA Activated Carbon
Metal Oxides
Molecular Sieves
TABLE 6. GAS UPGRADING PROCESSES SELECTED FOR DETAILED REVIEW
Methanation Shift Conversion
Fixed Bed High Temperature
Conventional
Tube Wall Low Temperature
i Conventional
Fluid Bed Sulfur Tolerant
Liquid Phase
-------
TABLE 7. OUTLINE FOR ACID GAS TREATMENT MODULE DATA SHEETS
1.0 General Information
1.1 Operating Principles
1.2 Development Status
, - , /n , Coal Gasification
1.3 Licensor/Developer Petroleum Refining
1.4 Commercial Applications
Natural Gas
Coke Oven
Etc.
Properties, make-up
2.0 Process Information
2.1 Flow Diagram
2.2 Equipment
2.3 Feed Stream/Requirements (e.g., T, P, and contaminant limitations)
2.4 Operating Parameters (T, P, loading)
Absorption step
Regeneration step
Etc.
2.5 Process Efficiency and Reliability
2.6 Raw Material Requirements
Solvent/Reagents
Catalysts
Etc.
2.7 Utility Requirements
Steam
Electricity
Air/Oxygen
Hydrogen
Fuel
Etc.
2.8 Miscellaneous (maintenance, chemical hazards, operational safety,
etc.)
3.0 Process Advantages
4.0 Process Limitations (T, P, composition ranges applicable, etc.)
5.0 Process Economics
6.0 Input Streams* - flow rate/properties/composition/operating conditions
7.0 Intermediate Streams - flow rate/properties/composition/operating
conditions
8.0 Process/Discharge Streams* - flow rate/properties/composition
Gaseous - vent, offgas, product gas
Liquid - blowdown
Solid - sludges, spent catalysts
9.0 Data Gaps and Limitation
10.0 Related .
*
Typical data for actual operations
10
-------
In connection with control technology assessment activities ("Evaluation
of the Applicability of Petroleum Refining Controls to Gasification" -dis-
cussed later in this Section), major process/waste streams in petroleum refin-
ing with likely counterparts in coal conversion have been identified. For
these waste/process streams composition data including health effects and
toxicity information are being compiled.
A work plan has been prepared and submitted to EPA for compilation of
available characterization information on coal, solvents, catalysts, acids,
alkalis, limestone, water/waste treatment chemicals and other input feedstock/
chemicals used in coal gasification and associated operations.
2.2.2 Future Activities
The activities planned for the immediate future relate to the continuation
of waste characterization and collection of qualitative and quantitative data
on environmentally significant constituents in input materials and intermediate
and discharge process/waste streams associated with the various high Btu coal
gasification processes under review and with petroleum refining operations
identified as having counterparts in synfuel processes. In connection with
input material characterization effort, it is planned to prepare a "chemical
profile data sheet" for each of the major chemicals/feedstocks used or likely
to be employed in connection with coal conversion and related operations. The
chemical profile data sheet may include information on toxicity, environmental
persistence, bioaccumulatability, epidomiological data, occupational health
standards and Federal/State/Local emissions criteria.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT
2.3.1 Activity to Date
None.
2.3.2 Future Activities
Future program activities will include two related efforts in this area,
namely the definition of criteria for source and pollutant prioritization and
the use of Source Analysis Models (SAM's) to establish the severity of individ-
ual discharge concentrations of various pollutants. Both of these will be
accomplished following field data acquisition efforts and completion of (at
least) Level 1 analyses.
11
-------
Source Analysis Model (SAM) Applications --
Level 1 chemical analyses will be conducted on each sample to determine
the concentrations of the Level 1 compound classes; Level 2 analyses for MEG
substances will be conducted in those cases where the effluent concentration
could exceed the MATE value if the total quantity of compound measured were
the MEG substance and if it can be shown that the stream involved has a
counterpart in a domestic commercial operation. SAM applications will involve
only those MEG compounds which are shown by Level 2 analysis to be above the
level of concern, and will be carried out utilizing the SAM/IA model which
prescribes direct methods for calculation of the degree of hazard (severity)
and/or the toxic unit discharge rate.
Definition of Criteria for Source and Pollutant Prioritization --
Several of these criteria are the planned products of the Level I/
Level 2 chemical analytical efforts, the SAM applications and the comparison
of MEG concentrations with corresponding MATE values. Others may be derived
from bioassay data, if authorized for this program by the EPA. All of these
criteria will relate to concentrations, discharge rates, discharge hazard and
similar terms, which are amenable to ordering in matrix format and subsequent
factored prioritization.
Other, more subjective criteria will be necessary, however, in order to
maximize the return on future control technology R&D expenditures and to
assure compatibility of control technology capabilities and conversion process
implementation. This listing of criteria will include such items as the state
of process technology development; projected commercialization schedules;
probable changes in effluents resulting from continued development; and process
variables impact on effluents. It is planned to utilize these criteria as a
separate set to adjust the prioritized listing resulting from the factored
criteria established during the laboratory and engineering efforts.
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
2.4.1 Activity to Date
Activities to date have largely involved tasks which are prerequisite to
the implementation of a field data acquisition effort. These are discussed
under topical headings in the following subsections.
12
-------
Site Locations and Information --
A continuing effort has been underway for several months to acquire test
site access right agreements for both commercial and developmental process
facilities. This effort includes a low-Btu Koppers-Totzek site. An initial
survey of operational facilities revealed that a primary site, possessing
superior process equipment and/or control devices, exists for each priority
gasifier and that the secondary site(s), where available, leave much to be
desired in terms of equipment type and size as well as feed coal types.
Attention has therefore been focussed exclusively on the primary sites (see
Table 8) and the steps which must be taken to gain access.
From Table 8, gasifier types (1) and (3) are in commercial operation;
access to these is being sought through the process licensor's U.S. offices.
Gasifier (2), although foreign-owned, and gasifiers (4) through (6) are under
ERDA and/or AGA development sponsorship; access agreements are therefore being
sought with these organizations. The Texaco gasifier (number 7) is the only
privately-sponsored developmental unit included, and access is to be sought
through the Texaco Corporate offices.
To date, a series of meetings have been held between TRW and responsible
ERDA/FE personnel; a draft access agreement stating the conditions and proce-
dures to be followed has been submitted to ERDA for review. Following ERDA
TABLE 8. POTENTIAL TEST PROGRAM SITES
Gasifier Type
Primary Site Location
1) Lurgi (dry ash)
2) Lurgi (slagging)
3) Koppers-Totzek
4) Hygas
5) Bi gas
6) Synthane
7) Texaco
Sasolbu>*g, South Africa
Westfield, Scotland
Modderfontein, South Africa
Chicago, Illinois
Homer City, Pa.
Pittsburg, Pa.
Montebello, California
13
-------
approval, the agreement will be submitted to the AGA for their approval and
the individual test requirements and access schedules will then be coordinated
with the facility owners/operators.
The exception to this latter step will be the Westfield facility, which is
currently operating under a short-term ERDA contract to develop demonstration
plant design data. In this case, the environmental sampling and support
requirements would have to be added to the existing contract using EPA pass-
through funds. Because of the intricacies of the contract and the short
operating time (6 months) remaining it is doubtful whether this can be accom-
plished, but the effort will be made. If the TRW efforts to promote the
environmental sampling add-on are not successful, the required information may
be available through future CONOCO tests at Westfield or through the planned
ERDA slagging Lurgi demonstration plant in a few years.
The dry-ash Lurgi and Koppers-Totzek facilities in South Africa are, as
stated above, being contacted through the local process licensor offices.
American-Lurgi (A-L) was formally contacted with the TRW request in August;
A-L then contacted their main office in West Germany and received approval to
assist in establishing the program. TRW is now making direct contact with the
SASOL plant operators through A-L and working the details of a field program.
In so doing, TRW has and plans to continue coordination with the other assess-
ment contractors; Radian has a vital interest in the gasification and gas
cleanup process units, as well as the environmental control systems. Hittman,
as liquefaction assessment contractors, is interested in the ARGE and Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis units and the products derived for sale.
Existing Process Data --
Published conversion and control process data are being collected and
organized by operational module as discussed earlier. To date, data have been
collected, organized and analyzed for all of the gasifier designs which are
being considered for field sampling activities; and work is in process on the
shift, methanation, gas purification and waste treatment modules. These data
will be reported in detail in the Data Base Analysis Report.
14
-------
A part of the DOE access agreement discussed in the preceding section
deals with the provision of unpublished environmental data to TRW by ERDA and
the process developers. While each facility and operator will undoubtedly
make independent judgments regarding the advisability of doing this, there is
a good probability that the data base will be significantly augmented prior to
initiation of field efforts.
There is, unfortunately, limited environmental data for most of the
foreign facilities; although some information on similar process modules
operating in different locations is available. It therefore appears that the
foreign test programs will necessarily be quite extensive in order to provide
full coverage.
Test Program Development --
The first of two planned levels of test program development is in
process. The first level, required as a starting point for detailed planning
with plant operators, is quite general. The product plan will list the data
acquisition objectives, referring to simplified process flow diagrams, but
indicates in full detail the sampling and analytical methodologies to be
employed.
The product of the second level of test program development evolves from
the first and is site-, process- and process module-specific; it includes and
refers to a detailed plant layout, specifying streams and sampling access
locations, sample quantities, etc.
To date, a draft of the first level program is in preparation for the
Koppers-Totzek (K-T) facility at Modderfontein, S.A. The U.S. K-T office
personnel are fully knowledgeable in the plant design and layout details and
have agreed to assist TRW in upgrading the program to site-specific quality.
Similar first level programs will be prepared for the SASOL (Lurgi)
facility and for the DOE-AGA pilot (and possibly Westfield) facilities follow-
ing consumation of the DOE access agreement.
Input Materials Characterization --
Input materials of interest for high Btu gasification processes are
being characterized in data sheet format for inclusion in the program data
15
-------
base. Information regarding U.S. coals is being obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey; the Illinois State Geological Survey; and the U.S. Bureau
of Mines. This information is being supplemented by data acquired by TRW
under a separate EPA contract involving chemical cleaning (desulfurization) of
coal.
A preliminary listing of other input materials and chemicals for water
treatment, gas cleanup and shift and methanation catalysis has been generated
(see Appendix C) and literature searches are now in process by TRW to complete
a data base input for each. This listing will expand over the life of the
program as likely or possible control equipment and additional input materials
are identified for specific streams and pollutants.
2.4.2 Future Activities
Existing Process Data/Test Program Development
The final selection of sites for field test programs will be based upon
the data needs identified in developing and evaluating the program data base;
in similar fashion, the site-specific test program requirements will be aimed
at characterization of streams for which little data are available and which
(in the case of pilot facilities) are judged scaleable to commercial size
plants.
In sequence, the data and information gaps will be identified; these will
be compared to the operating facility modules for which TRW has access agree-
ments. A listing of potential field test "targets" will then be generated
and priorities assigned for EPA concurrence. Detailed test planning will be
accomplished in order of the agreed-upon priorities, with the possible
exception of foreign sites. For these, it appears that it may be worthwhile
to conduct full-scope total facility programs regardless of data requirement
priorities because the incremental costs will be relatively small when com-
pared to the basic program cost.
Output and Waste Stream Characterization
The immediate objectives of the program data base involve the characteri-
zation of process product and waste streams and the development of an under-
standing of the relationship between these process streams and the input
16
-------
materials, equipment design features and process variables as related to each
process. Inputs to this stream characterization and process relationship
understanding will, as stated earlier, be drawn from the literature and the
field test programs.
The present field effort planning includes Level 1 chemical analysis (as
a minimum) on all samples; Level 2 requirements will be determined for MEG
compounds by comparison of Level 1 compound classes with MATE values. It is
expected that the presence of many specific compounds not on the MEG list will
be revealed through GCMS sample analysis; these will be characterized by means
of literature search for possible addition to the MEG list. There is a
possibility that Level 1 bioassay testing will be required by EPA. No planning
along this line will be initiated until EPA direction is received, however.
Following Level 2 chemical analysis for individual MEG compounds, those
found present above levels of concern (MATE) will be analyzed for impact by
means of a Source Analysis Model (SAM) as described earlier in this Section.
This approach will serve to adequately characterize waste streams, but will not
fully incorporate all steps necessary for by-product stream characterization.
By-product streams should also be subjected to typical downstream processing
(comparable to that now employed for the displaced natural fossil fuels) to
establish the effects of such processing on stream constituents. This is
beyond the scope of the present program.
2.5 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
2.5.1 Activity to Date
TRW's control technology assessment activities to date have been directed
at the comparison of refinery waste streams with conversion plant streams and
the evaluation of refinery control equipment and technology for application in
conversion facilities. The task is being conducted in four segments, as
follows:
1) Characterization of Refinery Process and Waste Streams
2) Survey and Evaluation of Present Refinery Control Technologies
3) Characterization of Synfuels Process and Waste Streams
17
-------
4) Evaluation of Applicability of Refinery Control Technology
to Synfuels Processes
Accomplishments to date include the listing and collection of character-
ization data on those refinery gaseous waste streams most likely to have
synfuel counterparts and collection of a portion of the control technology
data applicable to those streams. Synfuel waste stream data is being collected
for inclusion in the Program Data Base. Work is in process on the refinery
liquid and solid waste characteristics and on the applicable control
technologies.
Figure 2 is a block-flow diagram of a typical refinery sour gas treatment
operation.
Process streams which have been preliminarily characterized as having
similarity to synthetic fuels process streams are the input stream to the
refinery gas recovery plant; its off-gas, which is the input stream to the
sulfur recovery plant; the off-gas from the sulfur recovery plant, which is
the input to the tail gas clean-up; and the gas stream released to the
atmosphere. These streams are characterized in Table 9.
Process streams from the individual refinery process units; e.g., hydro-
cracking, thermal cracking, vis-breaking, naphtha and gas oil hydrotreating,
hydrogen production, etc., are still under study for counterparts in the syn-
thetic fuels upgrading.
The flue gas from refinery process furnaces contain various air pollutants;
e.g., NOV, CO, SCL, particulates, etc., which are controlled in several ways.
A £
The primary method of control is the use of clean burning fuels; e.g., low
sulfur fuels, natural gas, etc. These emissions are commonly subject to
existing stationary source standards; whereas, similar equipment in synthetic
fuel processes will be subject to new source standards. The latter standards
may preclude the use of clean fuels as a practical control technique. i
Various fugitive refinery emissions have been investigated, including
those from valves, pumps and various other miscellaneous equipment. Available
data on fugitive refinery emissions reported in various publications were
deemed to be outdated inasmuch as the current state of the art in equipment
18
-------
FUEL GAS
SOUR GAS
GAS TREATMENT
PLANT:
MEA
SULFINOL
ADIP
DGA
SELEXOL
RICH ACID
GAS
oc.
LLJ
3:
o.
SULFUR PLANT:
CLAUS
STRETFORD
SULFUR
PLANT
TAIL-GAS
TAIL GAS
CLEAN-UP:
SCOT
BEAVON/
-STRETFORD
SULFUR
NOTE: FOR INFORMATION ON PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF GAS STREAMS SEE TABLE 1
Figure 2. Expanded View of Gas Treatment Operation
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF GAS STREAM DATA
Gas Stream
Constituents
H2S
so2
SgVapor/Mist
COS
cs2
S
co2
N2
H,
CO
NH3
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
^-Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Total HC
Temp
Press.
Gas Treatment
1
16.4-62.5%
1.9-4.9%
±8.4%
4.36-5.2%
±4.6%
±2.5%
±7.5%
±3.4%
±1.0%
(48°C)
2
50.3-91.4%
4.6-46.1%
±5.0%
±0.1%
0.45-2.0%
(40°C)
(0.15°MPa)
Sulfur
Recovery
3
0.7-1.07%
0.3-1.0%
±0.05%
0.05-0.3%
0.04-0.3%
±0.7%
0.04-3.5%
26-33.9%
56-65%
1.6-2.5%
±1.0%
(140°C)
(0.15°MPa)
Tail -Gas
Clean-Up
4
0.0-0.03%
10-250 ppm
0.0% to 1 ppm
3.05-14%
5.0-7.0%
80.8-88.9%
±0.96%
(40°C)
(0.10 MPa)
Notes;
All information shown on Table 1 was the result of a literature survey.
When ranges are given at least two separate and independent sets of
stream information were used.
When a plus or minus (+) precedes data one set of stream information
was found which reported the constituents.
Temperature and pressure data were reported in only one support docu-
ment with associated stream data.
Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 refer to streams shown in Figure 2.
20
-------
manufacture has greatly reduced these emissions (e.g., valve seals, etc.). No
additional work on fugitive emissions is planned until newer refinery data are
made available.
Further investigation of refinery process and waste streams and the treat-
ment of these streams will be conducted. This continuing investigation will
include further literature surveys and correspondence with various process
licensing firms and petroleum refiners. The output of the completed effort
will address the economics of control options, modifications required for
synfuel applications, and secondary pollution problems resulting from the use
of refinery control equipment. Separate coverage will be given to health
effects, both in terms of a refinery/synfuel waste comparison and in terms of
possible problems which may arise as a result of control equipment and
technology transfers.
2.5.2 Future Activities
It is expected that the field test program will contribute significant
insight into the efficiency of conventional control systems as applied in
gasification facilities. This information, coupled with an evaluation of
other industrial processes and their controls, will permit meaningful input
to the EPA relative to control technology development needs.
2.6 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT STATUS
2.6.1 Activity to Date
None.
2.6.2 Future Activities
TRW expects to have access to development and development test data for
specialized control equipment through DOE. These data will be forwarded to
EPA and the appropriate Control Technology Development contractors and will
be utilized in this program.
2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
2.7.1 Activity to Date
None.
21
-------
2.7.2 Future Activities
Specific EPA requirements for TRW involvement in this area have not been
made known. The following subsections present the activities and approaches
planned by TRW as segments of the ongoing program.
Selection and Application of Assessment Alternatives --
Current TRW planning is directed at the use of Best Technology (BT) and
MATE values as the basis for most emission level assessments; ambient standards,
when available, will also be employed.
BT values (aimed at existing standards and developing technology
capabilities) will be established during the course of the program for the
streams of interest, based upon literature data and/or field test data.
Present EPA schedules indicate that MATE values will be established for the
MEG list well in advance of need.
Sources/Controls Ranking
As a result of TRW's activities in the Control Technology Assessment and ,
Control Technology Development areas and inputs from the EPA's Control Tech-
nology Development contractors, ranking of control options versus sources
will be possible. It is planned to structure this program product in matrix
format with affected media, class or type of pollutant, level of control
achieved, and cost of control as variables. This type of result display will
provide insight into control R&D needs and into the levels of resistance to
be expected to a range of potential emission standards.
Uncontrolled Pollutants --
As a consequence of the novelty of the conversion processes involved and
the layouts of the facilities to be sampled, it is expected that two types of
uncontrolled pollutants will be encountered.
The first, involving heretofore unknown/unclassified (and therefore
uncontrolled) pollutants are expected to be found in gaseous and liquid waste
as well as in the product/by-product streams. These compounds are expected to
be identified during GC/MS analysis. They will be quantified; characterized
by class, to the greatest extent practicable; subjected to SAM analysis; and
22
-------
reported to EPA. Should the involved streams be included in the possible
bioassay testing, valuable data may be obtained relative to the health and
ecological effects of the compound(s).
The second type of uncontrolled pollutants are the fugitive emissions,
which are likely to constitute a major part of the total gasification facility
emissions. Anticipation of these emissions stem from the close relationship
of the gasification facilities and processes to conventional coal cleaning,
oil refining and coke processing plants. Because these types of commercial
facilities have and are being characterized with respect to fugitive emissions,
it is expected that knowledge of these similarities with respect to:
a) sources; b) composition; and c) sampling/analytical techniques will be
useful in planning gasification assessment efforts.
Plant Type Ranking --
No total facility ranking is planned or considered appropriate at this
time. TRW believes that plant type rankings should be made only when equiva-
lent, fully engineered and site-specific designs are available. As a part of
the program, however, TRW will generate and provide rankings of the various
control process module configurations and options, and plans to rank on an
environmental basis those gasification process modules where both scaleable
and comparable data are available.
2.8 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
2.8.1 Activity to Date
TRW's activities in this area have consisted of the preparation and
submittal of quarterly newsletter report inputs; the preparation and submittal
of monthly contractual reports; and the drafting and submittal of a general
approach for implementation of Standards Support Plans. Limited planning for
the acquisition, handling and use of unpublished DOE and DOE contractor data
by EPA has been accomplished with DOE.
2.8.2 Future Activities
In addition to continuation of the efforts mentioned above, TRW plans to
maintain two-way interfaces with the Control Technology Development
contractors and will define owners limitations on the licensed foreign
23
-------
technologies of interest to high-Btu gasification. If required by the EPA,
TRW is prepared to furnish a Standards of Practice Manual and/or to assist in
defining strategies for implementation of other technology transfer options.
24
-------
APPENDIX A
KOPPERS-TOTZEK
GASIFICATION MODULE DRAFT
DATA SHEETS
25
-------
KOPPERS-TOTZEK GASIFIER
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Operating Principles -High temperature gasification of coal at
atmospheric pressure with co-current flow of coal, oxygen and
steam.
1.2 Development Status - Commercially available since 1952.
1.3 Licensor/Developer '
Krupp Koppers, GmbH
Essen, W. Germany
In U.S.
Koppers Company, Inc.
Koppers Building
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219
1.4 Commercial Applications 54 gasification units are currently in
operation, 47 using coal as feedstock (see Table A-l). Existing
coal gasifiers are used entirely to make synthesis gas for the
production of ammonia.
2.0 PROCESS INFORMATION
2.1 Commercial Units -see Figure A-l, Flow Diagram
2.1.1 Gasifier (see Figures A-2 and A-3)
Equipment
0 Gasifier construction: horizontal ellipsoidal, double
walled steel vessel with refractory lining. There
are two gasifier designs. The two-headed gasifier
(Figure A-2) has heads shaped as truncated cones
mounted on either end of the ellipsoid. The four-
headed gasifier (Figure A-3) resembles two inter-
secting ellipsoids with heads at the ends of the
ellipsoids oriented 90° apart. (°)
27
-------
TABLE A-l. GASIFICATION PLANTS USING THE K-T PROCESS
(6)
Location
Carbonnages de France, Paris,
Mazi ngarbe Works ( P . d . C . )
France
Typpi Oy, Oulu
Finland
Ninon Suiso Kogyo Kaisha,
Ltd. , Tokyo, Japan
Empresa Nacional "Calvo
g Sotelo" de Combustibles
Liquidos y Lubricantes, S.A.,
Madrid, Nitrogen Works in
Puentes de Garcia Rodriguez,
Coruna, Spain
Typpi Oy, Oulu
Finland
S.A. Union Chimique Beige,
Brussels, Zandvoorde Works
Belgium
Amoniaco Portugaes S.A.R.L.,
Lisbon, Estarreja Plant
Portugal
Number of
Gassifier
Fuel ' Units
Coal Dust, 1
Coal Dust, 3
Oil, Peat
Coal Dust 3
Lignite Dust 3
Coal Dust, 2
Oil, Peat
Bunder-C-Oil 2
Plant Convertible
for Coal Dust
Gasification
Heavy Gasoline, 2
Plant Extendable
to Ligm'te-and
Anthracite Dust
Gasification
Capacity
CO + H2
in 24 Hours
75,000- ,
150,000 Nnr
2,790,000-
5,580,000 SCF
140,000 Nm3
5,210,000 SCF
210,000 Nm3
7,820,000 SCF
242,000 Nm3
9,000,000 SCF
140,000 Nm3
5,210,000 SCF
176,000 Nm3
6,550,000 SCF
169,000 Nm3
6,300,000 SCF
Use of
Synthesis
Gas
Methanol and
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Year
of
Order
1949
1950
1954
1954
1955
1955
1956
(Continued}
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Location
The Government of the Kingdom
of Greece,
The Ministry of Coordination,
Athens ,
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Plant,
Ptolemais, Greece
Empresa Nacional "Calvo Sotelo"
de Combustibles Liquidos y
Lubricantes, S.A., Madrid,
Nitrogen Works in Puentes de
Gracia Rodriguez, Coruna,
o Spain
The General Organization for
Executing the Five Year
Industrial Plan, Cairo,
Nitrogen Works of
Societe el Nasr d'Engrais
et d1 Industries Chimiques,
Attaka, Suez
United Arabian Republique
Chemical Fertilizer Company,
Ltd. , Thailand,
Synthetic Fertilizer Plant
at Mao Moh, Lampang
Thailand
Azot Sanayii T.A.S., Ankara
Kutahya Works
Turkey
Number of
Gasifier
Fuel Units
Lignite Dust, 4
Bunker-C-Oil
Lignite Dust 1
or Naphtha
Refinery Off- 3
Gas, L.P.G.
and Light
Naphtha
Lignite Dust 1
Lignite Dust 4
Capaci ty
CO + H2
in 24 Hours
629,000 Km3
23,450,000 SCF
175,000 Nm3
6,500,000 SCF
778,000 Nm3
28,950,000 SCF
217,000 Nm3
8,070,000 SCF
775,000 Nm3
28,850,000 SCF
Use of
Synthesis
Gas
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammoni a
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Year
of
Order
1959
1961
1963
1966
(Continued)
-------
TABLE A-T. (Continued)
Location Fuel
Chemieanlagen Export- Improt Vacuum residue
G.m.b.H., Berlin fur VEB and/or
Germani a, fuel oil
Chemieanlagen and Apparatebau,
Karl-Marx-Stadt
VEB Zietz Works
Kobe Steel Ltd., Kodbe Japan Coal Dust
for Industrial Development
Corp . ,
Zambia, at Kafue near Lusaka
Zambia, Africa
Nitrogenous Fertilizers Lignite Dust
Industry S. A., Athens,
o Nitrogenous Fertilizers Plant
Ptolemais, Greece
The Fertilizer Corporation Coal Dust
1 of India Ltd, New Delhi,
Korba Plant, India
The Fertilizer Corporation Coal Dust
of India Ltd., New Delhi
Talcher Plant, India
Nitrogenous Fertilizers Lignite Dust
Industry S.A., Athens
Nitrogenous Fertilizers Plant
Ptolemais, Greece
The Fertilizer Corporation Coal Dust
of India Ltd., New Delhi,
Korba Plant, India-
Number of
Gassifier
Units
2
1
1
4
(1 of them
as stand-
by)
4
(1 of them
as stand-
by)
1
4
(1 of them
as stand-
by) "
Capacity
CO + H2
In 24 Hours
360,000 Nm3
13,400,000 SCF
214,320 Nm3
7,980,000 SCF
165,000 Nm3
6,150,000 SCF
2,000,000 Nm3
74,450,000 SCF
o
2,000,000 Nirr
74,450,000 SCF
242,000 Nm3
9,009,000 SCF
2,000,000 Nm3
74,450,000 SCF
Use of
Synthesis
Gas
Raw gas to
produce
hydrogen
for hydro-
genation
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammoni a
Synthesis
Ammoni a
Synthesis
Ammoni a
Synthesis
Year
of
Order
1966
1967
1969
1969
1970
1970
1972
(Continued)
-------
TABLE A-l. (Continued)
Locati on Fuel
AE & CI Ltd., Johannesburg, Coal Dust
Modderfontein Plant,
South Africa
Indeco Chemicals Ltd., Coal Dust
Lusaka, Kafue Works,
Zambia
Indeco Chemical Ltd., Coal Dust
Lusaka, Kafue Works
Number of
Gassifier
Units
6
1
2
Capacity
Co + H2
In 24 Hours
2,150,000 Mm3
80,025,000 SCF
220,800 Mm3
8,220,000 SCF
441 ,660 Mm2
16,440,000 SCF
Use of
Synthesis
Gas
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Ammonia
Synthesis
Year
of
Order
1972
1974
1975
Zambia
-------
PULVERIZED
COAL BIN
CO
ro
LEGEND:
1 Coal
2 Steam .
3 Oxygen
4 Slag from quench tank
5 Cooled product'gas
6 Combined effluent to clarifier II
7 Coal bin purge gas 12
8 Mist eliminator blowdown 13
9 Quench tank overflow 14
10 Washer cooler blowdown 15
Slag slurry from clarifier
Clarifier effluent(to discharge or recycle)
Cleaned product gas
Slag quench tank off gas
Clarifier off' gas
Figure A-l. Koppers-Totzek Coal Jaasification Process
(8)
-------
GO
CO
LOW
PRESSURE
STEAM
I
(3')
1
COAL
STEAM
OXYGEN
BOILER FEED
WATER
J BOILER FEED
\WATER
POSITION OF
HEADS FOR FOUR
HEADED GASIFIER
BURNER
COOLING
WATER
2-HEADED
-HEADED
GASIFIER
GASIFIER
28
59
(1000 ft3)
(2100 ft3)
7.6M (251)
Figure A-2. Koppers-Totzek Gasifier
(8)
-------
COAL, STEAM,
AND OXYGEN
GAS TO
COOLING
AND CLEANING
SYSTEM
ASH TO
DISPOSAL
ASH
QUENCH
TANK
Figure A-3.
Koppers-Totzek Sasifier With Ash Extractor and
Waste Heat Boiler
34
US'
-------
Gasifier dimensions; (see Figure A-2)
Bed type and gas flow: entrained bed; continuous
co-current gas/solids flow; vertical gas outlet at
the top of the gasifier in the center of the
ellipsoid.
Heat transfer and cooling mechanism: Direct gas/
solid heat transfer; the gasifier is water jacketed
to provide gasifier cooling and generate low
pressure steam.
Coal feeding mechanism: continuous screw conveyor
feeds the pulverized coal to mixing nozzles at the
ends of the gasifier heads; the coal is entrained in
a premixed stream of steam and oxygen and the mix-
ture is injected into the gasifier through sets of
two adjacent nozzles. Injection speeds are higher
than speed of flame propagation to prevent
flashback.
Gasification media introduction: continuous
injection of steam plus oxygen, with entrained
coal feed.
Ash removal mechanism(8): approximately 50 percent
of the ash flows down the gasifier walls as molten
slag and drains into a slag quench tank where cir-
culating water causes it to shatter into a granular
form; a conveyor lifts the slag granules out of the
quench tank (see Figure A-3). The remainder of the
ash leaves the gasifier as fine particles entrained
in the exit gas. The particles are solidified at
the gasifier exit by water sprays. After treating
the gas for heat recovery, particulate matter is
removed by a washer cooler and disintegrator
scrubber. The slag is subsequently separated from
the scrubber water as a sludge by a clarifier.
Special features (2>4,5).
- water sprays at gasifier exit and in the washer
cooler system solidify entrained ash particles
for collection by the scrubbing system
- screw feeding system provides for continuous
coal feeding
- slag produced in the quench tank is granular,
allowing for belt conveyor transport-
35
-------
- opposing burners provide for;
high turbulence and mixing
continuous ignition should one burner become
temporarily blocked
directing the flue into center of gasifier,
thus minimizing hot spots in refractory lining
particles which pass through one flame region
unreacted are gasified in the opposing flame
Operating Parameters
t Gas outlet temperature: 1750-1780°K (2700-2750°F)
Coal bed temperature: 3280-3410°K (3300-3500°F)
Gasifier pressure: 0.1 MPa (1 atm) ^ '
(A\
Coal residence time in gasifier: a few seconds ^ '
Raw Material Requirements
Coal:
Type - essentially all types with ash contents up to
40 percent (2)
Size - 70 percent less than 200 mesh (.074 mm)
Rate two-headed gasifiers handle up to 360 tonnes/
day (400 tons/day); four-headed gasifiers handle up
to 770 tonnes/day (850 tons/day)
Pretreatment pulverizing and drying to about 2
percent moisture for bituminous coals and 8 percent
moisture for lignites (3»5). For coals with high
ash fusion temperature fluxing agents such as lime,
silica, or soda ash are added to lower ash fusion
temperature below gasifier operating temperature.
Typical Steam and Oxygen Requirements:
Kg steam/ Kg 02/ Ref.
Coal Type Kg coal Kg coal No.
Montana lignite 0.14 0.73 5
Illinois bituminous 0.41 0.86 5
Eastern bituminous 0.41 0.85 5
Wyoming subbituminous 0.14 0.65 6
36
-------
Kg steam/ Kg 02/ Ref.
Coal Type Kg coal Kg coal No.
111. high volatile bitum. 0.27 0.70 6
Eastern high volatile bitum. 0.29 0.82 6
South African bitum. 0.30 0.79 7
By Products (8). based on Illinois Bituminous Coal Feed
Pressure Kg steam/
MPa (psig) Temp°C (°F) Kg coal
Jacket steam 0.37 (55) 141 (287) 0.2
Waste heat
boiler steam 6.1 (900) 480 (900) 1.3
Utility Requirements
fo\
Make-up feed waterv , based on Illinois bituminous
coal-feed:
Gasifier jacket 0.21 Kg/Kg coal (used to supply
about 90 percent of steam for
gasification)
Waste heat boiler 0.66 Kg/Kg coal (assumes 4.6
percent blowdown)
Cooling water: ?
Electricity (typical facility including oxygen plant
and coal preparation): 0.25 Kwh/Kg of coal
(0.116 Kwh/lb)
Process Efficiency
Cold gas efficiency:
r_i [Product gas energy output] 1nn
L J [Coal energy input] * iuu
to\
71 percent, based on Illinois bituminous coal v ;
Overall thermal efficiency:
r_-| [Total energy output (product gas + by-products + steam)] x
L=J [Total energy input (coal + electric power)]
68 percent, based on Eastern bituminous coal (1447 Kcal/
Kg or 12,640 Btu/lb), quenched and cooled product gas,
and reference temperature 300QK (80<>F) (1).
37
-------
Exoected Turndown Ratio - [Full capacity output]
Lxpected lurndown Ratno - [Minimum suitable output]
100/60 for two-headed gasifier
100/30 for four-headed gasifier
Gas Production Rate ^'
Dry Dry
Coal Type Nm3/tonne scf/ton
Montana subbituminous 1530 (51,783)
Illinois bituminous 1760 (59,489)
Eastern U.S. bituminous 2024 (68,376)
2.1.2 Coal Feed/Pretreatment Coal is dried to 2-8 percent
moisture, depending on rank, and crushed to about 70 percent
200 mesh. Coal is conveyed with nitrogen to gasifier ser-
vice bins which supply the screw feeding system. Screw
feeders continuously discharge coal into a mixing head
where it is entrained in oxygen and low pressure steam and
delivered through transfer pipes to the burner head of the
gasifier.
fo\
2.1.3 Quench and Dust Removar ' - Product gas is sprayed with
water at the exit of the gasifier to solidify molten
entrained particulates and prevent their adherence to waste
heat boiler tubes. Radiant surface boiler followed by a
fire-tube boiler cool the gas to about 1600°F. Bulk
particulates are then removed by water sprays in a venturi
scrubber/washer cooler. Finer particulates are removed in
a Theisen disintegrator and a mist eliminator.
(9)
3.0 PROCESS ECONOMICS
Basis: (1) 15 four-headed gasifiers with capacity of 8820
tonnes (9700 tons)/day producing 1.26 x 10? Nm3
(4.7 x 108 scf)/day of gas at 1.2 MPa (170 psig).
Heating value of gas is 2810 Kcal/Nm3 (300 Btu/scf).
(2) Includes coal preparation and gas cleaning facilities
as depicted in Figure A-l.
Capital -454 million dollars (1976)
Annual Operating Costs 95 million dollars/year
38
-------
4.0 PROCESS ADVANTAGES
Gasifier can accept all types of coal.
t The absence of^tars, oils, naphthas and phenols in the raw gas
and quench waters simplifies by-product recovery and pollution
control technology requirements.
Gasifiers can be started in 30 minutes, can be shut down instantly,
and restarted in 10 minutes (3).
Gasifier uses pulverized coal; no unusable fines are generated
during crushing.
Gasifiers have been operated commercially for many years and
have shown high reliability and low maintenance requirements.
5.0 PROCESS LIMITATIONS
High temperature of exit gases and slag requires heat recovery
in order to maintain satisfactory thermal efficiency.
Low operating pressure is a disadvantage for transmission of the
product gas or utilization in combined-cycle applications.
t Relatively high particulate loadings after quench requires
further processing for many applications.
t Low H2/CO ratio in product gas requires extensive shift and C02
removal for methanation or for use in ammonia and methanol
synthesis.
6.0 INPUT STREAMS (see Figure A-l)
6.1 Coal -Stream 1 (Table A-2)
6.2 Low Pressure Steam - Stream 2 (see Section 2.1.2 for quantities)
6.3 Oxygen - Stream 3 (see Section 2.1.2 for quantities)
7.0 INTERMEDIATE STREAMS (see Figure A-l)
7.1 Gaseous
7.1.1 Raw Product Gas - Stream 5 (Table A-3)
7.1.2 Quenched Product Gas (Stream 13)
39
-------
TABLE A-2. PROPERTIES OF SOME COALS WHICH HAVE BEEN USED IN KOPPERS-TOTZEK GASIFIERS - STREAM 1
Coal Type
Coal Origin
Reference
Dry HHV
(kcal/kg) (Btu/lb)
Dry LHV
(kcal/kg) (Btu/lb)
Size
Coal Composition (%}
C
H
s N
S
0
Ash
Moisture
Totals
Ash Composition (%)
Si02
A1203
CaO
MgO
Fe2°3
so3
Totals^
Lignite
Turkey
(2)
-
-
70% <200 mesh
39.9
3.27
1.36
0.95
19.2
32.3
7
100
48.14
13.71
6.73
6.23
16.29
8.18
99.28
Lignite
Montana
(3)
1151 (10050)
-
58.12
4.3
1.1
1.5
14.2
12.7
8.0
100
-
-
-
Subbituminous
Montana
(6)
1154 (9983)
-
56.76
4.24
1.01
0.67
13.18
22.14
2.0
100
-
-
-
Bituminous
Illinois
(6)
1304 (11390)
-
61.94
4.36
0.97
4.88
6.73
19.12
2.0
100
-
-
-
Bituminous
Illinois
(8)
-
1294 (11310)
62.98
4.23
1.22
4.23
7.90
13.63
6.0
100
41.7
19.8
6.8
1.0
21.2
90.5
Bituminous
-
(3)
1447 (12640
-
69.88
4.90
1.37
1.08
7.05
13.72
2.0
100
.
-
-
-
Bituminous
South Africa
(7)
1234 (10780)
-
70% <200 mesh
,68.2
4.3
1.7
1.6
9.9
14.5
1.0
100
-
-
-
-------
TABLE A-3. PROPERTIES OF RAW PRODUCT GAS - STREAM 5
Coal Type
Refe/ence
Dry Composition (%)
CO
H,
CH4
co2
N2+Ar
H2S
COS
CS2
RSH
so2
NH3
HCN
NOX
Totals
Moisture
HHV dry-(kcal/Nm3)
(Btu/scf)
Lignite
(2)
58.4
26.1
12.5
2.2
0.5
-
100
-
LHV dry-(kcal/Nm3)
(Btu/scf)
Dry Gas Production 1.35(22.8)
(Nm3/kg(scf/lb)
Particulates (wet)
grams/Nm3(grains/scf)
Particulate Composition (%)
Si02
A1203
CaO
MgO
Fe2°3
Carbon
Lignite
(3)
56.87
31.3
10.0
1.2
0.6
0.5
-
100
2705(289)
1.62(27.4)
,
Subbituminous
(6)
58.68
32.86
Bituminous
(6)
55.38
34.62
1
7.04 ! 7.04
1.12 1.01
0.28
1.83
0.02 0.12
-
100
2762(295)
Bituminous
(8)
57.35
32.74
7.05
1.16
1.59
0.1H
-
100 100
2716(290)
9.48
Bituminous
(3)
Bituminous
(7)
52.8 | 56.0
35.5 : 30.0
0.11 | 0.1
10.1 11.7
0.87
0.15
0.32 i 0.52
0.025
.0031
0.24
.0407
.0010
100
0.074
.0002
.0090
.004
.0006
ICC
29.2 5.58
2678(286)
I
2575(275)
1.52(25.9) 1.75(29.7) 1.80(30.4)
1.91(32.4) '; 1.57(25.5)
52(22) 27(11) i 97(40)
:
! 30.5
-
14.48
i
i
i
; 4.97
0.73
15.51 ;
33.8
-17
41
-------
Composition expected to be similar to that reported
in Table 2. Washing operation removes unknown amounts
of NH3, HCN, H2S, COS and S02,
Particulates -9.5 mg/Nm3 ^; 63 mg/Nm3
7.2 Liquid
7.2.1 Slag Quench Tank Overflow (Stream 5) (Table A-4)
7.2.2 Washer Cooler Slowdown (Stream 10) (Table A-4)
7.2.3 Mist Eliminator Slowdown (Stream 8) (Table A-4)
7.2.4 Combined Flow to Clarifier (Stream 6) (Table A-4)
8.0 DISCHARGE STREAMS (see Figure A-l)
8.1 Gaseous
Coal bin purge gas (Stream 7)
no data ava11able
Slag quench tank offgas (Stream 14)
hydrocarbons
H2S
NH3
Clarifier offgas (Stream 15)
no data available
hydrocarbons j
H2S > no data available
NH3 )
8.2 Liquid
Clarifier effluent (Stream 12) (Table A-4)
8.3 Solid
Slag (Stream 4) -Composition should be similar to that of coal ash.
Limited data available from actual operations.
Clarifier sludge (Stream 11) The solids contained in this stream '
are a combination of slag particulates from the slag quench tank and
ash particulates from the gas quench/washing systems. Very limited
42
-------
TABLE A-4. LIQUID PROCESS AND DISCHARGE STREAMS
Stream Number
Reference
Coal Type
Coal Origin
Stream Parameter**
TSS
TDS
COD
Alfcalinityt
Total Hardness t
Conductivity (M^^)
pH
Stream Composition**
Ca++
Mg"1"1"
Na*
K+
Zn++
r ++
Fe
Cu++
NHj
NO?
Cf
NO?
Total PO^
ci-
S04
CN-
S102
s=
As, Br, Cr, F
Stream 6
(10)
Lignite
Turkey
3072
706
16
-
-
1800
8.8
96
10
18
8
0.02
0.2
0.01
137
.24
25
0.8
57
255
1.4
20
Not
Detected
_
(3)
Bituminous
S. Africa
-
2769
-
-
681
-
8.9
177
55
408
0.02
0.2
Stream 8
(3)
Lignite
Turkey
278
606
18
-
-
'970
7.5
60
60
18
7
0.03
0.26
i
<0.01 0.06
15
25
6.2 5.3
i
488*
284
342
<0.01
69
Not
Detected
Not
Detected
34
1.7
53
147
7.0
31
Not
Detected
-
Stream 10
(3)
Lignite
Turkey
5084
940
128
-
-
2000
7.5
55
114
18
10
.02
2.0
.01
184
4.5
3.7
1.2
96
155
12.5
15
Not
Detected
-
Stream 9
(3)
Lignite
Turkey
4612
812
18
-
-
1800
8.8
71
95
18
9
.03
0.22
.01
157
.13
3.3
.81
85
216
.52
16
Not
Detected
-
Stream 12
(3)
Lignite
Turkey
50
724
63
-
2400
8.9
127
80
18
8
.02
.64
.06
122
4.4
23
2.7
46
109
14
43
Not
Detected
-
(8)
Bituminous
S. Africa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
-
-
1
-
Not
Detected
-
*High NO, partially reflects N0§ contained in raw make-up water.
**mg/l except pH and conductivity
tAs
43
-------
data are available on the composition of clarifier sludge. Com-
position of the solids should reflect coal ash composition (Table
A-2) and degree of carbon conversion in the gasifier (Table A-3).
Metallic elements in clarifier solids based on Turkish lignite feed
are listed below.
Percent of Dry
Element Clarifier Solids
Fe 6.8 - 8.4
. Ni 0.22 - 44
Cu 0 .05
Mn 0.028 - 0.069
9.0 DATA GAPS AND LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the data for the K-T process relate primarily to the
specific properties of input, intermediate, and waste streams. These
limitations include the following:
t Feed coals limited data on ash and trace element composition of
coals which have been gasified in K-T gasifiers.
Raw and cleaned product gas limited data on trace sulfur and
nitrogen compounds ($2, R-SH, S02> NH3, HCN, NOX). No trace
element data for cleaned gas.
Coal bin purge gas no data on particulate loadings or volatile
substances.
Clarifier and slag quench tank offgas no data on volatile
substances (H2S, NH3, organics)
Clarifier effluent and sludge some data is available for these
streams from the gasification of Turkish lignite. Parameters/
constituents such as TOC, phenols, oil and grease, SCN", and
various trace elements are not included. No data for these
streams from gasification of American coals are available.
t Quench tank slag no data are available on carbonaceous material
or trace elements contained in gasifier slag. The Teachability
of organics and trace elements from such slags is also essentially
unknown.
44
-------
10.0 RELATED PROGRAMS
Although no K-T gasifiers are operating in the U.S., ERDA has recently
awarded a contract to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., of Allentown,
Pa. for design, construction and operation of a Kopper-Totzek facility
to produce hydrogen from coal for industrial use.
No programs specifically aimed at environmental assessment of K-T
operations are known to be underway at present.
45
-------
REFERENCES
1. Handbook of Gasifiers and Gas Treatment Systems, ERDA document No.
FE-1772-11, Dravo Corp., February 1976.
2. Wintrell, R., "The K-T Process: Koppers Commercially Proven Coal and
Multi-fuel Gasifier for Systematic Gas Production in the Chemical and
Fertilizer Industries," 78th National AlChE Meeting, Salt Lake City,
Utah, August 1974.
3. Farnsworth, J.F., et al, "Clean Environment with K-T Process," presented
at the EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspect of Fuel Conversion Tech-
nology, St. Louis, Missouri, May 13-16, 1974.
4. Gas Processing Handbook, Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 54, No. 3,
April 1975.
5. Farnsworth, J.F., "Application of the K-T Coal Gasification Process in
the Steel Industry," 104th Annual AIME Meeting, February 16-20, 1975.
6. Information provided by Koppers Company, 1977.
7. Sharpe, R.A., "Gasify Coal for Syn Gas," Hydrocarbon Processing, Vol. 55,
No. 11, November 1976.
8. Farnsworth, J.R., et al, "K-T: Koppers Commercially Proven Coal and
Multi-Fuel Gasifier," Association of -Iron and Steel Engineers Annual
Convention, Philadelphia, Pa., April 22-24, 1974.
9. Mitsak, D.M., et al, "Koppers-Totzek - Economics and Inflation," 3rd
International Conference on Coal Gasification and Liquefaction,
Pittsburgh, Pa., August 3-5, 1976.
10. Mitsak, D.M. and Kamody, J.F., "Koppers-Totzek: Take a Long Hard Look,"
2nd Symposium on Coal Gasification, Liquefaction, and Utilization,
Pittsburgh, Pa., August 5-7, 1975.
46
-------
APPENDIX B
TEXACO GASIFICATION
MODULE DRAFT DATA SHEETS
47
-------
TEXACO GASIFIER
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
(1)
1.1 Operating Principles -High pressure, high temperature gasification
of coal entrained in oxygen and steam, with co-current gas/solids
flow.
1.2 Development Status -Since 1953, the Texaco process has been in
commercial use for the production of synthesis gas from petroleum
feedstocks and is currently used in approximately 70 plants in over
(12}
20 countries v ' ' . The application of the process to coal is cur-
rently at the pilot plant stage. However, there are plans to convert
an existing European oil gasification plant to the Texaco coal
gasification process; scheduled start-up of the plan is late 1977
ERDA has also recently awarded a contract to W.R. Grace for con-
ceptual design of an 1800 tonne per day (2000 TPD) synthesis gas
demonstration plant for the production of 1088 tonne per day (1200
/ c 10
TPD) ammonia from high sulfur agglomerating coal v ' ' '. Minnkota
Power Cooperative, Inc., of Grand Forks, No. Dakota and Northern
States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minn., have also recently cir-
culated a proposal to collectively undertake a feasibility study of
a lignite-fueled methanol plant to be located in western North
Dakota t13'18). The Louisiana Municipal Power Company (LAMPCO) has
recently proposed construction of a facility at Baldwin, La., to
produce 1.25 kcal/SCM (140 Btu/SCF) gas from bituminous coal and
residual oil for power generation ^ . (See Table B-l.)
1.3 Licensor/Developer
Texaco Development Corporation
135 East 42nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
49
-------
TABLE B-1. DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF TEXACO COAL GASIFICATION PROCESS
Facility
Operator
Location
Capacity
Status/Mlseel1aneous
(1)
Pilot Plant
Pilot Plant
(1,3,5,11,17)
Planned
Commercial
(2)*
vt i
Planned /g i?
(demonstration)
Planned
Commercial
Planned /,.*
Commercial*'*'
Texaco
Texaco(?)
(Olin-Mathieson)
W. R. Grace &
Co. (ERDA-
sponsored)
Montebello Research Laboratory
Montebello, California
Morgantown, W. Va.
Germany (?)
Probably western Kentucky
Minnkota Power
Cooperative,
Inc. and
Northern
States Power
Company
Louisiana
Municipal
Power Co.
Western No. Dakota
Baldwin, La.
13.6 tonne per day
(15 TPD); single
train
90.7 tonne per day
(100 TPD)
144 tonne per day
(159 TPD)
Plant would utilize
1,800 tonne per day
(2,000 TPD) of high
sulfur agglomerating
coal for production
of 1,088 tonne per
day (1,200 TPD)
ammonia.
Plant would utilize
22,700 tonne per day
(25,000 TPD) coal for
production of 2.4
million liters (7.5
million gallons) of
methanol per day.
Plant would produce
1.25 kcal/SCM (140
Btu/SCF) gas from
bituminous coal and
residual oil for
power generation.
In operation since 19?
present
Operational from
1956-58
Scheduled for
start-up in late 1977
Phase I, conceptual
design, was awarded
by ERDA in August
1977. Phase II,
construction and
operation, is expected
to be completed in
1981. Project cost
estimated at $320
million.
Proposal for feasi-
bility study issued
in mid-1977.
Economic and engi-
neering studies are
completed. Project
cost estimated at
$62 million.
*At the present time, two European companies are converting an existing oil gasification plant to the Texaco coal
gasification process at this site.(2)
-------
1.4 Commercial Applications -The Texaco process has been in commercial
use for production of synthesis gas from petroleum feed since 1953.
There is no present commercial application to coal. Proposed
commercial-scale developments have been discussed in Section 1.2
above.
2.0 PROCESS INFORMATION
2.1 Pilot Plant (see Figure B-l, Flow Diagram)
2.1.1 Gasifier (see Figure B-2)
Construction: vertical, cylindrical pressure
vessel with carbon steel shell. The top section
where gasification occurs, is refractory lined.
The lower section (slag quench chamber) which con-
tains a reservoir of water for quenching of gas, is
unlined steel
m:
Dimensions: 1.5m (5 ft) outside shell diameter and
6m (20 ft) height (2).
Bed type and gas flow: entrained bed; continuous
co-current downward gas/solid flow; lateral gas
outlet near the middle of the unit, at the top of
the slag quench chamber U>2).
e Heat transfer and cooling mechanism: direct gas/
solids heat transfer. Water jacket at the top of
the gasifier provides cooling for the burner
nozzles(5).
Coal feeding mechanism: continuous injection of
coal and steam (supplied by water in the slurry
feed) tangentially or axially near the top of the
gasifier through a water-cooled burner nozzle W .
Gasification media introduction: continuous feeding
of preheated oxygen through a separate water-cooled
burner nozzle tangentially or axially near the top
of the gasifier (4). (Steam is added to the gasifier
along with the coal.)
Ash removal mechanism: molten ash flows through an
opening at the bottom of the gasifier burner section
into the slag quench chamber. The quenched slag is
When petroleum or coal liquefaction residues are used as feedstock, the feed-
stock is pumped to the gasifier as a liquid; steam is fed into the gasifier
separately rather than as a liquid/steam mixture.
D I
-------
01
ro
^-v. WASTE
f JHEAT
ORIFICE
SCRUBBER
LEGEND:
1 Coal
2 Water
3 Oxygen
4 Fuel
5 Air
6 Make-up Water
7 Raw Product Gas
SCRUBBER
KNOCK-OUT
POT
)ILtR
i
SOOT
WATER
CLARIFIER
W
T
9
10
11
12
13
Gas Quenching Liquor and
Process Condensate (soot water)
Product Gas Condensate
Clarified Water
Clarified Recycle Water
Quenched Product Gas
Flash Gas to Flare
14 Vent Gas from Slurry Thickener
15 Preheater Flue Gases
16 Steam (slurry purge)
17 Slag Filtrate Slowdown
18 Dewatered Slag
19 Soot Water Sludge (fine slag)
Figure B-l. Process Flow Diagram for Texaco Pilot Gasification Plant
-------
COAL SLURRY FEED
OXYGEN
COOLING
WATER
IN
BURNER
(IGNITION MECHANISM)
COOLING
WATER
OUT
REFRACTORY
LINING
WATER QUENCH
SECTION
SYNTHESIS
GAS
GENERATOR
WATER IN
SOOT WATER OUT
SLAG OUT
Figure B-2. Texaco Gasifier
53
-------
discharged from the bottom of the quench chamber
through lockhoppers U9). The water used for
quenching is sent to a clarifier for removal of
suspended solids.
Special features: gas quenching and cooling, as
well as slag removal, are accomplished simultaneously
in the slag quench chamber.
The coal/steam feeding mechanism eliminates any
moisture content restrictions for coal feed.
Operating Parameters
t Gas outlet temperature: 478 to 533°K (400 to 500°F)
Internal gasifier ("reaction zone") temperature: 1370
to 1640°K (2000-2500°F) O»20)
Gasifier pressures: 2.4 - 8.2 MPa (350 to 1200 psig) d>2°)
Coal residence time in gasifier: a few seconds^ '
Raw Materials Requirements
Coal feed stock requirements
Typeall types of coal (also, hydrocarbon-containing
residuum, such as H-coal liquefaction residues)U»2,10)
Size -70 percent less than 0.074mm (0.003 in) (7>9)
Rate - 410 kg/sec-m2 (300 lb/hr-ft2) [Calculated from
data in U)]
Steam requirements: 0.1 to 0.6 kg/kg coal (supplied
by water in the slurry feed) (7). (0.24 to 0.43 kg/kg
coal for Illinois #6 H-coal liquefaction residues;
0.25 to 0.32 kg/kg coal for Wyodak H-coal liquefaction
residues) (19)
Oxygen requirements: 0.6 to 0.9 kb/kg coal^ '. (9.8
residues; 10.2 to 11.1 kg/kg coal for Wyodak H-coal
to 10.0 kg/kg coal for Illinois #6 H-coal liquefaction
residues; 10.2 to 11.1
liquefaction residues)
Utility Requirements
Boiler feed water: ?
Cooling water: ?
54
-------
Electricity; ?
Fuel; ? (preheater may be designed to burn coal
or use waste heat in a full-scale facility)
Process Efficiency
Cold gas efficiency:
= (product gas energy output/coal energy input) x 100
= Not available for coal
= 83-84 percent with H-coal liquefaction residues
(Illinois #6 bituminous and Wyodak coals) (2,19)
Overall thermal efficiency:
[Total energy output (product gas + HC byproducts + steam)] ,QQ
[Total energy input (coal + electric power)]
= ?
Expected Turndown Ratio
= [Full capacity output/minimum sustainable output]
= 100/15 (15)
Gas Production Rate/Yield
1.6 SCM/kg (26 SCF/lb) for coal
SCF/lb) for
H-
(approximately 2.2-2.5 SCM/kg (35-40
H-coal liquefaction residues) (2.19)
(2 4 9^
2.1.2 Coal Feed/Pretreatment vt'^'J' -A thickener is used to
prepare a water slurry of coal containing 40 to 50 percent
coal by weight. The slurry is then pumped through a heater
where the mixture is heated to 823°K (1000°F) at a pressure
of 1.5 MPa (225 psia). The steam-coal ratio is controlled
by reducing excess steam through the use of a cyclone ahead
of the gasifier.*
(259)
2.1.3 Quench and Dust Removal v ' ' ' -Molten slag is discharged
into quench water in the lower half of the gasifier unit
When petroleum or coal liquefaction residues are used as feedstock, the feed-
stock is pumped to the gasifier as a liquid. Steam is fed to the gasifier
separately rather than as a liquid/steam mixture.
55
-------
(slag quench chamber). The solidified slag is removed at the
bottom of the gasifier through a lockhopper system. "Soot
water," which contains dispersed soot and other suspended
and dissolved matter, is drawn off near the bottom of the
quench chamber and sent to a clarifier (see Figure B-l).
2.2 Conceptual Commercial-Scale Design ' A typical commercial
Texaco gasifier 2.7m (9 ft) O.D. and 5m (15 ft) high is projected
to gasify 1700 tonnes (1900 tons/day) of coal to produce about 3 mm
SCM/day (100 mm SCF/day) of medium-Btu gas at 4.5 MPa (650 psig).
3.0 PROCESS ECONOMICS
No data have been published on the economics of the Texaco process for
coal gasification. Cost estimates have been made for synthesis gas
production using oil feedstocks ^ '.
4.0 PROCESS ADVANTAGES (1>2»4)
All types of coals, chars, and other organic materials can be
gasified.
Gasifier can be operated with either oxygen or air.
t Tars, oils, napthas and phenols are present in the raw gas only
in trace amounts, reducing downstream gas treatment requirements.
Use of the water slurry feeding mechanism eliminates the need
for coal drying and any restriction on coal moisture content.
When the coal is slurried with water, grinding and pulverizing
operations may be carried out in a wet mill, thus avoiding
emissions and hazards associated with dry coal dust (4).
The use of pulverized coal does not require rejection of coal
fines from the feed, as is the case with some other processes.
Gas quench and slag quench are conducted simultaneously in the
bottom of the gasifier vessel.
Essentially all coal carbon is gasified in the process ^ .
56
-------
5.0 PROCESS LIMITATIONS
High temperature of exit gases and slag slurry requires heat
recovery for maintenance of satisfactory thermal efficiency.
High carry-over of slag particles in the raw product gas may
lead to operating problems in the waste heat boiler.
CO to \\2 ratio in product gas is about 1. Extensive shift is
necessary prior to methanation or for ammonia or methanol
synthesis.
6.0 INPUT STREAMS (see Figure B-l)
6.1 Coal (Stream No. 1) - see Table B-2
6.2 Water for slurry and steam (Stream No. 2) - see Section 2.1.1
6.3 Oxygen (Stream No. 3) - see Section 2.1.1
6.4 Fuel (Stream No. 4) - see Section 2.1.1
6.5 Air (Stream No. 5) - see Section 2.1.1
6.6 Make-up Water (Stream No. 6) - Quantitative data unavailable.
Stream may include recycled quench water. See Section 2.2.1.
7.0 INTERMEDIATE STREAMS (see Figure B-l)
7.1 Gaseous Streams
7.1.1 Raw product gas (Stream No. 7) No quantitative data avail-
able. However, gas composition will be similar to that of
Stream No. 12, quenched product gas. (See Section 8.1.1.)
(Some ammonia, \\2$ and particulates are expected to be
removed from the gas by the quenching operation.)
7.2 Liquid Streams
7.2.1 Gas quenching liquor and process condensate (soot water)
(Stream No. 8) No quantitative data available. Major
potential constituents include suspended solids (coal fines)
and slag), CM", SCN", S~, ammonia, trace elements and
organics.
57
-------
TABLE B-2. Properties of Input Coal (and Coal Residues)
Property
Size
Volatile matter, %
Moisture, %
Composition (dry), %
C
H
N
S
Ash
0
Cl
Ash Composition, %
Si02
A1203
Fe2°3
Ti02
P2°5
CaO
MgO
Na20
K20
B2°3
so3
HHV-Kcal/Kg(Btu/lb)
Illinois #6
Bituminous
Coal (1,16)
70% <0. 074mm
(0.003 in)
38.1
3.7
65.0
4.9
1.2
3.6
13.7
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
1,505 (13,150)
Illinois #6 H-Coal
Liquefaction
Residues (19, 2)*, t
Run 1-2 Run I-5c
-
73.1 71.2
5.8 5.4
0.73 0.76
1.37 1.74
16.8 18.6
1.7 2.0
0.5 0.3
Average
46.9
19.3
18.9
Wyodak H-Coal
Liquefaction
Residues (19, 2)*, t
Run W-6 Run W-7
-
78.3 79.7
5.8 5.6
0.9 0.9
0.06 0.01
10.4 9.0
4.6 4.8
.00 .00
Average
31.4
15.8
5.83
0.91 0.86
0.15
4.33
1.16
1.29
1.98
0.15
3.67
1,600 1,536
(13,943) (13,416)
1.63
23.83
5.79
2.26
0.27
0.13
7.38
1 ,660 1 ,670
(14,476) (14,594)
*Includes aromatic purge solvent
tA total of 17 runs were performed using Illinois #6 H-coal liquefaction residues,
and a total of 8 runs were performed using Wyodak H-coal liquefaction residues.
Runs 1-2, I-5c, W-6 and W-7 represent the extremes of slag and soot production
obtained under different oxygen input rates (gasification temperatures). Oxygen
input rates were as follows: 0.56 SCM/kg (9.1 SCF/lb) for Run 1-2; 0.61 SCM/kg
[9.9 SCF/lb) for Run I-5c; 0.62 SCM/kg (10.1 SCF/lb) for Run W-6; and 0.68 SCM/kg
[11.1 SCF/lb) for Run W-7.
58
-------
7.2.2 Product gas condensate (Stream Ho. 9) - No quantitative data
available. Major potential constituents similar to those in
Stream No. 8.
7.2.3 Clarified water (Stream No. 10) -No quantitative data
available. Major potential constituents similar to those
in Stream No. 8.
7.2.4 Clarified recycle water (Stream No. 11) -No quantitative data
available. Stream is recycled as quench water to gasifier.
8.0 DISCHARGE STREAMS (see Figure B-l)
8.1 Gaseous Streams
8.1.1 Quenched product gas (Stream No. 12) -see Table B-3.
8.1.2 Flash gas (Stream No. 13) No quantitative data available.
Major potential constituents include hydrocarbons, hLS,
NH3, and HCN.
8.1.3 Vent gas from slurry thickener (Stream No. 14) - No
quantitative data available. Main potential constituents
include fine coal particles and volatile organics.
8.1.4 Preheater flue gases (Stream No. 15) No quantitative data
available. Major potential constituents include typical
fuel combustion products, such as CO, hydrocarbons, SO ,
/\
NO , ash particulates. Quantities are dependent on fuel
J\
used.
8.2 Liquid Streams
8.2.1 Steam (slurry purge) (Stream No. 16) No quantitative data
available. Major potential constituents include coal
particles and volatile organics.
8.2.2 Slag filtrate blowdown (Stream No. 17) No quantitative data
available. Major potential constituents may include those
found in Stream No. 8 (can be recycled to Stream No. 11).
59
-------
TABLE B-3. PRODUCT GAS PROPERTIES AND PRODUCTION RATES FOR
COAL (AND COAL RESIDUES) (STREAM 12)
Dry Composition
(Vol «)
CO
H2
CH4
c2+
C02
N2 + Ar
02
H2S
COS
CS2
RSH
S02
Moisture
Particulates
HHV-kcal/SCM
(Btu/SCF)
Production Rate
SCM/kg (SCF/lb)
Illinois #6
Bituminous
Coal
(1)
37.6
39.0
0.5
20.8
0.6
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
2250 (253)
1.6 (26)
Illinois #6 H-Coal
Liquefaction
Residues (2,19)*
Run 1-2
53.1
41.0
.5
5.2
.07
-
.20
.01
-
-
-
-
-
2740t
(308)'
2.2
(35)
Run I-5c
51.4
39.9
.06
8.2
.04
-
.40
.01
-
-
-
-
-
2610t
(294)
2.3
(37)
Wyodak H-Coal
Liquefaction
Residues (2,19)*
Run W-6
39.2
54.9
0.2
.5
.18
-
.00
.00
-
-
-
-
-
2710t
(305)
2.5
(40)
Run W-7
38.0
54.2
.02
7.6
.11
-
.00
.00
-
-
-
-
2740t
(308)
2.5
(40)
*A total of 17 runs were performed using Illinois #6 H-coal liquefaction
residues, and a total of 8 runs were performed using Wyodak H-coal lique-
faction residues. Runs 1-2, I-5c, W-6 and W-7 represent the extremes of
slag and soot production obtained under different oxygen input rates
(gasification temperatures). Oxygen input rates were as follows: 0.56 SCM/kg
(9.1 SCF/lb) for Run 1-2; 0.61 SCM/kg (9.9 SCF/lb) for Run I-5c; 0.62 SCM/kg
(10.1 SCF/lb) for Run W-6; and 0.68 SCM/kg (11.1 SCF/lb) for Run W-7.
(Calculated from composition
60
-------
8.3 Solid Streams
8.3.1 Dewatered slag (Stream No. 18) -Composition will generally
reflect coal ash constituents (Table B-2). Carbon content
and production rates of slag produced from gasification of
H-coal liquefaction residues are shown in Table B-4. There
are no data available on composition of slag produced when
coal is the feed.
8.3.2 Soot water sludge (Stream No. 19) -Composition and flow
rates reflect coal ash constituents and temperature of
gasification. Carbon content and production rates of fine
slag and soot produced from gasification of H-coal liquefaction
residues are shown in Table B-4. No data are available on
composition of soot water sludge produced when coal is the
feed.
9.0 DATA GAPS AND LIMITATIONS
Limited data are available to provide an accurate and complete description
of the Texaco process. Data gaps currently exist in the characterization
of most of the gaseous, liquid and solid streams generated in Texaco
pilot operations using coal feed (see Sections 7 and 8). Also, limited
data are available on the characteristics of the waste streams from
gasification of liquefaction residues.
Data are unavailable on the economics of the operations and on the
proposed commercial designs.
10.0 RELATED PROGRAMS
The Electric Power Research Institute and Texaco, Inc., are about to
issue a joint proposal for determination of the performance of the
Texaco gasifier for fuel production for combined cycle electric power
generation. A major objective of the program is the characterization
of certain emissions generated by the process by means of environmental
sampling and analysis.
61
-------
TABLE B-4. PRODUCTION RATES AND CARBON CONTENTS OF SLAG AND
SOOT FOR H-COAL LIQUEFACTION RESIDUES
Gasification Residue
Coarse Slag
(contained in Stream No. 18)
Carbon (wt %)
Production Rate
(dry kg/ kg feed)
Fine Slag
(contained in Stream No. 19)
Carbon (wt %)
Production Rate
(dry kg/kg feed)
Soot
(contained in Stream No. 19)
Carbon (wt %)
Production Rate
(dry kg/ kg feed)
Feed*
111. #6 (] *
H-Coal Residue11 yj
Run 1-2
12.6
.023
31.3
.10
31.3
.145
Run I-5C
<0.50
.055
2.50
.12
16.76
.029
Wvodak H-Coal Residue^19)
Run W-6
0.5
.005
8.4
.044
17.7
.072
Run W-7
0.45
.07
7.4
.005
12.7
.017
*A total of 17 runs were performed using Illinois #6 H-coal liquefaction
residues, and a total of 8 runs were performed using Wyodak H-coal lique-
faction residues. Runs 1-2, I-5c, W-6 and W-7 represent the extremes of
slag and soot production obtained under different oxygen input rates
(gasification temperatures). Oxygen input rates were as follows: 0.56 SCM/
kg (9.1 SCF/lb) for Run 1-2; 0.61 SCM/kg (9.9 SCF/lb) for Run I-5c;
0.62 SCM/kg (10.1 SCF/lb) for Run W-6; and 0.68 SCM/kg (11.1 SCF/lb) for
Run W-7).
62
-------
REFERENCES
1. Dravo Corporation. Handbook of Gasifiers and Gas Treatment Systems.
ERDA FE-1772-11, Washington, D.C., February 1976, p. 25-26.
2. Texaco Reports Results of Gasification Tests on H-Coal Residue.
Synthetic Fuels Quarterly Report, Cameron Engineers, Inc., Denver,
Colorado, 14_ (2): p. 4-34 to 4-40, June 1977.
3. Hall, E.H., et al. Fuels Technology: A State-of-the-Art Review.
PB-242 535, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
April 1975. p. 5-72 through 5-73; p. 5-93 through 5-95.
4. Eastman, D. Preliminary Report on Coal Gasification, presented at
Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineers, New York, February 1952, 7p.
5. Conn, A.L. Sulfur Developments: Low Btu Gas for Power Plants.
Chemical Eng. Prog., 69_ (12): 56-61, 1973.
6. An Ammonia-from-Coal Demonstration Plant Proposal. Chemical Eng., 84_
(19): 87, 1977.
7. Hahn, O.J. Present Status of Low-Btu Gasification Technology. Institute
for Mining and Minerals Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky, January 1976.
8. Hoy, H.R. and D.M. Wilkins. Total Gasification of Coal. Brit. Coal
Utility Research Association Monthly Bulletin, 22_: 57-110, 1958.
9. Katz, D.L. et al. Evaluation of Coal Conversion Processes to Provide
Clean Fuels. Final Report. EPRI 206-0-0, PB-234 202 and PB-234 203,
University of Michigan, College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
1974. p. 198-200.
10. Glazer, F. et al. Emissions for Processes Producing Clean Fuels. EPA-
450/2-75-028, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
March 1974, p. X-l to X-20.
11. Ferrell, J. and G. Poe. Impact of Clean Fuels Combustion on Primary
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources. PB-253 452, Accurex
Corporation, Aerotherm Division, Mountain View, California, March 1976.
p. 3-2 to 3-9.
63
-------
12. Government Concentrates. Chemical and Engineering News, 55 (36): 16,
1977.
13. Feasibility Study Proposed for North Dakota Methanol Plant. Synthetic
Fuels Quarterly Report, Cameron Engineers, Inc., Denver, Colorado, 14.
(2): p. 4-16 to 4-17, June 1977.
14. Status of Synfuels Projects/Coal-Louisiana Municipal Power Commission.
Synthetic Fuels Quarterly Report, Cameron Engineers, Inc., Denver,
Colorado, 14_ (2): p. B-ll, June 1977.
15. Child, E.T. and C.P. Marion. Recent Developments in the Texaco Synthesis
Gas Generation Process. For presentation at the Fertilizer Association
of India, National Seminar, New Delhi, India, December 1973.
16. Forney, A.J., et al., Trace Elements and Major Component Balances Around
the Synthane PDU Gasifier. Symposium Proceedings: Environmental Aspects
of Fuel Conversion Technology-11, December 1975.
17. As Coal Bids for a Chemical Comeback. Chemical Week, 78: 76-80, June
30, 1956.
18. Osur, J.D. Consultant, and E.G. Glass, Northern States Power Company,
and A.L. Freeman, Minnkota Power Cooperative. Report on a Proposed
Study of a Lignite-Fueled Methanol Plant. March 25, 1977. 65 p.
19. Robin, A.M., The Production of Synthesis Gas from H-Coal Liquefaction
Residues. Texaco Inc., Montebello Research Laboratory, for presentation
at 83rd National Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Houston, Texas, March 20-24, 1977, Texaco Document No. 2085. 32 p.
20. Evaluation of Coal Gasification Technology. Part II. Low and Inter-
mediate Btu Fuel Gases. Panel on Evaluation of Coal Gasification Tech-
nology, Office of Coal Research, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1974. p. 35.
21. ERDA Awards Contract to W.R. Grace and Co. for Design of Medium Btu Demo
Plant. Information from ERDA, Weekly Announcements, Washington, D.C.,
Article No. 77-150, 3_, (35): p. 2, September 2, 1977.
64
-------
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY LISTING OF HIGH BTU GASIFICATION
INPUT MATERIALS (OTHER THAN COAL)
65
-------
PRELIMINARY LISTING OF HIGH BTU GASIFICATION
INPUT MATERIALS OTHER THAN COAL
ACID GAS CLEANUP MATERIALS
1. DIPA or di-isopropanol-amine; [CH~CH(OH)CHJ9NH
0 L- L-
2. MEA = mono-ethanol-amine
3. Alkazid-M = potassium salt of methyl amino propionic acid
4. Alkazid-DIK = potassium salt of dimethyl amino acetic acid
5. Potassium carbonate (K^CO-)
6. Benfield additives
7. Catacarb potassium salt solution
8. Catacarb non-toxic catalyst
9. DGA = diglycolamine; HO-C2H4-0-C2H4~NH2
10. Propylene carbonate
11. Arsenic trioxide, As203
12. Glycine
13. Union Carbide proprietary molecular sieves or zeolites
13a. Type 4A-LNG for C02
13b. Several types of desulfurization
14. NMP = N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone
15. Methanol, CHgOH
16. Dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol (Selexol)
17. DEA = diethanolamine
18. Sulfolane = tetrahydrothiophene dioxide
67
-------
19. Claus catalysts
19a. Bauxite, balls or pellets
19b. Alumina, balls or pellets (active)
19c. Newer or more advanced catalysts
20. Sodium carbonate (Na2C03)
21. Alkali arsenates
21a. Sodium arsenates: Na3As03» N23AsO,
21b. Potassium arsenates: KJ\s03
22. Sodium meta vanadate (NaVCL)
23. Sodium vanadate (N2V4Og)
24. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
25. ADA = anthraquinone disulfonic acid
26. Redox catalyst = sodium 1,4-napthoquinone, 2-sulfonate
27. Sodium naptho - hydroquinone sulfonate
28. Beavon catalyst = cobalt moly I, cobalt moly II, catalyst S-501
29. Beavon alkalinebuffer solution
30. Cleanair solvent
31. Cleanair catalyst
32. Ammonia (NH3)
33. SCOT Process catalyst - cobalt/molybdenum on alumina support
34. Activated carbon
35. Sulfuric acid (W-L S02 Recovery Process)
36. Anhydrous citric acid
37. MDEA = methyl-diethanol-amine; (HOC2H.)2NCH3
38. TEA = tri-ethanol-amine (supplanted by MDEA)
39. Octyl-phenoxyethanol (MDEA foam inhibitor)
68
-------
40. Silicon antifoam agents (for MDEA)
41. Inhibitors for MEA; proprietary
42. Sodium polysulfide (Na2Sn+1) - Stretford pretreatment for HCN
43. Iron oxides (FeO, Fe-jd^)
44. Zinc oxide (ZnO)
45. Tributyl phosphate
DEHYDRATION PROCESSES
1. Molecular sieves, e.g., Union Carbide Type 4A
2. Silica gels and beads
3. Alumina
4. Glycols - diethylene, triethylene and tetraethylene
AFTERBURNERS
1. Natural gas
2. Fuel oils
3. Active noble metal catalysts on alumina supports
ex: Pt/Al203
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
1. Alum
2. Lime
3. Polyelectrolyte
4. Air
5. Monohydric phenols
6. Polyhydric phenols
7. Butyl acetate
8. Isopropyl ether
9. Activated carbon
69
-------
10. Synthetic polymer
11. Phosphoric acid
SCRUBBERS
1. Line (CaO)
2. Limestone (CaC03)
3. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
4. Sodium carbonate (Na^COo)
5. Sodium sulfite (Na2$03)
6. Sulfuric acid-dilute (H2S04)
7. Ferric catalyst (Chiyoda 101 Process)
8. Magnesium oxide (MgO)
9. Ammonia (NH3)
10. Copper oxide (CuO)
SHIFT REACTIONS
1. Iron-chromium catalysts
METHANATION
1. Iron oxide (Fe30,)
2. Raney nickel catalyst
3. Thorium nickel catalyst
4. Other catalyst found to be effective, incl. Fe, Co, Ru, Rh,
Pd, Os, Ir, Pt
70
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Jnurucrions on the reverse before completing)
I. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-025
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
A. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Assessment of High-Btu Gasification:
Annual Report
5. REPORT DATE
February 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
M. Ghassemi and C. Murray
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
J. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRW, Inc.
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE623A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2635
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Annual; 5-10/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES JERL-RTP project officer js William J. Rhodes, Mail Drop 61,
919/541-2851.
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of initial efforts of a 3-year program, initiated May 3, 1977,
with the dual objectives of assessing environmental impacts associated with technolo-
gies for converting coal to high-Btu gaseous fuel and to identify control technologies
required to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts associated with com-
mercial operation. The program consists of: evaluating existing process and environ-
mental data; acquiring supplementary data through sampling and analyzing process
waste streams; and environmental assessment and process engineering support stud-
ies. Most of the initial effort was in connection with acquiring and analyzing the data
base, and locating potential sites for field programs. A modular approach was cho-
sen for analyzing and presenting data on gasification, gas treatment, pollution control,
and integrated facilities. Draft gasification data sheets were prepared for some of
the processes considered. Preliminary discussions were held to enlist the cooperation
of process developers in identifying potential sites for environmental sampling and in
arranging for such sampling.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Pollution
Assessments
Coal Gasification
Coal
Fossil Fuels
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Environmental Assess-
ment
Gaseous Fuels
13B
14B
13H
2 ID
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
87
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
71
------- |