U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Industrial Environmental Research      EPA-600/7-78-019
Office of Research and Development Laboratory                       . e\^o
                 Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711 February 1978
      ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
      OF COAL LIQUEFACTION:
      Annual Report
       Interagency
       Energy-Environment
       Research and Development
       Program Report
                                 z

-------
                       RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
 Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into seven series.
 These seven broad categories were established to facilitate further
 development and application of environmental technology.  Elimination
 of  traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology
 transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.  The seven series
 are:

     1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
     2.  Environmental Protection Technology
     3.  Ecological Research
     4.  Environmental Monitoring
     5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
     6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
     7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

 This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series.  Reports in this series result from
 the effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment
 Research and Development Program.  These studies relate to EPA's
 mission to protect the public health and welfare from adverse effects
 of pollutants associated with energy systems.  The goal of the Program
 is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an
 environmentallycompatible manner by providing the necessary
 environmental data and control technology.  Investigations include
 analyses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health
 and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of, control
 technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide
 range of energy-related environmental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia  22161.

-------
                                      EPA-600/7-78-019
                                         February 1978
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
     OF COAL LIQUEFACTION:
              Annual  Report
                       by

             Ken T. Budden and Werner H. Zieger

                 Hittman Associates, Inc.
                 9190 Red Branch Road
                Columbia, Maryland 21045
                 Contract No. 68-02-2162
               Program Element No. EHB623A
            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, O.C. 20460

-------
                          ABSTRACT
     Fourteen of the most prominent coal liquefaction
systems have been studied in terms of background, process
description, major operations, input and output streams,
status, and schedule of system development.  Four systems -
SRC, H-Coal, Exxon Donor Solvent, and Synthoil - have been
selected for indepth study.  The first Standards of Practice
Manual is under preparation for the SRC-I system which will
include descriptions of modules, control/disposal practices,
environmental emissions, and control/disposal costs.

     Must of the information presented in this report re-
presents work that is still in progress.  As a result,
the information is preliminary and should be used only
as an indication of what is to come in future publications.

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                       Page
Abstract	   ii
Table of Contents	
List of Tables	
List of Figures	   ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	   x
INTRODUCTION	   xi
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY	   xii
A.   Current Technology Background	    1
     1.   System Information	    2
          a.   Catalytic Liquid Phase  Hydrogenation...    2
               (1)  Synthoil  System	    2
               (2)  H-Coal  System	    4
               (3)  Bergius System	    6
          b.   Noncatalytic Liquid  Phase Hydrogenation    7
               (1)  Solvent Refined Coal System	    7
               (2)  COSTEAM System	   10
          c.   Pyrolysis and Hydrocarbonization	   11
               (1)  Char-Oil-Energy Development (COED)
                    System	   11
               (2)  Coalcon System	   13
               (3)  Clean Coke System	   15
               (4)  TOSCOAL System	   16
               (5)  ORC  (Garrett) System	   18
          d.   Other  Systems	   20
               (1)  Fischer - Tropsch  System	   20
               (2)  Donor Solvent System	   22
               (3)  Methanol  System	   24

                               iii

-------
            TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
                                                  Page
          (4)  Supercritical Gas Extraction
               System	  26
2.    Schedules	  28
     a.   Catalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation...  30
          (1)  Synthoil System	  30
          (2)  H-Coal System	  30
          (3)  Bergius System	  30
     b.   Noncatalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation  31
          (1)  Solvent Refined Coal System	  31
          (2)  COSTEAM System	  31
     c.   Pyrolysis and Hydrcarbonization	  31
          (1)  COED System	  31
          (2)  Coalcon System	  31
          (3)  Clean Coke System	  31
          (4)  TOSCOAL System	  32
          (5)  ORC (Garrett) System	  32
     d.   Other Systems	  32
          (1)  Fischer-Tropsch System	  32
          (2)  Donor Solvent System	  32
          (3)  Methanol System	  32
          (4)  Supercritical Gas Extraction System 32
3.    Status	  33
     a.   Synthoil System	  33
     b.   H-Coal System	  34
     c.   Solvent Refined Coal System	  34

-------
                 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
                                                       Page
          d.    Donor Solvent System	   36
          e.    Clean Coke System	   38
          f.    Bergius System	   39
          g.    Char-Oil-Energy Development (COED)
               System	   39
          h.    COSTEAM System	   40
          i.    Coalcon System	   40
          j .    TOSCOAL System	   41
          k.    Occidental Research Corporation
               (Garrett) System	   41
          1.    Fischer-Tropsch System	   43
          m.    Methanol System	   43
          n.    Supercritical Gas Extraction System....   44
     4.   Priorities for Further Studies	   44
          a.    Air Pollution Control	   45
          b.    Water Pollution Control	   45
          c.    Solid Waste Control	   48
B.   Current Environmental Background	   50
     a.   Potential Pollutants and Impacts in All
          Media	   51
     2.   Federal/State Standards, Criteria	   56
          a.    Federal Policy	   57
          b.    Selected State Policies	   58
     3.   Other Regulatory Requirements (New or
          Pending)	   66
                               v

-------
                 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
                                                       Page
C.   Environmental Objectives Development	   68
     1.   Criteria for Prioritizing	   68
     2.   Methodologies Being Developed	   69
D.   Environmental Data Acquisition	   71
     1.   Existing Data for Each Process	   71
     2.   Identify Sampling and Analytical Techniques.   73
          a.    The Phased Approach	   73
               (1)  Level 1 Sampling and Analysis	   74
               (2)  Level 2 Sampling and Analysis	   75
          b.    Multimedia Sampling	   75
               (1)  Classification of Streams for
                    Sampling Process	   75
               (2)  Sampling Point Selection Criteria.   76
               (3)  Stream Prioritization	   79
          c.    Data Requirements and Pre-Test Planning  79
               (1)  Process Data Needs	   79
               (2)  Pre-Test Site Survey	   80
               (3)  Pre-Test Site Preparation	   81
          d.    Sampling Equipment and Methodology	   81
     3.    Test Program Development	   90
          a.    Introduction	   90
          b.    Test Plan for the SRC Pilot Plant	   90
          c.    SRC Combustion Test	   92
     4.    Input-Output Materials Characterization:....   94

-------
                 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
                                                       Page
          a.    Reported Material Balances	   95
          b.    Use of Reported Sample Analysis	   95
          c.    Physical-Chemical Relationships	   95
          d.    Analogies With Other Processes	   96
          e.    Comparisons With Other Industries	   96
          f.    Conceptualized Modeling of Missing
               Process Modules	   96
E.   Technology Transfer (Input-Output)	  102
     1.   Standards of Practice Manual	  102
APPENDIX A - Process Flow Diagrams                     A-l
APPENDIX B - Federal and Selected State Regulations    B-l

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                  Page

1    Control Systems Assessment Requirements ..........   47

2    Input-Output Materials for 50,000 bbl/day
     Synthoil System ..................................   98
3
4
5
Input-Output Materials for 50,000 bbl/day
H-Coal System 	
Input-Output Materials for 50,000 bbl/day
Exxon Donor Solvent System 	
Input-Output Materials for 50,000 bbl/day
	 99
, . . 100

     SRC System ....................................... 101

-------
                       LIST OF FIGURES
Figure                                                 Page
1    Process Development Operation Schedule	   29
2    Basic Level 1 Sampling and Analytical Scheme for
     Particulates and Gases	   77
3    Basic Level 1 Sampling and Analytical Scheme for
     Solids, Slurries and Liquids	   78
4    High Pressure Line Grab Purge Sampling Apparatus.   82
5    Low Pressure Grab Purge Sampling Apparatus
     (for Less than 2 Atmospheres Pressure)	   83
6    Evacuated Grab Sampling Apparatus (for Subatmos-
     pheric Pressure)	   84
7    Source Assessment Sampling Schematic	   86
8    Expanded View of Connections of XAD-2 Cartridge
     to High Volume Sampler	   87
9    Plug Collector for Fugitive Water Sample	   88
10   Sampling Apparatus for HPHT (High Pressure  High
     Temperature) Lines	   89
                              T,X

-------
                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     The preparation of this Coal Liquefaction Annual Report
was accomplished through the efforts of the staff of the
Environmental Engineering Department, Hittman Associates,
Inc., Columbia, Maryland under the overall direction of Mr.
Dwight B. Emerson, Department Head and Mr. V. Bruce May,
Acting Head of the Synthetic Fuels Section.  Direction of
the day-to-day work on the program was provided by Mr.
Werner H. Zieger, Task Leader.

     Also, our appreciation is extended to the staff of the
Environmental Engineering Department of Hittman Associates,
Inc. for their assistance during this program.  Specifically,
our thanks to:

     Mr. Ken G. Budden, Environmental Engineer
     Mr. Dewey I. Dykstra, Senior Chemical Engineer
     Dr. Homer T. Hopkins, Senior Scientist
     Mr. Craig J. Koralek, Chemical Engineer
     Dr. C. Leon Parker, Senior Chemical Engineer
     Mr. John E. Robbins, Technical Information Specialist
     Mr. Kevin J. Shields, Chemical Engineer
     Mr. Roger S. Wetzel, Civil Engineer

-------
                        INTRODUCTION
     Extensive research into the hydrogenation of coal was
performed in the nineteen-twenties and thirties in Germany
to utilize their large coal reserves for the production of
liquid fuels.  Interest in the United States was sporadic
until the nineteen-sixties and seventies when it was realized
that alternate sources of fuel were needed to augment the
limited remaining reserves of petroleum.

     Hittman Associates, Inc., is currently under contract
to the Environmental Protection Agency to perform an envir-
onmental assessment of coal liquefaction technology.  In
order to accurately perform this assessment, individual
studies have been initiated to further define the potential
environmental effects of coal liquefaction.  These individual
studies have included; 1) an overview report of fourteen
coal liquefaction systems which included process descriptions,
major operations, input and output streams, process status,
and process development schedules; 2) an indepth study of
four processes (SRC, H-Coal, Synthoil, and Exxon Donor
Solvent); 3) environmental field sampling of coal emissions
from the burning of SRC fuel; 4) development of generalized
process assessment criteria and techniques for prioritizing
processes for generalized environmental assessments, and 5)
acquisition of coal liquefaction product and waste stream
data to estimate the environmental effects to be expected.
These generalized study categories are the basis of this
report and are explained in greater detail in the following
sections.

     Must of the information presented in this report re-
presents work that is still in progress.  As a result, the
information  is preliminary and should be used only as an
indication of what is to come in future publications.

-------
                     MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
              A.  CURRENT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND


     Estimates of current petroleum reserves indicate a
limited remaining life for useful production of fuels.  This
has generated renewed interest in technology for producing
liquid hydrocarbons from coal, with the primary objective of
producing clean liquid fuels.  Coal liquefaction is not a
new technology, but dates back to the early part of the
twentieth century and in principle even further than that.

     With the entry into an era of declining petroleum re-
serves, reduced discoveries, escalation of prices, and real
or induced shortages, coal liquefaction technology has once
more assumed a major role as a potential solution to liquid
fuel problems.  Currently some twenty-odd systems are in
various stages of development by industry and federal agencies,
Four major generic processes of coal liquefaction technology
can be identified.  These are:

         Catalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation

         Noncatalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation

         Pyrolysis and Hydrocarbonization

         Other Systems

Each of the generic processes includes several specific
processes.


1.   CATALYTIC LIQUID PHASE HYDROGENATION


     a.   Synthoil System

          The intent of the SYNTHOIL Process development was
to show that, under the right conditions, reaction of coal
with hydrogen will promote desulfurization and minimize
additional hydrogenation of the products from the primary
liquefaction.  Work on such a process was initiated by the
United States Bureau of Mines at the Pittsburgh Energy
Research Center in 1969.  It has led to a process in which
coal is liquefied and desulfurized in a single step by
catalytic hydrotreatment in a highly turbulent, co-current,
up-flow, packed-bed reactor.  Experimental work was carried
                             xi-i

-------
out on various coals including Pittsburgh, Indiana No. 5,
Middle Kittanning, Ohio No. 6, and Kentucky coal.  All of
these types of coal were satisfactorily converted to low-
sulfur fuel oil with no appreciable attrition of catalyst or
loss of catalyst desulfurization activity.

          The Synthoil process is currently in the lab-
oratory stage with construction of a process development
unit underway.  Operation of the process development unit is
projected to begin in 1978 and continue into 1980.  No firm
plans for a pilot plant have been announced.

          The Foster wheeler Energy Corporation is respon-
sible for the design and management of the construction of a
9.1 megagram (10-ton) per day process development unit to
test the Synthoil process.  However, recent communications
from ERDA indicate that the process development unit may not
be used for the Synthoil process.  Pittsburgh Energy Re-
search Center (PERC) is conducting support research for the
design of the process development unit,   PERC is also moni-
toring laboratory research on various aspects of the Syn-
thoil process being conducted by ERDA's Sandia Laboratories
and by the Argonne National Laboratory.   Research on the
Synthoil process is also being conducted by the Exxon Re-
search and Engineering Laboratories and by the Battelle
Memorial Institute Laboratories.  These projects are being
monitored by the Morgantown, Energy Research Center (MERC)
in West Virginia.

          The Hittman Associates, Inc. laboratories are
running analyses of (1) the Synthoil product, (2) residue
removed from the product by centrifugation, and (3) the
stripping solution that had been used to remove hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia and organic vapors from the off gas vented
from the process.  These materials were produced from a
blend of four Kentucky bituminous coals.


     b.    H-Coal System

          The direct hydrogenation process developed by
Bergius in Germany for conversion of coal to liquid products
led to later development in the U.S. of the H-Coal process.
It was developed by Hydrocarbon Research, Incorporated (HRI)
as a further application of the H-Oil process ebullating bed
technology originally employed to convert heavy oil residues
into lighter fractions.  The ebullating bed catalytic re-
actor converts about 90 percent of the carbon contained in
coal to a liquid.  The feed to hydrogen manufacture is
                              ariii

-------
liquid rather than solid.  The reactor configuration offers
better temperature control, constant catalyst activity and a
consistent quality of liquid product.  An external hydrogen
source is required.  However, direct catalytic processes use
less hydrogen in converting coal to liquids than do the
noncatalytic or indirect catalytic hydrogenation processes.

          The H-Coal process is being developed by Hydro-
carbon Research, Inc. under the joint sponsorship of (1)
ERDA, (2) a private industry consortium composed of Electric
Power Research Institute, Ashland Oil, Inc., Conoco Coal
Development Company, Mobil Oil Corporation and Standard Oil
Company  (Indiana), and (3) the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The overall objectives of the project are to further develop
the H-Coal process and to demonstrate its technical and
economic feasibility on a larger scale.  Specific objectives
are to,  (1) conduct laboratory research on all phases of the
H-Coal process using the existing bench-scale unit and
process development to establish design criteria, (2)
design a pilot plant capable of converting 545 megagrams
(600 tons) of coal per day to 318 cubic metres (2,000 barrels)
per day of low sulfur boiler fuel and (3) procure equipment
and materials for the pilot plant.  Objective (1) is con-
tinuing.  Objective (2) has been realized as the ground was
broken December 15, 1976 at Cattlettsburg, Kentucky.  Deter-
mination of the feasibility of commercial production of
liquid hydrocarbons from coal is the objective of this
ninety-million dollar pilot plant.


     c.   Bergius System

          Developed by Germany to produce aviation fuel and
diesel oil during World War II, the Bergius process was one
of the forerunners in coal liquefaction technology and has
led to the recent development in the United States of the H-
Coal and Synthoil processes.

          The Bergius process  is the ERDA "disposable
catalyst" process.  Construction of a process development
unit is in progress and initial operation is planned for
late 1977.  No pilot plant plans currently exist.


2.   NONCATALYTIC LIQUID PHASE HYDROGENATION
     a.   Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) System

          The SRC process was originally developed by Spencer
Chemical Company for the United States Department of the
Interior, Office of Coal Research.  Subsequently Gulf Oil
                            x^v

-------
 acquired Spencer Chemical Company and development continues
 to the present under the Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Mining
 Company, part of Gulf Oil.

          The SRC process requires no catalyst and low
 amounts of hydrogen relative to most alternative processes.
 The solid product is low in sulfur and ash, and has a high
 heating value.  The major difficulties lie in operating
 costs for filtration and development of handling methods of
 the solid product.

          Presently, there are two pilot plants operating,
 one in Wilsonville, Alabama and another in Fort Lewis near
 Tacoma, Washington.  The plant at Wilsonville, Alabama will
 operate through 1977.  A decision is to be made late in that
 year whether or not to continue operation.

          Operational data from the Ft. Lewis plant will
 provide opportunities for (1) further study and development
 of the process, (2) accumulation of engineering and cost
 data for evaluation of commercial possibilities and design
 of demonstration or commercial plants, and (3) product
 evaluation and market development.  Operation of the Fort
 Lewis, Washington facility is planned to extend into 1981.

          In addition, a demonstration plant is being con-
 sidered by the Kentucky Center for Energy Research but no
 schedule is available.
     b.   COSTEAM System

          The Bureau of Mines has developed a new process,
COSTEAM, that does not use hydrogen directly.  In this
process coal reacts with carbon monoxide and steam instead
of hydrogen.  It does not require a catalyst to convert low
rank coals, such as lignite, into a low sulfur liquid fuel.
There is usually enough water in lignite to supply the needs
of the process.  The water or steam supplies active hydrogen
by reaction with the carbon monoxide.  Alkaline carbonates
are naturally occurring catalytic agents in lignite.

          A process development unit was scheduled for com-
pletion in 1976.  Operation beginning in 1977 and continuing
into 1981 is planned.
                              xv

-------
3.   PYROLYSIS AND HYDROCARBONIZATION
     a.   Char-Oil-Energy Development (COED)  System

          In the COED process,  coal is heated in several
types of fluidized bed at increasingly higher temperatures.
This enables the process to handle caking coals without the
preoxidation or recirculation of char usually necessary to
prevent agglomeration in the system.  This feature permits
the achievement of high yields of oil with minimum sized
equipment.  An additional advantage is that the process
operates at low pressure, less than 0.70 kg/cm^ TO.63 Atm.)
which permits the use of conventional oil processing equip-
ment.

          The COED project has been completed through the
pilot plant stage.  Dismantling of the pilot plant has been
completed.  No further work is projected for this process.


     b.   COALCON System

          The Coalcon process is based on hydrocarbonization
of coal.  When heated in a hydrogen atmosphere, coal pro-
duces liquid, gaseous, and solid products.  These materials
are separated and treated to produce the final clean pro-
ducts.  The solid material or char is then gasified with
oxygen to produce a portion of the hydrogen rich gas re-
quired for hydrocarbonization.


          Although originally planned for near term con-
struction, ERDA is considering suspension of the project due
to marginal economics and technical problems with fluid-bed
carbonizers.  Further work is proceeding to eliminate scale-
up problems involved in fluidized bed and a decision will be
made late in 1977 as to the fate of this project.
     c.   Clean Coke System

          The Clean Coke process is being developed by USS
Engineers and Consultants, Inc., a subsidiary of United
States Steel Corporation, under the sponsorship of ERDA.
The work was initiated in 1972 under the auspices of the
Office of Coal Research (OCR, now a part of ERDA).   The
objective of the project is to design a pilot plant that is
capable of converting low-grade, high-sulfur coal to low-
sulfur, low-ash metallurgical coke, chemical feedstocks, and
liquid and gaseous fuels.
                             xvv

-------
           The  Clean Coke process combines coal carbonization
 and hydrogenation  to produce solid, liquid, and gaseous fuel
 products.  Char produced by carbonization is converted to
 coke which eliminates the problem of char use and disposal.
 No  mechanical  separation equipment is used to separate the
 solids  from  liquid product.  Hydrogenation is noncatalytic
 and no  external hydrogen is required.  However, the hydro-
 genator operates at a very high pressure.


           Laboratory and bench scale development studies on
 Illinois No. 6 Seam coal have been underway since 1969.
 Various aspects including coal preparation, carbonization/
 desulfurization of coal in fluidized beds, and high pressure
 hydrogenation reactions have been the subjects of these
 investigations. Process development units have been built
 and are now  operating.  Two additional types of coal are
 scheduled  to be processed.  Information obtained from the
 process development units will be used for the design of 218
 megagrams  (240 ton) per day pilot plant.


     d.   Occidental Research Corporation (Garrett) System

          The Garrett Process is a solid phase hydrocarbon-
 ization process in which pulverized coal is almost com-
 pletely converted to liquid and gaseous products in less
 than one minute.  The process involves very rapid heating
 and devolatilization of pulverized coal in the absence of
 air, a  short residence time in an entrained flow reactor,
 and a quick quench which prevents degradation of the liquid
 and gaseous products.   Product distribution is strongly
 influenced by pryolysis temperature,  with lower temperatures
 favoring liquid formation.   The pyrolysis products can be
 further refined and purified to obtain synthetic crude oil,
 char which is suitable for combustion in an electric utility
 boiler, pipeline gas,  and elemental sulfur.

          Occidental Research Corporation (ORC) and the
 Commonwealth of Kentucky are in a joint venture for the
purpose of preparing a detailed design for a 227-Mg (250-
 ton) per day pilot plant.   A municipal waste processing
plant of the same capacity is being constructed in San Diego
County, California.  ERDA's schedule calls for continued
 evaluation via process development unit operation into
Fiscal Year 1978.
                              xvii

-------
4.   OTHER SYSTEMS

     a.   Fischer-Tropsch System

          At this time, in the United States,  studies based
on the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis are of a fundamental re-
search nature.  No concrete plans have been made yet for
process development or pilot studies in this country.  A
second large production plant is to be constructed in the
coal fields of the Eastern Transvaal region in South Africa.


     b.   Donor Solvent System

          Research was begun in 1966 to develop the basic
Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) process.  It included studies on
both hydrogenated and unhydrogenated recycle solvents.
Equipment was tested in an integrated pilot plant system of
454 kilograms (one half ton) per day capacity.  Techniques
were developed for analyzing product and intermediate streams.
Studies of process variables are continuing in a 907 kilogram
(one ton) per day pilot plant.

          The Energy Research and Development Administration
and Exxon Research and Engineering Company of Florham Park,
New Jersey have signed an agreement totaling $240 million to
develop a process for producing liquids from coal.  The
project is based on Exxon's donor solvent coal liquefaction
process.  The program will involve both small-scale R&D
work, and the design, construction and operation of a pilot
plant with a capacity of 250 tons per day.  The pilot plant
will be built adjacent to an Exxon refinery at Baytown,
Texas.  The new agreement runs through December 31, 1982.
The project is designed to bring donor solvent coal lique-
faction technology to a stage where commercial plants could
be designed and built by private industry.


     c.   Methanol System

          Natural gas, reformed to synthesis gas, is cur-
rently preferred for methanol production in countries where
it is available as a cheap feedstock.  Prior to the advent
of natural gas, solid fuels had been the major source for
synthesis gas for methanol production.  In the United States
natural gas is no longer readily available and alternate
sources for synthesis gas are being evaluated.  Abundant
coal reserves present in the United States may play an
important role in synthesis gas production.
                              xv^^^

-------
          Some of the first generation systems that have
been used to convert coal to synthesis gas are Koppers-
Totzek, Lurgi and Winkler.  The three systems employ dif-
ferent features and operating conditions, and each produces
a gaseous product of different composition.  A number of
second generation processes are under development.


     d.   Supercritical Gas Extraction System

          Two major problems facing advancement of coal
liquefaction to commercialization are operability of solid-
liquid separation equipment and high hydrogen consumption.
The Supercritical Gas Extraction Process (SGE), now under
development by National Coal Board in England seems to have
solved these problems.   Catalytic, Inc., a subsidiary of Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc. is evaluating the technical
feasibility of this process for United States coals.  This
process is at such an early stage of development that no
plans beyond conception have been announced.
                               xi,x

-------
            B.   CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

     Based on the available literature with respect to
potential pollutants resulting from coal liquefaction sys-
tems and conjunctive developments, Hittman Associates has
attempted to identify the classes of major organic and
inorganic substances (including organometallies) emanating
from gaseous, aqueous,  and solid waste emissions and ef-
fluents.  Division of the pollutants into the organic and
inorganic (or organometallic) groups is reasonable because
these two groups differ in their chemical and physical
properties;  these properties in turn influence the envir-
onmental effects of the various pollutants.  The physical
and chemical properties of the organics have been discussed
in terms of their classes.  An effort was made to generalize
on the known concentration of about seven inorganic, twenty-
two trace and heavy metal elements, and nine major organic
compounds, expected in nine major environmental compart-
ments,  (soil, rock, freshwater, seawater, air, plants,
marine, terrestrial, and animals) as an aid in estimating
whether the increased inputs of these elements when released
in the  ash,  etc. from coal liquefaction, would significantly
increase the level in the environment.

     One of the more significant aspects of the ongoing en-
vironmental assessment effort by Hittman Associates has
involved the critical analysis of natural physical-chemical
processes that effectively dissipate or enhance the toxic
effects of known biological stressors in aqueous and solid
waste effluents.  Another important effort refers to the
attempt made by Hittman Associates to identify those living
organisms judged by the 96-hour LD5Q, to be the most sen-
sitive vis-a-vis such organic pollutants as benzene, acena-
pthene, anthracene, chrysene, toluene, 3,4-benzopyrene-
isophorone, and benzidine, among others.  Organisms were
identified among the marine microorganisms (algae, bacteria,
etc.) fresh-water algal, terrestrial microorganisms, selected
higher  plants, marine invertebrates, freshwater inverte-
brates , marine and freshwater fishes, amphibians, and non-
human mammals.  One of the least studied areas relates to
the additive interactions between mixtures of such aqueous
pollutants as phenols, metals, ammonia, and mixtures of
ammonia, phenol, zinc, copper and cyanide.  An effort was
made to demonstrate more clearly the synergistic and anta-
gonistic interactions of a number of compounds.
                               xx

-------
     Present indications as to chronic effects of major
pollutants, based on the study of coal-derived products, are
as follows:
      41

         Sulfur-containing constitutents (in the reduced
          state) are present in a much greater variety and,
          in some cases, larger quantities than was anti-
          cipated.  The ecological and health effects of
          reduced sulfur compounds has not been studied
          intensively.

         Concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydro-
          carbons are very high.  A detailed study of this
          fraction is called for to properly estimate the
          general threat of industrial carcinogensis.  BaP
          concentrations in aqueous liquors suggest an
          environmental hazard.

         Concentrations of weakly acidic components, sus-
          pected tumor promotors or co-carcinogens,  are
          substantial and a wide variety occur.

         Nitrogen heterocyclics are present at substantial
          levels suggesting the need for additional studies.
          High indole/skatole concentrations suggest the
          possible presence of carcinogenic dibenzacridine.

     Consistent with the objective of evaluating coal lique-
faction systems, a review of existing environemtal require-
ments was made at the Federal and State government levels.
The study of state laws was restricted to those states which
have the demonstrated coal reserves necessary to provide
sites for commerical coal liquefaction facilities in the
near and far term.  The states which have been addressed are
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

     The major conclusion of the review is that no legis-
lation currently exists directly pertinent to coal lique-
faction processes.  Prior to commercialization such legis-
lation will be needed at the federal, state and local levels.
Additionally, existing standards governing related fossil
fuel technologies could serve as the foundation on which
standards for liquefaction facilities will be based.  How-
ever, at this time it is impossible to project how stringent
and how comprehensive environmental regulations will be
specific to commercialized coal liquefaction systems.
                              xxi

-------
          C.  ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT
     In conjunction with the development of Environmental
Characterizations,  a preliminary effort was completed to
establish study priorities for the development of coal
liquefaction technologies and control needs.  The candidate
systems were those most advanced from a development stand-
point and those considered to be of possible interest to
commercial developers and industrial users.  The result of
this prioritization is a comparative rating and evaluation
of the systems established on the basis of projected needs
for detailed study and environmental characterization.  The
order of ranking for the candidate systems in coal lique-
faction technology is as follows:

          Solvent Refined Coal
          H-Coal
          Exxon Donor Solvent
          Synthoil
          COED
          COSTEAM
          Clean Coke
          Fischer-Tropsch
          ORC (Garrett)
          Coalcon
          Methanol Synthesis
          TOSCOAL
          Bergius

     IERL-RTP is currently developing an environmental
assessment methodology especially related to the Federal
Interagency Energy/Environment R&D Program in support of
standards develoment.  The environmental assessment method-
ology will consist of various methodology components being
developed with the assistance of participating contractors.
One such specialized component is the development of process
assessment criteria which will be used to set priorities
with regard to the selection of processes for further study
in environmental assessment.  Hittman Associates' task,
called Process Assessment Critiera, consists broadly of:

         delineating criteria to be considered in eval-
          uating processes (to set priorities for further
          study),

         assigning these criteria a normalized set of re-
          levance weights, based on a rational decision
          analysis method, and

-------
         preparing step-wise instructions which will permit
          application of this methodology component for a
          generalized environmental assessment.


             D.  ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION


     Existing data for the environmental discharges on the
different systems are fragmentary and usually may be char-
acterized as (1) product and waste descriptions based on
hydrocarbon chain length, boiling point ranges, viscosities,
and element contents (sulfur, nitrogen, carbon-hydrogen
ratios, metals, etc.), (2) qualitative analysis for specific
organic compounds, often for known carcinogenic effects,  and
(3) out-of-date and/or partial quantitative analysis of
products.  Since there is no available overall quantitative
analysis of product and waste discharges from an existing
coal liquefaction systems, Hittman Associates is currently
preparing reports which will provide a preliminary estimate
of such discharges for four systems - Solvent Refined Coal,
Synthoil, H-Coal and Exxon Donor Solvent.

     At this point in the input characterization develop-
ment , the similarities should be stressed rather than dif-
ferences.  For example, the bottoms fraction from the EDS
process consist of 4,866 tons per day, while the Synthoil
process has only 3,536 tons per day of char after pyrolysis
through a multiple hearth furnace (conceptualized by Syn-
thoil developers).   Pyrolysis or other treatment of EDS
bottoms could reduce the amount of bottoms to a lower figure
comparable to the Synthoil char.  Similar treatment could
reduce the 5482 tons per day of solid wastes from the H-Coal
process.  The similarity is that all four processes have
3500 to 5500 tons per day of solid and residue waste for
use/treatment/disposal.  This quanity of solid and residue
waste represents a significant area of environmental dis-
charge which needs to be given priority attention.  Similar
attention needs to be given to treatment/control equipment
for process wastewater and air emissions.

     Hittman Associates is currently preparing an envir-
onmental characterization report which will discuss the
literature and other available data on the environmental
effect of the products from coal liquefaction systems.
Environmental effects for coal liquefaction facilities may
be expected from (1) atmospheric emissions of particulates,
sulfur and nitrogen compounds, and other volatiles, (2)
wastewater contaminants such as acids, phenols, organics,
cooling tower chemicals and inorganic compounds, (3) solid
and residue wastes such as ash, still bottoms, char, spent
                             xxiii

-------
catalyst, and filtered solids, and (4)  the products.   Most
of the existing data for environmental effects are for the
product, or the solid and residue wastes.   As laboratory
analysis of product and waste streams for quantitative
measurement of toxic and hazardous chemicals becomes  avail-
able, Hittman Associates will attempt to estimate the
environment effects to be expected from quantified dis-
charges .

     During the past year work was performed on two major
test programs.  A suggested sampling plan for the Ft. Lewis,
Washington Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, operated by
Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Mining Company, is nearing com-
pletion.  The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance in
a multimedia sampling program.  Much of the information was
exerpted from the IERL-RTP Procedure Manual: Level 1  Environ-
mental Assessment (EPA-600/2-76-160a).   The phased approach
and sampling methodologies were the basis for the document.

     A test plan was also developed for a combustion  test at
Georgia Power Company's Plant Mitchell where Solvent  Refined
Coal was burned for the first time in a commercial utility
boiler.  The test occurred, and samples were collected.  A
paper on the subject was delivered at the EPA Symposium on
Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology,  III in
Hollywood, Florida.  The major portion of the analysis is
currently being performed and a final report of the test
will be prepared when these results are available.
                   E.  TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

     The first Standards of Practice Manual for a coal
liquefaction systems is under preparation by Hittman Asso-
ciates, Inc., Columbia, Maryland.  The Standards of Practice
Manual is designed to furnish environmental guidelines and
best control/disposal options for liquefaction processes
currently under development.

     The SRC-1 system was chosen for the study.  A pilot
plant for the system has been operated by ERDA at Fort
Lewis, Washington since September 1974.  It was felt that a
definitive study of the process and its waste streams, and
their optimum treatment methodologies would provide a ser-
vice to the future commercialization of this process.

     Progress includes completion of material balances for
the process and waste streams.  From this basis, written and
schematic descriptions of process modules and control/disposal
modules were added.  Best control/disposal practices have
been selected for all wastestrearns.   Partially complete are
descriptions of environmental emissions and factors achievable
and control/ disposal costs.
                            xxiv

-------
     Remaining work includes a detailed description of the
basic process, which will outline control options for specific
emissions and their respective costs for each process module.
A large portion of this effort will consist of assembling
information from previous sections of the manual and summar-
izing them into clear, succinct unit operations for each
process module.
                             xxv

-------
              A.  CURRENT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
     With the entry into an era of declining petroleum
reserves,  reduced discoveries,  escalation of prices,  and
real or induced shortages, coal liquefaction technology has
once more assumed a major role as a potential solution to
liquid fuel problems.  Currently some twenty-odd processes
are in various stages of development by industry and federal
agencies.   Four major generic processes of coal liquefaction
technology can be identified.  These are:

         Catalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation

         Noncatalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation

         Pyrolysis and Hydrocarbonization

         Other Systems

Each of the generic processes includes several specific pro-
cesses.

     A wide range of process conditions and configurations
exist within the liquefaction technology.  Characterization
of the more important processes is presented in the re-
mainder of this section.  Flow diagrams for each system
discussed can be found in Appendix A.
1.   SYSTEM INFORMATION
     a.   Catalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation
          (1)  Synthoil System*

               The intent of the SYNTHOIL Process develop-
ment was to show that, under the right conditions, reaction
of coal with hydrogen will promote desulfurization and
minimize additional hydrogenation of the products from the
primary liquefaction.  Work on such a process was initiated
by the United States Bureau of Mines at the Pittsburgh
Energy Research Center in 1969.  It has led to a process in
which coal is liquefied and desulfurized in a single step by
catalytic hydrotreatment in a highly turbulent, co-current,
up-flow, packed-bed reactor.  The initial work used a
reactor with an internal diameter of 0.79 cm. (0.3125 in)
* (Ref. Fig.l, App. A.)

-------
with daily feed rates of 22 kg (48 Ib.) of coal or 54 kg
(120 Ib.) of slurry.  Experimental work was carried out on
various coals including Pittsburgh, Indiana No. 5, Middle
Kittanning, Ohio No. 6, and Kentucky coal.  All of these
types of coal were satisfactorily converted to low-sulfur
fuel oil with no appreciable attrition of catalyst or loss
of catalyst desulfurization activity.  Other parameters
investigated were hydrogen flow rate, coal content of feed
slurry, recycle of product oil, and the effects of hydrogen
sulfide on recycle gas.  A larger bench-scale unit, 2.8 cm
(1.1 in.) internal diameter and 4.42 m (14.5 ft) long, was
operated at daily feed rates up to 181 kg (400 Ib.) of coal
and 454 kg (1/2 ton) of slurry.  Reactor pressure was varied
from 145 to 290 kg/cm^ (140 to 280 atms.) at temperatures up
to 450C (840F).  High yields of low sulfur (0.19 to 0.3
percent) and low-ash (one percent) fuel oil ranged from 525
to 700 liters per metric ton of coal (3 to 4 barrels per
ton) .  The lower reactor pressure corresponded to lower
values of yield, heating value and hydrogen consumption.
Sulfur and ash content of the low pressure oil were higher
than those of the oil made at 290 kg/cm2 (280 atm.).  Opera-
tion at the lower pressure is desirable provided an environ-
mentally acceptable product can be made.  An 11 metric-ton
per day process development unit is under construction.

               Coal feed for the SYNTHOIL Process is pre-
pared by drying and then grinding to 90 percent through 60
mesh or 65 percent through 200 mesh.  The ground coal is
thoroughly mixed with recycled product oil to form a paste
or slurry containing about 40 percent coal and 60 percent
oil.  The slurry, together with recycled and makeup hydro-
gen, is preheated and then passed to the reaction zone.  The
reactor is packed with eighth-inch pellets of a commercial
catalyst of the type used in desulfurizing petroleum deriva-
tives.   Under operating conditions of 140 to 280 kg/cm2 (136
to 271 atm.), 450C (840F) and a superficial gas velocity
of 1.83 m (6 ft) per sec., hydrogen liquefies the coal and
removes sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen from it.

               The major portion of the coal is hydrogenated
to gas and oil which are separated by a pressure reduction.
The oil stream containing SYNTHOIL, residue, and mineral
matter is treated to separate the oil and solids.  The oil
is divided into two streams, one of which is returned to
feed preparation and the other withdrawn as product.  Resi-
due and oil are separated; the oil is sent to product stor-
age and the residue goes to the hydrogen production area.
The gaseous mixture from the reaction contains unused hydro-
gen which can be recycled through the reactor.  However, it
also contains hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.  These two
contaminants are removed by absorption in the gas purifica-
tion system.   The hydrogen sulfide is sent to a sulfur

-------
recovery unit and the ammonia is used to produce ammonium
sulfate.  Sulfuric acid also may be produced.

               Coal and residue from the reactor are used to
produce a rich hydrogen (97.5 percent) mixture to use in the
liquefaction reaction.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing, drying and slurrying
                   Hydrogenation
                   Separation
                   Hydrogen production

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Catalyst - Co-Mo/Si09-Al90~
                    Hydrogen            z   z J
                    Monoethanolamine  (MEA)
                    Water

                   Output Streams

                    SYNTHOIL
                    Sulfur
                    Ammonium Sulfate
                    Sulfuric Acid
                    Ash
                    Carbonaceous residue
                    Water from coal drying
                    Dust from crushing
                    Fuel gas
                    Tar
                    Spent catalyst
                    Spent MEA
                    Waste liquids, oil, and water
                    Slowdown and sludge from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower
          (2)  H-Coal System*

               The direct hydrogenation process developed by
Bergius, in Germany, for conversion of coal to liquid products
*  (Ref. Fig.2, App.A.)

-------
 led to later development in the U.S. of the H-Coal process.
 It was developed by Hydrocarbon Research, Incorporated (HRI)
 as a further application of the H-Oil process ebullating bed
 technology originally employed to convert heavy oil residues
 into lighter fractions.  The ebullating bed catalytic
 reactor converts about 90 percent of carbon contained in
 coal to a liquid.  The feed-to-hydrogen manufactured is
 liquid rather than solid.  The reactor configuration offers
 better temperature control, constant catalyst activity, and
 a consistent quality of liquid product.  An external hydro-
 gen source is required.  However, direct catalytic processes
 use less hydrogen in converting coal to liquids than do the
 noncatalytic or indirect catalytic hydrogenation processes.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing. Drying, and Slurrying.  The coal
 is crushed to about 18 mm (3/4 in; and stockpiled.  For feed
 preparation, it is dried to 4 percent moisture, and then
 ground to minus 60 mesh.  Crushed coal is mixed with re-
 cycled oil to form a slurry feed for the high pressure
 hydrogenation module.

                   Hydrogenation.  Coal slurry and hydrogen
 are passed through a preheated furnace and then fed to the
 bottom of the reactor.  The liquid slurry is hydrogenated as
 it comes in contact with the ebullating bed of catalyst.
 The reaction takes place at a temperature of about 455C
 (850F) and pressure of about 206 kg/cm2 (200 atm) .   Fresh
 catalyst is added to replace the used catalyst on a semi-
 continuous basis which permits reactor operation at a con-
 stant equilibrium activity level.

                   Product Separation.  Gases and vapors
 are withdrawn from the top of the reactor and passed through
 condensers.   Condensed oil vapors are sent to an atmospheric
 distillation unit.  Further cooling of gases condenses a
 large amount of sour water containing ammonia, hydrogen
 sulfide, phenols, light oil, and suspended solids.  Uncon-
 densed gases are passed through an acid gas removal unit
where hydrogen sulfide is removed and further processed to
 elemental sulfur.  Fart of the clean gas is used as plant
 fuel and part is recycled to the main reactor system.  Fresh
 hydrogen is added to achieve the required concentration for
 use in the main reactor.

                   Solids Separation.  The heavier portion
 of the product oil leaves as a sidestrearn from the lique-
 faction reactor.  It contains particulates such as mineral
matter and unreacted coal which must be removed.  The hot
 oil is flashed in a separator and the vapors are condensed
 and pumped to an atmospheric distillation unit.

-------
                   Distillation.  The bottoms product from
the flash separator is further separated with a hydrocyclone,
a liquid-solid separator, and a vacuum still.  The overhead
is a heavy oil refinery feedstock.  The stream removed from
the bottom of the vacuum tower contains heavy liquid residue
together with some particulates.  The bottoms product from
the distillation unit is recycled for slurry preparation and
the overhead stream of light liquid hydrocarbons is further
refined as necessary.  Synthesis gas for use in making
hydrogen can be generated by using the slurry bottoms from
the vacuum tower as feed to a slagging type gasifier.
Supplemental coal feed may be needed.

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Stream
                    Air
                    Catalyst
                    Absorption solvent

                   Output Streams

                    Synthetic oil
                    Sulfur
                    Ammonia
                    Ash
                    Residue
                    Spent catalyst
                    Spent solvent
                    Water from coal drying
                    Dust from coal crushing
                    Fuel gas
                    Tar
                    Waste liquids, oil, and water
                    Slowdown and  sludges from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower


          (3)  Bergius System*

               Developed by Germany to produce .aviation fuel
and diesel oil during World War II, the Bergius process was
one of the forerunners in coal liquefaction technology and
has led to the recent development in the United States of
the H-Coal and Synthoil processes.  Coal from the  stockpiles
   (Ret. Fig.3, App.A.)

-------
is dried and finely ground.  It is then mixed with process
derived hydrocarbon liquid to form a paste containing ap-
proximately 40 percent coal.   The paste is pressurized to
about 700 kg/cm^ (677 atm.) and heated to a temperature of
430C (810F).   The heated paste and the recycled hydrogen-
rich gas are then fed to a catalytic reaction zone.

               The products from the first reaction are
separated into an overhead gaseous stream, a light oil
stream,  and a heavy oil stream which contains unreacted coal
and mineral matter.  The overhead hydrogen rich gas is
scrubbed to remove any particulate matter and recycled to
the reactor.  The light oil stream is further treated over a
catalyst to produce materials similar to petroleum.  The
heavy oil stream is treated to separate untreated coal,
catalyst, and mineral matter from the oil.  Recovered oil is
recycled to the paste preparation area.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Drying, Sizing, and Pasting
                   Hydrogenation
                   Separation


               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Hydrogen
                    Water
                    Catalyst

                   Output Streams

                    Carbonaceous residue
                    Light oil
                    Middle oil
                    Wastewater
                    Spent catalyst
                    Sulfur
                    Ammonia
                    Dust
                    Fuel gas
                    Tar
                    Waste oil
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power generation
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling towers

-------
     b.    Noncatalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation


          (1)  Solvent Refined Coal System*

               Two alternatives are being pursued for
electric power generation.  One is to burn coal directly and
remove particulates and S02 by scrubbing the stack gases;
the other is to refine or clean the coal by removal of
sulfur and ash or mineral matter before it is fired in the
utility steam generator and, thus, obviate the need for
stack gas cleaning.  Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) represents
the second alternative and is receiving prominent consid-
eration.  The process requires no catalyst and low amounts
of hydrogen relative to most alternative processes.  The
solid product is low in sulfur and ash and has a high heating
value.  The major difficulties lie in operating costs for
filtration and development of handling methods of the solid
product.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   S iz ing, Drying, and Slurrying.  As the
coal is received, it is separated according to lump size.
Lumps smaller than three- by six-inches are sent to a
primary crushing step which reduces the size to three-
quarters of an inch.  Large lumps are crushed to three- by
six-inches and returned to the primary crushing step.  Sized
coal, three-quarters of an inch, from the primary crushing
step is stored.  The stored coal is transferred to the pul-
verizer system.  This system simultaneously grinds the coal
to about 200 mesh size and dries it to one- to three-percent
moisture.  Fines less than 200 mesh size from both primary
and pulverizing, can be used to produce hydrogen for the
hydrogenation step.  The pulverized dry coal is slurried
with solvent.
                    Hydrogenation.  A 70 to 85 percent
                    2 is added to t
hydrogen gas mixture is added to the coal/solvent slurry.
These materials are first preheated and subjected to the
conditions of the hydrogenation operation.  Depending on the
nature of the coal and its sulfur content, the temperature
range is 425 to 495C (800 to 925F) and the pressure
range is 70 to 140 kg/sq. cm. (68 to 136 atm.).  Other
variables which affect this operation are the partial
pressure of hydrogen, the residence time, and the solvent-
to-coal ratio.  These variables are not independent, i.e, a
change in one may cause changes in the others.   This helps
to provide flexibility to the process, permitting the output
* (Ref. Fig.4, App.A.)

-------
of a heavier or lighter product; the lighter product having
the higher hydrogen content.

                    The hydrogenation or liquefaction opera-
tion produces a mixture of gases, vapors, liquids, and
solids.  This mixture is cooled to 290C (550F) and the
vapor and gases are separated from the liquids and solids by
a series of pressure reductions.  The vapors, consisting of
light hydrocarbons, heavy hydrocarbons and water, are con-
densed and collected.

                   Solids Separation.  The mixture of coal
solution and solids is separated by filtration or centrifuga-
tion.  The solids contain mineral matter and undissolved
coal.  This residue is cooled to 38C (100F) and stored.
It can be gasified to produce the hydrogen required in the
process.

                   Solvent Recovery.  Liquid material from
the solids-liquids system separation is heated to 425 to
470C (800 to 875F) at about 7 kg/cm2 (6.8 atm.).  All the
unused process solvent and lighter liquids are vaporized.
The remaining material is the molten solvent refined coal.
The molten product is cooled from 316C (600F) to about
66C (150F) at which temperature it is solid.

                   Gas Cleaning.  In the hydrogenation
operation, most of the sulfur in the coal is converted to
hydrogen sulfide and other gaseous compounds.  Excess hydro-
gen is used in the operation and unused hydrogen can be
recycled.  However, it must first be "cleaned" to remove
gaseous sulfur compounds.  A number of patented processes
are available for this purpose, some remove carbon dioxide
as well as hydrogen sulfide.  After the hydrogen sulfide is
removed from the gas stream, the solution used to absorb it
is stripped to yield a concentrated hydrogen sulfide gas
from which elemental sulfur is produced.

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Stream"

                    Coal
                    Steam, water
                    Air
                    Start-up solvent
                    Absorption solvent

                   Output Streams

                    Solvent refined coal
                    Ash slag or ash
                                 8

-------
                    Hydrocarbon gases
                    Water (process, storm drainage from coal
                           storage, and preparation)
                    Spent catalyst
                    Sulfur
                    Ammonia
                    Coal dust
                    Tar
                    Waste liquids, oil, and water
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling towers


          (2)  COSTEAM System*

               The Bureau of Mines has developed a new
process, COSTEAM, that does not use hydrogen directly.  In
this process coal reacts with carbon monoxide and steam
instead of hydrogen.  It does not require a catalyst to
convert low rank coals, such as lignite, into a low sulfur
liquid fuel.  There is usually enough water in lignite to
supply the needs of the process.  The water or steam supplies
active hydrogen by reaction with the carbon monoxide.
Alkaline carbonates are naturally occurring catalytic agents
in lignite.

               Lignite is pulverized and mixed with some of
the product oil.  This slurry is fed to the reactor which
operates at a temperature of 380 to 400C (720 to 790F)
and a pressure of 210 to 280 kg/cm2  (203 to 271 atm.).
Synthesis gas or carbon monoxide is fed to the reactor at
high pressure.  Synthesis gas or carbon monoxide reacts with
water contained in the lignite to produce hydrogen which
then reacts with lignite to form a liquefied coal product.

               Product gas is separated from the product
liquid stream in a pressure reduction step.  The liquid fuel
product stream contains unreacted solids and ash which are
removed by centrifugation.  The unreacted solids residue can
be utilized to produce the synthesis gas required by the
process.  The product fuel oil can also be further hydro-
genated to obtain gasoline.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing and Slurrying
                   Hydrogenation
                   Solids separation
                   Synthesis gas manufacture
  (Ref. Fig.5, App.A.)

-------
               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Water
                    Synthesis gas

                   Output Streams

                    Fuel oil
                    Unreacted solids
                    Product gas
                    Residue
                    Coal dust
                    Tar
                    Waste liquids, oil, and water
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power plants
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower


     c.   Pyrolysis and Hydrocarbonization


          (1)  Char-Oil-Energy Development (COED) System*

               In the COED system, coal is heated in several
stages of fluidized beds at increasingly higher temperatures.
This enables the process to handle caking coals without the
preoxidation or recirculation of char usually necessary to
prevent agglomeration in the system.  This feature permits
the achievement of high yields of oil with minimum sized
equipment.  The foregoing are the major advantages of the
COED process.  An additional advantage is that the process
operates at low pressure, less than 0.70 kg/cm2 (0.68 atm.)
which permits the use of conventional oil processing equip-
ment.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing and Drying.  Coal is crushed and
dried simultaneously^This operation reduces the particle
size to about 1.6 mm (1/16 in.) and removes from 60 to 70
percent of the moisture in the coal.  The remaining moisture
is evolved in the first stage of pyrolysis.  The milling
operation takes place in a gas swept atmosphere under a
slight vacuum, at 70C (160*F).
*(Ref. Fig.6, App.A.)
                                10

-------
                   Pyrolysis.  A mixture of combustion and
recycled gases fluidizes and heats the coal to about 175C
(350F) in the first pyrolysis stage.  The coal is partially
devolatilized and the gases evolved are scrubbed with re-
cycled liquor and cooled.

               The partially devolatilized coal from Stage
I (Fig.7, App.A.) is passed to Stage II.  Stages II, III,
and IV (Fig.8, App.A.) are located on successively descending
levels and are coupled closely to minimize heat losses and
pressure drops.  The cascaded arrangement permits gravity
flow of the char between the stages.  Superheated steam and
oxygen are injected at the bottom of Stage IV.  Stage IV
operates at 815C (1500F) and the hot gases pass counter-
currently through Stages III and II, providing the fluidizing
medium.  Stages II and III operate at about 430C (810F)
and 540C (1000F) respectively.

               All stages are equipped with internal parti-
culate separation systems to remove entrained solids from
the exit gases.  Most of the volatile matter contained in
the coal is evolved in the second stage.  The rest of the
volatile matter evolves in the third and fourth stages.  The
pyrolysis gases and oil vapors from the second stage pass
through an external particulate separation system to remove
solids which would otherwise collect in and plug subsequent
processing steps.  They are treated next in an absorption
system which removes the oil vapors, treated for removal of
hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide, and then used as
product gas.

               Oil and water condensed from the pyrolysis
gas/vapor stream are separated into two oil fractions, one
heavier and one lighter than water, and an aqueous fraction.
The two oil fractions are dehydrated and sent to filtration.
The aqueous phase is cooled and recycled to the scrubbers.
Hot char is discharged from Stage IV to a fluidized bed
cooling step which generates high pressure steam.  Recycled
gas from Stage 1 is used to fluidize the cooling char.

                   Filtration.  Oil from the product re-
covery system may contain some char particles which would
plug the catalyst bed in the hydrotreating operation.  These
particles are removed by filtration.  Hot filter cake con-
sisting of char, oil, and filter aid is discharged to char
storage.  Filtered oil goes to the hydrotreating area.

                   Hvdrotreating.  The filtered oil con-
tains small amounts of sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen as
impurities.  To improve its properties the oil is treated
with hydrogen.  This treatment also converts the impurities
into hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and water which are then
separated from the product oil.
                               11

-------
               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Steam
                    Air
                    Oxygen
                    Catalyst
                    Absorption solvent

                   Output Streams

                    Synthetic oil
                    Sulfur
                    Ammonia
                    Ash
                    Spent catalyst
                    Spent solvent
                    Low-Btu gas
                    Char
                    Filter cake
                    Pyrolysis gas
                    Wastewater
                    Tar
                    Waste oil
          (2)  Coalcon System*

               The Coalcon system is based on hydrocar-
bonization of coal.  When heated in a hydrogen atmosphere,
coal produces liquid, gaseous, and solid products.  These
materials are separated and treated to produce the final
clean products.  The solid material or char is then gasified
with oxygen to produce a portion of the hydrogen-rich gas
required for hydrocarbonization.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing and Drying.  Coal is received,
unloaded, and stockpiled.  It is then crushed and ground to
60 to 325 mesh.  The coal is dried to about 1 percent
moisture.

                   Hydrocarbonization.   The prepared coal
is preheated and is injected into the reaction zone with
pressurized hydrogen.  In the reaction zone the temperature
is 560C (1040F) and the pressure is 39 kg/cm2 (37.8 atm.).
Other variables that affect the yield of products are
residence time, partial pressure of hydrogen, and superficial
gas velocity.  Solid particles carried out by the gas stream
are recovered and combined with the char.
* (Ref. Fig.9, App.A)


                              12

-------
                   Product Recovery.   The gas and vapors
are separated into gas,  light oil,  heavy oil,  and wastewater
streams.  A portion of the heavy oil is recycled to the
scrubbing step which removes any solids which may have
escaped with the gas.  The recycled mixture is then frac-
tioned into a heavy fuel stream and overhead stream.  The
heavy oil product is cooled and pumped to storage.  Ammonia
generated in the process is recovered as a by-product.  The
acid gas removal step absorbs C02,  H2S, and aromatics from
the gas.  The H2S is recovered as elemental sulfur.

                   Hydrogen Generation.  Gas from the acid-
gas removal step is processed by cryogenic separation into a
purified hydrogen stream, which will be recycled to the
hydrocarbonization reactor; a synthesis gas stream, which is
further processed to make substitute natural gas; and a
liquefied hydrocarbon stream.

                    Char from the hydrocarbonization step is
gasified with steam and oxygen to generate hydrogen.

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Steam
                    Oxygen
                    Absorption solvent
                    Ammonia recovery solvent
                    Hydrogen

                   Output Streams

                    Heavy fuel oil
                    Light fuel oil
                    Ammonia
                    Sulfur
                    Substitute natural gas
                    Liquefied hydrocarbon gas
                    Ash
                    Spent catalyst
                    Waste liquids, oil, and water
                    Aromatic chemicals
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower
                                13

-------
           (3)  Clean Coke System*

               The United States Steel Engineers and Con-
sultants,  Inc., a subsidiary of United States Steel Corpora-
tion, is developing a system to convert low grade, high
sulfur coal to clean metallurgical coke, chemical feedstocks,
and liquid and gaseous fuels.  The system is known as the
Clean Coke Process and is sponsored by ERDA.

               The process can be divided into carbonization
and hydrogenation sections.  Required hydrogen is produced
within the process itself.  The process design provides for
operating  the plant as a closed system thus eliminating some
of the environmental problems.

               Run of mine coal is dried, crushed, and
ground.  Approximately half of the prepared coal is conveyed
to the carbonization section and the rest to the hydro-
genation section.

               In the carbonization section, coal is pyro-
lyzed in a fluidized bed zone operating at temperatures of
705 to 760C (1300 to 1400F) and pressures of 7 to 10
kg/cm2 (6.8 to 9.7 atm.).  The fluidizing medium is hydro-
gen-rich recycled gas.  The products from the carbonization
section are char, a liquid stream which is directed to the
liquid processing section; and a hydrogen-rich gas which is
recycled to the reactor.  The char is pelletized with pro-
cess derived heavy oil, and the pellets are heated in the
absence of oxygen to produce low sulfur metallurgical coke
and a hydrogen-rich gas.  Part of the gas is recycled to the
carbonization step and the rest is sent to gas clean up.

               In the hydrogenation section, prepared coal
is mixed with a process derived oil to form a coal/oil
slurry.  The slurry is fed to a high pressure, noncatalytic
hydrogenation zone along with hydrogen from the gas cleanup
section.   The hydrogenation section operates at pressures of
207 to 310 kg/cm2 (200 to 300 atm.).  The slurry feed is
converted  to a chemical rich liquid and a gas rich in light
paraffins.  These products are separated from the uncon-
verted coal and mineral matter.  Condensate from the vapor
goes to a  processing section where light, medium, and heavy
oil are separated.  Light oil is further processed to obtain
chemical feedstocks, which include gasoline, benzene, napthalene,
and residual tars.  Medium oil is used for slurry prepara-
tion.   Part of the heavy oil is used in the pelletizing
step,  with the rest being fed to the carbonization section.
Uncondensed gases are sent to the gas treatment section for
*(Ref. Fig.10, App.A.)


                                14

-------
separation into chemical feedstocks, which include ethylene
and propylene, ammonia, sulfur, and fuel gas.  Recovered
hydrogen is recycled to the hydrogenation section.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing and Drying
                   Carbonization
                   Hydrogenation
                   Product separation

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Water
                    Hydrogen

                   Output Streams

                    Metallurgical coke
                    Chemical feedstocks
                    Ash and unreacted coal
                    Waste liquids, oil, and water
                    Tar acids
                    Tar bases
                    Oil
                    Organic chemicals
                    Gasoline
                    Sulfur
                    Fuel gas
                    Ammonia
                    Hydrogen
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power plants
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower


           (4)  TOSCOAL System*

               The Oil Shale Corporation (TOSCO), in coopera-
tion with  other private industries, has developed a process
for retorting oil shale, known as the TOSCO  II process.
This process has been adapted to use coal.   Run  of mine coal
received in the coal preparation and handling is unloaded,
crushed, and stored in piles.  The coal is then  ground,
*(Ref. Fig.11, App.A.)
                                15

-------
dried, and preheated.  The coal is partially devolatilized
and fines carried over are removed from the vapors in a gas
solid separation system.  The vapor is passed to a scrubbing
system and the preheated coal is sent to a pyrolysis reac-
tor.  Here the coal is heated to carbonization temperatures
of 427 to 537C (800 to 1000F) by contact with hot
ceramic balls.

               The char product leaves the pyrolysis zone
and is subsequently cooled and sent to storage.  Cool,
ceramic balls are returned to a ball heating system.  Pyro-
lysis vapor is cooled to condense oil and water and to
separate gaseous products.  Oil and water are separated.
The oil is distilled to yield gas oil, naphtha, and re-
siduum.  Uncondensed gas is used as fuel for heating the
balls.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing and Drying
                   Pyrolysis
                   Product separation
                   Gas purification

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Air
                    Water

                   Output Streams

                    Char
                    Fuel oil
                    Fuel gas
                    Wastewater
                    Flue gas
                    Naphtha
                    Gas oil
                    Coal dust
                    Ash
                    HoS
                    C02
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower
                                16

-------
          (5)  ORC (Garrett) System*

               The ORC Process is a solid phase hydrocar-
bonization process in which pulverized coal is almost com-
pletely converted to liquid and gaseous products in less
than one minute. At 141 kg/cm2 (136 atm.) and 500C (930F),
the yield is up to 30 percent distillable liquid, 40 percent
tar, and the balance gas.  The reaction is faster if a
solution of ammonium molybdate is spread on the coal.  Tests
using a 15 percent stannous chloride catalyst indicate
conversion in a few seconds to 55 percent liquid, 40 percent
gas, and 5 percent tar.  Coal feed size is about 200 mesh.
The fast reaction time should permit savings in capital
costs for reactors.

               ORC's coal pyrolysis system is being de-
veloped with the aim of maximum liquid yield.  The process
involves very rapid heating and devolatilization of pul-
verized coal in the absence of air, a short residence time
in an entrained flow reactor, and a quick quench which
prevents degradation of the liquid and gaseous products.
Product distribution is strongly influenced by pyrolysis
temperature, with lower temperatures favoring liquid forma-
tion.  The pyrolysis products can be further refined and
purified to obtain synthetic crude oil; char, which is
suitable for combustion in an electric utility boiler;
pipeline gas; and elemental sulfur.

               Coal is first dried and pulverized as it
would be for a utility boiler.  The coal is then conveyed
pneumatically with recycled product gas to the pyrolysis
reactor.  The reactor is an entrained flow vessel where
recycled char is mixed with coal.  Heated char provides the
energy input for pyrolysis.  The coal is heated to its
decomposition temperature within one-tenth second at a
reactor temperature of about 595C (1100F).  Volatile
products are separated from char by cyclones and are rapidly
quenched to avoid secondary decomposition.  Part of the char
is transported to a char heater where the temperature of the
char is raised to about 650 to 870 (1200 to 1600F) by
adding a controlled amount of air at the bottom of the
heater.  The heater is also an entrained flow vessel and the
short residence time inhibits formation of carbon monoxide,
improving process thermal efficiency.  Combustion gas from
the heater passes through cyclones where unreacted char is
separated and returned to the pyrolysis reactor.
*TRet. Fig.12, App.A.)
                                17

-------
               The gases from the reactor are cooled and
scrubbed to collect product tar.  A portion of the gas
stream is used to transport pulverized coal and heated char
to the pyrolysis reactor.  The rest is treated to remove
acid gas and recover sulfur.  The product gas can be up-
graded to produce pipeline quality gas or it can be used as
a hydrogen source for hydrotreating the tar product to a
synthetic crude oil or a low sulfur fuel oil.  Hydrotreating
is carried out under pressure.

               Remaining char, not passed to the char heater,
can be used as a solid boiler fuel.  The char is already
dried and pulverized which offers an advantage over raw
coal.  Boiler modifications will be necessary due to the
sulfur content of the char.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                    Sizing and Drying
                    Pyrolysis
                    Product separation
                    Hydrotreating
                    Gas processing and sulfur recovery

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Air                      (

                   Output Streams

                    Synthetic crude oil
                    Char
                    Sulfur
                    Pipeline gas
                    Flue gas
                    Tar
                    Tar acids
                    Waste liquids, oil, and water
                    Coal dust
                    Ammonia
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower
                               18

-------
     d.   Other Systems

          (1)  Fischer - Tropsch System*

               In 1922, Franz Fischer engaged in studies of
the hydrogenation of carbon monoxide at low pressures with
iron or cobalt catalysts activated by oxides of chromium,
zinc, copper, and alkali metals.  In 1925, at the Max Planck
Institute, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch synthesized liquid
hydrocarbons for the first time.  Technical development of
this synthesis was continued at Ruhrchemie beginning in
1934.  The purpose, to produce motor fuel, was realized with
an output of 675,000 metric tons per year in Germany from
nine plants.  An equal number of plants were built in other
countries.  Many of these plants were destroyed during World
War II.  Changes in the energy market discouraged continued
synthesis of motor fuels from coal and the last German plant
at Bergkamen closed in 1962.  Because of increasing coal
prices, new plants in Europe were not attractive.  In
addition the plants are difficult to operate, requiring much
maintenance. However, in the Union of South Africa, the
situation was more conducive to coal based Fischer-Tropsch
Synthesis.  A Fischer-Tropsch plant was constructed near
Johannesburg and began operation in 1955.  A second plant is
now under construction in the Transvaal Region.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing.  The coal is crushed, ground,
and wet screened.  The minimum size feed that can be used is
about 6 mm.  Fines, about 25 percent, are used for steam
generation.

                   Gasification and Gas Purification.  The
raw gaseous mixture formed by the reaction of coal with
steam and oxygen is cooled and oil and tar are separated.
The raw gas is further purified by scrubbing with methanol.
The Fischer-Tropsch catalyst is very sensitive to sulfur so
the gas must be treated to remove all sulfur.  The hydrogen-
to-carbon monoxide ratio is adjusted by the CO Shift re-
action.

                   Synthesis.  Fresh synthesis gas combined
with recycled gas is fed to the reaction zone where it mixes
with catalyst.  A mixture of gases, vapors, and liquids is
formed.  These products must be separated from the catalyst
which must remain in the zone.
*(Ref. Fig.13, App.A.)
                                19

-------
                   Product Separation.   Gas and vapors
separate from the heaviest hydrocarbons  in the reaction
zone.  Cooling causes vapors to condense from the product
gas stream.  These liquids are sent to the refinery for
separation.  Part of the gas is used for recycle.

                    The product of the Fischer-Tropsch
system is not a synthetic crude oil.  It is a mixture of
relatively simple hydrocarbons in a semi-refined state and
is completely free of sulfur and nitrogen compounds.

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Steam
                    Oxygen
                    Catalyst
                    Methanol

                   Output Streams

                    Fuel gas
                    Propane/propylene
                    Butane/butylene
                    Gasoline
                    Methylethyl ketone
                    Light furnace oil
                    Waxy oil
                    Methanol
                    Ethanol
                    Propanol
                    Butanol
                    Pentanol
                    Acetone
                    Naphtha
                    Waste acids
                    Benzene
                    Toluene
                    Diesel oil
                    Tar
                    Creosote
                    Ammonium sulfate
                    Sulfur
                    Spent catalyst
                    Wastewater
                    Waste oil
                    Waste liquids, oil,  and water
                               20

-------
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power generation
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower
                             Gas reforming
                    Ash and ash conveying water


          (2)  Donor Solvent System*

               The conversion of coal to liquid fuels by the
high pressure, Bergius process was used in Germany for 15
years or more.  It operates in the pressure range of 225 to
600 kg/cm2 (218 to 581 atm.).  Disadvantages of high pre-
ssure processes are the expense of high pressure vessels and
of hydrogen compression.  Systems operating below 100
kg/cm2 (96.8 atm), however, generally use either direct
catalysis, or indirect catalysis, via a recycle solvent.
Exxon is developing an indirect catalyst method.  In the
Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) system, the donor solvent is
prepared in a separate, fixed bed, catalytic hydrogenation
step.

               Prepared coal feed, hydrogen, and recycle
solvent are inputs to the liquefaction area.  These materials
react to produce raw coal liquid, gases, and a heavy bottoms
stream containing unreacted coal and mineral matter.  The
recycle solvent is separated from this mixture in the separa-
tion area.  The solvent goes to the solvent hydrogenation
area where it is regenerated catalytically.  Heavy bottoms
from the separation area are used to produce additional
hydrogen or fuel gas in the hydrogen manufacturing area.
Gas generated in the liquefaction area is used as fuel or
for hydrogen manufacture.  The raw coal liquids may be
further hydrotreated depending on the end use.  The donor
solvent is prepared from the middle fraction of the coal
liquefaction product which is treated by selective catalytic
hydrogenation.  The main function of the solvent is to
provide hydrogen to free radicals formed by thermal "cracking1
of coal "molecules".  The solvent also carries the coal into
the reactor, helps to dissolve the coal particles, and
improves operability as compared to unhydrogenated solvent.
The addition of hydrogen to the liquefaction step was found
to reduce solvent requirements.
*(Ref. Fig.14, App.A.)
                               21

-------
               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing and Drying.  Coal, bituminous or
subbituminous, is dried, ground, and screened to minus 30
mesh.  Prepared feed coal is supplied to the slurry pre-
paration system.  The coal/solvent slurry is metered con-
tinuously to the hydrogenation1systems.

                   Hydrogenation.   The slurry feed stream
is preheated before it enters the reaction zone.  Hydrogen
gas is also preheated and fed to the reaction zone, either
separately or mixed with the slurry feed.  Conditions fo*
the liquefaction operation are: pressure 102 to 178 kg/cm^
(98.7 to 172.3 atm.) temperature 370 to 380C (700 to
715F) solvent-to-coal ratio of 1.2 to 2.6, and residence
time of 15 to 140 minutes.

                   Separation.  The material from the
liquefaction operation consists of gas, raw coal liquids,
and a heavy stream containing unreacted coal and mineral
matter.  The pressure on this material is decreased in
several depressurizing steps.  In the first step some gas
and water vapor are removed.  This gas is sent to the
recycle gas cleanup operation for recovery of hydrogen and
re-use in liquefaction.

                    In the second depressurizing step more
gas is released, containing heavier hydrocarbons, suitable
for fuel gas.  In the third step the remaining liquids and
solids are heated and flashed under vacuum.  This releases
additional gas and vaporizes light oil containing some gas.
The bottoms material contains the solids residue; i.e.,
unreacted coal, mineral matter, and heavy tars.

                   Solvent Hydrotreating.  The light vacuum
gas oil, combined with other liquid hydrocarbon streams, is
catalytically hydrotreated.  Gaseous and liquid products
from this reaction are separated.  The liquid is a mixture
of liquefied coal product, a heavier fraction with a higher
boiling point, and a lighter fraction with a lower boiling
point.  The solvent fractionation operation separates the
desired liquefied coal product from the higher and lower
boiling fractions of the hydrotreated liquid product.  Some
of this mid-range solvent is recycled to the slurry pre-
paration area and the rest is sent to product storage.
                                22

-------
                   Hydrogen Manufacture.   The gas streams
from the first depressurizing step and the hydrotreating
area are scrubbed with monoethanolamine to remove hydrogen
sulfide and carbon dioxide.  If the hydrogen content is not
high enough, high purity makeup hydrogen is added.  This
stream is then compressed and sent to the hydrogenation and
solvent hydrotreating areas.

                    High purity hydrogen can be made from
fuel gas and solids residue from the separation section.

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Cobalt-molybdate, catalysts
                    Monoethanolamine
                    Water

                   Output Streams

                    Low sulfur fuel oil
                    Naphtha
                    Fuel gas
                    Sulfur
                    Residue
                    Ammonia
                    Coal dust
                    Tar
                    Spent catalyst
                    Spent MEA
                    Waste liquids, oil, and water
                    Slowdown and sludges from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower


          (3)  Methanol System*

               Production of methanol from coal is a two-
stage process.  In the first stage, coal is gasified to
produce raw synthesis gas.  The raw synthesis gas contains
compounds other than H and CO and usually more CO than H2-
It must be treated to remove extraneous materials and the
ratio of H:CO must be adjusted to 2:1.  The clean synthesis
gas is then ready for methanol synthesis.  The methanol
synthesis reaction is favored by high pressure, and synthesis
*(Ref. Fig.15, App.A.)


                               23

-------
gas from first generation gasification processes must be
compressed.  Other disadvantages of some first generation
processes are the restriction to the use of noncaking coals,
and to particle sizes greater than 6 mm (1/4 in.).

               The second generation gasification systems
produce better quality synthesis gas requiring less treat-
ment prior to methanol synthesis.  They also operate at high
pressures eliminating the need for compression.

               Raw coal from storage is crushed and dried to
a specific size and moisture content, depending on the type
of gasification system.  The coal is then preheated, if
necessary, and conveyed to the gasification reactor.  Steam
and oxygen are injected and the coal is converted to a
mixture of gases, liquids, and tars.  The hot gases gen-
erated leave the reaction zone.  A heat recovery system
generates high pressure steam and heats boiler feedwater.
Part of the steam is used in the process and the rest
provides energy for product gas compression.  Particulates
carried out with the gas are removed by a separation system.
Gas from the Lurgi gasification system requires processing
to remove tars, heavy oils, and phenols.  Gas from the
Koppers-Totzek and Winkler gasification systems must be
compressed before the ratio of hydrogen-to-carbon monoxide
is adjusted to 2-to-l by the CO shift reaction.  The shifted
gas is treated in an acid gas removal system to remove C02
and H2.  C0 is rejected to the atmosphere and t^S is
further treated to recover elemental sulfur.

               The purified gas goes to the methanol synthesis
zone.   The Lurgi process will require compression at this
step.   Operating conditions for methanol synthesis vary from
53 to 315 kg/cm" (51 to 305 atm.) and 260 to 426C (500 to
800F), depending on catalyst and conversion per pass
desired. Higher temperatures and pressures increase the size
reactions and produce lighter materials, such as ethers, and
heavier alcohols in the crude methanol stream.  The crude
methanol from the synthesis reaction is condensed and puri-
fied by distillation.  Unconverted gas is returned to the
reaction zone.  High, medium, and low pressure processes are
available for methanol synthesis.

               Major Operations and/or Modules

                   Sizing and Drying
                   Synthesis gas generation
                   Synthesis gas treatment
                   Methanol synthesis and purification
                                24

-------
               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Water
                    Air
                    Oxygen
                    Catalyst

                   Output Streams

                    Methanol
                    Ash
                    Coal sludge
                    Wastewater
                    Sulfur
                    Tars
                    Heavy Oils
                    Tar acids
                    Spent catalyst
                    Coal dust
                    Ammonia
                    Blowdown and sludge from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling tower


          (4)  Supercritical Gas Extraction System*

               The solvent power of a gas or vapor increases
with density and, for a given gas at a given pressure, the
greatest density is obtained at its critical temperature.
With proper conditions the level of supercritical extraction
can be high, and increases of up to 10,000 fold in volatility
of slightly volatile substances have been experienced.
Therefore, if a gas or vapor is chosen having a critical
temperature slightly below the temperature at which the
extraction is to be carried out, it is possible to extract
substances of low volatility at temperatures well below
their normal boiling points.  This principle has been applied
to extract liquids that are formed when coal is heated.  The
extractant gas can be recovered by reducing the pressure of
the extracted liquid vapors and, thereby, separating them in
solid form.
*(Ref. Fig.16, App.A.)
                                25

-------
               Some of the potential advantages of the
Supercritical Gas Extraction  (SGE) system over more con-
ventional coal liquefaction systems are:

                   No high pressure gas supply is required.

                   The coal  extracts contain more hydrogen
                    and are of lower molecular weight than
                    the products of other processes, and
                    this facilitates their conversion to
                    hydrocarbon oils and chemicals.

                   The char  or residue is a noncaking,
                    porous product having a significant
                    volatile material content making it
                    ideal for gasification.

                   Products  separate readily from the
                    extractant since only solid and vapor
                    phases are involved during extraction.
                    Filtration of a high viscosity fluid is
                    avoided.

               The process does, however, produce more char
than conventional processes.  Using toluene, extraction of
up to one-third of the coal feed has been effected.  Re-
maining coal is recovered as  a solid.  This would require
that a commercial production plant would need either a
market for the char or facilities to convert it into gaseous
fuels.  Catalytic, Inc. has developed a conceptual design
and prepared a study of the economics of a plant with coal
feed capacity of 10,000 ton/day.

               Coal received  from the mine is crushed,
dried, and pulverized to 200 mesh size.  The pulverized coal
is fed to the extractor where it is mixed with recovered and
makeup toluene and heated to about 395C (750F) at 100
kg/cm2 (97 atm.) pressure.  Overhead vapors consisting of
toluene, extract, water vapor, and hydrocarbon gases are
cooled to condense solvent and extract.  Uncondensed hydro-
carbons are used as fuel gases.  The condensed liquid pro-
duct is flashed to separate solvent toluene and water vapor
as overhead and extract liquid product as bottoms.  Toluene
is separated from water and recycled to the extractor.
Water is treated in the wastewater treatment unit.  The
residue in the reactor is removed mechanically, depressurized,
and steam stripped to recover entrained toluene.  The char
can be used as fuel.  The liquid extract product is frac-
tionated to remove any remaining entrained toluene.  The
extract product, which is rich in hydrogen and has low
molecular weight, can be readily converted to hydrocarbon
oils and chemicals.
                                26

-------
               Major Operations and/or Modules

               The system includes the following major
operations:

                   Sizing and Drying
                   Supercritical extraction
                   Solvent and extract recovery
                   Auxiliary facilities

               Input and Output Streams

                   Input Streams

                    Coal
                    Toluene

                   Output Streams

                    Extract product
                    Char
                    Fuel gases
                    Wastewater
                    Flue gases
                    Sulfur
                    Ammonia
                    Tar
                    Tar acids
                    Blowdown and  sludges from:

                             Power plant
                             Water treatment
                             Cooling  tower
2.   SCHEDULES

     Most of the systems discussed in this document are
funded by ERDA.  In some cases, ERDA is jointly funding the
effort either with other agencies or with private industry.
Several projects, however, are not currently recipients of
federal support.  In these cases, projections as to future
program/project plans are not available.

     Schedules for process development unit and pilot plant
operations are shown in Figure 1.  Only processes which have
progressed to the process development stage have been in-
cluded in Figure 1.
                                27

-------
ro
CD
    CATALYTIC LIQUID PHASE HYDROGENATION
         Synthoil:  Process Development Unit
         H-Coal:    Process Development Unit
                    Pilot Plant
         Bergius:   Process Development Unit

    NCNGAIALYnC LIQUID PHASE HYDROGEHATION
         Solvent Refined Coal:  Pilot Plant, 6 TPD
                                Pilot Plant, 50 TPD
         00-Steam:  Process Development Unit
    FYRDLYSIS AND
Coalcon:    Demonstration Plant
Clean Coke: Process Development Unit
Occidental Res.  Corp. :  Process Dev.  Unit
    OTHER
         Donor Solvent:  Process Development Unit
                         Pilot Plant
                                                                                1^78
                                                                                    ,  1?79
,   1?80
                                                           	 Construction
                                                            Operation
                                                           	Re-evaluation
                                             Figure 1.  Process Development Operation Schedule

-------
     The two solvent refined coal pilot plants are the only
liquefaction plants in operation as of December 1977.   An H-
Coal pilot plant, now tinder construction,  will not be  opera-
tional before the third quarter of 1978.

     Brief discussions of the status of each process under
development follow:
     a.   Catalytic Liquid Phase Hydrogenation
          (1)  Synthoil System

               The Synthoil process is currently in the
laboratory stage with construction of a process development
unit underway.  Operation of the process development unit is
projected to begin in 1978 and continue into 1980.  No firm
plans for a pilot plant have been announced.


          (2)  H-Coal System

               Based on the data obtained from the bench-
scale and process development units, design and engineering
of a 544-Mg (600-ton) per day pilot plant were initiated
under the current ERDA contract in December 1973.  The final
design of the pilot plant is complete and construction is
underway at Catlettsburg, Kentucky.  Ashland Synthetic
Fuels, Inc., Ashland, Kentucky, and Hydrocarbon Research,
Inc., Morristown, New Jersey are the prime contractors.
Operation is scheduled for September 1, 1978 to June 1,
1980.  The plant is to be dismantled and disposed of by the
end of 1980.

               Ashland Synthetic Fuels will be responsible
for construction and operation of the pilot plant.  HRI will
monitor the construction and operation of the plant to
ensure that data suitable for a commercial plant design is
obtained.  A separate subcontractor will design the solids/
liquids separation system to be installed in the pilot
plant.  Product characteristics will be determined and
operational problems identified.


          (3)  Bergius System

               This is the ERDA "disposable catalyst" pro-
cess.  Construction of a process development unit is in
progress and initial operation is planned for late 1977.  No
pilot plant plans exist.
                                29

-------
     b.   Noncatalytic Liquid Phase Hvdrogenation
           (1)  Solvent Refined Coal System

               Two pilot plants are operating.  The plant at
Wilsonville, Alabama will operate through 1977.  A decision
is to be made late in that year whether or not to continue
operation.  Operation of the Fort Lewis, Washington facility
is planned to extend into 1981.

               In addition, a demonstration plant is being
considered by the Kentucky Center for Energy Research but no
schedule is available.
          (2)  COSTEAM System

               A process development unit was scheduled for
completion in 1976, operation beginning in 1977 and con-
tinuing into 1981 is planned.


     c.   Pyrolysis and Hydrocarbonization


          (1)  COED System

               The COED project has been completed through
the pilot plant stage.  Dismantling of the pilot plant has
been completed.  No further work is projected for this
process.


          (2)  Coalcon System

               Although originally planned for near-term
construction, ERDA is considering suspension of the project
due to marginal economics and technical problems with fluid-
bed carbonizers.  Further work is proceeding to eliminate
scale-up problems involved in fluidized bed, and a decision
will be made late in 1977 as to the fate of this project.


          (3)  Clean Coke System

               Operation of a process development unit
during 1977 is planned.  There are no current plans for
pilot facilities.
                                30

-------
          (4)  TOSCOAL System

               This process is not currently funded by ERDA.
A facility has been tested using coal in past studies but no
information on future plans is available.


          (5)  ORC (Garrett) System

               Occidental Research Corporation (ORC) and the
Commonwealth of Kentucky are in a joint venture for the
purpose of preparing a detailed design for a 227-Mg (250-
ton) per day pilot plant.  A municipal waste processing
plant of the same capacity is being constructed in San Diego
County, California.  ERDA's schedule calls for continued
evaluation via PDU operation into Fiscal Year 1978.


     d.   Other System

          (1)  Fischer-Tropsch System

               At this time, studies based on the Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis are of a fundamental research nature.  No
concrete plans have been made yet for process development or
pilot studies in this country.  A second large production
plant is to be constructed in the coal fields of the Eastern
Transvaal region in South Africa.


          (2)  Donor Solvent System

               Operation of the Exxon Donor Solvent process
development unit is planned through 1977.  Current scheduling
calls for pilot plant construction to begin late in 1978
followed by operation in 1980.


          (3)  Methanol System

               ERDA studies of methanol are directed to its
use as a feedstock for catalytic conversion to gasoline.

               Synthesis of methanol from synthesis gas is
being planned as a commercial venture.


          (4)  Supercritical Gas Extraction System

               This process is at such an early stage of
development that no plans beyond conception have been
announced.
                               31

-------
3.   STATUS

     All stages of development including laboratory studies,
process laboratory, process development unit, pilot plant,
and demonstration plant scale projects are represented in
the current status of coal liquefaction technology.

     a.   Synthoil System

          Development of the Synthoil system, initiated by
the U.S. Bureau of Mines, is currently being managed by ERDA
through the Pittsburgh Energy Research Center (PERC) at
Bruceton, Pennsylvania.  The objective of this project is to
determine the technical and economic feasibility of the
process for scaleup to commercial use.

          The Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation is respon-
sible for the design and management of the construction of a
9.1 megagram (10-ton) per day process development unit to
test the Synthoil process.  However, recent communications
from the ERDA Synthoil process Project Manager indicate that
the process development unit may not be used for the Syn-
thoil process.  PERC is conducting support research for the
design of the process development unit.  PERC is also mon-
itoring laboratory research on various aspects of the Syn-
thoil process being conducted by ERDA's Sandia Laboratories
and by the Argonne National Laboratory.  Research on the
Synthoil process is also being conducted by the Exxon
Research and Engineering Laboratories and by the Battelle
Memorial Institute Laboratories.  These projects are being
monitored by the Morgantown Energy Research Center (MERC) in
West Virginia.

          The initial work on the Synthoil process used a
reactor with an internal diameter of 8 mm (5/16 in.) in a
bench-scale plant that processed 2.3 kilograms (five pounds)
of slurry per hour.  Experimental testing was conducted on
various coals, such as Pittsburgh seam, Indiana No. 5,
Middle Kittaning, Ohio No. 6 and Kentucky strip coal.  All
of these types of coal were satisfactorily converted to low-
sulfur fuel oil with no appreciable attrition of catalyst or
loss of catalyst desulfurization activity.  Other parameters
investigated were hydrogen flow rate, coal content of the
feed slurry, recycle rate of the product oil, hydrogen flow
rate,  coal content of the feed slurry, recycle rate of the
product oil, and the effects of hydrogen sulfide in the
recycle gas.

          To demonstrate the broad applicability of this
Synthoil process, a 227-kilogram (500-pounds) per day bench
scale unit was constructed.  This unit used a 28-mm (1.1-
inch)  internal diameter by 4.4-m (14.5-foot) long reactor
configuration made of stainless steel.  Operations were
                                32

-------
conducted on several types of coal at reactor pressures of
142 to 284 parcels (140 to 280 atmospheres)  and at tempera-
tures  up to 450C (840F).   High yields of low-sulfur and
low-ash fuel oil were obtained.

          Operation at the lower pressure is desirable
provided an environmentally acceptable product can be made.
Synthoil produced from a West Virginia bituminous coal has
been analyzed, and the results were published by the Grand
Forks Energy Research Center.  The Hittman Associates Inc.
laboratories are running analyses of: (1) the Synthoil pro-
duct; (2) residue removed from the product by centrifugation;
and (3) the stripping solution that had been used to remove
hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and organic vapors from the
offgas vented from the process.  These materials were
produced from a blend of four Kentucky bituminous coals.


     b.   H-Coal System

          The H-Coal system is being developed by Hydro-
carbon Research, Inc. under the joint sponsorship of: (1)
ERDA; (2) a private industry consortium composed of Electric
Power Research Institute; Ashland Oil, Inc., Conoco Coal
Development Company; Mobil Oil Corporation and Standard Oil
Company, (Indiana); and  (3) the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The overall objectives of the project are to further develop
the H-Coal process and to demonstrate its technical and
economic feasibility on  larger scales.  Specific objectives
are to: (1) conduct laboratory research on all phases of the
H-Coal process using the existing bench-scale unit and
process development to establish design criteria; (2) design
a pilot plant capable of converting 545 megagrams (600 tons)
of coal per day to 318 cubic metres  (2,000 barrels) per day
of low sulfur boiler fuel; (3) procure equipment and materials
for the pilot plant.  Objective (1) is continuing.  Object-
ive (2) has been realized and the ground was broken December
15, 1976 at Cattlettsburg, Kentucky.  Determination of the
feasibility of commercial production of liquid hydrocarbons
from coal is the objective of this ninety-million dollar
pilot plant.


     c.   Solvent Refined Coal System

          The system was originally developed by Spencer
Chemical Company for the United States Department of the
Interior, Office of Coal Research.  Subsequently, Gulf Oil
acquired Spencer Chemical Company and development continues
to the present under the Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Mining
Company, part of Gulf Oil.
                             33

-------
          In 1972 an all-industry group, presently con-
sisting of The Electric Power Research Institute and South-
ern Companies Services, initiated a pilot plant project to
study the technological feasibility of the SRC Process.
Early operations were performed at fixed conditions to
establish process reliability.  Later operations were
conducted to study the effect of process variables such as
temperature, pressure, retention time, solvent-to-coal
ratio, and hydrogen consumption.  Operating information from
this pilot plant has been used to design and build a 45.4
megagram (50-ton) per day pilot plant at Ft. Lewis near
Tacoma, Washington.  This project, funded by ERDA, is being
developed by the Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Mining Company.

          Operational data from the Ft. Lewis plant will
provide opportunities for:

              Further study and development of the process.

              Accumulation of engineering and cost data for
               evaluation of commercial possibilities and
               design of demonstration or commercial plants.

              Product evaluation and market development.

          The Ft. Lewis pilot plant has been in operation
since October 1974.  It has recently been operated to
produce about 2,750 mtons (3,000 tons) of SRC which was used
for functional product testing in a 22 Mw boiler.

          The SRC process concept involves noncatalytic
hydroliquefaction.  Modifications of the SRC process include
SRC-II and the Gulf Catalytic Coal Liquid Process.  A
process demonstration unit (PDU) using SRC technology is
being operated by the University of North Dakota at Grand
Forks, North Dakota, under ERDA sponsorship.  The unit is
designed to process one-half metric ton of lignite per day.
Recent modifications at the Ft. Lewis plant now permit
operation in the SRC-II mode.

          In March 1972, the Edison Electric Institute and
the Southern Company Services, Inc. began a joint project to
study the key steps in the SRC process.  Consequently,
Catalytic,  Inc. designed, built, and is operating the six-
ton per day pilot plant.  The facility was completed in
August 1973.  The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
assumed the responsibilities of the Edison Electric In-
stitute for utility industry sponsorship in April 1973.
                                34

-------
          The pilot plant began operation in January 1974,
and by the end of 1975, had been in operation for more than
7,800 hours, including periods of 45 and 75 days of sus-
tained operation; one subbituminous and four bituminous
coals have been tested.  SRC products meeting plant specifica-
tions of 0.16 percent maximum ash and 0.96 percent maximum
sulfur have been produced from each coal.

          In January 1976, ERDA joined EPRI as a co-sponsor
of the pilot plant operation.  To simulate operation at the
Ft. Lewis SRC pilot plant, a mixture of coals from the
Kentucky Nos. 9 and 14 seams were used for plant operation.
Coal feed rates as high as 75 pounds of coal per hour per
cubic foot of dissolver volume, almost three times the
design feed rate, were achieved.  Material balance data for
ten runs were obtained, allowing correlation of the results
from both the Wilsonville and Ft. Lewis pilot plants.
Empirical models to aid in scaling up to larger plants were
developed for predicting conversion, sulfur removal, and
filtration rates for operation with Kentucky Nos. 9 and 14
coals.  Conversion efficiencies on an MAF basis as high as
95 percent have been achieved.


     d.   Donor Solvent System

          Research was begun in 1966 to identify the basic
Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) system.  It included studies on
both hydrogenated and unhydrogenated recycle solvents.  Con-
ditions ranged from 400 to 425C  (750 to 800F) at pre-
ssures of 2.0 to 2.5 MPa (290 to 365 psi), to 425 to 480C
(800 to 900F) at 10 to 20 MPa (1,450 to 2,900 psi).  A
number of different solid/liquid separation methods were
studied.  Equipment was tested in an integrated pilot plant
system of 454 kilograms (one-half ton) per day capacity.
Techniques were developed for analyzing product and inter-
mediate streams.  Based on these studies the separation
operation chosen was vacuum distillation, and a hydrogenated
recycle solvent operation was selected for further develop-
ment.

          Studies of process variables are continuing in a
907 kilogram (one ton) per day pilot plant.  It is designed
to permit use of different coal feeds and to provide a
variety of products.
                                35

-------
          Evaluation of several process alternatives  have
begun, including development of a computerized process
alternative model to be used as a basic tool for the  process
engineering and economic studies which are planned.   Engin-
eering studies have been initiated to identify and develop
equipment and engineering data needed for a safe,  operable,
and reliable EDS commercial plant.

          The following news release was made July 28,  1977:

               "The Energy Research and Development Admin-
          istration (ERDA) and Exxon Research and Engin-
          eering Company (ER&E), of Florham Park,  New Jersey
          have signed an agreement totaling $240 million to
          develop a process for producing liquids from  coal.

               The cooperative agreement calls for ERDA to
          fund 50 percent of the program, with the remaining
          $120 million provided by the private sector,
          according to Dr. Philip C. White, ERDA's Assistant
          Administrator for Fossil Energy.

               The Carter Oil Company, an Exxon affiliate;
          the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); and
          the Philips Petroleum Company have agreed to
          support the private sector's share of the funding.
          ER&E is negotiating separate agreements for the
          participation of EPRI and Philips.  It is anti-
          cipated that other private sector firms will
          participate in the program.

               The project is based on Exxon's donor  solvent
          coal liquefaction process, a result of independent
          research since 1966.  The program will involve
          both small-scale R&D work, and the design,  con-
          struction and operation of a pilot plant with a
          capacity of 250 tons per day.  The pilot plant
          will be built adjacent to an Exxon refinery at
          Baytown, Texas.  ER&E's principal coal research
          laboratory is located nearby.  Additional lab-
          oratory and engineering will be conducted at  ER&E
          and affiliated facilities at Linden and Florham
          Park in New Jersey and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

               Through 1975, ER&E had spent about $32 million
          to formulate and develop the donor solvent  process.
          The research, primarily at Baytown; and engineering,
          primarily at Florham Park, resulted in the  basic
          process design and cost estimate for the 250  tons
          per day pilot plant.  Additional R&D, intended
          primarily to confirm certain aspects of the basic
          design, has continued under a $12.7 million con-
          tract funded by ERDA, EXXON, and EPRI.
                               36

-------
               The new agreement runs through December 31,
          1982.  The project is designed to bring donor
          solvent coal liquefaction technology to a stage
          where commercial plants could be designed and
          built by private industry.   Many of its features
          are based on technology already proven in the
          petroleum refining industry.

               In the process, coal is liquefied in a non-
          catalytic reactor at moderate temperature and
          pressure.  The hydrogen required for a reaction is
          supplied in both gaseous form and by transfer from
          a donor solvent.  The donor solvent is an inter-
          nally generated coal liquid stream which is hydro-
          genated in a separate catalytic reactor before
          being mixed with the coal feed.

               The process produces liquids suitable for
          motor gasoline blending stocks, low-sulfur oil,
          and utility fuel.  Liquid yields range from 2.5 to
          3 barrels per ton of coal.  The system produces
          both the hydrogen and fuel needed to sustain the
          process."


     e.   Clean Coke System

          The Clean Coke system is being developed by USS
Engineers and Consultants, Inc., a subsidiary of United
States Steel Corporation, under the sponsorship of EKDA.
The work was initiated in 1972 under the auspices of the
Office of Coal Research (OCR, now a part of ERDA).  The
objective of the project is to design a pilot plant that is
capable of converting low-grade, high-sulfur coal to low-
sulfur, low-ash metallurgical coke, chemical feedstocks, and
liquid and gaseous fuels.

          The Clean Coke process combines coal carbonization
and hydrogenation to produce solid, liquid, and gaseous fuel
streams.  Char produced by carbonization is converted to
coke which eliminates the problem of char use and disposal.
No mechanical separation equipment is used to separate the
solids from the liquid product.  Hydrogenation is noncatalytic
and no external hydrogen is required.  However, the hydro-
genator operates at a very high pressure.
                                37

-------
          Laboratory and bench-scale development studies on
Illinois No. 6 Seam Coal have been underway since 1969.
Various aspects, including coal preparation, carboniza-
tion/ desulfurization of coal in fluidized beds, and high
pressure hydrogenation reactions have been the subjects of
these investigations.  Process development units have been
built and are now operating.  Two additional types of coal
are scheduled to be processed.  Information obtained from
the process development units will be used for the design of
a 218 megagrams (240 ton) per day pilot plant.


     f.   Bergius System

          The Bergius system was one of the forerunners in
coal liquefaction technology.  It was used by Germany to
produce aviation fuel and diesel oil during World War II.
There were 18 Bergius plants producing about 4.77 Mm3 (30
million barrels) of oil per year.  The process uses cataly-
tic liquid phase hydrogenation to produce liquid fuels.  The
major problem involved was the operation of high pressure
solids/liquids separation equipment.  The conversion effi-
ciency was low due to the unavailability of better catalysts
in the past.  External hydrogen was required.  Though there
are no commercial Bergius plants operating currently, they
have led to the recent developments in the United States of
the H-Coal and Synthoil processes.


     g.    Char-Oil-Energy Development (COED) System

          The COED system converts coal to low sulfur
synthetic crude oil, clean fuel gas, and char.  The oil
product can be used directly as fuel oil or as a feedstock
for oil refining.

          Project COED was initiated in 1962 when the FMC
Corporation, under sponsorship of the Office of Coal Re-
search,  Department of the Interior, started research work to
upgrade coal to more valuable products.  Following bench-
scale studies, operation of a 45-kg/hr (100-lb/hr) process
development unit was undertaken during 1965 to 1967.  Western
and midwestern coals were processed in a multi-stage, fluidized
bed, pyrolysis system.

          A small, bench-scale hydrotreating study was
performed by the Atlantic Richfield Company and economic
evaluations for a conceptual commercial design were made.
Promising results from these preliminary studies led to the
design,  construction, and operation of a 32.7-Mg (36 ton)
per day pilot plant at the FMC Corporation's Research and
Development Center in Princeton, New Jersey.  The plant was
                                38

-------
completed in August 1970, and the first successful 30 day
run was made in December 1970.  The pilot plant completed a
number of long-term runs with good operating reliability.
The plant processed about 18,144-Mg (20,000 tons) of a wide
variety of American coals, including the highly caking
types.  Sufficient engineering data were obtained for the
design of a commercial plant.  All project objectives were
completed, and the pilot plant was shut down in April 1975.
It has since been dismantled.

          The Seacoke system is a similar process, using a
five-stage, fluidized bed, pryolysis process.  The Seacoke
products are syncrude, char, and fuel gas.  The Seacoke
system operates at atmospheric pressure and in the tempera-
ture range of 315 to 870C (600 to 1600F).


     h.   COSTEAM System

          In 1921, F. Fischer and H. Schrader reported the
use of carbon monoxide as a reducing agent in the solubili-
zing of coal.  Interest in this discovery was lacking at
that time because of low yields of heavy products and a
greater interest in motor fuels.  Since the late 1960s the
work has been extended, modified, and improved.  The process
now has good commercial potential.  This later work in-
dicated the importance of using a solvent with a coal which
has not been subjected to aging, drying, or oxidation.
Carbon monoxide, water, and coal at 380 to 400C (715 to
750F) yielded a benzene soluble solid or semi-solid pro-
duct.  More recently work has been conducted to substitute
synthesis gas for carbon monoxide and to make a product with
sufficient fluidity for use as a coal slurry vehicle.


     i.   Coalcon System

          Union Carbide has been involved in coal conversion
studies since 1936.  The extent of this work includes opera-
tion of several pilot plants and a fully integrated 454-Mg
(500-ton) per day processing facility, which used a liquid
phase catalytic hydrogenation process.  The plant operated
over a period of about six years in the mid 1950's.  At the
same time extensive research was carried out to convert coal
to chemical products by pyrolysis of coal in the presence of
hydrogen.  The process, termed hydrocarbonization, was
evaluated in a 18.4-Mg (20 ton) per day pilot plant oper-
ation.  A 4536-Mg (5000 ton) per day conceptual design was
made in the mid 1960's, but the economics did not favor
chemical production via coal conversion and interest in the
program waned.
                               39

-------
          In the early 1970's, problems with petroleum
supply caused Union Carbide to re-evaluate its coal conver-
sion experience.  It was concluded that the hydrocarboniza-
tion route to convert coal to liquid fuels had potential
application and a joint venture known as Coalcon was formed
with Chemical Construction Corporation.

          In January 1975, the Department of the Interior
through its Office of Coal Research chose Coalcon to build
and operate the Clean Boiler Fuels Demonstration Plant.  The
preliminary design phase is near completion.  However, ERDA
has reported that the economics are marginal and technical
problems with the fluid bed carbonizer are greater than
first believed.  Latest reports indicate that only the
design phase will be completed at this time and that addi-
tional research and development is required on the process.


     j.   TOSCOAL System

          The Oil Shale Corporation (TOSCO), in cooperation
with other private industries, has developed a process for
retorting oil shale, known as the TOSCO II process.  A semi-
works facility was constructed at Grand Valley, Colorado to
test the feasibility of the process.  The capacity of this
plant is 907 mton (1000 tons; per day.

          The technology of oil shale retorting has been
applied to the low temperature carbonization of coal.  A
pilot plant for processing 22.5 mton (25 tons) per day of
subbituminous coal has been operating at the Rocky Flats
Research Center near Golden, Colorado.

          Subbituminous coal has been processed yielding a
low sulfur char product of half the weight of coal with
higher heating value than coal and low sulfur liquid fuel.
Hydrogen generation is not required and the process uses the
generated flue gases for preheating the dry coal.  Hauling
and transferring of hot, ceramic balls, which provide heat
for pyrolysis, cause a major problem.


     k.   Occidental Research Corporation (Garrett) System

          Garrett Research and Development (now the Occiden-
tal Research Corporation), (ORC), initiated a coal research
program in 1969 to explore the feasibility of converting
coal to liquid fuels.  Garrett is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Occidental Petroleum Corporation.  Because of its
involvement in the petroleum industry, and the fact that
conversion of coal to liquid fuel then appeared more economi-
cal than its conversion to gas, emphasis was placed on a
                                40

-------
study of coal liquefaction processes.   Coal pyrolysis was
selected from the alternatives because pyrolysis offered the
simplicity and relatively low cost needed for rapid commer-
cialization.

          The initial laboratory scale results were quite
encouraging and, in 1971, a 3.6-Mg (4 ton) per day facility
was constructed at LaVerne, California.  Although it was
built for the study of coal pyrolysis, during the first two
years, it processed solid waste materials only.

          During this period, a variety of solid waste feed-
stocks were converted to liquid fuel oil.  The pilot facili-
ty began processing coal in 1974.  The operation has been
relatively free of problems largely due to operating exper-
tise developed during the solid waste program.  Caking and
non-caking coals have been successfully tested.  Based on
these results, a 227-Mg  (250 ton) per day municipal waste
processing plant is being constructed in San Diego County.

          The Occidental Research Corporation will evaluate
the commercial potential of its flash pyrolysis coal lique-
faction process under the sponsorship of ERDA.

          The main objectives of the program are to:

              Demonstrate that caking coals can be pro-
               cessed continuously in a specially designed
               single-stage pyrolysis reactor without oxi-
               dative pretreatment, and that this method
               will result in a significantly higher yield
               of liquids than other proposed pyrolysis
               processes.

              Conduct extended runs in the three-ton-per-
               day process development unit (PDU) in order
               to obtain steady state heat and material
               balances.

              Produce and recover large quantities of the
               primary tar, and to evaluate methods for up-
               grading this material to a clean fuel or
               synthetic crude oil.

              Continue development of specific areas of the
               pyrolysis and liquids collection systems to
               ensure a technologically sound basis for
               future scale-up.

              Obtain sufficient process and environmental
               data for detailed design of a larger plant
               and conduct an assessment of the potential
               commercial viability of the process.
                               41

-------
          ORC and the Commonwealth of Kentucky have a cost-
sharing joint venture aimed at providing a detailed design
for a 250-tons-per-day pilot plant using the process.

          Research and development on solid phase hydro-
carbonization under an ERDA contract is underway by Rock-
etydne Division of Rockwell International at Canoga Park,
California.
     1.   Fischer-Tropsch System

          Interest in the synthesis of liquid hydrocarbons
goes back to 1913 when patent applications described the
reaction of hydrogen with carbon monoxide at high temp-
erature and pressure and the hydrogenation of coal under
pressure.  In 1927, the hydrogenation of coal was undertaken
on an industrial scale by I.G. Farben.  This resulted from
the development of catalysts with adequate activity and
sulfur resistance.

          A Fischer-Tropsch plant was constructed near
Johannesburg and began operation in 1955.  A second plant is
now under construction in the Transvaal Region.  It will
have a consumption of 12.9 teragram (14 million tons) of
coal per year.


     m.   Methanol System

          Methanol was first produced commercially from
wood.  Natural gas, reformed to synthesis gas, is currently
preferred for methanol production in countries where it is
available as a cheap feedstock.  Prior to the advent of
natural gas, solid fuels had been the major source for
synthesis gas for methanol production.  In Europe, Asia, and
South Africa where natural gas was not available, coal
became the primary source for synthesis gas.  In countries
where economics still favor this route, methanol is produced
from coal.

          In the United States, natural gas is no longer
readily available and alternate sources for synthesis gas
are being evaluated.  Abundant coal reserves present in the
United States may play an important role in synthesis gas
production.  Technology for methanol production is available
and can be updated to suit the United States' needs.

          Some of the first generation processes that have
been used to convert coal to synthesis gas are Koppers-
Totzek, Lurgi, and Winkler.  The three processes employ dif-
ferent features and operating conditions, and each produces
a gaseous product of different composition.  A number of
second generation processes are under development.


                               42

-------
     n.    Supercritical Gas Extraction System

          Two major problems facing advancement of coal
liquefaction to commercialization are operability of solid-
liquid separation equipment and high hydrogen consumption.
The Supercritical Gas Extraction system (SGE),  now under
development by National Coal Board in England seems to have
solved these problems.  Catalytic, Inc.,  a subsidiary of Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc. is evaluating the technical
feasibility of this process for United States coals.
4.   PRIORITIES FOR FURTHER STUDIES

     Initially, the types and classes of pollutants probably
present in waste streams were determined.  This was based on
available documentation on liquefaction emissions and con-
sideration of discharges from related industries such as
coal-fired power plants and petroleum refineries.

     Next, the pollution controls were evaluated to deter-
mine their capabilities and limitations.  Among factors
considered were:

         The types of pollutants controlled by the specific
          technology.

         Physical properties of the pollutants that might
          affect selection of controls.

         Chemical properties of the pollutants that might
          affect selection of controls.

         Efficiency of controls.

         Contaminants in the waste stream that could limit
          or prevent use of a specific type of control.

         The local environment including climate, water
          availability, soil characteristics, etc.

     When possible, controls were matched with anticipated
effluents.  Specific factors needed to determine which
technology was best suited were noted.   These are  indicated
by  an asterisk in  the margin.

     The  following discussion on air, water, and solid waste
controls was based upon this procedure.
                                43

-------
     a.   Air Pollution Control

          It is well recognized that no uniform gas cleaning
method exists that will satisfy all problems and conditions.
In the selection of control systems, both physical and
chemical properties must be considered.  The degree of
efficiency of different control options also must be a basis
for selection.

          For example, in particulate control, coarse dust
particles are separated by dry inertial separators; whereas,
fine dusts, etc. require the use of fabric filters, scrubbers
or electrostatic precipitators.  To meet a specific level of
emission, highly efficient removal systems such as pre-
cipitators are required for controlling streams with large
amounts of fine particulate.  Cyclones might be applicable
for removal of less concentrated, coarse particles.  Part-
iculate properties basic to the performance and selection of
gas cleaning equipment are particle size distribution,
structure, density, composition, electrical conductivity,
and agglomeration properties.  Also needed to be taken into
consideration are gas properties such as temperature, mois-
ture content, total gas flow, and chemical composition.  For
example, particulate removal efficiency for precipitators
increases with increasing sulfur content greater than two
percent in the waste stream.  Fine particulates will pro-
bably need a better control than now exists.

          Where flares are used to control hydrocarbon
emissions, a major problem is the availability of sufficient
combustible waste gases to maintain combustion.  The pres-
ence of trace metals in the gas stream needs to be invest-
igated as well.

          Sulfur recovery operation selection is limited by
the composition of the acid gas feed stream.  When the
Stretford process is used, most mercaptans, carbonyl sulfides,
and carbon dioxide pass through the absorber into the exit
gas.  Glaus plant efficiency, on the other hand, requires a
minimum concentration of approximately ten to fifteen volume
percent of H2S.  High levels of C0 water vapor and hydro-
carbons in the acid gas feed also reduce the efficiency.

          Availability of water also can determine which
control should be selected.  In water-short regions, dry
methods of controlling emissions should be considered.

          Detailed analyses of waste stream composition and
concentration combined with aforementioned properties of air
pollution controls are needed to provide adequate data to
select the proper control system to limit environmental
impact.
                               44

-------
     b.   Water Pollution Control

          All process wastewater streams have different
characteristics.  The characteristics vary from one stream
to another.  For some, variations may be small, but for
others a marked difference may exist.  The selection of best
control technology for these wastewater streams will depend
on the level of information that exists for each individual
stream.

          The species of interest for an environmental
assessment for wastewater can be divided into classes such
as dissolved gases, organics, trace elements, phenols, and
sulfur and nitrogen compounds.  Gross characteristics such
as BOD, COD, TOC, suspended solids, pH, and oil and grease
of each wastewater stream are also essential.

          The characteristics of wastewater streams can be
used to determine the type of control technology required.
It may be possible that two or more wastewater streams can
be treated by a common treatment method.  The variation in
characteristics of wastewater streams and capability of
control systems to handle such variations can be evaluated
by change in the feedstock and operating variables.  The
concentration levels of recoverable compounds such as
ammonia and phenols will determine the feasibility of
recovery.  Combination physical/chemical methods may serve
to remove some materials such as phenols.  The performance
of biox systems in the presence of toxic metals is not fully
known and requires evaluation.

          The complete wastewater control system will be a
combination of physical, chemical, and biological treatment
processes.  The combination sequence of the individual
treatment processes will affect the degree of contaminant
removal.  Table 1 shows the important characteristics of
wastewaters that could influence the choice of wastewater
treatment and control systems.

     c.   Solid Waste Control

          The term, bulk solid waste, includes various
materials.  Ash consists of a variety of metallic oxides and
trace element compounds.  Coal and char particles contain
organic and mineral materials.  Elemental sulfur may be
generated as solid waste from hydrogen sulfide control
technologies.  Limestone sludges, primarily calcium sulfite,
and calcium sulfate may be alternately generated.  Zinc
sulfide, the primary constituent of spent sulfur guard
reactor absorbents, also may be present as will spent cata-
lysts from applicable processes.  Wastewater treatment
                               45

-------
      TABLE  1.   CONTROL  SYSTEMS ASESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
      Control Method
Equalization
Neutralization
Temperature Adjustment
Nutrient Additions
Sedimentation
Dissolved air-flotation

Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Oxidation Pond
Trickling Filter
Chemical Mixing Floccula-
tion and Clarification
Dissolved Air-flotation
with Chemicals
Activated Carbon Absorp-
tion
Stripping
 Important Characteristics
Flow variability
Extreme pH values
Extreme pH values
Nutrient deficiency
Settleable suspended solids
Oils, tars, suspended solids,
and other floatable matter
Organic content
Organic content
Organic content
Organic content
Dissolved solids, colloids,
metals or precipitable or-
ganics,  and emulsified oils
Oils, colloids, tar, and
chemically coalesced mater-
ials
Trace amounts of organics
and color, taste, and odor-
producing compounds
Dissolved gases, variable
organics, and materials that
can be chemically converted
to gases
                                46

-------
sludges, a mixture of coal tar residues, sand, coal fines,
and treatment by-products may also contain untreated quanti-
ties of phenols, ammonia, cyanides, and other potentially
dangerous materials.

          Wastewater treatment will generate sludges requir-
ing proper disposal.  Sludge characteristics depend on the
type of wastewater and the treatment method applied.  It is
important to identify hazardous materials that may be leached
by groundwater.  The volume and type of sludge will determine
the disposal method that can be used.  Sludge with high
water content requires pretreatment.  The presence of toxic
materials must be assessed and positive indications will
make it necessary to find control means for preventing their
entry into the environment.

          The discussion of solid waste component materials
has been a general one, necessitated by the limited existing
knowledge.  Chemical analysis must be utilized to identify
the specific composition of solid waste materials and to
determine the concentration of these materials.  The en-
vironmental impacts of these materials will need to be
determined.  All leachable materials present in concentra-
tions exceeding environmentally acceptable standards must be
identified.

          The problems associated with disposal of solid
waste must be resolved to the desired goal to minimize
environmental degradation.  Landfilling and minefilling
techniques will require additional sophistication to con-
fidently prevent contamination of the surrounding area.
Undesirable ash constituents can re-enter the environment as
a result of groundwater leaching.  Little is known of the
fate of landfilled trace elements, spent catalysts, or spent
absorbents.  Upon identification of hazardous, leachable
materials present in solid waste, leaching studies will be
needed to determine the available alternatives to minimize
detrimental effects upon the environment.  Impervious liners
may be used as a physical means of preventing groundwater
percolation which, in turn, prevents leaching.  Chemical
stabilization, to render leachable constituents insoluble or
inert, may be necessary control methods in some instances.
A combination of physical and chemical control methods may
be the required technique.

          Subsidence, the gradual settling of landfill
materials, is another problem.  In some cases, compaction of
wastes reduces subsidence effects, allows more waste dis-
posal per unit volume of storage space, and reduces permeability
of landfilled wastes.  This, in turn, reduces leaching
problems, and is currently under consideration as a means of
improving solid waste disposal techniques.  More information
                               47

-------
is needed regarding the subsidence and compaction properties
of the bulk solid wastes generated by liquefaction pro-
cesses.

          Although no secondary wastes are anticipated after
landfilling, light hydrocarbon gases may be generated due to
reaction of organic materials present.  Furthermore, com-
bustible materials may generate gases as well as cause
underground fires.  Unsuspected or undetected materials may
undergo groundwater leaching.  Periodic sampling and analy-
sis of landfill materials and surroundings will be required
to determine if secondary wastes are generated and, if
necessary, to develop control technology modifications which
will prevent the generation of such wastes.
                               48

-------
            B.  CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
     Based on the available literature with respect to
potential pollutants resulting from coal liquefaction
systems and conjunctive developments, Hittman Associates has
attempted to identify the classes of major organic and
inorganic substances (including organometallies) emanating
from gaseous, aqueous, and solid waste emissions and efflu-
ents.  Division of the pollutants into the organic and
inorganic (or organometallic) groups is reasonable because
these two groups differ in their chemical and physical
properties.  These properties, in turn, influence the en-
vironmental effects of the various pollutants.  The physical
and chemical properties of the organics have been discussed
in terms of their classes.

     Two major classes of organic compounds associated with
coal liquefaction systems have been  identified:  the aliphatic
and the aromatic.  Among the  aliphatics, there  are light-
chained compounds (e.g., methane through dodecane) and all
stereoisomers plus the alkenes and alkynes of the above, and
the heavy-chained aliphatics.  Of the  aliphatic class of
compounds, n-dodecane is reported to be a carcinogen.

     Among the aromatic compounds are  the one-  and two-ring
compounds:  benzene  (implicated in leucogenesis and Hodgkins
disease); napthalenes (implicated as co-carcinogens);
benzidine, and the aromatic amines known or suspected as
carcinogenic; another large group of polynuclear aromatic
compounds (e.g., dibenzo(a,i)pyrene, chrysene,  and benzo  (e)
pyrene) all of which are reported as carcinogenic, and
finally, the polynuclear aza-heterocyclics such as benz  (c)
acridine, and dibenzo(a,i)acridine,  also known  to be car-
cinogenic.  Certain of the polynuclear aromatics are known
to be noncarcinogenic.

     While a concerted effort has been made to  identify
potential pollutants by classes and  by discrete compounds,
and further to quantify these on a multimedia basis, the
reader should recognize that  these data cannot  be used to
indicate specific impacts on  plants, animals, and man at
specific sites.

     Information on the identity, distribution, and level of
occurrence of potential pollutants throughout the entire
fuel cycle and for all media  is essential for the future
development of guidelines, criteria, and regulatory require-
ments at the federal, state,  and local levels.  Ideally, it
would be most advantageous, in this  context, to establish
the levels of the most toxic  pollutants that would be
expected after use of the best treatment technologies.
Desirable as this may be, the current  information generally
                                 49

-------
does not permit such an effort.  For example, the polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, although composing the smallest
amount of the organic load in wastewaters, are expected to
have a wide range of removal efficiencies.  For organics, in
general, there appears to be an inverse relationship between
removal efficiency and the molecular weight of the compound -
the greater the number of rings, the more difficult the
removal.  Similarly, both microbial degradation and adsor-
ptive sedimentation processes are highly dependent upon
molecular size.  Thus, microbial degradation proceeds far
more slowly for the high molecular weight organic compounds,
while adsorption becomes important only above the 2-ring
compounds.  In the multi-ring compounds, the substitution of
N or S heteroatoms acts to retard microbial oxidation.  Ap-
parently, nonaromatic amines and thiophenes may be removed
from wastewaters as much by volatilization during aeration
as by microbial degradation.  Thus, significant amounts of
multi-ring aromatic compounds may pass undegraded through
wastewater treatment practices known to be very efficient in
removing phenols.


1.   POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS AND IMPACTS IN ALL MEDIA

     An effort was made to generalize on the known con-
centrations of about seven inorganic and twenty-two trace
and heavy metal elements expected in nine major environ-
mental compartments, (soil, rock, freshwater, seawater, air,
plants, marine, terrestrial, and animals), as an aid in
estimating whether the increased inputs of these elements
when released in the ash, etc. from coal liquefaction, would
significantly increase the level in the environment.  Essen-
tially, the same thing was done for nine major organic
compounds, except that the following compartments were used:
industrial and municipal effluents, natural waters, drinking
water supplies, and finished drinking waters.

     Estimates were made of the quantities and process dis-
charges expected as emissions to air (organics and inorganics),
as aqueous effluents (phenols, tars, benzene, etc.), as
waste solids and residues (land destined wastes, sludges,
etc.) and as the products of the liquefaction process,
including organics and inorganics.

     One of the more significant aspects of the ongoing en-
vironmental assessment effort by Hittman Associates has
involved the critical analysis of natural, physical-chemical
processes that effectively dissipate or enhance the toxic
effects of known biological stressors in aqueous and solid
waste effluents.  For example, benzene, toluene, and naptha-
lene may be volatilized into the atmosphere; whereupon they
may enter the hydrosphere by various means such as washout
                                 50

-------
in rain,  dry deposition,  or by direct diffusion into water
surfaces.  Such atmospheric removal is considered as con-
tributing significantly to organic loadings in the hydro-
sphere.  Other studies suggest that napthalene concentrates
in sediment and is not readily desorbed back in the water
column; further work is needed to confirm this finding.
Other considerations relate to the fact that sediment ad-
sorption is more pronounced for larger multi-ring compounds
and that volatilization is most important as a removal
(i.e., environmental dissipation) mechanism for the nonpolar
molecules having one and two rings.  Other studies suggest
that polycyclic compounds may possess turnover times of
months or years in soils and bottom sediments.

     In the consideration of the biological cycling  (bio-
concentration, excretion, metabolism, and biodegradation) of
pollutants resulting from coal liquefaction processes, an
effort was made to assess the possible environmental fate
and effects of about twelve organic compounds on microor-
ganisms, plants, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic vertebrates,
and mammals.  On the basis of preliminary data, the biocon-
centration factor of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons is
reported to increase by an order of magnitude for each 50-
to 60-unit molecular weight increase.  Further work  is
required to confirm this.

     The assessment of the potential  impacts of coal lique-
faction processes was made in terms of potential for water
pollution of a facility consuming  about 22,680 megagrams
(25,000) tons of coal and 45,360 megagrams  (50,000)  tons of
water each day; this would include acid drainage from coal
storage piles, extensive soil erosion, and  sedimentation
resulting from surface mining and  construction of the
facility, noise, exposure of area  residents to new occu-
pational hazards, and the acute and chronic effects  of low
levels of pollutants released during  coal liquefaction.
With reference to chronic effects, interest centers  on car-
cinogenicity, mutagenicity and, possibly, teratogencity of
chemicals known to be a part of coal  liquefaction and other
processes.  Major reliance for the foreseeable future must
be placed on extrapolation from laboratory  and field data on
animals to man.

     Present indications as to chronic effects of major
pollutants, based on the study of  coal-derived products, are
as follows:

         Sulfur-containing constituents (in the reduced
          state) are present in a  much greater variety and,
          in some cases, larger quantities than were anti-
          cipated.  The ecological and health effects of
          reduced sulfur compounds have had little study.
                                51

-------
         Concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydro-
          carbons are very high.  A detailed study of this
          fraction is called for to properly estimate the
          general threat of industrial carcinogenesis.  BaP
          concentrations in aqueous liquors suggest an
          environmental hazard.

         Concentrations of weakly acidic components, sus-
          pected tumor promoters or co-carcinogens, are
          substantial and a wide variety occur.

         Nitrogen heterocyclics are present at substantial
          levels suggesting the need for additional studies.
          High indole/skatole concentrations suggest the
          possible presence of carcinogenic dibenzoacridines.

     In connection with the toxicity data, it was reported
that the toxicity of an ion or compound depends on the
following factors: the species of test animals, the prior
exposure (e.g., adaptation) of the test species, the pH,
temperature, water alkalinity and hardness, dissolved oxygen
level, salinity, presence of other toxicants, route of
administration, and whether a static or flowing system was
used.  The use of acute toxicity data to predict 'chronic or
subacute effects appears all too frequently to be based on
assumptions that are highly questionable.

     The toxicity of various inorganic anions and cations
was reported under four headings, as follows:

         Very toxic - effects seen below 1 ppm, and the
          LD^o occurs at a dietary level of 1-10 mg/kg body
          weight.

         Moderately toxic - effects seen at 1-100 ppm, and
          the LD5Q at the 10-100 mg/kg body weight.

         Slightly toxic - effects seen rarely in plants or
          microorganisms, and the LDso at a dietary level of
          100-1000 mg/kg body weight.

         Relatively harmless - the LD50 occurs at a level
          greater than 1000 mg/kg body weight.

     Elemental cations judged "very toxic" to microorganisms
included:   copper, tin, silver, and mercury.  Cations judged
"very toxic" to higher plants included:  beryllium; copper;
mercury; tin;  and, possibly, cobalt; nickel; and lead.

     For animals, the "very toxic" elemental forms included-
arsenic (III),  thallium, tellurium, selenium (IV), and
plutonium (IV-VI).  The more toxic trace elements'stressed
                                52

-------
in this report include: Be,  Cr,  Ni,  Cu,  Zn,  As,  Se,  Cd,  Sb,
Hg, Tl, Sn, Co and F.

     Another important effort refers to the attempt made by
Hittman Associates to identify those living organisms judged
by the 96-hour LD5Q, to be the most sensitive vis-a-vis such
organic pollutants as benzene, acenapthene, anthracene,
chrysene, toluene, 3,4-benzopyrene-isophorone, and benzi-
dine, among others.  Organisms were identified among the
marine microorganisms  (algae, bacteria, etc.), fresh-water
algal, terrestrial microoganisms, selected higher plants,
marine invertebrates,  fresh-water invertebrates, marine and
fresh-water fishes,  amphibians, and nonhuman mammals.

     With reference  to the potential health effects  of
various pollutants on  humans, it was noted that carbon
monoxide, acting  on  hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin
levels ranging from  3.0 to 6.5 percent, resulted in  diminished
exercise performance and diminished alertness of healthy
persons.  Other evidence implicating levels of carboxyhemo-
globin below  10 percent have  appeared to increase the risk
of arteriosclerosis, impaired fetal development, and altered
drug metabolism.   These results are still inconclusive and
suggest the need  for further  study.  Information was also
provided on the relative eye  irritation potential of several
hydrocarbons.  It was  suggested that eye and  respiratory
tract  irritation  could serve  an early warning of dangerous
exposure to such  pollutants  as n-butane, n-hexane, benzene,
isopropyl benzene, and p-xylene.  Among several hydrocar-
bons,  differing in structure, 1,3-butadiene was more ir-
ritating to the eye  than the  multialkyl-benzenes.

     One of the least  studied areas relates to the additive
interactions  between mixtures of  such aqueous pollutants as
phenols, metals,  ammonia, and mixtures of ammonia, phenol,
zinc,  copper, and cyanide.  An effort was made to demon-
strate more clearly  the synergistic and antagonistic in-
teractions of a number of compounds.  For example, no
interactions  were found between phenol, ammonia, and zinc
when the zinc comprised greater than 74 percent of the total
predicted toxicity.

     The sublethal effects of concern, both from the ecolog-
ical and human health  standpoints, relate to  the carcinogenic
and mutagenic effects  by polynuclear aromatics and other
organics.

     Although carcinogencity  in mammals is almost exclusively
limited to 4-, 5-  and  6-ring  polycyclics and  some methylated
derivatives,  no definite structure-effect relationship has
yet been determined.   Moreover, the presence  of N or S
heteroatoms in basic polycyclic hydrocarbon structures has
been demonstrated  in different cases either to intensify or


                                53

-------
lessen carcinogenic effects.  Because N- and S-containing
polycyclic compounds are more water-soluble than the corres-
ponding hydrocarbons, they may be present in effluents at
greater levels than those of the polyaromatic hydrocarbons;
their hazards may, therefore, equal or exceed those of
nonsubstituted polycyclics.

     The carcinogenicity to mammals of polycyclic compounds
is dramatically altered by co-exposure to other aliphatic or
aromatic hydrocarbons or to phenols.  Concentrations which
produce effects may be lowered by several orders of mag-
nitude when present in combination with other organic com-
pounds.  Virtually nothing is known, however, of subacute
interactions between compound classes at the low levels
anticipated in effluents.  Potential hazards exist for both
aquatic organisms and human populations exposed through
either water consumption or ingestion of fish and shellfish.
The scarcity of information on carcinogenic and mutagenic
effects of heteroatomic polyaromatic compounds, potential
interactions between compound classes and complete absence
of information on effects of trace levels to aquatic organ-
isms of all polycyclic compounds, indicate the urgent need
for more research in these areas.

     The following compounds are known or suspected to be
carcinogenic and may be in the effluent streams of coal
liquefaction plants: benzidine, nitrosamines (at 0.2 moles/
kg), nickel (in the form of nickel carbonyl), chromium
(especially in the form of chromic trioxide or chromate
salts), beryllium (example: beryllium oxide), arsenic
(example: tricalcium arsenate), selenium (example: selenide
salt), cobalt (example: cobalt sulfide), lead (example: lead
chromate), zinc (example: zinc chromate), mercury (example:
elemental mercury), cadmium  (example: cadmium sulfide),
anthracenes (example: 9,10-dimethylanthracene), chrysenes
(example: chrysene whose carcinogenicity is uncertain),
benzanthracenes (example: benzo(a) anthracene), fluoran-
thenes (example:  benzo (j)), fluoranthene and benzo(b)
fluoranthene, cholanthrenes  (example: 20-methylcholanthrene),
benzopyrenes (example: benzo(a)pyrene), dibenzopyrenes
(example: dibenzo(a,h)pyrene), mono- and dibenzacridines
(example: dibenz(a,h)acridine), benzocarbazoles (example:
7H~benzo(c)carbazole), dibenzocarbazoles (example: 7H-
benz(c,g)carbazole), benzanthrones (example: 7H-benz(d,e)
anthracene-7-one), aminoazobenzenes (example: 4-dimethyl-
aminoazobenzene), and naphthylamines (example: alpha-naphthy-
lamine.

     The chemical composition of products from coal-lique-
faction systems suggests that they will exhibit considerable
carcinogenicity.   Benzo(a)pyrene concentrations ranged from
40-50 ppm in coal-derived products as compared to 1 ppm for
carcinogenic condensed tobacco smoke.  Concentrations of


                                54

-------
PAH are usually 10-100 times the level found in smoke;  and
compounds of known tumor-initiating, tumor-promoting,  and
co-carcinogenic activity, such as pyrene and alkalynaphthalenes
are present.  Chromatographic surveys of gaseous and aqueous
samples associated with conversion processes further illustra-
te the existence of a potential environmental and/or health
threat.  Gaseous samples from one process were found to
contain considerable concentrations of H2S, COS, thiophene,
and methyldisulfide.  An aqueous separator liquor from one
process contained sulfur-bearing constituents, phenolics,
and a measurable (ppb) concentration of benzo(a)pyrene.  A
stack gas sample from one process was found to contain at
least fifty low molecular weight organic compounds.

     In the absence of medical data, compounds with boiling
points above 250C should be handled with  caution.  In
general, these are the compounds with the  higher molecular
weights, large number of aromatic rings, lower water solu-
bility, and higher potential for relative  persistence and
bioaccumulation in organisms.


2.   FEDERAL/STATE STANDARDS. CRITERIA

     Consistent with the objective  of evaluating coal lique-
faction systems, a review of existing environmental re-
 Juirements was made at the  federal  and  state  government
 evels.  The study of state laws was restricted to those
states which have the demonstrated  coal reserves necessary
to provide  sites for commercial  coal liquefaction facilities
in the near and far term.   The  states which have been ad-
dressed are:  Alaska, Arizona,  Colorado, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico,  North Dakota,  Ohio, Pennsyl-
vania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West  Virginia, and Wyoming.

     The major conclusion of the review is that no legisla-
tion currently exists directly  pertinent to coal liquefac-
tion systems.  Prior to  commercialization, such legislation
is needed at the federal, state, and local levels.  A review
of existing standards and guidelines does  provide an idea of
long-range  goals in the  area of environmental policy.
Additionally, existing standards governing related fossil
fuel technologies could  serve as the foundation on which
standards for liquefaction  facilities will be based.
However, at this time it is impossible  to  project how
stringent and how comprehensive  environmental regulations
will be specific to commercialized  coal liquefaction sys-
tems.
                                55

-------
     a.   Federal Policy

          The Clean Air Act outlines existing federal policy
concerning air quality standards that have been established
for several types of emissions, including:  particulates,
hydrocarbons, and sulfur oxides.  These standards are sum-
marized in Table 1 of Appendix B.

          Additionally, standards for new sources have been
established.  Specifically, the standards for coal pre-
paration, plants, petroleum liquid storage vessels, and
fossil fuel-fired steam generators may be similar to the
standards which will be established for corresponding areas
of coal liquefaction facilities.  The steam generator data
may be more applicable to production utilization than it is
to production.  Possibly applicable new source standards are
discussed in Table 2 of Appendix B.

          National emission standards for air pollutants
deemed hazardous are established in conjunction with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Currently, standards
exist for mercury, beryllium, and asbestos.  Although none
of these are likely to affect coal liquefaction, future
standards for hazardous air pollutants may be applicable.

          The Federal Water Pollution Control Act has estab-
lished long-range national goals to limit point source
effluent concentrations.  The act requires "application of
the best practicable control technology currently available"
not later than July 1, 1977.  Six years later, "application
of the best available technology economically achievable"
will be required to meet the national goal of "eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants."

          Effluent guidelines and standards exist for several
industries which have operations similar to those proposed
for liquefaction plants.  Table 3 of Appendix B includes
standards and guidelines for coal preparation and storage
facilities and coking operations.  Coking operations are
more directly applicable to liquefaction processes based on
pyrolysis.  In addition, a comprehensive system of standards
has been established for petroleum refinery operations.
Effluent limitations for refineries are functions of overall
refinery size and the capacities and pollution potentials of
the refinery unit processes.  A similar system may be
developed for liquefaction plants, the factors of plant size
and process type making the effluent limitations as equitable
as possible.

          The characterization of solid waste materials
leaving coal conversion plants is incomplete.  It is possible
that hazardous wastes are present.  For this reason, subsequent
                                56

-------
discussions of solid waste disposal shall include hazardous
waste disposal, although the necessity of such measures is
not certain.

          The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
replaced the Solid Waste Disposal Act as a statement of
National Solid Waste Policy.  Guidelines for landuse and
ultimate disposal of solid wastes are not as advanced as the
legislation governing emissions to air and water.  The most
applicable EPA requirements and recommendations are described
in Table 4 of Appendix B.

          Not all constitutents of the products, by-products,
and wastes generated by the liquefaction process are known.
The Toxic Substances Control Act was established to provide
regulation and testing of new and existing materials which
could cause unreasonable health and environmental conse-
quences.  Testing may be prescribed for cumulative or
synergistic effects, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity. birth
defects, and behavioral disorders.  Should any liquefaction
process components be characterized as toxic, the develop-
ment of technology capable of isolating and disposing of
those components will be necessary.  The potential impact is
difficult to assess because of incomplete characterization
of process components and incomplete determination of sub-
stances and concentrations of those substances which should
be considered toxic.
     b.   Selected State Policies

              Alaska.  Ambient air quality standards and
standards for industrial process emissions have been estab-
lished.  Table 5 of Appendix B shows the standards and
reference conditions.  Emissions standards for industrial
processes are described in Table 6 of Appendix B.

               Water quality parameters are dependent on
water uses, which range from potable water to industrial
water.  Table 7 of Appendix B defines the standards required
for various parameters such as pH, dissolved organics, etc.
for these water use classifications.

               Regulations for the management of solid waste
are directed primarily toward municipal wastes rather than
those of an industrial nature.  Should leaching or perma-
frost prove a problem, special disposal procedures must be
submitted to the Department of Environmental Conservation.
A minimum of two feet of earth must be maintained between
solid wastes and the anticipated high groundwater table.
Surface drainage must be prevented from contacting the
landfill area.  Solid waste may be landfilled in layers of
not more than two feet prior to compaction.
                              57

-------
              Arizona.  In addition to ambient air quality
standards, Arizona has source emissions standards for parti-
culates, sulfur compounds, and volatile organic compounds.
These values are presented in Tables 8 and 9 of Appendix B.
State goals for ultimate achievement have also been established;
they are included in Table 8 of Appendix B.

               Water standards are established for surface
waters with specific uses.  Applicable standards for domestic
and industrial waters are compiled in Table 10 of Appendix
B.

               Solid waste legislation lags the other areas.
Daily landfill cover up 6 to 12 inches are required.  Final
cover must be a minimum of two feet deep.

              Colorado.  Colorado has enacted standards of
performance for new stationary sources.  Of these, the
standards of performance for petroleum refineries are
probably most indicative of future legislation.  These
standards are reviewed in Table 11 of Appendix B.  Of
particular interest is Colorado legislation pertaining to
oil-water separators.  Several liquefaction processes,
including currently operating solvent refined coal (SRC)
pilot plants use similar equipment.  One or more of the
following vapor loss controls is required: a solid cover, a
floating roof, a vapor recovery system, or special equipment
which can demonstrate equal or superior efficiency.

               Both effluent limitations and water quality
standards have been promulgated.  As Table 12 of Appendix B
shows, the standards are very stringent for all classes of
water.  Effluent limitations are also presented in Table 13
of Appendix B.  Solid waste requirements are not as rigorous.
Compaction of wastes is required.

              Illinois.  Environmental legislation in
Illinois is among the most comprehensive of all the states
considered.  Both air quality standards and stationary
sources standards have been promulgated.  Table 14 of
Appendix B describes air quality standards.  Those emissions
standards which are most applicable are discussed in Table
15 of Appendix B.

               Illinois water quality standards are depen-
dent upon water use classification.  Lake Michigan is treated
as an independent classification.  Effluent standards also
exist.  A mixing zone of a circle of a 600 foot radius is
allowed when quality standards are more stringent then the
corresponding effluent standard.  Table 16 of Appendix B
summarizes the applicable standards for water quality, and
Table 17 of Appendix B highlights applicable effluent'standards
                                58

-------
               Disposal of hazardous wastes must be author-
ized by permit.  No hazardous waste regulations are specified.
Also, noise control legislation exists which might effect
plant operations.  The levels of allowable sound are discus-
sed in Table 18 of Appendix B.

              Indiana.  In addition to ambient air quality
standards (Table 19 of Appendix B), Indiana has laws con-
trolling the storage and handling of volatile hydrogen
liquids.  A vapor recovery system, floating roof or alter-
native system which meets approval of the proper state
agencies is required.  Volatile organic liquid-water sep-
arators require either a solid cover or one of the previously
discussed vapor control methods required for storage systems.

               Indiana water  quality standards state criteria
to be considered in determining a mixing zone but prescribe
no absolute zone, reasoning that too many variables are
involved.  Pertinent water quality criteria are outlined in
Table 20 of Appendix B.

               Prior to the issuing of permits to operate
landfills, a detailed plan of the  operation must be sub-
mitted to, and approved by the appropriate state agencies.

              Kentucky.  Air quality standards are listed
in Table 21 of Appendix B.  Note that Kentucky has a stand-
ard  for hydrogen sulfide as well as sulfur dioxide.  The
standards of performance for  petroleum refineries have been
compiled in Table 22 of Appendix B.

               Kentucky water quality standards vary with
stream use classification.  Table  23 of Appendix B shows the
most stringent standards, which would be applicable in a
multiple-use situation.  Solid waste requirements include
providing more than two feet  of compacted  soil between solid
waste and maximum water table, two feet or more of compacted
earth between solid waste and bedrock, solid waste layers of
two  to three feet, and a final daily cover of  six inches to
prevent waste dispersion.  A  final cover of two feet of
compacted soil is required to be followed by revegetation.

              Montana.  Montana has adopted the federal new
source performance standards  to supplement its own ambient
air  quality standards.  Applicable ambient standards are
presented in Table 24 of Appendix  B.

               Water quality  policy consists of general
water quality criteria and specific water quality criteria
which correspond to the various water-use classifications.
Table 25 of Appendix B describes criteria for the most and
least stringent classifications to give an idea of the range
of conditions permitted.
                                59

-------
               Site approval is required for solid waste
disposal when hazardous wastes are involved.  Daily cover of
six inches and final cover of two feet or more are also
required.   Disposal sites shall not be located near springs
or other water supplies, near geologic formations which
could cause leaching problems, in areas of high groundwater
tables, or within the boundaries of 100 year flood plains.

              New Mexico.  New Mexico is presently the only
state that has promulgated emission standards applicable to
coal conversion facilities; specifically, coal gasification
plants.  Stacks at least ten diameters tall, equipped with
enough sampling ports and platforms to perform accurate
sampling, are required.  Particulate emissions requirements
exist for briquet forming areas, coal preparation areas, and
the gasification plant itself - with an additional require-
ment for gas burning boilers.  Limits have been placed on
dischargeable concentrations of sulfur, sulfur dioxide,
hydrocarbons, ammonia, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, and carbon oxysulfide as
well.  These limits are compiled in Table 26 of Appendix B.

               There are stringent criteria, relative to
most of the states reviewed.  However, a review of New
Mexico air laws pertaining to petroleum refineries reflects
an interest in environmental preservation, not a distrust of
new technology.  Emissions standards for ammonia and hydro-
gen sulfide, for example, are the same for both industries.
In fact, refineries have additional limits on mercaptan and
carbon monoxide not presently included in gasification
legislation.  These requirements, as well as New Mexico
Ambient Air Quality Standards are presented in Table 27 of
Appendix B.  The ambient air criteria for heavy metals and
the difference in dischargeable carbon monoxide concen-
trations between new and existing refineries should be
noted.  Water quality standards are very specific.  For
example, the Rio Grande Basin is divided into fifteen
sections, each with independent water quality standards.
Table 28 of Appendix B presents applicable water quality
criteria for selected areas.

               Solid waste regulation is not as advanced or
as complicated as corresponding air and water controls.
State requirements include six inches of daily cover,
compaction of wastes to smallest practical volume, and a
minimum final cover of two feet of earth.  Landfill bottoms
must be a minimum of 20 feet above groundwater level.

              North Dakota.  Table 29 of Appendix B de-
scribes applicable ambient air quality standards of North
Dakota.  These have been established in accordance with the
state air quality guidelines which call for preservation of
the health of the general public, plant and animal life  air
Visibility, and natural scenery.  The guidelines also  '

                                60

-------
require that ambient air properties not change in any way
which will increase corrosion rates of metals or deterioration
from industrial processes.  For particulates, the equation
governing process industries in Arizona is the same for
North Dakota.  Sulfur dioxide emissions are limited to three
pounds per million Btu of heat input.

               Water quality is dependent upon water classi-
fication.  Applicable criteria for Class I waters are dis-
cussed in Table 30 of Appendix B.  Mixing zone guides are
described in preference to defining a mixing zone applicable
to every situation.

               North Dakota regulations specify a daily
cover of six inches and a final cover of twelve inches for
sanitary landfill operations.

              Ohio.  Ohio legislation to preserve air
quality includes both ambient and  emission  standards.
Ambient standards are in  Table 31  of Appendix B.  Emissions
regulations for industrial processes which  might be applica-
ble have been promulgated for particulates,  sulfur oxides,
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and photo-
chemical oxidants.  Additionally,  priority  zones have been
established.  These zones do not presently  meet EPA stan-
dards for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,  and particulates.
The sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions limits are
mathematical functions of total emissions discharged, and
process throughput, respectively.   Carbon monoxide from
petroleum refinery processes must  go through an afterburner
prior to discharge.  Standards for storage  of hydrocarbons
are in line with those previously  mentioned.  Photochemical
oxidants must be incinerated to a  minimum of 90 percent
oxidation prior to discharge to the atmosphere.

               Effluent discharge  requirements are variable.
Water quality standards depend on  water-use and mixing zone,
which are formulated for  specific  discharges and locations,
rather than a generalized definition.  Criteria for public
water supply, the most stringent classification, are high-
lighted in Table 32 of Appendix B.   Dissolved oxygen and pH
levels for streams supporting aquatic  life  are included.
Table 33 of Appendix B describes general standards.

               Plans for  all sanitary  landfill sites and
operations must be approved in advance.  A  complete descrip-
tion of site terrain and  subterrain must be specified as
well as soil chemistry and local hydrology  data.  A six-inch
daily cover and a two-foot final compacted  soil cover are
also required.  Semi-annual well monitoring for chlorides,
chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, and total
dissolved solids is an additional  requirement.
                                61

-------
              Pennsylvania.  Hydrocarbon emissions are
limited by controls requiring either a vapor recovery system
or floating roof for storage tanks; the former required for
hydrocarbon loading equipment, the latter for hydrocarbon-
water separators.  Applicable ambient standards are shown in
Table 34 of Appendix B.  Standards for particulate emissions
are included in Table 34.

               Pennsylvania water quality criteria, based
upon water use are in Table 35 of Appendix B.  Applicable
criteria are given for the Monogahela River, as specific
criteria are different for each stream and, in many cases,
different for sections of the same stream.

               The solid waste legislation of Pennsylvania
is among the most evolved of any of the states considered.
In addition to the general solid waste discussions of most
states, Pennsylvania has promulgated rules and regulations
governing coal refuse disposal.  The rules prohibit disposal
which will promote fire, subsidence, or leaching problems.
The state has also published a statement of guidelines and
acceptable procedures for the operation of such disposal
areas.  Generally, two feet of final cover is required.  The
landfill shall be a minimum of six feet above the seasonal
high water table.  Disposal cells may not exceed eight feet
with compacted solid wastes layers of two feet or less.
Hazardous waste disposal plans must be approved by the
appropriate state agencies.

              South Dakota.  The ambient air quality stand-
ards of South Dakota are shown in Table 36 of Appendix B.
South Dakota has reserved the right to set emissions stand-
ards for any source which may be exceeding the ambient
standards.  Standards for fuel burning installations and
general process industries are listed in Table 37 of Appendix
B.

               Water quality criteria for three types of
waters are presented in Table 38 of Appendix B.  It is
obvious that the intended water-use provision of several
state laws, including South Dakota, will be an important
point to consider in site selection for commercialized coal
conversion facilities.  Mixing zones are dependent on stream
characteristics.  Lakes are not allowed a mixing zone.

               South Dakota solid waste regulations are in
line with those of the states previously mentioned with
regard to operations.  Of greater interest are the require-
ments pertaining to site locations.  Landfills are not
permitted within 1,000 feet of any lake or pond, or within
300 feet of any stream or river.  Also, a minimum of six
feet between waste and groundwater table must be preserved
Such requirements, promulgated specifically to prevent
                                62

-------
leaching to groundwater,  may provide an .applicable basis for
future regulatory control of disposal of solid wastes from
liquefaction processes.

              Texas.   All national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards are applicable in Texas.  An
additional ambient standard for inorganic fluoride com-
pounds, specifically hydrogen fluoride gas, has also been
promulgated.  This standard, along with net ground level
concentrations for applicable compounds, is presented in
Table 39 of Appendix B.  Emission rates for particulates and
sulfur dioxide have been promulgated; both are functions of
effective stack height.  Additional emission concentration
limits for particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides
in fossil fuel burning steam generators are also discussed
in Table 39.  Visibility requirements prohibit exceeding 20
percent opacity, 15 percent for stationary flues with total
flow rates exceeding 100,000 acfm.  These opacity limits are
for five minute periods and do not include opacity due  to
uncombined water mists.

               Texas water standards  consist of three parts:
general criteria, numerical criteria, and water uses.   The
latter two are highly  specific, similar to the Pennsylvania
legislation.  Water quality parameters and uses for  the San
Antonio River Basin are shown in Table 40 of Appendix B.  It
should be noted that Texas has one of the warmest climates
among those states considered.  Water temperatures may
naturally exceed 96F.  For this reason, the 90 degree
maximum temperature suggested by the  National Technical
Advisory Committee is not applicable.  A maximum temperature
increase of 3F (1.7C) is permitted  for fresh waters,  and
5F,  (2.8C) for saline waters.

               Three classifications  of industrial solid
waste exist.  These can be characterized as:  hazardous,
naturally decomposable organics and inorganics, and  inert
materials.  All plans  and specifications relevant to site
selection, design, and operation of industrial waste dis-
posal operations must be reviewed and approved by appropri-
ate state authorities.

              Utah.  Utah has no ambient air or new source
standards at this time.  Current federal standards are  ap-
plicable.  The Utah Air Conservation  Regulations note that
the Utah Air Conservation Committee and the State Board of
Health do not agree with most of the  federal standards.
There is no indication of the types of standards these
organizations favor.  Future legislation will have to answer
that question.  State emissions standards have been  set for
particulates requiring 85 percent control.  Sulfur emissions
must meet federal ambient and new source standards.
                                63

-------
               Stream quality criteria are dependent upon
 stream  classification.  Class "A" waters are, without pre-
 treating, to be  suitable for a variety of uses including
 domestic water supply and propagation of fish and wildlife.
 Such waters are  to be free from organic substances measured
 by biochemical oxygen demand.  A pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 is
 to be maintained.  Physical characteristics and chemical
 concentration standards are the same as prescribed by
 "Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 1962."
 These are described  in Table 41 of Appendix B.  All solid
 waste disposal operations must meet approval of the Utah
 State Division of Health.

              West  Virginia.  A brief review of West
 Virginia state air laws provides a good idea of the relative
 importance of the coal mining industry there.  Air pollution
 control legislation  has been promulgated for refuse dis-
 posal,  preparation,  and handling operations.  These re-
 gulations and particulate limits for manufacturing process
 operations are detailed in Table 42 of Appendix B.  Ambient
 air quality standards are detailed in Table 43 of Appendix
 B.

               Water quality criteria, based on water use
 similar to the Pennsylvania criteria are highlighted in
 Table 44 of Appendix B.  Criteria for the Gauley River and
 tributaries were chosen for presentation due to the fact
 that it is acceptable for all water use classifications.

               West  Virginia has three solid waste classifi-
 cations, analagous to those previously described in the
 Texas solid waste laws.  Requirements for disposal of wastes
 of a hazardous nature shall be determined on a case-by-case
 basis.  Class II decomposable wastes are subject to six
 inches  of daily  cover and two feet of final cover.

              Wyoming.  Table 45 of Appendix B defines the
 state ambient air quality standards.  Emissions standards,
 primarily applicable to fossil fuel burning installations,
 are presented in Table 46 of Appendix B.  Wyoming has
 additional regulations governing hydrocarbon storage and
 handling.  Waste disposal combustion systems for vapor
 blowdown or emergency situations are to be burned in smokeless
 flares.  Pressurized tanks, floating roofs of vapor recovery
 systems, are required for storing hydrocarbons.

               Water quality standards which may impact
 future  liquefaction  operations are summarized in Table 47 of
 Appendix B.  Wyoming waters are classified as having poten-
 tial to support  game fish (Class I), potential to support
 nongame fish (Class  II), or as not having the potential to
 support fish (Class  III).  In addition, waters designated as
 part of the public water supply must meet the most recent
 Federal Drinking Water Standards.  These are described in
Table 48 of Appendix B.

                                64

-------
               The Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality reviews construction and operating plans of all
industrial or hazardous waste disposal operations.   Indus-
trial waste disposal sites shall not be located in areas of
low population density, land-use value, and groundwater
leaching potential.  Monitoring wells must be installed
prior to commencement of operations.  Disposal sites may not
be located near drinking water supply sources.  It is
suggested, but not required, that disposal sites with imper-
meable soil be selected.
3.   OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS (NEW OR PENDING)

     In order to maintain a data base of existing environ-
mental requirements directly and indirectly applicable to
coal liquefaction processes, references such as the Environ-
ment Reporter must be reviewed periodically.  Also, in
addition to new and pending legislation, a keen awareness of
new developments which may affect future legislation is
necessary.  This section discusses recent developments which
could directly or indirectly influence future policy regula-
tory coal liquefaction processes.

     One change is in the legislation governing coal prepara-
tion facilities, essential to all liquefaction processes.
Previously, coal preparation facilities were subject to
zero-discharge effluent limitations.  Instead, EPA revised
the regulations and coal preparation plants are now subject
to the same effluent limitations as the coal mining point
source category, with different effluent concentration
analogous to those for alkaline and acidic mine drainage.

     Appreciable quantities of benzene, toluene, and xylene
and their derivatives (BTX) are presumed to be generated by
all liquefaction processes.  EPA has recently identified
benzene as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air
Act.  Benzene exposure has been linked to leukemia by studies
conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH).  The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) has advocated reduced exposure levels
in the workplace.  While no standards have been established
at this time, EPA has made a tentative statement that benzene
emission levels would impact petroleum refining and coke
oven operations, which implies a possibility of impacting
coal liquefaction operations.

     Recently, the Environmental Defense Fund (EOF) petitioned
EPA to list arsenic as a hazardous air pollutant under the
Clean Air Act, citing reports by the National Academy of
Sciences and NIOSH which link arsenic to skin and lung
cancer.  Shale oil, petroleum refining, and coal combustion
                                65

-------
are all sources of arsenic emissions to the atmosphere.
Coal combustion accounts for 12 percent of all arsenic
emissions.  Should arsenic emission levels be established,
they may impact coal liquefaction as well as other fossil
fuel processing industries.

     Another development is a report by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) which warns that continued use of fossil
fuels as a primary energy source for more than 20 to 30 more
years could result in increased atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide.  The greenhouse effect and associate global tempera-
ture increase and resulting climate changes could, according
to NAS be both "significant and damaging."  The findings,
although not conclusive, demonstrate the need for positively
identifying the long-range effects of using fossil fuels to
provide energy needs.  The impacts on coal utilization for
energy, including coal liquefaction, are obvious.  For this
reason, the Energy Research and Development Administration
(ERDA) established a research office to assess the possible
environmental effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere.  As well as conducting its own research,
the office will function as a central contact point for
other scientific research organizations and government
agencies.
                                66

-------
          C.   ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT

1.   CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING
     In conjunction with the development of Environmental
Characterizations, an effort was completed to establish
priorities for the development of coal liquefaction techno-
logies and control needs.  The candidate systems were those
most advanced from a development standpoint and those
considered to be of possible interest to commercial develop-
ers and industrial users.  The criteria selected follow.
         Stage of Development
         Schedules for Construction, Development, etc.
         Potential for Emissions
         Process Similarities
         Resource Conservation
         Potential Hazard of Residual Emissions
         Impact/Use Potential
         Quantity of Residual Emissions
         Rate of Availability, i.e., how  fast  can the
          technology be brought to commercial use?
         Energy Efficiency
         Priorities for Construction, Development, etc.
         Demonstrated Scale of Production
         Probability of Success in  Development
         Projected Process Development Costs
         Applicability, i.e., extent of projected markets
     All available information concerning  the criteria was
assembled for all processes.  Each system  was then assigned
a relative value with respect to each criterion.  When it
was possible to define an ideal situation, points were
awarded on the basis of a fractional approach to the ideal.
In other cases, only relative comparisons  were possible.
                                67

-------
     The point values were then totaled vertically for each
criterion and normalized.  For each process, the normalized
values were totaled, horizontally, to establish the priori-
tized rankings,  the greatest number of points being assign-
ed the No. 1 ranking.  The result is a comparative rating
and evaluation of the systems established on the basis of
projected needs for detailed study and environmental charac-
terization.  The order of ranking for the candidate systems
in coal liquefaction technology is as follows:

          Solvent Refined Coal
          H-Coal
          Exxon Donor Solvent
          Synthoil
          COED
          COSTEAM
          Clean Coke
          Fischer-Tropsch
          ORC (Garrett)
          Coalcon
          Methanol Synthesis
          Toscoal
          Bergius

This ranking has served as an initial guide; however, the
ranking system is undergoing further development as dis-
cussed in the next section.
2.   METHODOLOGIES BEING DEVELOPED

     IERL-RTP is currently developing an environmental
assessment methodology especially related to the Federal
Interagency Energy/Environment R&D Program in support of
standards development.  The environmental assessment method-
ology will consist of various methodology components being
developed with the assistance of participating contractors.
One such specialized component is the development of process
assessment criteria which will be used to set priorities
with regard to the selection of systems for further study in
environmental assessment.  Hittman Associates' task, called
Process Assessment Criteria, consists broadly of:

         delineating criteria to be considered in evaluating
          systems (to set priorities for further study),

         assigning these criteria a normalized set of re-
          levance weights, based on a rational decision
          analysis method, and

         preparing step-wise instructions which will permit
          application of this methodology component for a
          generalized environmental assessment.
                                68

-------
     Environmental assessment is defined as a continuing,
iterative study at:  (1) determining the comprehensive
multimedia environmental control costs, from the application
of the existing and best future definable sets of control/-
disposal options, for a particular set of sources, pro-
cesses, or industries; and (2) comparing the nature of these
loadings with existing standards, estimated multimedia and
environmental goals, and bioassaying specifications as a
basis for prioritization of problems/control needs and for
judgement of environmental effectiveness.

     In developing the generalized methodology, the effort
was focused on several elements:

          Criteria Identification.  A  set of measurable
factors was identified which, together, could be used to
determine quantitatively the need for  immediate further
attention to systems being considered  for a generalized
environmental assessment.  These measurable factors charac-
terize the timing, general nature, magnitude, and likelihood
of commercialization and potential environmental  degradation
resulting from subject systems.  Also, with the knowledge
that a criteria weighting process would be applied, it was
attempted to ensure that all  significant criteria were
listed and that overlap between criteria was minimized.

          Criteria Weighting  Factors.  A decision model was
used to apply the judgement of  knowledgeable  individuals to
the generation of weighting factors quantifying the relative
importance of the criteria.   The procedure was repeated  as
necessary for subcriteria under each criteria.  The decision
model used was DARE (Decision Alternative Rational Evaluation)

          Use of Weighted Criteria.  Generalized  instruct-
ions were prepared to guide Process Assessment Criteria
users in applying the weighted  criteria to actual systems.
These instructions addressed  the quantification of each
criterion for candidate systems and the procedure for
applying the given weighting  factors to those criteria to
obtain total Process Assessment Criteria scores.  These
instructions are integral to  the complete DARE decision-
making process.  The DARE-derived scores may be used to  rank
order, choose subsets, or otherwise prioritize candidate
systems for an environmental  assessment.

     Work on Process Assessment Criteria is continuing.
                                69

-------
             D.  ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION


1.   EXISTING DATA FOR EACH PROCESS

     Generally, the data pertinent to definition of environ-
mental effects of coal liquefaction systems fall into one of
two categories:

          (1)  What are the discharges to the environment
               from coal liquefaction facilities?

          (2)  What effects will these discharges have on
               the environment?

     Since there is no commercial-sized coal liquefaction
facility in the U.S. today, answers to both questions are
conjectural at this time.

     The best-known historical use of coal liquefaction
technology occurred during the World War II era when Germany
produced commercial quantities of aviation gasoline using
the Bergius process.  Under these circumstances, a study of
environmental discharges and effects would be expected to
have low priority.  Also, coal liquefaction technology has
changed and improved to such an extent that most of the
existing data would be of little environmental usefulness.

     During the period after World War II, various coal
liquefaction processes were investigated, but were abandoned
as being uneconomic to compete with petroleum and natural
gas fuel sources.   Data on environmental discharges and
effects for these systems are sparse.  Bench-scale and pilot
plant investigations were designed to solve technical
process problems and did not usually include much treatment/
control technology equipment.

     It was not until the late 1960's and early 1970*s that
economics of coal liquefaction were reviewed and efforts
again started on various process developments.  Again,
however, investigations have been centered on solving
technical process problems and do not usually include much
treatment/control technology developments.

     Existing data for the environmental discharges on the
different systems are fragmentary and usually may be char-
acterized as:

         Product and waste descriptions based on hydro-
          carbon chain length, boiling point ranges, vis-
          cosities, and element contents (sulfur, nitrogen,
          carbon-hydrogen ratios, metals, etc.)
                               70

-------
         Qualitative analysis for specific organic com- 
          pounds, often for known carcinogenic effects.

         Out-of-date and/or partial quantitative analysis
          of products.

     Since there are no available overall quantitative
analyses of product and waste discharges from any existing
coal liquefaction system, Hittman Associates is currently
preparing reports which will provide a preliminary estimate
of such discharges for four processes - Solvent Refined
Coal, Synthoil, H-Coal, and Exxon Donor Solvent.  Input-
output materials characterizations for these reports are
described in subsection D-4.  In addition, sampling and
analytical techniques and a test program development for
future definition of environmental discharges are described
in subsections D-2 and D-3, respectively.

     Environmental effects for coal liquefaction facilities
may be expected from:

         Atmospheric emissions of particulates, sulfur and
          nitrogen compounds, and other volatiles.

         Wastewater contaminants such as:  acids, phenols,
          organics, cooling tower chemicals, and inorganic
          compounds.

         Solid and residue streams such as:  ash, still
          bottoms, char, spent catalysts, and filtered
          solids.

         The products.

     Most of the existing data for environmental effects are
for the product, or the solid and residue wastes.

     There is voluminous information on the presence of bio-
logically active organic (carcinogenic, etc.) compounds in
the products.  Since most of these organic compounds are
formed in the hydrogenation step of the process, they could
be found throughout the plant as a result of leaks, spills,
and other sources of contamination.  Considerations of the
biological activity would also have to be given during
handling, transportation, storage, and use of these pro-
ducts.  Hittman Associates is currently preparing an envir-
onmental characterization report which will discuss the
literature and other available data on the environmental
effect of the products from coal liquefaction systems.

     In addition to the products, biologically active and
toxic pollutants have been identified in the solid and
                                71

-------
residue wastes and wastewater contaminants.  Since most of
the hazardous organics and inorganics from the coal lique-
faction process are relatively nonvolatile, they may be
expected to be present in the solid and residue wastes.
Limited data on still bottoms have shown that biologically
active organics are present.  Analysis of ashes show that
metals and metallic compounds are concentrated in this
process waste.  Phenols and organics have been similarly
identified in the wastewater.

     Although the presence of biologically active and toxic
substances in the products and process wastes have been
documented, the environmental effects have not.  Data are
usually not available on the amounts that would be dis-
charged to the workplace or environment.  This stems from
the fact that the problems and products themselves have not
been adequately defined, treatment/control technology has
not been specified, and compositions and biological and
toxic effects for given product and waste compositions have
not been established.

     As laboratory analysis of product and waste streams for
quantitative measurement of toxic and hazardous chemicals
becomes available, Hittman Associates will attempt to esti-
mate the environmental effects to be expected from quanti-
fied discharges.


2.   IDENTIFY SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

     The Process Measurements Branch of IERL-RTP has develop-
ed a three-phased approach to performing an environmental
source assessment.  In this phased approach, three dis-
tinctly different sampling and analytical procedures are
envisioned.  The Level I Procedure Manual outlines this
phased approach, and describes Level I sampling and analytical
techniques.  A suggested sampling plan for the SRC Pilot
Plant at Ft. Lewis, Washington is being prepared and is
based upon these techniques.  The SRC combustion test at
Plant Mitchell, Georgia, utilized a modified Level I Tech-
nique.  Both of these programs will be discussed in Section
3.


     a.   The Phased Approach

          The phased approach requires three separate levels
of sampling and analytical effort.  The first level (Level
I) utilizes quantitative sampling and analysis procedures
accurate within a factor of 2 to 3 and provides preliminary
environmental assessment data; identifies problem areas; and
formulates the data needed for the prioritization of streams
within a process, components within a stream, and classes of


                                72

-------
materials  for  further consideration in the overall assess-
ment.  The second  (Level 2) sampling and analysis effort,
after having been  focused by Level I, is designed to provide
.additional information that will confirm and expand the
information gathered in Level I.  This information will be
used to  define control technology needs.  The third phase
(Level 3)  utilizes Level 2, or better, sampling and analysis
procedures as  well as continuous monitoring.

           The  phased approach recognizes that it is impossible
to prepare for every conceivable condition in the first
sampling or analysis effort.  In some cases, unknown condi-
tions and  components of streams will result in unreliable
information and data gaps that will require a significant
percentage of  the  sampling or analysis effort to be repeated.

           There is a possibility that many streams or even
the entire installation may not be emitting hazardous sub-
stances  in quantities of environmental significance.  Con-
versely, certain streams or sites may have such problems
that a control technology development program can be initiated
in parallel with a Level 2 effort.  If either of these
situations could be determined by a simplified set of sampling
and analysis techniques, considerable savings could result
in both  time and funds.

           The  phased approach offers potential benefits in
terms of the quality of information that is obtained for a
given level of effort and in terms of the costs per unit of
information.

           (1)   Level 1 Sampling and Analysis.  The Level 1
sampling and analysis goal is to identify the pollution
potential  of a source in a quantitative manner with a target
accuracy factor of + 2 to 3.  At the initiation of an envir-
onmental assessment, little is known about the specific
sampling requirements of a source both practically and
technically, and hence the emphasis is on survey tests.  For
this reason, no special procedure is employed in obtaining a
statistically  representative sample and the chemical, physical,
and biological testing has survey and/or quantitative ac-
curacy consistent  with the characteristics of the samples.

                At  this level, the sampling and analysis is
designed to show within broad general limits the presence or
absence  of, the approximate concentrations of, and the
emission rate  of inorganic elements, selected inorganic
anions,  and classes of organic compounds.  Thfe particulate
matter is  further  analyzed through size distribution as well
as microscopic examination in order to determine gross
physical characteristics of the collected material.  Biotest-
ing is designed to obtain information on the human health
effects  and biological effects of the sample.
                                  73

-------
          (2)  Level 2 Sampling and Analysis.  The Level 2
sampling and analysis goal is to provide definitive data re-
quired in the environmental assessment of a source.  The
basic questions and major problem areas to be addressed have
been defined in Level 1 to optimize cost and schedule effi-
ciency.  Consequently, Level 2 sampling and analysis is
characterized by obtaining statistically representative
samples, accurate stream flow rates, and identification and
quantification of specific organic and and inorganic elements,
species, and/or classes.  Biotesting in selected areas is
expanded.


     b.   Multimedia Sampling

          Multimedia sampling refers to a philosophy that
considers all material discharges, to air, water, or land,
to have pollution potential.  A Level 1 control technology
assessment must investigate all discharge points in addition
to feed streams and any internal recycle streams required to
establish a baseline for evaluation of control effectiveness.

          (1)  Classification of Streams for Sampling Purposes
The basic multimedia sampling strategy has been organized
around the five general types of sampling found in industrial
and energy producing processes.

               The five sample types are:

                   Gas/Vapor - These are samples for light
                    hydrocarbon and inorganic gas analysis.
                    They include samples from input and
                    output process streams, process vents,
                    and ambient air.

                   Liquid/Slurry Streams - Liquid streams
                    are defined as those containing less
                    than 5 percent solids.  Slurries are
                    defined as those containing greater than
                    5 percent solids.  Non-flowing pastes
                    are considered solids.

                   Solids - These include a broad range of
                    material sizes from large lumps to
                    powders and dusts, as well as non-
                    flowing wet pastes.

                   Particulate or Aerosol Samples - These
                    are gaseous streams containing particu-
                    lates or liquid droplets.
                                74

-------
                   Fugitive Emissions  -  These  are  gaseous
                    and/or particulate  emissions  from the
                    overall plant or various  process  units.

               Flow diagrams which show the overall relation-
ship of the samples to the analysis scheme are  shown  in
Figures 2 and 3.


          (2)  Sampling Point Selection Criteria.  The
selection of sampling points relies on the concept  previously
stated: that Level 1 sampling is oriented towards obtaining
quantitative data with relaxed accuracy requirements  for
determination of the pollution potential of a source, whereas
Level 2 sampling is intended to acquire more accurately the
data necessary for a definitive environmental assessment on
prioritized streams.  For example, gas stream parameters
such as flow rates, temperature, pressure and other physical
characteristics will be obtained at a single point under
pseudokinetic conditions.  This means that the sample is
acquired at the point of average velocity which has been
determined by a velocity traverse taken at typical points in
the stream.  At Level 2, however, where quantitative data
are required, isokinetic samples must be withdrawn using a
full traverse with a port in specific locations away from
ducting bends and other obstructions in order to ensure a
sample representative of the actual effluent.

                Similar considerations apply  to site selection
for sampling liquids and solids.  At Level 1, liquid samples
can be taken from tanks or  other  containers  without depth
integration and from pipes  using  a  simple  tap sample rather
than using a multiported probe  to  take a  time integrated
sample.  In slurry  streams,  an  effort  should be made to
sample a turbulent  or well  mixed  area, but this  and other
requirements can be relaxed considerably  for Level 1 site
selection.

                In the case  of solids sampling, the standard
procedures used in  sampling piles  and  stationary containers
are relaxed on  Level 1 both by  taking  fewer  increments to
make a composite and by relaxing  or eliminating  the require-
ments  for  depth-integrated sampling.   For moving solid
streams, a simplified sample is obtained by  reducing or
eliminating the number  of  increments required  for  the  time-
averaging  aspect of the sampling  procedure.

                In most  cases, Level 1  sampling methods
generally  encompass approved standard  EPA, ASTM, and API
techniques.  Modifications  are  then made  to  these  techniques
to  adapt them  to the time  and cost  constraints consistent
with the Level  1 sampling  philosophy.  These modifications
                                75

-------
                                                                   ELEMENTS AND
                                                                   SELECTED ANONS
                                                                   PHYSICAL SEPARATION
                                                                   INTO FRACTIONS,
                                                                   LC/W/MS
                                                                   Aft SO UPTON
                                                                  SELECTED ANIONS
                                                                  PHYSICAL SEPARATION
        PARTICULATE I
         MATTER  |
SOURCE
OPACITY
(STACKS)
          CAS
                          CHEMILUMINESCENCE
                        INORGANIC  ION-STE GAS
                        \rViii     I CHROMATOGRAPHY OR
                         IOKABI     I APPROVED ALTERNATIVE
                       ORGAN 1C
             XAD-2
             ABSORBER
 MATERIAL* >C, Igg^Ss^



H ORGANICION-SITE GAS
MATERIAL C, -CA[ CHROMATOGRAPHY


 WEIGH INDIVIDUAL CATCHES
                                                       EXTRACTION
                                                    PHYSICAL SEPARATION
                                                   110 ASSAY  (SEE CHAPTER X
                                                                         ORGANIC*
                                                                         OBCANICS
                                                                          *C
                                                                            I2
ALIQUOT FOR GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHIC
ANALYSIS


PHYSICAL SEPARATION
INTO FRACTIONS,
LC/IR/MS
        Figure  2.    Basic  Level  1  Sampling  and  Analytical Scheme
                              for  Particulates  and Gases
                                                 76

-------
                                  LEACHABLE
                                  MATERIALS
                                            SELECTED ANIONS
                                              PHYSICAL SEPARATION
                                              INTO FRAOIONS
                                              LC/IR/MS
                                  SUSPENDED
                                  SOLIDS
                                             ELEMENTS AND
                                             SELECTED ANIONS
                                             SEE SECTION 7.2.6,
                                             CHAPTER VII
                                                               QA PHYSICAL SEPARATION
                                                               INTO FRAOIONS LC/IR/MS
                                                               ELEMENTS AND
                                                               SELECTED ANIONS
                                                     iKiner AMI<-< I ELEMENT* AND
                                                     INORGANICS | SEUCTED ANIONS
                                                               PHYSICAL SEPARATION
                                                   JORGANICS  IINTO FRACTIONS
                                                   I            I LC/IR/MS
                                                               PHYSICAL SEPARATION
                                                               INTO FRACTIONS,
                                                               LC/IR/MS
                                                                ALIQUOT FOR GAS
                                                                CHROMATOCRAPHIC
                                                                ANALYSIS
Figure 3.    Basic Level  1  Sampling and Analytical  Scheme  for
                    Solids,  Slurries and  Liquids
                                           77

-------
include: 1) reducing point selection criteria; 2) eliminating
the requirements for traversing, continuous isokinetic
sampling, and replicate sampling in the collection of parti-
culate matter; and 3) use of grab samples for gaseous,
water, and solid samples.


          (3)  Stream Prioritization.  Industrial processes
are highly complex systems consisting of a wide variety of
interrelated components.  Level 1 sampling may show that
many influent and effluent streams have no environmentally
significant impact.  These data can be used to substantially
reduce the number of samples required for Level 2, and can
permit reallocation of resources.  Thus, comprehensive
stream prioritization based on the Level 1 sampling and
analysis effort will identify streams with widely varying
environmental priorities.  In many cases, the Level 1 informa-
tion will be sufficient to eliminate certain streams entirely
from the Level 2 effort.  In other cases, limited resources
may require the omission of certain low priority streams.


     c.   Data Requirements and Pre-Test Planning

          The final decision to test a particular plant will
be the result of the prioritization studies of the preliminary
selection process based on the site selection criteria of a
given program, and on the data requirements of the overall
program or general EPA objective.

          Before the actual sampling and analysis effort is
initiated,  the data requirements must be established and
used to help identify test requirements as well as any
anticipated problems.  The following paragraphs present a
 feneral summary of these requirements and the planning
 unction which must be applied or expanded to meet the needs
of the individual tests to be performed.

          (1)  Process Data Needs

               Before travelling to a plant for a pre-test
site survey, it is necessary to become familiar with the
process used at the site.  This involves understanding the
chemistry and operational characteristics of the various
unit operations as well as any pollution control processes.
It is particularly important to know that detailed relevant
process data are necessary for the sampling and analysis
effort as well as for the overall environmental assessment.
The reasons for this are:

                   From a knowledge of the process and the
                    composition of input materials and
                                78

-------
                    products,  conclusions about pollutants
                    likely to  be found in waste streams can
                    be drawn.

                   One must know where to look for waste
                    streams, including fugitive emissions.

                   One must know how plant operating condi-
                    tions are  likely to affect waste stream
                    flow rates and compositions.

                   Thorough familiarity with the process
                    permits design of a proper sampling
                    program.

                   Thorough knowledge of the interrelation-
                    ships among process variables permits
                    extrapolation to conditions in other
                    sizes of the system being assessed, and

                   Detailed process data are the basis from
                    which control technology development
                    programs proceed, should environmental
                    assessments indicate such need.

Familiarization with the process is also necessary so that a
checklist of the requisite data can be developed, including
temperatures, pressures, flow rates, and variations of
conditions with time for the pre-test site survey.


          (2)  Pre-Test Site Survey

               After establishing the necessary process data
needs and making a tentative selection of sampling points, a
pre-test site survey should be performed.  At the site, the
survey team should meet with the plant engineer to verify
the accuracy of the existing information and arrange for the
addition of any missing data.   Using this information, the
survey team will then proceed to select the actual sampling
sites with the following criteria in mind:

                   The sampling points should provide an
                    adquate base of data for characterizing
                    the environmental impact of the source
                    on the environment within a factor of 2
                    to 3.

                   When possible, each sampling point
                    should provide a representative sample
                    of the effluent streams.  (This is a
                    desirable but not a strict requirement
                    of Level 1 sampling.)
                                79

-------
                   The sampling site must have a reasonably
                    favorable working environment.  The
                    survey personnel must consider the
                    temperature and noise level in the
                    sampling areas, if protection from rain
                    or strong winds exists, and whether safe
                    scaffolding, ladders, pullyes, etc., are
                    present.

               The identification of support facilities and
services is an essential aspect of the site survey.  If
electrical power and water are not available for hook-up to
a mobile test van, it must become self sufficient and these
services designed into the van.

               The results of the pre-test survey must be
sufficiently detailed so that the field test problem of
sampling the correct process stream at the proper sampling
location, using the appropriate methodology will be completely
defined prior to approval of the field test and team at the
source site.
          (3)  Pre-Test Site Preparation

               It is assumed that any site or sample point
preparation will be completed before arrival of the sampling
team.  This would include: erection of scaffolding, avail-
ability of electrical power, fitting of sample ports and
nozzles at the required locations, etc.  The sampling team
is responsible for final mating of the sample device to the
port, and should be equipped with miscellaneous valves,
fittings, other devices, and tools for adaptation.


     d.   Sampling Equipment and Methodology

          For the purpose of Level 1 assessment of gas/vapor
streams, a single grab sample is sufficient although planning
is necessary to ensure that sample acquisition is made at a
reasonably representative plant in the stream or process
cycle.  The grab sample may be taken in one of these ways,
depending on the pressure of the steam in question.  The
three grab samples types are high pressure line, grab purge,
and evacerated grab samples and are illustrated in Figures
4, 5, and 6.

          To collect gaseous steams containing particulates,
a source assessment sampling system (SASS) train is recom-
mended for Level 1.
                                80

-------
                      , PYREX
                       WOOL
                       PLUG
STYROFOAM
PROTECTOR
                 DUCT
   FLOW
1 1
                 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\
Figure 4.   High Pressure  Line  Grab Purge Sampling Apparatus

-------
           DUCT
                 FLOW
oo
ro
                           _

                              n O
                                                                STYROFOAM
                                                                PROTECTOR
PYREX
WOOL
PLUG
                         Figure 5.   Low Pressure Grab Purge Sampling Apparatus
                                    (for Less than 2 Atmospheres Pressure)

-------
                         TEFLON TUBE TO ACT AS NOZZLE
                                                             STYROFOAM
                                                             PROTECTOR
00
LO
                     PYREX WOOL PLUG
                                                                     EVACUATED
                                                                      3 LITER
                                                                     VESSEL
             Figure 6.   Evacuated Grab Sampling Apparatus  (for Subatmospheric  Pressures)

-------
          A diagram of the SASS train appears in Figure 7.
This sampling device includes cyclones and a filter to
collect particulates, a sorbent trap to collect Cy - GI
hydrocarbons, impingers, and associated temperature con-
trols, pumps, and meters.  The sample is obtained from the
flue gas duct by means of a probe inserted through the duct
work and positioned to intersect the gas flow at a point
having flow characreristics representative of the bulk flow.

          Particulates are removed from the sample first,
passing it through a series of cyclones.  For the SRC tests,
these cyclones were maintained at a temperature of 400F.
Particulates are collected in three size ranges, >10/*, 3 to
10 M , and 1 to 3At ,  respectively.  The cyclones are followed
by a standard fiberglass filter, which collects a fourth
size range, < 1M .

          Gas leaving the filter is cooled to approximately
68F and passed through a cartridge containing XAD-2 resin.
This resin absorbs a broad range of organic compounds.  Con-
densate produced when the gas is cooled is collected in a
condensate trap.

          A series of three impingers foHowes the resin
cartridge.  The first contains hydrogen peroxide solution,
which removes reducing components to prevent deterioration
of the following impinger solutions.  The second and third
impingers, containing ammonium thiosulfate and silver nitrate,
collect volatile inorganic trace elements.

          Next, the gas passes through a dehydrating agent,
in order to protect the pump which follows.  Finally, the
gas flow rate is metered, and the gas is vented.

          During Level 1 sampling, fugitive air emissions
are usually sampled utilizing a high volume sampler with an
XAD-2 absorbent trap for collecting gaseous hydrocarbons.
See Figure 8.  This method is used when a specific source
such as a coal pile generates a highly diffuse cloud over an
extensive area.  When a specific source generates an emission
that might be broadly classified as a plume, a SASS train is
used.  In the case of waterborne emissions, plug collectors
(see Figure 9) are used for collecting surface runoff.

          Liquid and slurry samples are collected by heat
exchange, trap sampling, or dipper sampling.  Figure 10
shows the heat exchanger system recommended for high temp-
erature lines.  Solids are collected by either shovel grab
samples or boring techniques.  Level 1 a single grab samples
is taken.  During Level 2 a composite is made of a series of
grab samples gathered.
                                84

-------
00
Ui
         STACK T.C.
                    HEATER
                     CON-
                    TROLLER
CONVECTION
OVEN
FILTER
                                                                                   GAS COOLER
                              IMP/COOLER
                              TRACE ELEMENT
                              COLLECTOR
                                                             CONDENSATE
                                                             COLLECTOR
              DRY.GAS METER ORIFICE METER
               CENTRALIZED TEMPERATURE
                 AND PRESSURE READOUT
                    CONTROL MODULE
                                                       10 CFM VACUUM PUMP
                                Figure  7.   Source Assessment  Sampling  Schematic

-------
1/4 INCH
SWAGE LOK
BULKHEAD
COPPER
TUBING
                                                                 WALL
           Figure 8.  Expanded View of  Connections  of XAD-2
                      Cartridge to High Volume  Sampler
                                    86

-------
        GROUND WATER
           SEEPAGE
                                   SURFACE WATER
                                   ENTRANCE
Figure 9.  Plug Collector for Fugitive Water  Samples
                               87

-------
00
oo
                  COOLING COILS
                                             TO
                                             SAMPLE
                                             COLLECTION
          PROCESS LINE
       NATURAL CIRCULATION SAMPLING SYSTEM

         (HIGH PRESSURE, HIGH TEMPERATURE)
                                RESERVOIR
  PROCESS LINE
    FORCED INJECTION SAMPLING SYSTEM

(SUBATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE, HIGH TEMPERATURE)
            Figure 10.  Sampling Apparatus for HPHT (High Pressure High Temperature) Lines

-------
3.   TEST PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT


     a.   Introduction

          During the past year work was performed on two
major test programs.  A suggested sampling plan for the Ft.
Lewis, Washington Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, operated
by Pittsburgh and Midway, is nearing completion.   The pur-
pose of this task is to provide guidance in a multimedia
sampling program.  Much of the information was exerpted from
the IERL-RTP Procedure Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assess-
ment (EPA-600/2-76-160a).  The phased approach and sampling
methodologies were the basis for the document.

          A test plan was also developed for a combustion
test at Georgia Power Company's Plant Mitchell where Solvent
Refined Coal was burned for the first time in a commercial
utility boiler.  The test occurred, and samples were collected.
A paper on the subject was delivered at the EPA Symposium on
Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, III in
Hollywood, Florida.  The major portion of the analysis is
currently being performed and a final report of the test
will be prepared when these results are available.


     b.   Test Plan for The SRC Pilot Plant

          The coal liquefaction plant at Ft. Lewis, originally
designed to operate via the SRC process, has been modified
to the "SRC-II" configuration.  The SRC process removed
essentially all of the ash and pyritic sulfur and more than
half of the organic sulfur contained in the coal feed.  It
made a solid product that could be pulverized and burned in
the same manner as the coal.  The SRC-II process recycles a
portion of the product slurry as solvent which increases the
conversion of coal to lower molecular weight fuels thus
making a liquid rather than a solid product.  It is less
complex than the original process and eliminates the dif-
ficult filtration step to remove ash from the coal.

          All process and waste streams including fugitive
emissions were identified in the plant.  A comprehensive
test plan was outlined for all of these solid, liquid and
gaseous streams.  However due to time and economic con-
straints, a limited number of streams can be sampled under
this program.  In order to select streams for,the sampling,
the various process and waste streams were categorized as
follows:

              Category I: This category includes all air,
               water, and solid waste streams that directly
                               89

-------
               impact the environment.  Included in this
               category are vents, fugitive emissions,
               effluents from the wastewater treatment plant
               and solids to be disposed of in landfills.
               Also included in this category are the streams
               feeding the flare, product streams, and raw
               water.

              Category II: In this category are all waste
               streams prior to treatment or combination
               with other streams, and subsequent discharge
               into the environment.  "Treatment" includes
               incineration, particulate removal, wastewater
               treatment and other control technologies.

              Category III: All identified process streams,
               except product streams, fall into this cate-
               gory.

          Only Category I streams will be sampled under
Phase I of this test program.  Should additional testing
occur, some Category II streams may be sampled, in addition
to more intensive testing of some of the Category I streams.
At this time it is anticipated that no Category III streams
will be included by EPA during this sampling program.  It
would be valuable if these streams could be tested by ERDA
in the course of the pilot plant program and preferably at
the same time as the environmental sampling.

          Level 1 testing will provide a basis for selecting
which streams should be sampled again, the type of sampling
program, and what specific analyses should be performed.
Streams with high concentrations of hydrocarbon, particulates,
toxic compounds, trace metals, BOD's etc. will be identified.
Some streams may be eliminated from further study.  The
Phase II program will be used to prepare an environmental
assessment of the Ft.  Lewis Facility.

          Samples and subsequent analyses performed during
Phase II will be directed toward those streams selected for
more study, measuring actual discharge rates and levels of
specific components found in Phase I.  These samples will
consist of continuously withdrawn sample streams, weight or
volume proportioned composites, or other representative
portions of the streams under study.  Where continuous moni-
toring is feasible this may prove to be a preferred tech-
nique .

          During the sample period, stream data must be
obtained as well.  Flow rates, including the variation in
flow rate must be known to prepare representative composites.
This is necessary to determine the total discharge quantity
of the constitutents under study.  Where the stream flow
                                90

-------
varies, continuous recording of the instantaneous flow may
be necessary.

          In addition to flow rates, stream conditions and
properties must be determined.  Temperature and pressure
obviously must be known.  It will be necessary to know the
density, also if volumetric flows are recorded.  Ultimately,
the properties which will be of interest will be determined
by the specific streams under study.

          In Phase II streams that have not been sampled
during Phase I may be sampled.  This situation could arise
if, for example, a control module having multiple feed
streams (which were not sampled in Phase I) shows an un-
expected component in its discharge.  In such as case it may
be necessary in Phase II to sample all of the streams feeding
the module to determine the component source.

          Sampling during Phase II should extend over a rep-
resentative time span.  The minimum period would be on the
order of one shift.  In some cases it may be as long as
several days to a week, and run throughout all three shifts.
This will ensure the plant operating variations are included
in the sample period.

          Phase II analysis will be quantitative instead of
qualitative.  It will focus on a few components of interest.
Results of the Phase II effort will define quantities of
specific materials being discharged and point out areas
needing additional control technology development.

          Identification and quantification of constituents
suspected of being present will be performed.  Specific
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, trace metals, and in-
organic compounds such as cyanides are likely pollutants to
be tested for.

          With the sampling and analysis results, an assess-
ment of effluents from the Fort Lewis SRC pilot pant can be
prepared.  This information would prove invaluable in anti-
cipating pollutant levels at a full size commercial SRC
facility.  Planning and design of the commercial facilities
can be partially based upon these results.


     c.   SRC Combustion Test

          On June 14th, 1977 Solvent Refined Coal was burned
in a commercial utility boiler for the first time, for the
purpose of determining whether SRC could replace coal as a
primary fuel in a pulverized coal-fired boiler.  In addition,
to boiler efficiency tests, flue gas samples were collected
and analyzed.

                                91

-------
          Both EKDA and its contractors, and EPA and its
contractors including Hittman Associates) Inc., were in-
volved in this combustion test.  Preliminary results have
been obtained and Hittman Associates, Inc., has prepared a
paper discussing these data.  The test was conducted in
three phases.

          In Phase I of this program, low sulfur Kentucky
coal was burned in the existing, unmodified 22-1/2 Mw pulver-
ized coal boiler.  Following replacement of the original
burners with dual register burners and accompanying modifica-
tions, Phase II of the test was conducted.  In this phase,
as in Phase I, the boiler was fired with low sulfur Kentucky
coal. In Phase III, following adjustment of the burners and
the pulverizers, SRC was burned.  In each of the three
phases of the program, the boiler was operated at full
(approximately 21 MW), medium (approximately 14 MW) , and low
(approximately 7 MW) load conditions.

          Precipitator efficiency tests were run, ash resis-
tivity was determined, and air emission levels were evalu-
ated using EPA-5 and ASME trains.  In addition to particulates,
a number of gases, including CC>2, CO, N2, 2> an<* S02 were
monitored.

          In addition, during Phases II and III, flue gas
sampling was conducted using a SASS train to collect samples
for laboratory analysis, using a modified EPA Level I proce-
dure.  Grab samples were obtained for on-site analysis for
GI - G hydrocarbons, SOX, N2, CO, and 2-

          Results of the SASS train analyses are not pre-
sently completed.  No bioassays will be performed.  However,
in addition to the remainder of the standard Level 1 analyses,
all samples collected that contain organics will be analyzed
for a selected group of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.

          Analytical results of the grab samples and contin-
uous monitor indicate that:

              There were no detectable levels of GI - Cg
               hydrocarbons.

              SOX and NOX levels were roughly equivalent
               with those from low sulfur coal combustion.

              SOy and NO  concentrations were highest at
               full load and lowest at low load.
                               92

-------
Observations made during the test include:

              Particulates collected by the SASS train
               during combustion were approximately seventy
               percent carbon as compared with a typical
               coal fly ash of less than ten percent.

              Particle size of SRC ash was much smaller
               than that of coal fly ash.

              Precipitator efficiency was drastically
               reduced probably due to the high resistivity
               of the high carbon ash

Once results of SASS train sample analyses are available, a
detailed report will be prepared interpreting these results.


4.   INPUT-OUTPUT MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION

     Available input-output materials characterization for
coal liquefaction processes is usually incomplete or not in
a form suitable for environmental assessments.  Since commer-
cial coal liquefaction facilities do not exist, most studies,
whether for economic analysis, engineering projection,
process assessment, or environmental consideration, have had
to use conceptualized models for solid waste and residue
use/disposal, treatment/control technology, auxiliary facil-
ities, liquid/ solid separation, and other modules necessary
for full-scale operation.  Basing input-output materials
characterization on conceptualized models gives only esti-
mates of the environmental discharges, but it is the only
method currently available.

     Input-output materials characterization for coal lique-
faction processes may be put in a form suitable for environ-
mental assessments by use of the following available data:

         Reported material balances

         Use of deposited sample analyses

         Physical-chemical relationships

         Analogies with other processes

         Comparisons with other industries

         Conceptualized modeling of missing process
          modules.
                               93

-------
These data sources are discussed in the following paragraphs.


     a.   Reported Material Balances

          Material balances, either actual or conceptual,
have been reported for several coal liquefaction processes.
Coal compositions are also available from various reported
sources.  Partial material balances in the form of effic-
iencies, or barrels of products per ton of coal, have also
been published.  Putting all of this published information
together provides a framework for overall environmental
characterization of the processes.


     b.   Use of Reported Sample Analysis

          Reports of products and/or waste stream analyses
go all the way back to the German Bergius process of World
War II.  Although these data are incomplete, they can be
used to provide a more detailed description of the environ-
mental discharges than can be obtained from material balance
information.  Invariably the analysis has shown that coal
liquefaction product and residue waste streams contain large
quantifies of aromatics, particularly polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons.   Wastewater streams contain phenolics, organ-
ics, and inorganics.

          Ash samples contain metals and inerts.  Residues
contain ash, char, and high boiling polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons.   The combination of material balance quan-
tities with the reported stream compositions starts to
define environmental discharges.


     c.   Physical-Chemical Relationships

          In the absence of any detailed information on
material balance and sample analysis data, physical-chemical
relationships may be used to predict the discharge pattern
of coal liquefaction products and wastes.  Coal liquefaction
introduces a known composition and amount of coal and hydro-
gen into the liquefaction process.  Inerts such as non-
volatile metals, rock and dirt will pass through the system
and emerge unchanged.  Some of the coal and hydrogen will be
transformed into new organic products and wastes in the
hydrogenation module.  All subsequent process operations
separate the effluent from the hydrogenation into desirable
fractions, usually through physical-chemical particle size,
flammability,  thermal stability and other physical-chemical
relationships.  Using a knowledge of these properties, the
environmental discharges from the coal liquefaction process
can be further refined.

                               94

-------
     d.   Analogies With Other Processes

          Input-output characterization data from coal
liquefaction processes is often available in pieces.   For a
given process, the amount and composition of one envir-
onmental effluent may be available, but not the others.  For
another process, the amount and composition may be available
forgone or more of the other streams.  By combining infor-
mation on analogous streams, effluent amounts and compositions
may be estimated for the overall processes.  This method
also provides cross-checks on the similarity or differences
of products and wastes from the different processes.


     e.   Comparisons with Other Industries

          Input-output materials characterizations can be
drawn from industries with similar products and wastes.  The
most similar industry to coal liquefaction is the coal tar
industry.  Prior to the advent of readily available and low
cost petrochemicals, the coal tar industry supplied most of
the inorganic chemicals for industrial purposes.  Aromatic
and polynuclear compounds comprise: a large portion of coal
tar, which when fractionated yields products ranging from
benzene and phenols to tars and asphalts.  It is expected
that many of the workplace and environmental problems with
coal liquefaction will be similar to those for  coal tar
operations.

          The petroleum industry is a second industry which
has analogies with coal liquefaction processes.  Fractiona-
tion and recovery of products by physical-chemical tech-
nology, treatment/control of atmospheric, waterbome and
residue wastes has received extensive attention in this
industry and some of the developed technology is applicable.

          Coal-fired utility boilers and coal gasification
operations have waste residues and ashes similar to coal
liquefaction.  Metal and inert composition data on these
residues can be useful in defining the environmental dis-
charges expected from coal liquefaction and the solubility,
leachability and other characteristics of these wastes.


     f.   Conceptualized Modeling of Missing Process Modules

          In the absence of defined process modules, it is
necessary to model the missing portions.  Eventually,  the
coal liquefaction processes may be expected to  develop their
own fine structure, with all the complexity of  a modern-day
petroleum refinery.  The scale-up from bench scale, to PDU
status, to pilot plant size shows a marked proliferation in
                               95

-------
process equipment and function.  A similar increase in
equipment complexity and specialized function may be expected
for commercial units.  Similarly, development of processes
and commercialization may be expected to increase the effici-
ency of conversion from coal to products and reduce the
environmental discharges.

          Three points can be made for this projected pattern:

              Conceptualized modeling of missing process
               modules should given conservative environ-
               mental discharge values.

              Until specific commercial processes are
               available, conceptualized modeling using
               general modules can be used to define environ-
               mental discharges with satisifactory accuracy.

              To date environmental discharges have been
               related to specific processes.  In the future,
               the definition of environmental discharges
               will depend more on the product(s) desired
               and the process variables needed to obtain
               them than on the process itself.

          Tables 2,  3,  4, and 5 give preliminary input-
output materials characterizations for four conceptualized
50,000 bbl/day commercial coal liquefaction facilities.  At
this point in the input characterization development,  the
similiarities should be stressed rather than the differences.
For example, the bottoms fraction from this EDS process
consists of 4,866 tons per day, while the Synthoil process
has only 3,536 tons per day of char after pyrolysis through
a multiple hearth furnace (conceputalized by Synthoil develop-
ers) .   Pyrolysis or other treatment of EDS bottoms could
reduce the amount of bottoms to a lower figure comparable to
the Synthoil char.  Similar treatment could reduce the 5482
tons per day of solid wastes from the H-Coal process.   The
similarity is that all four processes have 3500 to 5500 tons
per day of solid and residue waste for use/treatment/disposal.
This quality of solid and residue waste represents a signifi-
cant area of environmental discharge which needs to be given
priority attention.   Similar attention needs to be given to
treatment/control technology for process wastewater and air
emissions.
                               96

-------
          TABLE 2.  INPUT-OUTPUT MATERIALS FOR 50,000 BEL/DAY
         	  SYOTHDIL SYSTEM (TONS/DAY)
                In
1.  Prepared coal            16,667
2.  Water injection           1,904
3.  Make-up gas (44% H2)      1,519
4.  Make-up water (in the        61
    acid gas removal)
5.  Chemicals (make-up to        12
    the anrine system)
               TOTAL         20,163
               Out
1.  Heavy product            7,090
2.  Light product            1,705
3.  By-product (liquid)      1,254
4.  By-product (gas)           729
5.  Acid gas to sulfur       1,840
    recovery
6.  Char                     3,536
7.  Wastewater (total)       4,009
          TOTAL             20,163
                                     97

-------
          TABLE 3.  INPUT-OUTPUT MATERIALS FOR 50,000 BBL/DAY
         	H-OOAL SYSTEM (TONS/DAY)	
1.  Dry pulverized coal
2.  Make-up gas (45%
               TOTAL
                         Out
19,122       1.  Ammonia              115
 1,582       2.  Sulfur               799
20,704       3.  Phenol                13.5
             4.  Naptha             1,550
             5.  Product oil        8,000
             6.  Gases              2,600
             7.  Wastes             5,873.5
             8.  Water              1,753
                        TOTAL      20,704
                                98

-------
          TABLE 4.   INPUT-OUTPUT MATERIALS FOR 50,000 BEL/DAY
                EXXON DONOR SOLVENT SYSTEM  (TONS/DAY)	
           Li
1.  Raw coal       18,181
2.  Hydrogen          579
          TOTAL    18,760
                   Out
 1.  Hydrogen sulfide
 2.  Anmonia
 3.  Phenols
 4.  OL
 5.  C2
 6.  C3
 7.  04
 8.  Light naptha
 9.  Heavy naptha
10.  Middle Distillate
11.  Heavy fuel oil
12.   Bottoms
13.   H20
14.   Hydrogen
              TOTAL
  485
  227
   20  (est)
  134
   84
   89
   37
   886
 2,866
 6,234
    54
 5,441
 2,118
    85
18,760
                                  99

-------
          TABLE 5.  INPUT-OUTPUT MATERIALS FOR 50,000 BEL/DAY
                        SRC SYSTEM (TONS/DAY)     	
1.  RCM coal (5% moisture)       31,520
2.  Oxygen                       2J45
3.  Water                       45,774
          TOTAL                 80,039
             Out
 1.  SNG                3,414
 2.  LPG                  964
 3,  Naptha               786
 4.  Fuel oil           5,061
 5.  SRC               10,649
 6.  Sulfur               517
 7.  Ammnrpfl               70
 8.  Phenol                37
 9.  Residue & Slag     5,090
10.  Water losses      39,528
11.  Waste gases       13,923
      TOTAL            80,039
                                 100

-------
           E.   TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (INPUT-OUTPUT)
1.    STANDARDS OF PRACTICE MANUAL

     The first Standards of Practice Manual for a coal
liquefaction process is under preparation by Hittman Associates,
Inc.,  Columbia, Maryland.  The SPM is designed to furnish
environmental guidelines and best control/disposal options
for liquefaction processes currently under development.

     The SRC-1 process was chosen for the study.  A pilot
plant for the process has been operated by ERDA at Fort
Lewis, Washington since September 1974.  It was felt that a
definitive study of the process and its waste streams, and
their optimum treatment methodologies would provide a
service to the future commercialization of this process.

     Progress includes completion of material balances for
the process and waste streams.  From this basis, written and
schematic descriptions of process modules and control/dis-
posal modules were added.  Best control/disposal practices
have been selected for all wastestreams.  Pertinent federal,
state and local environmental standards have been assembled
relative to a projected plant location.  Partially complete
are descriptions of environmental emissions and factors
achievable and control/disposal costs.

     Remaining work includes a detailed description of the
basic process, which will outline control options for
specific emissions and their respective costs for each
module.  A large portion of this effort will consist of
assembling information from previous sections of the manual
and summarizing them into clear, succinct unit operations
for each module.  Estimated  completion date is October 31.
                               101

-------
     APPENDIX A



Process Flow Diagrams
        A-l

-------
             COAL
                                           SIZING
                                           DRYING
                                             &
                                         SLURRYING
                    MAKE
                    UP
H20,
GASIFICATION
                   HYDROCARBON
                   GASES
                         RECYCLE  H,
                                                                   RECYCLE
                                                                   OIL
                                                          SLURRY
                                                          FEED STREAM
                                                     SYNTHOIL
                                                  (HYDROGENATION)
                       GAS PURIFICATION
                          SYSTEM
              CARBONACEOUS  NH3*H2S'H2
              RESIDUES
                                           GASES
                         PYROLYSIS

                                          SOLIDS
                          PRODUCT
                            OIL
PRODUCT
STREAM
                                                       GAS
                                                    SEPARATION
                                                LIQUIDS AND
                                                UNREACTED
                                                SOLIDS
                                         SOLIDS
                                         SEPARATION
                                                            LIQUIDS
                                                     PRODUCT
                                                       OIL
                           Figure  1.   Synthoil System
                                       A-2

-------
 COAL
      HYDROGEN

      GENERATION
  HYDROGEN
  RECYCLE
  HYDROGEN
  RICH GAS
    GAS
    CLEAN-UP AND
    SULFUR  RECOVERY
  I
AMMONIA
LIGHT
HYDROCARBONS
                 SIZING
                 AND
                 DRYING
                                 SLURRY

                                 PREPARATION
                                  PREHEATING
                                H-COAL
                                (HYDROGENATION)
                  PRODUCT

                  SEPARATION
                                                      RECYCLE
                                                      OIL
^ LIQUID
   PRODUCTS
                                          HEAVY
                                          BOTTOMS
                                                          SULFUR
                Figure 2.   H-Coil System
                              A-3

-------
o
CO
o
LU
o:
                                     COAL
       FeS,
                                      I
                                   DRYING
      CATALYST
                                  GRINDING &
                                   PASTING
                  RECYCLE RAS
       SCRUBBING
            >
            PREHEATING
MAKE-UP
  H2
                                      1
                                    BERGIUS
                                ;HYDROGENATION
      GAS-LIQUID
      SEPARATION
                       LIGHT OIL
                   DISTILLATION
      SOLIDS
      SEPARATION
 CAKE
                                            LIGHTS
            COKING
                                     I
                                   MID-OIL
                                   AND
                                   GASOLINE
                                   SOLIDS      RECYCLE
              Figure  3.   Bergius  System
                           A-4

-------
   COAL
RECYCLE
SOLVENT
                  COAL PREPARATION
                  AND HANDLING
                   SRC
                  (HYOROGENATION)
                     SOLIDS
                     SEPARATION
             FILTRATE
WASH
SOLVENT
                       RECYCLE
                       HYDROGEN
              GAS CLEANUP
              AND BYPRODUCT
              RECOVERY
                      SOLVENT
                      RECOVERY
HYDROCARBONS
AND WATER

SULFUR
MINERAL
RESIDUE
                                      SRC  PRODUCT
                                                                  LIGHT
                                                                  LIQUIDS
            KEY

          	  SRC II
                  Figure  4.   Solvent  Refined Coal  System
                                         A-5

-------
  LIGNITE
SYNTHESIS
GAS
OR
CO
                    SIZING
                    SLURRY

                    PREPARATION
COSTEAM
(HYDROGENATION)
(INDIRECT)
                     PRODUCT

                     SEPARATION
                            FUEL OIL


                             PRODUCT
                             GAS


                            SOLIDS
                            RESIDUE
           Figure 5.   COSTEAM System
                       A-6

-------
>
          CRUSHED
          COAL
                                                              COED GAS
                                     PYROLYSIS
                                     GAS
                         FLUIDIZING
                         GAS
                                                                             GAS SCRUBBING
                                                                             AND PROCESSING
OIL RECOVERY
AND FILTRA-
TION SECTION
                                                                        COED OIL
                                                                                           H
FIXED-BED
HYDRO-
TREATMENT
                                                PRODUCT
                                                GAS(ES)
SYNTHETIC
CRUDE OIL
                                                                                                   CHAR
                                                                                                   PRODUCT
                                             Figure 6.   COED  Syst
               em

-------
                        PULVERIZED COAL
                          STORAGE
                       COED
                       STAGE I
                       (PYROLYSIS)
                    CHAR TO
                    STAGE II
RECYCLE
GAS
GASES AND
VAPORS
                        PARTICIPATE
                        REMOVAL
                       GAS SEPARATION
                    OIL TO
                 - SOLID-LIQUID
                                                    SEPARATION
                                                    (FILTRATION)
             Figure 7.   Stage  I COED System
                            A-8

-------
               CHAR FROM  STAGE I
                   STAGE II
                         PARTICULATE
                         REMOVAL
                   STAGE  III
STEAM
  &
OXYGEN
                         OIL-WATER
                         SEPARATION
STAGE IV
                 CHAR COOLING
  GAS TO
  ACID GAS
  REMOVAL

 TO
 PYROLYSIS
 SECTION
 OIL TO
 SOLID-LIQUID
 SEPARATION
 (FILTRATION)

 WATER TO
 GAS
 SEPARATION
                                       CHAR TO
                                       STORAGE
          Figure 8.   Stages  II, III  and  IV COED System
                                   A-9

-------
COAL
         SIZING
         AND
         DRYING
         COALCON
        (HYDROCARBON-
         IZATION)
      CHAR
HYDROGEN
RICH GAS
                    HYDROGEN
          HYDROGEN
          GENERATION
GAS-LIQUID
PRODUCT
         SEPARATION
    GAS CLEANUP
    AND BY-PRODUCT
    RECOVERY
                                                       TO METHANATION
                                                       FOR SNG
                                                       PRODUCTION
                           ASH
*- SULFUR


+* AMMONIA
                                                          LIGHT OIL
                                                          PRODUCT
                                                                   i

                                                          FUEL OIL '
                                                          PRODUCT
                  Figure  9.   Coalcon System
                               A-10

-------
COAL
R!CH
RECYCLE
GAS
CC
(CARBONIZA-
TION)
       CHAR
   COKING
                    SIZING &
                    DRYING
LIQUID
PROCESSING
                      GAS CLEANUP
                      AND
                      BY-PRODUCT
                      RECOVERY
                  CC
                  (HYDROGENA-
                  TION)
SEPARATION
                MEDIUM
                OIL
                                                                   ASH
                                      CHEMICAL
                                      FEEDSTOCKS


                                     FUEL GAS
                                     AND
                                     BY-PRODUCTS


                                     METALLURGICAL
                                     COKE
        Figure  10.   Clean  Coke  (CC)  System
                         A-ll

-------
COAL
                                                             HS
                                                 GAS
SIZING
AND
DRYING
              PREHEATING
                           COAL
                                                              i
                                                         PURIFICATION
                                              SEPARATION
                                               L
                                    LIQUID
                                    PRODUCTS
                     TOSCOAL
                     (PYROLYSIS)
                              CHAR
                                                   HOT
                                                   BALLS
BALL
HEATING
                                            CHAR
                                            COOLING
                                            CHAR
                    HOT FLUE GAS
AIR
& FUEL
                      Figure 11.   Toscoal System
                                     A-12

-------
      COAL
                             SIZING
                             AND
                             DRYING
    HEATED
    CHAR
AIR
                           ORC
                           (PY-ROLYSIS)
CHAR
HEATING
AND
SEPARATION
                                                      * FLUE GAS
PRODUCT

SEPARATION
GAS PROCESS-
ING AND
SULFUR
RECOVERY
                                  TAR
                           HYDROTREATING
 PIPELINE
*-  GAS
                                                                SULFUR
                                                      _^  SYNTHETIC
                                                          CRUDE
                   Figure  12.  ORC System
                               A-13

-------
  COAL
                       SIZING
 STEAM

OXYGEN
GASIFICATION
                     GAS
                     PURIFICATION
                     & SULFUR
                     RECOVERY
                       FISCHE3-
                       TROPSCH
                       SYNTHESIS
                      PRODUCT
                      SEPARATION
                          SULFUR
                           HYDROCARBON
                           PRODUCTS
                                             __ PRODUCT
                                                SNG
   Figure 13.   Fischer-Tropsch (F-T)  System
                       \-
                      A-14

-------
      COAL
  RECYCLE
  DONOR
  SOLVENT
PRODUCT
STORAGE
                  SIZING
                  AND
                  DRYING
                          HYDROGEN
EDS
(HYDROGENATION)
                        SPENT
          SOLVENT
               SOLVENT

               HYDROGENATION
SEPARATION
                                                BOTTOMS
                             HYDROGEN

                             GENERATION
                                               GAS (FOR FUEL
                                               AND HYDROGEN
                                               GENERATION)
                                                              RAW COAL
                                                              LIQUID
                                                              PRODUCT
                                                              ASH
          Figure  14.  Exxon Donor Solvent  (EDS) System
                                  A-15

-------
COAL
                     SIZING AND
                     DRYING
PREHEATING
GASIFICATION
                      SHIFT
                      CONVERSION
                       ACID GAS
                       REMOVAL
                       METHANOL
                      (SYNTHESIS)
                      SULFUR
                      RECOVERY
                                                           ASH
                                                         SULFUR
                                                       METHANOL
                    PURIFICATION
          Figure 15.   Mehtanol  System
                           A-16

-------
       COAL
        CHAR--
SIZING AND
DRYING
                         SGE
                         (EXTRACTION)
          SOLVENT
                        SEPARATIONS
                                            * FUEL GAS
                                            _^ EXTRACT
                                               PRODUCT
Figure 16.  Supercritical Gas  Extraction (SGE)  System
                            A-17

-------
     APPENDIX B

Federal and Selected
  State Regulations
         B-l

-------
Key to symbols and abbreivations applicable to all  tables  of
                                        i1
the Appendix.

max       denotes maximum
AAM       denotes Annual  Arithemtic Mean
AGM       denotes Annual  Geometric Mean
 *        denotes that the maximum value is not to  be exceeded
          more than once  per year.
JTU       denotes Jackson Turbidity Units
COH/1000 LM    denotes Coefficient of Haze per 1000 linear meters
COH/1000 LF    denotes Coefficient of Haze per 1000 linear feet
                                B-2

-------
 Table 1.   National  Primary  and  Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
Concentration
Constituent
Sulfur Oxides
primary
secondary
Particulates
primary
secondary
Carbon Monoxide
primary and
secondary
Photochemical Oxidants
primary and
secondary
Hydrocarbons
primary and
secondary
Nitrogen Dioxide
primary and
secondary
Metric
80 ug/m3
365 ug/m::
1300 ug/nT

75 ug/mi:
260 ug/m::
6C ug/mi
150 ug/nT
10 ug/m3,
40 ug/nr

160 ug/m
160 ug/m
100 ug/m
English
-4 3
9.4x10 ^grain/ydr
4.3xlO"grain/yd,
l.SxlO'Vain/yd-3

S.SxlO'^grain/yd3
3.1xlO"fgrain/ydi
7. IxlO'-tg rain/yd^
1. 8x1 0~ ''grain/yd
0.12 grain/yd^
0.79 grain/ydj

1.9xlO~3grain/yd3
1.9xlO"3grain/yd3
1.2xlO"3grain/yd3
                                                             Remarks
                                                             A.A.M.
                                                             24 hr max*
                                                             3 hr max*
                                                             A.G.M.
                                                             24 hr max*
                                                             A.G.M.
                                                             24 hr max*
                                                             8 hr max*
                                                             1 hr max*
                                                              1  hr max*
                                                              3  hr max*
                                                              (6-9 A.M.)
                                                              A.A.M.
Reference Conditions:  Temperature  = 25C  = 77F

                       Pressure     = 760 mm Hg  = 29.92  in  Hg  =  1  atmosphere
                                       B-3

-------
                 Table  2 .  Federal New Source Performance
                      Standards of Related Technologies
Coal Preparation - Particulates
     Type of Equipment

     Thermal Dryers
     Coal Cleaning
     Processing, Conveying
       and Storage

Fossil Fuel Steam Generators
     Constituent

     Particulates
     Sulfur Dioxide (solid fuels)
     Nitrogen Oxides (solid fuels)

Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels
     Constituent

     Hydrocarbons
Metric
.057 mg/m-
.033 mg/m
Standard
English (
2.2xlO-Jgrain/yd5
1.3xlO"^grain/ydJ
Jpacit
20%
10%
?n*
             Standard

Metric        English

0.17  kg/iojjkcal 0.10 Ib/lOJJBtu
2.07  kg/lOjkcal 1.21 lb/10:Btu
1.21  kg/10kcal 0.70 lb/10Btu
               Opacity

                  20%  (1)
    Vapor Pressure
                Requirement
Metric

78-570 mm Hg
   570 mm Hg
English

3.0-22.4  in  Hg
    22.4  in  Hg
(2)
(3)
(1)  40% opacity allowed 2 minutes/hr

(2)  floating roof or vapor recovery system or equivalent

(3)  vapor recovery system or equivalent
                                       B-4

-------
                 Table 3 .   Federal  Effluent Guidelines and
                 	Standards  for New Sources
Coal Preparation
                                          Concentration
Constituent
Total Iron
Total Manganese
Total Suspended Solids
pH range: 6.0-9.0
By-Product Coking
1 day maximum
mg/1 g
7.0
4.0
20.0


rain/gallon
0.41
0.23
1.17


30 day
mg/1
3.5
2.0
35.0


average
grain/gallon
0.20
0.12
2.04






Concentration
Constituent

Cyanide A
Phenol
Ammonia 1
Sulfide
1 day maximum
kg/kkg
3 x 10"4
6 x 10"4
.26 x 10"2
3 x 10"4
Ib/ton
7.26 x 10"4
1.45 x 10"3
3.05 x 10"2
7.26 x 10"4
30 day
kg/kkq
1 x 10"4
2 x 10"4
4.2x 10"3
1 x 10"4
average
Ib/ton
2.42 x
4.84 x
1.02 x
2.42 x

io-4
io-4
io-3
io-4
Total Suspended
Solids
pH range:  6.0-9.0
3.12 x 10
                               -2
7.55 x 10
                        -2
1.04x10
                     -2
2.52 x 10
                      -4
                                   B-5

-------
    Table 4 .   Some EPA Requirements and Recommendation for Solid Wastes
Aspect of Disposal
 Requirement
Recommendations
     Design
 approval  by
 professional  engineer
 and responsible
 agency
analysis of solid
waste materials;
maintenance program;
projection of
subsquent use
     Water Quality
 compliance with Federal
 Water Pollution Control
 Act
projections of solid
waste-soi1-groundwater
relationship
     Air Quality
 compliance with clean
 air act,  state and
 local  laws
dust control program
     Gas Control
 On site control  of
 decomposition gases
preventing gas from
concentrating to
prevent explosions
and toxicity hazards
     Cover Material
 cover shall  be applied
 as  necessary to
 minimize fire, odors,
 dust, etc.
minimum of 2 ft.
final cover
     Compaction
 compaction to the
.smallest practicable
 volume
maximum depth of
solid waste layers
(2 ft)
                                    B-6

-------
             Table 5 .   Ambient Air Quality Standards in Alaska
Constituent
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
 Maximum Concentration Allowed
Carbon Monoxide
Photochemical Oxidants
Nitrogen Dioxide

Reduced Sulfur Compounds
   Metric
  60 ug/m3
 150 ug/m3

  80 ug/m"
 365 ug/m*
1300 ug/m3

  10 ug/m*
  40 ug/nT

 160 ug/m*

 100 ug/m*
  50 ug/m*
  English
7.1xlO"4grain/yd3
1.8xlO"3grain/yd3
      -4        3
9.4x10  grain/yd
4.3xlO"3grain/yd3
1.5xlO"2grain/yd3

0.12 grain/yd3
0.47 grain/yd

1.9xlO~3grain/yd3

1.2x10"3grain/yd3

6.0xlO~4grain/yd3
Remarks


A.G.M.
24 hr max*

A.A.M.
24 hr max*
3 hr max*

8 hr max
1 hr max

1 hr max

A.A.M.

30 min max
Reference Conditions:    Temperature  = 21C  = 70F
                                                  2
                         Pressure     = 1.03 kg/cm  = 14.7 psi  = 1  atmosphere
                                   B-7

-------
                Table 6 .   Emissions Standard for Industrial
               Processes and Fuel Burning Equipment in Alaska
Visible Emissions

    20%   opacity +
                                          3                     3
Particulate Matter                    mg/m              grain/ft
    (coal burning equipment)           4.24                0.05

                                      8.48                0.1


Sulfur Compounds (SO.,)


     500 ppm
 denotes that the standard may not be exceeded for a total  of more
 than three minutes in any hour.
                                   B-8

-------
                Table 7 .    Water Quality Criteria of Alaska
Parameter

Dissolved Oxygen
                                          Water Classification
Potable Water
Industrial  Water
5 mg/1 =0.29 grain/gal
 75% saturation or

5 mg/1  =0.29 grain/gal     for surface water
pH and (pH change)
6.5-8.5 (0.5 units)
6.5-8.5 (0.5 units)
Turbidity
 5 JTU
No interference with
water supply treatment
Temperature
 16C = 60F
 21C = 70F
Dissolved Inorganic
   Substances
500 mg/1 = 29 grain/gal
low enough to prevent
corrosion, scaling
and process problems
Residues, Oils,
Grease, Sludges, Other
Physical and Chemical
Criteria
essentially free from;
may not exceed 1962
USPHS Standards
(see Table 43)
No visible evidence
of residue may not
impact public health
                                     B-9

-------
             Table 8 .  Ambient Air Quality Standards of Arizona
Constituents
Particulates

Sulfur Dioxide
                                    Concentration
  Metric
  60 ug/nf
 150 ug/m3
         *i
  50 ug/m"
 260 ug/m*
1300 ug/nT
   English
7.1xlO"4grain/yd3
1.8xlO~3grain/yd3
      -4        3
6.0x10  grain/yd
3.1xlO~3grain/yd3
1.5xlO~2grain/yd3
 Remarks
A.G.M.
24 hr max
1 yr max
1 day max
3 hr max
Non-Methane Hydrocarbons
 160
1.9xlO"3grain/yd3
3 hr max
(6-9 A.M.)
Photochemical Oxidants
Carbon Monoxide
 160
  40 mg/m
  10 mg/iTf
1.9xlO"3grain/yd3
0.47 grain/yd*
0.12 grain/yd*
1 hr max

1 hr max
8 hr max
Nitrogen Dioxide
 100
1.2xlO"3grain/yd3
1 yr max
Air Quality Goals
Constituent                    Metric
Particulates                  100 ug/nf
Non-Methane Hydrocarbons       80 ug/m"
                   English
                1.2x10" Vain/yd
                9.4xlO"4grain/yd3
                         Remarks
                        24 hr max
                        3 hr max
                        (6-9 A.M.)
Carbon Monoxide
Photochemical Oxidants
   7 mg/m"
  80 ug/mj
0.083 grain/yd*
9.4xlO"4grain/yd3
8 hr max

1 hr max
Standard Conditions:      Temperature = 16C = 60F
                                                 o
                         Pressure    = 1.03 kg/cm  = 14.7 psi
                                      B-10

-------
            Table 9 .   Industrial Emissions Standards in Arizona
Participate Emissions - Process  Industries - General

E = 55.0  p'n-40  (E = 17.31  p'16  for  Phoenix-Tucson Air Quality
                                         Control  Region)

where

E    =    max allowable emissions  rate (Ib m/hr)
P    =    process weight rate (ton m/hr)

For commercial SRC plants
              20.000 ton/day  ,,
E    =    55.0  (24 hr/day)    "-40 = 75.2 Ib  m/hr =  16 4 kg/hr

E    =    17.31  p*16 = 50.8 Ib m/hr = 111.9 kg/hr (Phoenix-Tucson)

Sulfur -other industries
     Requirement:   a minimum of 90%  removal

Storage of volatile organic compounds
     (for storage capacities of 65,000 gallons or greater)

Requirement3       A floating roof is required for compounds with vapor
                                                 2
                    pressures greater than 2 Ib in  but less than
                            2
                    12 Ib/in .   Equipment of equal  efficiency may be
                    substituted.  The pressure range  in metric  units
                    is from 0.1406 kg/cm2 to 0.8436 kg/cm2.
                                     B-ll

-------
                 Table 10.   Arizona Water Quality Criteria

                                                Limiting Concentration

Substance                                     mg/1          grain/gallon

Arsenic                                       0.05            0.0029
Barium                                        1.0             0.0584
Cadmium                                       0.01            0.0006
Chromium (Hexavalent)                         0.05            0.0029
Copper                                        1.0             0.0584
Cyanide                                       0.2             0.0117
Mercury                                       0.005           0.0003
Lead                                          0.05            0.0029
Phenol                                        0.001           5.8xlO"5
Selenium                                      0.01            0.0006
Silver                                        0.05            0.0029
Zinc                                          5.0             0.2921

For waters supporting aquatic life the following standards exist:

pH:       6.5 to 8.6 with no discharge causing a change in pH of more
          than 0.5 pH units.

Temperature:     maximum temperature=  34C  = 93F
       maximum temperature increase=  2.8C =  5F
                                    B-12

-------
              Table 11.   Standards  of  Performance for Petroleum
              	Refineries  in Colorado           	
Participates
     1 kg/kkg = 1 lb/1000 Ib

     30% opacity for greater than 3 minutes  in  any hour  is  not  allowed.
          Failure to comply due to uncombined water is not  a  violation.
Carbon Monoxide
     Discharge gases may not contain greater than 0.050% carbon
          monoxide by volume.
Sulfur Dioxide
     Emissions may not exceed those resulting from fuel gas containing
          230 mg/dscm (0.10 grain/dscf) of hydrogen sulfide.
                                       B-13

-------
Standard
Settleable Solids,

Floating Solids,

Taste, Odor, Color,

and Toxic Materials
Table 12.  Colorado Water Quality Standards

                     Water Classification

        Al_           A2           Bl

       Free From    Free From    Free From
                             B2

                           Free From
Oil and Grease
       No film or   No film or   No film or    No film or
     discoloration discoloration discoloration discoloration
Turbidity Increase
       10 J.T.U.
10 J.T.U.    10 J.T.U.
              10 J.T.U.
Dissolved Oxygen
 (minimum)
       6 mg/1        5 mg/1        6 mg/1        5 mg/1
     0.35 grain/    0.29 grain/  0.35 grain/   0.29 grain/
      gallon          gallon       gallon        gallon
pH Range
      6.5-8.5
6.5-8.5
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
Temperature, Maximum   20C

                       68 F
                    32C

                    90 F
             20C

             68 F
              32C

              90 F
Temperature

 Maximum Increase
                         2F
                    Streams
                           Streams
2.8C
5F
Lakes
1.7C
3F
i.rc
2F



2.8C
5F
Lakes
1.7C
3F
                                      B-14

-------
               Table 13.   Colorado  Effluent Discharge Criteria

                              7 day avg.                      30  day  avg.
Parameter                mg/1              grain/gal.    mg/1              grain/gal
BOD5                      45               2.63           30                 1.75
Suspended Solids          45               2.63           30                 1.75
Residual Chlorine                     0.5 mg/1  = 0.03 grain/gal.
Oil and Grease                        10 mg/1 =  5.84 grain/gal.
pH range                                     6.0 - 9.0
                                       B-15

-------
                  Table  14.   Illinois Air Quality Standards
Constituent
Particulates
     primary

     secondary
                                   Concentration
                             Metric            English
                              75 ug/nf
                             260 ug/nf
                              60 ug/nf
                                     
                             150 ug/nf
                                     *>
Non-Methane Hydrocarbon       160 ug/nf
Carbon Monoxide

Nitrogen Dioxide
Photochemical  Oxidants
                              10 ug/m3
                              40 ug /m3
                             100 ug/m
                             160 ug/m
8.8xlO"4grain/yd3
3.1xlO"3grain/yd3
7.1xlO"4grain/yd3
1.8xlO"3grain/yd3
1.9xlO"3grain/yd3
0.12 grain/yd0
0.47 grain/yd3
1.2xlO"3grain/yd3
1.9xlO"3grain/yd3
Remarks

A.G.M.
24 hr max*
A.G.M.
24 hr max*
3 hr max*
(6.9 A.M.)
8 hr max*
1 hr max*
A.A.M.
1 hrmax*
Reference Conditions:     Temperature =  25C  =  77F
                         Pressure    =  760 mm  Hg  =  29.92  in Hg
                                      B-16

-------
           Table 15.  New Process Emissions  Standards  in  Illinois
Visible Emissions:    30% Opacity
Particules:         E = 24.8 p'16
     where:         E = allowable emissions rate in Ib/hr
                    P = process wt rate in tons/hr
     for an SRC facility processing 20,000 tons/day of coal,
     E = 72.7 Ib/hr = 33.1 kg/hr

Sulfur Dioxide:  2000 ppm

Hydrocarbons:

     Storage:  85% control, pressurized tanks, or floating roofs for
               tanks greater than 151,400 liters (40,000 gallons)

     Loading:  3.6 kg/hr (8 Ib/hr) for throughputs exceeding 151,000
               liters/day  (40,000 gallons/day)

Hydrocarbon - Water Separators:   85%  control  if  capacity  exceeds
               757 liters  (200 gallons)
                                      B-17

-------
             Table 16.  Selected Water Quality Standards  in  Illinois
Parameter
pH  range
Public Supply/Food Processing
Dissolved oxygen(l)

Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmi urn
Chloride
Chromium (hexavalent)
Chromium (trivalent)
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phenol
Selenium
Silver
Sulfate
Total Dissolved
  Solids
Zinc
Oil
6.5 - 9
metric (mg/1)
) 6.0
:) 5.0
1.5
0.01
1.0
1.0
0.01
250
nt) 0.05
t) 1.0
0.02
0.01
1.4
0.3
0.05
0.05
0.0005
1.0
0.001
0.01
0.005
250
500
1.0
0.1
.0
English (qrain/qal)
0.3505
0.2921
0.0876
5. 84x1 O"4
0.0584
0.0584
5. 84x1 O"4
14.6029
0.0029
0.0584
0.0012
5. 84x1 O"4
0.0818
0.0175
0.0029
0.0029
2. 92x1 O"5
0.0584
5. 84x1 O"5
5. 84x1 O"4
2. 92x1 O"4
14.6029
29.2058
0.0584
0.0058
    Lake Michigan
     7.0 - 9.0
metric (ma/1)  .English (grain/gall
                                            of
                                       0.02
                                       0.01
                                       1.0
                                       1.0
                                       0.01
                                      12.0
                                       0.05
                                       1.0
                                       0.02
                                       0.01
                                       1.4
                                       0.3
                                       0.05
                                       0.05
                                       0.0005
                                       1.0
                                       0.001
                                       0.01
                                       0.005
                                       24

                                       180
                                       1.0
                                       0.1
            90%  
          saturation
                     0.0012
                     5.84xlO"]1
                     0.0584
                     0.0584
                     5.84x1O"4
                     0.7009
                     0.0029
                     0.0584
                     0.0012
                     5.84x1O"4
                     0.0818
                     0.0178
                     0.0029
                     0.0029
                     2.92xlO"5
                     0.0584
                     5.84xlO"5
                     5.84x1O"4
                     2.92xlO~4
                     1.4019

                    10.5141
                     0.0584
                     0.0058
                                        B-18

-------
    Table 16.  Selected Uater Quality Standards in Illinois (Continued)
Temperature varies with specific stream and the month of the year.   Maximum
temperatures for the Ohio River are as follows:

Month        Jan.   Feb.   Mar.   Apr.  May  June  July  Aug. Sep.   Oct.   Nov.   Dec.

Temp.C       10     10     16     21    27    31    32   32   31    26    21     14

Temp.F       50     50     60     70    80    87    89   89   87    78    70     57
                                          B-19

-------
                   Table 17.   Illinois Effluent Standards

Constituent                   mg/1               grains/gallon

Ammonia                       3.0                 0.175
Arsenic                       0.25                 0.015
Barium                        2.0                 0.117
Cadmium                       0.15                 8.76 x 10"3
Chromium (hexavalent)         3.0                 0.175
Chromium (trivalent)          1.0                 0.058
Copper                        1.0                 0.058
Cyanide                       0.025               1.46 x 10"3
Fluoride                     15.0                 0.876
Iron (total)                  2.0                 0.117
Iron (dissolved)              0.5                 0.030
Lead                          0.1                 5.84 x 10"3
Manganese                     1.0                 0.058
Mercury                       0.0005              2.92 x 10"5
Nickel                        1.0                 0.058
Oil                          15.0                 0.876
Phenols                       0.3                 0.18
Phosphorous                   1.0                 0.058
Selenium                      1.0                 0.058
Silver                        0.1                 5.84 x 10"3
Total Suspended Solids       15.0                 0.876
Zinc                          1.0 -                0.058
pH (range):  5-10
                                    B-20

-------
           Table 18.   Allowable Sound  Pressure Levels in  Illinois
Octave Band
Center Frequency
in Hertz
      31.5
       63
      125
      250
      500
     1000
     2000
     4000
     3000
Allowable Octave Band Sound
Pressure Level in Decibels
Daytime (1)
    75
    74
    69
    64
    58
    52
    47
    43
    40
Nightine (2)
     69
     67
     62
     54
     47
     41
     36
     32
     32
 (1) 7 A.M. - 10 P.M.
 (2) 10 P.M. - 7 A.M.
                                      B-21

-------
              Table 19 .  Indiana Ambient Air Quality Standards
Constituent

Sulfur Dioxide
     primary

     secondary
Particulates
     primary

     secondary
Carbon Monoxide
     primary and
     secondary

Photochemical Oxidants
     primary and
     secondary
Concentration
Metric
80 ug /m3
365 ug /m3
60 ug /m3
260 ug /m3
llOOug/m3
75 ug /m3
260ug/m3
60 "9 /m3
150ug/m3
English
9.4x10 grain/yd
4.3xlO"3grain/yd3
7. lx!0"3g rain/yd3
3.1xlO"3grain/yd3
1.3xlO"2grain/yd3
8.8xlO"4grain/yd3
3.1xlO~3grain/yd3
7.1xlO"4grain/yd3
1.8xlO~3grain/yd3
      10 mg/nT
             *
      40 mg/nT
     160 ug
0.12 grain/yd*
             *
0.47 grain/yd'
1.9xlO"3grain/yd3
                                            Remarks
A.A.M.
24 hr max*
A.A.M.
24 hr max*
1 hr max*

A.6.M.
24 hr max*
A.6.M.
24 hr max*

8 hr max*
1 hr max*
1 hr max*
Hydrocarbons
     primary and
     secondary
     160 ug/nf
1.9xlO"3grain/yd3
3 hr max*
(6-9 A.M.)
Nitrogen Dioxide
     primary and
     secondary
     100 ug/m"
1.2xlO"3grain/yd3
A.A.M.
 Reference Conditions:
Temperature  25C = 77F
Pressure = 760 mmHg = 14.7 psi = 1 atmosphere
                                     B-22

-------
                  Table 20.   Water Quality Criteria  of Indiana
pH: between 6.0 and 8.5
Toxic Substances:

Dissolved Oxygen:

Temperature:
shall not exceed one-tenth of the 96-hour median
tolerance limit
5 mg/1 daily average, never less  than 4 mg/1
(equivalent to 0.2921 grain/gal and 0.2336 grain/gal
respectively)
Maximum Values Allowed
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
  Ohio River
!L
10
10
16
18
27
31
32
32
31
26
18
14
-L
50
50
60
70
80
87
89
89
87
78
20
57
St.
c
10
10
13
18
24
29
29
29
29
18
16
10
Joseph River
1L
50
50
55
65
75
85
85
85
85
70
60
50
   Others
C        F
                                                10
                                                10
                                                16
                                                18
                                                27
                                                32
                                                32
                                                32
                                                32
                                                26
                                                18
                                                14
          50
          50
          60
          70
          80
          90
          90
          90
          90
          78
          70
          57
Maximum Temperature Rise is: 2.8 C = 5F for streams
                             1.7 C = 3F for lakes and reservoirs
(Note:  certain parameters are more stringent for waters where natural
        reproduction of trout and salmon is to be protected.
                                     B-23

-------
              Table 21.  Ambient Air Quality Standards In Kentucky
                                           Concentration
Constituent
Sulfur Dioxide
   primary
   secondary
Particulates
   primary
   secondary
Particulates
  (Soiling Index)
   primary
   secondary
Carbon Monoxide
   primary and
   secondary
Photochemical
 Oxidants
   standard
Hydrocarbons
   standard
Nitrogen Dioxide
   standard
Metric
3
80 ug/m;;
365 ug/m::
1300 ug/nT
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m~
60 ug/m::
150 ug/m
19.7 COH/1000 LM
1.3 COH/1000 LM
1.6 COH/1000 LM
1.0 COH/1000 LM
10 ug/m?
40 ug/m
160 ug/m
160 ug/m3
English
9.4x10"* grain/yd3
4.3x10";; grain/yd;
1.5x10"^ grain/yd13
8.8x10"* grain/yd3
3.1x10"- grain/yd,
7.1x10": grain/yd,
1.8xlO~J grain/yd"5
6.0 COH/1000 LF
0.4 COH/1000 LF
0.5 COH/1000 LF
0.3 COH/1000 LF
0.12 grain/yd3,
0.47 grain/yd3
1.9xlO"3 grain/yd3
1.9xlO"3 grain/yd3
Remarks
A.A.M.
24 hr max*
3 hr max*
A.G.M.
24 hr max*
A.G.M.
24 hr max*
24 hr max*
A.A.M.
3 month max
24 hr max*
8 hr max*
1 hr max*
1 hr max*
3 hr max*
(6-9 A.M.)
100 ug/m
1.2xlO"3 grain/yd3       A.A.M.
                                    B-24

-------
            Table 21.  Ambient Air Quality Standards  In  Kentucky  (Continued)
Constituent
  Metric
Concentration

      English
                                          Remarks
Hydrogen Sulfide

   standard

Gaseous Fluoride
 (HF)

   primary
Total Fluorides

   primary
 14 ug/nT
0.82
1.64
2.86
3.68 ug/m
  1.7xlO"4 grain/yd3
                          "
ug/nc          9.7x10 j: grain/yd^
ug/m,          1.9x10"- grain/yd,
..n/iri'J          > /l^,in~3 __.*.:_/...J1'
                                              3.4x10". grain/yd,
                                              4.3x10" grain/yd
            40 ppm
            60 ppm
            80 ppm
                                         1 hr max*
                             1 month max*
                             1 week max*
                             1 day max*
                             12 hr max*
                             6 month  avg.
                             2 month  avg.
                             1 month  avg.
Reference Conditions:   Temperature - 25C = 77F

                        Pressure = 760 mm Hg = 29.92 in Hg = 1 atm.
                                     B-25

-------
              Table 22.  Standards of Performance For Petroleum
              	Refineries in Kentucky	
Particulates
     1.0 kg/kkg feed
     1.0 lb/1000 Ib feed

Carbon Monoxide

     0.050% by volume

Sulfur Dioxide

     Emissions may not exceed the equivalent of combustion  of fuel  gas
     containing 230 mg/dscm of hydrogen sulfide.

     (230 mg/dscm = 0.10 grain/dscf)
                                     B-26

-------
                 Table  23.  Kentucky Water Quality Standards

                                            Concentration

Constituent                            mg/1            grain/gall on

Arsenic                                0.05             0.0029
Barium                                 1.0               0.0584
Cadmium                                0.01             5.84x1O"4
Chromium  (hexavalent)                  0.05             0.0029
Cyanide                                0.025            0.0015
Fluoride                                1.0              0.0584
Lead                                    0.05             0.0029
Selenium                                0.01             5.84x1O"4
Silver                                  0.05             0.0029

Dissolved Oxygen:  5 mg/1  =  0.2921  grain/gallon  daily  average
      never the  less than  4  mg/1  =  0.2336  grain/gallon

Dissolved Solids:  500 mg/1  =  29.21  grain/gal  monthly  average
      never  more     than 700 mg/1 = 40.89  grain/gal

Temperature:  never to exceed  32C  = 89F

Maxium Temperature Rise:  2.8C = 5F  for  streams, 1.7C = 3F for epilimnion
      of thermally  stratificated waters

Maximum Monthly Temperature:
Month       Jan.   Feb.  Mar.  Apr.  May   June  July   Aug. Sept.  Oct.  Nov.  Dec.
C            10    10     16   21     27   31    32    32   31    27     21    14
F            50    50     60   70     80   87    89    89   87    78     70    57
                                     B-27

-------
               Table 24.  Ambient Air Quality Standards  in  Montana
Constituent
Sulfur Dioxide


Hydrogen Sulfide

Fluorides
Settled Particulates

Reactive Sulfur
  (S03)
Total Suspended
 Particulates
Suspended Sulfate

Sulfuric Acid Mist
Lead
             Concentration
               0.02 ppm
               0.10
               0.25
               0.03 ppm
               0.05 ppm
               1.0  ppb
                       Metric
 5.26 kg/km~/month
10.53 kg/km/month
 0.25 mg/100cm2/day
 0.50 mg/100cm /day


 Metric (ug/m3)

      75
     200
     4.0
    12.0
     4.0
    12.0
    30.0
     5.0
 English

15 ton/mi2/month
30 ton/mi/month
0.036 grain/fti/day
0.072 grain/ftVday


  English (grain/yd2)
8.8 x
2.4 x
4.7 x
1.4 x
          10
          10
          10
          10
4.7 x 10
                                                1.4 x
                                                3.5 x
      10
      10
5.9 x 10
-4
-3
-5
-4
-5
i-4
-4
-5
                   Remarks
                   A.A.M.
                    (1)
                    (2)
                    (3)
                    (4)
                   24 hr max
                     5)
                     6)
                    A.A.M.
                    1 month max
A.G.M.
(7)
A.A.M.
(8)
A.A.M.
(8)
1 hr max (8)
3 day max
(1)  Not to be exceeded  over 1%  of the  days  in avg. 3 month  period

(2)  Not to be exceeded  for more than one  hour in  avg. 4 consecutive days

(3)  Not to be exceeded  more than twice in avg.  five consecutive days

(4)  Not to be exceeded  more than twice per  year

(5)  3 month average - residential  areas

(6)  3 month average - industrial  areas

(7)  Not to be exceeded  more than 1% of the  days in avg. year

(8)  Not to be exceeded  more than 1% of the  time
                                   B-28

-------
            Table 25.   Selected Water Quality  Criteria of Montana
Parameter
E-F Classification

 Metric    English
A-Closed Classification
Dissolved Oxygen
(minimum value)
3 mg/1   0.18 grain/gal
    No decrease allowed
pH
       6.5-9.5
    No change allowed
pH variation allowed      0.5 pH units
                                      Not allowed
Turbidity, Temperature,   Shall cause no adverse
   Sediments              effects
                                      No increase allowed
Toxic/Deleterious
   Substances
       Less than demonstrated
       hazardous concentration
     No increase allowed
Additionally, Montana waters shall comply with the 1962 U.S. Public Health

     Service Drinking Water Standards (see Table  48).
                                      B-29

-------
     Table 26,  New Mexico Emissions Standafds for Commerical Gasifiers
Consti tuent/Operation
      Standard
                                Metric
             English
                          Remarks
Participates
     Briquetting
     General Operations
     Gas Burning Boilers
 69 mg/scm
 69 mg/scm
0.054 kg/106
   Kcal
0.03 grain/scf
0.03 grain/scf
0.03 lb/106Btu
Based on heat
input to boiler
Hydrogen Sulfide,
Carbon Disulfide,
Carbon Oxysulfide
(Any Combination)
     General Operations
         100 ppm (Total)                All ppm
         10 ppm (Hydrogen Sulfide)      by volume
Hydrogen Cyanide
     General Operations
Hydrogen Chloride
     General Operations
Ammonia
     General Operations
     Storage

Sulfur Dioxide
     Gas Burning Boilers

Sulfur
     General Operations
         10 ppm
          5 ppm
         25 ppm
                                        Vapor control
                                        required
  0.29 kg/106 kcal   0.16 lb/106Btu     Based on heat
                                        input to boiler
                         <,
  0.014 kg/106kcal   0.008 lb/106Btu    Based on heat
                                        input of feed
                                    B-30

-------
 Table 26.  New Mexico Emissions Standards  for Commercial  Gasifiers  (Continued)
Hydrocarbons
                                                               2
  Storage - For a Reid vapor pressure greater than 0.1055 kg/cm  (1.5  psi)
            a floating roof, vapor recovery and disposal  system or
            equivalent control technology is required.


  Loading Systems - Vapor collection adapters are required.
                                   B-31

-------
           Table 27.  Artbient Air Quality Standards in New Mexico
Constituent

Participates
Heavy Metals
Soiling Index
Sulfur Dioxide

Hydrogen Sulfide

Total Reduced Sulfur
Carbon Monoxide

Nitrogen Dioxide

Photochemical  Oxidants
                                          Concentration
Metri c

150 ug/m3
110 ug/m3
 90 ug/m
 60 ug/m
 10 ug/m
1.3 COH/1000 LM
      0.10 ppm
      0.02 ppm
      0.003 ppm
      0.100 ppm
      0.003 ppm
      8.7 ppm
      13.1 ppm
      0.10 ppm
      0.05 ppm
      0.10 ppm
      0.05 ppm
English.
1.8xlO"3grain/yd3
1.3xlO"3grain/yd3
l.lxlO"3grain/yd3
7.1xlO~4grain/yd3
1.2xlO"4grain/yd3
0.4 COH/1000 LF
Remarks

1 day max
7 day max
30 day max
A.G.M.
                    24 hr max
                    A.A.M.
                    1 hr max
                    1/2 hr max (1)
                    1 hr max
                    8 hr max
                    1 hr max
                    24 hr max
                    A.A.M.
                    24 hr max
                    A.A.M.
(1)  This standard applies to the Pecos-Permian Basin  Instrastate Air Quality
     Control Region.

Emissions Standards for Refineries
    Constituent

Mercaptan
Carbon Monoxide
           Concentration
 Metric
0.11 kg/hr
     500 ppm
  20,000 ppm
  English
0.25 Ib/hr
Remarks
                    new facilities
                    existing
                     facilities
                                    B-32

-------
                Tab1e28.   New Mexico  Water  Quality  Criteria

                           Rio Grande              San Fracisco River
                          Basin Section             Basin Section
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen,
grain/gallon
1
5.0
0.29
_6
.6.0 (1)
0.35(1)
JO
6.0 (1)
0.35(1)
J
5.0
0.29
                                                                       6.0  (1)


                                                                       0.35(1)


pH Range                 6.6-8.8   6.6-8.8       6.6-8.8     6.6-8.8    6.6-8.8


Temperature,C              34        20            20        32.2         20

Temperature,F             93.2       68            68         90          68


Total Dissolved Solids,
       mg/1                2000

Total Dissolved Solids,
     grain/gallon         116.8


Sulfates, mg/1              500

Sulfates,grain/gallon      29.2


Organic Carbon, mg/1                                 70                    7.0

Organic Carbon,grain/gal                            0.41                    0.41
(1) denotes that 85% of saturation is alternatively allowable.
                                      B-33

-------
             Table29 .   Ambient  Air  Quality  Standards  of  North  Dakota
                                       Concentration
Constituent

Participates

Sulfur Dioxide


Hydrogen Sulfide

Carbon Monoxide

Photochemical  Oxidants
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide

Particulates (dustfall)

Soiling Index
Metric
60 ug/m3
150 ug/m3
60 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
715 ug/m3
5
45 ug/mj
75 ug/m3
10 mg/m
 A MMM /m*^
English
7. lx!0"4g rain/yd
1. 8x1 0"3g rain/yd3
7. lx!0"4g rain/yd3
3.1xlO"3grain/yd3
-3 3
8.4x10 grain/yd .
-d 3
5.3x10 Vain/yd0
8.8xlO"4grain/yd
0.12 grain/yd3
3
f\ A 7 nv9 ^ m /\tf4
 160 ug/m
 160 ug/m3
 100 ug/m3
 200 ug/m3
 5.27 kkg/km2/month
10.53 kkg/km2/month
 1.3 COH/1000 LM
1.9xlO"Jgrain/yd~
       3        :
1.9x10 Jgrain/yd"
1.2xlO"3grain/yd;
2.4xlO"3grain/yd"
         2
15 ton/mi /month
         2
30 ton/mi/month
0.4 COH/1000 LF
Remarks

A.G.M.
24 hr max*
A.A.M.
24 hr max
1 hr max
1/2 hr max (1)
1/2 hr max (2)
8 hr max*
1 hr max*
1 hr max*
1 hr max*
A.A.M.
1 hr max    (3)
3 month max (4)
3 month max (5)
 (1)   denotes that the maximum concentration is not to be exceeded more than
      twice  in avg. five days
 (2)   denotes that the maximum concentration is not to be exceeded more than
      twice  per year
 (3)   denotes that the maximum concentration is not to be exceeded more than
      one  percent of the time in any three month period.
 (4)   applicable to residential areas
 (5)   applicable to industrial areas
 Reference Conditions:    Temperature = 25C = 77F
                         Pressure = 760 mmHg = 29.2  in Hg = 1 atm.
                                         B-34

-------
         Table 30.   Class I  Mater Quality Standards  1n  North  Dakota
Parameter

Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Cyanides
Dissolved Oxygen (minimum)
Lead
Nitrates
Phenols
Phosphates
Selenium
Total Dissolved Solids
Zinc

Temperature Increase

Maximum Temperature

PH

Turbidity Increase
                                      Maximum Allowable Concentration or Range
Metric (mg/1)
          7.0-8.5
          10 JTU
English (grain/gallon)
1.0
0.05
1.0
0.5
0.01
100.0
0.05
0.05
0.01
5.0
0.05
4.0
0.01
0.1
0.01
500.0
0.5
2.8C
29.4C
0.0584
0.0029
0.0584
0.0292
5.84 x
5.8
0.0029
0.0029
5.84 x
0.2921
0.0029
0.2326
5.84 x
0.0058
5.84 x
29.2
0.0292
5F
85F




ID'4



io-4



ID'4

io-4




Sodium:  50% of total cations as milliequivalents/liter
                                   B-35

-------
                Table 31.   Ohio Ambient Air Quality Standards
                                        Concentration
Constituent
Particulates
Sulfur Dioxide
     Metric
     60
    150  ug/n
     60
    260
    English           Remarks

7.1xlO"4 grain/yd     A.G.M.
l.SxlO"3 grain/yd3    24 hr max*
       A         *l
7.1x10"^ grain/yd     A.G.M.
3.1xlO~3 grain/yd3    24 hr max*
Carbon Monoxide

Photochemical Oxidants
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
     10 mg/nr
    119
                              79 ug/m"
                                     *
                              40 ug/nT
    126
    331
    100   /m*
                                            0.12
1.4xlO"3 grain/yd3
9.5xlO"4 grain/yd3
4.7xlO"4 grain/yd3
8 hr max*

1 hr max
4 hr max (1)
24 hr max*
1.5xlO"3 grain/yd3    3 hr max (2)
4.0xlO"3 grain/yd3    24 hr max*
 1.2xlO-3  grain/yd3    A.A.M.
(1)  denotes the maximum concentration shall not be exceeded more than
     one consecutive four hour period per year.

(2)  denotes that ambient levels are to be monitored from 6 to 9 A.M.
Reference Conditions:    Temperature = 21.1C = 70F
   (dry gas)
Pressure  1.03 kg/cm2 = 14.7 psi
                                    B-36

-------
     Table 32.  Ohio Stream Quality Criteria for Public  Water  Supply  Use
Constituent                              Concentration
                                  Metric (mg/1)    English (grain/gallon)

Arsenic                             0.05              0.0029
Barium                              1.0               0.0584
Cadmium                             0.005             2.92 x 10"4
Chromium (hexavalent)               0.05              0.0029
Cyanide                             0.025             0.0015
Dissolved Oxygen (1)                5.0               0.2921
Dissolved Solids (2)                500              29.2
Fluoride                            1.0               0.0584
Lead                                0.05              0.0029
Mercury                             0.005             2.92 x 10"4
Selenium                            0.005             2.92 x 10"4
Silver                              0.05              0.0029
 (1)  Dissolved oxygen concentration are minimum values.  The given values
     are averages.  A value of 4.0 mg/1 (0.2336 grain/gallon) is the
     minimum acceptable value.  These values are for waters designated
     to support aquatic life.

 (2)  Value given  is monthly average with a maximum allowable value of
     750 mg/1  (43.8 grain/gallon) never to be exceeded.
                                   B-37

-------
       Table 33.  General  Water Standards Applicable Within 500  Yards
                  of Any Public Water Supply Intake In Ohio
Constituent

Cyanide
Dissolved Iron
Dissolved Manganese
Dissolved Oxygen (1)
Dissolved Solids (2)
Hexavalent Chromium
Nitrates
Phenols
pH Range
Concentration
Metric (mg/1)
0.005
0.3
0.05
5.0
500
0.01
8.0
0.001
6.0-9.0
Limit.
English (grain/gallon)
2.92 x 10"4
0.0175
0.0029
0.2921
29.2
5.84 x 10"4
0.4673
5.84 x 10"5

(1)  5.0 mg/1  (0.2921  grain/gallon)  daily minimum  average,  never  less
     than 4.0  mg/1  (0.2336  grain/gallon).

(2)  Dissolved solids  level may  exceed  (a)  or  (b)  but  not both.

     (a)  500  mg/1  (29.2  grain/gallon)  monthly average,  never  to
          exceed  750 mg/1  (43.8  grain/gallon).

     (b)  150  mg/1  (8.8 grain/gallon) attributable to  human activities,
                                   B-38

-------
           Table34.  Ambient Air Quality Standards of Pennsylvania

                                     Concentration
Constituent                     Metric           English           Remarks
Settled Participates       0.8 ug/cnr/month     grain/in2/month    A.A.M.
                                    2                   2
                           1.5 ug/cm /month     grain/in /month    30  day max
Lead                       5.0 ug/m                                30  day max
Sulfates                   1.0 ug/m                                30  day max
                                   3
                           3.0 ug/m                                24  hr max
Fluorides                  5.0 ug/m                                24  hr max
Hydrogen Sulfide                           0.005 ppm               24  hr max
                                           0.1 ppm                  1  hr max
Standards for Contaminants
Particulates - unspecified process
     For effluent gas discharge rates greater than 8500    m/min
     (300,000 dscf/min), 458 mg/dscm (0.2 grain/dscf) is allowed.

Particulates - petroleum refineries
     20 kg/kkg (40 Ib/ton) of liquid feed

Visible Emissions - unspecified process
     Opacity equal to or greater than 2Q% is not allowed for aggregate
     periods of more than three minutes in any hour.  Additionally,
     60% opacity may never be exceeded.  Opacity due to uncombined
     water mists is excluded in determining opacity levels.
                                     B-39

-------
                  Table 35.  Water Quality Standards for the
                      Monongahela River in Pennyslyania
                                              Concentration
Parameter

Dissolved Oxygen (1)
Total Iron
Maximum Temperature
Temperature Increase (2)
Dissolved Solids (3)
Total Manganese
Phenols
pH Range
  Metric
 6.0 mg/1
 1.5 mg/1
30.6C
 2.8C
500 mg/1
 1.0 mg/1
 0.005 mg/1
          6.0-8.5
   English

 0.3505 grain/gallon
 0.0876 grain/gallon
 87 F
  5F
29.2 grain/gallon
 0.0584 grain/galIon
        -4
 2.92x10  grain/gallon
(1)  6.0 mg/1 (0.3505 grain/gallon) is the minimum daily average.
     5.0 mg/1 (0.2921 grain/gallon) is the minimum acceptable level.
     For the epilimnion of stream sections where the rural  statisifcation
     occurs, the minimum daily average is 5.0 mg/1 (0.2921  grain/gallon)
     and the minimum acceptable level  is 4.0 mg/1  (0.2336 grain/gallon)

(2)  A 5F temperature rise may not cause a resulting stream temperature
     of greater than 30.6C (87F). Also, a maximum  hounly  temperature
     change of l.TC (2F) is allowed.

(3)  500 mg/1 (29.2 grain/gallon) is the monthly average.  750 mg/1
     (43.8 grain/gallon) may never be exceeded.
                                   B-40

-------
          Table 36.   Ambient Air Quality Standards  of  South  Dakota
Constituent

Sulfur Oxides


Particulates


Soil Index

Carbon Monoxide


Photochemical Oxidants

Hydrocarbons

Nitrogen Oxides
                                    Concentration
   Metric
   60 mg/m
  260 mg/m3

   60 mg/m
  150 mg/m3
  Engli sh
7.1xlO"4grain/yd3
3.1xlO"3grain/yd3
7.1xlO"4grain/yd3
1.8xlO"3grain/yd3
0.66 COH/1000LM 0.20 COH/1000 LF
   10 mg/nr     0.12 grain/yd'
          3                  "
   15 mg/m      0.18 grain/yd"
  125 mg/m"
  125 mg/m"
  100 mg/mv
                              250 mg/m"
1.5x10  grain/yd
1.5xlO"3grain/yd3
1.2xlO~3grain/yd3
                2.9xlO"3grain/yd3
Remarks

A.A.M.
24 hr max*

A.G.M.
24 hr max*

A.G.M.

8 hr max*
1 hr max*

1 hr max*

3 hr max* (1)

A.A.M.

24 hr max*
(1)  Monitored from 6-9 A.M.

Standard Conditions:   Temperature = 20C = 68F
                       Pressure = 760 mmHg = 29.92 inHg = 1  atmosphere
                                    B-41

-------
       TabVe 37. Selected South Dakota Industrial  Emissions  Standards


Fuel Burning Installations

     Particulates
       0.54 kg/kcal  of heat input =0.30 lb/105 Btu of heat  input

     Sulfur Oxides
       5.4 kg/kcal of heat input = 3.0 lb/106 Btu  of heat input
     Nitrogen Oxides
       0.36 kg/kcal  of heat input = 0.2 lb/10  Btu of heat input
General Process Industries

     Particulates
       E = 55.0 p0'11  - 40
     where  E = rate of emission in Ib/hr
            P = process weight rate in ton/hr

(Note:  Same equation is applicable in Arizona)
                                    B-42

-------
                    Table 38.   Applicable Water Quality Standards of South Dakota
                                            Concentration
w
*
u>
Parameter
Total Dissolved
   Solids
Nitrates
Nitrates
Ammonia
Chlorides (1)
Cyanides (total)
Cyanides (free)
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen
Hydrogen Sulfide
Suspended Solids
Total Iron
Temperature
Turbidity
Metric
1000 mg/1
2000 mg/1
  10 mg/1
  45 mg/1
   0.6 mg/1
 100 mg/1
   0.02 mg/1
   0.005 mg/1
   6.0 mg/1
   7.0 mg/1
   0.002 mg/1
  30 mg/1
   0.2 mg/1
  18.3C
 English
 58.4 grain/gal
116.8 grain/gal
  0.5841 grain/gal
  2.6285 grain/gal
  0.0350 grain/gal
  5.84 grain/gal
  0.0012 grain/gal
2.92 x 10"4 grain/gal
  0.3505 grain/gal
  0.4089 grain/gal
1.17 x TO"4 grain/gal
  1.75 grain/gal
  0.0117 grain/gal
     65F
 Hater Use
Domestic Supply
Industrial Supply
Domestic Supply
Domestic Supply
Domestic Supply
Domestic Supply
Domestic Supply
All
Cold
Water
Fish
Propagation
                                                                                                              Remarks
                                                                                                              As N
                                                                                                              As NO-
minimum concentration
 Spawning season
                                                 10JTU
     (1) Additionally total chlorine is limited to 0.2 mg/1 (0.0117 grain/gal).

-------
                      Table 39.   Texas Air Regulations
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Hydrogen Fluoride
          4.5 ppb-  12 hr max
          3.5 ppb  24 hr max
          2.0 ppb   7 day max
          1.0 ppb  30 day max
Net Ground Level  Concentrations for Applicable Emissions
Constituent
Hydrogen Sulfide (1)
      Concentration
       0.08 ppm
       0.12 ppm
                Remarks
              30 min max
              30 min max
Sulfuric Acid
Particulates
Metric (ug/m )

        15
        50
       100
       100
       200
       400
                                                  English (grain/yd )
1.8x10
5.9x10
1.2x10
1.2x10
2.4x10
4.7x10
-4
-4
-3
-3
-3
-3
24 hr max
1 hr max (2)
max allowed
5 hr max
3 hr max
1 hr max
(1)  The first value is applicable only when residential  areas are downwind
     of the source of emissions.
(2)  Denotes that the maximum value is not to be exceeded more than once
     per 24 hour period.
                                   B-44

-------
                          Table 39.  Continued
Emissions Limits for Fuel Burning Steam Generators (3)
                                 Concentration                   Remarks
Constituent                Metric          English
Particulates        0.54 kg/106kcal         0.3 lb/106 Btu        24 hr max (4)
                    0.18 kg/106kcal         0.1 lb/106 Btu        2 hr max (5)
Sulfur Dioxide      5.40 kg/106kcal         3.0 lb/106 Btu
Nitrogen Oxides     1.26 kg/106kcal         0.7 lb/106 Btu        2 hr max (6)
                    0.90 kg/106kcal         0.5 lb/106 Btu        2 hr max
                    0.45 kg/106kcal         0.25 lb/106Btu        2 hr max

(3)  applicable for heat inputs greater than 2500 million Btu/hr.
(4)  solid fuel burners
(5)  gas and liquid fuel burners
(6)  standards apply to opposed fired, front fired and tagential  fired
     steam generators respectively.
                                    B-45

-------
             Table  40.   Water Uses and Quality Criteria for the
                          San Antionio River Basis
Fish and Wildlife
Domestic Supply
Chlorides, mg/1
  Chlorides gr
Sulfates, mg/1
  pH range
Temperature,
Temperature,
uality Parameter 1
ation N
lecreation U
life U
ly U
/I 200
rain/gal 11.7
1 150
rain/gal 8.8
ed Solids, mg/1 700
>lved Solids; qrains/gal 40.9
6.5-8.5
C 32
F 90
gen, mg/1 5.0
gen, grain/gal 0.29
2
0
U
U
U
200
11.7
300
17.5
900
52.6
7.0-9.0
32
90
5.0
0.29
3
U
U
U
U
40
2.3
75
4.4
400
23.4
7.0-9.0
32
90
5.0
0.29
4
U
U
U
U
120
7.0
120
7.0
700
40.9
7.0-9.0
32
90
5.0
0.29
5
U
U
U
U
50
2.9
75
4.4
400
23.4
7.0-9
32
90
5.0
0.29
N    denotes not currently useable
0    denotes not currently useable, quality to be improved
U    Denotes useable for given water use

(1)  San Antonio River
(2)  Cibolo Creek (Section 1)
(3)  Cibolo Creek (Section 2)
(4)  Medina River (Section 1)
(5)  Medina River (Section 2)
(6)  Medina Lake
(7)  Medina River (Section 3)
(8)  Leon Creek (Section 1)
(9)  Leon Creek (Section 2)
                                      B-46

-------
                            Table 40.  (continued)
  Water Use/Quality Parameter             6789

Contact Recreation
                                         U         U         U         U
Non-Contact Recreation
Fish and Wildlife                        U         u         U         U
     +  c   n                           U         U         U         U
Domestic Supply
Chlorides, mg/1
  ,.,.   .....                    50        40        120      40
  Chlorides grain/gal
                                         2'9       2'3       7-      2-3
                                         75        100       120      75
  Sulfates  grain/gal                    ^       ^       ^      ^
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/1
          .    ,   .  c  , '          .  ,     400       400       700      400
  Total  Dissolved  Solids, grains/gal
                                         23.4      23.4      40.9     23.4
  PH ra"9e                               7.0-9.0   7.0-9.0   7.0-9.0  7.0-9.0
Temperature, C                          3]        3]        35       ^
Temperature, F                          88        88        gg       g5
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1                   5_Q       ^       g Q      g Q
Dissolved oxygen, grain/gal
                                       B-47

-------
             Table  41.  Water Criteria for Class "A"  Utah Waters
         (From Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.  1962)
Turbidity:    5 JTU
Chemical  Constituent
      Arsenic
      Chlorides
      Copper
      Cyanide
      Fluoride (1)
      Iron
      Manganese
      Nitrates
      Phenols
      Sulfates
      Total  Dissolved Solids
      Zinc
                                         Concentration
Metric (mg/1)
0.01
250
1.0
0.01
1.7
0.3
0.05
45
0.001
250
500
5.0
English (grain/gal)
5. 84x1 O"4
14.6
0.0584
5. 84x1 O"4
0.0993
0.0175
0.0029
2.63
5. 84x1 O"5
14.6
29.2
0.2921
(1)  Fluoride concentrations is  temperature dependent,  the given value
     being the maximum allowed at temperatures below 10C (50F).
                                     B-48

-------
               Table 42.  Applicable Air Pollution Regulations
               	In West Virginia	
Coal Preparation, Drying and Handling

    Particulates - for volumetric flow rates greater than 14,200 scm/m
       (500,000 scf/min.) the allowable emission rate is 0.18 gm/scm
       (0.08 grain/scf).

Manufacturing Process Operations

     Particulates - for process weight rates exceeding 45,500 kg/hr
       (100,000 Ib/hr) the allowable emission rate is 9.6 kg/hr
       (21.2 Ib/hr)

Smoke - No smoke darker than No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart is
       permitted.  No smoke darker than No. 2 on the Ringelmann Smoke
       Chart is permitted for more than five minutes in any sixty
       minute period.
                                     B-49

-------
               Table  43.  West Virginia Air Quality  Standards
Constituent
        Concentration
  Metric        English
                                 Remarks
Sulfur Dioxide
     primary

     secondary
  80 mg/m     9.4x10  grain/gal    A.A.M.
         3          -3
 365 mg/m     4.3x10  grain/gal    24 hr max*
1300 mg/m     1.5x10  grain/gal    3 hr max*
Particulates
     primary

     secondary
 75 mg/nT
260 mg/m2
        m
 60 mg/m"
        ^
150 mg/m"
8.8xlO"4grain/gal
      _o
3.1x10  grain/gal
7.1x10" grain/gal
1.8x10  grain/gal
                                  A.G.M.
                                  24 hr max*
                                  A.G.M.
                                  24 hr max*
Carbon Monoxide
     standard
  10 mg/m     0.12 grain/gal      8 hr max*
         3
  40 mg/m     0.47 grain/gal      1 hr max*
Photochemical  Oxidants
     standard

Non-Methane Hydrocarbons
         3          -3
 160 mg/m     1.9x10  grain/gal   1  hr max*
         3           3
 160 mg/m     1.9x10  grain/gal   3 hr max*
                                  (6-9 A.M.)
Standard Conditions:     Temperature = 25C - 77F
                         Pressure = 760 mmHg = 29.92 in Hg = 1  atmosphere
                                   B-50

-------
            Table 44. Water Quality Criteria  for the  Gauley  River
            	and Tributaries in West Virginia	
Dissolved Oxygen:
pH Range :
Temperature:
  never less  than  5.0 mg/1  = 0.2921 grain/gallon
 6.0  -  8.5
 Maximum increase  2.8C = 5F
 Maximum Temperature
 27C = 81F  (May-November)
'23C - 73F  (December-April)
Chemical Constituent
      Arsenic
      Barium
      Cadmium
      Chloride
      Chromium  (hexavalent)
      Cyanide
      Fluoride
      Lead
      Nitrates
      Phenol
      Selenium
      Silver
                          Maximum Concentration
                        Metric  (mg/1)     English  (grain/gal)
                              0.01
                              0.50
                              0.01
                              100
                              0.05
                              0.025
                              1.0
                              0.05
                               45
                              0.001
                              0.01
                              0.05
5.84x10
0.0292
5.84x10
5.84
0.0029
0.0015
0.0584
0.0029
2.63
5.84x10
5.84x10
0.0029
                                                                         -4
-4
-5
-4
                                     B-51

-------
                  Table 45.  Wyoming Ambient Air Standards
                                   Concentration
Constituent

Particulates

Soiling Index
Total Settleable
  Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Hydrogen Sulfide

Photochemical Oxidants
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
Fluorides
Carbon Monoxide
  Metric
  60 mg/nT
 150 mg/nf
  English
7.1xlO"4grain/gal
1.8xlO~3grain/gal
 1.3 COH/1000   0.4 COH/1000 LF
 5 g/m /month
       2
 10 g/m /month
 60 mg/m
 260 mg/m3
1300 mg/m3
  70 mg/m
  40 mg/m
 160 mg/m3
 160 mg/m
         3
 100 mg/m
        1 ppb
  10 mg/m
  40 mg/m
59 grain/yd /month
            2
118 grain/yd /month
7.1x10~ grain/gal
3.1xlO"3grain/gal
1.5x10" grain/gal
      -4
8.3x10  grain/gal
       3
4.7x10  grain/gal
1.9x10  grain/gal
1.9xlO"3grain/gal
      _o
1.2x10  grain/gal
0.12 grain/gal
0.47 grain/gal
Remarks

 A.G.M.
 24 hr max*
 A.G.M.
 (1)

 A.A.M.
 24 hr max*
 3 hr max*
 1/2 hr max (2)
 1 hr max*
 1 hr max*
 3 hr max* (3)
 A.A.M.
 24 hr max
 8 hr max*
 1 hr max*
Standard Conditions:     Temperature = 21 C = 70F
                         Pressure = 760 mmHg = 29.92 in.Hg = 1 atmosphere

(1)  Values given include 1.7 g/m?/month (20.1 grain/yd2/month)
     background settled particulates
(2)  Hydrogen sulfide values are not to be exceeded more than twice per year.
(3)  Monitored 6-9 A.M.
                                   B-52

-------
             Table 46.  Applicable Wyoming  Emissions  Regulations

New Fuel Burning Equipment - Sulfur Dioxide
     0.36 kg/106Kcal  input = 0.20 lb/106 Btu input
          (applicable to coal burners)

New Fuel Burning Equipment - Nitrogen Oxides
     1.26 kg/106Kcal  input =0.70 lb/106 Btu input
          (applicable to non-lignite coal burners)
Stationary Sources - Carbon Monoxide Requirement
     Stack gases shall be treated by direct flame after burner as
     required to prevent ambient standards from being exceeded.

Stationary Sources - Hydrogen Sulfide Requirement
     Gases containing hydrogen sulfide shall be vented, incinerated, or
     flared as necessary to ambient standards from being exceeded.

New Sources - Particulates
     E = 17.31 p'16 (for P   30 tons/hr)
     where     E = maximum allowable rate of emissions in Ib/hr
               P = process weight rate in tons/hr
     For a.  50,000 bbl/day SRC plant

                (22,000 ton/day)   '16
                   hr/day)
      E  =  17.31  (917)0'16  =  51.6  Ib/hr
                                      B-53

-------
                 Table  47. Wyoming Water Quality Standards
Parameter                     Concentration Limits                 Remarks

Settleable Solids               free from
Floating Solids                 free from
Toxic Materials                 free from
Turbidity                       10 JTU increase
pH Range                        6.5 - 8.5
Total Gas Pressure              Not to exceed 110%
                                (of atmospheric pressure)
                                Metric           English

Dissolved Oxygen                6 mg/1          0.3505 grain/gal   Class I  water
                                5 mg/1          0.2921 grain/gal   Class II water
Oil/Grease                     10 mg/1          0.5841 grain/gal
Temperature
                                                                      *
     The maximum temperature allowed is 26C (78F) for streams supporting
cold water fish and 32C (90F) for streams supporting warm water fish.

     The maximum allowable temperature increase is dependent upon natural
water temperature.  For streams with maximum natural temperatures of 20C
(68F) or less the maximum allowable temperature increase is 1.1C (2 F)
For streams with maximum natural temperatures exceeding 20C (68F) the
maximum allowable temperature increase is 2.2C (4F).
                                   B-54

-------
       Table 48.  EPA National  Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards
                                     Maximum Concentration
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate (as N)
Selenium
Silver
Fl uorine






Temperature
TO
12.1 & below
12.2 - 14.6
14.7 - 17.7
17.8 - 21.4
21.5 - 26.2
26.3 - 32.5
Metric (mg/1)
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.002
10
0.01
0.05
Concentration
(igTT)
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
English (grain/gallon)
0.0029
0.0584
5.84 x 10"4
2.92
0.0029
1.17 x-10~4
0.5841
5.84 x%70"4
0.0029
Temperature C.nnrpntratinn
(F) (grain/gal)
53.7 & below 0.1402
53.8 - 58.3 0.1285
58.4 - 63.8 0.1168
63.9 - 70.6 0.1051
70.7 - 79.2 0.0935
79.3 - 90.5 0.0818
                                       B-55

-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Pteotr read Inumctions on the reverse bciore completing!
I. REPORT NO. ,
 EPA-600/7-78-019
                           2.
                                                      13. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION'NO.
1. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Assessment of Coal Liquefaction:
   Annual Report
                                                      5. REPORT DATE
                                                       February 1978
                                                      6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 . AUTMORIS)
                                                      8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Ken T. Budden and Werner H. Zieger
I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
                                                      10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                      EHB623A
                                                      11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                                      68-02-2162
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: 7/76-9/77	
                                                      14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                        EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
919/541-2851.
                              project officer is William J. Rhodes, Mail Drop 61,
16. ABSTRACT
 The report summarizes results of a study of the environmental aspects of 14 of the  .
 most prominent coal liquefaction systems, in terms of background, process descrip-
 tion, major operations, input and output streams, status, and schedule of system
 development.  As a result of the study, four systemsSRC, H-Coal, Exxon Donor
 Solvent, and Synthoilwere selected for in-depth study.  The first Standards of Prac-
 tice Manual, under preparation for the SRC-I system, will include descriptions of
 modules, control/disposal practices, environmental emissions, and control/disposal
 costs.
17.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                          b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Croup
 Pollution
 Coal
 Liquefaction
 Assessments
 Synthetic Oils
 Coal Preparation
                                           Pollution Control
                                           Stationary Sources
                                           Coal Liquefaction
                                           Environmental Assess-
                                             ments
 13B
 21D
 07D
 14B
 11H
 081
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Unlimited
                                           19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                           Unclassified
                                                                   21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                                     199
                                          20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                           Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (t-73)
                                        B-56

-------