:
EPCs AS CALCULATED
BY DIFFERENT
MATHEMATICAL
MANIPULATIONS
(SEE APPENDIX)
0.107 i 90 • ! 31 all
0.0(1 i SO • 4.1 ,|/.'
[fC^, • 1i > 4.1 • II.i .|/l
CPC^ • 0.4 * Si • 20 n(/t
IK,.. • 0.002 • » • 0.01 .«/(
EK. , ' K^/d i 1.JI4.W) * S • 10
I't.^ • II M i i 10'* • 7.1 i 10~4 .(/
EK.. • 0.002 * ).$ « 10"* • 1.1 . 10"
"'
(EPCs)
• 12.1) • 12.9 ,
• l> i 12.1 > 1(4 nf/l
T * 0.002 i 1(4 ' O.W >l/g
Figure 56.
Background information sample summary for
benzo(a)pyrene (39)
322
-------
and a visual structural diagram. The Wiswesser Line-Formula
notation gives a unique unambiguous topological description
of the structure of each substance. The natural occurrence,
characteristics, and associated compounds are also catalogued.
The reported toxic properties and health effects including
the NIOSH ordering numbers for carcinogens are given. The
potential for bioaccumulation is given as well as regulatory
actions, standards, criteria, recognition, candidate status
for specific recognition, Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluents
(MATEs) and Estimated Permissible Concentrations (EPCs).
.The lethal dose (usually given all at once by injection)
for 50 percent of all the animals tested (L.DCQ) and the
lethal concentration in air, water or food for 50 percent of
the animals exposed (LCrQ) are also included in the summary.
When the LD^n is not available, the lowest published lethal
dose (LDr ) is given, when the LCcQ is not available, the
lowest published lethal concentration (LCr ) is given.
At the bottom of each Background Summary sheet, the
actual calculations for both the MATE values and EPCs of the
substances are given to indicate the derivation of figures
entered in the MEG charts. Only the equations defining the
lowest MATE values in each medium are presented. By dis-
playing these calculations, the Background Information
Summary offers the opportunity to relate the values listed
on the MEG charts to the data from which they are derived.
5.1.1.2 Discussion of the MEG Chart
Figure 57 is an example of a MEG chart. Emission Level
Goals, which are listed in the top half of the figure
(Columns 2-8) are acceptable levels of contaminants in point
source or fugitive emissions. Discharge streams included in
323
-------
COLUMN 1 —
COLUMN 2 —
rni IIMKI i "7 i
COLUMN H
COLUMN 9 —
mi IIMU 1 n
Cf\\ IIMKI 1 1
rni IIMM 1 ?
ENVIRONMENTAL X>2i
GOALS BENZOtalPYRENE
CUIBION LiVf L OOALf
(p*«vw
1 — »•
WMW.J*«ta«t
2.0E-2
3.0E-1
6.0E-3
taMw
•sar-
•. A«*iMiiffrtart.
1«M_
S.OE-S
7.5E-4
1.5E-S
£r
»•••»
-^-^_-.
4E-S to 4E-4+
0.02^
0 to 0.131
• To to mHHW b< «tal» Mrai
MWmiriivti GOALS
ivUv^i
— «•
IS'lW
n*
ic<^^rrr"
-i^c.
.JLir,r.
II. T«M»taMMMM
rL!T£l
4.1
20
0.04
Til IIIIIT7II1I
Ill <«..TIinMHIWMMi
>--«•.«.
5 x 10"5
7.5
1.5
x,0-4
x 10-6
. RANKING INDICATOR
MEG CATEGORY
^ CHEMICAL NAME
COLUMN $
— COLUMN 6
••• — tULUMN 7
COLUMN 8
'— LOLUMN IJ
COLUMN In
'Reported for urban atmosphere.
^•Drinking water.
SSind. non-Industrial areas.
Figure 57. Sample MEG chart (39)
324
-------
Emission Level Goals may be gaseous, aqueous, or solid in
nature (as listed in Column 1). Emission Level Goals for
chemical contaminants may be described on the basis of tech-
nology factors or ambient factors. Technology-based Emission
Level Goals (Section I, top left half of the figure, Columns
2 and 3) have not been addressed in the current MEGs.
Five specific criteria for Emission Level Goals based
on ambient factors (Columns 4-8) have been included in the
MEG methodology. These are: Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluents
(MATEs) Column 4 based on human health effects; MATEs based
on ecological effects (Column 5); Ambient Level Goals (Column
6) based on human health effects; Ambient Level Goals based
on ecological effects (Column 7); and concentrations repre-
senting Elimination of Discharge (EOD, Column 8).
MATEs are concentrations derived from calculations of
laboratory-determined values or federal regulations which
are hoped not to cause environmental damage if present in
the waste streams which are allowed to interact with the
environment (Column 5) and which will not cause health
problems for the employees of the facility (Column 4). The
Ambient Level Goals (Columns 6 and 7) are simply trans-
criptions of the lowest Current or Proposed Ambient Standards
or Criteria (Columns 10 and 11), or Estimated Permissible
Concentrations (EPCs) (Columns 12 and 13 in the lower half
of the figure). Both MATEs and all ambient level goals are
derived from literature values and are based on health and
ecological effects.
Emission Level Goals derived from Ambient Level Goals
are usually more stringent than MATEs. These values, multi-
plied by dilution factors, then describe control levels for
emissions that will not cause contaminant concentrations in
ambient media to exceed the suggested Ambient Level Goals.
325
-------
Dilution factors are dimensionless quantities repre-
senting the ratio of the concentration of a contaminant in
an emission or effluent to the resulting contaminant level
in the ambient receiving medium. As an example, consider an
emission from a stack discharged to the atmosphere. The
dilution factor is the concentration of a pollutant in the
stack gas divided by the resulting ground level concentra-
tion of the pollutant. Since the dilution factors are
variable and highly source specific, no effort has been made
to provide the Emission Level Goals with dilution factors
applied. Instead, the multiplication exercise is left to
the individual applying the charts to a specific industrial
situation.
Although dilution factors do not appear on the MEG
charts, consideration has been given to the range of factors
likely to be encountered in most situations. Dilution
factors may be expected to range between 10 and 10,000 for
discharges to air and water. This range is suggested on the
basis of the best and worst case models of pollutant dis-
persion.
Emission Level Goals based on Elimination of Discharge
(Column 8), like those based on Ambient Level Goals incorpor-
ate dilution factors. These goals are the most stringent
and imply that ambient concentrations of pollutants should
not exceed natural background concentrations.
Values appearing on the MEG chart under Emission Level
Goals, based on EOD, indicate natural background levels
(Column 8). Concentrations measured in rural atmosphere are
entered for air. When rural atmosphere concentrations are
not reported, urban or industrial concentrations may be
entered on the chart with a footnote to characterize the
326
-------
value. Concentrations entered in the MEG chart for water
are for surface waters unless otherwise specified. Levels
identified in drinking water and in seawater are included
since they provide some information of natural background
concentrations.
MATE and Ambient Level Goals (Columns 4-7) are intended
to serve as indicators of relative hazard and as estimates
of contaminant levels in waste streams that will prevent
serious acute toxic effects. These indicators should be
useful to those involved in environmental assessment by fur-
nishing emission level goals, potential environmental hazard
levels, and ultimately control technology goals. Since
MATEs are derived from estimations of hazards to human
health or to ecology induced by short-term exposure to pol-
lutants in waste streams (less than 8 hours per day), they
can serve as an estimate of levels of contaminant considered
to be safe for short term exposures. The MATE values should
provide an increasingly useful tool for comparisons in
environmental assessment.
The methodology for estimating .Emission Level Goals was
designed to make use of (1) the concentrations described as
Ambient Level Goals based on hazards posed to public health
and welfare as a result of long term or continuous exposure
to emissions, (2) natural background levels which provide
goals for elimination of discharge, and (3) hazards to human
health or to ecology induced by short term exposure to
emissions. The need is clear for further research and
development of simple but effective models incorporating
data pertinent to the following: quality of the receiving
media before introduction of the substance, characteristics
of transport and dispersion of emissions, considerations of
location and abundance of sources emitting a given pollutant,
327
-------
number of populations affected, and secondary pollutant
formations.
Ambient Level Goals (Columns 10-14) are concentrations
of the pollutants listed in Column 9 which should not cause
the level of contamination in ambient media to exceed a safe
continuous exposure concentration. They are derived from
three distinct data sources: (1) the most stringent current
or proposed federal ambient standards or criteria (Columns
10 and 11), (2) empirical data concerning the adverse effects
of chemical substances on human health and ecology (Columns
12 and 13), and (3) a system relating the carcinogenic or
teratogenic potential of specific chemical substances to
media concentrations considered to pose an acceptable risk
upon continuous exposure (Column 14).
A system has been developed for assigning indicators
(X, XX, or XXX) to designate potentially hazardous substances
based on values generated by the MEG methodology (see upper
right hand corner of Figure 57). This system provides a
simple means of identifying through cursory inspection those
pollutants most likely to pose a human threat. The sub-
stances which have currently been addressed by the MEG
methodology have been ranked accordingly and classified as
relatively nonhazardous (no indicator), hazardous (X), very
hazardous (XX), or most hazardous (XXX). All substances
which have been ranked are found in Table 72. This table
can be used to compare the relative hazard of two or more
pollutants. However, once specific discharge data are ob-
tained, the discharge is evaluated based on the pollutants'
concentrations and hazard rating is superceded.
328
-------
TABLE 73. RANKING OF THE MATERIALS ADDRESSED BY THE
CURRENT MEG'S ACCORDING TO POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
MOST HAZARDOUS (XXX)
3-Methylcholanthrene
Beryllium
Chromium
Cadmium
Mercury
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Nickel
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Antimony trioxide
Selenium
Arsenic
Arsine
Arsenic trioxide
VERY HAZARDOUS (XX)
Benz(a)anthracene
Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene
Cobalt
Nickel carbonyl
N,N'-Dimethylhydrazine
Diazomethane
Lead
Polychlorinated biphenyls
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4,6-Trinitrophenol
Tetramethyllead
Alkyl mercury
Organotin
Thallium
Phosphorous
Phosphine
Antimony
Bismuth
Hydrogen selenide
Copper
Uranium
Ethyleneimine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
Hydrazine
HAZARDOUS (X)
Monomethylhydrazine
Dibenz(a,j)acridine
Dibenz(a,h)acridine
Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole
Tetraethyllead
Aminotoluenes
1-Amlnonaphthalene
2-Aminonaphthalene
Aerolein
Lithium
Lithium hydride
Barium
Germanium
Tellurium
Vanadium
Formaldehyde
Nickelocene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
N.N-Dimethylhydrazine
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Nitrobenzene
l-Chloro-2-nitrobenzene
Dinitrotoluenes
Xylenols
3-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Dinitrophenols
Pyridine
Gallium
Hydrogen cyanide
Manganese
Copper-8-hydroxyquinoline
Silver
4-Aminobiphenyl
Benzene
4-Nitrobiphenyl
(continued)
329
-------
TABLE 73. (continued)
RELATIVELY NONHAZARDOUS (NO INDICATOR)
1-Phenyl etHanoi
Ethylene glycol
Formic acid
Phthalic acid
Tetramethylsuccinonitrile
Ethanolamina
Butylamines
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Methanethiol
Ethanethiol
n-Butanethiol
Biphenyl
Phenathrene
Chrysene
Methylchrysenes
Benzo(e)pyrene
Picene
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,1)pyrene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenyl phenols
Isophorone
Formamide
Aniline
Phenol
Cresols
Alkyl cresols
Catechol
2-Chlorophenol
2-Nitrophenol
l-Chloro-2,3-epoxy propane
Naphthalene
2,2'-Dichloroethyl ether
Tertiary pentanol
Propionaldehyde
Acetic acid
Hydroxyacetic acid
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzonitrile
Cyclohexylamine
Dimethylamine
Quinoline, isoquinoline
Pyrrole
Dibenzo(a,g)carbazole
Thiophene
Methyl thiophenes
Potassium
Magnesium
Magnesium oxide
Strontium
Boron
Boron oxide
Aluminum
Aluminum oxide
Alkali cyanide
Hydrogen sulfide
Titanium
Molybdenum
Tungsten
Zinc
Benzidine
-Chlorotoluene
Vinyl chloride
Benzo(c)phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(c)phenanthrene
Dibenz(a,c)anthracene
Benz(c)acridine
Dibenz(c,h)acridine
Dibenzo(a,i)carbazole
Methanol
Ethano1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Indanols
Tetrahydrofuran
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butanes
Ethylene
Propylene
Acetylene
Methyl chloride
Methalene chloride
1,4-Dioxane
(continued)
330
-------
TABLE 73. (continued)
RELATIVELY NONHAZARDOUS (NO INDICATOR) CONTINUED
Dimethylaniline
N,N-Dimethylaniline
Benzenesulfonic acid
Idene
Nitrotoluenes
Fluoranthene
Picolines
Collidines
Methylquinolines
Methylisoquinolines
Acridine
Indole
Carbazole
Benzo(b)thiophene
Ferrocene
Carbon monoxide
Ammonia
Ozone
Carbon disulfide
Scandium
Anthracene
n-Butanols
Isobutyl alcohol
Pentanols (primary)
2-Propanol
2-Butanol
Pentanols (secondary)
Tert-butanol
Acetaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Benzoic acid
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
In dan
Xylenes
Tetrahydronaphthalene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Chlorotoluene
Carbon dioxide
Carbonyl sulfide
The following compounds have not been assigned hazard potential
values:
Naphthacene
Triphenylene
Dimethyl pyrenes
Perylene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Coronene
Fluorene
2,3-Benz-4-azafluorene
Phosphate
331
-------
5.1.1.3 MEGs for Nonchemical Pollutants
Cornaby and coworkers (94) reported that nonchemical
pollution factors such as heat, noise, microorganisms, and
land usage can be adapted to the MEG approach. They reported
that complex effluents (i.e., entire waste streams) should
be amenable to the MEG approach as well. Other factors such
as radionuclides, electromagnetic radiation and water usage
may also be compatible with the MEG approach.
With regard to the heat effect, Cornaby and coworkers
suggested that the ambient air MEG be a wet bulb globe
temperature of 30°C. The MEG for water should be 2.8C°
above the natural or ambient temperature for the body of
water. The ambient air-temperature MEG should be based on
physiological factors to assure human survival, assuming
continuous light work and proper precautions to avoid the
effects of water and salt depletion. The temperature MEG
for water is thought to be sufficient to protect most aquatic
populations from the many biological effects associated with
elemental waste temperatures.
Noise values were judged to be adaptable to the MEG
format. A level of 60 dB(A) was recommended as a reasonable
environmental objective. This is the approximate noise
emitted by an air conditioner 6 meters awaj. The noise of
freeway traffic at 15 meters (70 dB(A)) makes telephone use
difficult and can contribute to hearing impairment. Adverse
effects due to noise include physiological stress reaction,
sleep disturbance, and simple annoyance. The suggested
standard is dropped to 45 dB(A) for noise between the hours
of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. since significant proportions of the
populations experience sleep disturbances, difficulty in
communication, and subjective annoyance in the range of 45-
332
-------
65 dB(A). Studies have indicated that animals other than
humans would not be disturbed by this noise level.
Land usage can be adapted to the MEG format (43).
There are many ways of measuring land usage, such as den-
sity of human and nonhuman organisms, and a MEG chart should
be developed for each. The rationale for use of the density
of animals to determine which land tract should be developed
is that the lower the density, the fewer people and organisms
would be impacted. The wildlife density is related to the
quality of the habitat.
5.1.1.4 MEGs for Entire Emission Streams
Complex effluents such as entire emission streams should
be amenable to the MEG approach. However, the lack of infor-
mation on the ecotoxicological effects of complex effluents
prevents such calculations.
Some significant mortality/morbidity studies have been
performed and are summarized in Table 74. This type of
information lends itself to the development of MEGs for
333
-------
TABLE 74. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MORTALITY/MORBIDITY STUDIES'
Human Sub-Population
Reaponse Pollution Specifics Exposed* Non-Exposed
Infant Mortality
Infant Mortality
Adult Mortality
CO
Morbidity (chronic
destructive pul-
monary disease)
Morbidity (pul-
monary function
testing)
Oaulphin Co., PA., U.S.A.
General Air Pollution
Nashville, TN, U.J5.A.
City Air: Means (X)
22.4 mg/mz/ton - Sulfatlon
2.5S9 gm/m /month - Dustfall
1.65 COHS/km -'Soiling
0.0075 24 hr ppm - 24 hr S02
Country air not reported (assumed
to be less).
Coal fired electric power plant in
PA, U.S.A.
151 It %/*3-suspended particulate
3.70 mg/m /day sulfation
rate
Exposed was 9 x SO 2
6.2 x sulfation rate, 3.2 x dust fall,
and 1.4 x suspended particles that of
unexposed.
Ontario, Canada
Nickel & Copper Smelter
.2.5 ppb - S02
52.1|ig/m3 - Suspended particulate
Non-Exposed
16.1 ppb - S02
90.5 ae/* - Suspended particulate
Ohio. U.S.A.
Urban - Industrial (exposed)
10.1 g/m-»/day - S03
40.98 g/m2 /month - dust fall
109.27 Mg/B>3/24 hr - total suspended
particles)
Rural (non-Exposed)
7.6 - SOj
2.10 - dust fall
83.30 - total suspended particles
1. Infants born during high air
pollution months (July, August,
September) represented 501(+) of
the total annual infant mortality
or 181 of infant deaths/month.
(66 cases)
1. White neonatal mortality ratio
(1960) of 18.2/1,000 live births.
Town of Seward, PA.
1. Sex I age adjusted death rate
of Seward exceeded that of Nev
Florence for 10 out of 11 years.
2.
Three times as many expected
cirrhosis deaths.
Town of Sudbury:
1. Male prevalence rate of 112/
1,000 for chronic bronchitis.
2. Total male & female prevalence
rate of 97/1,000. 2208 people
studied.
1. The vital capacity (VC) & Forced
Expiratory Volume (FEV) 0.75 are
significantly lower than for stu-
dents in rural areas (173 people
studied).
The study demonstrated thru
matched pairs that those born
during non-pollution alerts had
lower mortality. (~5Z of infant
deaths/month)
1. White neonatal mortality ratio for
neighboring rural county: 14.O/
1,000 (U.S.A. avg. is 10.3/1,000).
Town of New Florence, PA.
(see exposed)
Town of Ottawa:
1. Male prevalence rate of 81/1,000
for chronic bronchitis. Total
male 4 female prevalence rate of
77/1,000. 3280 people studied.
Higher VC & FEV's than urban
population. (161 people studied)
Coruey, B.H., D.A. Sevitc, M.E. Stout. O.K. Fierce, tad A.H. Rudolph. Development of Coal* for Honchealcal end Monpollutnt Factors in
Fluldlztd-Bcd Coabiwtlon ~ Draft Report. Technical Directly* 31, Contract Jk>. 68-02-213*, U.S. OnrlroOMBMl.Protection Agency, Research
rriea»l« Perk, floret Carolina. 1»77.
-------
impacts on human health; however, more statistical analyses
of such studies are needed in order to define a specific
MEG. Mortality studies are currently being performed on the
entire coal cycle by the Brookhaven and the Argonne National
Laboratories of the U.S. Department of Energy.
MATE values for specific chemical contaminants, although
valuable, are not sufficient to characterize an environment-
ally acceptable waste stream. Ceiling values for certain
"Totals" associated with gaseous, aqueous, or solid wastes
are also required. Such totals are to be used in conjunction
with the MATEs for specific chemical contaminants and provide
a secondary check for contaminant levels.
Selection criteria for "Totals" are:
• The parameter must be related to the presence of
more than one chemical substance.
• The parameter must be federally regulated in some
context. Federal guidelines surveyed for possible
totals to be addressed include NAAQS, NSPS, efflu-
ent guidelines, drinking water standards, and
water quality criteria.
• The parameter must be measurable by some establish-
ed method.
The following parameters are classified as "Totals" to
be addressed by MATEs:
-------
Air
Total hydrocarbons
Total participates
Water
Land
Total suspended solids Total leachable
organics
Total dissolved solids Total leachable
substances
Total organic carbon
(TOC)
Biological oxygen
demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand
(COD)
Ultimately, a MATE value will be specified for each "Total"
listed. MATE values for the land totals may be based on
water MATE totals via a leaching model.
Algorithms designed to generate EPCs and MATEs for
specific chemical contaminants are not applicable to Totals,
Instead, attention must be given to each parameter in order
to recommend a MATE value.
Values for Totals will be recommended later with con-
sideration given to: existing regulations and recommenda-
tions; associated toxicity; dilution factors expected at
the site of dispersion of the effluent; and the nature of
the environmental problems associated with the substances
indicated by the Totals.
5.1.1.5
Derivation of the MEGs
MATE and EPC values that serve as Emission Level and
Ambient Level Goals are derived by multiplication factors
which translate empirical data for each specific chemical
substance into concentrations describing minimum acute toxi-
336
-------
city concentrations. The rationale behind the derivation of
a numerical value for each of the factors is described in
the Appendices of this report. For each chemical substance
addressed, there can be a maximum of six MATE and 15 EPC
values. The types of empirical data used to derive MATE and
EPC values are as follows:
LDcA -- dosage resulting in death (lethal dose) for
50 percent of the animal population tested
LDr -- lowest lethal dose reported for a species/
route combination
cA -- lethal concentration to 50 percent of the
animals tested
TDy -- lowest dosage reported to result in a specified
response (for example, a carcinogenic response)
TL -- threshold limit median, i.e., concentration
to which 50 percent of aquatic population
exposed exhibited the specified response
TLV -- threshold limit value, refers to permissible
levels of toxic substances for occupational
exposure
LCL -- lowest lethal concentration reported
TCr -- lowest toxic concentration reported to result
in a specified response
In derivation of the MEGs, the preferred LDcQ is for
oral administration of the compound to a rat. When this
337
-------
parameter has not been measured, the most closely related
LDrA or LDj is used; a subjective decision as to which is
the most closely related LD^Q or LDLo is required.
The use of mathematical formulae for translating animal
toxicity data into EPCs or MATEs requires that certain
assumptions be made. A worst-case approach has been taken
to keep the MEG values conservative. Generally, MEGs derived
from models which use LD^Q or other acute toxicity animal
data are more conservative than MEGs based on TLVs or NIOSH
recommendations. In addition to the assumptions required
for extrapolating animal data to human health effects,
arbitrary constants are usually employed as safety factors.
5.1.1.6 Derivation of Zero Threshold EPCs
Zero threshold pollutant EPCs (Column 14 of Figure 57)
are derived from an earlier model which translates adjusted
ordering numbers into permissible concentrations for air or
water media. Zero threshold pollutants refer to mutagens
carcinogens, and teratogens (collectively called genotoxins)
for which there may be no concentration in air or water
having a zero effect on nontarget organisms, including man.
An acceptable level for one of these genotoxins is usually
considered to be one such that the chance of a specific hit
is so low that the incidence of carcinogenesis, teratogene-
sis, or mutagenesis will not be significantly increased (at
the 95 percent level) over the situation in which the com-
pound is not present. In other words, at the 95 percent
level of statistical significance, the rate of carcinogenesis
mutagenesis or teratogenesis would quite probably be less
than or equal to 1.05 times the rate when no genotoxin is
present.
338
-------
The chance of a "single hit" at a specific site by any
one particular chemical depends on the availability of the
site to that chemical, and the reactivity of that chemical
at the site. The factors influencing the availability of
the site to the chemical range from sterochemical considera-
tions of the site and the chemical, to the route and effi-
ciency of absorption of the chemical into the organism. In
turn, the routes and efficiencies of absorption of chemicals
are dependent on the form and availability of the chemical
to the organismj and the general health and nutritional
status of the organism. Thus, the potency of chemical geno-
toxins differs greatly, and the acute toxic parameters
discussed previously give no indication of the carcinogenic,
mutagenic, or teratogenic effects of a compound. Thus, the
EPCs for genotoxins have been derived from a model which
translates adjusted ordering numbers, based on a ranking
system for suspected carcinogens, into permissible media
concentrations. The system for establishing adjusted order-
ing numbers is a refinement of an ordering plan developed by
the EPA Office of Toxic Substances, and reported in An
Ordering of the NIOSH Suspected Carcinogens List Based on
Data Contained in the List (95). EPA's ordering plan re-
sulted in the assignment of four digit ordering numbers
(hereafter referred to as EPA/NIOSH ordering numbers) for
all those substances entered in the NIQSH Suspected Carcino-
gens List. The numbers assigned to the EPA plan are an
&. —
"indication of the relative degree of concern that might be
warranted for a particular substance regarding its possible
carcinogenic potential (95)." It is not appropriate,
however, to conclude that all the substances assigned an
adjusted number are carcinogenic.
The following equation describes the modified or adjusted
ordering numbers:
339
-------
Adjusted ordering number = EPA/NIOSH ordering Number
Lowest dosage resulting
in an oncogenic
response (mg/kg)
Adjusted ordering numbers determined for various substances
(see Table 75), usually range from less than 0.1 to greater
than 3,000,000. Very large adjusted ordering numbers
indicate that a small dosage was required to effect the
response. On the other hand, a small number indicates a
high dosage was required. Thus, adjusted ordering numbers
increase with the expected potency of a chemical carcinogen.
Substances with adjusted ordering numbers lower than one are
generally not treated as suspected carcinogens in the calcu-
lation of the EPCs.
5.1.2 Source Analysis Models (96)
Source Analysis Models (SAMs) allow the quick identifi-
cation of possible problem areas where the suspected pollutant
exceeds the MEG. The SAM format focuses on each separate
waste stream which arises during energy production by in-
dustrial processes. Such streams may exist because of the
process itself, or because of the application of pollution
control technology to a process-generated stream.
SAMs address source identification and stream composi-
tion questions; MEGs by definition, address goals. Various
members of the set of SAMs will provide rapid screening,
intermediate, or detailed approaches to relate effluent
stream pollutant emission levels to the MEGs. Later members
of the sequence of SAMs will join techniques for effluent
transport and transformation analyses (ETTA's). Together
340
-------
TABLE 75. ADJUSTED ORDERING NUMBERS FOR
SEVERAL INORGANICS AND ORGANICS
Adjusted
Substance ordering no.
Beryllium 16,000,000
Benzo(a)pyrene 3,314,500
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 754,833
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 272,809
N-Nitrosodimethylatnine 59,053
3-Methylcholanthrene 18,683
Cadmium 7,329
Chromium 7,327
Selenium 6,426
N.N'Dimethylhydrazine 2,208
Cobalt 1,682
Dibenz(a,i)pyrene 1,612
Benz(a)anthracene 1,562
Dibenz(c.g)carbazole 679
Aminotoluenes 638
N-Nitrosodiethylamine 577
Nickel 477
2-Aminonaphthalene 423
Dibenz(a,h)acridine 312.4
Dibenz(a,j)acridine 284
Ethylenimine 210.6
Lead 136
1-Aminonaphthalene 124
Diazomethane 78
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 78
Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene 64.6
4-Aminobiphenyl 54
4-Nitrobiphenyl 54
Phenanthrene 44
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 43
(continued)
341
-------
TABLE 75. (continued)
Adjusted
Substance ordering no.
Formaldehyde 42.7
Methyl chrysenes 39
Tetraethyl lead 36
p-Diraethylaminoazobenzene 35
Chrysene 31.5
Picene 28
Nickel carbonyl 26
Benzo(e)pyrene 23
Nickelocene 20.2
Copper 8-hydroxyquinoline 20
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene 18.9
Dibenzo(a,g)carbazole 11.6
Benzo(j)fluoranthene 10.8
Hydrazine 10.6
Mercury 10.6
2,4-Dichlorophenol 10
Dibenz(a,c)anthracene 71
Benz(c)acridine 6.67
Indole 6.5
Dibenz(a,i)carbazole 6
l-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane 4.3
Phthalate esters 4.3
Benzo(g)chrysene 4.3
Benzidine 3^5
Dibenz(c,h)acridine 3.06
Benzo(c)phenanthrene 2 5
-Chlorotoluene 1m9
Silver 1 m 7
Anthracene 1 3
Naphthalene 1 f 2
Monomethylhydrazine 1
Pyrene 0.3
342
-------
they are intended to provide a coarse screening of effluent
stream impact for use in environmental assessments.
The simplest Source Analysis Model, the SAM/IA, is de-
signed for rapid screening with no effluent transport and
transformation analysis. Rapid screening of the potential
degree of hazard and the rate of discharge of toxic pollu-
tants may occur at any level or depth of chemical and physi-
cal analysis.
In the SAM/IA, waste streams from any process or applic-
able controls are not assumed to interact with the external
environment (i.e., transport of the components in the waste
stream to the external environment occurs without transforma-
tion of these components). No assumption is made about
pollutant-specific dispersion, but it is assumed that such
dispersion from the source to a receptor would, in almost
all cases, be equal to, or greater than, the safety factors
normally applied to acute (short-term exposure) toxicity
data to convert them to estimated safe low-level, longer-
term chronic ambient exposure levels.
SAM/IA thus:
• Is on a waste stream concentration basis
• Uses only one potential assessment alternative
(the MATE)
• Does not include transport/transformation analysis
• Includes only degree^ of hazard/toxic-unit discharge
calculations.
343
-------
Such rapid screening requires understanding of the
assumptions being made. These assumptions include:
• The approximately 650 substances currently in the
MEG list, or soon to be added, are the only com-
ponents of a waste stream which need to be included.
Unknown components may be sources of environmental
impact which are modified or modifiable by the
control technology, and therefore Level 1 bioassay
results will be important as a companion data base
for interpretation of SAM/IA results.
• Dispersion of effluents will be adequate and will
also offset any transformation to more toxic
substances.
• The MATE values (or the basic data on which they
are based) are adequate.
• No synergistic or non-additive effects are con-
sidered. The bioassay results are an important
addition to the screening which will improve this
area.
These assumptions are inherent to SAM/IA. No provision
has been made for modification of the SAM/IA calculation
method for specialized circumstances. In many cases the
assumptions are conservative. However, these factors should
be kept in mind in evaluating the need for more detailed
assessment.
In SAM/IA, major simplifying assumptions have been made
about pollutant transport and transformation in the environ-
ment prior to impact on a receptor. The criteria against
which pollutant concentrations are judged have also been
344
-------
subject to simplifying assumptions. As a result, SAM/IA is
designed for use by experienced and qualified project officers
and environmental assessment contractor personnel who will,
on a case-by-case basis, review these assumptions to ensure
the correct application of the model. In addition, at the
time of this report, many pollutants exist for which MATEs
have not yet been established. The user must, therefore,
exercise judgment in flagging these omissions and bringing
them to the attention of the EPA in terms of:
• Their importance of the particular environmental
assessment being conducted
• Requirements for the continuing development of
additional MATE values.
5.1.2.1 SAM/IA Calculation Procedure
The steps included in the SAM/IA calculation procedure
are as follows:
• Identify specific sources within the overall
system or process.
• Identify the various waste streams from that
source. Each gas, liquid, or solid waste discharge
is included as a separate waste stream.
• Determine the concentration of each sample fraction
(Level 1) or specific pollutant species (Level 2)
to be considered in each waste stream. In Level 1
assessments the set of species potentially present
which would lead to hazard is established at this
point for each sample fraction.
345
-------
• Each sample fraction or specific pollutant concen-
tration in a given waste stream is then divided by
its corresponding health-based MATE if this value
is available. This quantity is, henceforth,
called a "Potential of Hazard." A second quotient
is formed using the corresponding ecological MATE.
For example, let us assume the concentration of
phenol in the aqueous waste stream from the proposed
SRC facility will average 0.4 mg/1. The MATE
based on health effects is 5.0 ng/\. Thus, the
Potential Degree of Hazard based on health effects
is 400 7 5 = 80. Obviously, a Potential Degree of
Hazard value greater than one (1) indicates that
the pollutant concentration in a particular waste
stream is greater than the corresponding MATE and,
therefore, may cause environmental problems.
Thus, phenols in the aqueous waste stream in this
example may represent a significant environmental
problem.
• At this point, each pollutant entry whose health
or ecological potential Degree of Hazard is greater
than unity is flagged. These flags have been put
on the form specifically for later ease in spotting
potential problem pollutants.
• The final calculation for each pollutant species
or small fraction in each stream takes the product
of its Potential Degree of Hazard and the waste
stream flowrate to establish health (or ecological)
Potential Toxic Unit Discharge Rates (PTUDR).
• The total stream Potential Degree of Hazard is
then calculated as the sum of the health or ecolog-
ical Potential Degree of Hazard for each pollutant.
346
-------
Further, the total stream PTUDR is calculated by
adding the individual pollutant entry Potential
Toxic Unit Discharge Rates.
• Potential Degrees of Hazard and TUDRs are then
grouped and totaled by gaseous, water, and solid
waste streams.
• Finally, if a Level 1 assessment is being performed,
any additional data which can be used to rule out
the presence of a chemical species is noted.
It should be noted that the third step requires an
enumeration of all of the components of a given effluent
stream which are to be considered. If a component is not
included in the enumeration, any environmental impact which
results from its discharge will not be included in the
results.
SAMs can be used to do one or more of the following:
• Rank waste streams - in this application, the SAM
is used to compare the toxic unit rate of discharge
of each waste stream; these toxic unit summations
can then be ranked by magnitude. Examination of
the relative magnitudes generated by different
streams immediately shows the relative hazard of
the different waste streams. Unfortunately, this
summation as yet does not indicate absolutely if
the waste stream will be environmentally hazardous.
• Establish specific Level 2 and additional Level 3
sampling and analysis priorities in performing
environmental assessments.
347
-------
• Determine problem pollutants and pollutant priori-
ties. In this application, use of the SAM can
lead to an understanding of which pollutants are
most likely to cause major environmental impact
because they remain poorly controlled under all
equipment options currently available.
• Determine which control technology options are the
most effective. In this application, the SAM is
used to examine a given process stream with first
one and then another control approach. The impact
of alternative control equipment choices can be
compared on the basis of:
The differing reductions which can be expected
to occur in the original process streams
pollutants
The ways in which concentration of certain
pollutants into particular control equipment
waste streams will occur.
• Determine the need for control/disposal technology
development.
The SAM/IA format will ordinarily be used for rapid
screening of the difference between an uncontrolled or poorly
controlled process and the results of the application of
various control options. Thus, it will ordinarily be applied
to confined or ducted sources.
348
-------
5.1.2.2 SAM/IA Format
The data generated by the SAM/IA method is recorded on
two different forms. The first form (which is filled out
for each individual waste stream) has two variations. Both
variations show the source of the waste stream (Box 1),
identifies the stream (Box 2), and gives the stream flow
rate (Box 3).
An example of the first variation of this form is found
in Figure 58. This variation is used to treat the data
from a Level 1 analysis. A Level 1 analysis quantifies only
groups of compounds (identified as "Sample Fractions" in
Column A) rather than individual components. Column B shows
the relative quantity of the fraction. Column C lists the
health-based MATE for the most toxic compound known or
suspected to be present in the fraction. Column D lists the
corresponding ecological MATE. Columns E and G are the
corresponding Degrees of Hazard calculated using these
MATEs. Columns I and J are put in the form specifically to
flag those health or ecological Degrees of Hazards which are
greater than unity (1). A Degree of Hazard greater than
unity indicates that the concentration of the pollutant in
question is greater than the MATE; this fact, in turn, shows
that the MEG approach indicates that environmental harm may
be expected from this component. Columns K and L are the
TUDRS for each fraction; these numbers are calculated by
multiplication of the appropriate Degree of Hazard by the
Effluent Stream Flow Rate (Box 3).
The second variation of the form is illustrated in
Figure 59. This form is used to treat the data from a
Level 2 analysis. The Level 2 analysis quantifies the
individual pollutants rather than the compound groups. The
349
-------
u>
Ul
o
1. SOURCE/CONTROL OPTION
2. EFFLUENT STREAM
CODE « NAME
Page 1 /
3. EFFLUENT STREAM FLOW RATE
n =
(gas = m'/sec — liquid = I/sec — solid waste = g/sec)
4. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TABLE FOR THE EFFLUENT STREAM OF LINE 2 (USE BACK OF FORM FOR SCRATCH WORK)
A
SAMPLE FRACTION
UNITS
B
FRACTION
CONCEN
THAT ION
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN
T RAT ION
0
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN
TRATION
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
(B/C)
—
F
ORDINAL
POSITION IN
HEALTH MATE
TABLE
-
G
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
(B'D)
-
H
ORDINAL
POSITION IN
ECOL MATE
TABLE
—
1
V/IF
HEALTH
MATE
EXCEEDED
-
J
V IF
ECOL
MATE
EXCEEDED
-
K
L
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
(HEALTH
BASED)
(E » LINE 3)
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(G « LINE 3)
IF MORE SPAT.F IS NEEDED USE A CONTINUATION SHEET
5. EFFLUENT STREAM DEGREE 0
HEALTH MATE BASED (I COL.
ECOLOGICAL MATE BASED (I (
(ENTER HERE AND AT LINE 8,
F HAZARD
n 5a
^OL G) 5b
FORM IA01)
6. NUMBER
COMPAR
HEALTH 6a
ECOLOGICA
t OF ENTRIES
ED TO MATES
L 6b
7. TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE SUM
HEALTH MATE BASED (I COL. K)
ECOLOGICAL MATE BASED (I COL.
(ENTER HERE AND AT LINE 8. FOB
7n
1 ) 7h
IM IA01)
figure 58. Sample SAM/LA worksheet for Level 1 (96)
-------
SOijc^f /fXM-Toni OPTION EFFLUENT STREAM HO
A
SAMPU FRACTION
UNITS
1
B
FRACTION
CONCEN
• TRATION
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN
TRATION
D
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
(B/O
F
ORDINAL
POSITION IN
HEALTH MATE
TABLE
G
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
(B/D)
H
ORDINAL
POSITION IN
ECOL. MATE
TABLE
1
V/.F
HEALTH
MATE
EXCEEDED
J
N/IF
ECOL.
MATE
EXCEEDED
—
K
I
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
(HEALTH
BASED)
(E « LINE 3)
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(G x LINE 3)
u>
Figure 58. (continued) (96)
-------
Ul
NJ
1. SOURCE/CONTROL OPTION
2. EFFLUENT STREAM
4.
ii
CODE * NAME
Page 1 /
3. EFFLUENT STREAM FLOW RATE
(gas = mVsec — liquid = 1
/sec -
solid = g/sec)
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TABLE FOR THE EFFLUENT STREAM OF LINE 2 (USE BACK OF FORM FOR SCRATCH WORK)
A
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
CATEGORY
-
B
POLLUTANT
CONCEN-
TRATION
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
D
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
F MORE SPACE IS NEEDED. USE A CONTINUATION SHEET
5. EFFLUENT STREAM
HEALTH MATE BAS
ECOLOGICAL MATE
(ENTER HERE AND
DEGREE OF HAZARD
FD (S HOI F) 5a
BASED (S COL. F) 5b
AT LINE 8, FORM IAO
1)
6. NUMB
POLLU
PARED
HEALTH
ECOLOGK
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
(B/C)
EROF
TANTS COM-
TO MATES
fia
;AL 6b
«.«
F
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
-------
SOURCE/CONTROL OPTION
EFFLUENT STREAM NO.
A
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
CATEGORY
B
POLLUTANT
CONCEN-
TRATION
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
0
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
(B/C)
'
F
DEGREE Of
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
(B/D)
G
V/IF
HEALTH
MATE
EXCEEDED
—
H
V/.F
ECOL
MATE
EXCEEDED
—
1
J
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
(HEALTH
BASED)
(E i LINE 3)
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(F i LINE 3)
CO
Figure 59. (continued) (96)
-------
first three boxes of this variation of this form are analogous
to the first variation.
Box 4 contains much information including each individual
pollutant found in the stream (Box 4A), the MEG category to
which this pollutant belongs (Box 4A), the concentration of
this pollutant in the stream (Box 4B), the health-based and
ecological-based MATE for this pollutant (Columns C and D),
and the health-and ecological-based Degrees of Hazard (Columns
E and F). Columns G and H of the fourth box are placed on
the form specifically to flag which health- or ecological-
Degree of Hazard is greater than unity. Columns I and J of
Box 4 are the Toxic Unit Discharge Rates for each pollutant
quantified for which MATEs are available.
The last three boxes (5 through 7) of each variation
are exactly analogous. Box 5 shows the sum of the health-
and ecological-based Degrees of Hazard for all the pollutants
for which this calculation was possible. Box 6 was placed
on the form specifically to show the number of pollutants
for which the health- and ecological-based Degrees of Hazards
could be calculated. Box 7 shows the Toxic Unit Discharge
Sum, which is the sum of the Toxic Unit Discharge Rates for
all the pollutants for which the Degree of Hazard (health
and ecological based) could be calculated. The Toxic Unit
Discharge Sum is quite useful in determining the relative
toxicity of two streams but it has not, as yet, been cor-
related to prediction of absolute environmental hazard.
Both variations have a page with boxes for notes and assump-
tions (Figure 60).
The second form, called the SAM/IA Summary Sheet, is
shown in Figure 61. This form summarizes the data from the
forms shown in Figures 58 and 59 which have been prepared
354
-------
NOTES
ASSUMPTIONS
LIST ALL ASSUMPTIONS MADE REGARDING FLOW RATE. EMISSION FACTORS AND MATE VALUES.
Figure 60. Sample SAM/IA worksheet for notes
and assumptions (96)
355
-------
SOURCE AND AmtCABU CONTROL OPTIONS
2. PROCESS THROUGHPUT OR CAPACITY
3 USE THIS SPACE TO SKETCH A BLOCK DIAGRAM OF THE SOURCE AND CONTROL ITEMS SHOWING ALL EFFLUENT
STREAMS. INDICATE EACH STREAM WITH A CIRCLED NUMBER USING 101-199 FOR GASEOUS STREAMS.
201-299 FOR LIQUID STREAMS. AND 301-399 FOR SOLID WASTE STREAMS.
4. LIST AND DESCRIBE GASEOUS EFFLUENT STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3
101 .
102
103 .
104 __
105 •
106
107
5. LIST AND DESCRIBE LIQUID EFFLUENT STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3.
201
202
203 _ . '.
204 _
205 ;
206 ;
6. LIST AND DESCRIBE SOLID WASTE EFFLUENT STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3.
301
302
303 _
304 ___
305
306
7. IF YOU ARE PERFORMING A LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT, COMPLETE THE IA02-LEVEL 1 FORM FOR EACH EFFLUENT
STREAM LISTED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE PERFORMING A LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENT, COMPLETE THE IA02-LEVEL 2 FORM
FOR EACH EFFICIENT STREAM LISTED ABOVE.
Figure 61. Sample SAM/IA summary sheet, Side 1 (96)
356
-------
8. LIST SUMS FROM LINE 7. FORMS IA02. IN TABLE BELOW
DEGREE OF HAZARD AND TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATES BY EFFLUENT STREAM
GASEOUS
LIQUID
SOLID WASTE
TMAM
COM
DEGREE or
HUMID
TOXIC UNIT
DISCHARGE RATES
STREAM
CODE
DEGREE Cf
HAZARD
TOXIC UNIT
DISCHARGE RATES
,TRE*M
COM
DEGREE Of
HAZARD
TOXIC UNIT
DISCHARGE RATES
BASED
HEALTH tCOL
BAUD BASED
BASED
(m'/wc)
HEALTH ECOL
BASED BASED
BASED
(I/sec)
ECOt
BASED
HEALTH tCCH.
BASED BASED
(g/sec)
B
I
M
N
9 SUM SEPARATELY GASEOUS, LIQUID AND SOLID WASTE STREAM DEGREES OF HAZARD FROM TABLE AT LINE B
(IE. SUM COLUMNS)
TOTAL DEGREE OF HAZARD
HEALTH-BASED ECOLOGICAL-BASED
GASEOUS (I COL. B) 9A {I COL. C) 9A'
LIQUID (I COL. G) 9B
-------
for each waste stream. It reiterates the source and applic-
able control options (Box 1), shows the total process through-
put capacity for the entire facility (Box 2), and gives a
diagram of the facility (Box 3). The gaseous, aqueous, and
solid waste streams are listed in Boxes 4, 5, and 6; each of
these streams will already have one variation of the forms
filled out for it. Box 8 contains information transcribed
from boxes 5 and 7 from the first form as well as stream
identification of the waste streams using the numbers asso-
ciated with the streams in Boxes 4, 5 and 6 of the previous
page. Box 9 shows the sums of the columns in Box 8; the
numbers are called the Total Degree of Hazard for the whole
process. Box 10 shows the sums of Columns D, I, N, E, J,
and 0 of Box 8; these numbers are called the Total Toxic
Unit Discharge Rates (for the whole process). Box 11 shows
the number of effluent streams for which analysis was possible,
Box 12 lists the pollutant species known or suspected to be
emitted for which a MATE is not available.
5.1.3 Bioassay Interpretations
5.1.3.1 Objectives of the EPA/IERL Program
The major objective of the EPA/IERL/RTP environmental
source assessment program is the control of industrial emis-
sions to meet environmental or ambient goals that set limits
to the release of potentially hazardous substances. An
important adjunct to this effort is the application of
various bioassay protocols to industrial raw materials (feed
streams) used in synthetic fuel systems, and to multimedia
waste streams, in order to complement the physical and
chemical data and to ensure that a comprehensive environmental
assessment is made.
358
-------
The IERL/RTP has developed a three-phased sampling and
analytical approach to environmental source assessments, as
follows (97):
• Level 1 - provides a set of samples which are used
to represent the "average" composition gaseous,
liquid and solid waste streams, and conducts
biological and chemical assays via prescribed
protocols
• Level 2 - confirms Level 1 results and makes a
more detailed and valid characterization of the
biological effects of the more hazardous streams
• Level 3 - monitors a limited number of selected
hazardous substances and accurately defines the
chronic sublethal effects of selected compounds.
Details on the strategy of the phased approach and the Level
1 multimedia sampling and analysis procedures are reported
elsehwere (97).
5.1.3.2 Summary of Current EPA/IERL Bioassay Protocols
Short-term bioassays employing yeast, bacterial, and
mammalian cells, in vitro, are now receiving prime considera-
tion in establishing acute toxicity and mutagenicity> because
these systems appear relatively free of the disadvantages
inherent in the use of whole animal studies. An important
aspect of current efforts is the recognition that the waste
streams from advanced fossil fuels utilization are generally
entities of poorly defined and continuously changing chemical
(and physical) composition (98). Furthermore, the results
of bioassays may be invalidated if, during sample generation,
storage and handling the inorganic/organic constituents
359
-------
undergo changes which lead to the modification of the bio-
test system (98). Chemical and physical assays should be
used to substantiate the occurrence of such changes before
drawing conclusions from the bioassay data. In spite of
these and other complications, it is believed that bioassay
protocols have merit in the assessment of complex mixtures
where synergisms and antagonisms may modify (positively or
negatively) the toxicity, mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity
of individual components of the waste streams. Results from
these short-term (acute toxicity) tests must be backed-up by
data obtained from long-term (chronic toxicity) tests whose
aim is to define the limits (upper and lower) of exposure
that can be tolerated by living systems.
Some of the more useful (Level 1) bioassays in use or
considered for use by EPA, are shown in Table 76. Level 1
bioassays are classified as Ecological Tests (6 in number)
and Health Effects Tests (3 in number). Unless the approxi-
mate toxicity of an effluent is already known, or the sample
size is limiting, it is usually necessary to initially
conduct range-finding tests covering the entire range of
zero to 100 percent effluent using five widely spaced (geo-
metric) effluent concentrations. These tests are needed to
establish the best range of effluent concentration in terms
of the specific test system. The exact tests are still
being evaluated for additions, deletions, and changes. The
Ecological and Health Effects Tests are characterized as
follows (97).
360
-------
TABLE 76. EPA LEVEL 1 BIOASSAYS (99)
Health Bioassays
Ecological Bioassays
Mutagenesis
Toxicity
Whole Animal
Aquatic
Plant
Terrestrial
Soil
Animal
Ames
CHO, RAM,
WI-38
Roden Acute
Toxicity
Fresh water : Stress ethy-
a) Algal lene/foliar
b) Daphnia Mogna injury re-
c) Fathead sponse
minnow
Soil respir- Insect
ation bioassay
Nitrogen (honeybee
fixation or fruit-
fly)
Salt water :
a) Algal
b) Grass shrimp
c) Sheepshead
minnow
See germina-
tion/seedling
growth test
cr>
Type Sample:
Liquids
Solids
Solid
leachate
Fast par-
ticulate
Fast or-
ganics
Gases
X
X
X
X
X
_
X
X
(2)
X
X
(2)
X
X
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
X
X
X
Legend: X = included, - = omitted
(1) Normally either fresh or salt water organisms are tested, not both.
(2) These bioassays can be raw if there will be runoff to the environment.
(3) These bioassays are raw subject to considerations of type of system and potential impacts
on plants or soil.
-------
5.1.3.2.1 Health Effects Tests
Salmonella/Microsome Mutagenesis Assay (Ames) - The
Ames test is used to screen complex mixtures or component
fractions, thereby determining their potential mutagenicity.
It has recently been demonstrated that most carcinogens act
as mutagens. The Ames test has proven 90 percent accurate
in detecting known carcinogens as mutagens.
Toxicity Assays - Cytotoxicity assays measure cellular
metabolic impairment and death due to in vitro exposure of
mammalian cell cultures to soluble and particulate toxicants.
Level 1 cytotoxicity assays employ primary cultures of rabbit
alveolar (lung) macrophages (RAM) and maintenance cultures
of WI-38 human lung fibroblasts. Utilization of cytotoxicity
bioassays has permitted ranking of toxic responses to a
variety of industrial particulates collected by a cyclone
sampler.
Acute In-Vivo Test In Rodents - This assay determines
toxicological effects of unknown compounds on rats. To
minimize costs, subject compounds are first tested for
quantal response, over a 14 day test period with a test
population consisting of 10 rats. In cases where death or
severe toxicological effects are observed, a more extensive
test is performed with a population of 80 rats, exposed to
varied concentrations of the subject compound. Quantitative
data on toxicological response is collected during the 14
day test period, including determination of LD,-0.
3.62
-------
5.1.3.2.2 Ecological Effects Tests
Freshwater Algal Assay: Bottle Test - This test may
be used to quantify biological responses (as freshwater
algal growth) to variations in concentrations of nutrients,
and determines whether or not effluents are toxic to
algae or inhibit their growth. - The freshwater algal bio-
assay is based on the principle that algal growth rates are
limited by the nutrient available in shortest supply, re-
lative to the needs of the organism.
Marine Algal Bioassay - Selected species of marine
algae are exposed to subject contaminants or wastewaters and
monitored for growth response. Marine algae are the founda-
tion of the food chain in ocean ecosystems. Introduction of
pollutants to such systems can have various impacts of growth
rates for the many species of marine algae, thereby pro-
ducing undersired changes in the food chain and populations
of other ocean species. Marine algal bioassays provide a
tests index to identify potentially undesirable impacts.
Acute Static Bioassays with Freshwater Fish and
Daphnia Magna - The vertebrate fathead minnow and in-
vertebrate Daphnia magna. are the representative freshwater
organisms used in this bioassay. These aquatic organisms
are used to integrate synergistic and antagonistic effects
of all components of subject aqueous test samples during
the period of exposure.
Static Bioassays with Marine Animals - Juvenile sheep-
shead minnow and adult grass shrimp are the respective verte-
brate and invertebrate species employed for static bioassays
on marine animals. This method has been used to rank the
toxicity of industrial effluents relative to other marine
animals.
363
-------
Stress Ethylene/Fpliar Injury Plant Response - This
test is based on plant response to environmental stress in-
volving the release of ethylene. Under normal conditions,
plants produce low levels of ethylene. By exposing plants
to gaseous emissions and measuring the rate of ethylene
release relative to control (normal) conditions, the stress
ethylene release attributable to the emission can be identi-
fied as a quantified response.
Seed Germination/Seedling Growth Tests - These tests
evaluate toxic pollutants of environmental samples that in-
hibit seed germination and root elongation. The tests are
particularly suited for aqueous effluents and aqueous leach-
ates from solid samples, and have been validated for use by
the Office of Toxic Substances.
Soil Respiration/Nitrogen Fixation Tests - These tests
can be performed with both liquid and solid waste materials.
They are especially useful in assessing potential impacts
associated with transport and landfill disposal of such
materials. The test is based on measurement of changes in
respiration of carbon dioxide by microbial activity of
the soil sample and the general ability of microbes to take
up nitrogen surrogates.
Insect Bioassays - Insect bioassays are performed to
measure the acute toxicity of solid, liquid or gaseous
samples on sensitive insect species. The honeybee and
fruitfly are currently under consideration as representa-
tive insect species for employment in Level 1 biological
testing.
364
-------
5.1.3.3 Extrapolation From Bioassay Results
The extrapolation of data derived from Level 1 assays
(chemical, physical, and biological) to the environment re-
quires an understanding of the limitations inherent to these
techniques. For example, the Level 1 analyses simply provide
a basis for differentiating the extremely hazardous waste
streams from those which are less hazardous. Level 1 bio-
assays are limited to whole-sample testing of a set of
samples, which represent the "average" composition of solid,
liquid, and gaseous feed or waste streams. In this context,
it is imperative that the investigator recognize that many
of the waste streams under study may not only be rather
poorly characterized, but also may display a continuously
changing chemical and physical composition (97). Thus, the
information obtained from the prescribed bioassay is strictly
a function of the care and skill used in controlling and
preparing the samples for analysis, and of the quality of
the information obtained on these samples via the supporta-
tive chemical and physical assays (97).
The information gleaned from any one of the Level 1
bioassays is limited in scope and therefore requires that
the minimal matrix of prescribed bioassays must be completed
to permit a valid assessment of the test sample(s) (Level 1,
1978). The results of the Level 1 bioassays do not permit
the identification of the cause of toxicity or mutagenicity,
nor do they suggest the means of controlling or mitigating
these deleterious effects (97). Level 1 bioassays have been
selected because they are compatible with a broad spectrum
of materials and because they have enough sensitivity to
detect potentially harmful substances.
In general, the Level 2 bioassays will be selected on
the basis of the results acquired from Level 1 analyses.
365
-------
Greater emphasis at Level 2 is placed on confirming the
Level 1 results, primarily through acquiring more representa-
tive samples, increasing the number of replicated samples,
and carrying out more extensive statistical evaluations of
the data. Suggested Level 2 health effects bioassays
include in vitro and in vivo tests to confirm the potential
toxicity or mutagenicity detected by Level 1 bioassays.
Thus, in Level 2 bioassays, attention can be focused on
specific fractions or discrete components of the multimedia
waste streams, thereby increasing the cost and complexity of
this phase (97). Examples of Level 2 ecological effects
bioassays include: relative phytotoxicity of selected
airborne pollutants; bioaccumulation, and biodegradation of
discrete components.
The primary purpose of Level 3 tests is to accurately
define the chronic sublethal effects of selected compounds
and to monitor these substances in appropriate media. The
monitoring activities referred to may include: source,
ambient, and ecologic and human health effects monitoring.
Suggested Level 3 health effects bioassays may include in
vivo analyses for chronic toxicity, mutagenisis, carcino-
genesis, teratogenesis, and metabolism. Examples of Level 3
ecological effects assays may include ecosystems analysis,
mutagenicity tests on toxic substances removed by waste
treatment facilities, and tests to establish the relative
phytotoxicity of airborne toxicants of selected plant species
(97).
5.1.3.3.1 Extrapolations
A major consideration in the establishment of the rela-
tive toxicities of various pollutants is whether bioassay
366
-------
results can be extrapolated to environmentally significant
circumstances. Extrapolating laboratory data to man and
other organisms in the environment requires great care.
Susceptibility of animals to toxic agents may vary with the
species of animal and sometimes with strains of the same
species. Organisms may be exposed to the toxicants at
levels much higher than those found in nature and organisms
growing in nature under nutrient-limited conditions may be
more susceptible to toxicity. The nonliving particulate
matter in nature will adsorb some of the added pollutants,
reducing toxicity. Experimental outcomes may depend upon
dosing routes and regimes. The statistical significance of
animal experiments may be doubtful because of the necessary
limitations in the size of test groups. Also, the artifi-
cial laboratory system does not allow for the interactions
and synergisms that occur in the natural and work environment
(100,101).
The extrapolation of the toxicity of inorganic elements
and compounds, based on laboratory data is complicated since
the chemical form of a trace element depends on chemical and
biological conversions in the environment (100). The toxicity
of an inorganic element or compound is a function of several
site specific factors and a number of receptor qualities,
such as:
• Test species
• Temperature (102)
• Water hardness
• Turbidity
• Carbon dioxide content
• Dissolved oxygen
367
-------
• Current velocity (97)
• Salinity
• Alkalinity (103)
• pH
• Stage of life cycle (102)
• Oxidation state or chemical form of the element
(102,103)
• Route of entry
• Length of exposure
• Dietary content of interacting elements (104)
• Age and physical condition of test organisms
• Size of organisms
• Humidity (102)
• Previous exposure (105)
• Organic complexation changes bioavailability of
trace elements (106)
Although many of these factors cannot be considered in
laboratory bioassays, they can serve as points of departure
in the design of long term population or ecosystem studies.
The applicability of results from animal studies of
carcinogens to the prediction of cancer in humans will be
used as an example of how laboratory toxicity studies can be
extrapolated to the environment; this example has been
studied extensively and is of interest because some of the
SRC waste streams contain known carcinogens.
Marked differences in susceptibility to carcinogenic
agents exist between species as well as between strains of
the same animal species. For example, the site of origin
and the histologic type of respiratory tract tumor depend on
the species and strain of animal as well as the route of
application and dose. Dose levels in animal experiments
considerably exceed the natural levels experienced by humans,
368
-------
Furthermore, the artificial laboratory system does not allow
for the interactions and synergisms that occur in the natural
and work environment. For instance, PAH carcinogensis is
enhanced in animals when the PAH occurs in iron oxides and
long-chain aliphatic hydrocarbons, but is inhibited by
materials such as vitamin A and selenium (44).
At the heart of the problem of using data from studies
in animals is the large doses they must be given to produce
a response discernible above the background. Whether the
response to lower doses progresses to zero asymtotically
with the decreasing dosage, or whether it goes quickly to
zero as the dose is lowered is unknown (107).
Low doses may be subjected to different pharmacokinetics
than high doses. For example, furosemide, a diuretic, is
excreted predominantly intact in the urine when low doses
are given to patients. When high doses are administered,
renal clearnace is overwhelmed causing a disproportionate
increase in the formation of toxic metabolites which react
covalently with macromolecules. In another example, bromo-
benzene is transformed in the liver to the chemically reactive
bromobenzene-3,4-epoxide. This molecule is detoxified en-
zymatically by conjugation with glutathione. However, if
large doses are administered, glutathione is depleted and
the reactive metabolite reacts instead with other macromole-
cules (107).
Some criteria which indicate that nonlinear pharmaco-
kinetics are applicable for describing the elimination of a
chemical from the body are: (1) decline of the levels of the
chemical in the body is not exponential; (2) the tj/2 (bio-
logical halflife) increases with increasing dose; (3) the
area under the plasma concentration versus time curve is
369
-------
not proportional to the dose; (4) the composition of the
excretory products may be changed both quantitatively and
qualitatively by dose; (5) competitive inhibition by other
chemicals metabolized or actively transported by the same
enzyme system is likely; (6) dose-response curves may show
an unusually large increase in response with increasing
dose, starting at the dose level where "saturation" effects
become evident (107).
For the toxicologist, the dose-response curve is of
particular importance in assessing the risk of adverse
effects occuring at lower doses (107). The latency for the
development of hepatic angioscarcoma in rats is respectively,
64, 70, 78, 81, 78, and 135 weeks for rats exposed to 10,000,
6000, 2400, 500, 250, and 50 ppm vinyl chloride. These
results indicate that, at the low levels of exposure, the
time required for induction exceeds considerably the mean
life expectancy for rats (approximately 104 weeks). This is
consistent with the work of others suggesting that multiples
of a lifetime may be required for the expression of cancer
in response to low doses of a carcinogen (107). Thus,
extrapolation of the data obtained for rats below the range
of exposures causing a discernible response may be expected
to overestimate the projected incidence (107).
Recently, the members of an FDA panel on carcinogensis
attempted to extrapolate from the results of a dose-response
study, using high doses of a given chemical carcinogen and
limited numbers of animals, to the dose at which the tumor
incidence would be one in 100 million. They found that the
value of this dose varied according to the type of mathe-
matical treatment selected for the extrapolation. This
variation was so great that they concluded that extrapolation
from the observable range to a safe dose has many of the
perplexities and imponderables of extrapolation from animals
370
-------
to man, and it would be imprudent to place excessive reliance
on mathematical sleight of hand, particularly when the dose-
response curves used are largely empirical descriptions,
lacking any theoretical, physical, or chemical basis (108).
Table 77 lists chemical compounds which have been
shown to be carcinogenic to both laboratory animals and man.
Thus, there is a clear historical indication that if there
is strong evidence that a chemical is carcinogenic in
appropriate laboratory animal test systems, it must be treated
as if it were carcinogenic in man (109).
TABLE 77. CHEMICALS FOR WHICH EVIDENCE EXISTS OF
CARCINOGENICITY TO BOTH NONHUMAN AND HUMAN ANIMALS (109)
Aflatoxins Isopropyl oil
4-Aminobiphenyl Melphalan
Asbestos Mustard gas
Benzidine 2-Napthylamine
Bis(chlormethyl)ether N,N-Bis(2-chloroethyl)-
Cyclophosphamide 2-naphthylamine
Diethylstilboestrol Phenytoin
Soot, tars & oils (PAHs)
Vinyl chloride
It is important to note that 4-aminobiphenyl, diethyl-
stilbestrol (DES), mustard gas, vinyl chloride and aflatoxins
were shown to be carcinogenic in laboratory animals prior to
evidence that they were carcinogenic in man. The carcino-
gens for which comparisons can be made are those already
known to affect humans. In generalizing to other compounds,
this selection may impose a bias, exaggerating the sensiti-
vity of man relative to laboratory test systems. Other
factors may introduce an opposite bias. For two carcinogens,
vinyl chloride and DES, observations on man are for considera-
bly less than a full lifetime so that the reported incidence
may be a serious underestimate of the eventual total (110).
371
-------
Some considerations which may argue for greater human
sensitivity are listed below (110):
• Smaller animals tend to metabolize and excrete
foreign organic chemicals more rapidly than do
larger animals; therefore, higher body burdens
develop in man over the years than develop in mice
and rats in a two-year experimental period.
• Since chemically induced cancer is viewed as
originating in one or a few cells, it is relevant
that a human has hundreds of times more susceptible
cells than a mouse or a rat.
• A latent period intervenes between the original
carcinogenic stimulus and the eventual manifestation
of cancer. The cells of smaller animals replicate
themselves at perhaps twice the rate of cells of
larger animals such as man, and latent periods are
longer in large animals. The human lifespan,
however, is 35 times that of the mouse or rat;
and this may render man more susceptible.
• The lifetime rodent studies have serious statistical
power problems as a result of the relatively small
sample sizes that are dictated by economics. The
inability of the screening experiments to detect
tumor increases at sites that have low baseline
tumor rates is of particular concern; even though
small increases are difficult to detect, they might
have a significant health impact. For example,
with 50 control animals and 100 treated animals
372
-------
the probability (p) of detecting a tumor increase of
5 percent over background (e.g., 10 percent control,
15 percent treated) is less than 4 percent (using
p less than 1 percent) (110).
• Inborn errors of metabolism (i.e., genetic defects)
in humans can produce exaggerated toxicity of "broad
categories of chemical pollutants, relative to test
animals (111).
Table 78 shows the predicted human incidence based on
animal experiments related to the actual incidence. This
table indicates that materials which are carcinogenic in
laboratory animals are quite likely to be carcinogenic in
humans.
TABLE 78. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREDICTED AND ACTUAL
BEHAVIOR OF HUMAN CARCINOGENS
Predicted Human Incidence Based
on Most Sensitive Animal Species
According to Existing Epidemino-
logical Studies
Benzidine same
Chloronaphazine same
Cigarette smoke same
Aflatoxin B-i 10 x greater
DES 50 x greater*
Vinyl chloride 500 x greater*
^Population still at risk
5.1.3.3.2 Cocarcinogens
Cocarcinogens are compounds which enhance the effect of
carcinogens. By themselves they may not be carcinogenic but
can promote multiplication of abnormal cells after initiation
373
-------
of the conversion of a normal cell to a malignant cell by a
carcinogen. The fact that coal tar itself is more carcinogenic
than known individual carcinogenic compounds, suggests the
presence of cocarcinogens. In an experiment performed in
1967, Tye and Stemmer (44) removed the phenols from coal
tar, similar to the phenols which comprise a major component
of SRC process wastewaters and observed that the carcinogenic
activity of the resulting material was significantly decreased.
In 1969 Conzelman (44) discovered that the skin cancer-indueing
activity of benzo(a)pyrene and of benzo(a)anthracene and known
to be associated with SRC materials was increased 1000 times
when n-dodecane was used as the solvent. In 1970, Laskin
and coworkers (44) reported that inhaling benzo(a)pyrene alone
did not produce lung cancer in rats, while inhaling sulfur
dioxide in company with benzo(a)pyrene did produce cancerous
tumors (44).
The carcinogenic potential of certain PAH is greater in
solvents such as n-dodecane and dodecylbenzene than in hydro-
carbons of low molecular weight. Hydrocarbons which increase
the rate of cancer induction by a carcinogen are capable of
preconditioning the skin of mice to render it more responsive
to subsequent applications of a carcinogen. The acclerating
solvents are effective promoters of carcinogenisis initiated
by a single application of a carcinogenic material (44).
Some additional substances which are thought to have
cocarcinogenic properties are phenols, long-chain hydrocarbons
including cresols, nonionic detergents, phorbol, myristate,
acetate, and anthralin (44). Among these substances phenols,
cresols, and certain long-chain hydrocarbons are known to
be associated with SRC materials and products.
374
-------
5.1.3.3.3 Site-Specific Factors
The ambient concentration of a pollutant in the environ-
ment may affect the environmental hazard potential if the
quantity of this pollutant is increased above a certain thres-
hold by the amount in the effluent stream. For example, in
the supernatant from the fly ash slurry prepared by Olsen
and Warren (112), the concentration of fluoride was sufficient
to cause mottling of children's teeth. This could be a
problem especially if such a level of fluoride should enter
the ground waters in the western United States already
containing up to 15 ppm fluoride. These observations serve
as a point of departure in emphasizing the crucial importance
of considering site-specific factors in making comprehensive
environmental assessments. Site-specific effects such as
water hardness, turbidity, suspended sediments, current
velocity, CC^ and dissolved oxygen levels, salinity and pH
can affect the toxicity of pollutants to aquatic organisms
in unpredictable ways. With reference to terrestrial environ-
ments, one must contend with site-specific effects that
include: the level of soil organic matter; the types of clay
minerals; soil pH; soil aeration and temperature and the
capacity of soil microbes to degrade and metabolize organic
contaminants.
5.1.A Joint Site Selection and Impact Assessment Methods
Justification for the joint use of site selection and
impact assessment methodologies rests on the fact that it
provides a basis for dealing with SRC systems on a holistic
basis. The most relevant methods in current use for the
screening and selection of potential SRC sites are discussed
in Section 5.8.1. The most useful site selection protocols
will include a series of successive evaluations of many
375
-------
potential sites extending from the generic to the site-specific,
aimed at the generation of realistic environmental impact
statements as required by the final regulations on EIS's
issued recently by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
effective July 31, 1979 (113).
Specific impacts occurring at a given SRC site may be
assessed by use of an environmental matrix comparable to that
shown in Figure 62. Impact models specific to any given
impact (e.g., the expected loss of unique natural habitats)
are recommended in order that each impact may be assessed
independently of all other impacts. For example, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) used a community development pro-
gram model to generically estimate the sociocultural end
impacts resulting from the construction and operation of
synfuels plants in the United States (114). Another example
of a method for deriving a formalized, numerical ranking of
environmental impacts is that reported by Ramsay (115).
This method reportedly has the dual goal of not only locat-
ing power plants in different regions, but also of sequenti-
ally estimating the dollar value of environmental impacts in
terms of the following environmental categories (115):
• Geology
• Meterology
• Population centers
• Seismology
• Hydrology
• Ecosystems
• Land use
• Overall costs
376
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL I HP ACT
U>
1
1 AIR 1
I
11: OPERATIONAL
NOISE
12. HEAT RELEASE -j
MICROCLIMATE |
3. AEROSOLS -
VISIBILITY
4. FUGITIVE
EMISSION EFFECTS -
WORKPLACE
AND
GENERAL POPULATION
5. COMPLIANCE WITH
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND CRITERIA
1 HUMAN
1 WATER I
16. GROUND-
WATER
7. SURFACE
WATER
8. DRINKING!
WATER 1
9. PLANT
RELEASES OF
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
10. WATER ALLOCATION,
WATER RIGHTS CONFLICTS
1
I NATURAL I
|
1 1
| LAND |
AUUATIC 1
TERRESTRIAL
1 1
11. LOSS OF
EXISTING
LAND USE
12. DISPLACEMENT 1
OF RfilflFMCFS 1
13. LOSS OF
RECREATIONAL
LAND USE
1 L 1
VISUAL EXPOSURE
15- CONFLICTS WITH
LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS
1. DAMMING AND!
PONDING |
2. INCREASED I
TURBIDITY 1
3. THERMAL
RELEASES
It. CONVENTIONAL 1
POLLUTANTS j
5. TRACE ELEMENT
RELEASE
'
6. COMPLIANCE WITH
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND
CRITERIA
7. CONSTRUCTION
NOISE
8. CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY
9. OPERATION -
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL SITES
_ 1_
10. LOSS OF
NATURAL HABITATS
11. UNIQUENESS OF HABITATSJ
I .
12. AIR POLLUTANTS -
PHYTOTOXICITY
13. MAINTENANCE -
HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL SITES
1
14. COMPLIANCE WITH
NPDES AND
HAZARDOUS WASTES
CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS
1 .
15. PRODUCT STORAGE I
AND USE ]
Figure 62. Example of a hierarchical system for evaluating the impacts
of construction and operation of synfuel plants
-------
This effort is reportedly made somewhat easier by the exist-
ence of federal and state regulatory standards that must be
met on a site-specific basis. These and other factors can
effectively establish the bottom line for the overall cost
of compliance with existing environmental requirements
(115).
Attention is directed to the interesting fact that the
impact assessment hierarchy shown in Figure 62 clearly
embodies the general multimedia concerns of the MEG concept
(air, water, land, etc.), with reference to the construction
phase on the one hand, and the operational phase on the
other hand. Implicitly, however, the MEG concept was designed
largely for the testing and monitoring of point sources at
operational pilot, demonstration, or commercial synfuels
plants. Thus, the justification for the joint use of site
selection and impact assessment methods rests on the fact
that it provides a basis for dealing with the continuum:
• Site selection - construction; operation; postopera-
tion during the 20 to 25 year lifetime of future
synfuels systems.
What remains for the future is the adaptation of the
MEG concept to include the entire continuum from site selec-
tion to an operational SRC demonstration plant that would,
under realistic operating conditions, permit the assessment
of health and ecologic hazards concurrently with the selection
testing, and the redesign of equipment and operating para-
meters at the same location (or site) where a commercial
synfuels system may later be built and operated. In this
context, the effort and cost expended on the selection of an
appropriate site could be more readily justified.
378
-------
5.2 Impacts on Air
Development and commercialization of Solvent Refined
Coal Systems creates a concern regarding the introduction of
air pollutants into the atmosphere. This section discusses
pollutant concentrations in waste streams, their comparison
to existing and proposed standards, and the projected impact
of contaminants on ambient air quality, man and the environ-
ment.
5.2.1 Summary of Air Standards and Guidelines
5.2.1.1 Federal Requirements
The federal air regulations pertaining to the ambient
atmosphere, workroom atmosphere, and source emission levels
for specific pollutants relevant to coal liquefaction pro-
cesses are summarized as follows:
Applicable regulated area Title of standard
Ambient atmosphere National Primary and Secondary
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Workroom atmosphere Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Standards for
Air Contaminants
Source emission level National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
New Stationary Source Perform-
ance Standards
A summary of the implications of these standards and
their legislative basis is presented in the following sub-
sections.
379
-------
5.2.1.1.1
National Primary and Secondary Air Quality
Standards
The National Primary and Secondary Air Quality Standards
set the maximum ambient concentrations for oxidants, CO,
N02, S02, nonmethane hydrocarbons, and particulate matter as
shown in Table 79. Primary standards are set for the
protection of health. Secondary standards are set for the
protection of welfare which as defined "includes but is not
limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation,
manmade materials, and climate damage to and deterioration
of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as
effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well
being" (116).
TABLE 79. NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Constituent
Sulfur oxides
primary
Particulates
primary
secondary
Carbon monoxide
primary
secondary
Photochemical oxidants
primary and secondary
Hydrocarbons
primary and secondary
Nitrogen dioxide
primary and secondary
Reference conditions :
Concent rat ioij
(micrograms/m )
80
365
1300
75
260
60
150
10,000
40,000
160
160
100
Temperature - 25 °C - 77°F
Pressure = 760 mm Hg =
Remarks
AAM**
24 hr max*
3 hr max*
AGM**
24 hr max*
AGM**
24 hr max*
8 hr max*
1 hr max*
1 hr max*
3 hr max*
AAM**
29.92 in He
= 1 atmosphere
**AAM and AGM denote the annual arithmetic mean and the annual
geometric mean, respectively.
380
-------
5.2.1.1.2 New Stationary Source Performance
Standards
New Stationary Source Performance Standards have been
promulgated for a number of industries. This category of
legislation prescribes standards of performance for sources
for which construction is commenced after publication of
applicable standards. Since there are no existing commercial
coal liquefaction facilities, applicable regulations would
be promulgated under this regulatory category. New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for existing industries which
have processes similar to those of a coal liquefaction
facility are presented in Table 80.
The term "standard of performance" means a standard for
emissions of air pollutants that reflects the degree of
emission limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction, which (taking into account
the cost of achieving such reduction) EPA determines has been
adequately demonstrated. EPA has not attempted to define
averages or representative emission rates. Consideration of
cost is applied as a modifier to avoid extremes. According
to the Committee on Public Works, "the technology must be
available at a cost and at a time which the Administrator
determines to be reasonable (123).
Individual standards are not intended to be protective
of health or welfare effects; that is, they are not designed
to achieve any air quality goals. The standards are designed
to reflect the best technology for each individual source. The
long-range goal and overriding purpose of the collective body
of standards is to prevent new pollution problems from de-
veloping. To achieve this end, the standards must be an
incentive for technological change, and the justification for
the standards must allow for technology transfer.
381
-------
TABLE 80. FEDERAL NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF
COAL LIQUEFACTION-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES (123)
CO
New Stationary Sources
Performance Standards
Pollutant
Limit of Pollutant
Discharge
Opacity
Subpart Y—Coal Preparation
Plants
Thermal dryer
Pneumatic coal cleaning
equipment
Processing, conveying, storage,
transfer, loading
Subpart D—Fossil Fuel Fired
Steam Generators
Generating more than 63 million
Kcal per hr heat input (250
million Btu/hr or 264 million
KJ/hr)
(When lignite or a solid fossil
fuel containing 25% by wt. or
more of coal refuse is burned in
combination with other fuels,
the standard . for nitrogen oxides
does not apply)
Particulates
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxide
0.070 g/dscm
0.040 g/dscm
20%
10%
20%
0.043 kg/10 KJ heat input 20%
derived from fossil fuel
0.344 kg/106KJ heat input 20%
derived from liquid fossil
fuel
0.516 kg/106KJ heat input
derived from solid fossil fuel
0.086 kg/106KJ heat input 20%
derived from gaseous fossil
fuel
0.129 kg/10 KJ heat input
derived from liquid fossil fuel
0.301 kg/10 KJ heat input derived
from solid fossil fuel (except
lignite)
(continued)
-------
TABLE 80. (continued)
00
New Stationary Sources
Performance Standards
Pollutant
Limit of Pollutant
Discharge
Opacity
Subpart E—Incinerators
Subpart J—Petroleum Refineries
Fluid catalytic
Cracking unit
Catalyst regenerator, or
Incinerator-waste
Heat boiler
Catalyst regenerator
Subpart K—Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquid
(Storage capacity greater
than 151,412 liters or
40,000 gal)
Particulates
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur dioxide
Hydrocarbons
Vapor pressure
78 to 570 mm Ht
Vapor pressure 570
mm Hg (11.1 psia)
0.18 g/dscm corrected
to 12% C02
1.0 kg/1000 kg burn-off
of coke in the catalyst
regenerator
0.050% by volume
No burning of fuel gas con-
taining H2S in excess of
230 mg/dscm
20%
Proposed 25%
Vessel must be equipped with
floating roof, vapor recovery
system or equivalent
Vessel must be equipped with
a vapor recovery system or
its equivalent
-------
5.2.1.1.3 Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards
National emissions standards for hazardous air pollu-
tants are established by EPA. Standards currently exist for
mercury, beryllium and asbestos. Although none of these is
likely to affect SRC production, future standards for hazard-
ous air pollutants may be applicable (116).
5.2.1.1.4 Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act of 1970 provided EPA with the power
to adopt and enforce air-pollution regulations. EPA then
promulgated the National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standards, setting the maximum ambient concentrations
for various pollutants. The Clean Air Act requires that
states submit an implementation plan which will specify the
manner in which these standards will be achieved and maintained
within each air quality control region. Such state implementa-
tion plans could have an impact on SRC commercial development
by limiting industrial development in parts or all of the
state.
5.2.1.1.5 Designation of Attainment and Non-
attainment Areas
Every state was required to submit to the EPA by December
6, 1977, a statement of the degree of attainment of air
quality in each of their Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs)
for S02, NO , CO, total suspended particulate matter (TSP),
photochemical oxidants, and hydrocarbon compounds. Any AQCR
(or portion thereof) shown to possess air quality superior to
that promulgated in the NAAQS for S02 and TSP will be designat-
ed as a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or
384
-------
attainment area for these pollutants. Where the air quality
is shown to be worse than the NAAQS, the area will be de-
signated as a nonattainment area (NA). Thus, any area
designated to PSD status within a given state will likely
experience limited industrial development (117), potentially
limiting the location and development of SRC facilities.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 include comprehen-
sive new requirements for the prevention of significant air
quality deterioration in areas with air quality cleaner than
minimum national standards. The requirements are to be in-
corporated into State Implementation Plans (SIP) under the
Act after EPA has issued guidance regulations to the states
(Federal Register 42(212), November 3, 1977). The states
are required to complete their revisions on the SIPs by
December 1, 1978.
The 1977 amendments established three classes of clean
air areas and set maximum allowable increases in levels of
S02 and TSP (above baseline*) for the Class I, Class II, and
Class III areas, as shown in Table 81. Class I increments
permitted only minor air quality deterioration; Class II
increments permitted moderate deterioration; Class III in-
crements permitted deterioration up to the NAAQS.
The short-term increments in all classes may be exceeded
once per year at each location. The short-term concentration,
thus shall be based on the second-highest measured or esti-
mated concentration at a given site for calendar year 1974.
*Baseline concentration means (with respect to any pollutant
regulated under the Act) the ambient concentration level
reflecting air quality as of January 6, 1975. For annual
average concentration, this shall be based on measured or
estimated concentrations for the calendar year 1974.
385
-------
At present the only pollutants for which air quality
increments have been established are SC^ and particulate
matter as shown in Table 81. Regulatory guidance for hydro-
carbon/photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen
oxides is under investigation and may proposed within two
years.
TABLE 81. PSD PERMITTING AGREEMENTS (117)
Class I
Class II
Class III NAAOS
3
(micrograms/m )*
SO 2 annual
24-hour
3 -hour
TSP annual
2 4 -hour
2
5
25
5
10
20
91
512
19
37
40
182
700
37
75
80
365
1 , 300**
7 , 560**
260,150**
*A11 24-hour and j-nour values may be exceeded once per year.
**Indicates a secondary standard.
The new amendments immediately designated all the follow-
ing as Class I areas:
• International parks
• National wilderness areas larger than about 2020
hectares.
• National memorial parks larger than about 2020
hectares.
386
-------
• National parks larger than 2430 hectares which were
in existence on the date of enactment of the Clean
Air Amendments of 1977.
All areas in states which are not established as Class I
(utilizing the above categories) shall be Class II areas unless
redesignated. State governors may redesignate any area to
Class I status. Certain areas may be redesignated to Class
III status except those areas that are greater than about
4047 hectares in size, as follows:
• Existing national monuments
• Primitive areas
• Recreation areas
• Wild and scenic river areas
• Wildlife refuges
• Lakeshores and seashores
• Future national parks and wilderness areas.
Areas within Indian reservations may be redesignated only by
the applicable Indian governing body.
There are 28 designated industries (shown in Table 82)
that must comply with the new PSD numerical increments.
However, regardless of their location, new sources must
also comply with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
expressed as emission requirements for the designated source
category. The similarity of some of these sources to synthetic
387
-------
TABLE 82. MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES SUBJECT TO
PSD REVIEW
Power plants greater than 73 million W/hr
Specific sources greater than 91 Mg/yr any pollutant
Power plants
Coal cleaning plants
Kraft pulp mills
Portland cement plants
Primary zinc smelters
Iron and steel mill plants
Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants
Primary copper smelters
Municipal incinerators greater
than 227 Mg/day
Hydrofluoric acid plants
Sulfuric acid plants
Petroleum refineries
Coke oven batteries
Sulfur recovery plants
Carbon black plants
(furnace process)
Primary lead smelters
Fuel conversion plants
Sintering plants
Secondary metal produc-
tion facilities
Chemical process plants
Fossil-fuel boilers
greater than 73 million
W/hr
Petroleum storage and
transfer facilities
greater than 47,695 m
Taconite ore processine
facilities
Lime plants
Phosphate rock processing plants
Any other source greater than 227 Mg/yr any pollutant
Glass fiber processing
plants
Charcoal production
facilities
388
-------
fuel systems suggests that NSPS are likely for SRC facili-
ties.
5.2.1.1.6 Increment Limitations
The PSD increment limitations shown in Table 81 repre-
sent small percentages of the NAAQS concentrations for SC^
and TSP, including allowable concentrations that exceed the
level existing at the time of the first application for a
permit in an area subject to PSD rules (i.e., the baseline
air quality). The baseline air quality concentrations must
include all projected emissions from any one of the 28 major
industrial categories which began construction before January
6, 1975, but which did not go into operation by the time the
baseline measurement of air quality was made (117). Emissions
from any major facility on which construction began after
January 6, 1975 must be counted against the maximum allowable
increment limitation for any PSD area. State governors are
permitted to extend exemptions in determining compliance
with the allowable PSD ambient increments when the following
conditions prevail:
• Ambient concentrations are increased because of
fuel conversion orders.
• Increases resulting from construction or temporary
emissions-related actions.
• Increases resulting from conversion from natural
gas to coal as a result of low supply.
• Increases attributable to sources outside the U.S.
389
-------
5.2.1.1.7 Monitoring Requirements in Nonattainment
Areas (NA)
Industries presently located in nonattainment areas,
even though now in compliance, will be required to impose
additional future controls to bring about areal compliance.
Owners contemplating the construction of new facilities in
NA will be required to submit baseline air quality monitoring
data. Thus, detailed advance planning will be required.
5.2.1.2 State Requirements
Ambient Air Standards and Stationary Source Performance
Standards have been promulgated by individual states as well
as by the federal government.
No states have as yet promulgated emission standards
for coal liquefaction facilities. New Mexico has, however,
promulgated such standards for coal gasification plants.
Although frequently derived from federal standards, state
standards may differ from federal standards by having more
stringent requirements or by regulating additional pollutants,
A brief summary of the environmental requirements for air
pollutants in major coal bearing states is presented in the
following subsections. For a more detailed summation, the
reader is referred to the document, Environmental Standards
Applicable to Coal Conversion Processes (118).
The following subsection presents a description of the
highlights of the ambient air quality and emission standards
for sixteen selected states, presented according to EPA
region, as follows: III (Pennsylvania, West Virginia); IV
(Kentucky); V, (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio); VI (New Mexico,
390
-------
Texas); VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming); IX (Arizona), and X (Alaska). The states
selected were those which had the potential for supporting a
commercial SRC facility. The critical criteria were: ade-
quate coal supply, water supply, and proximity to a market
or viable distribution system. A summary of ambient air
standards of these selected states is given in Tables 83 and
84.
Table 83 compares the state standards to the National
Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, while
Table 84 presents state standards for constituent categories
not addressed in the National Standards. State emission
standards are found in the Appendices.
5.2.1.2.1 EPA Region III (Pennsylvania and Vest
Virginia)
Pennsylvania has adopted the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Additional ambient standards
apply to the following contaminants (as shown in Table 84):
settled particulates (total), lead, beryllium, sulfates (as
HjSO>), fluorides, and hydrogen sulfide). Industrial emission
standards require a vapor recovery system for hydrocarbon
loading equipment, and a floating roof for the hydrocarbon-
water separator storage tanks. Additional emission standards
for particulates and opacity are shown in the Appendices.
The ambient air quality standards of West Virgnia are
identical to the six regular criteria pollutants of the
NAAQS. Regulations for coal preparation, drying and handling,
and manufacturing process regulations are shown in the
Appendix F.
391
-------
NO
TABLE 83. NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
COMPARED TO STATE STANDARDS, b
Constituent Con
(mic
Sulfur oxides
primary
secondary
Participates
primary
secondary
Carbon monoxide
.
primary 10
secondary 40
Photochemical oxidants
primary & secondary
Nonmethane hydrocarbons
primary & secondary
Nitrogen dioxide
primary & secondary
centration
rograms/n?)
80
365
1300
75
260
60
150
,000
,000
160
160
100
Remarks II
PA
AAMC *
24 hr max *
3 hr maxd *
AGWC . *
24 hr max *
AGMC *
24 hr maxd *
Q . d ft
8 hr max *
1 hr max *
1 hr maxd *
3 hr maxd *
AAM° *
11 1 III 1 \ 1 LJ ±fi 1 I 1 . » 1 l-tl»uJt rtu.-l— > —
EPA REGIONS REPRESENTED BY SELECTED STATES
I IV V VI VIII
WV KY IL IN OH NM TX CO tfl ND SD
* * * *e 60e 52 * 60e 52e 60e 60
* * * *e 260e 262 * 260e 260e 260
* * * f * *c,e
* * * * — 60 f 45AAM *
* * * * __ isof f 150 2008 —
A A * A + f + +
****+ f + +
* * * * — 13 * * * 15
* * * * H9f 119 * * * 125
f
A A * * 126 126 * * * 125
A A A OAf A * *f *f
IX X
UT WY AZ AK
* 60 50C>e *
* 260 260C>e *
* * *e 4
* _
* _
* + +4
* + +4
A A A A
A A A A
A A * *
A A A A
"This table compares only those state standards that cover the same constituents and sampling time period as the National Standards. If a
constituent regulated by the National Standards has no comparable state standard, the National Standard is considered to be in effect
for that contaminant. State standards covering additional contaminant categories are found in the Appendices.
Reference conditions for National and most state standards are as follows: Temperature •• 25°C, Pressure - 760 mmHg. State having exceptions
to these conditions are: Ohio - 21°C; South Dakota - 20°C; Wyoming - 21°C.
CAAM - annual arithmetic mean; AGM - annual geometric mean.
''Maximum value not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Sulfur dioxide standard.
Several standards as listed under this category. See Appendices.
*Hot to be exceeded more than 1Z of days/year.
* - State fttandard saae aa the National Standard.
+ - State ha* adopted thla national Secondary Standard aa a primary standard.
Wo standard exists.
-------
TABLE 84. SUMMARY OF STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS FOR WHICH NO NATIONAL STANDARD EXISTS
Coneeltuent
Photochemical oxldants
<«g/m3)
monMthane hydrocarbons
(Mf/m3)
Nitrogen dioxide .
nitrogen oxides (pg/a )
Sulfur dioxide (pg/m3)
Hydrogen sulflde Gig/.3)
Reduced sulfur compounds
CM/m3)
Reactive sulfur (mg of
S03/10C cmz/day)
Suspended sulfate (|ig/a3)
Sulfatee (
gerylHu.
AsbMti" (MI/mJ)
ITt '
«PA leglone tepreaented by Selected Coel-Bearing states
l" lv v vi nu
fc»ark. '* « IN OH ». „ „"' ^ §
4 hr max* „
24 hr mix* ;*
24 hr max* ,,.
-JJ1
1 hr maxb 200
24 hr max* 188 (HOj) 2
*« 60* 715
1 hr max U00° 262°
24 hr ave. 2«0 o55p
i/r-ri 139 u «•«- . . f
1/2 hr mix l11 42* 45*
24 hr max 7 I'7 70* 75«
20 min -* 0.003pp.
AAM
1 mo. max. °'25 0-25
0.50 0.50
**•
24 hr max h k
12" 12h
24 hr max 3
10 day mix 1
AAM
24 hr max }J
1 hr mix 50
max allowed 100
5 hr •"
3 hr mix lo°
1 hr «x 20°
400
Z4 hr max* 19.7 , ,
ACM 1.3AAM , ,
3 mo max* 1.4 J-3 1.3
AAM 8
30 day mix 15
3 mo eve*1 5 -t
3 mo av.1 3 5-3 5-3
10.5 10.5
24 hr m» 0.005
1 hr mix 0.1
1 mo mix 0.8 0., o
1 week mix 1.4 . ? U'J
1 oay max 2.9 t ,
12 hr max 3.7 3.7
24 hr ave 5 0.8 „ .
0.8
12 mo ave 40 40 }
6 mo ave • •"
3 mo eve 40 60
2 mo ave 80 on
1 mo ave
30 dny ave 5 ...
30 dey mix 0.01 5 15
30 d.y eve ?'9J 0-01
24 hr av. °-fll
30 day iv«
••«•••_
•D m
•~^™*^^^
50
40
70
5"
10n
0.3°
0.8
25
393
-------
FOOTNOTES TO TABLE 84
* Not to be exceeded more than once per year
«a
Not to be exceeded more than one consecutive four hour period per year.
Not to be exceeded more than one percent of the time in any three month period
Not to be exceeded over one percent of the days in any three month period.
Secondary standard.
o
Applicable only when residential, business or commercial areas are downwind of
the source of emissions.
Not to be exceeded more than twice in any five consecutive days.
Not to be exceeded more than twice per year.
Not to be exceeded over one percent of the time.
Not to be exceeded more than once per 24 hour period.
JCoefficient of haze per 1000 linear meters.
Residential areas.
Industrial areas.
"Value for any 30 day period in residential areas, including 1.7 Mg/km2/month
background settled particulates.
Same as above, but for industrial areas.
o
Micrograms per square centimeter per 28 days.
Not to be exceeded more than one hour in any four consecutive days.
In and on forage for animal consumption.
394
-------
5.2.1.2.2 EPA Region IV (Kentucky and Ohio)
The state of Kentucky air quality standards are similar
to the NAAQS, except that standards were included for hydrogen
o
sulfide (14 micrograms/m one hour maximum), gaseous hydrogen
o
fluoride (2.86 micrograms g/m , 24-hour maximum), and total
primary fluorides of 80 ppm (30 day average). Kentucky also
has issued standards of performance for petroleum refineries
for particulates, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide.
The ambient air quality standards of Ohio are shown in
Tables 83 and 84. Ohio emissions standards for the storage
of hydrocarbons are comparable"to those in other coal-
producing states. Carbon monoxide emissions from the
petroleum refinery processes must pass through an afterburner
prior to discharge, while photochemical oxidants must be
incinerated to a maximum of 90 percent oxidation prior to
discharge to the atmosphere. Industrial process emission
standards promulgated for particulates, SO , NO , hydrocarbons,
A J\
CO, and photochemical oxidants may be applicable to coal
conversion technologies. Ohio has established air quality
priority zones; these presently do not meet EPA standards
for SO. NO , and particulates. The SO emission limit is a
xx x
mathematical function of the total emission discharge, while
the limit of particulate emissions is a function of the
process throughput.
5.2.1.2.3 EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana and Ohio)
Illinois has promulgated both air quality standards and
emission standards and limitations for stationary sources.
The Illinois air quality standards are the same as the NAAQS
standards. The Illinois performance standards for stationary
395
-------
sources are shown in the Appendices. The Illinois stationary
source standards not only address the six regular criteria
pollutants of the NAAQS, but also visible emission standards
and sulfuric acid mist. Also addressed are organic mineral
storage, loading, organic material, water separation, pumps
and compressors, other discharges of organic material to the
atmosphere, waste gas disposal, vapor blowdown, and the
clean-up and disposal of organic materials. These standards
are considered to be among the most comprehensive in the
coal-producting states.
Indiana ambient standards differ from the NAAQS only in
having categories for sulfur dioxide and settled particulates.
In addition, Indiana has laws controlling the storage and
handling of volatile hydrocarbon liquids. A vapor recovery
system, floating roof or alternative system which meets
approval of the proper state agencies is required. Volatile
organic liquid-water separators require either a solid cover
or one of the vapor control methods required for storage
systems, essentially analogous to the Illinois standards.
5.2.1.2.3 EPA Region VI (New Mexico and Texas)
New Mexico is presently the only state that has pro-
mulgated emission standards applicable to coal conversion
facilities, specifically coal gasification plants. Stacks
at least ten diameters tall and 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 requirement for gas burning
boilers. Limits have been placed on dischargeable concentra-
tions of sulfur, hydrocarbons, ammonia, hydrogen chloride,
hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, and
396
-------
carbon oxysulfide as well. These limits are compiled in the
Appendices, entitled "New Mexico Emission Standards for
Commercial Gasifiers," and are stringent compared with the
other coal-producing states. However, a review of New
Mexico air laws pertaining to petroleum refineries reflects
an interest in environmental preservation, not a distrust of
new technology. Emission standards for ammonia and hydrogen
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 were presented previously in
Table 80. The ambient air criteria for heavy metals and the
difference in dischargeable carbon monoxide concentrations
between new and existing refineries are worthy of note. The
ambient air quality standards of New Mexico include a heavy
3 3
metals standards of 10 wg/m , and a 0.01 ^g/m standard for
beryllium. The New Mexico standards for the 24-hour maximum
for particulates and sulfur dioxide are somewhat lower than
those for the NAAQS; all others are very similar.
The ambient air quality standards of Texas are identical
to the NAAQS for all six of the regular criteria pollutants.
Texas has imposed additional ambient standards for hydrogen
fluoride gas, net ground-level concentrations for emissions
of H^S, sulfuric acid and particulates, as shown previously
in Table 84. Emission limits for fossil fuel steam generators
were also issued for SO , NO and particulates. The emission
X X
rates for SO and particulates are both functions of the
X
effective stack height. Visibility requirements prohibit
exceeding 20 percent opacity; these limits apply to 5-minute
periods and do not include opacity resulting from uncombined
water mists.
397
-------
5.2.1.2.4 EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah
and Wyoming)
Colorado has promulgated ambient standards for sulfur
dioxide and particulates. Of the standards of performance
enacted for stationary sources, those applicable to petroleum
refineries are probably most indicative of future legislation
relevant to the SRC technology. These standards are reviewed
in the Appendices. Other relevant Colorado legislation
pertains to oil-water separators similar to those used in
SRC pilot plants. 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 demon-
strate equal or superior efficiency.
Montana ambient standards differ from the NAAQS in
specifying sulfur dioxide standards, and in all the particu-
late standards except the annual geometric mean. In addition,
Montana has promulgated standards for l^S, fluorides, settled
particulates, lead, reactive sulfur (SOO, suspended sulfate
sulfuric acid mist, lead, and beryllium, as shown previously
in Table 84.
The ambient air quality standards of North Dakota 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 require that ambient
air properties shall not change in any way which will increase
corrosion rates of metals or deterioration rates of fabrics.
Additionally, emissions restrictions from industrial pro-
cesses exist for particulates and sulfur oxides. For parti-
culates, North Dakota requires the use of the Arizona equation
398
-------
governing process industries in that state. Sulfur dioxide
emissions are limited to 1.3 jjg/J heat input from coal.
The ambient air quality standards of South Dakota are
similar to, but slightly more stringent than the NAAQS.
South Dakota has reserved the right to set emissions standards
for any source which may be exceeding the ambient standards.
Standards for fuel burning installations and general process
industries are listed in the Appendices.
The state of Utah has no ambient or new source standards
at this time. Current federal standards are, therefore,
applicable. 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, but
there is no indication of the types of standards these
organizations favor. State emissions standards have been
set for particulates requiring 85 percent control. Sulfur
emissions must meet federal ambient and new source standards.
Four of the six regular criteria pollutants of the
Wyoming ambient air quality criteria (CO, hydrocarbons, NO
and photochemical oxidants) are identical to the NAAQS, as
shown in Table 83. The Wyoming emission standards, shown in
the Appendices are largely applicable to fossil fuel burning
sources. Additional requirements have been issued 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, or vapor recovery systems are required for the storage
of hydrocarbons.
399
-------
5.2.1.2.5 EPA Region IX (Arizona)
The ambient air quality standards for Arizona for
particulates correspond to the NAAQS secondary standard of
60 //g/m3 (AGM) and 150 ng/m (24-hour maximum). The only
other variance in Arizona versus the NAAQS standards is the
o
annual maximum value for sulfur oxides (50 versus 80 ^g/m )
and the 24-hour maximum (260 versus 365 pg/m ). The Arizona
air quality goals and industrial emission standards are
given the Appendices.
5.2.1.2.6 EPA Region X (Alaska)
The ambient air quality standards of Alaska are consis-
tent with the NAAQS, except for the particulates primary
standard (annual geometric mean of 60 compared to 75 micro-
o
grams/m ), the lack of a standard for hydrocarbons, and the
addition of a 30 minute maximum standard for reduced sulfur
o
compounds of 50 //g/m . Emission standards for fuel-burning
equipment and industrial processes in Alaska are shown in
the Appendices.
5.2.2 Comparisons of Waste Streams With Emission
Standards
Potential point source emissions to the atmosphere from
each of the six basic unit operations of the conceptualized
SRC-II system are diagrammed in Figure 63. Available char-
acterization data are presented in Section 3.0. Also dis-
played are emissions from auxiliary processes, which are
categorized in terms of:
• Those that are clearly required for realization of
the primary functions of the system, in the center
of the diagram
400
-------
INCI DENTAL
AUXILIARIES
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
WATER
SUPPLY
[SLUDGE
STEAM AND POWER
GENERATION'
FLUE GAS
FLY ASH SCRUBBER
BOTTOM ASH \ SLUDGE
WATER
COOLING
CHROMATE REDUCTION
SLUDGE FROM COOLING
TOWER SLOWDOWN
OXYGEN
GENERATION
HYDROGEN
GENERATION
I GASIFIER SLAG
SPENT CATALYST!
REQUIRED
AUXILIARIES
BASIC UNIT
OPERATIONS
SULFUR
RECOVERY
COAL
PREPARATION
SODIUM VANADATE
COAL-CLEAN INC
REFUSE
GAS
PURIFICATION
LIQUEFACTION
CRYOGENIC
SEPARATION
GAS
SEPARATION
.AMMONIA
RECOVERY
FRACTIONATION
PHENOL
RECOVERY
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
EXCESSIVE SRC-II
MINERAL RESIDUE
OR
SRC-1 FILTERCAKE
FLARE
K.O. DRUM
HYDROTREATING
SLUDGE
SPENT
CATALYST
PRODUCT/BY/PRODUCT
STORAGE
COMBINED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
Figure 63. Potential emissions from SRC-II
basic unit operations and auxiliary processes
401
-------
• Those that are incidental to the primary functions
of the SRC system, per se (left side).
The auxiliary processes are so divided to allow a
clearer perception of those emissions that are most closely
identified with the system, as against those that are con-
sidered common to conventional fossil fuel systems.
In addition to this information, comparisons are made
in this section of certain regulated air pollutants reported
to emanate from waste streams of two auxiliary processes
(i.e., dust from coal preparation and particulates from flue
gas of steam generation) which may exceed known air quality
standards, and/or which may present potential hazards to the
environment and human health. In Section 5.2.3 the impacts
of certain inorganic pollutants associated with the two
auxiliary process waste streams are discussed, while in
Section 5.2.4 an evaluation is made of unregulated pollutants
and their effects.
5.2.2.3 MATEs for Regulated Air Pollutants
Table 85 lists regulated air pollutants which may be a
problem. Those pollutants which do not exceed the standards
or for which no environmental harm is predicted are not
listed. Determinations of potential environmental hazard
were made, based on application of MEG and SAM/1A methodo-
logies. For some pollutant species, documented evidence was
found suggesting possible environmental hazards at concen-
trations below existing MATE values. In those instances
proposed MATEs have been developed, based on evaluation
of the documented evidence. Responsibility for official
revision of all MATE'S rests with the U.S. EPA. The
402
-------
TABLE 85. REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS WHICH MAY EXCEED UNKNOWN STANDARDS
AND/OR MAY CAUSE HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
Pollutant
Projected Air Concentration (g»/m )
DM to Dnt from
Cool Preparation
Module Due to Boiler
Flue Gas
Average
U.S. Coal
Maximum
U.S. Coal
Average
Health-Based
MATE
Standard
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
0.010-7.3 0.052-23. 6.0
0.22-167. 0.45-330. 130.
0.0013-0.94 0.0027-2.0 0.55
19
250.
1.2
2.0
500
2.0
Cadnium
0.0013-2.3 0.015-11. 3.6
17.
10.*
Carbon monoxide
5.1x10 5.1x10
4.0x10
OSHA standard:500
OSHA standard:500
OSHA standard: 2.
National Emission
standard for hazard-
ous air pollutants:
0.01 /ig/»3, 30-day
average
OSHA standard:100
National Primary
and Secondary Air
Quality Std: 1.0 x
10* (8 hr) OSHA ,
standard: 5.5x10
The trlvalent state of arsenic Is most toxic.
NIOSH recommends that no worker be exposed to
2 VL% As/"3 or more (43).
BaO and Ba(X>3 have caused respiratory Injury in
man. Bariun stimulates all miscle types, causes
vasoconstrictlon, and initially stimulates and
then paralyzes the central nervous aystea.
Barium is readily excreted, and probably non-
cumulative.
BerylliuB is toxic through all routes of absorp-
tion, but the major hazard to health is via in-
halation. Berylliosis, a severe health disease
develops from chronic exposure to soluble as well
as insoluble compounds as participates in air.
Apparently, the particle size of the beryllium
dust Is a critical factor with regard to its
potential for causing berylllosis. The lowest
toxic concentration reported for humane In 100
Jig/»3- The lowest dose producing a carcinogenic
response is 1.8 g Be/m^ Inhaled by a monkey for
24 hrs. NIOSH recommends that occupational ex-
posure.to beryllium and its compounds not exceed
2 Ht/m as a tine weighted average for an 8-hour
workday. A celling of 25 (/g/m3 is recommended.
The TLV is 2 pg/m". Beryllium is classified by
ACGHI as an "Occupational Substance Suspect of
Oncogenic Potential for Workers," based on
limited epldemologlcal evidence and demonstra-
tion of being or malignant growths in test
animals.
In the range of 0.000 to 0.062 /jg/m there
appears to be a significant correlation (r -
0.76 with 26 degrees of freedom or p less than
0.0001; i.e., less than 1 chance in 10,000 that
the observed correlation is due solely to chance)
between the cadmium concentration and diseases
of Che heart. In view of these data, the
Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality
recommends a 24-hour average cadmium level of
0.05 (Jg/m3. If possible, discharge of cadmium
into the atmosphere should not be tolerated (43,
47).
Carbon monoxide asphyxiates. It has an affinity
for hemoglobin 200-250 x that of oxygen (43).
(continued)
-------
TABLE 85. (continued)
Projected Air Concentration ( l*g/m3)
Due to Dust from
Coal Preparation
Module Due to Boiler
Flue Gas
HealthS&ased
Pollutant
Chromium
Copper
U.S. Coal U.S. Coal Average Maximum
0.015-11. 0.035-26. 7.3 18.
0.011-8.5 0.030-23 5.1 14.
MATE (uB/m3)
1.0
200.
Standard ( ME/m"*)
OSHA standard. -500
ug/«3 (soluble)
OSHA standard:
Dust: 1000.
Fume: 10.
Comments
The NIOSH recommendation for occupational expo-
sure, considering the potential carcinogenity
of Cr (IV) is ug/m3 (43) .
Exposure to copper nay cause irritation to the
gastrointestinal tract, anemia, respiratory
irritation, and eye and skin irritations. Damage
to the liver, kidneys, and nervous system may
result from exposure to copper (43).
Fluorides
0.070-52. 0.14-110. ca.8.6 ca.14.
2500.*
OSHA standard:2500
O
-P-
Iron
Lead
13.-9900. 30-22000. 3700. 8200.
0.012-8.7 0.058-43.
6.5 32.
1000.
150.*
OSHA Standard
10000 f/g/n3
iron-oxide fume
OSHA standard:
200 U8/n3
(continued)
Fluorine at levels greater than 2000 Mg/m acts
as direct cellular poison by interfering with
calcium metabolism and enzyme mechanisms. Hose-
bleed, cough, other irritation of the respiratory
tract and of the eye are usually associated with
8-hour exposures greater than 2500 ug/«3 although
several studies suggest some of these effects can
occur down to 240/ig/m3. The results of studies
of aluminum plants in the United States, Scotland,
and the USSR are given in Kef. 47. Levels of 0.5
fig atmospheric fluorine/m3 for 10 days is toxic
to conifer needles. Atmospheric fluorine levels
of 1.8 ug/m3 is toxic to English elm, blueberry
and apple. Airborne fluorides are Injurious to
corn, sorghum, tomatoe, soybeans-, gladiolus and
a variety of other plants. A level of 25 ug/m3
for emissions should prevent the adverse health
effects to persons living near the facility; how-
ever, the effect of this level on cash crops at
sense distance from the facility cannot be deter-
mined at this tine and will probably have to be
determined on a site specific basis.
1976 ACGIH TLV is 5000 u g/»3 (43).
At ambient air concentrations of 100Mg/mJ, sub-
clinical affects of lead poisoning, including
mild nonspecific symptoms Including fatique,
dizziness, anorexia and basophilic stripping.
At 1 jig/a*, airborne lead produces altered
metabolic effects. The Illinois Institute for
Environmental Quality recommends a aaximun
level of 1.5/ig/m3 based on a 24-hour average
Maple. Adjusting this for an 8-hour/day ex-
posure roughly give* 4.5 u*/m3 for 8 hours
and none for. the next 16 hours. The 1976
ACCIH TLV is 150/*g/m3.
-------
TABLE 85. (continued)
Pollutant
Projected Air Concentration lui/m )
Due to Dust from
Coal Preparation
Module Due to Boiler
Flue Gas
Average
U.S. Coal
Maximum
P.S. Coal
Health-Baaed
Average Maximal
Standard (
Comments
Manganese
0.032-24. 0.12-92.
13.
48.
5000.*
OSHA standard:
Nickel
0.017-13 0.11-81.
6.6
42.
15.
OSHA standard:
1000.
Nitrogen oxides
8.5x10J 8.5x10
9000.*
0.45 Ib/on Btu
input (Federal
Standard) -0.19
fig/joule input or
ca. 120-200 mg/day
At levels greater than 0.006 fit/* manganese
oxides significantly increase the catalytic
conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfur crioxlde
which, in the presence of moisture, results in
the formation of sulfuric acid and airborne
sulfates. Manganese levels as low as 500
jlg/m can lead to emotional instability, apathy.
hallucinations, compulsory acts, muscular hyper-
tonia, muscular fatigue, and sexual depression.
Levels as low as 20 (ig/m* can lead to tremors,
facial Basking, and reduced blinking. Levels of
of 100 Jig/m^ can lead progressive weakness. It
is well to note in this regard that occupational
exposures are usually on a 40-hour, 5-day per
week basis, where off-work hours and weedends
constitute recovery time from the health effect
of hazardous materials (43,47).
1976 ACCIB TLV Is 100 Jig/"3- Workers exposed to
nickel may develop a sensitivity to nickel and
dermatitis. Nickel absorbed through inhalation
may be associated with nasal, and lung cancer
(Cleland and Klngsbury, 78). The new NIOSH
recommendation for occupational exposure to nickel
is 15fig/m3. The value was lowered due to evidence
of nasal and lung cancer resulting from nickel
exposure (43)•
Nitrogen dioxide at levels greater than 5 ppn
In injested material or 9000 Mg/n3 caused corro-
sion as well as irritation of skin, eyes, di-
gestive tract, or lungs and decreased pulmonary
function. At concentrations of less than 1880
fig/ml nitrogen dioxide caused reduced resistance
to infection and emphysema and alveolar exten-
sion in mice after one year exposure. Other
pathological effects were noted in lungs of
laboratory animals exposed to nitrogen oxide
levels ranging from ca_.1100 to 9000 Alg/n3.
These pathological effects Included hyperplasla,
bacterial dysfunction, decreased compliance
and increased lung weight, hypertrophy of
bronchial epithelium, increased breathing rate
sustained, reduced resistance to Infection.
There Is some evidence to shew that prolonged
exposure to NOJ levels of 117 to 205 M8/"3
can contribute to increased prevalence of
chronic bronchitis, increased incidence of
acute lower respiratory disease and diminished
pulmonary function in school children. Nitrogen
dioxide has been associated with fabric fading.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 85. (continued)
Projected Air Concentration
Due to Dust from
Coal Preparation
Module
Pollutant
Average Maximum
U.S. Coal U.S. Coal
Due to Boiler
Flue Gas
Health-Based
Average Mmcimim HATE CUK/m3) Standard (u g/a )
Comments
Particulates
11-68.xlO* 1.1-68.X104 3.7xl06 3.7xl06
Not available
OSHA standard:
1.5x10*
HSPS:4.0xlO
Ambient Air Quality
standard: 0.075
-P-
O
ON
(continued)
fading. Nitrogen dioxide at levels of 940 fig/m
for 10-12 days suppressed the growth of pinto
beans and tomatoes. Navel orange yield is
greatly reduced at 470 ng/w? for 240 days or
by 470-940 Jig/m3 for 35 days. An evaluation of
all available Information leads to the conclu-
sion that an average annual exposure to ISO
flg/a? or repeated two-to-three hour exposures
to 280 JJ8/» or about 36 days of the year can be
associated with an increased susceptibility to
respiratory infection in children (43,47).
Although the size range given for atmospheric
participates extends from about 0.005 to 500
microns, the participates from coal combustion
appear in a more limited size range. These pro-
ducts tend to be found in the 0.01 to 10 micron
range. Because this range neatly brackets the
size defined for respirable participates, the
coal combustion participates pose a significant
potential for adverse human health effects (153).
The lungs constitute the major route of entry for
toxic airborne particulates. The probability of
of particle deposition and the anatomical posi-
tion of the respiratory system in which deposi-
tion occurs is primarily a function of particle
•ize. Those less than about .01 micron in dia-
meter tend to behave like gases, and are
generally not deposited in the aleveolar or
pulmonary region, while larger particles show a
greater tendency to deposit in the nasopharngeal
and tracheobronchial regions.
The main effects of particulates on plant is oost
likely due to the reduction in light intensity,
especially in winter. The formation of sooty
deposits on leaves also reduce the rate of assi-
milation of carbon dioxide. Particulates apparent-
ly block the assimilation organs (stomata) of fara
crops; the effect is enhanced in forest trees
because the pores become progressively blocked
with age. In fir needles that have been heavily
dusted with fly ash, gas exchange was found to be
inhibited by clogging 90 percent of the stomata;
agricultural productivity was decreased by as
much as 80 percent from sulfur dioxide plus fly
ash pollution from a coal-fired power plant
lacking filter* (109).
-------
TABLE 85. (continued)
Pollutant
yroj«cted Air Concentration (ua/m )
Due to Dust fro*
Coal Preparation
Module Due to Boiler
Average Haiti mum Flue Gas
U.S. Coal U.S. Coal Average Maxima
Health-Baaed
MATE
Standard
Comments
Sulfur
suspended sulfates
20-15000. 32-24000.
O
-4
sulfur dioxide
13000.* National Parlmary
and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Stand-
ard: 80. New
Stationary Source
Performance Stand-
ard: 1.2 lb/10« Btu
• ca.0.5 ug/Joule
Input or ca.320-530
rag/day
The exact form of th* sulfur is unknown; the form
likely will be suspended sulfate, hydrogen or
sulflde or sulfur dioxide are discussed below:
The MATE* are not available for suspended sul-
fates. Best Judgment estimates based on pre-
liminary studies of 24-hour Bean threshold
levels for aggravation of cardiopulnonary
sympcoos in the elderly as veil as Increased
aggravation of aathia at 8-10 Mg/m3 of suspended
aulfatea. Ventilatory function in children ex-
posed to suspended sulfate concentrations of
about 8.3'j*g/m3. It was the author's best judge-
Bent that eight or nine years of exposure to
about 10 to 13ug/m3 of suspended sulfates might
reduce ventilatory function. If these suspended
sulfat* exposures were accompanied by exposure
to about 200 to 25OMg/m3 of sulfur dioxide and
about 100 to 150 ng/n' of total suspended partl-
culates, further reductions la ventilatory func-
tion might be expected. Best judgement estimates
of the threshold level for Increase in acute
lover respiratory tract Infections in children
was 3 years of exposure to ISug/m3 (112).
Significant metal corrosion especially of zinc
and steel may occur at sulfur dioxide concen-
trations above 20 jig/m'. Concentrations above
this level also nay adversely affect paper and
leather products. An increase in lung cancer
mortality has been associated with lone term
mean sulfur dioxide levels of 115 pg/o-> when
compared to levels of 75^g/m3. Studies in Hew
York sad London have shown an increase in
mortality at SOj levels above 130fig/m3. Levels
of 95 /ig/m3 have been associated with aggrava-
tion of symptoms in the elderly, aggravation of
asthma, decreased lung function in children.
Increased acute lower respiratory disease In
families, Increased prevalence of chronic
bronchitis, increased acute respiratory disease
in families and increased hospital admioalan
with respiratory illness. A best estimate of a.
maximum safe level is 95fi g/m3 (112,140).
(continued)
-------
TABLE 85. (continued)
Pollutant
Projected Air Concentration ( ug/m )
Doe to Dust from
Coal Preparation
Hodule Due to Boiler
Average Maximum Flue Gas
U.S. Coal U.S. Coal Average Maximum
Health-Based
MATE (Hg/a3) Standard ( |> g/m )
Comments
Hydrogen sulflde
15000.* OSUA standard: Levels of hydrogen sulfide fro* 450 to 1000
20865. fig/m3 have been associated with pathological
NSPS: 6955. syndromes including increased incidence
of decreased corneal reflex (conveyance and
divergence), nausea, insomnia, shortness of
breath and headaches following chronic
exposure. Levels of only 120 |i g/m3 are asso-
ciated with Increased incidence of metal
depression, dizziness, and blurred vision. In
infants, chronic hydrogen sulfide exposures
to levels of 100-1000 l'g/»3 have produced a
syndrome usually manifested as undernourish-
ment, delayed growth, general weakness and
retarded physical and neurophysical develop-
ment. Obviously, a MATE of 100 ft g/m3 would be
more appropriate for this (43,112).
o
oo
•For reasons listed under "Comments" thi* MATE appear! too high.
-------
regulated air pollutants, for which reevaluation of existing
MATE values by US EPA is recommended, are shown in Table 86.
TABLE 86. SUGGESTIONS FOR MORE STRINGENT MATES
FOR REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS
Present Health- o
Substance Based MATE (^R/m )
Cadmium
Fluoride
Lead
Manganese
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
Hydrogen sulfide
Particulates
10
2500
150
5000
9000
13000
15000
Not available
Proposed Health*
Based MATE C^g/nT)
0.05
25
1.5
20
110
110
120
1.5 x 104
5.2.3 Impacts on Ambient Air Quality
The SAM/IA analysis (potential degree of hazard) for
atmospheric waste streams is given in Tables 87 and 88. The
SAM/IA analysis indicates that on the average, aluminum,
arsenic, chromium, iron, lithium, and silicon may represent
an environmental or health hazard in the airborne coal dust
which escapes the control devices from coal preparation.
Carbon monoxide, ammonia, and carbon dioxide may represent
an environmental hazard in the emission after treatment of
the Stretford tail gas. No substances are emitted in toxic
quantities from the oxygen generation plant. Environmentally
hazardous quantities of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide
may be emitted from the flare. Arsenic, chromium, iron,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide may be
present in environmentally significant concentrations in the
boiler flue gas.
409
-------
TABLE 87 SAM/IA ANALYSIS OF ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
OF COAL PRETREATMENT AND FLY ASH FROM STEAM GENERATION
Potential Degree of Hazard (Health
Dust from Coal Preparation
"Average U.S. Coal" "Maximum
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbon monoxide
Cerium
Cesium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Hydrocarbons
Indium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Niobium
Nitrogen oxides
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur dioxide
Tantalum
Tellurium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Stream flow rate
(m3/aec.), 9
Stream potential degree
of hazard
Mo. entries com-
pared to MATEs
Potential toxic unit
discharge rate sum
•Potential degree of hazi
Mln.
0.0023 ,
4.0x10"°
0.0049 .
4.5x10"*
6.3x10-*
1.6x10"'
3.1xlO~*
4.3x10"*
_7
4.4x10 '
1.3xlO"8
0.015
1.8x10,
5.7x10,
1.2x10,
2.8x10,
7.9x10"'
1 . OxlO~
1.5xlO~°
—A
1.5x10 *
0.013
7.8x10 ,
7.8x10"'
0.0014 .
1.7x10"*
6.5x10 "°
2.7x10",
9.4x10"'
0.0011
<7.4xl
-------
TABLE 88. SAM/IA ANALYSIS OF ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS FROM TREATED
STRETFORD TAIL GAS, OXYGEN GENERATION AND FLARE
Constituent
Potential Degree of Hazard
Treated Stretford Tail Oxygen
Gas Generation
Health Ecological Health Based
Based Based
Ammonia
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide 0
Hydrocarbons (as 0
ethane)
Hydrogen sulfide 0
Nitrogen oxides
(as NO)
Sulfur dioxide
0.078-0.44 4.
87*-88*
.00725-3.75* 0.
.0016-0.57
.016-0.87
0.88-13.*
0.00-0.35
Stream flow rate (m3/sec) , Q = 82.1
Stream potential degree
of hazard
No. of entries compared
MATEs
92-100.
to 7.
Potential toxic unit dis- 7600-8400
charge rate sum
(m3/sec)
0*_23.*
0.086
0024-1.2*
82.1 87.2
4.0-24. 0.086
2 1
. 330. -2200. 7.5
Flare
Health Ecological
Based Based
20*
114* 38*
ca.4xlO"4
0.131 0.31
134 38
3 1
17.5 5.0
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one (1) indicates that this constituent may be
an environmental hazard.
-------
5.2.4 Potential Ecological and Health Effects of Un-
regulated Air Pollutants
Table 89 lists unregulated air pollutants which may
represent an environmental hazard in the SRC technology.
Determinations of potential environmental hazard were made,
based on application of MEG and SAM/IA methodologies. For
some pollutant species, documented evidence was found
suggesting possible environmental hazards at concentrations
below existing MATE values. In those instances proposed
MATES have been developed, based on evaluation of the
documented evidence.
For titanium and vanadium, reevaluation of the MATES
is recommended as shown in Table 90.
TABLE 90. SUGGESTIONS FOR MORE STRINGENT MATES FOR
UNREGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS
Present Health- Proposed Health-
Substance Based MATE Based MATE
Titanium 6000 ^g/m3 250 j/g/m3
Vanadium 500 ^g/m3 20
The use of bioassays for the determination of the eco-
logical and health hazards of various gaseous emissions to
the environment from the SRC main unit operations and
auxiliary processes is underway, as reported in Section 3.0.
However, no formal reports have been issued as yet, although
an acute inhalation study for vapor phase exposure has been
completed (119). In a pilot study to determine appropriate
dose levels for skin exposures to SRC wash solvent, a sub-
stantial number of the test animals developed corneal opacity
presumably from a volatile substance transmitted from cage
412
-------
TABLE 89 UNREGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS WHICH MAY CAUSE HEALTH OR
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
Dust from Coal
Preparation Module (UK/m )
Anrage Msalmnm
U.S. Coal U.S. Coal
Boiler Flue
Ga
_*«*>
Average
,s
»')
Huclmm*
Health
Based
MATB .
<"»/• >
Ecological
Based
KATE .
tu*lm 1
&>~*<*
-P-
^
U>
Aluminum
Anthanthrene
Benxo(a)pyrene
Lithium
Titanium ;
Vanadlun
12-9000.
17-12000
4000.
2.8
5400.
3.6
5200.
1.6-10. 2.0-13.
0.032-23
0.48-350.
0.023-17.
0.070-52
1.0-760
0.045-33.
15.
210
15.
33.
450
30.
0.02
22.
6000.*
500*
1.0
Although aluminum IB not a highly toxic element,
large quantities may produce deleterious effects,
such as pulmonary flbrosis from Inhalation of
aluminum powder. The TLV for A1203 Is 5.3 mg Al
(as Al)/m3 (43).
This compound Is carcinogenic and causes chromo-
zone alterations. Mutagenlc and teratogenic Co
mice. The EPA-KIOSH adjusted ordering number is
3.314,500 based on carcinogeniclty.
This compound Is carcinogenic and causes chroma-
some alterations. Mitagenlc and teratogenic to
mice.
The lithium ion Is highly toxic to humans (43) .
Mice succumb to air levels of 10,000 /Jg/n titanium
chloride (T1C14) Which Is equivalent to 2,500
In air 0.5 to 1.0 ftg/m produces noticeable adverse
effects on plants (43). Workers exposed to 200 to
500 J*g/«3 have suffered respiratory symptoms and eye
effects have been reported at 100pg/m3.
*For reasons discussed under "Comments" we consider this HATE too high.
-------
to cage of the test animals. Subacute inhalation studies
are underway to determine if corneal opacity was caused by
the test materials (119).
5.3 Impacts on Water
5.3.1 Summary of Water Standards
A summary of the most stringent water quality standards
based on the federal and selected state, regional, and
international standards, are described. Supplemental in-
formation is presented in the Appendices.
5.3.1.1 Federal Standards or Criteria
Federal water standards may apply to either the ambient
level or the effluent level of the pollutant. The major
ambient standards are the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. These regulations are applicable to the public
water systems* and specify the maximum acceptable level of
various contaminants. Table 91 lists these National Drinking
Water Standards, along with comparable state standards.
Although there are no general federal water quality
standards applicable to the national water or waterways,
there are various water quality criteria (e.g., 1976, EPA
Water Criteria, proposed). Criteria serve as guidelines and
recommendations to states in setting discharge standards,
but unlike standards or regulations, are not legally en-
forceable. Pursuant to Section 304(a) of the 1977 Clean
Water Act Amendments, EPA must develop water quality criteria,
*A public water system means piped water for human consumption
if that system: (a) has at least 15 service connections; or
(b) serves at least 25 people daily for at least 60 days per
year.
-------
TABLE 91 SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND SELECTED STATE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Constituent
Arsenic
aarlin
Cad.iU«
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nitrates Us 8)
(as S03>
Selenium
Silver
taMonia nitrogen
Boron
Chloride
Chromium (total
divalent}
Copper
Cyanide (total)
Hydrogen sulflde
Iron (total)
(dissolved)
Mansaneee
Ktcfcel
OIL t. Crease
Oxygen, dissolved
(daily ave.)
OiniBnM)
pH (acceptable range)
(•Axiaun change
caused by discharges)
|£dS^«^«" EPA UC10NS REPRESENTED RY SELECTED COAL-BEAIIINC STATES
— e t« v. 3 c <•
f £ £ 2 ^|sl ni* tv v VI1 I!t x
fe ~ 2 J ax&£ WVC KYd Iid It* IH OHf TJ8 CO KTh HD SB l^ W11 A^ '" Alt"
0.05 0.01 ** * 1-0 ** * ** ** * •* * **
1.0 * 0.5 * 5.0 * * ** * * * *
0.01 * * * 0-05 * 0.005 ** * * * * *
0.05 * * * 0.01 ** * * *
1.4-2.4° 0.6-1.7* 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.01°
0.05 ***o-l* * ** *« * * *
0.002 0.0005 Q.OOOi O.VO1 O.OO5
10 45 * g.O 4.0 1* 45
250 ** ** «
0 .01 * * * I - 0 * 0.003 ** * * * *
0,05 * * * 0,005 « ** .* * «
1.5 O.D2 0.61
0.5
1.0 M 100 100P ** **
2SO 1 00 500 **
1.0
1.0 0-02 ** 0.05 0.05 ** ** **
0.01 0.025 0.02i 0.025 ** 0.005 ** 0.021 ** 0.2 **
0.005q
0.0029
0.3 1,0 ** ** ** ** 0.2** «*
0,15
0.05 1.0 ** ** «* «* •*
1.0
0.1 5.0 10
5.0 6.0 5.0 7.0*1
5.0 4.0 5.0 4,0 6.0 i.O 5.0 fc.O*1 5.fcr 5.0
6-0-8-5 6.S-9.0 6.0-9-0 6,0-S.O 6.5-8.5 6.5-9. 5 7.0-6.5 6,6-S-6q 6-5-6.5 6- 5-*. 5 6.5-8.6 6.5-8.^
0.5 0.5
t>henolB 0.001 ** 0.1 ** ** ** 0.01 •* **
Phoephaces 0.1 0.002q
Solids, total 2501 10001
(dissolved) 500 700 1000 *« 1OOO *« •» ** 2000" •«
(«a«. «onthly ave.) 500
Solids (total suspended) ( 30q
Sulfate 2» 500 .. ••
Temperature (°C) (M«!«U«) 23;27* 20 29.4 18.1' 26;3?C 21:34C
(•a>lK» increase) 2-» 2.8 2.8 1.1 j.B 1.1:2.2° 1.1;2.8
Tojtlc/deleterlous
substances
Turbidity Increase (JTU) 5 ' ° •» 10 10q 10
zinc °-5 ** 0.1 *« ** 5.0
-------
Footnotes to Table 91
* Same as EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards
**Same as the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standard, 1962
"Pennsylvania water quality criteria are specific to the waterway and its uses,
and are too varied to summarize here
New Mexico water quality standard are specific to the use and river basin area,
and are too varied to summarize here
°Weet Virginia water quality criteria are specific to the designated waterways.
Criteria listed are for the Gauley River and tributaries
General water quality standards
ePublic and food processing water supply standards
General water quality standards applicable within 500 yards of any public water
supply intake in Ohio
'Domestic water supply criteria. It is the goal that the chemical quality of all
Texas surface waters used for domestic raw water supply conform to the U.S. Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards, revised 1962, or latest revision. However,
in some cases the only water source available cannot meet these standards and may
be deemed suitable for use as a domestic raw water supply, where the chemical
constituents do not pose a potential health hazard. Numerical criteria listed,
other than the categories of Public Health Drinking Water Standards, are applicable
to specific waters.
M>ntana utilizes specific water quality criteria for specific water - use classifi-
cation. The metal limits below are for the Clark Fork River (mainstream) from the
confluence of Cottonwood Creek to the Idaho state line
Class I water quality standards
^Class "A" water, suitable
Styoming has three water classes, based on whether water is or has the potential to
support game fish, nongame fish, or no fish (Classes I, II and III, respectively)
Domestic supply
"industrial supply
"Alaska has 7 water-use classifications and criteria. Criteria listed generally
represent the most stringent
Allowable limit depends on water temperature
*Llmit of 100 mg/1 for domestic supplies; for cold water permanent fish life
propogation waters, total chlorine residual shall not exceed 0.02 mg/1
qCold water, permanent fish life propagation waters
5.0 mg/1 minimum in Class I waters; 6.0 mg/1 minimum Class II waters
Say-November 27°C limit; December-April 23°C limit
The lower temperature limit applies to cold water fisheries and the higher tempera-
ture to warm water fisheries
U16°C limit in Class A waters; 21°C limit in Class B waters. Indicates the most and
least stringent criteria
vClasi Al waters
416
-------
for each of the 65 toxic pollutants (designated by (*) in
Table 92) with recommended maximum permissible concentra-
tions (where appropriate, zero).
In contrast to the Drinking Water Regulations, the EPA
Effluent Standards are end-of-pipe limitations. The effluent
standards specify the maximum permissible level of contamin-
ants that are acceptable in effluents discharged from a
specific source into navigable waters without regard to the
quality of the receiving water. They prescribe effluent
limitation guidelines for existing sources, standards of
performance for new sources, and pretreatment standards for
new and existing sources. EPA effluent standards are pro-
mulgated under legislation referred to generally as the
Clean Water Act (or more specifically as the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act [FWPCA]) along with 1972 and 1977
amendments to the Act.
No federal effluent regulations have yet been promul-
gated relative to the commercial SRC and related coal lique-
faction technologies. Federal effluent guidelines and
standards do, however, exist for several industries having
operations and processes similar to SRC technology; these
include coal preparation plants and storage facilities,
petroleum refineries, by-product coking, and steam electric
power generation. The effluent guidelines and standards for
the above industries are summarized in Table 93.
(1) The Best Practical Control Technology currently
Available (BPT) which existing plants were to meet
by July 1, 1977 (compliance deadlines were in some
cases extended to April 1, 1979);
417
-------
TABLE 92. TOXIC POLLUTANTS - LIST OF 129 UNAMBIGUOUS
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING THE 65 CLASSES
OF TOXIC CHEMICALS
Compound Name
1. *acenaphthene
2. *acrolein
3. *acrylonitrile
4. *benzene
5. *benzidine
6. *carbon tetrachloride (tetra-
chloromethane)
*Chlorinated Benzenes (other than
dichlorobenzenes)
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
*Chlorinated ethanes (including
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane and hexachloroethane)
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
*Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl,
chloroethyl and mixed ethers)
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
(mixed)
^Chlorinated naphthalene
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
*Chlorinated phenols (other than
those listed elsewhere; includes
trichlorophenols and chlorinated
cresols)
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. parachlorometa cresol
23. *chloroform (trichloromethane)
24. *2-chlorophenol
(continued)
*Dichlorobenzenes
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
*Dichlorobenzidine
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
*Dichloroethylene8 (1,1-dichloro-
ethylene and 1,2-dichloroethylene)
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. *2,4-dichlorophenol
*Dichloropropane and dichloropro-
pene
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene (1,3-
d ichloropropene)
34. *2,4-dimethylphenol
*Dinitrotoluene
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. *l,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. *ethylbenzene
39. *fluoranthene
*Haloethers (other than those
listed elsewhere)
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chlorsiopropyl)ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
418
-------
TABLE 92. (continued)
Compound Name
*Halomethanes (other than those
listed elsewhere)
44. methylene chloride (dichloro-
methane)
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifuloromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. *hexachlorobutadiene
53. *hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. *isophorone
55. *naphthalene
56. *nitrobenzene
*Nitrophenols (including 2,4-
dinitrophenol and dinitrocresol)
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
*Nitrosamines
61. N-nitrosodimehylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamlne
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. *pentachlorophenol
65. *phenol
*Phthalate esters
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
*Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
72. benzo(a)anthracene (1,2-
benzanthracene)
73. benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-
pyrene)
74. 3,4-benzofluoranthene
75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
(11,12-benzofluoranthene)
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthy]ene
78. anthracene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-
benzoperylene)
80. fluorene
81. phenathrene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
(1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
83. Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
(2,3-o-phenylenepyrene)
84. pyrene
85. *tetrachloroethylene
86. *toluene
87. *trichloroethylene
88. *vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Pesticides and Metabolites
89. aldrin
90. dieldrin
91. *chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites)
*DDT and metabolites
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
94. 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
*Endosulfan and metabolites
95. a-endosulfan-Alpha
96. b-endosulfan-Beta
97. endosulfan sulfate
(continued)
419
-------
TABLE 92. (continued)
Compound Name
*Endrin and Metabolites
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
*Heptachlor and metabolites
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
*Hexachlorocyclohexane (all iaomers)
102. a-BHC-Alpha
103. b-BHC-Beta
104. r-BHC (lindane)-Gamma
105. g-BHC-Delta
*Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCS*a)
106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110. PCB-1248 (Arochoor 1248)
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113. *Toxaphene
114. *Antimony (total)
115. *Arsenic (total)
116. *Asbestos (fibrous)
117. *beryllium (total)
118. *Cadmium (total)
119. *Chromium (total)
120. *Copper (total)
121. *cyanide (total)
122. *Lead (total)
123. *Mercury (total)
124. *Nickel (total)
125. *Selenium (total)
126. *Silver (total)
127. *Thallium (total)
128. *Zinc (total)
129. *2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD)
^Specific compounds and chemical classes as listed in the consent decree
420
-------
TABLE 9S. EPA EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR COAL LIQUEFACTION RELATED
TECHNOLOGIES (116)
Category
Coal Mining (Part
434)
Regulations ex-
pressed in mg/1
Steam Electric
Power Generating
(Part 423)
Regulations con-
centrations ex-
pressed in mg/1
Steam Electric
Subcategory
A. Coal Preparation
Plant
C. Acid on Ferrugin-
ous Mine Drainage
A. Generating Unit
Basis
BPT
BPT
BPT,
BAT,
NSPS
Pollutant or
effluent Maximum for
characteristics any one day
No discharge of pollutants
Iron, Total 7.0
Iron, Dissolved 0.60
Manganese 4 . 0
TSS 70.0
pH all discharges 6.0-9.0
Polychlorinated No discharge
Biphenyl com-
pounds
TSS 100
Oil and grease 20
Total copper from 1.0
metal cleaning
wastes or boiler
blowdown
Free available 0.5
chlorine from
cooling tower
blowdown
Average of daily values
for 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed:
3.5
0.30
2.0
35.0
30
15
1.0
0.2
Materials added for No detectable amount
corrosion inhibition
in cooling tower
blowdown
N>
(continued)
-------
TABLE 93. (continued)
Category
Petroleum Refining
(Part 419)
For typical lube re-
fining, (19875 m3 per
stream * day through-
put)
(Regulations expressed
in kg/km3 of feedstock)
Petroleum Refining
(Part 419) continued
Iron and Steel (Part
420)
(Regulations expressed
in kg/kkg of product)
Subcategory
A. Topping (for
discharges
other than
runoff or
ballast)
A. By-product
Coke
H. Open-Hearth
Furance
Basis
NSPS
BAT,
NSPS
BAT,
NSPS
Pollutant or
effluent
characteristics
BOD5
TSS
COD
Oil & Grease
Maximum for
any one day
11.8
8.3
61
3.6
Phenolic compounds 0.088
Ammonia (as N)
Sulfide
Total chromium
Hexavalent
chromium
2.8
0.078
0.18
0.015
Cyanides amenable 0.0003
to chlorination
Phenol
Ammonia
Sulfide
Oil & Grease
TSS
TSS
Fluoride
Zinc
0.0006
0.0126
0.0003
0.0126
0.0312
0.0156
0.0126
0.0030
Average of daily values
for 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed:
6.3
4.9
32
1.9
0.043
1.3
0.035
0.105
0.0068
0.0001
0.0002
0.0042
0.0001
0.0042
0.0104
0.0052
0.0042
0.0010
ro
ro
-------
(2) The Best Available Control Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT or BACT) which all plants must
meet by July 1, 1984;
(3) The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
utilizing BAT, which apply to new plants and must
be met upon startup.
For each industrial category regulated, the U.S. EPA
has published one or more development documents describing
the industry, its pollutants and wastewater flows, and the
process technologies considered in the establishment of BPT,
BAT, and NSPS.
Guidelines are promulgated on a mass discharge basis,
limiting the discharge of regulated process wastewater
pollutants according to the scale of industrial production,
raw material usage or similar parameter of individual in-
dustrial plant activity. Although the effluent guidelines
are expressed as mass discharge units, they are derived from
expected concentrations of process wastewater pollutants
achievable by application of appropriate control technology.
Further, most development documents report expected wastewater
volumes associated with the point source discharges, expressed
as volume of liquid per unit of industrial activity. For
example, effluent guidelines for the by-product coke industry
(subcategory of iron and steel manufacturing) are expressed
in allowable milligrams of each process wastewater pollutant
regulated per 1000 kilograms of product produced. By dividing
the mass discharge effluent limitation by the wastewater
volume per unit of industrial activity, equivalent standards
expressed as concentration units can be calculated (120):
423
-------
Limitation, in mg/unit of activity _ /-,
Waste Volume, in I/unit ot activity ~ s/
Thus, it is simple to convert mass discharge limits to
concentration limits for each process wastewater pollutant
of each industrial category and subcategory.
5.3.1.2 Federal Legislation
5.3.1.2.1 Recent Amendments to the Clean Water Act
The 1977 amendments to the Clean Water, or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), along with the 1972
amendments, establish long-range national goals to limit
point source effluent concentrations and set forth the
principal mechanisms for the control of water pollution from
industrial sources. Various sections of the FWPCA which may
have regulatory impact for the development and operation of
commercial SRC facilities are briefly summarized below,
along with the present status of the regulation.
Section 307(a), Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards.
requires the EPA administrator to publish a list of toxic
pollutants for which an effluent standard will be established.
A list of 129 unambiguous priority pollutants has been
established, based on an expansion of the original list of
65 classes of toxic chemicals (see Table 92). Toxic Pollutant
Effluent Standards have, however, been established for only
six chemicals. Formulation of aldrin/dieldrin, DDT (DDE,
ODD), and PCBs was prohibited outright as were discharges of
endrin and toxaphene from formulators. Benzidine dischargers,
and manufacturers of endrin and toxaphene were required to
meet standards based on the best available technology.
424
-------
Section 311, Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability.
provides for "designation of hazardous substances" which,
when discharged (including spills), present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or welfare, and for
"penalties for discharges" of such hazardous substances from
onshore and offshore facilities and vessels.
EPA proposed a hazardous spills program on March 13,
1978 which was rejected by the courts on August 11, 1978.
EPA had designated 271 chemicals as hazardous substances,
classifying the substances into five categories according to
toxicity. These rejected regulations would have provided
different penalty and reporting requirements for discharges
of various substances based on multiples of a "one-pound"
unit of measure (121).
The oil and hazardous substance liability could be of
particular significance to the coal liquefaction technology,
since many of the constituents in the liquefaction product
and by-products are classified as hazardous substances.
Section 311(c) of the Act stipulates the development of a
National Contingency Plan to minimize damage to the aqueous
environment from oil and hazardous substance discharges.
Action plans for containment, dispersal and removal are
required, with particular reference to the discharge of oil
and hazardous substances which may affect natural resources
belonging to, or under the exclusive management authority of
the U.S. and those under the Fishery Conservation and Manage-
ment Act of 1976 (122).
Sections 301 and 304, Effluent Limitations and Guide-
lines, stipulate that technology-based effluent limitations
and guidelines are required for all pollutants, including
toxic substances, from point-source discharges. These
425
-------
limitations are to be accomplished in phases. The,, first
phase of industrial cleanup required industrial discharges
to use best practical control technology (BPT) by July 1,
1977. For the second phase of cleanup, the amendments
specify three classes of pollutants: toxic, conventional and
nonconventional.
For the 65 classes of chemicals listed as toxic in
Table 92, industry is required to apply BAT and be in com-
pliance by July 1, 1984. Should the EPA set a toxic standard
(under Section 307(a)) instead of BAT, industry must comply
within 1 to 3 years after the toxic standard is set.
The EPA must promulgate BAT regulations for any chemical
added to the list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants as soon
as practicable. In this case industry must comply not later
than 3 years after the BAT regulation was set. But, if the
EPA should set a toxic standard instead of BAT, industry
shall comply within 1 to 3 years after the toxic standard
was set.
For conventional pollutants the EPA must set effluent
limitations requiring best conventional pollutant control
technology, and industry must comply by July 1, 1984. The
level of pollutant control can be no less than BPT, and as
high as BAT (122).
The EPA, on July 28, 1978, designated the following
four pollutants as "conventional" (123):
• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
• Total suspended solids (nonfilterable) (TSS)
426
-------
• Fecal coliform bacteria
• pH (hydrogen ion)
Three additional pollutants (shown below) were proposed on
August 4, 1978 to be designated as conventional (123):
• Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
• Phosphorus
• Oil and grease
For all unconventional pollutants (i.e., those other
than toxic or conventional) industry must comply with BAT no
later than July 1, 1987. These controls are subject to
strict waiver requirements.
Section 306 of the Clean Water Act provides for the
development of Standards of Performance for New Point Source
Discharges, giving consideration to control technology,
processes, and operating methods, among other alternatives.
Sections 307(b) and (c) require that Pretreatment
Standards be promulgated for discharge of toxic substances
and other pollutants into publicly-owned treatment works.
These standards would prevent the discharge of any pollutant
known to be incompatible with such treatment works. Under
the new amendments, localities may revise pretreatment
requirements for toxic pollutants, particularly where the
municipal treatment works removed all or part of the toxi-
cants (122).
Section 402, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES), requires that the EPA, or a state
having an EPA approved permit program, shall issue a permit
427-
-------
for the discharge of point source pollutants into navigable
waters. The NPDES permit must also be in compliance with
all applicable requirements under Sections 301, 302, 306 to
308, and 403 of the Clean Water Act.
It appears that the weakest areas in the statutory con-
trol of toxic water pollutants include the following:
• Accidental spills
• Nonpoint sources of overland flows
• Stormwater runoff
With regard to spills, further implementation of Section 311
of the Clean Water Act may strengthen controls in this area.
With respect to nonpoint sources of overland flows (agri-
cultural, silvicultural, construction and mining runoff) and
stormwater runoff, Section 208 programs will culminate in
guidelines for controlling nonpoint sources. These 208
plans will be further developed by state and local authori-
ties.
5.3.1.2.2 Proposed Revision of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems
The EPA recently proposed extensive revisions to the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) as
a whole (124). In addition to overall revision, the following
two regulations, under the NPDES were proposed:
428
-------
(1) Requirements for spill prevention control and
countermeasure plans (SPCC) to prevent discharges
of hazardous substances from facilities subject to
permitting requirements (125).
(2) Criteria and standards for imposing best management
practices (BMP) for subsidiary, ancillary industrial
activities to prevent the release of toxic and
hazardous pollutants to surface waters (126).
Spills of SRC product could be a major ecological and health
hazard. The above regulations could contribute control
measures to decrease the possibility of such spills and/or
the hazard it would present to the environment. Best manage-
ment practices (BMP) refers to methods, measures or practices
to prevent or reduce the introduction of pollutants to
waters of the United States. BMPs include but are not
limited to treatment requirements, operating and maintenances
procedures, schedules of activities, prohibition of activities,
and other management practices to control plant site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage
from raw material storage. They may be imposed in addition
to or in the absence of effluent limitations, standards or
prohibitions.
The SPCC plan approach used in these proposed NPDES
regulations is similar to the one developed and used in
EPA's oil pollution prevention regulation (127). The SPCC
plan would be developed by the owner or the operator of a
facility, or by his/her engineer, in accordance with guidelines
contained in the regulations. The plan would have to be
certified by a registered professional engineer and be
implemented by the owner or operator. Compliance with SPCC
plan requirements would be established as a minimum level of
429
-------
control for best management practices (BMP) plans. The
failure to develop and implement an adequate BMP plan, as
well as the discharge of pollutants in contravention of an
adequate BMP plan, will constitute a permit violation and
subject the permittee to enforcement action.
5.3.1.2.3 Other Federal Statutory Requirements
Relating to Toxic and Hazardous Water
Pollutants
The Clean Water Act provides a broad spectrum of mechan-
isms for the control of pollutants while other federal laws
are more narrowly drawn and focus on individual sources of
pollution such as transportation.
The Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 controls the ocean dumping of matter of any kind, in-
cluding radioactive materials (but excluding oil), sewage
from vessels, and effluents regulated by FWPCA, the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Act, or the Atomic Energy Act. Permits
may be issued by the EPA'for the transportation and dumping
of materials (other than radiological, chemical and biologi-
cal warfare agents and dredged material) should the Admini-
strator conclude that such dumping will not unreasonably
endanger or degrade human health and welfare.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 con-
trols water pollution indirectly by requiring a regulatory
system for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
wastes. Hazardous waste is defined as a solid waste generated
by industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations
that, because of its quantity or characteristics (e.g.,
bottom ash or fly ash containing radioactivity and suspected
carcinogens), may be hazardous to human health or to the
430
-------
environment. Subtitle C of the 1976 Act requires the EPA
administrator to:
• Promulgate criteria and regulations that identify
the characteristics of hazardous waste, and list
particular hazardous wastes.
• Promulgate standards, regulations, and manifests
applicable to those who generate, transport,
treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes.
These procedures will specify record keeping,
labeling, reporting, monitoring and inspection
practices and compliance with requirements for
permits. Also required is the promulgation of
guidelines to assist the development of state
hazardous waste programs. These programs must
fulfill the criteria of consistency, equivalency,
and adequacy of enforcement. For example, regula-
tions developed by EPA relative to transporters of
hazardous wastes subject to the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, must be consistent with the
requirements of that Act. EPA must also integrate
all provisions of the Resource Conservation Act
and avoid duplication (where practicable) with the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking
Water Act, and other acts that grant regulatory
authority to EPA.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 author-
izes the EPA to require the testing of suspected chemicals
to determine the extent of the toxicity. This broad dis-
cretionary power is highly relevant to certain potentially
toxic inorganics and organics known to occur in certain
waste streams and products of the SRC technology. The EPA
431
-------
administrator may prohibit or limit the disposal of a chemi-
cal or a mixture of chemical substances, when he finds that
there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a chemical
substance or a mixture poses an unreasonable risk of injury
to human health or to the environment as a whole. The term
"mixture" is defined as a combination of chemical substances
that is not the result of a chemical reaction.
The major importance of TSCA is that it stands as an
alternative statutory control, if adequate -controls cannot
be developed for a chemical substance through the Clean
Water or Safe Drinking Water Act (122).
5.3.1.3 State Standards or Criteria
A majority of states have established water quality
standards which are applicable, for the most part, to exist-
ing receiving waters of the state. These water quality
standards for selected states are summarized and compared to
the EPA National Interim Drinking Water Standards and the
U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 1962,
in Table 91.
States may have also established effluent standards,
imposing discharge limitations on various industries. In
addition, states generally require a discharge permit from
industrial dischargers. The primary mechanism for controll-
ing effluents into receiving waters is therefore by enforce-
ment of the conditions imposed by a required discharge
permit.
432
-------
Water quality standards highlighted in this report are
those of the coal-producing states that may affect future
commercial SRC operations. The several factors that are
determinant to the establishment of standards applicable to
state waters of all classifications are as follows:
States by Beneficial Mixing Stream (Use)
EPA Region Uses Zone Classification
III Pennsylvania - - *
West Virginia - - *
IV Kentucky - *
V Illinois * *
Indiana * *
Ohio * *
VI New Mexico - - *
VIII Montana * -
North Dakota *
Utah - *
Wyoming *
IX Arizona *
X Alaska * -
5.3.1.3.1 Effluent Standards of The States
In contrast to the federal effluent guidelines which
apply to specific industrial categories, the state numerical
effluent standards for the seven coal-producing states
(Table 94) apply equally to all point source discharges.
In some states, the effluent standards are applicable only
for discharges to selected bodies of water. Table 94
shows the coal-producing states that have issued numerical
effluent standards for specific pollutants.
433
-------
TABLE 94. NUMERICAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS OF COAL-PRODUCING STATES
Pollutant
EPA REGIONS REPRESENTED BY SELECTED STATES
III
Maryland Virginia
IV
Kentucky
V
Illinois
Colorado
VIII
Montana
North Dakota
Arsenic
Barium
BOD
u>
£* Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
(continu
0.25
2.0
0.15
0.30 (hex.)
1.0
0.025
15.0
2.0
ed)
-
-
45(7 day
avg.) 30
(30 day
avg.)
'
-
—
-
-
-
Avg./d,
0.01a Max.
0.016a
-
Avg./d,0.01a
Max. 0.01a
Avg. /d, 0.05-
0.09b
Max., 1-3-2. 2b
-
-
Avg. /d, 0.3-
Max.,1.3-2.2b
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-------
TABLE 94. (continued)
EPA REGIONS REPRESENTED BY SELECTED STATES
Pollutant
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Oil
pH
Phenols
Selenium
Silver
III
Maryland Virginia
-
-
-
-
30.0
6.0-8.5d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
6.0-8.5C
-
-
-
IV
Kentucky
-
-
-
-
6-9(7 day
avg.)
6-9(30 day
avg.)
-
-
-
(continui
V
Illinois
0.100
1.0
0.0003
1.0
15.0
5-10
0.30
1.0
0.10
3d)
Colorado
-
-
-
-
10.0(7 day
avg.)c
10.0(30
day avg.)
6-9(7 day
avg.)
6-9(30
day avg.)
-
-
-
VIII
Montana
Avg. /d, 0.3-
0.10b
Max., 0.05-
-
Avg. /d,0. 0011
Max.,0.001b
-
-
-
-
North Dakota
-
-
>
-
-
-
-
Ul
-------
TABLE 94. (continued)
EPA REGIONS REPRESENTED BY SELECTED STATES
Pollutant
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Suspended
Solids
Zinc
III
Maryland Virginia
^
400d
-
_
4.0C
0.0h
0.51
IV
Kentucky
_
45(7 day
avg.)
30(30 day
avg.)
-
V
Illinois
750-3500
5-34f
1.0
Colorado
_
45(7 day
avg.)
30(30 day
avg.)
'-
VIII
Montana N<
_
_
-
Avg. /d, 0.01-
Max.,0.2-1.0b
>rth Dakota
^
10r
-
tjO
0\
For Clark Fort River only.
For segments of Clark Fork River.
CThere shall be no visible sheen.
Effluent limitation.
6For the entire Chickahominy watershed above Walkers Dam.
Depends on body of water being discharged to
Municipal wastes
For the Rappahanock River Basin above proposed Salem Church Dam
Applies to all bodies of water
-------
5.3.1.3.2 State Water Quality Standards
A comparison of the water quality standards of the
various coal producing states is shown in Table 91, along
with the EPA National Drinking Water Standards and the
Public Health Drinking Water Standards. In general, the
state standards are quite similar to the two national stand-
ards, although states often establish numerical and nonnumeri-
cal standards for additional contaminant categories. An
individual state may also promulgate a number of different
water quality standards, each of which may apply specifically
to a particular waterway or a particular intended use of
that water (e.g., swimming, fishing, and domestic water
supply used). Those standards pertaining to domestic water
supply or game fish breeding waters are, as a rule, more
stringent than, for example, those pertaining to industrial
or agricultural uses. A comparison of two Illinois standards
in Table 91 (the general water quality standards are the
public food processing water supply standards) illustrate
the application of more stringent regulation to drinking
water.
EPA Region III (Pennsylvania and West Virginia - Penn-
sylvania water quality criteria are based upon water use and
are applicable to specific waterways. These criteria are
too numerous and varied to incorporate into the summary
table.
West Virginia has water quality criteria similar to
those of Pennsylvania. Criteria for the Gauley River and
tributaries were chosen for representation in Table 91 due
to their acceptability for all,water use classifications.
437
-------
EPA Region IV (Kentucky) - Kentucky water quality
standards vary with stream use classification. The general
water quality standards are shown in Table 91.
EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio) - Illinois
general water quality standards and the public and food pro-
cessing water supply standards are shown in Table 91.
Effluent standards are given in Table 94. The rules and
regulations indicate that dilution of the effluent from a
treatment works or from any wastewater source is not accept-
able as a method of treatment of wastes in order to meet the
effluent standards. It is further stated that the most
technically feasible and economically reasonable treatment
methods should be employed to meet the specified effluent
limitations.
Indiana water quality standards state criteria to be
considered when determining a mixing zone but describe no
absolute zone, reasoning that too many variables are involved.
The numerical criteria are limited and apply primarily to
changes in temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen. The cri-
teria also state that toxic substances shall not exceed one-
tenth of the 96-hour median tolerance limit.
Ohio water quality standards depend on water use and
mixing zone (which is formulated for specific discharges and
locations) rather than a generalized definition. Table 91
presents the general water quality standards applicable
within 500 yards of any public water supply intake in Ohio.
EPA Region VI (New Mexico and Texas) - New Mexico water
quality standards, specific to the water use and the river
basin, were too numerous and varied to present in the state
standards summary table.
438
-------
Texas water standards consist of three parts: general
criteria, numerical criteria and water uses. The latter two
are highly stream-specific, similar to the Pennsylvania
legislation. Water quality parameters and uses for the
domestic water supply criteria are shown in Table 91. It is
the goal that the chemical quality of all Texas surface
waters used for domestic raw water supply conform to the
U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, revised
1962, or latest revision. However, in some cases the only
water source available cannot meet these standards and may
be deemed suitable for use as a domestic water supply, where
the chemical constituents do not pose a potential health
hazard. Numerical criteria listed, other than the categories
of Public Health Drinking Water Standards, are applicable to
specific waters. It should be noted that Texas has one of
the warmest climates among those states considered. Natural
water temperature may exceed 96°F (37.7°C). For this reason
the 90 degree maximum temperature suggested by the National
Technical Advisory Committee does not .apply. A maximum
temperature increases of 3 F° (1.7 C°) is permitted for fresh
waters, 5 F° (2.8 C°) for saline waters. Applicable water
quality standards for various water use class categories in
Wyoming are shown in Table 91.
Stream quality criteria are dependent upon stream
classification. Class "A" waters are to be suitable without
pretreating 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 maintained.
Physical characteristics and chemical concentration standards
are the same as prescribed by "Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards, 1962."
439
-------
Wyoming water quality standards which may affect future
commercial SRC operations are summarized in Table 91.
Wyoming waters are classified as having potential to support
game fish (Class 1), 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 Drink-
ing Water Standards.
EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah and Wyoming) - Both water quality standards
and effluent limitations have been promulgated for Colorado,
as shown in Tables 91 and 94 respectively.
Montana's water quality policy consists of general
water quality criteria and specific water quality criteria
which correspond to the various water-use classifications.
The metals limits listed in Table 91 are for the Clark Fork
River (mainstream) from the confluence of Cottonwood Creek
to the Idaho state line.
North Dakota water quality is dependent upon water
classification. Mixing zone guides are described in pre-
ference to defining a mixing zone applicable to every situa-
tion. Applicable criteria for Class I waters are shown in
Table 91.
EPA Region IX (Arizona) - Water quality standards for
Arizona are established for surface waters with specific
uses. Applicable standards for domestic and industrial
waters are compiled in Table 91.
EPA Region X (Alaska) - Alaska has seven water use
classifications and criteria. The criteria listed in Table
91 generally represent the most stringent.
440
-------
With respect to toxic and hazardous water pollutants,
nonnumerical standards have been proposed by Pennsylvania
and West Virginia (EPA Region III); Kentucky (Region IV);
Ohio (Region V); Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah and Wyoming (Region VIII); and Arizona (Region
IX).
Numerical standards for toxic substances have been
issued by Illinois (Region V), Montana (pegged to bioassay
and Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards), Indiana
(pegged to Drinking Water Standards of USPHS), Texas and
Montana. The state of Alaska has proposed neither numerical
or nonnumerical standards for toxic and hazardous substances.
A comprehensive summary of various water qulaity and
effluent standards of coal producing states is presented in
the document, Environmental Standards Applicable to Coal
Conversion Processes (118).
5.3.2 Comparisons of Waste Streams with Effluent
Standards
The flows of effluents and accidental spills from basic
unit operations and various auxiliary (required for and
incidental to the SRC system) are combined and routed to the
wastewater treatment facility, as shown in Figure 63. The
primary focus therefore becomes the quantity and composition
of effluents and discharges from the wastewater treatment
facility that may eventually interact with aquatic and land
environments. In conformity with the earlier discussion of
emissions to the atmosphere effluents from auxiliary proces-
ses are categorized in terms of: (1) those that are clearly
required for, and (2) those that are incidental to the
primary functions of the SRC-II system. Streams shown in
Figure 63 are characterized in Section 3.0.
4*41
-------
5.3.3 Impact on Ambient Water Quality
Table 95 lists the concentration of water pollutants
for which regulations are available, the applicable MATEs,
and comments on the toxicity of each pollutant. In a few
cases, for reasons listed as "comments", in our opinion,
reevaluation of MATE values should be considered. In these
cases the toxicity of this pollutant predicted by the SAM/IA
method may be too low. Table 96 shows these MATEs and
recommendations for proposed MATEs. Our recommendations are
meant to be multiplied by a dilution factor before they are
applied to the waste streams; hence, they are analogous to
the ecological-based MATE. In order to determine the health-
based MATE, simply multiply the proposed (ecological) MATE
by 10 (i.e., the worst case dilution factor).
Estimates of pollutant levels in the water-bound waste
streams and elements of the SAM/IA analysis of these streams
are given in Tables 97 and 98. The SAM/IA analysis indicates
that aluminum, calcium, chromium, iron, manganese, mercury,
nickel, and sulfate may be a problem in the coal pile drain-
age. Mercury may be a problem in the ash pond effluent.
Phenols, cresols, xylenols, C -phenols, naphthalene, naph-
thols, bismuth, calcium, and iron may be a problem in the
wastewater effluent. In addition, we have indicated, in
Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.A, some problem areas in which the
potential degree of hazard predicted by the MEG-SAM/IA
approach may be underestimated.
442
-------
TABLE 95. REGULATED WATER POLLUTANTS WHICH MAY EXCEED STANDARDS AND/OR
WHICH MAY CAUSE HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
U)
Coal File
Aluminum 7.3xl05
Barium 100.
Beryllium 1.0.
Cadmium 4 .
Chlorine l.OxlO5
Chromium 2000.
Copper 1500.
Iron 9xl06
Lead
Magnesium 6.5x10
Manganese 6.5x10
Mercury 14.
Nickel 1000.
Selenium 20.
Silver
Sulfur 2.6xl06
sulfur dioxide
hydrogen sulflde
sulfate
Zinc 5100.
pH 2.8-7.8
Suspended
solid
Phenol
Cresols
Xylenol
C,-phenals
A»h Pond
700-2000
200.
<10.
1.
5000-12000
20. -45.
20-50
230-240
10-25
1000-2000
1-10.
0.4-38.
50-70. C
11. -16.
<10.
8.7-15.6
xlO*
40. -50.
9.4-114
1-182. xlO3
Wastevater
250. (340.)
125. (250.)
6500 (11000)
90(220)
11(30)
560(1250)
1800(4500)
20. (77.)
3.9(19.)
1.015(0.098)
0.80(2.1)
390
940
380
90
Applicable
Health
8.0x10**
5000.*
30.*
50.*
1.3X106
250.*
5000.*
1500.
250.*
9.0x10*
250.
10.*
250.
50.*
250.*
2.0x10*
2.3x10*
1.5xlO*h
4*
2.5x10
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
HATE
Eco-
logical
1OOO*
2500.*
55.*
10*
10.*
250.*
50.*
250.
50.
8.7x10*
100.
250.*
10.
25.*
5.0*
450."
100.*
500.*
500.
500.
500.
Critical Cone.' FWCA
Drinking Freah Marine Surface
10.
1000. 1000.
1000. 100. 20.
10 5. 10. 5.
250,000
50. 5. 0.06 50 5000.
100(1000) 20. 1. 1000. 200
(300)
50. 10. 5. 50. 5000.
10000.
50. 10. 2. 50. 2000.
2. 1. 5xlO"5
50. 5. 1. 500.
10. 1. 2. 10. 50.
50. i. 5.
(25000)
5000. 5000. 5000.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Public Live-
Hater stock
Supply Potable Drinking
1000.
100. 50.
50 20. 1000.
1000. 10. 500.
50. 10. 100.
10.
2. 2. a.
50.
10. 10. 50.
0.5 1.2
50. 25000
5-9
-------
TABLE 95. (continued)
Comments
Growth reduction in wheat and orange seedlings were reported in nutrient solutions con-
Aiuninum taining 100 jig/1 aluminum. A concentration of 70 Jig/1 is toxic to the stickleback fish,
Gasterosteus aculeatus (43).
Barium One hundred jig/1 barium reduces the heterotrophic activity of freshwater microflora
(109).
Some varieties of citrus fruit seedlings show toxic effects at concentrations of 2.5-5.0
Beryllium J*8/l beryllium (154). The 96-hour LCjo for the fathead minnow is 150jig/l as BeCl2 In soft
water. Nutrient solutions containing 500 ug/1 beryllium reduced the growth of bush beans
(43).
Cadmium Five Jig/1 cadmium In drinking water of rats for one year apparently results in hyperten-
sion. Reproduction of Daphnia magna was reduced at a cadmium concentration of 0.5jjg/l.
Five months exposure to cadmium concentrations of 0.02 to 10jig/l increased mortality of
crayfish, Cambarus latimanus, but had little effect on growth or temperature tolerance.
In freshwater systems, 0.01 g/1 cadmium inhibited the growth of floating aquatic plants.
The 200 hour LCso for steelhead trout, Salmo galrdnerl. varies from 0.9 to 1.5 Jig/1 depend-
ing on the age of the fish (108). The 200 hour LCso for chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha. varous from 1.6 to 2.3 Jig/1 for fish from 3 weeks to 18 months old (IV-21) .
Adult coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, show a 200 hour LCso of 3.3jig/l (108). The
grass shrimp, Daphnia magna. show a 3 week LCso of 1-7 Jlg/1 (153). The most stringent
state standard for cadmium is 10. The EPA Water Quality Criteria for fresh soft water
is 0.4-4, and the criteria for fresh hard water is 1.2-12.
Chlorine The preliminary draft of the EPA Quality Criteria for water indicates that 3 ug/1 chlorine
would not harm salmonld fishes and that a level of 10 g/1 should be satisfactory for
other fishes. Lethal concentrations for brook trout, Salvelinus fontlnalie; brown trout,
Salmo trutta; grass shrimp, Daphnia magna; and seeweed hoppers, Gammarus pseudolimnecus
ranged from 14 to 20 Jig/1 (43,47).
chroaium Mean brood size of the marine polychate, Heanthes arenaceodentata, is,.reduced by 12.5
jig chromium/liter (108). The 48-hour LCso for tne grass shrimp, Daphnia hyalina, is 22
jig/1 (108). The algae lethal level is 32-6400 jig/1 (43,154). The lethal level for
for oysters is 10-12 Jig/1 (43,154).
Copper Photosynthesis of certain species of phytoplankton can be inhibited by as little as 6 jig
Cu/1 (156) and growth reduction can occur at 10 Jig/1 (155). Toxic effects of copper on many
aquatic organisms range from 0.04 to 10 Jig/1 (108,109). With many more toxic effects being
noted In the range 10 to 100 jig/1 (108,112).
(continued)
-------
TABLE 95. (continued)
Conapnta
Levels of more than IOOOjjg/1 inorganic iron and compounds (as iron) are toxic to certain
sensitive plants while animals are unaffected by levels of 100 fig/g animal. The preliminary
draft of the EPA quality criteria for water indicates that 300 fjg/1 iron is satisfactory for
iron public water supplies and that 1000 flg/1 should allow fish and wildlife propagation. The
1972 EPA Water Quality Criteria indicates that a level of 5000 fig/1 is satisfactory in waters
to be used for irrigation. Iron levels of 1.5-1.0 fig/1 stimulates the growth of the algae,
Chlorella pyrenoides (109) which can lead to eutrophlcation. The lowest LC5Q is for
the mayfly, Ephemarella subvaria, at 320 g/1 for 96-hours; the next lowest known iron con-
centrations shoving a. biological effect is 3000 fig/1 which causes reproductive impairment in
seaweed hoppers, Cammaride, after 4 months (112).
A lead concentration of 100 fig/1 inhibits 50 percent of the light-induced oxygen evolution in
Lead several species of freshwater algae (110). The toxlclty of lead to aquatic organims generally
occurs at concentrations greater than. 10pg/l (112). Daphnla showed 16 percent reproductive
impairment in 3 weeks at a concentration of 30 flg/1 (112). Sensitive fish species (e.g.,
trout and salmon) suffer fry mortality at concentrations ranging from 10 to 1000 fig/1 (112).
Magnesium At 7200 fig/1, magnesium inhibits the growth of Botryococcus (43). The concentrations of
calcium and magnesium in water Influence the toxicity of heavy metals (43).
Levels of 5 to 20 fig/1 manganese stimulates the growth of the alga, Dunaliella terciolecta,
and Inhibits the growth of Anabaena sp. and Aphanizonmenon sp. (109).
The proposed EPA 1976 Water Quality Criteria is 2.0 fig mercury/1 for health protection, 0.05
, flg/1 for protection of freshwater life and wildlife, and 0.10fig/1 for marine life. The
NAS/NAE 1972 Water Quality Criteria recommendations are essentially Identical to these EPA
1976 Water Quality Criteria. Toxic mercury concentrations range from 0.06 to Ib ;ig/l
(108,122).
||
The 96-hour LCSQ Is 260 gNi /I for the stickelback. Data indicates that nickel concentra-
tions greater than 100fig/1 may adversely affect several aquatic species. Nickel Is very
toxic to many plants especially citrus fruits; at concentrations above 0.0005 flg/1 it will
inhibit plant growth (154).
i One microgram selenium per liter in drinking water for just 8 hours one time killed 50 per-
cent of Guinea pigs within 30 days (108).
(continued)
-------
TABLE 95. (continued)
Comments
In marine teleosts, 0.12{tg/l silver caused significant respiratory depression (154), and
O.lpg/1 reduces the heterotrophic activity of bacteria (109). Sea urchins, Echlnoidea
sp., suffered delayed developnent and deformation at 2 g/1 sliver (154). Five fig/1 is
toxic to the stickelback, Gasterostaldae (43,154). The ca. 48 hour LC50 for th« American
silver oyster, Graasostrea vlrginlca. eggs and adults 6 jig/1 while these animals suffered
100 percent mortality at 10 Jig/1. Rainbow trout, Salmo gairdnerl, shoved 94 percent
•ortality In recently hatched fry and retarded growth and developnent (154). The LCso
forthe mayfly, Ephemerella grand is, is less than 1 g/1 (108) while the TLjQ for the
•tonefly is 4-9 pg/1 (108).
Sulfur The exact form of the sulfur in the waste streams is not known. Hydrogen
sulfide la toxic to bullgills at concentrations of 1 yg/1. The 96 hour
LCso for northern pike, Esox Indus, is 17 to 32{jg/l (43).
zlnc Tadpoles suffered stunted growth and showed no evidence of limb buds when exposed to
5.4 jig zinc/1 (108). Levels of 6.5 jjg/1 zinc stlaulate the growth of mlcroflora,
Chlorella pyrenoldosa (112). Levels of 10 to 100 (lg/1 zinc Is toxic to grass
shrimp, Daphnla magoa (112); Chinook saloon, (112); rainbow trout, Salno galrdenerl
•P" (43), unicellular green algae, Selanastrum caprlcornatum (108); marine algae,
•P~~ Skeletonema costatum (108), and minnows, Phioxinus phoxlnus (108).
OM *
In general, pH levels below 5 cause severe changes in communities of microdecomposers,
algae, aquatic microphytes, zooplankton, and benthos.. The grass shrimp, Daphnia
pulex does not reproduce successfully below pH 7.0, but it can tolerate a pH as low as
pH 4.3 (112). No snails were found in 832 lakes at pH values lass than 5.2; snails were
rare in the range pU 5.2-5.8 and occurred less frequently in the pH range 5.8-6.6 than
in more neutral or alkaline water (108) . Many fish species including small mouth,
Mlcropterus dolomleul, walleye, Stlzostedlon vltreum; and burbot, Lota lota (108). A
pH range of 6.0 to 8.3 should not be hazardous to livestock.
Suspended The preliminary draft of the EPA Quality Criteria for water indicates that a suspended
solid solid level of 25,000|ig/l will allow fish and wildlife propagation (157).
Phenol ^ne 8*een algae, Chlorella vulgaris, grev abnormally during chronic exposure to 10 jig/1
phenol/1 (158). Concentrations of phenol as low as 79/ig/1 Is reported toxic to some
minnows (43). The EPA recommends a level of 1 /4g/l to protect against fish flesh
tainting.
See cresol.
See cresol.
-------
TABLE 96. REGULATED WATER POLLUTANTS FOR WHICH
THE PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD MAY BE TOO LOW
Pollutant
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Phenols
Present
Health Based
S.OxlO4
5000.
30.
50.
1.3xl06
250.
5000.
250,
10.
50.
250.
2.5xl04
5.
MATE Gig/1)
Ecological Based
1000.
2500.
55.
1.0
250.
50.
50.
250.
25.
5.0
100.
500.
Proposed (Ecological)
MATE (ug/1)
100.
100.
2.5
0.01
3.
10.
1.
10.
0.05
0.5
0.1
5.
10.
447.
-------
TABLE 97. SAM/IA ANALYSIS OF AQUEOUS EFFLUENT OF THE
HYDROTREATING MODULE, PHENOL RECOVERY MODULE, AND BIO-UNIT
oo
Potential Degree of Hazard
HydrotreatlnR Module Phenol Recovery Module
Health Ecological Health Ecological
Material Based Based Based Based
1* s* 5
Amonia 5.2x10 2.6x10 6400.* 3.2x10
Biphenyl
Cresols
C2~Anthracene
C3-Phenols
Dlnethylnaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Hydrocarbon (as 0.0073
ethane) 6* 6*
Hydrogen sulfide 510.* 1.2x10 520.* 1.2x10
1-Isopropylnaphthalene
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthols (o~,p-,
•ethyl-) ,*
Phenol 2.4x10 240.*
Phenanthrene/anthracene
Pyrene
Xylenol
Tetralin
Ojuinoline
Methylquinoline \
Dimethylquinoline 1
Ethylquinoline (
Benzoquinoline /
Methylbenzoqulnoline 1
Tetrahydroquinoline J
Isoquinollne
Indole \
Metylindole /
Dimethylindole \
Benzoindole \
Methylbenzoindole /
Stream flow rate (I/sec) Q - 9.2 9.2 0.0347 0.0347
Stream degree of hazard: 5700 1.4x10 3.1x10* 1.5x10
No. of entries compared 22 4 3
to MATEs 47 I 4
Toxic unit discharge sum: 5.2x10 1.8x10 1.1x10 5.3x10
Bio-Unit Effluent
Health Ecological
Based Based
0.0020-0.0073
188.* 1.88*
1.2xlO~5
18.* 0.18
1.5x32.9x10^
4.3-45.xlO
_c
9.4-32.9x10 '
3.2-11.5x10
0.0011 8.1*
60.*-580* 0.6-5.8*
78.* 0.78
0.010
6.9xlO"5
76.* 0.76
2.5x10 0.05
0.0-0.4
0.0-0.12
0.0-0.65
0.0-0.65
0.0-0.16
36.6 36.6
420-940 13-18
19 7
1.5(3.4)xlO* 480-660
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one (1) indicates that this component may represent a
significant environmental hazard
-------
TABLE 98. SAM/IA ANALYSIS OF AQUEOUS EFFLUENT FROM COAL PILE DRAINAGE, ASH
POND EFFLUENT. AND WASTEWATER
Potential Degree of Hazard
Coal File Drainage*
Material
Aluminum
Amonia
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulflde
Tantalum
Thorium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Stream flow rate
(I/sec) Q -
Stream degree of
hazard •
No. of entries com-
pared to MATGs
Toxic unit discharge
sum
Health Based
9.1* (15.*)
0.038(0.098)
0.0014(0.0014)
0.04(0.04)
0.33(0.33)
0.080(0.12)
1.2* (1.5*)
0.077(0.37)
8.*(63.»)
0.30(0.68)
6000.*(6200.*)
0.064(3300.*)
0.72(1.9*)
272.*(440.*)
1.4*(2.7*>
4.3*(7.4*)
0.048(0.080)
0.40(0.60)
0.61(0.61)
0.84(1.6*)
170.*(170.*)
0.01(0.01)
0.20(0.92)
ca.1.0
6500.<66000.)
24
ca.6500(ca.66000)
Ecolooical Based
730-*(1200.»)
2.0M5.1*)
0.20(0.20)
0.20(0.20)
0.18(0.18)
4.0*(6.0*)
19.*(22.*)
8,*(63.*)
30.*(68.*)
36000.*(3.7xl05)
4*
0.32(1.7x10 )
0.75(2.0*)
680.*(1100.«)
0.056(0.11)
100.*(170.*)
14.40. *{2400,*)
0.80(1.2*)
5800.* (5800.*)
3.7*(3.7*)
51.*(230.*)
ca.1.0
A
4.5(40>xlO
20
t.
ca.4.5(40)xJO
Ash Pood
Effluent
Health Based
0.021-0.025
0.020-0.048
0.040
0.33
0.02
0.363-0.479
0.084-0.172
0.04-0.10
0.153-0.160.
0.040-0.10
0.011-0.022
0.040
0.040-3.8
0.217-0.304
0.22-0.32
0.04
0.001-0.002
Sot estimated
1.7-6.0
17
Wastevater*
Health
Based
0.0031(0.0042)
0.0013(0.0044)
4.4x10-7(2.7x10 )
0.025(0.050)
5.2*
0.35(0.74) „
5.3(7.2)xlO ~*
4.3<7.2)xlO
0.0050<0.0085)
0.36(0.88)
2.3(540.)xlO~t>
0.0022(0.0060)
3.5(5.75x10-5
2.9(4.3)xlO-10
0-37(0.83)
3.9(5.9)xlO"U
0.020(0.050)
0.080(0-31)
0.39(1.9*)
6.5x10-5(0.056)
0.050(0.11)
1.4(4.9)xlO ,,
9.0(15.2)xlO "~
1. 6(125. )xlO
0.16(0.040)
0.15(0.76)
7.4(15.9)xlO
— Q
2.9(4.0)xlO *
1.9(4.0)xlO"a
0.0013(0.0030)
4.8(9.6)xlO"4
1.6x10-6
3.3(6.4}xlO~*
36.6
7.1-11.
34
260. -400.
Ecological
Based
0.25(0.34)
0.0066(0.022)
1. 6x10-5 (<0.j;'
0.052(0.10)
5.3*(12.*)
0.36(0.88)
6.8(1640)xlO
0.22(0.60)
2.2*(5.0*)
0.21(0.05)
0.20(0.77)
0.016(0.076)
0.0015(1.3*)
0.065(0.14)
0.032(0.084)
0.44(1.0*)
0.0080(0.016)
4.0x10-*
36.6
9.3-22.
19
340. -800.
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one
environmental hazard.
Numbers in parenthesis based on maximum, other
(1) indicates that this component may represent an -
numbers based on average.
-------
5.3.4 Evaluation of Unregulated Pollutants and Bioassay
Results
Table 99 shows two pollutants for which standards do
not exist. The SAM/IA analysis indicates that these two
pollutants may cause problems in the coal pile drainage. No
other unregulated pollutants have been projected to represent
an environmental hazard.
The use of bioassays for the prediction of ecological
and health hazards of various effluents to the environment
from the SRC main unit operations and auxiliary processes is
underway, as reported in Section 3.0. Bioassay results re-
ported to date, however, are limited to studies of the
toxicity to fish of acid and neutral leachates from the SRC-
mineral residue from Kentucky No. 9 coal. Both the undiluted
acidic (pH 5.6) and neutral leachates of SRC-mineral residue
caused the death of one to six day-old fathead minnows
during 96-hour exposures. Survival was ensured only with a
1:10 dilution of either leachate (42). From these data it
was not possible to determine which inorganic constituent(s)
caused fish death; however, toxic levels of Al, Cr, Cu, Ni
and Zn were present in the acid leachate (42).
5.4 Impacts of Land Disposal
5.4.1 Summary of Final Land Disposal Standards
5.4.1.1 Federal Regulations
On February 1, 1978 the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency promulgated, under Section 3006a, Subtitle C of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, a set of guidelines
for State hazardous waste management programs. Hazardous
wastes were found by the U.S. Congress to present special
450
-------
TABLE 99. AMOUNT AND HAZARD EXPECTED FROM UNREGULATED POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Coal Pile Appropriate MATE (jZg/1)
Drainage Wastewater Health Ecological
Qng/1) (jUg/1) Based Based
Comments
Phosphorus
720.
Silicon
9.1xlOH
Ln
1.5x10
1.5x10'
0.5
Phosphate is not directly toxic
to man or to aquatic organisms.
It is an essential nutrient and
may affect water quality by
enhancing the rate of eutrophi-
cation.
Levels of 500 ^g/1 stimulate the
growth of the alga, Asterionella
sp. (109). If this is a general
effect, this silicon concentra-
could lead to entrophication.
Naphthols
300-2900
5.0
500.
(3-naphthol is carcinogenic.
-------
dangers to health; therefore, the states must develop programs
to control them. In the event that any state chooses not to
develop such a program, the EPA is required to do so.
Hazardous wastes that are judged to have a significant
impact on human health and the environment will be defined
by the Section 3001. These final regulations were to have
been issued by April 1978 along with criteria and methods
for identifying and listing hazardous wastes. As a result
of delays, EPA is an estimated six months behind schedule in
issuing standards for what constitutes a hazardous waste
(128). Once EPA criteria are established those wastes
identified by such means are then to be included in the
management control system constructed under Sections 3002
through 3006, and 3010 of the RCRA guidelines. The effective
date for the regulations promulgated under Sections 3001 to
3005 was stated as October 21, 1978. The 6-month time
period after final promulgation will be used to increase
public understanding of the regulations, and to allow com-
pliance by those covered by the regulations. During this
same period, notifications required under Section 3010 may
be submitted, and facility permit applications required
under Section 3005 may be distributed for completion by
applicants.
Section 3002 of the regulations presents the standards
applicable to classes of generators of hazardous wastes and
requires the creation of a manifest system for tracking
wastes from the generation point to the final site of storage,
treatment or disposal facility to which a permit was issued.
Thus, the "cradle-to-the-grave" concept on which Subtitle C
is based, includes the requirement that the regulatory
agency has knowledge of the existence and movement of hazard-
ous wastes through their entire life cycle. Those few
states which already have a manifest system may be required
452
-------
to make it consistent with the federal system. The EPA
expects to provide assistance to the states (i.e., software
and other tools) in setting up the new manifest system.
Section 3003 addresses standards applicable to transport-
ers of hazardous wastes relative to management of such
wastes during the transport phase. Section 3004 addresses
standards affecting owners and operators of hazardous waste
storage, treatment, and disposal facilities. These standards
provide the criteria against which EPA (or state) officials
will review permit applications for on-site as well as off-
site facilities operated by a generator or transporter of
wastes. Generators and transporters who do not treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous wastes do not need permits.
Section 3005 regulations define the scope, coverage,
and requirements for permit application as well as for the
t»
issuance and revocation of permits. Any possible overlaps
between the state's issuance of permits to hazardous waste
injection wells, and the issuance of hazardous waste permits
under a state's existing program will be resolved by EPA.
Section 3010 requires that any person generating,
transporting, owning, or operating a facility for storage,
treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes must notify the
EPA of a state of this activity within 90 days of the EPA
promulgation of regulations defining a hazardous waste
(Section 3001).
Any state already having promulgated other legislation,
which, in the opinion of the state and of the EPA is suffi-
cient to allow the enforcement of a state hazardous waste
program equivalent to that of the EPA, will be considered to
satisfy the hazardous waste guidelines proposed by EPA.
453
-------
5.4.1.2 State Regulations
Requirements promulgated by the EPA for state hazardous
waste management programs were discussed earlier in this
section. Seventeen coal-producing states have issued stipu-
lations for some form of hazardous and solid waste management,
as shown in Table 100. Thus, among the 17 coal-producing
states listed, 14 have provided some type of statutory
control over hazardous waste disposal operations. Among
these states, Ohio, North Dakota and Utah have explicit
monitoring requirements for types of waste disposal operations,
In view of the fact that the potentially vast amounts of
solid wastes produced by coal conversion technologies,
through compliance with air quality standards, must be
disposed of on land, it is apparent that there is an equally
vast potential for the degradation of local surface and
groundwater systems near these disposal sites by the inorganic
and organic leachates.
5.4.1.2.1 EPA Region III (Pennsylvania and Vest
Virginia
The solid waste legislation of Pennsylvania is among
the most extensive of any of the states considered. In
addition to the general solid waste legislation, Pennsyl-
vania has promulgated rules and regulations governing coal
refuse disposal. These rules may be more indicative of
future legislation regarding SRC generated residue. The
rules are general, prohibiting disposal which will promote
fire, subsidence, or leaching problems. The state also has
published a statement of guidelines and acceptable proced-
ures for the operation of such disposal areas. Generally,
two feet of final cover are required. The landfill shall be
a minimum of six feet above the seasonal high water table.
454
-------
TABLE ,100. EXISTING STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTES
EPA Region
and States
III
IV
V
VI
VIII
IX
X
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Kentucky
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
New Mexico
Texas
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
Alaska
Hazardous
Waste
Controls
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Permit
Requirement
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no-
no
no
yes
Design
Criteria and
Approval Standards
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
manifest
no
notice
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
Monitoring
Requirements
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
-------
Disposal cells may not exceed eight feet with compacted
solid waste layers of two feet or less. Hazardous waste
disposal plans must be approved by the appropriate state
agencies.
West Virginia has three solid waste disposal class
ratings:
• Class I (wastes having a hazardous nature or water
soluble substances having toxic or infectious pro-
perties or special water pollution potential -which
must be kept away from useable water sources re-
gardless of costs)
• Class II (decomposable organic materials;
• Class III (inert and relatively nondecomposable
materials presenting only confinement and esthetic
problems. The mineral residue wastes from the SRC
process would be considered under the Class I
category, for which the disposal requirements are
determined separately for each application.
5.4.1.2.2 EPA Region IV (Kentucky)
Kentucky 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.
456
-------
5.4.1.2.3 Region V (Illinois, Indiana and Ohio)
The Illinois EPA (IEPA) stated in Rule 310(b) of the
Solid Waste Rules and Regulations (Chapter 7 of the Environ-
mental Protection Act) that hazardous wastes or liquid
wastes and sludges may be accepted at a sanitary landfill
only if authorized by permit. Thus, the IEPA can issue a
supplemental permit allowing sanitary landfills to deviate
from the applicable rules.
The IEPA requires that the applicant for a supplemental
permit must submit information on the following (129):
• Type, consistency and physical/chemical properties
of the special or hazardous wastes
• Quantity
• Method of disposal.
The IEPA stipulates procedures for analysis of specific in-
organics and organics, by use of their landfill simulation
leaching test. All known organic components of the waste
should be determined if their concentrations exceed 0.1
percent (1000 ppm) of the total waste volume. Table 101
lists the minimum number of inorganics (130), organics (94),
and radioactivity (alpha emitters) to be assayed. The
assumption is made that the waste generator is aware of his
usage of beryllium, selenium, antimony or other potentially
hazardous chemicals, and that the waste will be analyzed for
components used in the process by which the waste origi-
nates. The analysis numbers in Table 101 refer to the
industry classification by IEPA in which thousands of stan-
dard industrial classification (SIC) numbers were condensed
into nine categories composed of 46 subgroups (129).
457
-------
TABLE 101. ANALYSIS CHART FOR WASTE GROUPS (136)
PARAMETER
WASTE
GROUP
Metals
Chemicals
Chemical
Specialties
Food
General
Manufacture
Mining
Service
Industries
Utilities
Wholesale,
Retail Trade
ANALYSIS
NUMBER
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
.01
.02
.03
.01
.02
.01-3.06
.01-4.06
.01-5.11
.01-6.04
.01
.02
.03
.04-7.06
.01. 8.05
.02
.03
.04
.01-9.03
u 6
•3 9
c -d
2 i
< o
*x
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
5* J=
Z fe
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
u
c
-r4
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u
c
5
4J
cvo
X
X
X
X
X
X
soluble chromium
b"Free" cyanide per modified Leibeg method (ASTM)
cMeasured from waste as received (unfiltered) in pCi/1
Note: As more data become available, it is likely that this
analysis chart will be expanded in terms of minimum
required parameters and lengthened relative to industry
specific analyses.
-------
As
Cd
Crb
CNC
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
500
500
1,000
500
1,000
500
500
500
75
75
150
75
150
75
150
150
The IEPA has specified absolute permissible maximum
water soluble waste chemical concentrations for disposal at
either of Types I, II or III disposal sites, as follows
(129):
Type of Disposal Site, and
Limiting Concentration (ppm)
Soluble
Inorganics5 Type I Type II Type III
25
25
50
25
5Q
25
50
50
aWhere soluble concentrations exceed limitations, a waste may
receive pretreatment to insolubilize excess concentrations.
^Total soluble Cr.
°Total soluble cyanide (CN~).
The Type I site will receive waste displaying a high
ingestion toxicity (based on the Sax rating), and thus "very
hazardous." The criteria for the Type I site require that
it be buffered by at least 3.04 meters of soil having a
-8
coefficient of permeability not greater than 1 x 10 cm/sec,
or not less than 3.04 meters of soil which can provide
contaminant for 500 years (129). The Type II site must
provide a containment life for less hazardous substances of
250 years. The Type III site must provide a containment
life for municipal refuse of 100 years. Liquid special
wastes may be placed onto any of the three site types if the
liquid is subjected to vertical and horizontal containment.
Acceptable methods for disposing toxic and hazardous wastes
in Illinois are shown in Table 102.
459
-------
TABLE 102. IEPA ACCEPTABLE DISPOSAL METHODS (136)
Waste Property
Highly Acidic
Moderately Acidic
Low Acidity
Highly Alkaline
Moderately Alkaline
Low Alkalinity
High Volatility.
Moderate Volatility
Low Volatility
High Toxicity (dermal)
Moderate Toxicity (dermal)
Low Toxicity (dermal)
High Toxicity (Inhalation)
Moderate Toxicity (Inhalation)
Low Toxicity (Inhalation)
High Toxicity (Oral)
Moderate Toxicity (Oral)
Low Toxicity (Oral)
Radioactive
Reactive
Explosive
Tj
I
-
-
Xb
X
X
X
x ,-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
—
rpe of Sic*
II
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
*"
III
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
•
Disposal Method*
A
-
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
™
B
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
™
c
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
- -
"
D
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
aHote: A-Direct Landfill; B-Subsurface Injection; OSurface Adsorption; D-Consignment
Burial
bX - Indicates permittable disposal site or method of disposal.
-------
In Indiana, prior to the issuing of permits to operate
landfills, a detailed plan of the operation must be submitted
to and approved by the appropriate state agencies. Hazardous
wastes shall not be accepted at a sanitary landfill unless
authorized by the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board.
The state of Ohio defines hazardous wastes as those
substances which singly, or in combination, pose a signifi-
cant present or potential threat or hazard to human health
or to the environment, because of the following factors:
• Flammability
• Explosiveness
• Reactivity
0 Corrosiveness
• Toxicity
• Infectiousness
• Carcinogenicity
• Bioconcentrative potential
• Persistence in multimedia environment
• Potential lethality
• Acts as an irritant or sensitizer.
461
-------
Under the requirements promulgated by the Ohio Depart-
ment of Health for sanitary landfill operations, there is an
explicit requirement that the operator "shall install such a
number of monitor wells...as the Health Comissioner deems
necessary to determine the effect of the facility upon the
quality of groundwater" (131). Each monitor well(s) shall
be sampled semi-annually for chlorides, COD, TOG, TDS, and
methylene blue active substances. More frequent sampling
and sampling for additional substances may be required if a
substantial threat of water pollution exists. Specific in-
structions were issued concerning the eventual detection of
leachate on the disposal site. Hazardous waste cannot be
accepted at sanitary landfills. The monitoring wells must
be maintained by the operator for three years after closure.
5.4.1.2.4 EPA Region VI (New Mexico and Texas)
Solid waste regulations in New Mexico are not as ad-
vanced or as complicated as their standards for 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 twenty-feet above
groundwater level.
5.4.1.2.5 EPA Region VIII (Montana, North Dakotaf
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)
Colorado's solid waste requirements are general and not
very vigorous. Compaction of wastes is required.
462
-------
In Montana site approval is required for solid waste
disposal when hazardous wastes are involved. A daily cover
of six inches and a 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.
In North Dakota, the Department of Health may impose
any reasonable conditions upon a permit to construct a land
disposal site, including the following:
• Sampling, testing and monitoring facilities.
• Trial operation and performance testing.
North Dakota has stipulated standards of performance for the
following types of disposal operations:
• Sanitary landfills
• Construction and demolition disposal sites
• Incinerators
• New and unique methods of disposal
• Hazardous wastes.
The monitoring standards presently apply to sanitary landfills,
and sites handling construction and demolition wastes.
The standards for disposal of hazardous wastes shall be
met by the owner of such wastes. However, the state may
463
-------
provide technical assistance to the owner for the storage,
transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. North
Dakota defines hazardous wastes as those substances which
singly, or in combination, exhibit a substantial present or
potential hazard to human or living organisms because of the
following factors:
• Nondegradability
• Persistence in multimedia context
• Biomagnification potential
• Lethality
• Shown to produce detrimental cumulative health and
ecological effects.
South Dakota solid waste regulations have requirements
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 the groundwater table must be preserved. Such
requirements, promulgated specifically to prevent leaching
to groundwater, may provide an applicable basis for future
regulatory control of disposal of SRC solid wastes.
In Utah all solid waste disposal operations must meet
with the approval of the Utah State Division of Health.
Approval for disposal of hazardous wastes will depend upon
the following:
• Location of hazardous waste disposal area
464
-------
• Consideration of pertinent geological data
• Responsible control of hazardous waste disposal
sites
• Installation of adequate fencing, gates, and signs
to enclose the hazardous waste disposal area
• Precautions to protect all surface and ground-
waters.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality reviews
construction and operating plans of all industrial or hazar-
dous waste disposal operations. Industrial waste disposal
sites shall not be located in areas of low population den-
sity, 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 impermeable soil be selected.
»-
5.4.1.2.6 EPA Region IX (Arizona)
Arizona solid waste legislation lags behind air and
water legislations. Daily landfill covers of six to twelve
inches are required. The final cover must be a minimum of
two feet deep.
5.4.1.2.7 EPA Region X (Alaska)
Alaska regulations for the management of solid wastes
are directed primarily towards municipal wastes rather than
industrial. Should leaching or permafrost prove a problem,
special disposal procedures must be submitted to the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation. A minimum of two feet
465
-------
of earth must be maintained between solid wastes and the
anticipated high groundwater table. Surface drainage must
be prevented from coming into contact with the landfill
area. Solid waste may be landfilled in layers of not more
than two feet prior to compaction.
5.4.2 Comparison of Waste Streams with Dipsosal
Standards
Flows of solid wastes from applicable basic unit opera-
tions and auxiliary processes are shown in Figure 64. Ac-
companying this chart is a tabular summary and a narrative
summary that attempts to identify, and where feasible to
quantify those hazardous wastes which may be destined for
land disposal. In Section 5.4.3, comparisons are made of
certain unregulated pollutants associated with hazardous
wastes from seven auxiliary processes whose levels may cause
ecological and/or human health problems. In Section 5.4.2,
no comparisons of regulated pollutants were made, since no
SRC-specific land disposal standards were found.
5.4.2.1 Potential Hazardous Wastes from Basic Unit
Operations
The six main unit operations are shown along the right
side of Figure 64. Vertical (downward) arrows trace the
flows of known solid wastes from the applicable processes.
Throughout this discussion, it is assumed that most of the
solid wastes generated will be disposed of by landfilling in
appropriate areas, as advocated in an earlier report (6).
With reference to the hazardous nature of several SRC solid
wastes, the following precautions should be considered prior
to disposal:
466
-------
INCIDENTAL
AUXILIARIES
COAL
DUST
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
WATER
SUPPLY
HYDP
Fl
Hv
PARTICULATES BOILER
4 STACK GAS
1 t
STEAM 6 POWER
GENERATION
COOLING
TOWER
DRIFT
t
REQUIRED
AUXILIARIES
BASIC UNIT
OPERATIONS
OCARBONS LOW-S GAS COAL DUST DRYER CQ
f FLUE GAS CO. f 4 STACK 2
1 t t I 1 "(s t
SULFUR
RECOVERY
JGITIVE U s
CDROCARBONS 2
COAL
PREPARATION
H, FUGITIVE
/ VAPORS
AC D GAS REMOVAL
PREHEATER
FLUE GAS
4
LIQUEFACTION
FUGITIVE VAPORS
HYDROGEN/HYDRO-
CARBON RECOVERY
EVAPORATION
WATER
COOLING
N2
1
AMMON 1 A
RECOVERY
U C fcl LI
0 "2^ NMQ
t t t
OXYGEN
GENERATION
PREHEATER
FLUE
GAS
PHENOL
RECOVERY
C02 C02 CO NO S02
I tilt
HYDROGEN
GENERATION
DU
FLARE
ST(SRC-I)
SULFUR HYDROCARBON
t VAPORS
PRODUCT/BYPRODUCT
STORAGE
FUGI
Fl
F
H
NAPHTHALENE
VAPORS
GAS
SEPARATION
TIVE VAPORS
1 PARTICULATES (SRC- )
4 PREHEATER FLUE GAS
1 t
FRACTIONAL ON
JGJTIVE VAPORS
t PARTICULATES (SRC- 1 I)
f PREHEATER FLUE GAS
1 1 4
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
UGITIVE PREHEATER
YDROCARBONS FLUE GAS
1 t
HYDROTREATING
BENZENE
VAPORS
1
COMBINED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
Figure 64. Potential solid wastes from
basic unit operations
467
-------
• That the solids, singly or in-tnixture, should
receive chemical stabilization.
• That the potential physical/chemical reactions of
sludges, singly or in-tnixture, should be known.
« That the compatibility of the hazardous waste with
appropriate liners, sealants, and container mate-
rials should be established.
« That the life span of the land disposal site
should meet the most stringent state standards,
(via., 500 years for the most hazardous wastes).
Those fugitive emissions from solid wastes which escape
pollution control measures have been considered under emis-
sion to air, Section 5.2.2. Characterization data are
given in Section 3.0.
5.4.3 Evaluation of Unregulated Pollutants and Bioassay
Results
The components of the solid waste which may cause
problems are listed in Tables 103 and 104. These solid
pollutants were judged to be hazardous using the MEG-SAM/IA
method. For some pollutant species, documented evidence was
found suggesting possible environmental hazards at concen-
trations below current MATE values. In those instances,
proposed MATEs have been developed, based on evaluation of
the documented evidence. These MATEs are listed in Table
105 along with recommendations for lower MATEs.
468
-------
TABLE 103. UNREGULATED SOLID WASTES WHICH MAY CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
SRC-
Mineral
Besldue
Pollutant
EAve.f.ax.)!
API
Separator
Bottoms
Blosludge Fly Ash
[Avg.max.l
Botton
Aah
Flare
K.O.
DTUB
Gaslfler
Slag
Applicable MATE
Health
Based
MATE
Ecological
Based
MATE
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Beryllium
Boron
Cadaiua
Calcium
Chromiun
Cobalt
5.9(8.1)xl0
56. (180)
1200.(2470.)
7.(15.)
250.(550.)
6.2(29.)
120. (290.)
44(110.)
1.0
1.8(2.5)xlO 7.9(ll.)x
10*
120. (385.) 30.
1.4(4.6) 24. (130.)
4.8
7.2
115.(230) 2500.(5000.) 1400.
11.(24.) 2.1
385.(3000.) 300.
48. (95.)
0.5
71.(340.) 40.
1.6x10
50.
1000.
6.
9300.*
10.
1.3(2.9)x 4.8x10
10*
125.
3.2(7.1)xlO
150.<500.) 170. 15.(35) 14.(81.) 50.*
100.(250.)
2.6(6,2)
x 10-3
150.
200.
10.
500.
11.
5000.*
0.20
3200.
50.
50.
High concentrations of
alunlnua In soils with
low pH causes restricted
root growth in plants
(43)
The amounts of arsenic
(primarily in its ar-
senate form) producing
toxiclty in sensitive
plants vary fron 110-
340 kg/hectare for sanely
to clayey soils re-
spectively (43).
Fruit trees require 0.5
to l.Ojjg/g boron for
growth while 2.0 fig/g
is possibly toxic. Oats,
radishes and clover
show abnormal growth at
more than 3.0//g/g
boron (43,109).
The recommendation of
the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Land
Grant Colleges is a
concentration of cadmium
of 10 kg cadmium/hectare
for most soils (43).
Chromium concentrations
of 10 ng/g I" 3°il
culture reduced soybean
yield (43).
(continued)
-------
TABLE 103. (continued)
SRC-
Mineral
Residue
Pollutant
(US/g)
[ AVR . (max •
,1]
API
Separator
Bottoms
(UR/R)
Bloeludge
0
-------
TABLE 103. (continued)
Pollutant
Nickel
Phosphorous
Potassium
Selenium
SRC-
Mineral
Residue
(Hg/g)
95. (600.)
1.8(4.0)xl04
20. (51.)
API
Separator
Bottoms
G«/*)
23.
26.
Blosludge Fly Ash Bottom
(fg/g) Ash
[AvE.(»ax.)] [Avg.max.l Ua/g)
130(920) 87 .
1000. (3200)
1.6(3.6)x
XlO*
64. (170.) 0.31
Flare
K..O.
Drum
(ug/K)
13. (80.)
850.
(1800.)
1.3(3.4)
Applicable HATE (fift/g)
CasifUr
Slag
-------
TABLE 103. (continued)
Pollutant
SRC-
Mineral
Residue
(lig/g)
[AvK.dnax.)]
API
Separator
Bottoms
Biosludge
[Avg.(max.)
Fly Ash
(MS/g)
I [Avg.nu
Bottom
Ash
t.] (uz/g)
Flare
K.O.
Drum
Applicable MATE (Mg/x)
Gasifier
Slag
(tfK/g)
Health
Based
MATE
Ecological
Based
MATE
Comment
•p-
Vanadium
Zinc
150. (300. )
400.(4800.)
530.(1000.) 310.(600.) <240.
1900. <200.
(23000.)
180.
(2200.)
500.
5000.
30. When present in plant
culture solutions at con-
centrations of 0.5 itg/g
or greater, vanadium is
toxic to some plants (43).
20. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Land
Grant Institutions recom-
mend a concentration °*
500 Kg Zn/hectare for
most soils (43).
Naphthalene
1500
l.SxlO''
20.
-------
TABLE 104. SAM/IA ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTES FROM THE
INORGANIC FRACTION OF THE SOLID RESIDUE,
API SEPARATOR BOTTOMS, BIOSLUDGE
Potential Degree of Hazard
Inorganic Fraction of
Solid Residue*
Material
Aluminum
Ant loony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Fluorine
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Bolmlum
Indium
Iron
Lathanum
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
•eodymium
nickel
Rlobium
Osmium
Phosphorus
Polonium
Potassium
Praseodymium
•oibidium
lUithenium
Sasiarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Tellurium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Health
Baaed
3.7*(5.1*)
0.0087(0.019)
1.1*(3.6*)
1.2*(2.5*)
. 1.2*(2.5*)
0.027(0.059)
0.62(2.9*)
2.2*(4.8*)
9.1(12.7)xlOrt
2.7(4.4)xlO":>
0.014(0.024)
2.4*(5.8*)
0.29(0.73)
0.083(0.22)
0.0013(0.0021)
0.027(0.039)
310.*(670.*),
1.7(2.6)UO
1.4 '(6. 8*)
0.28(0.72)
4.8*(18.*)
0.38(1.8*)
0.0015(0.0053)
2.1*(13.*)
3.0*(6.7)
-4
6.7(23.8)xlO
4.6(7.9)xlO~?
1.0(1.7)xlO
2.0*(5.1*)
0.12(0.61)
0.061(0.13) ,.
6.7(9.3)xlO
0.012
0.18(0.38)
0.083(0.18)
0.0012(0.0044)
0.30(0.60)
0.080(0.96)
0.21(0.41)
Stream Flov Rate (I/sec) Q - ca. 1
Ecological
Based
295.*(410.*)
0.32(0.70)
5.6*(18*)
2.5*(4.9*)
0.63(1.4*)
0.050(0.11)
31.*(145.*)
33.*(72.*)
2. 4* (5. 8*)
0.88(2.2*)
8.3*(22.*)
1840.*(4000.*)
6.8*(34*)
0.29(0.75)
12.*(46.*)
0.015(0.074)
0.016(0.036)
48.*(300.*)
3.9*(8.7*)
4.0*(10.*)
9.4*(21.*)
0.15(0. -3)
5.0*(10.*)
20.*(240.*)
.0 ca. 1.0 ,.
Stream potential degree.: 6500. (6600. )4.5(40)xlO"'
of hazard:
Ho. of Entries
Potential toxic
discharge rate
compared to 24
unit
sum: ca. 6500(6600)
20
A
ca.4.5(40)xlO
API Separator
Bottoms Biosludpe*
Health Ecological Health
Based Based Based
1.1*(1.6*)
l.OxlO'5
2.* 10.* 0.0011
0.12(0.23)
80.* 44.*
0.8 0.14
5.* 250.*
0.48(1.1*)
2.5(3.5)xlO":>
0.0073(0.012)
250.* 250.* 0.0014
,* 3.3x10-5
350.* 3.5x10* 0.091(0.24)
8.0(13.3)xlO~4
0.0032(0.0047)
£
8.6(i3.2)xlO
364.* 1820.*
0.42(1.6*)
530.* 21.2* 7.0*
(.
51.* 1150.* 4.0x10
3.6rlO"5
Q
3.1x10
8.8(14.4)xlO~*
6.9(11.9)xlO
260.* 520.* 6.9x10-4
2.9xlO"6
8.3(17.4)xlO"*
3.9(5.3)xlO"6
0.033(0.071)
1.1*(2.0*)
0.020(0.038)
Not estimated 36.6 36.6
1.7-6.0 7.1-11. 9.3-22.
17 34 19
260. -400. 340. -800.
Ecological
Based
90.*(120.*)
4.0x10-4
0.0057
0.23(0.46)
7.2*(1.6*)
0.0014
1.0x10
9.1*(24.*)
1.0*(4.0*)
0.28
0.0090
4.8xlO"5
0.0014
18.*(33.*)
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one (1) Indicates that this component may represent an
environmental hazard.
•Numbers In parenthesis based on maximum, other numbers based on average, for maximum
' • both th- — • >
by an
473
-------
TABLE 105. POLLUTANTS FOR WHICH THE SAM/IA METHOD
MAY UNDERESTIMATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
Pollutant
Boron
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Molybdenum
Selenium
Vanadium
Present
Health
Based
9300.
50.
1000.
50
1.5x10*
10.
500.
MATE (Wg/g)
Ecological
Based
5000.
50.
10.
20.
1400.
5.
30.
Proposed Land-
Based MATE
(UR/K)
2.
10.
10.
2.5
5.
0.005
0.5
These MATEs should be multiplied by dilution factors before
being applied to the waste streams, hence the proposed MATEs
are to be judged analogous to ecological-based MATEs. Since
the dilution factors may be as low as one, these proposed
MATEs may also be considered health-based MATEs.
5.4.3.1 Level 2 Analysis - Solids
Figures 65 and 66 are examples of the first Level 2
analysis form properly filled out for SRC-II solid residue
(stream 301, Figure 65) and gasifier slag (stream 307,
Figure 66) using "average U.S. coal" for the conceptualized
SRC facility. These two waste streams were chosen since the
SAM/IA indicates that these waste streams will be kthe most
hazardous. Comparison of these two figures indicates that
the SRC-solid residue will be the most hazardous. However,
the unreacted carbon in the SRC residue may be utilized by a
hitherto undeveloped technology. The gasifier slag has no
known or projected use.
474
-------
11. SOURCE/CONTROL OPTION
Conceptualized SRC Facility using "Average U.S. Coal"
2. EFFLUENT STREAM 3.
301 SRC Mineral Residue
4
CODE * NAME
EFFLUt
Q =
Page 1 / 7
INT STREAM FLOW RATE
47000 g/sec
(gas = mVsec — liquid =
/sec —
solid = g/sec)
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TABLE FOR THE EFFLUENT STREAM OF LINE 2 (USE BACK OF FORM FOR SCRATCH WORK)
r\
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bervllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
i
CATEGORY
-
38
50
49
36
12R
37
82
34
84
B
POLLUTANT
CONCEN-
TRATION
Mg/g
58,960.
13.
56.
1235.
7.
250.
22.
6.2
105, 00(
100.
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
|Ag/g
1.6xl04
1500.
50.
1000.
6.
9300.
—
10.
4.8xl04
l.lxlO5
0
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN
TRATION
HB/g
200
40,
10.
500.
11.
5000.
0.20
3200.
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
. (B/C)
3
.7
0.0087
1.1
1,2
1.2
0.027
0.62
2.2
9.1xl04
If MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, USE A CONTINUATION SHEET
5. EFFLUENT STREAM
HEALTH MATE BAS
ECOLOGICAL MATE
(ENTER HERE AND
DEGREE OF HAZARD
En <£ ftti F) Ra 340
BASED (I COL. F) 5b
2400
AT LINE 8. FORM IA01)
6. NUMB
POLLU
PARED
HEALTH
ECOLOGI
EROF
TANTS COM-
TO MATES
6a 74
nAi fih 43
F
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
-------
SOURCC/CONTROL OPTION ^CoocppLual-ze^ GRC Facility
M NO _. 3QL
A
—
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Magnesium
Mant»anp
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Rubidium
i
C^ TEGCRV
31
68
74
78
19
64
72
84
46
33
71
83
69
76
29
30
6 j C j u
- i i
POLLUTANT
CGNCE-!
TRA'ION
US/8
6.7
3600.
120.
44.
83.
1.5
20.
4.1
92,000
57.
68.
5000.
240.
0.76
22.
95.
18000.
240.
Ki^LTH
MATE
CuMCEN-
TwATIJN
P'g/g
2.5xl05
2.5xl05
50.
150.
1000.
l.SxlO4
150.
300.
3.4xl05
50.
1 . 8xl04
50.
2.0
l.SxlO4
45.
6000.
3.6xl05
LC .TGICA..
MA ic
CCN::.,
iRA.i^H
MS/S
50.
50.
10.
50.
10.
1.7xl04
20.
50.
1400.
2.0
4600.
-- !
"fO" r ~.F
HAZARD
'.HDM_TH)
(E :•
'
2.7xlO~5
0.014
2.4
0.29
0.083
0.0013
0.027
310.
1.7xlO~4
1.4
0.28
4.8
0.38
0.0015
2.1
3.0
6.7xlO"4
^''"~ -Tf " "
J " ' "^
(ECJLO'ic'L;
(C?'K
—
2.4
0.88
8.3
1800.
6.8
0.29
12
0.015
0.016
48.
3.9
U-
• -/'|F
-:E/ ~H
M.,fE
EXCEFOED
H T '
N/ IF
Er,,t
*' *Tfc
E^CELL/^0
1 __
J
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
(HEALTH
BASED)
VL » LINE 3)
g/sec
1.3
650.
l.lxlO5
1.4xl04
3900.
6.3
1300.
1.4xl07
7.9
6.4xl04
1.3xl04
2.3xl05
l.SxlO4
69.
9.9xl04
1.4xl05
31.
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(f i UNE 3)
g/sec
l.lxlO5
4.1xl04
3.9xl05
8.6xl07
3. 2x10 J
1.4xl04
5.6xl05
710.
740.
2.2xl06
l.SxlO5
Figure 65. (continued)
-------
SOURCE./CONTRCM OPUON .. Concept Vft
A
POLLUTANT
species
UNITS
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Indane
Methylindane
PimettvA indam
Tetralin
CATEGORY
84
60
54
47A
35
67
41
85
62
85
65
81
63
15
15
15
15
Xlze^LS&L-EatUitj
B
POLLUTANT
CONCEN-
T RATION
^g
7.4
16.
20.
19,000.
560.
1.0
0.68
3.5
23.
1500.
15.
150.
400.
320.
85.
40.
25.
110.
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN
TRATION
f*g
1.6xl05
1.6xl05
10.
1 . 6xl05
9200.
1.5xl04
300.
130.
1.8xl04
I,2xl04
500.
5000.
1500.
6.8xl05
6.8xl05
6.8xl05
4.0xl05
D
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN
TRATION
"g
5.
160.
100.
30.
20.
200.
e
DECREE Or
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
(B/C)
'
4.6xlO"5
l.OxlO4
2.0
0.12
0.061
6.7xlO~3
0.012
0.18
0.083
0.0012
0.30
0.080
0.21
1 . 2xl04
5.9xl05
3.7xl05
2.8xl04
F
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
(B/0)
4.0
9.4
0.15
5.0
20.
0.55
_ EFHUtNl SIRtAM NO .>.Q1
Q
>/IF
HEALTH
MATE
EXCEEDED
—
H
v/,r
ECOL
MATE
EXCEEDED
—
1
J
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
(HEALTH
BASED)
(E • LINE 3)
2.2
4.7
9.4xl04
5600.
2900.
3.1
550.
8300.
3900.
59.
1.4xl04
3800.
l.OxlO4
5.9
2.8
1.7
13.
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(F . LINE J)
1.9xl05
4.4xl05
7050.
2.4xl05
9.4xl05
2.6xl04
Figure 65. (continued)
-------
SOURCE/CONTROL 0
PTinN conceptualized SRC *acility FFFLl
A
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
6-Methyl-
tetralin
Naphthalene
2-Methyl-
napthalene
1-Methyl-
napthalene
Dimethyl-
napthalene
2-Isorpoly-
napthalene
1-Isorpoly-
napthalene
C4~napthalene
Cyclohexyl-
benzene
Biphenyl
Acenap thylene
Dimethylbipher
Dibenzofuran
Xanthene
Dibenzothioplw
Methyldi-
benzothioDhen<
Dimethyldi-
hen 7.0 thiophen<
Thioxanthene
CATEGORY
15
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
15
15
21
yl 15
ne
B
POLLUTANT
CONCEN-
TRATION
Mg
50.
1500.
740.
180.
470.
2.
1.
15.
1
5
270.
61.
60
20.
70.
8.
20.
5
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
^g
4.0xl05
1.5xl05
6.8xl05
6.8xl05
6.8xl05
6.8xl05
6.8xl05
6.8xl05
3000.
D
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
Mg
200.
20.
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
(B/C)
'
1.2xl04
0.01
0.0011
2.6xl04
6.9xl04
2,9xl06
1.5xl06
2 . 2xl05
0.0017
0.020
F
DEGREE Of
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
(B/D)
0.25
75.
G
v' IF
HEALTH
MATE
EXCEEDED
ENT STREAM NO. _30J
H
V/,F
ECOL
MATE
EXCEEDED
1
J
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
(HEALTH
BASED)
(E « LINE 3)
5.9
470.
51.
12.
32.
0.14
0.069
1.0
78.
960.
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(F i UNE 3)
1.2xl04
3.5xl06
«
1
i
-p-
•vj
00
Figure 65. (continued)
-------
SOURCE/CONTROL Of
>T\f>N -- - E.FFLU
A
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
?luorene
9-Methvlfluore
L-Methylfluore
Antracene/
Phenanthrene
Methyl-
phenanthrene
1-Methyl-
phenanthrene
C£- Antrhac ene
?luoranthene
)ihydropyrene
'yrene
rj— pnriprflne
n-dodecane
n-tridecane
n-tetradecane
n-pentadecane
n-hexadecane
n-heptadecane
n-octadecane
CATEGORY
\
ie
i .' j
21
21
21
21
22
21
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
B
POLLUTANT
CONCEN-
TRATION
Mg/g
80.
40.
50.
500.
100.
50.
10.
200.
10.
200.
90.
550.
9100.
210
80.
50.
20.
10.
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
Hg/g
1.7v-)05
9.1xl04
9.1xl04
2.8xl05
6.9xl05
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
D
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
Mg/g
2. OxlO4
2.0xl04
2 . OxlO4
2.0xl04
2 . OxlO4
2 . OxlO4
2. OxlO4
2. OxlO4
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
(B/C)
'
0.10
0.0011
5.5xl04
7.1xlO~4
2 . 9xlO"4
8.2xlO"5
5.0xlO"4
0.0083
1.9xlO~4
7.3xlO"5
4.5xlO~5
1.8xlO~5
9.1xlO"6
r
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
(B/D)
0.0045
0.028
0.46
0.010
0.0040
0.0025
0.0010
5. OxlO"4
G
V.F
HEALTH
MATE
EXCEEDED
—
ENT STRE
H
V,F
ECOL
MATE
EXCEEDED
AM NO
1
J
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
(HEALTH
BASED)
(E x LINE 3)
g/sec
4900.
52.
26.
34.
14.
3.8
24.
390.
9.0
3.4
2.1
0.85
0.43
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(F i LINE 3)
g/sec
210.
1300.
2.1x10
490.
190.
120.
47.
24.
I
Figure 65. (continued)
-------
>UURCE/CONTROL OPTION
Conceptualized SRC Facility
EFFLUENT STREAM NO
A
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
n-nonadecane
n-eicosane
n-hene ico sane
n-docosane
n-tr ico sane
n— tetracosan
others
CA"GORY
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
LA
B
POLLUTANT
CONCEN-
TRATION
»g
14.
14.
16.
14.
14.
10.
26.
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN
TRATION
fg
1 . IxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
l.lxlO6
D
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
Hg
Z.OxlO4
2.0xl04
2 . OxlO4
2.0xl04
Z.OxlO4
2. OxlO4
2. OxlO4
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
(8/C)
'
1.3xl05
1.3xl05
1.3xl05
l.SxlO5
1.3xl05
9.1xl06
2.4xl05
F
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
(3/D)
7. OxlO4
7. OxlO4
8. OxlO4
7. OxlO4
7. OxlO4
5. OxlO4
0.0013
G
V,F
HEALTH
M.-TE
EXCEEDED
H
V-r
ECOL
WATt
E-XCEtOED
1
J
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATt
(HEALTH
BASED)
(E a LINE 3)
0.60
0.60
0.68
0.60
0.60
0.43
1.1
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(F i UNE 3)
33.
33.
38.
33.,
33.
24.
61.
CO
o
Figure 65. (continued)
-------
NOTES
Estimated MATEs for alkanes of CQ or larger:
6 4
health ca. 1.1x10 , ecological ca. 2.0x10
MATEs for substituted indanes, tetralins, biphenyl assumed equal to
unsubstituted compound.
Ecological potassium MATE estimated to be 4600.
Assume all antrhacene/phenanthrene present as phenanthrene (worst case) to
calculates the Potential Degree of Hazard and Potential Toxic Unit
Discharge Rate.
ASSUMPTIONS
LIST ALL ASSUMPTIONS MADE REGARDING FLOW RATE. EMISSION FACTORS AND MATE VALUES.
Figure 65. (continued)
481
-------
CD
1. SOURCE/CONTROL OPTION
Conceptualized SRC Facility Using "Average U.
2. EFFLUENT STREAM
307 Gasifier Slag
4.
U
CODE ff NAME
Page 1 /
S. Coal"
3. EFFLUENT STREAM FLOW RATE
n = 11000 g/sec.
(gas = mVsec — liquid = I/sec —
solid = g/sec)
i
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TABLE FOR THE EFFLUENT STREAM OF LINE 2 (USE BACK OF FORM FOR SCRATCH WORK)
A
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
CATEGORY
-
50
49
36
34
84
31
68
74
78
B
POUUTANT
CONCEN-
TRATION
M8/g
13.
24.
420.
27.
13090.
170.
10.
34.
57.
32.
C
HEALTH
MATE
CONCEN
TRATION
H8/S
1500.
50.
1235.
4.8xl04
l.lxlO5
2.5xl05
50
150
1000
D
ECOLOGICAL
MATE
CONCEN-
TRATION
fiS/S
40.
10.
1000.
3200.
50
50
10
T MORE SPACE IS NEEDED. USE A CONTINUATION SHEET
5. EFFLUENT STREAM
HEALTH MATE BAS
ECOLOGICAL MATE
(ENTER HERE AND
DEGREE OF HAZARD
ED (X COL E) 5a .160
BASED (I COL. F) 5b
AT LINES. FORM IAO
800.
0
6. NUMB
POLLU
PARED
HEALTH
ECOLOGK
E
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(HEALTH)
. (B/C)
0.0087
0.48
0.34
0.27
0.0015
4.0xl05
0.68
0.38
0.032
F
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
(ECOLOGICAL)
(B/D)
0.32
2.4
0.42
4.1
0.68
1.1
3.2
G
V/IF
HEALTH
MATE
EXCEEDED
H
N/.F
ECOL
MATE
EXCEEDED
1
J
TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
(HEALTH
BASED)
(E * LINE 3)
g/sec
95.
5300.
3700.
3000.
17.
0.44
7500.
4200.
350.
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(F i UNE 3)
g/sec
3600.
2.6xl04
4600.
4.5xl04
7500.
1.3xl04
3.5x10^
ER OF 7. T
TANTS COM- H
TO MATES
C- OQ E
;AL 6b
re". (E
OXIC UNIT DISCHARGE SUM
EALTH MATE BASED (I COL. 1)
COLOGICAL MATE BASED (I COl
INTER HERE AND AT LINE 8. FO
7a 1.8x10 g/sec
,. _K8.8xlO° g/sec
,)) 7h
RM IA01)
i
Figure 66. Level 2 analysis for gasifier slag
-------
SOURCE/CONTROL OPTION _£B,C_.Facility
EFFLUENT STREAM NO
A
POLLUTANT
SPECIES
UNITS
Europium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lutetium
Manganese
Mercury
Neodymium
Nickel
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
''.
-------
:X)URCC/CONTROL OPHOr:
EFFLUENT STREAM NO
A
POLLUTANi
SPECIES
UNITS
Sulfur
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Ytterbium
Zinc
c.™,.
—
53
67
85
62
81
B C ' D
POLLUTANT
CONCEN-
' /•>
18000.
1.1
2.0
18.
950.
6.3
180.
HEAl H
CONCEN
TRATION
f* 8
l.SxlO4
130.
l.SxlO4
5000.
scot OGICAV.
MATE
CONCEN
TRATION
Mg
160.
20.
I-J < '
DEGREE 01
HAZARD
1 (HEALTH)
(B/C)
t
I "FGRt : Of
HAI»RD
(B/0)
'
7.3xl05
0.14
0.053
0.036
5.9
9.0
G ' H
v' IF
HEALTH
MATE
EXCEEDED
—
,
ECCL
M.»TE
EXCEEDED
!
J
TO*!C UNIT DISCHARGE RATE
f (HEALTH
BASED)
(E > LINE 3)
0.81
1500.
580.
400.
(ECOLOGICAL
BASED)
(f « LINE 3)
6.5xl04
9.9x10"*
00
Figure 66. (continued)
-------
5.5 Product Impacts
This section examines the potential impacts from SRC
products and will cover: toxicity of products, spills and
water contamination, fire hazard, and utilization (combustion)
of SRC product. Regulations which would serve to limit or
alleviate hazardous impacts in those areas are summarized.
5.5.1 Summary of Toxic Substances Standards
There are no,environmental regulations that pertain
directly to regulating the level of toxic substances in SRC
product. Regulatory controls would generally be implemented
only when the product is discharged, spilled or burned. SRC
product does, however, contain toxic compounds and could
potentially be regulated by toxic substances standards,
promulgated in response to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) of 1976. The regulatory approach of TSCA provides for
direct control of new and existing chemicals, requires pre-
market screening of new chemicals, and provides for authority
to require the testing of a chemical to determine the extent
of toxicity. A major significance of TSCA is that is provides
authority to develop information on the impact of chemical
substances on the water environment, and allows for broad con-
trol of chemicals. If adequate controls cannot be developed
through the FWPCA or the Safe Drinking Water Act, action
could be invoked under the Toxic Substance Control Act. To
date, no toxic substances standards have been promulgated
which would impact SRC operations.
Product spills may be subject to regulation under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of
the Clean Water Act, as discussed in Section 5.3.1. A pro-
posed rule (40 CFR part 151) would establish requirements
485'
-------
for spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans
to prevent discharges of hazardous substances from facilities
subject to permitting requirements of the NPDES. Facilities
which become operational after the effective rule date shall
prepare an SPCC plan before such facility begins operations
and shall be fully implemented as soon as possible, but no
later than six months after the facility begins operations.
The SPCC plan shall be prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices and the general requirements of provid-
ing for appropriate contaminant, drainage control and/or
diversionary structures. Specific requirements include the
following:
• In liquid storage areas, and truck/rail car liquid
loading and unloading areas secondary contaminent
should be sufficient to contain the capacity of
the largest single container or tank in the drainage
system, plus allowance for precipitation accumula-
tion. Secondary containment systems shall be
sufficiently impervious to contain spilled hazardous
material until it can be removed or treated.
• Raw materials storage areas which are subject to
runoff, leaching, or dispersal by wind shall
incorporate drainage or other control features
which will prevent the discharge of hazardous
substances.
• All areas of the facility shall be inspected at
specified intervals for leaks or conditions that
could lead to discharges.
486
-------
• Only uncontaminated rainwater may be released from
diked or other plant drainage areas unless the
released water will be given approved treatment.
• Facilities shall have the necessary security
systems to prevent accidental or international
entry which could cause a discharge.
• Facility employees and contractor personnel using
the facility shall be trained in and informed of
preventive measures at the facility.
Standards applying to pollutant release into the var-
ious media (air, water and land) have been discussed pre-
viously in Sections 5.2.1, 5.3.1 and 5.4.1, respectively.
5.5.2 Comparison of Product Characterization Data with
Toxic Substances Standards
Given the absence of numerical toxic substances stan-
dards, a comparison between such standards and the product
compositions cannot be made.
5.5.3 Environmental Impacts
5.5.3.1 Multimedia Impacts of Accidental Spills
A spill of SRC products containing toxic and hazardous
compounds would be an environmental concern. Knowledge of
ways in which impact from spills differ from those of con-
tinuous discharge of a substance and the precautions which
can be taken to combat spill impact are important.
•487
-------
The problem of potential spills is distinctly different
from that of continuous discharges. Spill pollution differs
from background pollution in several important ways:
• There is no specific advance knowledge with regard
to when or where a spill may occur, the amount of
material involved, the resulting concentration,
the size of the affected environment, and the
duration of the episode.
• Spills generally involve much higher environmental
concentrations than found in background pollution.
However, these high concentrations may not last
as long and may be in a more limited area.
• Preventive measures can do much to reduce frequency
and size of spills but spills cannot be totally
eliminated.
• Perhaps the most important difference between
spill and background pollution situations lies in
the need for immediate action to evaluate the
hazard of a spill and to institute control mea-
sures.
The basic data required to evaluate the effects of SRC
product oil on man and his environment under the spill
situation are generally the same as are required for the
evaluation of continuous discharges. These descriptors of
the spill include time, place, quantity, physical and chem-
ical properties, ecosystems at risk, and toxicity. Much of
these data can be acquired in advance of a spill and stored
for ready access at the time of the emergency.
488
-------
Following a spill, it is necessary not only to predict
the distribution of the material but also to monitor its
dispersal into the environment until such time as dilution,
degradation, or other mechanisms have reduced the contamina-
tion to a safe level.
Primary information needed to protect the population
from the immediate effects of the spilled material includes
acute and subacute toxicity data for exposure through in-
halation, skin contact or ingestion of the material, or the
contamination of food and drinking water. Information on
sublethal, disabling concentrations are particularly impor-
tant for the protection of those involved in controlling and
cleaning up spilled chemicals.
Spill situations should be exploited to gain the great-
est possible knowledge of effects from exposure to SRC
product. Primary emphasis should be placed on effects on
human health. Field studies should be undertaken to deter-
mine effects on the biota and the ability of damaged eco-
systems to recover. Studies of model ecosystems, subjected
to spill size quantities of product oil would, of course, be
most helpful for predicting spill hazard.
Special attention should be given to development of
analytical and biological measurement techniques for use in
spill situations. Relatively simple mathematical models
should be developed for predicting the movement and concen-
trations of hazardous materials in those ecosystems likely
to be subjected to spills. These models, together with
information on the effects of exposure, can be utilized to
determine whether a hazard exists.
Approximately 11,368 Mg/day of product and by-product
will be produced in the commercial SRC process. These
489
-------
products and by-products must be stored and shipped to
buyers. A breakdown in production rates for SRC-II is as
follows:
Product or
By-Product (1) Mg/day (1)
Naphtha 518.2
Fuel oil 2,591.
SRC 5,527.
Ammonia 63.9
Sulfur 442.3
Phenol 34.4
SNG 1,312.
LPG 820.7
The hazardous nature of these materials requires that every
precaution be taken to avoid spills and leaks during storage
and shipping. Both preventive measures and recovery/dis-
posal methods are required to negate the potential environ-
mental disaster of spills. The toxic nature of SRC products
can be appreciated from the analysis of SRC-I products shown
in Section 3.0. Available MATE values for organic constitu-
ents in SRC-I products are presented in Table 106. A com-
plete analysis of products from SRC-II is not available.
The several preventative measures that will act to
mitigate syncrude spills are as follows:
• Structural integrity must conform to code con-
struction and the materials must be stored in
compatible materials.
• Methods to prevent and repair corrosion are
needed.
490
-------
TABLE 106. CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1) OF CONSTITUENTS IDENTIFIED IN
SRC PRODUCTS
PNA Fraction
Xylene
o-ethylbenzene
m/p-ethylbenzene
C^-benzene
C,-benzene
Indane
Tetralin
Napthalene
Biphenyl
Pyrene
Fluoranthene
Light
Oil
9800
3900
4300
330
1630
80
20
15
Wash Process Raw Process Mineral
Solvent Solvent Water Residue
1300
1700
700
1500
500
13000
4100 0.1 110
32000 100 5 1500
10000 5900 0.2 270
40 11200 0.6 200
35 10500 0.4 200
Particulate MATE-Water
(mg/1)
Solvent Filter Based on
Refined Concentration Health Ecological
Coal uR/m^ Effects Effects
6500
6500
6500
45
45
3400
2000
750
2 75 15
280 900 3450
180 700 1400
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0.1
-------
• Periodic examination of tank integrity is required.
e Mobile storage tanks should be isolated from
navigable waters.
* Heating coils, where used, must be monitored for
oil content; external heating systems rather than
internal structural coils should be used.
Tanks must be gauged carefully before filling to
prevent overfill.
< Overflow pipes should be connected to adjacent
tanks.
• Relief valves for excessive pressure and vacuum
should be in place.
• Inspection methods should concentrate on target
areas, including pipeline exposure, pipeline
crossing and areas of construction.
* Oil sensitive probes should be located throughout
the drainage system of a potential spill.
If an oil spill does occur within the confines of the
plant it can be expected to be contained. Dikes are required
to contain the maximum spill and must be covered with an
impervious material around each storage tank. In draining
these dikes, contaminated waters will be routed to the
chemical water sewer.
492
-------
5.5.3.2 Fire and Explosion Hazard
The SRC products pose some degree of hazard with regard
to fire and explosion hazard. Figure 67 illustrates the
possible fire reaction chains that could result from leaks
in manufacturing equipment or accidental product spillage.
The fire/explosion hazard of SRC products would be expected
to be similar to that of comparable, petroleum products and
should require similar precautions.
5.5.3.3 Product Utilization Impacts
A major consideration with regard to SRC product hazard
is the impact from utilizing SRC fuel. This section will
summarize emission data from SRC combustion tests, comparing
emissions from SRC-I, SRC-II, coal and oil. The data is
derived from two major SRC combustion tests - one utilizing
the solid SRC-I product and the other utilizing liquid SRC-
II product. These emission data will also be reviewed in
terms of meeting standards and recommended MEG values.
5.5.3.3.1 SRC-I Combustion
An SRC combustion test was conducted at Georgia Power
Company's Plant Mitchell, during the months of March, May,
and June 1977. The purpose of the test was to determine
whether SRC is an acceptable substitute for coal, and to
demonstrate the assumed advantages of SRC.
The test was conducted in three phases, with coal being
fired during the first and second phases, and SRC during the
third. Flue gas samples were collected for modified EPA
Level I analysis, and analytical results were reported. Air
emissions from the combustion of coal and SRC were compared
493
-------
• Air supply and watte liquid disposal
during vessel cleaning and repair
maintenance.
• Physical barriers against noise
and heat exposure.
• Disposal of contaminated spent
catalyst pellets.
• Venting and pressure-sensing
system to prevent overpressure
(leaks and explosions).
• Blast protection and fire
suppression systems.
• Contamination of coolant by
trace metals and organic
contaminants.
> Collection, venting, and
scrubbing of H.S and NH, gases.
i Elimination of ignition sources
for explosive environment.
» Disposal of spent solutions for
scrubbing H-S. MHJt and light
hydrocarbons
-P"
VD
-P-
• Oust control during grinding and
loading.
• Disposal of contaminated coal washings.
• Elimination of ignition sources for
explosive environments.
• Venting of combustion gases from
coal drying.
• Control of volatile* from leaks.
venting and purging of lines.
• Air supply and waste liquid disposal
during vessel cleaning.
• Aqueous effluent treatment
• Venting of combustion products
from prehcater heat source.
• Disposal of spent and contaminated
catalyst.
•Air supply and waste liquid
disposal during vessel cleaning
and repair maintenance.
• Venting and pressure-sensing
system to prevent overpressure
(leaks and explosions).
• Ilast protection and fire
suppression.
• Venting of combustion products from pre-heater
heat source.
• Venting and pressure-sensing system to prevent
overpressure (leaks and explosions).
• Blast protection and fire suppression.
• Control of volatile* and toxic liquids,
. Including contaminated ash.
• Air supply and wast* material disposal during
cleaning, repair, reassembly and maintenance.
• Control of volatlles and toxic liquids,
including contaminated solids.
Figure 67.
Coal liquefaction environmental health and safety impact and hazard
control requirements (132)
-------
for various organic and inorganic constituents, and SC^ and
NO . Finally, the impact of the air emissions from the
X
combustion of SRC was assessed by comparison with EPA's
Multimedia Environmental Goals and existing New Source
Performance Standards.
Air quality emissions test data shown in Table 107 in-
dicates that SRC SOo and NO emissions were 0.46 and 0.19
6
kg/GJ (1.06 and 0.43 lb/10 Btu) respectively. This is
about 12 and 39 percent under the existing New Source Per-
formance Standards (NSPS) of 0.52 kg/GJ (1.2 lbs/106 Btu)
for SO and 0.30 kg/GJ (0.7 lbs/106 Btu) for NOV. If the
x ft
S09 standard is reduced to 0.26 kg/GJ (0.6 lbs/10 Btu), SRC
derived from high sulfur coal may not achieve compliance.
SO levels were slightly higher than that of the low sulfur
X
coal normally burned at the plant. The sulfur content of
the SRC prior to combustion was approximately 0.9 percent as
compared to an estimated 0.6 percent sulfur in the Kentucky
coal. The NO emissions were unexpectedly low and may be a
i«V
result of abnormally high excess air used during the combus-
tion test; thus additional testing at normal conditions is
required.
Particulate emissions were at levels which can be con-
trolled well below the EPA standard of 0.04 kg/GJ (0.1 Ibs/
10 Btu) by installing a modern precipitator having a parti-
culate collection efficiency of approximately 95 percent.
During coal combustion highly volatile trace elements
may appear in the combustion gases. The concentration of
most of the trace elements in combustion gases from SRC
derived from high sulfur coal are lower than those resulting
from direct combustion of low sulfur coal. This comparison
is made in Table 108, although the coal used to produce the
495
-------
TABLE 107. COMPARISON OF COMBUSTION EMISSIONS TO STANDARDS FOR
SOLID FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS
Contaminant
Solid Fossil
Existing
Standards
Fuel
Proposed
Standards
SRC-I Av«.
Emission Rate
so.
1.2 lb/10° Btu
(520 ng/J)
0.6 lb/10° Btu
260 ng/J
1.06 lb/106 Btu
(460 ng/J)
NO.
0.7 lb/10° Btu
(300 ng/J)
0.43 lb/10° Btu
(190 ng/J)
Particulates
0.1 lb/10(
(43 ng/J)
Btu
-------
TABLE 108. COMPARISON OF INORGANIC AIR
EMISSIONS -- COAL VS. SRC
Constituent
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Coal
May 25, 1977
(Ug/m3
809.98
4.55
2.32
48.23
0.24
57.13
8.30
6.24
1,268.94
138.15
29.81
0.57
82.33
7.96
0.20
12.28
12.88
SRC **
June 14, 1977
Mg/m3
215.03
3.57
1.42
11.71
1.95
16.61
0.63
1.40
799.62
57.60
62.55
2.06
13.46
1.08
3.53
5.91
9.02
*It should be noted that the coal used to produce the SRC was not the
coal fired on May 25, 1977. It is known, however, that solvent refining
of coal results in the removal of some highly volatile trace elements,
such that, when SRC is burned, lower concentrations of these elements
generally should appear in the combustion gas.
497
-------
SRC was not the coal fired on May 25, 1977. It is known
however, that solvent refining of coal results in the removal
of some highly volatile trace elements, such that, when SRC
is burned, lower concentrations of these elements generally
should appear in the combustion gases.
The concentration of inorganic elements in air emissions
from the SRC-I combustion test are compared in Table 109 to
the MEG for those elements. All elements meet the recom-
mended MATE values, with the exception of chromium. Zinc
and boron are the only elements which meet the ambient level
goal values. None of the elements meet the elimination of
discharge. It should be remembered, however, that these
trace element emission levels are generally less for SRC
than for coal.
Air emission analysis was not performed, however.
There are three elements (titanium, beryllium, and cobalt)
which are reported at levels in SRC product oil that could
potentially pose a pollution problem when burned. The
inclusion of these elements in future air emission studies
could resolve this uncertainty.
The release of organic constituents to the air via com-
bustion of SRC is not an area of major environmental concern.
C1"C6 hydrocarbons were not detected during either Phase II
or Phase III. The detection limit for these compounds was
0.5 ppm. The emissions of Cj through Cj« hydrocarbons
during the combustion of SRC do not appear to differ signifi-
cantly from the direct combustion of coal and are not an
area of environmental concern. Also, no carcinogenic PAHs
were found in the SRC flue gases.
498
-------
TABLE 109. COMPARISON OF SRC AIR EMISSIONS WITH MEG's
Constituent
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Minimum Acute
Toxicity Effluent
Based on
Health
Effects*
5,200
500
2
500
3,100
1
200
150
6,000
5,000
50
15
9
500
4,000
Based on
Ecological
Effects*
10
1
SRC -I
June 14, 1977*
215.03
3.57
1.42
11.71
1.95
16.61
0.63
799.62
1.40
57.90
62.55
2.06
13.46
1.08
3.53
5.91
9.02
* Values are in pg/m
Values have not yet been developed
-------
There could be a problem with fugitive dust from han-
dling SRC, the extent of which will be determined by the
equipment use.
5.5.3.3.2 SRC-II Combustion
A combustion test was performed by Consolidated Edison
of New York on the liquid product from SRC-II. The test was
performed at Con Ed's 74th Street generating station on a
tangentially fired boiler manufactured by Combustion Engineer-
ing (characteristically a low N0x producer). Some 5,000
barrels of SRC-II from the Fort Lewis pilot plant were
burned. A petroleum fuel, burned as the control was a
little lighter than No. 6 residual oil. The SRC-II liquid
contained one percent nitrogen by weight, compared to 0.23
percent in the oil. Sulfur levels were more comparable:
0.22 percent in SRC-II; 0.24 percent in the oil.
A summary of the preliminary results of the study are
shown in Table 110, along with existing and proposed stand-
ards. N0x emissions from SRC-II were 70 percent higher than
for conventional petroleum. The Electric Power Research
Institute believes, however, that a utility boiler capable
of meeting the existing N0x standard for oil (0.13 g/10^ J)
would, burning SRC-II, be able to meet the level of discharge
currently being considered for proposed as a standard for
coal-derived liquids (0.22 g/10 J) . It should be noted
that no standards have been officially proposed at the time
of this writing and that the value states above is subject
to revision. The U.S. EPA is mandated to establish New
Source Performance Standards for all new major stationery
sources by 1982. Although it is risky to read too much into
a single datum point, the SRC-II registered a NOx emission
level of 175 to 300, compared to the 400 to 420 ppm proposed
standard for coal derived liquids.
500
-------
Ul
o
TABLE 110. COMPARISON OF COMBUSTION EMISSIONS TO STANDARDS
FOR LIQUID FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS
Contaminant
SO
X
NO
X
Partlculates
Existing Standards for
Liquid Fossil Fuel
0.8 lb/106 Btu
(340 ng/J)
0.3 lb/106 Btu
(130 ng/J)
(230 ppm)
0.1 lb/106 Btu
(43 ng/J)
Proposed Standards for
Coal Derived Liquid Fuel
0.5 lb/106 Btu
(217 ng/J)
(400-420 ppm)
Emissions from
Liquid SRC-II
175-300 ppm
0.015-0.025 ppm
Combustion Test
No. 6 petroleum
Residual Oil
100-160 ppm
higher than
SRC-II
Unburned
hydrocarbons
Carbon
monoxide
Sulfur
trioxide
3 ppm
50 ppm
1 ppm
-------
Other emissions were low. Particulate emissions mea-
sured at 0.015 to 0.025 ppm, lower than for oil. No parti-
culate removal equipment was operated during the combustion
test. Unburned hydrocarbons measured at less than three ppm
(actually the threshold of the monitoring equipment); carbon
monoxide was less than 50 ppm; sulfur trioxide less than one
ppm.
5.5.4 Evaluation of Unregulated Toxic Substances and
Bioassay Results
5.5.4.1 Potential Degree of Hazard of Unregulated
Toxic Substances
Analyses of SRC product and by-products has been sum-
marized in Section 3.0. Filby and co-workers (45) of Washing-
ton State University conducted studies of the trace element
distribution and fate in the SRC-I process. Their data
forms the basis of the inorganic product composition and
SAM/IA potential degree of hazard tables. Fruchter and
Petersen of Battelle Northwest Laboratories, have conducted
a program to characterize SRC products, by-products and
effluents. Their analyses have been performed primarily on
samples derived from the SRC-I process with limited analyses
of SRC-II samples. SRC-II samples were used in a recent
Level I sampling and analysis study by Hittman Associates.
The nature of the methodology used does, however, restrict
this preliminary data to qualitative/semi-quantitative
interpretation.
502
-------
5.5.4.1.1 Inorganic Analysis
5.5.4.1.1.1 SRC-I Partitioning Factors and
SAM/IA Analysis
Composition of various product and by-product streams
is known to vary with the composition of the feed coal. An
estimate of the concentration of the inorganic constituent
in the naphtha, wash solvent, heavy oil, SRC-I, filter cake,
and sulfur is presented in Tables 111 to 115. The tables
are based largely on the data generated by Washington State
University (45) with incorporation of Battelle Northwest
data. The elements having a potential degree of hazard
greater than (1) (indicating that the component may be an
environmental hazard) are indicated by a (*).
5.5.4.1.1.2 SRC-II Level 1 Methodology and
SAM/IA Analysis
Hittman Associates has completed preliminary charac-
teristics of several SRC-II product and by-product streams
according to Level 1 methodology. The SAM/IA methodology
was utilized by HAI to assess the relative hazard of three
product streams (naphtha, middle and heavy distillates) and
residue. Although the SAM/IA model is intended to be used
as a hazard assessment of discharged streams, the model can
be a useful indication of the types of compounds which
warrant concern in the event of a spill or as a result of
fugitive emissions and leaks from product storage. A sum-
mary of the SAM/IA worksheets of the spark source data for
these streams is shown in Table 116. The results of the
SAM/IA model indicate the expected trend for trace element
toxic unit discharge rates for these four streams:
Residue > heavy distillates > middle distillates > naphtha
503
-------
TABLE 111.
ESTIMATED CONCENTRATIONS OF INORGANICS
IN SRC-I LIGHT OIL NAPHTHA
Name
SAM/IA Analysis
Potential Degree
Health of Hazard3 Ecological
Baaed Ba8e4_
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
0.75(1.0*)
0.032(0.073)
0.19(0.60) ,
8.0(16)xlO
0.75(1.6*) ,
6.5(9.1)xlO~°
1.2(2.0)xlO 9
0.32(0.54)
0.60(1.4*)
0.0043(0.010)
0.050(0.14) .
_s
8.9(13.5)xlO 3
5.3(7.9)xlO~3
6.7*(15.*)
1.6(2.6)xlO~3
5.6*(28.*)
ca. 0.081(0. 20)
0.68(2.6*)
0.79(3.9*)
0.65(4.2*)
1.2*(2.5*) .
1.6(5.6)xlO
1.9(33)xlO":),
2.5(4.2)xlO~B
3.0*(7.6*)
0.010(0.054)
0.035(0.074)
9.3(12.8)xlO~*
-i
3.7(7.9)xlO *
0.019(0.040)
0.14(0.28)
0.14(1.7*)
9.1(17.6)xlO~*
6.0*(83.*)
1.2*(2.8*)
0.94(3.0*)
0.0016(0.0032)
ll.*(24.*)
0.013(0.031)
5.0*(14.*)
40.*(92.*)
28*(142*)
ca. 0.084 (0.21)
1.7*(6.5*)
0.032(0.16)
15.*(97.*)
1.5*(3.3*)
6.0*(15.*)
6.3*(13.*)
2.4*(4.7*)
35.*(420.*)
Numbers in parentheses based on maximum, other numbers are based on average.
Only the average numbers are included in the SAM/IA analysis summary in
Section 5.0.
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one (1) indicates that this
component may be an environmental hazard.
SAM/IA Analysis*
Stream flow rate: Q » 7.6851/sec
(assuming specific gravity of 0.875)
Stream Potential Degree of
Hazard
Health Mate Based 22(72)
Ecological mate Based 215(920)
Mumber of Entries Compared to Mates
Health 33
Ecological 18
Potential Toxic Unit Discharge
Rate Sum
Health Mate Based 170(560)
Ecological Mate Based 1650(7100)
504
-------
TABLE 112.
ESTIMATED INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS IN
SRC-I WASH SOLVENT
Name
SAM/IA Analysts
Potential Degree
of Hazards
Health Ecological
Based
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zirconium
0.21(0.29)
l.l(2.5)xlO~*
0.016(0.051)
0.21(0.42)
0.42(0.92)
3.2(5.4)xlO~\
9.4(15.5)xlO iu
0.13(0.22)
0.082(0.20)
0.041(0.10)
0.0075(0.020)
-4
5.1(8.0)xlO I
4.6(6.8)xlO~*
2.5*(5.6*)
2.3(3.6)xlO~°
0.053(0.13)
0.68(2.6*)
3.7*(18.*)
1.4M8.9*)
0.79(1.7*)
2.8(9.9)xlO~£
4.3(7.3)xLO~?
2.6(4.4)xlO~'
0.19(0.48)
0.0057(0.030)
0. 015(0. 031K
6.2(8.6)xlO *
3.2(6.8)xlO~4
0.014(0.031)
0.058(0.11)
0.0010(0.0020)
17.*(24.*)
0.0040(0.0094)
0.082(0.26)
0.42(0.85)
6.4(14)
0.082(0.20)
0.12(0.30)
0.75(2.0*)
15*(34»)
0.055(0.14)
1.7*(6.5*)
0.15(0.72)
32*(204*)
1.0*(2.2*)
0.37(0.95)
4. 7* (10. 4*)
0.96(1.9)
Numbers in parentheses based on maximum, other numbers are based on average.
Only the average numbers are included in the SAM/IA analysis summary in
Section 5.0.
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one (1) indicates that this
component may be an environmental hazard.
SAM/IA Analysis8
Stream flow rate: Q - 27.67 I/sec
Stream Potential Degree of
Hazard
Health Mate Based 11(40)
Ecological Mate Based 81 (300
Number of Entries Compared to Hates
Health 31
Ecological 17
Potential Toxic Unit Discharge
Rate Sum
Health Mate Based 290 (1100)
Ecological Mate Based 2250 (8JK)(lj
505
-------
TABLE 113. ESTIMATED INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS IN
SRC-I HEAVY OIL
SAM/IA Analysis
Potential Degree
Health of HazardaEcological
Name Based Based
Arsenic
Bromine
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Ribidium
Selenium
Strontium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.88(2.8*)
4.6*(10.4*)
24.*(60.*)
0.20(0.54)
307.* (667*)
4.8*(25*)
4.4*(17*)
18.*(110.*)
4.3*(9.0*) ,
2.7(9.4)xlO
6.9*(18*)
0.043(0.096)
0.34(0.73)
4.4*(8.0*)
0.35(4.4*)
4.4*(14.*)
69.* (160.*)
24.*(60.*)
20.*(54.*)
1840* (4000*)
24*(124*)
ll.*(43.*)
410* (2600*)
5.7*(11.7*)
14*(36*)
110.* (240.*)
73*(130*)
88* (1100*)
lumbers in parenthesis based on maximum, other numbers based on average.
Only the average numbers are included in the SAM/IA analysis summary in
Section 5.0.
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one (1) indicates that this
component may be an environmental hazard.
SAM/IA Analysis3
Stream Flow Rate: Q = 30 liters/sec (assuming specific gravity of 1.0).
Stream Potential Degree of
Hazard
Health Mate Based 380(940)
Ecological Mate Based 27000 (8600)
Number of Entries Compared to Mates
Health 15
Ecological 13
Potential Toxic Unit Discharge
Rate Sum
Health Mate Based 1100 (28000)
Ecological Mate Based 81000 (260000)
506
-------
TABLE 114.
ESTIMATED INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS IN
SRC-I FILTER CAKE
Name
SAM/IA Analysis
Potential Degree
Health of Hazarda Ecological
Based Based
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Cerium
Cesium
Chromium
Cobalt
Europium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lutetium
Nickel
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Uranium
Zirconium
0.0031(0.0070)
0.46(1.5*)
0.68(1.4*)
-4
4.5(6.4)xlO
1.5(2.5)xlO
0.94(2.2*)
0.20(0.50)
0.13(0.020)
140*(320*)
3.2(4.7)xlO
0.98(6.2*)
1.0*(2.2*)
2.5(8.9)xlO ;!
3.1(5.3)xlO~;?
5.2(8.8)xlO
1.2*(3.1*)
0.035(0.18)
0.027(0.059)
3.3(4.6)xlO":>
0.10(0.21)
5.2(19)xlO~*
0.093(0.18)
0.115(0.26)
2.3*(7.4*)
1.4*(2.7*)
0.94(2.2*)
0.60(1.5*)
860* (1920*)
1.3* (2. 9*)
22.*(140.*)
1.3*(2.9*)
2.4*(6.2*)
0.062(0.23)
Numbers in parenthesis based on maximum, other numbers based on average.
Only the average numbers are included in the SAM/IA analysis summary in
Section 5.0.
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one (1) indicates that this
component may be an environmental hazard.
SAM/IA Analysis
Stream Flow Rate: Q • 53,000 g/sec.
Stream Potential Degree of
Hazard
Health Mate Based 150. (340.)
Ecological Mate Based 890. (2100.)
Number of Entries Compared to Mates
22
Health
Ecological 10
Potential Toxic Unit Discharge
Rate Sum
Health Mate Based 7.9xl06 to 1.79xlO?
Ecological Mate Based 4.7xlQ7 to 1.10x10"
507
-------
TABLE 115.
ESTIMATED INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS IN
SRC SULFUR BY-PRODUCT
SAM/IA Analysis.
Potential Degree
Name
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Praseodymium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zirconium
Health ot Hazar
Based
4.2(<5.9)xlO~£
1 . 3(<3. 3)xlO
0.034(<0.11)
0.18(0.36)
0.29(0.65) s
1.5(2.2)xlO~2
1.2(2.1)x!0:;>
5.8(10)xlO"^
0.048(0.11)
1.3*(3.1*)_,
6.4(17)xlO~
.
1.2(1.9)xlO~*
0.0021(0.0031)
2.4*(5.5*) ,
6.8(ll)xlO"b
0.016(0.041)
0.17(0.66)
0.10(0.50)
x
2.2(3.8)xlO"2
1.8(2.9)xlO"7
0.30(0.78)
0.29(1.4*)
0.0066(0.014i
2.3(3.1)xlO"5
0.0035(0.0075)
0.005(0.011)
0.014(0.028)
0.037(0.073)
d Ecological
Based
0.034(0.047)
0.0050(0.0125)
0.17(0.56)
0.36(0.73)
4.4*(9.7*)
0.048(0.11)
3.8*(9.4*)
0.064(0.17)
15*(33*)
0.017(0.043)
0.43(1.6*)
0.0042(0.020)
0.6(1.6*)
0.56(1.2*)
0.23(0.47)
Numbers in parenthesis based on maximum, other numbers based on average.
Only the average numbers are included in the SAM/IA analysis summary in
Section 5.0.
*A potential degree of hazard greater than one (1) indicates that this
component may be an environmental hazard.
SAM/IA Analysis8
Stream flow rate: Q - 5127 g/sec.
Stream Potential Degree of
Hazard
Health Mate Based 5.2-13.4
Ecological Mate Based 25.5-58.7
Number of Entries Compared to MATE
28
Health
Ecological 15
Potential Toxic Unit Discharge
Rate Sum
Health Mate Based 2.7 to 6.9 x
Ecological Mate Based 1.3 to 3.0 x 1Q5
508
-------
TABLE 116. SUMMARY DERIVED FROM SAM/IA METHODOLOGY APPLIED
TO SPARK SOURCE RESULTS FROM PRODUCT STREAMS AND RESIDUE
Naphtha
Middle
distillate
Heavy
distillate
Residue
Effluent stream
potential degree of
hazard
• Health based MATE
• Number of MATEs
exceeded
• Ecological based
MATE
• Number of MATEs
exceeded
Potential toxic unit
discharge rate sum
0.15
0/19(0%)
108
1/12(8%)
0.15
0/20(0%)
51.0
1/13(7.6%)
30.
4/47(4%)
5032
7/23(30%)
40.
2/47(4%)
14,288
12/24(50%)
• Health based MATE
• Ecological based
0.003
2.5
0.008
2.83
1
154
5900
20.8x10
The level of trace elements found in the naphtha and
middle distillates were low in comparison with those in the
heavy distillates. None of the trace elements examined, and
only aluminum in the naphtha and phosphorus (which may be
phosphate) in the middle distillates, exceeded their respec-
tive health MATE values. The concentration of aluminum and
phosphorus in these product streams requires further veri-
fication in a Level 2 analysis. For the heavy distillates
many trace elements exceeded the ecological MATE values with
some elements such as chromium, manganese and silica exceed-
ing both the health and ecological values, as shown in
Table 117. Further efforts should be made to accurately
quantify these trace elements.
As is expected the residue is the sink for most non-
volatile trace elements. Application of the SAM/IA model
for the residue, indicates that several trace elements exceed
509
-------
TABLE 117. TRACE ELEMENTS EXCEEDING HEALTH OR ECOLOGICAL
MATE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE HEAVY DISTILLATES
Aluminum E*
Cadmium E
Chromium H, E
Copper E
Iron H
Manganese H,E
Nickel E
Phosphorus E
Silicon H,E
Vanadium E
Zinc E
*E = indicates ecological MATE was exceeded
H = indicates that health MATE was exceeded
health and/or ecological MATE values, where such values
exist. The MATE's applied to the residue were for solid
waste and as such were much more lax than MATE's used for
the product streams.
5.5.4.1.2 Orgardes Analysis
5.5.4.1.2.1 SRC-II Level 1 Methodology and
SAM/IA Analysis
The diversity of organic compounds which can comprise
the product streams from a liquefaction system preclude com-
plete identification without years of research. It has been
estimated that only 10 percent of the possible compounds in
hydrogenation products have been identified and that those
compounds found in the MEG's represent even a smaller per-
centage.
Hittman Associates' Level 1 analysis of the SRC-II
product streams was intended to show relative distribution
of broad classes of compounds and to determine for the
510
-------
middle and heavy distillates concentration estimates for
those organic classes present in highest concentrations.
The SAM/IA model was applied to the middle and heavy
distillates. Because of numerous short-comings inherent in
MEGs, SAM/IA analysis, and Level 1 methodology, the applica-
tion of the MEG's is only intended to point out the most
highly toxic stream components. The SAM/IA analysis is
summarized in Table 118.
TABLE 118. SUMMARY OF SAM/IA FOR MIDDLE AND
HEAVY DISTILLATES
"Effluent Stream Potential
Degree of Hazard"
_~ _
• Health based MATE number
of MATEs exceeded
• Ecological Based MATE
number of MATEs exceeded
"Potential Toxic Unit Discharge
Rate Sum"
* Health based MATE
• Ecological based MATE
Middle
distillates
2.16xl08
22/25(88%)
2.26xl06
13/13(100%)
1.2xl07
1.3xl05
Heavy
distillates
6.13xl06
38/39(97%)
1.9xl05
9/10(90%)
1.9xl05
5.2xl03
The higher effluent stream potential degree of hazard for
the middle distillates is based on the health and ecological
MATEs of the results of the high concentrations of phenolic
compounds in Fractions 5 and 6. The lower effluent stream
potential degree of hazard based on ecological MATEs for the
heavy distillates is unexpected. The serious ecological
hazard presented by the large aromatic concentration in the
heavy distillates cannot be appreciated by comparison with
the MEGs at this time because ecological MATEs are largely
unestablished.
511
-------
The concentration of various organic constituents
identified in samples of SRC-I light oil, wash solvent, and
process solvent (a set of progressively higher boiling cuts)
are shown in Section 3.0, along with analyses of particulate
samples collected directly over the molten product.
5.5.4.2 Potential Ecological and Health Effects of
Unregulated Toxic Substances
Although still in the early stages, a program for the
toxicological evaluation of various materials associated
with the Solvent Refined Coal process has been devised and
is underway at the Fort Lewis pilot plant. The principal
objective of the program is to evaluate potential health
hazards to plant personnel, transporters, and users of SRC
materials.
There are three major parts to the program: (1) acute
tests to provide guidance for dose levels for the longer
term tests and to provide some insight into the effects of
short term exposures such as might occur in spills or acci-
dents; (2) inhalation and demand carcinogenesis surveys to
evaluate the potential skin and respiratory cancer asso-
ciated with long term exposures to SRC materials; and (3)
subacute and special intermediate tests to evaluate poten-
tial teratogenica and other effects.
The only work completed so far are pilot studies to
determine appropriate dose size for future studies and the
acute inhalation study by vapor phase exposure. No formal
reports have been issued as yet by the subcontractor.
512
-------
5.5.4.2.1 Hazards of Product Oil
Although assessment of the potential health or eco-
logical hazard of spills can be approached in terms of the
sum of the hazards of the individual product constituents,
a much more realistic approach is to look at the potential
hazards of the product as a whole. The intricacies of
synergistic and antagonistic interactions of individual
components are far from being understood at this time. In
assessing the hazards of SRC product, data utilized includes
bioassay studies, studies of the effects and hazards of
similar fossil fuel substances (e.g., coal, tar and petrol-
eum) and epidemiological studies of similar industries.
Although SRC carcinogenicity studies have not been com-
pleted, studies have been performed utilizing other lique-
faction product oil. Several streams and products of the
coal-hydrogenation process were painted on the skin of mice
to test their carcinogenic effect. The light oil stream and
eight separate fractions of this stream were all without
tumorigenic action. The light and heavy-oil products were
mildly tumorigenic, producing predominantely papillomas.
However, the streams boiling at high temperatures, the
middle oil, light-oil stream residue, pasting oil, and pitch
products were all highly carcinogenic. The degree of car-
cinogenicity increased and the length of the median latent
periods decreased as the boiling points rose. The median
tumor- or cancer-latent period is the time necessary to
reach a 50 percent tumor or cancer index. Tumor induction
periods were only slightly delayed by dilution of the past-
ing oil, application of barrier creams, or application of
various washing methods (133).
Observations at a large scale coal liquefaction pilot
plant at Institute, West Virginia, indicated that workers
513
-------
were exposed to a significant risk of cancer. Few of the
preventive measures commonly practiced in industry today,
such as programs to promote worker hygiene and protective
clothing, had been developed at the time of the West Virginia
pilot plant operations. The risk of cancer to workers at
present day coal liquefaction facilities is minimized by exer-
cising the necessary precautions. The incidence of skin
cancer in workmen exposed to the coal hydrogenation process
was between 16 and 37 times greater than that of West Vir-
ginia or the entire United.States. Benzo(a)pyrene deposits
on the skin of workers could often be traced to exposure to
high concentrations of airborne oil fumes. Analysis of air
samples for benzo(a)pyrene indicated that pitch treatment or
solids removal operations contributed significantly to
airborne contamination. Maintenance and repair operations
often resulted in direct dermal contact with carcinogenic
materials (134).
Insight into the potential carcinogenic hazard of coal
liquefaction processes can be gained by examining hazards
present in similar industries such as by-product coking.
There are, however, significant differences between these
processes and these differences can drastically affect the
carcinogenicity of the fuel products. Briefly, coal tars
consist of volatiles driven off coal which has been heated
to very high temperatures (1000° to 1500°C) in the absence
of air. By comparison, liquefaction processes utilize
relatively low temperatures (less than 500°C), high pres-
sures (2000 to 4000 psig) and a hydrogen enriched atmosphere.
The carcinogenic potential of coal tars and coke oven
emissions has been extensively studied and documented.
Workers exposed to high levels of coal volatiles showed an
increased incidence to skin and lung cancers. Such studies
raise concern over the potential hazard of the coal lique-
5X4
-------
systemic effects, indicating that the PAH are absorbed pre-
cutaneously. Pathological changes were observed in the
blood, spleen, lymph nodes, and bone marrow (137).
SRC product constituents are found in various waste
streams. Discussion of these constituents has been covered
under sections 5.2.3, 5.3.3, and 5.4.3.
5.5.4.2.3 SRC Toxicity Studies
As discussed in Section 3.0, a toxicological evaluation
of various materials associated with the SRC process has
been devised and is presently underway. Only pilot studies
and the acute inhalation study by vapor phase exposure have
been completed. No formal reports have been issued as yet
by the subcontractor.
Initial exposures to the skin painting produced sub-
stantial mortality among those mice exposed to with light
oil, wash solvent, and wet mineral residue, containing
about 50 percent wash solvent. The probable cause of the
mortality experience is believed to be systematic phenolic
poisoning caused by the relatively high concentrations of
phenolic components in those test materials.
A pilot study was then performed to determine appro-
priate dose levels for the two-year skin painting study.
Results indicated that dose levels approximately one-third
chose originally used would be adequately tolerated. Upon
sacrifice, a substantial number of the animals from the
pilot study, including control, exhibited corneal capacity.
The causative agent, if any, was uncertain; but, if it was a
chemical agent, it was apparently transmitted from cage to
cage in the vapor phase. A 30-day subacute inhalation study
517
-------
is to be performed to determine if the corneal opacity was
caused by the test materials.
5.5.4.2.4 Other Liquefaction Toxicity Studies
Although the SRC toxicity program has not been com-
pleted, laboratory study results are available of the effects
of product oils from other hydrogenation processes. Experi-
mental studies were performed on Bergius oils and Fischer-
Tropsch oils obtained from the experimental coal hydrogena-
tion- liquefaction operation of the U.S. Bureau of Mines at
Bruceton, Pennsylvania. All fractions were tested for
carcinogencity by repeated application to the skin of -mice
and rabbits and by intramuscular injection into the thighs
of rats. Eight of the nine fractions of the Bergius oil
fractionation products were carcinogenic with the degree of
carcinogenic potency generally increasing with increasing
boiling point. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products were less
carcinogenic than Bergius products and appeared to have a
narrower speces and tissues susceptibility spectrum than
the latter (44).
5.6 Radiation and Noise Impacts
Heat, noise, and radioactivity are among the class of
pollutants sometimes labeled as nonchemical pollutants (39).
Factors determinant to the impacts of radiation and noise,
as with other pollutants, include, in part, the intensity or
level of the emission, the air dispersion features at specific
sites, the duration of the exposure, and the distance between
the point source(s) and the receptor(s). Therefore, until
commercial-sized SRC liquefaction plants are built at specific
sites, the precise impacts of heat loss, noise, and the
release of radionuclides from the various process modules
518
-------
faction process. The indications are, however, that the
higher temperatures utilized in the coking industry produce
a more potentially carcinogenic environment than does the
SRC process. Further studies could assess more fully the
relative hazards of the two processes and their respective
fuel products.
At times of spills or in workplace situations it is
imperative that hazard of skin contact with SRC product be
greatly emphasized. During SRC pilot plant, operations,
toxic exposure has been limited to accidental skin contact.
A worker suffered a case of skin burn on the hand (redness,
vesiculation and ulceration of the skin) when he was moving
a barrel containing a hydrocarbon liquid and some spilled on
his hand. Subsequent analysis of the hydrocarbon liquid
showed it contained 6.7 percent phenol, 4.4 percent of o-
cresol, 13 percent m-cresol, and 3.5 percent p-cresol (135).
In summary, the toxicity and carcinogenic potential of
SRC products is recognized. However, since little is known
on the extent of this hazard, various studies have been
initiated and are in progress to provide appropriate data
from which a reasonable assessment can be made of the hazard.
The potential hazard of SRC products is difficult to
assess because of the incomplete status of SRC toxicity and
carcinogenic studies. Also, quantitative analyses of SRC-II
product has also not been completed
In the absence of medical data, organic compounds with
boiling points above 250°C should be handled with caution.
In general, these are the compounds with the higher mole-
cular weights, larger number of aromatic rings, lower water
solubility and higher potential for relative persistence and
bioaccumulation in organisms (136).
515
-------
The environmental hazard of a spill of SRC product
would at least equal, and in all likelihood, exceed that
created by a spill of a similar petroleum oil. The SRC
product is suggested to be more carcinogenic than petroleum
oils, although this has not yet been verified by laboratory
studies. The hazard of skin contact should be greatly em-
phasized during clean-up of any spill as well as during SRC
production and transporting.
The environmental effects of toxic organics in coal
liquefaction products and high-boiling, carbon- containing
residues represent the area of greatest estimated concern.
Quantitative definition of the presence and effects of these
materials on workplace personnel, other impacted personnel,
and the ambient environment is essential.
5.5.4.2.2 Hazards of Known Constituents in
SRC Products
The constituents in coal liquefaction product oil are
known to be carcinogenic. Analysis of product oil from coal
liquefaction, as well as oils in coal tar and petroleum
crudes, have revealed high levels of PAH compounds. Ben-
zo(a)pyrene concentrations ranged from 40 to 50 ppm in coal-
derived products. The concentration in mg/1 of PAH in a
liquefaction oil product similar to SRC (Synthoil) was:
phenanthrene 413, benzo(a)antracene 18, and benzo(a)pyrene
41. These levels greatly exceed recommended MATE levels.
For example, the air, water, and land MATE values for benzo-
(a)pyrene are respectively, 0.02, 0.3 and 0.6 ng/l (39).
Aromatic hydrocarbons are highly lipophilic and readily
penetrate into cells. Repeated topical application of PAH
dissolved in solvent to the skin of mice and rabbits caused
516
-------
cannot be determined in a quantitative sense; sources ot"
these pollutants were discussed in a previous report (45).
5.6.1 Radioactivity
Concern over the potential extent and effect of radio-
activity emitted during the operation of a commercial-sized
SRC liquefaction plant is of recent origin. Approximately
290 mCi of radiation would be associated with the 28,123 Mg
of Illinois No. 6 coal consumed daily by a hypothetical com-
mercial SRC plant (41). In an earlier report (41), treated
emission streams of coal dust (the largest potential source
of particulate radioactivity) associated with a hypothetical
synfuels facility using 28,123 mg Illinois No. 6 coal per
day were shown to contain between 0.9 and 167 Mg dust/m ;
-12
this amount of dust corresponded to between 9.28 x 10 to
1.72 x 10"9 Ci/m3. Of these values, from 4.77 x 10"16 to
1 / Q
8.85 x 10" Ci/m was associated with the decay of each
isotype of the U238 series; 2.2 x 10"17 to 4.1 x 10"15 Ci/m3
with each isotype of the U series, and 2.2 x 10 to 4.1
x 10"1Zf Ci/m3 with each isotype of the Th232 series (47).
The potential health effects associated with this amount of
radioactivity are discussed further in Section 5.6.4.1.
5.6.2 Noise
Noise impacts can arise during both the construction
and operation of the SRC liquefaction plant. Noise, irre-
spective of its source, can exert localized, short-range
impacts on receptors, generally not extending more than a
radius of a few kilometers beyond the plant and the auxiliary
facilities. Sources of noise in operating SRC plants have
been reported elsewhere (41).
519
-------
The noise generated by heavy construction equipment is
generally at the level of 80 to 100 decibels dB(A) at. a
distance of about 15 meters; at a distance of about 600
meters from the operating equipment, the noise level usually
falls to 60 to 80 dB(A) and would be in compliance with
noise standards although still noticeable to human ears
(138). Blasting operations would superimpose a short-term
spike on the construction equipment noise levels and would
be perceptible at greater distances (138).
Noise generated inside a coal liquefaction plant must
be kept in compliance with federal regulations (i.e., at or
below 90 dB(A)) under the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA) 1970. The highest noise levels within the plant area
will emanate from the coal shaker, reaching 110 to 125 dB(A)
at a distance of about three meters (78); these levels
exceed the OSHA limit set at 90 dB(A). Other important
noise emitters in the plant area, include the following
(41):
• Dust collector
• Primary coal crusher
• Secondary coal crusher
Within the SRC plant, per se, potentially high noise
levels of varying frequencies emanate from process heaters
and boilers, compressors, high pressure let-down valves and
reciprocating pumps; these sources would be expected to emit
noise at between 90 to 100 dB(A) (74). Mitigation of noise
levels at specific points inside the SRC plant, per se,
could be accomplished after the noise-level contours have
been established therein by (138):
520
-------
• Installing mufflers where applicable
• Enclosing or insulating motor cases
• Insulating operating stations
• Adding insulated ducts or mufflers to boiler
burners
• Monitoring for noise so as to establish new areas
requiring further equipment relocation or insula-
tion (138).
5.6.3 Thermal Factors
The thermal efficiency of the SRC liquefaction process
(SRC-II) base design is estimated to be about 74 percent,
based on the assumption that the SRC-mineral residue is not
further treated to recover excess energy (41). If one
further assumes that the heating value of the feed coal
(i.e., about 21,000 Mg feed coal per day) amounts to 29,822
•joules/kg, the heat loss to the external environment would
12
be about 160 x 10 joules per day (43). However, the
impacts of such heat losses would be localized and would be
expected to moify local rainfall patterns and snowmelt,
particularly in the arid and semi-arid portions of EPA
Regions VIII and IX (Four Corners and Fort Union Regions) of
the United States. Relatively simple approaches to the
mitigation of these negative impacts would include: (1) use
of the waste heat for coal drying or other uses; (2) optimi-
zation of heat balance when practicable; (3) increased water
reuse; and (4) increased heat recovery by use of more heat
exchangers (41).
521
-------
5.6.4 Potential Ecological and Health Effects of
Radiation, Noise, and Thermal Emissions
5.6.4.1 Radiation
The potential for various radioactive emissions to
cause biological damage is determined, in part, by: the
capacity of the particles (alpha, beta, or gamma) to pene-
trate tissue; the frequency and amount of isotope ingested
via food, water, or inhalation intakes; distance of receptor
from the sources; duration of exposure; the effective dose,
and the dose rate.
Permissible exposure limits for the workplace and the
general population are shown in Table 119. On the basis of
present knowledge (43), it appears that dust from Illinois
o
No. 6 coal (100 mg coal dust/m /8 hr. day) would, if inhaled,
not represent a hazard to workers in SRC plants. Some
uncertainty remains, however, in that it is not certain that
radionuclide enrichment on small aerosols can be ruled out.
However, it is important to remember that the general U.S.
population is exposed annually to natural radiation at a
whole body dose ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 rem; this exposure
is judged not to require the monitoring of individuals
(139). Radiological monitoring programs ongoing at the
federal and state levels were discussed in an earlier report
(41).
In each one of the three natural radioactive series,
there is a gaseous alpha particle emitter. Each of these
gases is an isotope of the element having the atomic number
219
86, usually called radon. The gases are: Rn (actinon),
(thoron), and Rn (radon). Radon is chemically
inert; hence, no gas mask can separate if from, the air
522.
-------
TABLE 119. RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDES (43)
Type of Exposure Length of Exposure
Dose (rem)
Radiation worker:
(a) Whole body, head and
trunk, active blood-
forming organs, gonads,
or lens of eye
(b) Skin of whole body and
thyroid
(c) Hands and forearms, feet,
and ankles
(d) Bone
(e) Other organs
Population:
(a) Individual (adult male)
(b) Average
Accumulated dose
13 weeks
Year
13 weeks
Year
13 weeks
Body burden
Year
13 weeks
Year
30 years
5 times number of years
beyond age 18
3
30
10
75
25
0.1 fiCi of Ra226 or its
biological equivalent
15
5
0.5
(whole body)
(gonads)
523
-------
chemically. Once it enters the lungs, this gas is very
destructive, since it is literally present within a vital
organ. The maximum permissible safe concentration of radon
in the atmosphere is about 10 percent by volume (140).
From the projections of the thorium and uranium levels in
coal, and further by assuming that the steady state condi-
tion exists, the amount of radon associated with a given
amount of coal can be calculated. These calculations have
been performed for 28,123 Mg of the most radioactive coal
known in the United States, as shown in Table 120. The
estimated concentration of uranium and thorium due to the
dust from coal preparation at an SRC facility using Illinois
No. 6 coal was reported to range between 0.091 to 1.4 and
3
0.12 to 1.9 /zg/m , respectively. The corresponding values,
using the most radioactive known coal in the United States,
3
are: 0.46 to 7.1 yg uranium/m , and 0.53 to 8.3 /jg thorium/
o
m . The concentrations of radon which correspond to these
-18 229 96
figures are: 1. to 15. x 10 i0g Rn ; 5 to 81 x 10"Zbg
91Q -9^ 99D
Rn , and 6 to 99 x 10 g Rn^u per cubic meter for a
maximum total of 1.5 x 10" g Rn/m , or 1.7 x 10 volume
percent. This corresponds to a maximum of 0.0072 ergs/sec/m
•j
For a standard (70 kg) man having 0.00566 m lung capacity,
the exposure would be 5.8 x 10 rads or 5.8 x 10'11 reins
per second when his lungs are filled to capacity. These
values are far below the estimated permissible levels estab-
lished by the radiation protection guidelines shown in
Table 119 (43).
As a second estimate, the radiological exposure of a
worker breathing coal dust containing radon daughters was
calculated, on the assumption that a person doing light work
would breathe 28.6 1/min or 13.728 m per eight hours. If
one assumes that the air breathed in contains 100 mg coal
dust/m3 and that 50 percent of the coal dust is trapped in
524
-------
TABLE 120. ESTIMATION OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RADON
ASSOCIATED WITH 28,123 MG OF THE MOST RADIOACTIVE COAL
KNOWN IN THE UNITED STATES
Ul
N>
01
Isotope Amount
222 -7
Rn 4.7x10
Rn219 2.6xlO~U
Rn220 3.3X10-11
Decay Product
alpha
gamma
alpha
gamma
alpha
gamma
Total Energy
(ergs/sec)
19700.
1.8
1400.
12.
15000.
2.9
Total Decomposition
Time (sec.)
2.79xl09
2.3xl06
1.32xl08
2.4xl07
1.13xl09
3.3xl06
Total ergs/sec produced:
37000.
-------
the lung, one finds a build-up of coal dust of 1.37 g per
day; this calculates to a lung deposit of 350 g per year for
a person doing light work on an eight hour day. This assump-
tion is the maximum possible build-up since no coal dust is
assumed lost due the normal cleaning processes of the lung.
Consideration of the number of disintegrations, the energy
of each disintegration, and the relative biological effec-
tiveness of each type of disintegration, leads to the con-
clusion that a 70 kg (standard) man would be exposed to 2.2
x 10"12 or 1.9 x 10 rem of irradiation/day. Given that
the workers should stay with the same job for the total
plant lifetime of 30 years, and that 260 days per year were
worked, the cumulative exposure would be 5.7 x 10" rad
-9
or 4.9 x 10 rem. These values are far below the estimated
permissible levels established by the Bureau of Radiological
Health (1970) shown in Table 120.
5.6.4.2 Noise
Present evidence suggests that although noise could
create serious health hazards for exposed workers, there is
reason to believe that use of inexpensive measures such as
individual hearing protection devices, or the use of equip-
ment design modifications, may resolve most of the potential
problems. For optimum results, it would be useful to esta-
blish noise-level contours for SRC demonstration plants at
the earliest date, whereupon control of plant-connected
noises may be brought into conformity with OSHA noise stand-
ards.
Another facet of this problem is whether noises emitted
at different frequencies and intensities beyond the con-
struction site or the synfuels facility, might have adverse
effects on brooding bird cycles, and/or on animal reproduc-
tion cycles. Little or no information is available on this
526
-------
problem; however, it is evident that the impacts of noise
would be highly localized and that the general response on
the part of mammals and birds would be to depart the noisy
areas and occupy quieter zones.
5.7 Summary of Major Environmental Impacts
The potential degrees of hazard and toxic unit dis-
charge rates were calculated for many waste streams in a
manner similar to that shown for SRC solid residue and
gasifier slag in the Appendix. Figures 68 and 69 are the
SAM/IA summaries of the estimates (the second form of the
SAM/IA analysis) using "Average U.S. Coal." Figure 70 is the
SAM/IA summary using "Maximum U.S., Coal" for several dis-
charges, as follows:
Gaseous Emission Stream Number*
101 Suspended particulates
102 Stretford tail gas
103 Oxygen generation
104 Flare
105 Boiler flue gas - fly
ash
Category
Coal pretreatment
Sulfur recovery, required auxiliary
process
Oxygen generation, incidental
auxiliary process
Flare, required auxiliary process
Steam generation, incidental
auxiliary process
Aqueous Effluent Stream Number
201 Coal pile drainage
202 Ash pond effluent
203 Combined treatment
facility wastewater
Category
Coal storage, incidental auxiliary
process
Wastewater treatment incidental
auxiliary process
Final wastewater treatment, inci-
dental auxiliary process
^Stream numbers correspond to the sampling points on Figure 68.
527
-------
ROM COAL
SULFUR
AMMONIA
» 107
102. 104. J02,
J03 , 30? . J03,
306
PHENOL
Figure 68. Diagrammatic representation of a conceptualized
SRC facility showing appropriate stream numbers.
$28
-------
! 1. SOURCE AND APPLICABLE CONTROL OPTIONS
Conceptualized SRC Facility Using "Average U.S. Coal"
2. PROCESS THROUGHPUT OR CAPACITY 28,000 Mg "Average U.S. Coal"
3 USE THIS SPACE TO SKETCH A BLOCK DIAGRAM OF THE SOURCE AND CONTROL ITEMS SHOWING ALL EFFLUENT
STREAMS. INDICATE EACH STREAM WITH A CIRCLED NUMBER USING 101-199 FOR GASEOUS STREAMS,
201-299 FOR LIQUID STREAMS, AND 301-399 FOR SOLID WASTE STREAMS.
See Figure 68
4. LIST AND DESCRIBE GASEOUS EFFLUENT STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3.
101 Suspended particulates from coal preparation _
Emissions after treatment of Stretford Tail Gas
Q3 Oxygen Generation ___
104 Flare _
105 Boiler Flue Gas _ __ _
106 _ - . -
107 -- — -
5. LIST AND DESCRIBE LIQUID EFFLUENT STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3.
201 Coal Pile Drainage __
2Q2 Ash pond effluent
203 uastewater Treatment Facility
204 _
205 —
206 —
6. LIST AND DESCRIBE SOLID WASTE EFFLUENT STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3.
3Q1 SRC Mineral Residue 307. Gasifier Slag
API Separator Bottoms
303 Bio-Unit Sludge
304 Fly Ash (Particulates - Steam Generation)
305 Bottom Ash (Particulates - Steam Generation)
306 Flare K.O. Drum
7 IF YOU ARE PERFORMING A LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT, COMPLETE THE IA02-LEVEL 1 FORM FOR EACH EFFLUENT
STREAM LISTED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE PERFORMING A LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENT, COMPLETE THE IA02-LEVEL 2 FORM
FOR EACH EFFLUENT STREAM LISTED ABOVE.
Figure 69. SAM/IA summary using average U.S. coal.
529
-------
8 LIST SUMS FROM LINE 7, FORMS IA02, IN TABLE BELOW
DEGREE OF HAZARD AND TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATES BY EFFLUENT STREAM
GASEOUS
STREAM
coot
101
102
103
104
105
A
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
HEALTH
BASED
-
A*
C*
0.086
134
130
B
ECOL
BASED
-
_
D*
38
0.43
C
TOXIC UNIT
DISCHARGE RATES
HEALTH
BASED
ECOL
BASED
(m'/sec)
B*
E*
7.5
18
..4E4
D
- -
F*
-
5.0
50
E
LIQUID
STREAM
CODE
201
202
203
F
9 SUM SEPARATELY GASEOUS, LIQUID AND
(I.E., SUM COLUMNS)
HEALTH-BAJ
GASEOUS (S COL. B) «
LIQUID £ COL. G) <
SOLID WASTE (2 COL. L) 9
10. SUM SEPARATELY GASEOUS. LIQUID AND
LINE 8 (I.E., SUM COLUMNS)
HEALTH-B/
GASEOUS (m'/sec) (I COL. D)
LIQUID (I/sec) (S COL. 1)
SOLID WASTE (g/sec) (I COL. N)
1 1 NUMBER OF EFFL
GASEOUS
LIQUID
SOLID WASTE
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
HEALTH
BASED
-
6500
G*
427
G
ECOL
BASED
-
4.5E4
—
22
H
TOXIC UNIT
DISCHARGE RATES
HEALTH
BASED
ECOL.
BASED
(I/sec)
6500
—
15
1
4.5E4
™
0.82
J
SOLID WASTE STREAM DEGREES
TOTAL DEGREE OF HAZARD
JED ECO
>ft 360-390 ,i r
>P 6.9xl03
-------
4
1.4E4 equivalent to 1.4x10
Footnote
A*
B*
c*
D*
E*
F*
G*
H*
I*
NOTES
Comment
0.045-30
4
1.7 to 1.1 x 10
92. -100.
4.0-24.
7600. -8400.
330. -2000.
1.9-5.7
220. -2000.
4500. -4.1 x 104
ASSUMPTIONS
LIST ALL ASSUMPTIONS MADE REGARDING FLOW RATE, EMISSION FACTORS AND MATE VALUES.
Figure 69. (continued).
531
-------
1 SOURCE AND APPLICABLE CONTROL OPTIONS
Conceptualized SRC Facility Using "Maximum U.S. Coal1
2. PROCESS THROUGHPUT OR CAPACITY 28,000 Mg "Maximum U.S. Coal"
3. USE THIS SPACE TO SKETCH A BLOCK DIAGRAM OF THE SOURCE AND CONTROL ITEMS SHOWING ALL EFFLUENT
STREAMS. INDICATE EACH STREAM WITH A CIRCLED NUMBER USING 101-199 FOR GASEOUS STREAMS.
201-299 FOR LIQUID STREAMS, AND 301-399 FOR SOLID WASTE STREAMS.
See Figure 68
4. LIST AND DESCRIBE GASEOUS EFFLUENT' STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3.
101 Suspended particulates from coal preparation
102 Emission after treatment of S tret ford Tail Gas
103 Oxygen Generation
104 Flare ;
105 Boiler Flue Gas _
106 __
107
5 LIST AND DESCRIBE LIQUID EFFLUENT STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3.
201 Coal Pile Drainage
202 Ash Pond Effluent
203 Wastewater Treatment Facility
204
205
206 '. .
6. LIST AND DESCRIBE SOLID WASTE EFFLUENT STREAMS USING RELEVANT NUMBERS FROM STEP 3.
30! SRC Mineral Residue 307. Gasifier Slag
302 API Separator Bottoms ^^
303 Bio-Unit Sludge
304 Flv Ash
305 Bottom Ash
306 Flare K.O. Drum
Figure 70. SAM/IA summary using maximum U.S. coal.
532
-------
8 LIST SUMS FROM LINE 7, FORMS IA02. IN TABLE BELOW
DEGREE OF HAZARD AND TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATES BY EFFLUENT STREAM
GASEOUS
STREAM
CODE
,
L01__
L02_
103
IP4^
i05_
__
_ -
RP-
A
— — • —
—
9 SU
(1.1
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
HEALTH
BASED
A*
__••• •
C*
0.08<
134
160.
— '• '
— • '
• " '
•i '•
B
— "'•• '"•
_
M SEPA
:., SUM
GASEC
LIQUI
SOLID
ECOL
BASED
-
«— — ^—
D*
38
0.43
^«^__>-MM
C
TOXIC UNIT
DISCHARGE RATES
HEALTH
BASED
ECOL.
BASED
(m'/sec)
B*
E*
7.5
18
1.8E4
D
-
F*
-
5.0
50
E
LIQUID
STREAM
CODE
201
202
203
F
RATELY GASEOUS, LIQUID AND
COLUMNS)
HEALTH-BA
JUS (X COL. B)
D (1 COL. G)
WASTE (2 COL. L)
10 SUM SEPARATELY GASEO
LINE 8 (I.E.. SUM COLUM
GASEOUS (mVsec)
LIQUID (I/sec)
SOLID WASTE (g/se<
11. NUMBER OF EFF
GASEOUS
LIQUID
SOLID WASTE
US. LIQUID AND
NS)
HEALTH-B
(I COL. D)
(I COL 1)
:) (X COL. N
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
HEALTH
BASED
-
6.6E4
G*
9.52
G
ECOL.
BASED
-
4.0E'
_
40
H
TOXIC UNIT
DISCHARGE RATES
HEALTH
BASED
ECOL.
BASED
(I/sec)
6.6E4
-
34
1
4.0E5
-
1.5
J
SOLID WASTE STREAM DEGREE!
TOTAL DEGREE OF HAZARC
SED ECC
QA 390. -460. ,5,
QH 6.7 x 104
,r 4200.
(i
(I
1 SOLID WASTE STREAM TOXIC I
TOTAL TOXIC UNIT D
ASED EC
inA2.6xlO to5.3xlO\y
inn 6.6xl04
) mr 4.4x10
(7
(t
SOLID WASTE
STREAM
CODE
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
K
>OF HA
)
JLOGICA
:OL. o
:OL. H)
COL M)
JNIT DIS
SCHARC
OLOGIC
COL. E)
COL. J)
COL. 0)
DEGREE OF
HAZARD
HEALTH
BASED
—
750
1900
14
700
21
29
830
L
ECOL
BASED
—
5400
3.9E^
200
7300
300
190
4900
M
TOXIC UNIT
DISCHARGE RATES
HEALTH
BASED
ECOL.
BASED
(g/sec)
3.5E7
H*
96
2.9E5
1.6E4
-
8.8E6
N
2.5E{
I*
1400
3.0E6
2.3E5
—
5.3E7
0
ZARD FROM TABLE AT LINE 8
L-BASED
QA. 42. -62.
OR- 4.0 x 105
or. 5.7 x 104
CHARGE RATES FROM TABLE AT
JE RATES
AL-BASED
iiu- 380. -2100.
inn- 4.0xl05
inr 3.1xl08
L.UENT STREAMS
11A 5
11B.
11C.
3
7
12. LIST POLLUTANT SPECIES KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO BE EMITTED FOR WHICH A MATE IS NOT AVAILABLE.
See Section 3.0 of this report.
*See footnote list next page
Figure 70. (continued).
533
-------
1.8 E4 equivalent to
Footnote
A*
B*
C*
D*
E*
F*
G*
H*
I*
1.8 x 10A
0.
41
92
4.
NOTES
Comment
107 to 70
. to 2.7 x 10
.-100.
0-24.
7 600. -8400.
330. -2000.
1.
9-5.7
220. -2000.
4500-4.1 x 10
ASSUMPTIONS
LIST ALL ASSUMPTIONS MADE REGARDING FLOW RATE, EMISSION FACTORS AND MATE VALUES.
Figure 70. (continued).
534
-------
Solid Waste Stream Number Category
301 SRC mineral residue Solids/liquids separation process
302 API separator bottoms Wastewater treatment
303 Bio-Unit sludge Wastewater treatment
304 Fly ash Steam generation
305 Bottom ash Steam generation
306 Flare knock-out drum Flare
307 Gasifier slag Hydrogen generation
In general, the health based potential degree of hazard
was calculated for more pollutants in more waste streams
than was the ecological based degree of hazard. This re-
sults directly from the larger number of health-based MATEs
available for this calculation. Thus, the potential toxic
unit discharge rate sum, which is simply the potential degree
of hazards of the individual pollutants in the stream multi-
plied by the stream flow rate, should give the best relative
indication of the individual toxicities of the individual
streams. On this basis, the most toxic gaseous waste stream
appears to be the boiler flue gas; the most toxic liquid
waste stream appears to be the coal pile drainage, and the
most toxic solid waste stream appears to be the SRC-mineral
residue. The boiler flue gas appears to be: approximately
as toxic (from 0.3 to 2 times) as the coal pile drainage;
about 1000 to 2000 times less toxic than the SRC-mineral
residue; 120 to 490 times less toxic than the gasifier slag;
9 to 16 times less toxic than the fly ash, and approximately
as toxic as the bottom ash. Of the wastes specific for
535
-------
liquefaction technology, only the SRC-mineral residue and
the gasifier slag are more toxic than the fly ash produced,
with the relative toxicities being 120 to 130 and 15 to 30
times as toxic, respectively. Considerable useable energy
may be present in SRC-mineral residue which may be extracted
using some future technology, but the gasifier slag appears
practically useless.
5.7.1 Air Impacts
Present indications are that air emissions during the
regular operation of the SRC-II system will arise primarily
from the auxiliary processes, several of which are consid-
ered incidental to the primary function of the system.
Emissions from the processes and the auxiliary processes
should be limited to leaks in pump seals, valves, joints,
and flanges and from product handling and storage. These
processes should be monitored in the workplace as part of
the industrial hygiene program.
Other emissions of note, but unquantified and unevalu-
ated by the SAM/IA methodology are:
• Fugitive emissions from sulfur storage (one of the
by-products, hence a required auxiliary process)
• Gaseous emissions from the wastewater treatment
plant (an incidental auxiliary process)
• Fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from processes
such as: hydrogenation (liquefaction); gas sepa-
ration; solids/liquids separation; fractionation;
and hydrotreating
536
-------
• Fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from required
auxiliary processes that include: acid gas re-
moval, cryogenic separation, product storage,
sulfur recovery, and unburned hydrocarbons from
the flare system
• Fugitive hydrocarbon emissions from: hydrogen
generation, and wastewater treatment
• Drift of corrosion inhibitors and antifouling
agents from cooling towers (an incidental auxili-
ary process)
• Emissions associated with the regeneration of
catalysts and activated carbon. This regeneration
should be done using proper air pollution controls
in that the catalysts have a fairly long lifetime
(A3).
As discussed in Section 5.2.2 and 5:2.3, ammonia,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, chromium, copper, fluorides, iron, manganese,
nickel, nitrogen oxides, sulfur, and particulates are regu-
lated pollutants which may cause adverse environmental
impacts. As discussed in Section 5.2.4, aluminum, anthan-
threne, benzo(a)pyrene, lithium, titanium, and vanadium are
unregulated pollutants which may cause environmental damage.
As discussed in Section 5.1, the most hazardous atmos-
pheric waste stream appears to be the boiler flue gas. In
general, atmospheric emissions appear to be less of an
environmental hazard than do solid wastes.
537
-------
5.7.2 Water Impacts
Table 121 shows the pollutants in the individual
liquid waste streams which may represent an environmental
hazard. The SAM/IA analysis shows that the total hazard
expected from aqueous waste streams is about equal to that
expected from atmospheric waste streams and is less than
that expected from solid waste streams.
5.7.3 Impacts of Solid Wastes
Table 122 indicates which individual pollutants may be
a problem in the individual solid waste streams. No appli-
cable solid waste standards or regulations were found so
that all of the pollutants shown in these tables are con-
sidered "unregulated", however, SRC wastes may be deter-
mined to be hazardous wastes under the Resource Recovery
and Conservation Act of 1976. The SAM/IA analysis indicates
that the SRC-mineral residue and the gasifier slag will
represent the greatest environmental hazard. This analysis
considers the quantity of the waste streams as well as the
composition.
5.7.4 Product Impacts
The potential impact of SRC products has been examined
in terms of product toxicity, spills and fire hazards, and
the SRC combustion emissions. Federal and state regulations
are summarized where applicable.
5.7.4.1 Regulations
SRC product is known to contain toxic and hazardous
constituents. There are, however, no toxic substances
538
-------
TABLE 121. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL POLLUTANTS WHICH
MAY BE HAZARDOUS IN THE INDIVIDUAL AQUEOUS WASTE STREAMS
FROM THE CONCEPTUALIZED SRC FACILITY
Pollutant
Aluminum
Barium
Bismuth
Cadmium
Calcium
Chlorine
Chromium
Copper
Cresols
Iron
Mangesium
Manganese
Mercury
Naphthalene
Naphthols
Nickel
Phenols
C3~Phenols
Phosphorous
Selenium
Silicon
Sulfur
Xylenols
Zinc
PH
Regulated*
Waste Streams in Which Pollutant May
Represent an Environmental Hazard
Coal Pile Ash Pond
Drainage Effluent Wastewater
*For this column only, + = yes; - = no.
539
-------
TABLE 122. POLLUTANTS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE HAZARDOUS IN THE
INDIVIDUAL SOLID WASTE STREAMS
Ui
*>
o
Pollutant
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluorine
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Silicon
Vanadium
Zinc
SRC Mineral API Separator Fly Bottom Flare K.O. Gasifier
Residue Bottoms Biosludge Ash Ash Drum Slag
?*
*? = uncertain.
-------
standards regulating the compositions or constituents in SRC
product.
Leaks and spills of SRC product could be regulated to
some extent by the proposed rule (40 CFR part 151) estab-
lishing requirements for spill prevention control and count-
ermeasure (SPCC) plans. The SPCC plans requirements would
be promulgated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System (NPDES) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (FWPCA) and would establish measure to prevent
discharges of hazardous substances from facilities. The
SPCC plan would be prepared in accordance with good engi-
neering practices and the general requirements of providing
for appropriate containment, drainage control and/or diver-
sionary structures,
5.7.4.2 Evaluation of Unregulated Toxic Substances
and Bioassay Results
A general assessment of the potential hazard of spilled
product can be made by comparing product constituents to
recommended MATE values. It should be remembered, however,
that MATE values are designed as guidelines for effluent
concentrations and with regard to the product, would be
meaningful only if assessing spill hazard. The same ra-
tionale applies to SAM/IA potential degree of hazard assess-
ment which are based on MATE values.
Hittman Associates has utilized Level 1 methodology,
and SAM/IA analysis to assess the relative hazard of three
product streams of the SRC-II process (naphtha, middle and
heavy distillates) and residue. Although the SAM/IA model
is intended to be used as a hazard assessment of discharge
streams, the model can be a useful indication of the types
of compounds which warrant concern in the event of a spill
541
-------
or as a result of fugitive emissions and leaks from product
storage.
The level of trace elements found in the naphtha and
middle distillates were low in comparison with those in the
heavy distillates. None of the trace elements examined, and
only aluminum in the naphtha and phosphorous in the middle
distillates, exceeded their respective health MATE values.
For the heavy distillate many trace elements exceeded the
ecological MATE value with some elements such as chromium,
manganese and silica exceeding both the health and ecologi-
cal values.
SAM/IA analysis potential degree of hazard assessment
has been performed on the data from Washington State Uni-
versity studies of the trace element distribution and fate
in the SRC-I process. A summary is presented in Table 123
of the inorganic elements in three product streams which
have degree of hazard numbers exceeding "1" (indicating that
the component may be an environmental hazard).
The diversity of organic compounds which can comprise
the product streams from the SRC process preclude complete
identification without years of research. It has been esti-
mated that only 10 percent of the possible compounds in
hydrogenation products have been identified and that those
found in the MEGs represent an even smaller percentage.
Hittman Associates Level 1 organic analysis of the SRC-II
product streams is intended to show relative distribution of
broad classes of compounds and to determine, for the middle
and heavy distillates, concentration estimates for organics
present in highest concentrations.
SRC-I organic constituents as determined by Fruchter
and Peterson (63) of Battelle, have been compared with
542
-------
TABLE 123. INORGANIC ELEMENTS IN SRC-I PRODUCT STREAMS HAVING
SAM/IA ANALYSIS POTENTIAL DEGREE OF HAZARDS GREATER THAN "1"
Light Oil-Naphtha
Potential Degree of Hazard
Wash Solvent
Heavy Oil
Health Ecological Health Ecological Health Ecological
Element Based
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron 6.7
Lead 5.6
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium 1.2
Selenium 3.0
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Based Based
6.0
1.2
11
40 2.5
28
1.7
3.7
15 1.4
1.5
6.0
6.3
2.4
35
Based Based
4.6
24
5.6 307
4.8
2.6
4.4
18
32 18
4.3
6.9
4.7
4.4
Based
4.4
69
24
20
1840
24
11
410
5.7
14
110
73
88
*The SAM/IA analysis was performed primarily on data of Filby and coworkers
of Washington State University (45).
543
-------
available MATE values. Where such MATEs are available, the
product constituents are generally present at concentrations
that greatly exceed the MATE, particularly when utilizing
the MATE based on ecological effects.
As stated in Section 3.0, a program for the toxicologi-
cal evaluation of various materials associated with the
Solvent Refined Coal process have been divised and is under-
way at the Fort Lewis pilot plant. Since the toxicological
program is still in the early stages and no formal reports
have been issued on the results, the following data sources
were utilized to assess the potential health and ecological
impact from SRC product exposure:
• Bioassay studies of other coal liquefaction oils
• Studies of the effects and hazards of similar
fossil fuel substances (e.g., coal, tar, and
petroleum)
• Epidemiological studies of similar industries.
Carcinogenic studies of other liquefaction product oils
have indicated that carcinogenicity is associated with the
oils, excepting the lower boiling point fractions of the
light oil. The streams boiling at higher temperature, the
middle oil, light-oil stream residue, pasting oil and pitch
products were all highly carcinogenic. The degree of car-
cinogenicity increased and the length of the median latent
periods decreased as boiling points rose. Evidence of the
carcinogenic potential of SRC product is the presence of
known carcinogens (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene) in the product oil.
544
-------
In summary, the toxicity and carcinogenic potential of
SRC products is recognized but difficult to assess because
of the incomplete status of SRC studies in these areas.
The environmental hazard of a spill of SRC product
would at least equal, and in all likelihood, exceed that
created by a spill of similar petroleum oil. The SRC prod-
uct is suggested to be more carcinogenic than petroleum
oils, although this has not yet been verified by laboratory
studies. The hazard of skin contact should be greatly
emphasized during clean-up of any spill as well as during
SRC production and transporting.
The environmental effects of toxic organics in coal
liquefaction products and high-boiling, carbon containing
residues represent the area of greatest estimated concern.
Quantitative definition of the presence and effects of these
materials on workplace personnel, other impacted personnel,
and the ambient environment is essential.
5.7.4.3 Product Utilization Impacts
A major consideration with regard to SRC product hazard
is the impact from utilizing SRC fuels. Emission data from
SRC-I and SRC-II combustion tests indicate that the solvent
refining process can produce a fuel that when burned gives
off lower emissions levels of regulated pollutants than does
combustion of the original coal.
SRC-II combustion emission data indicates that NOV
.A.
emissions were 70 percent higher than for the petroleum
burned in the boiler as a comparison. The SRC-II N0x level
was within the proposed standard of 217 ng/J for coal de-
rived liquid fuels, although the level at times exceeded the
present 130 ng/J NSPS for liquid fossil fuel. Other emis-
345
-------
sions were low. Particulate emissions measured at 0.015-
0.025 ppm and are lower than for the oil. Unburned hydro-
carbons measured at less than 3 ppm; carbon monoxide was
less than 50 ppm; sulfur trioxide less than 1 ppm. No SO
X
data were available at the time of this writing.
In comparing the federal emission standards to the SRC-
I air emissions test data, S09 and NO emissions were 460
fc X
and 190 nanograms/J, respectively; about 12 and 39 percent
under the respective existing New Source Performance Stan-
dards (NSPS) of 520 and 300 nanograms/J. If, however, the
S02 standard is reduced (as proposed) to 260 nanograms/J,
SRC derived from high sulfur coal may not meet thiSj stan-
dard.
Particulate emissions were less than those from compar-
able coal combustion and can be controlled well below the
EPA standard of 43 nanograms/J by installing a modern pre-
cipitator having a particulate collection efficiency of
approximately 95 percent. The process of solvent refining
of coal results in the removal of some high volatile trace
elements, such that, when SRC is burned, lower concentra-
tions of these elements appear in the combustion gases.
When comparing trace element levels with the MATE values,
•i
only chromium exceeded the recommended level (16 ug/m
3
versus the MATE of 1 /ug/m ) .
The release of organic constituents to the air, via
combustion of SRC, does not appear to be an area of major
environmental concern. The emissions of C^-Cio hydrocarbons
do not appear to differ significantly from direct combustion
of coal and are not an area of environmental concern. Also,
no carcinogenic PAHs were found in the SRC flue gases.
546
-------
The level of volatile trace elements in the combustion
emissions are generally less with combustion of SRC than
with coal. Comparing the concentrations of 17 inorganic
elements in SRC-I combustion emissions with recommended MATE
values, only chromium exceeded the recommended level.
Analysis was not performed, however, on three elements
(titanium, beryllium, and cobalt) which have been reported
to be present at levels in SRC product oil which could
potentially pose a pollution problem when burned.
5.7.5 Other Impacts
The inability to precisely define the major environmen-
tal impacts resulting from the construction and operation of
SRC plants, dictated by the fact that no commercial-sized
SRC liquefaction plant has yet been built, does not deter
one from calling attention to other impacts that may be
significant and deemed as adverse and unavoidable. As
pointed out by others, generic environmental considerations
are useful for program planning and decision making (138).
The most striking impacts resulting from the 20-year
lifetime of the proposed synthetic fuels program would
result from the commitment of the nonrenewable resources,
coal, construction materials, and the land area; these
impacts would be essentially irreversible. Once these
resources are commited, an inevitable sequence of events
would be set in motion effectively cutting across the eco-
nomic, sociocultural, political, regulatory, land use, and
water use aspects of the affected communities.
Estimates of the total commitment of construction
materials and coal to the year 2000 are shown for a national
synfuels program in Tables 124 and 125. The results in
547
-------
TABLE 124. TOTAL COMMITMENT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Long-Tenn Produc-
tion Levels
High
Intermediate
Low
Steel
(1000 Mg)
22,498
12,338
5,107
Copper
(1000 Mgl
218
118
50
Aluminum
(1000 Mg)
699
351
154
^Assumes total production is equally divided among high-Btu
gasification, low-Btu gasification, liquefaction and oil
shale plants during 1985 to 2000 (138).
TABLE 125. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ANNUAL COAL CONSUMPTION
BY SYNFUELS PLANTS BY THE YEAR 2000 (145)
Production Level Coal Consumed* Percent of Recover-
in Year 2000 (Billion of Mg) able Coal Reserves**
High
Intermediate
Low
2.4
1.3
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.2
* Assumes 100 percent of synfuels production is from coal.
**See reference (138).
548
-------
Table 124 are reported to indicate that the highest annual
steel, copper and aluminum requirements would be less than
1.3, 0.9, and 1.0 percent, respectively, of the 1976 U.S.
primary annual production (138). In a similar vein, assuming
that 100 percent of the synfuels production would be from
coal, as opposed to oil shale, tar sands, or other alterna-
tives, the estimated maximum annual coal consumption (i.e.,
for the high production level in year 2000) would be about
0.9 percent of the current recoverable coal reserves (Table
125). These data suggest the eventual need to recycle
construction materials (steel and copper), and the need to
develop alternatives to coal.
With reference to the land area committed to mines and
to synfuels plants for the lifetime of the SRC system, the
numbers are appreciable and relatively more serious than
those for other nonrenewable resources. For example, the
estimated land area consigned to the coal-mine area, the
landfill at mine and the mine support buildings comprises
about 94 percent of the total land area estimated for an SRC
complex, assuming that the buffer zone surrounding the SRC
plant was 111 hectares (43). The land area estimated for
the commercial SRC plant (including cooling ponds, coal
storage area, tank farm and coal preparation plant) comprises
about 1121 ha, or six percent of the 17,693 hectare area
(43). These data suggest that consideration should be given
Lo locating synfuels plants in one county area, and locating
surface mines in areas outside that county because the land
area required for the additional housing, urbanization,
recreation, pipelines, roads and waste disposal would likely
come from the county selected for the commercial SRC plant.
Land area required annually for the diposal of solids wastes
is reported to range from 1619 to 6880 hectares, assuming
that the maximum annual production of syncrude would come
549
-------
from coal and operating efficiencies comparable to 1977
(138).
Other major impacts relate to human resources; these
include: the changes in socioeconomic; sociocultural; life
style; land use; water use; and archeological, historical
and esthetic values. As pointed out elsewhere in this
report, any generic assessment of these impacts would suffer
from the fact that the possible range could be as varied as
the elements that characterize the different community
profiles. As pointed out by others (141), the severity of
community impacts would depend upon the capacity of the
local structures to adjust to accelerated demands for public
and private goods and services; these structures have been
divided into four major categories (141):
(1) Population and labor supply structure
(2) Private industrial supply structure
(3) Political and taxing system structure
(4) Basic community infrastructure
Short-term impacts on human resources in rural, remote
areas are expected to be greatest during the construction
phase because of the potential influx of thousands of skilled
workers and associated elements. Descriptions of these
community characteristics, coupled with those for the SRC
facility, can provide the baseline information needed for
impact assessment. Generic impacts that might result from
the construction and operation of a unit synthetic fuels
plant are presented elsewhere (138). Suffice to say that
the influx of construction and mining workers would be more
550
-------
pronounced in the less densely populated areas of EPA Regions
VIII and IX (the Powder River, Fort Union and Four Corners
coal areas). For example, provision of necessary health
services requirements alone could severely strain local
governments of these areas in raising the needed revenues.
These and other potential stresses emphasize the need for
advanced planning to prepare for future growth.
Water use impacts would be most severe in the arid and
semiarid western states (i.e., EPA Regions VI, VIII and IX).
For example, any loss of agricultural water rights through
transfer to industrial or municipal users could lead to
serious inroads or irrigated farmlands.
Major unavoidable impacts to esthetic and human interest
values would encompass the hyperurbanization of rural areas,
the overloading of federal and state parks and recreational
areas, and the disturbances of archeological, historic, and
natural preservation areas (138).
5.8 Siting Considerations
In the present state-of-the-art for selecting and
screening sites for SRC plants, the acceptability of such
sites presumably would be based on information that allows
the determination of a suitable balance of benefits, risks
and costs, both environmental and socioeconomic. This
information would then be embodied in the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) report or the environmental impact
statement (EIS) submitted by those in the federal sector who
propose to construct and operate pilot or demonstration
synfuels plants, as required under the final regulations on
EIS's issued by the CEQ in 1978, with an effective date of
July 31, 1979 (FR-78).
551
-------
Three additional basic requirements that must be met
for the proper siting of commercial synfuels plants are as
follows:
• Sufficient reserves of mineable coal of the proper
rank and other characteristics to meet the 20-25
year operating needs of the plant.
• Sufficient volumes of surface and/or groundwaters,
on a day-to-day basis, to meet the 20-25 year
lifetime water needs, and
• Compliance with systems of federal, state, and
local standards for air, water and land quality
and worker health protection in all areas.
Certain of the synfuels EIA's and EIS's reportedly will
be prepared during the design phase, while others appear
scheduled for much later stages of a project when site
alternatives and design modifications could be given more
serious consideration (132,142). Although this approach
appears consistent with a slowly evolving synfuels technology,
its wisdom can be questioned on the basis of the following
assumptions:
• The substantive land use and growth control fea-
tures of the Clean Air (PSD requirements), Clean
Water, and Toxic Substances Acts change rapidly
with time, thereby requiring site screening and
selection decisions far in advance of the prepara-
tion of the EIA's and EIS's for pilot and demon-
stration plants. This need is magnified by the
fact that some of the projected commercial synfuels
plants will probably be built and operated at the
552
-------
mine mouth in rural or remote areas where advanced
planning is mandatory.
• The current approach to impact assessment appears
to place greater emphasis on the use of technolo-
gically feasible pollutant control techniques,
than on the initial screening and selection of
sites which, by definition, could require the use
of less sophisticated and less expensive controls;
this latter approach could automatically result in
the early identification of sites more suitable
for synfuels development.
• Estimation of environmental benefits versus the
costs or impacts of an SRC technology are best
made on a site specific basis at the level of a
county, rather than on a statewide or regional
basis.
• Procedures for the screening and selection of com-
mercial SRC sites need be no more rigorous than
those currently being used for the siting of
fossil or nuclear power plants.
• The current programs to evaluate the environmental
health and safety issues unique to the Solvent
Refined Coal liquefaction technology, suffer from
the lack of a well-coordinated effort that would,
under realistic operating conditions, permit the
selection of precise equipment design and operating
conditions concurrently with the assessment of
health and ecologic risks; these studies should be
conducted at pre-selected sites judged suitable
for the construction and operation of commercial-
sized SRC facilities.
553
-------
The major thrust of these assumptions is to emphasize
the need and the importance of screening and selecting
potential sites (or candidate sites) for the construction
and operation of demonstration and near-commercial sized SRC
plants at a much earlier date than presently envisaged.
This approach dictates the use of a process of successive
evaluations, extending from the generic to the site specific
and culminating in more realistic overall impact assessments.
Present knowledge clearly indicates that the SRC technology
possesses unique environmental problem areas over and above
those common to other fossil energy systems; these problem
areas will require the application of considerations of both
a design and site selection nature. Finally, this emphasis
is consistent with the perceived limitations of federal
programs, under NPDES, that require an industry to report on
the hazardous substances that will be discharged and to
assess their environmental impacts (143).
5.8.1 Major Stages and Steps of the SRC Siting
Methodology
The basic considerations and exclusions involved in
choosing acceptable sites are diverse and complex, in that
these factors may be applied in both the generic and site
specific contexts. Figure 71 represents a generalized power
plant siting methodology judged applicable to the synfuels
technology, based on a survey of siting methods in current
use by U.S. utilities (138).
Suggested steps for the three different stages in the
siting of potential SRC plants reflect the premise that the
use of a series of successive evaluations, extending from
the generic to the site specific, will culminate in accept-
able and timely overall impact assessments. Each stage of
554
-------
Ul
CONSIDERATIONS
AND METHODS
HULTII.EVEI
SCREENING OF
POTENTIAL SITES
N KEY COUNTIES
Figure 71. Power plant siting methodology.
-------
this approach to the siting process may have three or more
steps, as follows:
Stage 1 - Determination of Candidate Areas
Step 1
• Identify major characteristics of the coal region
that influence site selection
• Establish and apply basic considerations and
exclusions, with emphasis on feasibility of com-
pliance with environmental standards
• Ascertain for each coal region if mine mouth
locations are feasible on a county basis
• Integrate preliminary system planning and design
relative to environmental/sociocultural concerns
as well as basic engineering considerations.
• Establish preliminary coordination with federal,
state and local agencies; provide for citizen
participation in decision making.
Step 2
• Conduct a straightforward generic evaluation of
states in a single region of interest having water
and coal supplies sufficient to cover the 20-25
year lifetime of the SRC plant
• Expand basic considerations and exclusions if
necessary, and select 3-7 counties in each state
comprising one coal region.
556
-------
Within the selected counties establish several
geographic zones of interest for SRC plant loca-
tions (number of zones will vary with size of
county, its geomorphology etc., and may range from
2 to 8); maps or aerial reconnaissance may be used
depending on the area.
Step 3
Make successive generic evaluations of coal,
water, critical areas, land use, and water use
conflicts within the context of total system
requirements
Designate specific candidate areas (1 to 10) in
the several zones of interest of key counties;
these candidate areas may contain up to a total of
200 candidate sites.
Stage 2 - Determination of Candidate Sites
Step 1
Develop a list of extended engineering, environ-
mental, health and safety, system planning, in-
stitutional, and socioeconomic considerations and
exclusions suitable for more refined multilevel
screening of candidate sites. Suggested site
selection parameters and characteristics for site
comparison are listed in Section 5.8.2. Most of
the overall data needed at this step can be ob-
tained from public documents.
557
-------
Step 2
• Use successive screening to eliminate less desir-
able sites by use of a suitable site comparison
matrix; carefully check previous data.
Step 3
• Prepare, through successive, multilevel screening,
a list of potential sites in key counties; this
list could contain from 10 to 200 sites. Conduct
preliminary studies at sites lacking adequate
data.
Step 4
• Select from 2 to 12 potential sites from the
collective zones of interest in key counties by
weighting all controlling site parameters and
information collected from preliminary onsite
surveys.
Stage 3 - Determination of the Most Acceptable Sites
Step 1
• Elaborate and refine the engineering, environ-
mental, and socioeconomic (human resources) con-
siderations used in Stage 2 for selecting the
candidate sites. Strong emphasis is required with
reference to the development and end impacts.
558
-------
Step 2
• Develop a formalized, numerical rating system
(e.g. the site evaluation process is more likely
to be comparative or relative in nature, hence
more site specific) to identify relative environ-
mental impacts at the most acceptable sites. Most
emphasis should be placed on identifying the
irreversible adverse impacts on all media and
resources.
Step 3
• The selection of sites that will be relatively
free of potential environmental damage is key to
this step, and will depend on how effective the
rating/weighting system was in the weeding-out
process. If such an end is achieved, the final
siting decision will be strongly cost-oriented and
various cost comparison analyses may be used
(144). However, where significant differences
between candidate sites are noted, separate,
detailed cost and environmental considerations
will be required (144).
Further discussion of the use of the joint site selec-
tion and impact assessment methodology is presented in the
Appendices.
5.8.2 Bajic Siting Considerations
Basic considerations to be addressed in the siting of
potential SRC plants have been suggested, as follows (144):
559
-------
• System planning and design
• Regulatory standards, guidelines and criteria
• Engineering factors at the site(s)
• Abiotic and biotic environmental considerations
• Sociocultural and socioeconomic considerations
• Institutional factors and key issues
Further discussion of each of these basic siting considera-
tions is presented in the Appendices.
5.8.3 Basic Exclusions
Basic exclusions to be addressed in the siting of
potential SRC facilities are suggested as follows:
• Lack of an adequate and useable water supply for
the 20-25 year life of the facility
• Lack of an adequate supply of coal
• Prohibitive nearness to natural preserves, wilder-
ness, and Indian lands.
• Prohibitive nearness to pristine air and water
resources
560
-------
pose a hazard to workers and the environment (due to oil and
grease in process wastewater discharges). Process changes
in hydrotreater operating conditions or catalyst may permit
increased conversion of cyclic nitrogen compounds to recover-
able ammonia, thereby lessening the risks of workplace
health hazards and adverse environmental impacts.
Table 126 summarizes the extent to which SRC waste
streams can be characterized in terms of the existing avail-
ability of the processes proposed for use in future commer-
cial facilities. From the table it can be seen that not all
processes to be included in SRC commercial facilities are
being used in current pilot plants, notably hydrogen genera-
tion and hydrotreating. Hydrotreating, an optional operation
for upgrading product quality is not part of the Fort Lewis
or Wilsonville pilot facilities. Makeup hydrogen is provided
by conventional technology (e.g., natural gas refining)
rather than gasification of SRC mineral residue or filter
cake.
A 1978 visit to the Fort Lewis SRC facility (at that
time operating in the SRC-II mode) was made by Hittman
Associates, personnel with the objective of obtaining product
and grab samples from the plant's wastewater treatment
system (41). Figures 72 and 73 show the pilot facility and
wastewater treatment scheme respectively. Samples obtained
are indicated in the figures.
The Fort Lewis pilot plant facility is not, by design,
a minature version of a commercial SRC facility. Any conclu-
sions concerning the applicability of pilot plant data to a
commercial-scale plant must include consideration of the
pilot plant design as well as its scale, the applicability
of the streams and samples to a larger plant, and its opera-
tion.
565
-------
TABLE 126. TECHNICAL AVAILABILITY OF COMMERCIAL SRC SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Operation/Auxiliary Process Part of SRC Pilot Facilities Commercially Available/Applications
Oi
ON
Coal preparation
Liquefaction
Gas separation
Fractionalion
Solid/liquids separation
Hydrotreating
Coal receiving & storage
Water supply
Water cooling
Steam & power generation
Hydrogen generation
Oxygen generation
Acid gas removal
Sulfur recovery
Hydrogen/hydrocarbon recovery
Ammonia recovery
Phenol recovery
Product/by-product storage
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No (not essential-upgrades
products)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No (not produced on-site)
No (industrial hydrogen used)
No (not required)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes/coal and power production
No
No
Yes/petroleum industry
No
Yes/petroleum industry
Yes/coal and power production
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes/industrial gas manufacturing
Yes/petrolum industry
Yes/petroleum industry
Yes/petroleum industry
Yes/chemical industry
Yes/chemical industry
Yes/petroleum industry
-------
5.8.4 Suggested EPA Regions for Siting Synfuels Plants
The National Coal Policy Project (NCPP) recently recom-
mended that coal development technologies should be concen-
trated in EPA Region III (the States of West Virginia and
Pennsylvania), EPA Region V (the States of Illinois, south-
western Indiana, EPA Region IV (western Kentucky) and in EPA
Region VIII (the States of Montana and Wyoming).
Based on a siting study of the 14-state midwest region,
the Argonne National Laboratory Regional Studies program
(ANLRS) forecasted, on the basis of an accelerated synfuels
scenario, that by the year 2020 the distribution of coal
liquefaction plants in the five states exhibiting a suitable
coincidence of useable water and coal resources, would be as
follows (145):
State Number of Plants EPA Region
Illinois 5 plants V
Indiana 2 plants V
Missouri 1 plant VII
North Dakota 6 plants VIII
Ohio 2 plants V
Coal producing states having the highest potential for
accommodating synfuels plants were reported to be: south-
western Ohio; southwestern Pennsylvania; northeastern West
Virginia; Illinois; western Kentucky; western North Dakota;
southeastern Montana; northeastern Wyoming; northwestern New
Mexico, and northeastern Arizona (138). Additional details
on the selection of desirable sites for synfuels plants is
given in the Appendix.
561
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL DATA
6.1 Categories of Data Needs
Sections 2 to 5 of this report constitute a one-source
reference of available environmental information pertinent
to Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) liquefaction systems. In the
accumulation and analysis of the information presented,
additional data needs have been identified for inclusion in
revisions to this environmental assessment report. Pre-
sumably, this approach will permit refinements of environ-
mental assessment information to parallel progress in process
development so that when commercial SRC facilities emerge,
the risk of adverse environmental impacts is minimized.
Existing information needs generally fall into one of
two categories: data on waste stream characteristics for use
in development and enforcement of realistically attainable
discharge standards; and information which facilitates
control technology research and development and increases
the accuracy of predictive methodologies in estimating SRC
systems effects on the environment.
The remainder of subsection 6.1. is a discussion of the
data needs identified. Subsection 6.2 overviews near-term
efforts to obtain additional environmental data on SRC
systems.
6.1.1 Data Needs to Support Standards Development and
Enforcement
Development of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for SRC systems require compilation and evaluation of appli-
cable environmental data. As a minimum, an environmental
562
-------
data base on SRC systems should include the following informa-
tion:
• Characterization of SRC waste streams via sampling
and analysis
• Effects of system variables on waste stream char-
acteristics
• Performance/cost of applicable control technologies
• Environmental impacts associated with SRC production/
utilization.
The first two items are discussed in this subsection. The
latter two items, which indirectly influence standards
development are discussed in subsection 6.1.2.
To provide accurate characterization of SRC waste
streams requires the development and implementation of
sampling and analysis methodologies. Current sampling and
analysis activities at the Wilsonville and Fort Lewis pilot
plants satisfy two objectives necessary for standards develop-
ment. The first objective is to obtain preliminary waste
stream characterization data for an environmental data base.
The second objective is to evaluate and improve the sampling
and analysis methodologies employed and to establish priori-
ties for subsequent sampling and analysis efforts. Results
of waste stream characterization at the pilot level can then
be used in development of programs for SRC-1 and SRC-I1
demonstration scale facilities. Sampling and analysis at
the demonstration scale will provide results more applicable
to commercial facilities than previous pilot-scale work
(especially if commercial facilities consist of parallel
563
-------
trains of demonstration-scale equipment as has been suggested.
Detailed characterization of waste streams produced during
operation of the demonstration plant would vastly expand the
existing environmental data base. This data base, augmented
by data on control technology options and results of environ-
mental impact assessments, will permit development of improved
preliminary standards for the first commercial SRC plants.
Expansion of the data base by continuing sampling and analy-
sis of the commercial facilities during their early years of
operation would permit revisions of the preliminary standards
if necessary.
Another key consideration in developing an environmental
data base on SRC production is identification of factors
which may significantly affect waste stream characteristics.
For instance, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) based
on SRC plants converting feed coal of 2 wt. percent sulfur
may not be obtainable by SRC plants converting 4 wt. percent
sulfur feed coals. Other factors which may influence waste
stream characteristics include feed coal ash content (as
well as other aspects of feed coal composition), process
operating conditions (in particular operating characteristics
of the dissolver), and operating mode (SRC-I vs. SRC-II).
Planning efforts for sampling and analysis activities must
be directed toward compiling an environmental data base
considered most representative of any and all conditions
which may exist in commercial SRC plants.
Characterization of SRC waste streams products, and by-
products and determination of those processing variables
which influence these streams' characteristics are both
essential to estimation and minimization of environmental
impacts. For example, compounds containing cyclic nitrogen
species are present in SRC product liquids. Such compounds
564
-------
Cn
SLURRY
VENT CONOENSATE
RECYCLE
HYDROGEN-RICH GAS
FEED
COAL
COAL
PRETREATMENT
301
LIQUEFACTION
GAS
SEPARATION
RECYCLE SLURRY
HYDROGEN
MAKEUP
GAS
TO
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
NOTE: 200s = liquid samples
300s = solid samples
FLARE
FLARE KO
DRUM
CONDENSATE
ACID GAS
REMOVAL
PROCESS
SULFUR RECOVERY
PROCESS
NAPHTHA
-201
FRACTION-
ATI ON
MIDDLE
DISTILLATES
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
DISTILLATES
RESIDUE
302
ELEMENTAL
SULFUR
Figure 72. Overall flow schematic for the SRC-II pilot plant (41).
-------
INLET
WATER
SURGE
RESERVOIR
Si
m
20A
CLARIFI
ITTLED 3°3 CLAR|F
CDROCARBONS SEDIMEI*
CLARIFIER A
FLOTATION . 3°^
ER
ER
JT
" SKIMMING
DISSOLVED
AIR
FLOTATION
UNIT
205
PRODUCT SOLIDIFICATION
WATER
SAND
FILTER
SAND
FILTER
CHARCOAL
FILTER
207
NOTE: 200s = liquid samples
300s = solid samples
206
NH ADDITION
HYDROCARBON
STEAM
ADDITION
BIOLOGICAL
UNIT
HOLDING
TANK
305
DIGESTED
BACTERIA
FILTER
BACK-
WASH
TANK
208
•*• DISCHARGE
Figure 73. Overall flow schematic of the SRC pilot plant
wastewater system
568
-------
As can be concluded from Section 3.0 of this report,
existing information on waste characterization of SRC systems
is limited to conceptual designs, based on minimal pilot
data. This fact, in conjunction with conclusions from the
HAI visit to Fort Lewis, tend to indicate the following
regarding future sampling activities:
• Data obtained by sampling of pilot facilities
should be regarded as preliminary data, useful
primarily for establishing priorities for future
sampling efforts at the demonstration and commer-
cial levels.
• That sampling efforts at the pilot facilities be
used to gain expertise in applying sampling and
analysis methodology.
• Future sampling efforts can identify problem areas
which can result in additional refinement of the
existing methodology and procedures.
6.1.2 Data Needs To Support Effects and Control
Technology Research and Development
Control technology performance and estimates of environ-
mental effects are interrelated subjects. Optimum environ-
mental assessment of SRC systems will require additional
data in these areas. These data will also be supportive in
development of standards as discussed in Section 6.1.1.
Efforts to secure additional data for effects and
control technology research and development should be directed
to the following areas:
569
-------
• Additional waste stream characterization by sampling
and analysis activities (discussed in Section
6.1.1.)
• Ambient and background monitoring studies
• Regional and/or site-specific studies
• Testing of applicable control technologies.
Data needs relevant to monitoring, regional/site-specific
studies, and control technology testing are overviewed in
the remainder of this subsection.
Ambient monitoring of air and water quality in the
vicinity of existing SRC pilot facilities should be performed
to determine if any changes occur that are attributable to
operation of the facility. Preconstruction background
monitoring at the site of proposed future facilities, followed
by ambient air and water quality monitoring during the
construction, startup and operation of the facility are
essential components of an environmental effects data base.
Prerequisite to this effort is the need to define and determine
the availability of sites of future SRC facilities. Proposed
sites for SRC demonstration facilities should be given first
priority with additional attention directed to other accept-
able sites for commercial plants. Monitoring and stream
characterization data can be used to evaluate and improve
environmental impacts and effects methodologies. In this
manner, estimates of environmental effects can be improved
consistent with technical development and SRC waste stream
characterization efforts.
570
-------
Prediction of environmental impacts requires regional
and site-specific information as well as data on ambient air
and water quality. Among the types of information required
are:
• Climatic factors such as precipitation frequency
and direction of prevailing winds
• Geologic factors such as groundwater availability
and quality and suitability of locations for solid
waste disposal
• Biological and ecological factors, including the
types of plant and animal life indigenous to the
area
• Sociological factors - for example, the proximity
of residential, commercial or industrial facilities
to proposed SRC plant sites.
It is of particular value to compile such information prior
to and during construction of the SRC-T and SRC-I1 demonstra-
tion plants. Application of waste stream characterization,
background monitoring and regional/site-specific data can
permit preparation of preliminary environmental assessments
prior to construction of future proposed SRC facilities.
To date, assessments of control technology applicability
in SRC systems have been based primarily on engineering
evaluations of candidate control technology costs and
estimates of performance when matched with SRC waste stream
characteristics. Such assessments, while valuable in deter-
mining applicable control technologies, may require supple-
mental site-specific testing of candidate control technolo-
571
-------
gies to establish which control technologies are best for
that particular facility. Data collected during such tests
would be useful in standards development and enforcement,
evaluation of environmental effects/impacts, and in minimiz-
ing SRC production costs.
Small-scale testing of control technology alternatives
is a cost-effective method which provides valuable data for
evaluation of full-scale control technology performance.
Candidate control options, such as the zero aqueous discharge
scheme described in Section 4.7 can be skid mounted on a
flatbed truck and tested at SRC pilot or demonstration
facilities. Bleed streams of untreated wastewater from the
plant would be directed to the small-scale unit for treatment.
Samples of treated water could then be analyzed for evalua-
tion of control technology performance and environmental
effects.
Again, it should be reemphasized that the existing SRC
pilot facilities are not entirely representative of commer-
cial or even demonstration facilities, particularly in terms
of waste stream characteristics. Assessments of environmen-
tal impacts or control technology applicability must be
viewed as preliminary, in the absence of actual commercial-
scale, site-specific data. The major value of such assess-
ments is to obtain preliminary data, evaluate assessment
techniques and gain expertise for performing subsequent
efforts.
572
-------
6.2 Data Acquisition by Ongoing Environmental Assessment
Activities
6.2.1 Ongoing IERL-RTP Environmental Assessment Activi-
ties
As a contractor of EPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory-Research Triangle Park (IERL-RTP), Hittman Asso-
ciates is continuing work efforts on a program to perform a
multimedia environmental assessment of coal conversion to
liquid fuels energy technologies, including utilization of
the product fuels in stationary souce applications. One
project key to the environmental assessment of SRC systems
was performed in February, 1979: sampling of the SRC pilot
plant at Fort Lewis, Washington. Primarily, samples of
emissions to air and wastewaters before treatment were
taken. Both EPA Level 1 and Level 2 sampling procedures
will be employed in this effort. Subsequent to sampling,
analysis of air emissions and wastewater samples will be
performed at Hittman's analytical laboratory.
As part of this effort, several subcontractors are
providing technical support for both on-site sampling and
analysis activities. Analyses to test both chemical and
biological characteristics of SRC samples are included in
the program.
6.2.2 Other Ongoing Environmental Assessment Activities
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is the
government agency sponsoring other SRC environmental assess-
ment activities. A list of DOE contractors and subcontrac-
tors presently involved in SRC environmental assessment is
shown in Table 127. Research objectives and technical
approaches taken are included in the table.
573
-------
TABLE 127. DOE CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
Contractors and Subcontractors
Area of Research
Reference of
Available
Reports
Data Source
Technical Approach
Pittsburg and Midway
Washington State University*
Alsid, Snowden & Associates*
Future demonstration plant - en-
gineering design
Ft. Lewis pilot plant - overall ( M)
operation:
- Health Programs:
Industrial hygiene program
Clinical examination program
Educational program
Toxlcological program
Chemical program - analysis of (49)
trace element distribution in
SRC-I
Environmental sampling/monitoring (50)
program
Mew subcontractor to be awarded Toxicology progra
in near future*
Battelle Northwest Laboratories
Biomedical program
- Hutageniclty of SRC materials
- Toxicity of SRC materials
- Late effects (carcinogenicIty)
of SRC materials
Ecological program
- Acute and chronic
toxicological studies
Chemical program
- Sampling and analysis to char-
acterize products, by-products
and effluents from SRC process
Future plant
Fort Lewis
Fort Lewis
Fort Lewis
Fort Lewis
Fort Lewis
Fort Lewis
Fort Lewis
Design and preparation stage of 6000 T/D
SRC-II plant, to be built near Charles-
town, W. Virginia
Monitoring in pilot plant for potential
air and skin contaminants
Monitoring in pilot plant for potential
air and "kin contaminants
Periodic visual skin examinations and
pulmonary function tests
Health protection indoctrination presen-
tations
Animal bioassays. Program not now operat-
ing - see below "New subcontractor to be
awarded in future"
Neutron activation analyses (NAA) and
atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) are
utilized
Ongoing air, water and foliage monitoring
(sampling & analysis) studies of environ-
ment surrounding SRC pilot plant
Based on animal bioassays of various
product and intermediate streams from the
SRC process, using short and long-term
(2 year) studies
Development of appropriate sampling
techniques. Inorganic analysis by
utilizing NAA, X-ray florescence (XRF),
and chemical speciation methods. During
organic analysis, extracts are parti-
tioned into acidic, basic, polynuclear
aromatic and neutral fractions which are
analyzed by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (CC/MS) and high pressure
liquid chromatography
(continued)
-------
TABLE 127. (continued)
Contractors and Subcontractors
Illinois State Geological Survey
Consolidated Edison of NY and
the- Eluctrii- Power Research
Institute
Area of Research
Reference of
Available
Reports
Data Source
Technical Approach
Chemical program - to determine the
recoverable and/or economic amounts
of valuable or semi-valuable metals
in solid residues from SRC and other
liquefaction processes
Burn test of SRC-II fuel to deter-
mine if it would meet EPA emission
standards
uMer, 1979. A draft "Program Planning Document" is ue.-ring completion- The purpose of this document
Is to describe the research program which will provide a data base integrated environmental assessment of SRC technology.
***Work still beliiK conducted on the test burn. A final report is therefore not yet available u of thi« writing.
-------
DOE's primary SRC contractor is the Pittsburg and
Midway Coal Mining Company (P&M), a subsidiary of Gulf Oil
Corporation. P&M is responsible for overall operations at
the SRC pilot plant facility in Fort Lewis, Washington.
Extension of current P&M-DOE contracts, including subcon-
tracts, effective January 1, 1979, has permitted continuation
of environmental assessment activities. Discussions of
these programs, including progress to date, is provided in
Subsection 3.1.2. As mentioned in Section 2.0, P&M is also
involved in the design of an SRC-II demonstration facility.
Stearns-Roger Corporation is currently engaged in a
study to provide baseline monitoring data for the proposed
facility site (147).
Battelle Northwest Laboratories (51) is engaged in
three major programs for assessment of materials from SRC
systems:
• Biomedical program - testing for toxicity, carcino-
genicity and mutagenicity.
• Ecological program - acute/chronic toxicological
studies
• Chemical program - sampling and analysis to charact-
erize streams of SRC systems.
Intensive SRC environmental assessment research activities
at Battelle Northwest Laboratories have been underway for
approximately one year. Currently, minimal information is
available on this effort, however, it is anticipated that an
annual report will be prepared by early summer, 1979.
Battelle Northwest Laboratories is also preparing a "program
576
-------
planning document", the purpose of which is to outline a
research program to provide a data base for integrated
environmental assessment of SRC systems (51).
Under contract with DOE the Illinois State Geological
Survey is engaged in a study to determine if the solid
residues produced by SRC and other coal liquefaction systems
contain economically recoverable amounts of valuable or
semivaluable metals that could justify classification of the
residues as a potential reserve source of such metals.
Chemical analysis and macro-mineralogical characterization
of SRC residues and parent coal will be conducted. The
characterization data obtained in this study may be useful
in SRC process optimization studies. Completion of labora-
tory analyses is scheduled for the end of 1978. A report on
the study with analytical findings is scheduled for prelim-
inary review in the spring of 1979 (146).
Consolidated Edison of New York and the Electric Power
Research Institute recently participated with DOE in con-
ducting a burn test of SRC-II liquid fuel. The purpose of
the test was to demonstrate the utility of SRC-II fuel as a
satisfactory substitute for low-sulfur oil and to determine
if emissions from combustion would meet the EPA proposed
emission standards. A final report is not yet available,
but preliminary results appear to be "very encouraging"
with regard to the combustion and emission qualities of
SRC-II. However, the SRC-II oil produced by the Fort Lewis
pilot plant is considerably different than the oil that
would be produced by a commercial plant. Interpretation of
the test results should be made with full awareness of those
differences.
577
-------
References
1. Division of Coal Conversion. Coal Liquefaction Quarterly
Report, July-September, 1977, DOE/ET-0026/3. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 1978.
2. Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology. Fossil
Energy Research and Development Program of the U.S.
Department of Energy, FY 1979. U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., March 1978.
3. Anonymous. Chemical Engineering, Vol. 85, No. 17, p,
33.
4. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Insider, Vol. 1, No.
21, p. 1.
5. U.S. Department of Energy. Inside DOE, June 19, 1978,
pp. 2-3.
6. Hittman Associates, Inc. Standards of Practice Manual
for the Solvent Refined Coal Liquefaction Process. EPA
600/7-78-091. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1978, 353 pp.
7. Schmid, B.K. and D.M. Jackson. The SRC-II Process.
From: The Third Annual International Conference on Coal
Gasification and Liquefaction, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 3-5, 19/6.
8. Schmid, B.K. and D.M. Jackson. Recycle SRC Processing
for Liquid and Solid Fuels. From: The Fourth Inter-
national Conference on Coal Gasification, Liquefaction,
and Conversion to Electricity, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 2-4, 19/7.
9. Exxon Research and Engineering Company. Evaluation of
Pollution Control in Fossil Fuel Conversion Processes.
Liquefaction Section 2 - SRC Process, EPA-650/7-74-
009-f. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., March 1975.
10. Anonymous. Clean Coal: What Does it Cost at the Busbar?
EPRI Journal, November 1976.
11. Ralph M. Parsons Company. Oil/Gas Complex Conceptual
Design/Economic Analysis: Oil and SNG Production. U.S.
Energy Research and Development Administration, March
1977.
578
-------
12. Office of Coal Research. Economic Evaluation of a
Process to Produce Ashless, Low Sulfur Fuel from Coal.
R&D Report #53, Interim No. 1, June 1970.
13. Ralph M. Parsons Company. Demonstration Plant, Clean
Boiler Fuels from Coal, Preliminary Design and Capital
Cost Estimate. R&D Report No. 82, Interim No. 1, Vol.
I. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973.
14. Ralph M. Parsons Company. Demonstration Plant, Clean
Boiler Fuels from Coal, Preliminary Design and Capital
Cost Estimate. R&D Report No. 82, Interim No. 1, Vol.
II, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1973.
15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Preliminary Economic Analysis of SRC Liquid Fuels
Process Producing 50,000 Barrels Per Day of Liquid
Fuels. From Two Coal Seams: Wyodak and Illinois No. 6.
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration.
16. Anonymous. Industry Statistics. Oil and Gas Journal,
August 7, 1978.
17. Perry & Chilton. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 5th ed.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1973.
18. Southern Company Services, Inc. Solvent Refined Coal
Burn Test. April 1978.
19. Dayton University. Characterization and Utilization of
Municipal and Utility Sludges and Ashes, Vol. Ill:
Utility Coal Ash. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975.
20. Illinois State Geological Survey. Trace Elements in
Coal: Occurrence and Distribution. EPA 600/7-77-064,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
21. Teen-Yung, C.J., R. Ruane, and G.R. Steiner. 1976.
Characteristics of Wastewater Discharges from Coal-
Fired Power Plants. From: 31st Annual Purdue Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, May 4-6, 1976.
22. Hammer, Mark J. Water and Wastewater Technology. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1975.
23. United States Geological Survey. The National Atlas of
the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C., 1970.
579
-------
24. Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company. Development
of a Process for Producing an Ashless, Low Sulfur Fuel
from Coal, Vol. Ill: Pilot Plant Development Work, Part
2, Construction of Pilot Plant. U.S. Energy Research
and Development Administration, 1975.
25. Hittman Associates, Inc. Environmental Assessment Data
Base for Coal Liquefaction, Vol. I, Systems for 14
Liquefaction Processes. EPA 600/7-78-184a. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1978.
26. Nelson, W.L. Petroleum Refinery Engineering. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York. 1958, pp. 305-309.
27. Hammer, Mark J. Water and Wastewater Technology. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1975.
28. Office of Air Planning and Standards. Air Pollution
Engineering Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 19/3.
29. Rice, J.K. and S.D. Strauss. Water Pollution Control
in Steam Plants. Power 120(4): 51-520. 1977.
30. Farnsworth, J.F., D.M. Mitsak and J.F. Kamody. Clean
Environment with Koppers-Totzek Process. From: EPA
Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion
Technology, St. Louis, Missouri, May 1974, EPA
650/2-74-118. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1974.
31. Riegel, E.R. Industrial Chemistry. Reinhold Publishing
Company, New York, 1942.
32. Cost information provided by Mr. Mark Shuy. The Dow
Chemical Company, Dowell Division, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
33. American Gas Association. Gas Engineers Handbook.
Industrial Press Inc., New York, 1965.
34. Hittman Associates, Inc. Work in progress, Contract
No. 68-02-2162. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1978.
35. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Col-
lection, Treatment, Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Com-
pany, New York, 1972.
36. American Petroleum Institute. Manual on Disposal of
Refinery Wastes. American Petroleum Institute, Washing-
ton, D.C. 1969.
580
-------
37. Radian Corporation. Guidelines for Preparing Environ-
mental Test Plans for Coal Gasification Plants, EPA
600/7-78-134. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1978, 178 pp.
38. TRW Systems Group. IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level
I Environmental Assessment EPA 600/2-76-106a. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1976.
39. Research Triangle Institute. Multimedia Environmental
Goals for Environmental Assessment, EPA 600/7-77-136a
and 136b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1977.
40. TRW Systems Group. Approach to Level 2 Analysis Based
on Level 1 Results, MEG Categories and Compounds and
Decision Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, January 1978.
41. Hittman Associates, Inc. Work in progress, Contract
No. 68-02-2162. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1979.
42. Schuller, R.M. et al. Identification of Potential
Pollutants fronfToaT Conversion Wastes. From: Annual
Meeting of Society of Mining Engineers - Institute of
Mining Engineers, Littleton, Colorado, February 18,
1979.
43. Hittman Associates, Inc. SRC Site-Specific Pollutant
Evaluation, Vols. I and II, EPA 600/7-78-223a and 223b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1978.
44. Hittman Associates, Inc. Environmental Assessment Data
Base for Coal Liquefaction Technology, Vol. II: Synthoil
H-Coal and Exxon Donor Solvent Process, EPA 600/7-78-
184b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1978.
45. Washington State University. Solvent Refined Coal
(SRC) Process: Trace Elements, R&D Report No. 26, Vol.
Ill: Pilot Plant Development Work, Part 6: The Fate of
Trace Elements in the SRC Process for the Period August
1, 1974 - July 31, 1976, FE/496-T17. U.S. Department
of Energy, April 1978.
581
-------
46. Dailey, N.S. Process Effluents: Quality and Control
Technologies. In: Environmental, Health and Control
Aspects of Coal Conversion: An Information Overview.
H.M. Braunstein, et al. eds. ORNL/EIS-94. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory,~Uak Ridge, Tennessee, 1977.
47. Hittman Associates, Inc. Analysis for Radionuclides in
SRC and Coal Combustion Samples, EPA 600/7-78-185.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1978.
48. Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company. Solvent
Refined Coal (SRC) Process: Health Programs, R&D
Report No. 53. Interim Report No. 24, Vol. Ill - Pilot
Plant Development Work, Part 4 - Industrial Hygiene,
Clinical and T.oxicological Programs, FE 496-T15. U.S.
Department of Energy, 1978.
49. Washington State University. Solvent Refined Coal
(SRC) Process: Trace Elements, R&D Report No. 26, Vol.
Ill: Pilot Plant Development Work, Part 6: The Fate
of Trace Elements in the SRC Process for the Period
August 1, 1974-July 31, 1976, FE 496-T17. U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy, April 1978.
50. Alsid, Snowden & Associates. Solvent Refined Coal
(SRC) Process: Environmental Program, R&D Report No.
53, Interim No. 25, Vol. Ill: Pilot Plant Development
Work Part 5, Environmental Program, FE 496-T16. U.S.
Department of Energy, March 19/8.
51. Fruchter, J.S., e_t al. High Precision Trace Element
and Organic Constituent Analysis, BNWL-SA-6001-rev.
Battelle Northwest, 1977, 41 pp.
52. Hittman Associates, Inc. Environmental Effects, Impacts
and Issues Related to Large Scale Coal Refining Complexes,
FE 1508-T2. U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, May 19/5.
53. Hittman Associates, Inc. Unpublished information sub-
mitted under Contract No. 14-32-0001-1508.
54. Gehrs, C.W. Coal Conversion - Description of Technolo-
gies and Necessary Biomedical and Environmental Research,
ORNL 5192 (Special). Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, August 1976.
582
-------
55. Briggs, J.C. and J.F. Fickle. Quality of Rivers of the
United States, 1975 Water Year - Based on the National
Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN), Open File
Report 78-200. U.S. Department of Interior Geological
Survey, May 1977.
56. Work in progress, Contract No. 68-02-2062. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, May 1978.
57. Washington State University. Solvent Refined Coal
(SRC) Process: Trace Elements, R&D Report No. 26, Vol.
Ill: Pilot Plant Development Work, Part 6 the Fate of
Trace Elements in the SRC Process for the Period August
1, 1974 - July 31, 1976, FE 496-T17. U.S. Department
of Energy, April 1978.
58. Ray, B.S. and F.G. Parker. Characterization of Ash
from Coal-Fired Power Plants, EPA-600/7-77-010.
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, January 1977.
59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Bureau of Standards. EPA-NBS Interlaboratory Comparison
for Chemical Elements in Coal, Fly Ash, Fuel Oil, and
Gasoline. 1977.
60. Holland, W.F., e_t al. Final Report. The Environmental
Effects of Trace Elements in the Pond Disposal of Ash
and Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludge. Radian Corporation,
1975.
61. Gulf Mineral Resources Company. The SRC-II Process: An
Environmental Overview of a Commercial Module Demonstra-
tion Program. 1976, 50 pp.
62. Radian Corporation. Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions
from Petroleum Liquids, EPA-2-075-042. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1975, 230 pp.
63. Fruchter, J.S., e_t al. High Precision Trace Element
and Organic Constituent Analysis, SA-6001-rev. Battelle
Pacific Northwest Labs, Battelle Northwest, Richmond,
Washington, 1977, 41 pp.
64. Goldstein, D.S. and D. Yoring. Water Conservation and
Pollution Control in Coal Conversion Processes, EPA-
600/7-77-065. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1977, 468 pp.
583
-------
65. Singer, P.C., F.K. Pfaender, J. Chinchilli and J.C.
Lamb III. Composition and Biodegradability of Organics
in Coal Conversion Wastewaters. In: Third Symposium
on the Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Tech-
nology, Hollywood, Florida, EPA 600/7-78-063. 1977, 30
pp.
66. Davis, G.M., E.J. Reap and J.H. Koon. Treatment Investi-
gation and Process Design for the H-Coal Liquefaction
Wastewater. Associated Water and Air Resource Engineers,
Nashville, Tennessee, 1976. 7 Chapters.
67. Chu, T.J., R. Ruane, and G.R. Steiner. Characteristics
of Wastewater Discharged From Coal-Fired Power Plants.
In: 31st Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, May 4-6, 1976, 39 pp.
68. VanMeter, W.P., and R.E. Erickson. Environmental
Effects from Leaching of Coal Conversion By-Products,
E49-18 (2019). Interim Report June-September. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1975.
69. Ford, D.L. Putting Activated Carbon in Perspective.
In: Treatment and Disposal of Industrial Wastewaters
and Residues, Proceedings from 1977 National Conference
on Treatment and Disposal of Industrial Wastewaters and
Residues, Houston, Texas, 1977, pp. 48-56.
70. Exxon Research and Engineering Company. Quarterly
Report for July 1 - September 30, 1976, ERDA No. EF
77-A-01-2893. U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration.
71. Martin, J.F. Quality of Effluents from Coal Refuse
Piles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
72. Kaakinen, J.W., R.M. Jorden, M.H. Lawasani and R.E.
West. Trace Element Behavior in Coal-Fired Power
Plants. Environmental Science and Technology, 9(9):862-
69, 1975.
73. Walker, J.D. and R.R. Colwell. Degradation of Hydro-
carbons and Mixed Hydrocarbon Substrate by Microorganisms
of Chesapeake Bay. Progress in Water Technology,
7(3/4), 1978.
74. Hannah, A., M. Jelus and J.M. Cohen. Removal of Uncom-
mon Trace Metals by Physical and Chemical Treatment
Processes. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, 11:2297-2308, 1977.
584
-------
75. Booz-Allen, and Hamiton, Inc. Emissions from Processes
Producing Clean Fuels, EPA 450/3-75-028. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1974.
76. Illinois State Geological Survey. Determination of
Valuable Metals in Liquefaction Residues, ERDA #E (46-
1) 8004. Energy Research and Development Administration,
1978.
77. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Environmental
Review of SRC Pilot Plant, Ft. Lewis, Washington.
Energy Research and Development Administration, 1975,
60 pp.
78. Ashland Synthetic Fuels. Environmental Plan - H-Coal
Pilot Plant, EX-76-C-01-2260. Energy Research and
Development Administration, 1977, 130 pp.
79. Beychok, M.R. Aqueous Waste from Petroleum Refining
Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973, 370 pp.
80. Cooling Tower Institute. Liquid Effluent Pollution
Control. In: Cooling Tower Manual. Houston, Texas,
1976, 23 pp.
81. Ifedeadi, C.N. and H.S. Rosenberg. Lime/Limestone
Sludge Disposal; Trends in the Utility Industry. In:
Proceedings of the Symposium on Flue Gas Desulfurization,
Vol. II, Atlanta, Georgia, EPA 650/2-74-1266. 1974,
pp. 865-885.
82. Cost information on baghouse provided by Mr. Andrew
Brown, American Air Filter, Baltimore, Maryland, October
19, 1977.
83. Talmage, S.S. Humans: Metabolism and Biological
Effects. In: Environmental, Health and Control Aspects
of Coal Conversion. An Information Overview, Vol. 2,
ORNL/EIS-95. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, 1977.
84. Cost Information provided by Mr. Mark Shuy. The Dow
Chemical Company, Dowell Division, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
85. Cost information on cyclones provided by Mr. Phil
O'Connell. Torit Co., Towson, Maryland, October 19,
1977.
86. Hanf, E.W. and J.W. MacDonald. Economic Evaluation of
Wet Scrubbers. Chemical Engineering Progress, 71(3):
48-52, 1975.
585
-------
87. Liptak, B.C., et al. Environmental Engineers', Hand-
book, Vol. II:~Air Pollution. Chilton Book Company,
Radnor, Pennsylvania, 1974.
88. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Flare Systems
Study, EPA 600/2-76-079. 1976.
89. Beeis, W.P. Characterization of Claus Plant Emissions,
EPA R2-73-188. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, April 1973.
90. McGlanery, G.G. and R.L. Torstricic. Cost Comparisons
of Flue Gas Desulfurization. Presented at the Symposium
on Flue Gas Desulfurization, Atlanta, Georgia, EPA
650/2-74-1266. 1974.
91. Cost information on incinerators provided by Mr. Ralph
Stettendenz. The Air Preheater Company, Inc., Wellsville,
New York.
92. Cost information on carbon adsorption systems provided
by Ray Solv, Inc., Linden, New Jersey.
93. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Collec-
tion, Treatment, Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1972.
94. Cornaby, B.W. et al. Development of Environmental
Goals for NoncKemical and Nonpollutant Factors in
Fluidized Bed Combustion. Contract No..68-02-2138.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
95. Office of Toxic Substances. An Ordering of the NIOSH
Suspected Carcinogens List Based Only on Data Contained
in the List PFS 251-851. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976.
96. Schalit, L.M. and K.J. Wolfe. SAM/IA: A Rapid Screen-
ing Method for Environmental Assessment of Fossil
Energy Process Effluents, EPA 600/7-78-015. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1978.
97. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. IERL-RTP Procedures
Manual: Level 1, Environmental Assessment Biological
Tests for Pilot Studies, EPA 600/7-77-043. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1977.
586
-------
98. Guerin, M.R. et al. Chemical Characterization of Coal
Conversion PiTot~TrLant Materials. 1975.
99. Personal communication with William J. Rhodes, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. November 1, 1978.
100. Gehrs, C.W. A Conceptual Approach to Evaluating Liquid
Effluents from Synthetic Fuel Processes. Preprint. In:
Proceedings of Symposium from Synthetic Fuels Produc-
tion. Denver Research Institute, May 23-27, 1976.
101. Unpublished information submitted to EPA under Contract
No. 17-43-302073.
102. Carrier, R.F. Chapter 8, Plant Interactions. In:
Environmental, Health, and Control Aspects of Coal
Conversion, An Information Overview. Vol. 2, ORNL/EIS-
95. H.M. Braunstein, E.D. Coopenhaver, and H.A. Pfuder,
eds. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
1977.
103. Wilkes, D.J. Chapter 9, Animals, Bioenvironmental
Effects. In: Environmental, Health, and Control Aspects
of Coal Conversion, An Information Overview. Vol. 2,
ORNL/EIS-95. H.M. Braunstein, E.D. Coopenhaver and
H.A. Pfuder, eds. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, 1977.
104. Mammons, A.S. et al. Reviews of the Environmental
Effects of Pollutants, IV. Cadmium, EPA 600/1-78-026,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
1978, 251 pp.
105. EPA. Scientific and Technical Data Base for Criteria
and Hazardous Pollutants. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
106. Jenne, E.A. and S.N. Luoma. Forms of Trace Elements in
Soils, Sediments, and Associated Waters. In: Proceed-
ings of the Fifteenth Annual Hanford Life Sciences
Symposium at Richland, Washington, 1975, Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories and ERDA.
107. Gehring, P.J. et al. Risk Assessment of Environmental
Carcinogens Utilizing Pharmokinetic Parameters. From:
Symposium on Scientific Basis for the Public Control of
Environmental Hazards. June 21-30, 1978, New York
Academy of Sciences, New York, New York.
.587
-------
108. Grasso, P. and C. O'Hare. Carcinogens in Food. In:
Chemical Carcinogens, ACS Monograph 173, American
Chemical Soceity, C.E. Srame, ed. 1976.
109. Rail, D.P. Validity of Extrapolation of Results of
Animal Studies to Man. From: Symposium on the Scienti-
fic Basis for the Public Control of Environmental
Hazards, June 21 - June 30, 1978. New York Academy of
Sciences, New York, New York.
110. Ross, P.G. Environmental Interactions. In: Environ-
mental Health and Control Aspects of Coal Conversion:
An Information Overview, Vol. 2, ORNL/EIS-95. H.M.
Braunstein, et al., eds. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge Tennessee, 1977.
111. National Academy of Sciences. Episodic Exposures. In:
Principles for Evaluating Chemicals in the Environment.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, B.C., 1975.
112. Olsen, R.A. and G. Warren. Aquatic Pollution Potential
of Fly Ash Particles. In: Toxic Effects on the Aquatic
Biota From Coal and Oil Shale Development - Progress
Report Year 1. R.V. Thurston, et al., eds. Natural
Resources Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University.
113. Council on Environmental Quality. National Environmen-
tal Policy Act - Implementation of Procedural Provisions,
Final Regulations. Federal Register 43 (230) 55977-
56007. November 29, 1978.
114. Liverman, J.L. Alternative Fuels Demonstration Program,
Final Environmental Impact Statement, ERDA 1547. U.S.
Energy Research and Development Administration, Sep-
tember 1977.
115. Ramsay, W. Siting Power Plants. Environmental Science
and Technology, 11(3):238, 1977.
116. Research Triangle Institute. Draft Summary of Key
Federal Regulations and Criteria for Multimedia Environ-
mental Control. Contract No. 68-02-1325. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 1977.
117. Goldsmith, B.J. and J.R. Mahoney. Implications of the
1977 Clean Air Act Amendments for Stationary Sources.
Environmental Science and Technology. 12(2):145, 1978.
118. Pullman, Kellogg, Inc. Work in progress, Contract No.
68-02-2198. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1978.
588
-------
119. Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company. Solvent
Refined Coal Process: Health Programs, R&D Report #53,
Interim Report #24. FE 496-T15, U.S. Department of
Energy. January 1978.
120. Patterson, J.W. Directory of Federal and State Water
Pollution Standards. Illinois Institute Environmental
Quality Document No. 77/06, Project Number 20,010.
Chicago, Illinois, 1976.
121. Anonymous. Court Rejects EPA Program for Hazardous
Substance Spills. Current Developments, 9(15), p. 579,
1978.
122. Barrett, B.R. Controlling the Entrance of Toxic Pollu-
tants into U.S. Waters. Environmental Science and
Technology 12 (2), pp. 154-162, February 1978.
123. 43 FR 32857.
124. 43 FR 37074, August 21, 1978.
125. 40 CFR Part 151.
126. 40 CFR Part 125.
127. 40 CFR Part 112.
128. Stern, L. Hazardous Wastes. Solid Wastes Management/
RRJ/May 1978, pp. 74 and 80.
129. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Special
Waste Land Disposal Criteria. Spl. No. 30, Springfield,
Illinois. No Date.
130. Hittman Associates, Inc. Air Emissions from Combustion
of Solvent Refined Coal, EPA 600/7-79-004. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. January 1979.
131. Bureau of National Affairs. Ohio Solid Waste Disposal
Regulations. Environmental Reporter, State Solid
Waste-Land Use. 1276:0501. 1977.
132. U.S. Department of Energy. Environmental Development
Plan (EDP) Coal Gasification Program. DOE/EDP 0013, FY
1977. Washington, D.C., March 1978.
589
-------
133. Talmage, S.S. Chapter 10: Humans, Metabolism and Bio-
logical Effects. In: Environmental, Health and Control
Aspects of Coal Conversion: An Information Overview,
ORNL/EIS-95. H.M. Braustein, E.D. Cooperhaver and H.A.
Pfuder, eds. ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1977.
134. MITRE Corporation. Coal Conversion Processes: Poten-
tial Carcinogenic Risk, MTR-7155, Rev. 1. U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior, 1976.
135. Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company. Solvent
Refined Coal (SRC) Process: Health Programs, R&D Report
No. 53, Interim No. 24, FE 496-T15. U.S. Department of
Energy, January 1978.
136. Cavanaugh, G., C.E. Burklin, and J.C. Dickerson.
Potentially Hazardous Emissions from Extraction and
Processing of Coal and Oil. Battelle Columbus Labora-
tories. EPA 68-02-1323, 1975.
137. Hittman Associates, Inc. Environmental Assessment Data
Base for Coal Liquefaction Technology. EPA 600/7-78-
184a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1978.
138. Liverman, J.L. Alternative Fuels Demonstration Program,
Final Environmental Impact Statement. ERDA 1547. U.S.
Energy Research and Development Administration, September
1977.
139. Bureau of Radiological Health and the Training Institute
of the Environmental Control Administration. Radio-
logical Health Handbook. U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Public Health Services, Rockville,
Maryland, 1970.
140. Richards, J.A., F.W. Sears, M.R. Wehr, and M.W. Zemansky.
Modern University Physics. Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc., Reading, Massachusetts, 1960, 993 pp.
141. Salk, M.S. and S.G. DeCicco, eds. Environmental Monitor-
ing Handbook for Coal Conversion Facilities, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, ORNL-5319 Special. Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, 1978.
142. U.S. Department of Energy. Environmental Development
Plan (EDP), Coal Liquefaction. DOE/EDP-0012. March
1978.
590
-------
143. National Research Council.. Environmental Monitoring
Study Group on Monitoring for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C., 1977.
144. Calvert, James, e_t al. Nuclear Power Plant Siting. A
Generalized Process. Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
Washington, D.C., 1974.
145. Argonne National Laboratory. National Coal Utilization
Assessment of Increased Coal Use in the Midwest.
Impacts and Constraints, Vol. I. U.S. Department of
Energy, Argonne, Illinois, 1977, 93 pp.
146. Ruch, R.R. et al. Determination of Valuable Metals in
Liquefaction Process Residues, Report No. 39. Quarterly
Technical Progress Report for the Period July 1, 1978
to September 30, 1978. EY-76-C-21-8004. Illinois
State Geological Survey, Urbana, IL. October 13, 1978.
147. Personal communication with D. Holgres, Sterns-Rogers
Corporation.
148. Water Information Center. Water Atlas of the United
States. WIS. Port Washington, New York, 1973.
149. U.S. Geological Survey. Quality of Rivers of the
United States, 1975 Water Year -- Based on the National
Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN). Open File
Report 78-200. U.S. Department of Interior, 1977.
150. Horzella, T. Selecting, Installing and Maintaining
Cyclone Dust Collectors. Chemical Engineering, January
30, 1978.
151. Koch, W. and W. Licht. New Design Approach Boosts
Cyclone Efficiency. Chemical Engineering, November 7,
1977.
152. Leith, D. and W. Licht. AIChE Symposium Series, Vol.
68, No. 126, 1977.
153. Danielson, J. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, May 1973.
154. Liptak, B.G., ed. Environmental Engineers' Handbook,
Vol. II: Air Pollution. Chilton Book Company, Radnor,
Pennsylvania, 1974.
591
-------
155. Cheremisnoff, P.N., and R.A. Young, eds. Pollution
Engineering Practice Handbook. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1976.
156. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Information Circular 8608.
Siting Potential for Coal Gasification Plants. U.S.
Department of Interior. Washington, D.C.
157. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods to
Control Fine Grained Sediments Resulting from Construc-
tion Activity. EPA 440/9-76-026. 1976.
158. Radian Corporation. Water Pollution Control of Pollu-
tion Control Technology for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric
Generating Stations. Radian Corporation, Austin,
Texas.
159. American Petroleum Institute. Manual on Disposal of
Refinery Wastes. Volume on Liquid Wastes. American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
160. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology
Transfer Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing
Wastewater Treatment Plants. EPA 625/l-71-004a. 19/1.
161. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology
Transfer: Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids
Removal. EPA 625/l-75-003a. 1975.
162. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology
Transfer: Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption
EPA 625/l-71-002a. 1977.
163. Weber, W.J. Physiochemical Processes for Water Quality
Control. Wiley-Interscience, Publishers, New York
1972.
164. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology
Transfer: Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment
and Disposal. EPA 625/1-74-006. 1974.
165. Liptak, B.C., ed. Environmental Engineers' Handbook,
Vol. I: Water Pollution. Chilton Book Company, Radnor,
Pennsylvania, 1974.
166. Liptak, B.C. ed. Environmental Engineers' Handbook.
Vol. Ill: Land Pollution. Chilton Book Company, Radnor
Pennsylvania, 1974. '
167. Cook College (Rutgers University). Ultimate Disposal of
Organic and Inorganic Sludge. Seminar Course Series
Sponsored by EPA Region II. 1976.
592
-------
168. D'Alessandro, P.L. and C.B. Cobb. Oil Spill Control,
Part 1. Hydrocarbon Processing, 55(2) pp. 121-124.
169. D'Alessandro, P.L., and C.B. Cobb. Oil Spill Control,
Part 2. Hydrocarbon Processing. 55(3) pp. 145-148.
170. Stern, Arthur C., ed. Air Pollution: Vol. Ill:
Sources of Air Pollution and Control. Academic Press,
New York, 1968.
171. Broderson, A.B., et al. Social, Economic and Environ-
mental Impacts of~CoaT Gasification and Liquefaction
Plants. From: National Coal Association, Second Sympo-
sium on Coal Utilization, Louisville, Kentucky, 1975.
172. Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality,
1976. Washington, D.C., 1977.
173. Reilly, James I. Impact of EPA Regulations on the
Chemical Industry. Pollution Engineers. 10(8):30.
1978.
174. Bowen, H.J.M. Trace Elements in Biochemistry. New
York: Academic Press, 1966.
175. Johnson, D.W. and Cole. Anion Mobility in Soils-
Relevance to Nutrient Transport from Terrestrial to
Aquatic Ecosystems. EPA 600/3-77-068. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Lorvallis, Oregon, 1977, 28
pp.
176. W.N. Hess, ed. Weather and Climate Modifications. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1974.
177. Vaugham, B.E. et al. Review of Potential Impact on
Health and Environmental Quality from Metals Entering
the Environment as a Result of Coal Utilization. A
Battelle Energy Program Report, Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland,
Washington 99352, 1975.
178. Northrop, G.M., C.A. D'Ambra, and R.C. Scott. A Work-
able Methodology for Evaluating Socioeconomic and
Environmental Impacts of Energy Conversion Facilities
at Potential Sites. Sixth Energy Technology Confer-
ence and Exposition, February 26-28, 1979, Washington,
B.C.
593
-------
APPENDICES
594
-------
APPENDIX A - Glossary
Auxiliary Process: Processes associated with a technology
which are used for purposes that are in some way incidental
to the main functions involved in transformation of raw
materials into end products. Auxiliary processes are used
for recovery of by-products from waste streams, to furnish
necessary utilities, and to furnish feed materials such as
oxygen which may or may not be required depending on the
form of the end product which is desired; e.g., the auxili-
ary processes for low-and medium-Btu gasification technology
include: (1) oxygen plant which is used only for medium-Btu
gas; (2) the Stretford plant used to recover sulfur com-
pounds from gaseous waste streams.
By-Product Streams: Discharge streams from which useful
materials are recovered to: (1) eliminate undesirable envi-
ronmental discharges; or (2) recover valuable materials
which are most economically isolated from process input
stream after it has been physically or chemically trans-
formed; e.g. , sulfur is recovered as a by-product from coal
gasification to prevent pollution while vanadium is re-
covered from the ash generated by the burning of residual
oil to produce electricity because it is profitable to do
so.
Closed Process: For the purposes of this report, a closed
process signifies a process which has no waste streams.
Coefficient of Runoff: An empirical constant developed for
the purpose of predicting the amount of stormwater runoff
as a function of average rainfall intensity and drainage
areas. The mathematical relationship is as follows:
595
-------
Q = CIA
where: Q = maximum rate of runoff, cubic feet per second
(cubic meters per second).
C = coefficient of runoff based on type and character
of surface
I = average rainfall intensity, inches per hour
(centimeters per hour)
A = drainage area, acres (square meters).
Control Equipment: Equipment whose primary function is to
reduce the offensiveness of waste streams discharged to the
environment. It is not essential to the economic viability
of the process, e.g. if the recovery of sulfur from gas
cleaning operations associated with coal gasification in-
volves the use of a Stretford plant. The Stretford process
is an auxiliary process and is not control equipment. An
incinerator used to clean the tail gas from the Stretford
unit would be considered control equipment.
Discharge: The release of pollutants to the environment in
the most general sense. Usually applied to intermittent or
accidental releases.
Effluent Streams: Continuous aqueous process waste streams
which are potentially polluting; these will be discharged
from a source.
Emission Streams: Confined gaseous process waste streams
which are potentially polluting, these will be discharged
from a source.
596
-------
Energy Technology: A technology is made up of systems which
are applicable to the production of fuel or electricity from
fossil fuels, radioactive materials, or natural energy
sources (geothermal or solar). A technology may be applica-
ble to extraction of fuel, for example, underground gasifica-
tion; or processing of fuel, for example, coal liquefaction,
light water reactor, or conventional boilers with flue gas
desulfurization.
Final Disposal Process: Processes whose function is to
ultimately dispose of solid or liquid waste containing
materials which have potential for environmental contamina-
tion. The waste materials treated emanate from the collec-
tion of process waste streams for final disposal or from
treatment of waste streams using control equipment to collect
and concentrate the potential pollutants which are subse-
quently sent to final disposal. Examples of final disposal
processes are landfills and lined ponds.
Flottazur: Dissolved air flotation unit.
Fugitive Emissions: Those emissions of air pollutants not
directed through ducts or stacks and not amenable to measure-
ment by established source sampling methods.
Input Streams: Materials which are supplied to a process in
performance of its intended function. Input materials will
consist, of primary raw materials, secondary raw materials,
or intermediate products.
Intermediate Products: Process output streams that feed
from one process to another within a technology for further
processing with another technology; for example, for the
low-and mediura-Btu gasification technology, gasification
597
-------
converts pretreated coal into raw gas which is an intermed-
iate product input to gas cleaning. Where an intermediate
product is further processed using a different technology it
becomes a secondary raw material which is described below.
LD50 (Lethal dose, 50%); That quantity of a substance ad-
ministered either orally or by skin contact necessary to
kill 50% of exposed animals in laboratory tests within a
specified time.
MEG (Multimedia Environmental Goals): Levels of significant
contaminants or degradents (in ambient air, water or land)
that are judged to be (1) appropriate for preventing certain
negative effects in the surrounding populations or ecosystems,
or (2) representative of control limits achievable through
technology.
MATE (Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluent); A subset of MEG
listing concentration levels of contaminants in air, water,
or solid waste effluents that will not produce significant
harmful responses in exposed humans or the ecology, provided
the exposure is of limited duration (less than eight hours
per day).
Opacity Rating: A measurement of the opacity of emissions,
defined as the apparent obscuration of smoke of a given
rating on the Ringelmann chart.
Operation: A specific function, associated with a technology
in which a set of processes are employed to produce similar
products starting from the same input material; e.g., some
operations associated with the technology for coal lique-
faction are: (1) coal preparation where the processes employed
are receiving, crushing and sizing, drying, and slurry
59&
-------
mixing. These processes will be used in different combina-
tions dictated by the type of coal processed; (2) hydrogena-
tion which can be accomplished using any of six hydrogenation
processes; and (3) gas purification, where different proces-
ses are employed for pressurized vs. atmospheric systems,
cleanup of gases containing tar vs. cleanup of tar-free gas.
Output Streams: Confined discharges from a process which
are either end products, intermediate products, by-product
streams, or waste streams.
Plant: An existing system (set of processes) that is used
to produce a specific product of the technology from specific
raw materials. A plant may employ different combinations of
processes but will be comprised of some combinations of pro-
cesses which make up the technology. For example, the Glen-
Gery Brick Company low-Btu gasification facilities are
plants used to produce combustion gas from anthracite coal.
Primary Raw Materials: Materials which are extracted (such
as coal and ores) or grown and harvested (trees, corn, etc.)
and processed to yield intermediate or end products. For
energy technologies the principal raw materials are fossil
fuels, ores for nuclear fuels, geothermal deposits, and
sunlight.
processes: Processes are basic units which make up an
operation. A process is employed to produce chemical or
physical transformations of input materials into end products,
intermediate products, or by-products. Every process has a
definable set of waste streams which are, for practical
purposes, unique. The term used without modifiers is used
to describe generic processes. Where the term is modified,
such as, for example, in the term "Lurgi process", reference
599
-------
is made to a specific process which falls in some generic
class consisting of a set of similar processes; for example,
the low-and medium-Btu gas technology includes the fixed-
bed, atmospheric, dry ash gasifier as one of the gasification
processes. Specific processes which are included in this
generic class are Wellman-Galusha, Woodhall-Duckham/Gas
Integrale, Chapman (Wilputte), Riley-Morgan, and Foster-
Wheeler Stoic.
Raw Materials: Raw materials are feed materials for pro-
cesses. They are of two types: (1) primary raw materials
that are used in the chemical form in which they were taken
from the land, water, or air, and (2) secondary raw materials
that are produced by other industries or technologies. For
example, primary raw materials for low/medium-Btu gasifica-
tion technology include coal, air, and water. Secondary raw
materials include fluxes, makeup solvent, catalysts, etc.
Residuals: Uncollected discharges from control equipment
used to treat waste streams or discharges from final disposal
processes which are used for ultimate disposal of waste
material; for example, traces of pollutants that pass through
a scrubber cleaning the tail gas from the Glaus plant used
in coal gasification are residuals. If a scrubber is used
to clean the Stretford unit tail gas and a bleed stream is
sent to a lined pond serving as a final disposal process,
any runoff to the environment would be a residual.
Ringelmann Chart; A chart used in air pollution evaluation
for assigning an arbitrary number, referred to as the smoke
density, to smoke emanating from any source.
Secondary Raw Materials; Materials which are output from
one technology and input for another. For the technology
600
-------
with which it is produced, it is an intermediate product.
For the technology associated with further processing, it is
a secondary raw material; for example, liquid fuel from coal
is an intermediate product from coal liquefaction and, if it
is burned utilizing a technology associated with production
of electricity, it is a secondary raw material.
Six-tenths Factor: A logarithmic relationship between
equipment size and cost, used to adjust one set of estimates
to a different design size. The simple form of the six-
tenths factor is:
C = r°'6C
Ln r L
where C is the new cost, C is the previous cost, and r is
the ratio of new to previous capacity.
SAM (Source Analysis Models): A methodology which allows
the quick identification of possible problem areas where a
suspected pollutant exceeds the MEG.
SRC System: A noncatalytic direct-hydrogenation coal lique-
faction process for converting high-sulfur and ash coal into
clean burning gaseous, liquid or solid fuels.
SRC-1 Product: A solid coal like product of less than one
(1) percent sulfur and 0.2 percent ash.
SRC-II Product; A low-sulfur fuel oil of 0.2 to 0.5 percent
sulfur, and naphtha product.
Threshold Limit Value (TLV): A set of standards established
by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygien-
ists for concentrations of airborne substances in workroom
601
-------
air. They are time-weighted averages based on conditions
which it is believed that workers may be exposed to day
after day without adverse effects. The TLV values are
intended to serve as guides in control of health hazards,
rather than definitive marks between safe and dangerous
concentrations.
System: A specified set of processes that can be used to
produce a specific end-product of the technology e.g., low-
and medium-Btu gasification. The technology is comprised of
several systems. The simplest system is producing combus-
tion gas from coal using a small fixed-bed, atmospheric, dry
ash gasifier coupled with a cyclone. One of the most complex
systems has very large gasifiers with high efficiency gas
cleaning being used to produce a fuel clean enough to be
fired in the gas turbines of a combined-cycle unit for
production of electricity.
Waste Streams: Waste streams are confined gaseous, liquid,
and solid process output streams that are sent to auxiliary
processes for recovery by-products, pollution control equip-
ment or final disposal processes. Unconfined "fugitive"
discharges of gaseous or aqueous waste and accidental process
discharges are also considered waste streams. The tail gas
from an acid gas removal process is an example of a waste
stream in low/medium-Btu.
602
-------
APPENDIX B - Metric Conversion Factors
To Convert From
ft/s'
To
Acceleration
2 2
metre per second (m/s )
Multiply By
3.048-000 E-01
Area
Acre (U.S. survey)
ft5
iru
yd2
12
meter
(m2)
meter2 (m?)
meter (m )
Energy (Includes Work)
British thermal unit
(mean) joule (J)
Calorie (kilogram, mean) joule (J)
kilocalorie (mean)
foot
inch
yard
grain
grain
pound (Ib avoirdupois)
ton (metric)
ton (short, 2000 Ib)
lb/ft'
joule (J)
Length
meter (m)
meter (m)
meter (m)
Mass
kilogram (kg)
kilogram (kg)
kilogram (kg)
kilogram (kg)
kilogram (kg)
Mass Per Unit Area
/
kilogram perimeter"*
(kg/tnz)
4.046 873 E+03
9.290 304 E-02
6.451 600 E-04
8.361 274 E-01
1.055 87 E+03
4.190 02 E+03
4.190 02 E+03
3.048 000 E-01
2.540 000 E-02
9.144 000 E-01
6.479 891 E-05
1.000 000 E-03
4.535 924 E-01
1.000 000 E+03
9.071 847 E+02
4.882 428 E+00
(continued)
603
-------
To Convert From
To
Multiply By
Ib/ft
Ib/in
Ib/h
Ib/min
ton (short)/h
Mass Per Unit Length
kilogram per meter (kg/m)
kilogram per meter (kg/m)
Mass Per Unit Time (Includes Flow)
kilogram per second (kg/s)
kilogram per second (kg/s)
kilogram per second (kg/s)
1.488 164 E-fOO
1.785 797 E+01
1.259 979 E-04
7.559 873 E-03
2.519 958 E-01
Mass Per Unit Volume (Includes Density & Mass Capacity)
lb/ftj
Ib/gal
Ib/yd3
(U.S. liqu
3 3
kilogram per meter:; (kg/mo)
id) kilogram per meter:; (kg/m:;)
kilogram per meter (kg/m )
Btu (thermochemical)/h watt
Btu (thermochemical)/h watt
cal (thermochemical)/
min • watt
cal (thermochemical)/s watt
Power
(W)
(W)
(W)
(W)
Pressure or Stress (Force Per Unit Area)
atmosphere (standard) pascal (Pa)
foot of water (39.2°F) pascal (Pa)
Ibf/ft2 pascal (Pa)
lbf/in2 (psi) pascal (Pa)
1.601 846 E+01
1.198 264 E+02
5.932 764 E-01
2.930 711 E-01
2.928 751 E-01
6.973 333 E-02
4.184 000 E+00
1.013 250 E+05
2.988 98 E+03
4.788 026 E+01
6.894 757 E+03
degree Celsius
degree Fahrenheit
degree Fahrenheit
degree Rankine
Kelvin
Temperature
Kelvin (K)
degree Celsius
Kelvin (K)
Kelvin (K)
degree Celsius
tK=toc + 273.15
tor=(t0,,-32)/1.8
CK <-oB7i.tt
toc=tK-273.15
(continued)
604
-------
To Convert From
To
Multiply By
ft/h
ft/min
ft/s
in/s
centipoise
centistokes
poise
stokes
Velocity (Includes Speed)
meter per second (m/s)
meter per second (m/s)
meter per second (m/s)
meter per second (m/s)
Viscosity
pascal second (Pa-s^
meter2 per second (m /s)
pascal second (Pa-3)2
meter2 per second (m /s)
Volume (Includes Capacity)
acre-foot (U.S. survey) meter-'
barrel (oil, 42 gal) meter:;
ft3 meter-
gallon (U.S. liquid) metero
litre* meter"3
Volume Per Unit Time (Includes Flow)
3 3
meter;? per second (m-/s)
ft~Vs metero per second (nu/s)
gal (U.S. liquid/day) meter:; per second (rru/s)
gal (U.S. liquid/min) meter per second (m/s)
8.466 667 E-05
5.080 000 E-03
3.048 000 E-01
2.540 000 E-02
1.000 000 E-03
1.000 000 E-06
1.000 000 E-01
1.000 000 E-04
1.233 489 E+03
1.589 873 E-01
2.831 685 E-02
3.785 412 E-03
1.000 000 E-03
4.719 474 E-04
2.831 685 E-02
4.381 264 E-08
6.309 020 E-05
*In 1964 the General Conference on Weights and Measures adopted
the name litre as a special name for the cubic decimetre.
Prior to this decision the litre differed slightly (previous
value, 1.000028 dirP) and in expression of precision volume
measurement this fact must be kept in mind.
605
-------
APPENDIX C - Quality of Rivers of the United States (148,149)
The maps in this subsection illustrate regional
water quality parameters. Some are reprinted with the
permission of the United States Geological Survey.
606
-------
] SLIGHTLY POLLUTED
( 10% OF STREAM MILES)
(g) LOCALLY POLLUTED (10-19.9%
OF STREAM MILES)
EXTENSIVELY POLLUTED (20-^9. 9o Of
STREAM MILES)
PREDOMINANTLY POLLUTED ( 50% OF STREAM MILES)
POLLUTED WATERWAY .LAKE OR ESTUARY
SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 1970
Figure 74. Principal areas of water pollution (148)
-------
-
-
PRINCIPAL COAL DEPOSITS
STREAMS AFFECTED BY ACID
T< MINE DRAINAGE
SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, HYDROL INV.
ATLAS HA-198, 1965
Figure 75. Acid mine drainage (148)
-------
J AVERAGE ANNUAL EVAPORATION
IN INCHES
(BASED ON PERIOD 19*»6-55)
SOURCE: U.S. WEATHER BUREAU
Figure 76,
Evaporation from open-water surfaces
(average annual) (148)
-------
APPROXIMATE MEAN MONTHLY
TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F. OF
SURFACE WATER IN JULY AND AUGUST
SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
70,
Figure 77. Temperature of surface water - July and August
(148)
-------
I 1(0
20
'"AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF IN INCHES
SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Figure 78. Surface-water runoff (average annual) (148)
-------
-
AVERAGE FLOW (CU. FT./SEC)
SOURCE: U.S.
20,000
50,000
100,000
250,000
500,000
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, CIRC.AA
Figure 79
Flow of large rivers (148)
-------
~
—
->.
PARTS PER MILLION
LESS THAN 120
120 - 350
MORE THAN 350
SOURCE: U.S. WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, 1968
Figure 80. Dissolved solids content of surface water (148)
-------
I
PRINCIPAL AREAS WHERE SOME
SURFACE WATERS CONTAIN MORE
THAN 1,000 PARTS PER MILLION
OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS
SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 137^
Figure 81. Saline surface-water (148)
-------
0
HARDNESS AS CaC03
IN PARTS PER MILLION
Q UNDER 60
0 60 -120
@ 120-180
(D 180-240
OVER 240
SOURCE: ACKEMAN AND LOF TECHNOLOGY IN AMERICAN
WATER DEVELOPMENT
Figure 82. Hardness of surface water (148)
-------
~
"
3
CONCENTRATION IN PARTS PER MILLION
LESS THAN 270
270 - 1900
• 1900 OR OVER
SOURCE: U.S. WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, 1968
Figure 83. Concentration of sediment in streams (148)
-------
• COMMUNITY WITH AT LFAST A
SINGLE SOURCE OF DRINKING
WATER WITH A NATURAL FLUORIDE
CONTENT OF 0.7 PPM OR MORE
SOURCE: U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, PUBL. 655
Figure 84. Natural fluoride in water supplies (148)
-------
•r-
"
30
NUCLEAP, POV/FR PLANTS
• OPERABLE
9 BEING BUILT
O PLANNED
HEAT PROBLEMS
(7) MINOR
(2) MODERATE
(J) MAJOR
(t) SEVERE
SOURCES: U.S. WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, 1968 AND
FED. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADM., 1970
Figure 85, Thermal pollution (148)
-------
60-
S2 40
Meon-217
N-344
Std.Dev.-304
Hardness classification according
to Durfor and Beck«r (1964)
20
Seven values over 1,120
HARDNESS AS CALCIUM
CARBONATE, IN
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0-60
LU
a.
o
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080
HARDNESS. AS CACO, , MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
61-120
121-180
181-250
251-2846
dots
represent station*
monitoring flow
from the Great
Lake*
Water Resource*
Region Boundary
Accounting Unit
Boundary
PUERTO RICO
0 1OO Miles
0 200 400 6OO Kilometers
Figure 86. Mean hardness as calcium carbonate at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
619
-------
M»on-157
N-344
Std.Dev.-807
n
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
DISSOLVED CHLORIDE, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED
CHLORIDE. IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0-20
21-50
51-100
101-250
251-12,900
•Jot* represent
stations monitoring flow
from the Great Lakes
Water Resources Region
Boundary
Accounting Unit Boundary
600 Miles
HAWAII
0 200 Miles
2UO
200
;
400
i
600 Miles
I
0 200 400 600 Kilometers
PUERTO RICO
9 lOOMIIee
Figure 87. Mean concentration of dissolved chloride at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
620
-------
100
CONCENTRATION Of
DISSOLVED SOLIDS, IN
MILLIGRAMS PER LITtR
0-250
F^l 251-500
501-1000
1001-2500
2501-26.000
O
400
800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
DISSOLVED SOLIDS. ROE 180'C
. dots
repre«ent
stations
monitoring
flow from the
Great Lakes
Water Resources
Region Boundary
Accounting Unit
Boundary
PUERTO RICO
0 100 Miles
0 20O 4OO 600 Kilometers
Figure 88. Mean concentration of dissolved solids
measured as residue on evaporation (ROE) at 180°C
at NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
621
-------
100-r
Mtoon-17.7
N-344
Std.Dev. 18.6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
DISSOLVED ZINC. IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED
ZINC. IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
0-5
5.1-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
101-142
dot* r*prm»nt
stations monitoring flow
from th« Great Lakes
Water Resources Region
Boundary
Accounting Unit Boundary
o
PUERTO RICO
0 WOMIlea
260 400 600 Kilometer*
Figure 89. Mean concentration of dissolved zinc at NASQAN
stations during 1975 water year (149)
622
-------
MMn-133
N-344
Std.Dev.-279
Two values over 1750
CONCfcN I RATION OF
DISSOLVED SULFATE, IN
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0-50
51-100
101-250
251-550
551-2130
DISSOLVED SULFATE, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
dots
reprewrt stations
f j monitoring flow
^~"^ from the Great
Lakes
Water Resources
Region Boundary
Accounting Unit
Boundary
PUERTO RICO
0 100 Miles
Figure 90. Mean concentration of dissolved sulfate
at NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
623
-------
. CONCENTRATION OF SUSPENDED
SEDIMENT. IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
D
0-50
51-100
101-200
201-500
501-77,100
No NASQAN data
1 2 5 10 20 50
100200500II
1 2 5 10 20 50 100
- thousand* i
MEAN CONCENTRATION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT IN
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Odots represent stations
monitoring flow from the Great
Lakes
Water Resources Region
Boundary
Accounting Unit Boundary
200
0 200 400 60O Kilometer*
PUERTO RICO
0 100 Mile*
Figure 91. Mean concentration of suspended sediment
at NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
424
-------
Meon-O.M
N-343
S»d.D«v.-0.28
Recommended maximum in drinking
water at annual average of maximum
daily air temperature, as shown:
CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED
FLUORIDE, IN MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.0-0.5
F%| 0.6-1.0
V7\ 1.1-1.5
1.6-1.8
o
DISSOLVED FLUORIDE, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
dots repn
stations monitoring
flow from the Great
Lakes
Water Resources
Region Boundary
Accounting Unit
Boundary
600 Miles
0 200 400 600 Kilometers
PUERTO RICO
0 10O Mile*
Figure 92. Mean concentration of dissolved fluoride at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year. Recommended maxima
shown on the histogram are from the National
Academy of Sciences (149)
625
-------
100
CONCENTRATION
OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
AS P, IN MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.0-0.05
0.06-0.10
0.11-0.20
0.21-0.50
0.51-1.00
1.10-6.00
dots
25
TOTAL
.50 .75 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75
PHOSPHORUS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
2.00
O represent stations
monitoring the
Great Lakes
Water Resources
Region Boundary
Accounting Unit
Boundary
PUERTO RICO
0 100 Miles
0 200 400 600 Kilometers
Figure 93. Mean concentration of total phosphorus as P
at NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
626
-------
Moon-113
N-344
Std.D»v.-79
,
»J
-'
•
1
1
1
1
-
,
•
v
1
•
-
Four va
ov*r 3
//
i
\
'§
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300330
ALKALINITY AS CALCIUM CARBONATE. IN MILIGRAMS PER LITER
CONCENTRATION OF ALKALINITY
AS CALCIUM CARBONATE, IN
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0-50
51-100
101-200
201-350
351-502
. dots rcpriMnt
stations monitoring ftaw
from th« Groat Lako*
o
R«gl«n
Accounting Unit Boundary
Water
Boundary
PUERTO RICO
0 10OMIIM
0 MO 4M BOOKIIonwtor*
Figure 94. Mean alkalinity as calcium carbonate at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
627
-------
100
80-
tsi
I
I
*
60-
40 H
20-
M»on-9,362
N-34S
Std.D«v.-15.600
NUMBERS OF PHYTOPLANKTON, IN
CELLS PER MILLILITER
0-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10,000
10,001-20.000
20,001-106,000
10 20 50 100 500 2000 10,000 50,000 200,000
200 1000 5000 20,000 100,000
TOTAL PHYTOPLANKTON, IN CELLS PER MILLILITER
Odots represent station*
monitoring flow from th*
accounting unit.
Water R«»ourc»i Region
Boundary
Accounting Unit Boundary
ALASKA
HAWAII
0 2OOMit*«
200 4OO 600 Kllom*t«r«
PUERTO RICO
0 100MIIM
Figure 95. Mean numbers of phytoplankton sampled at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
628
-------
100
M*on-0.85
N-343
Sid.Dev.-0.76
n
t
e CONCENTRATION OF
AMMONIA PLUS ORGANIC
23 NITROGEN (KJELDAHL
NITROGEN) . AS N. IN
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
* '
123456
KJELDAHL NITROGEN, AS N. IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
0.0-0.50
0.51-1.00
1.01-2.00
2.01-5.00
5.01-5.90
dots
represent stations
monitoring flow
from the Great
Lakes
Water Resources
Region Boundary
Accounting Unit
Boundary
PUERTO RICO
0 100 Miles
0 WO 400 6OO Kilometers
Figure 96. Mean concentration of ammonia plus organic
nitrogen (Keildahl nitrogen), as N, at NASQAN stations
during 1975 water year (149)
629
-------
100
Meon-0.61
N-346
Std.Dev.-0.89
Five values over 3.9
29
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL
NITRITE PLUS NITRATE AS N,
23 IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
17
Ill
'
•"•A
0.0-0.10
0.11-0.20
0.21-0.50
0.51-1.00
1.01-9.50
aots represent
/~"\ stations monitoring
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
NITRITE PLUS NITRATE. IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
flow from the Great
Lakes.
Water Resources
Region Boundary
Accounting Unit
Boundary
PUERTO RICO
0 10O Miles
0 200 400 600 Kilometer*
Figure 97. Mean concentration of total nitrite plus
nitrate as N at NASQAN stations during 1975
water year (149)
630
-------
40-
Meon-2.38
N-944
Std.Dev.-4.3o
Tw«nty-tev«n volu«» over 6.0
12
1 0
OISSSOIVED ARSENIC, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
EXPLANATION
COtOHS SHOW MANGE Of
CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED
ARSENIC, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
0.00-0.90
0.51-1.0
1.1-2.0
2.1-5.0
5.1-10.0
10.1-42.0
Colored dot* represent
stations monitoring (lew
from the Great Lakes
Water Resources Region
Boundary
Accounting Unit Boundary
a
o
PUERTO RICO
0 lOOMHet
0 MO 400 6OO Kilometers
Figure 98. Mean concentration of dissolved arsenic
at NASQAN stations during 1975 water year (149)
631
-------
APPENDIX D - Pollution Control Alternatives
D-l Air Emissions Control Alternatives
D-l.l Particulate Controls
D-l.1.1 Settling Chambers
The most basic of the inertial separation collectors
available are settling chambers. Settling chambers are com-
partments placed in the exhaust stream which are large
enough to provide a velocity reduction and long residence
time to allow settling of particulate matter out of the
exhaust stream. The residence time of the chamber is suf-
ficiently long enough to allow a particle to settle out of
the stream.
In determining the characteristics of gravity settling
chambers the following relationships must be determined
(6,8):
* Settling ~ ^residence
• Settling = ~
a
H = height of chamber
V = settling velocity
m t- = L = L
^residence VI CJTflff
O
V - gas velocity
6
Q * gas flow volume
L = length of chamber
W * width of chamber
632
-------
(stokes' Law)
where: r = particle radius
g = acceleration due to gravity
M = gas velocity
p ,p = particle and gas density,
respectively.
The minimum particle size which can be captured is
rpmin = 1
Collection efficiency is:
V0 WL
T] = -^— x 100
where: T] = efficiency weight percent.
Figure 99 illustrates various configurations of simple
settling chambers. The following list summarizes the advan-
tages of settling chambers:
• Simple to construct
• Simple to maintain
• Economically capture particulate matter larger
than 50 pm in size
Operate at their greatest efficiencies at gas
velocities less than 10 fps
-------
a
3j
a. Horizontal settling chamber b. Multi-tray settling chamber
c. Simple baffle chamber d. Rounded trap settling chamber
Figure 99. Settling chamber configurations
634
-------
• They allow for a small internal duct pressure
drop
• Mainly utilized as a pretreatment to remove large
particulate matter prior to more efficient methods
D-l.1.2
Cyclones (150.151.152)
Cyclonic collectors are generally of two types:
• Large diameter cyclones
• Small diameter, multitube, high efficiency cy-
clones.
Large diameter cyclones (Figure 100) are primarily installed
to collect particles >30 /im. Small diameter, multitube,
high efficiency cyclones are capable of collecting parti-
cles >10 nm with a collector efficiency rating of over 90
percent. Efficiencies of conventional and high efficiency
cyclones are summarized in Table 128. However, these units
TABLE 128. EFFICIENCY OF CYCLONES
Particle Size
_
Less than 5
5-20
15-40
Greater than 40
Efficiency Range (% Collected)
Conventional High Efficiency
Less than 50
50-80
80-95
95-99
50-80
80-95
95-99
95-99
635
-------
A = GAS INLET
a - GAS INLET HEIGHT
B - DUST OUTLET
b - GAS INLET WIDTH
C = GAS OUTLET
Dc= DIAMETER CYCLONE MAJOR CYLINDER
Dg= DIAMETER GAS OUTLET
H^= HEIGHT OF CYCLONE
h = h1 -JEJGHT OF
MAJOR CYLINDER - CONE LENGTH
S = GAS OUTLET LENGTH
DUST OUT
Figure 100. Conventional cyclone separator
636
-------
are expensive to install and usually require more maintenance
than large diameter cyclones. The principle behind cyclone
collection is that centrifugal forces on particulate matter
in a spinning gas stream may be many times in excess of
gravitational forces. Therefore, particulate matter tends to
collect on the walls of the cyclone. The downwind spiraling
effect of the gas stream forces the particulate matter to the
bottom of the cyclone where they are collected.
Cyclone design characteristics are as follows:
Major cylinder height h - 2 D.
C
Cone length h = 2 DC
Gas outlet diameter Dg - .5 DC
Gas outlet length H+S - .625 D,,
c
Gas inlet height a - .5
s r>
c
c
Gas inlet width b = .25 D
Dust outlet B » .25 DC
Cyclone efficiency increases with an increase in the follow-
ing:
• Density of the particulate matter
• Inlet velocity to cyclone
• Cyclone body length
• Number of revolutions made by gas streams in cyclone
body
• Ratio of cyclone body diameter to cyclone outlet
diameter
• Particle diameter
637
-------
• Particulate volume entrained in carrier gas
• Smoothness of interior cyclone body.
A theoretical approach to predict cyclone efficiency
has been advanced by Leith and Licht (152) based on the
concept of continual radial back mixing of uncontrolled
particles, coupled with the calculations of an average
residence time for the gas in a cyclone. Leith and Licht
stated that cyclone efficiency may be calculated by:
1 - exp - 2S-4-2 (N-H)<°-S/
Dc
where: E = cyclone efficiency (%)
G = cyclone configuration factor
s = residence time
Q = volumetric gas flow rate
N = Vortex exponent
s = Pp(Dp)2/(l8(u))
where: P = particle density
D = particle diameter intercepted
u = fluid viscosity
G = 8(Kc)/(ka)2(kb)2
where: k = volume of cyclone cylinder
ka = a/Dc
kb = b/D
c
638
-------
T) - 1 -
/ 12 D °'14 T +
' \ - Z£3 - x—
460°-3
530
where: T = temperature, °F
the overall efficiency for a cyclone can then be calculated
as follows:
where: T)T = overall efficiency
m. = mass fraction of particles in size
range i
1} . = efficiency of cyclone at midpoint of
interval i, 7«,
A correct estimate of the pressure drop across a cyclone
is necessary, in addition to cyclone efficiency, so that
cost effectiveness may be calculated. A pressure drop
magnitude of 10 or less in 1^0 is generally accepted operat-
ing range. The following equations determine the pressure
drop across a cyclone separator (153) :
where: K = dimensionless constant
. 2.34
D
c R0.272
When collection of particulate matter in the 5 to 10
micron range is required, multiple small diameter cyclones
639
-------
are utilized. Multiple cyclone separators consist of a
number of long small diameter cyclones operating in paral-
lel, having a common gas inlet and outlet. Gas flow is sub-
stantially different in the multiple cyclone separators in
that gas enters the top of the cyclone and is passed by a
stationary vane which imparts the spinning motion to the gas
flow. These cyclone separators are high in efficiency, but
are expensive to operate and increase the pressure drop
across the cyclone. Multiple cyclone separators efficiency
is determined by the same procedure as for large diameter
cyclones.
D-l.1.3 Electrostatic Precipitators
Electrostatic precipitators operate by using a direct
current voltage to create an electric field between a nega-
tively charged discharge electrode and a posititively
charged collection electrode. As the suspended particles
(or aerosols) pass between the electrodes the particles are
charged and collected on the oppositely charged electrode.
The deposited matter is removed by rapping or washing the
electrode. The precipitated material is then collected in
hoppers for final disposal.
Electrostatic precipitators exhibit removal effici-
encies of 90 to 99 percent within a particle range of less
than 0.1 microns to 200 microns (154). Precipitators have
the ability to handle very large flow rates at high effi-
ciencies. They can operate in a wide range of temperatures
and pressures, up to 800°C and 50 atmospheres, respectively
(155). Their major disadvantages include high initial cost
and little adaptability to changing process conditions.
640
-------
Removal efficiency is directly related to the volu-
metric gas flow rate, as described by the following equation
(154):
where: F = efficiency
A = collecting area
Q = volumetric flow rate
W = drift velocity
The drift velocity, W, can be calculated by the following
equation (154):
W = (
V
l + 1.72 DE0EP
P'
where: W = drift velocity
D = particle diameter
L = mean free path of gas
E = precipitation field density
EQ - corona field strength
\i = absolute viscosity of the gas
Removal efficiencies are dependent on the temperature
and humidity of the gas stream. An increase in humidity
and/or a decrease in temperature will cause a decrease in
sparkover voltage, i.e., the voltage at which the gas be-
comes locally conductive. At sparkover voltage there is a
dramatic decrease in the electric field strength and hence a
641
-------
large power loss. Such gas streams as dryer off-gases may
be too humid to separate particulates by electrostatic pre-
cipitation.
D-l.1.4 Filtration
Baghouses and fabric filters are used for high effi-
ciency removal (up to 99.9%) of particulates from gases.
Baghouses and fabric filters, along with dry collectors,
share the following characteristics.
• Particulates are collected dry and in usable
condition.
• Gases are not cooled or saturated with moisture.
• Solids handling accessories must be properly
designed to avoid secondary dust generation.
• Unlike scrubbers, filters do not add moisture to
the cleaned exhaust and do not create a plume.
• There is an explosion hazard risk; proper fire
protection equipment must be on-site.
There are two major types of bag filters. Envelope-
type bags prove maximum surface area per unit volume, but
suffer from dust bridging problems and are difficult to
change. Tubular bags are open at one end and closed at the
other, with the direction of filtering being either inside-
4
out or outside-in. An outside-in design requires a frame to
prevent bag collapse and has a shorter bag life. Tubular
filter bags are often sewn together to form multibag sys-
tems; the major disadvantage is costly bag replacement.
642
-------
Different gas characteristics require different filter
media for proper operation. There are three main filter
types: paper filters, woven fabric filters, and felted
fabric filters. Paper filters are used for sampling and
analysis and clean room use rather than in large industrial
units. Woven fabric filters are employed with low air/cloth
ratios, generally from 7.6 x 10"3 to 3.0 x 102 m3/s/m2 (1).
Fabric life is a function of operation temperature, frequency
and method of cleaning, and properties of particulates and
carrier gas. Average life of woven fabric filters ranges
from 6 to 18 months. Performance of some filter fabrics are
summarized in Table 130 (154). The more efficient felted
fabrics are more expensive, but can be utilized with high
air/cloth ratios typically 6.1 x 10"2 m3/s/m2 (154). Felted
fabrics require thorough cleaning for proper operation.
Cleaning methods affect air/cloth ratios significantly.
Cleaning by shaking can be accomplished manually or mech-
anically, intermittently or continuously. Reverse jet
cleaning uses compressed air to remove filter cake from the
fabric. Reverse air flexing is accomplished by reversing
gas flow to cause a filter backwash effect.
Air-to-cloth ratios for coal dust are shown for dif-
ferent types of cleaning mechanisms in Table 129.
TABLE 129. AIR-TO-CLOTH RATIOS FOR COAL DUST
Air/Cloth Ratio,
Type of Cleaning m3^"*
Shaker 1.3 - 1.5
Reverse Jet 5.1 6.1
Reverse Air Flexing 0.6 1.0
643
-------
TABLE 130. CHARACTERISTICS OF FILTER FABRICS (154)
Physical Resistance
Fabric
Cotton
Dacron
Orion
Mylon
Dynel
Polypropylene
Creslan
Vycron
Noroex
Teflon
Wool
Glass
Specific
Gravity
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.4
2.3
1.3
2.5
Dry
Heat
G
G
G
G
F
G
G
G
E
E
F
E
Moist
Heat
G
F
G
G
F
F
G
F
E
E
F
E
Abrasion
F
G
G
E
F
E
G
G
E
P-F
G
P
Shaking
G
E
G
E
P-F
E
G
E
E
G
F
P
Flexing
G
E
E
E
G
G
E
E
E
G
G
F
Acids
P
G
G
P
G
E
G
G
P-F
E
F
E
Chemical
Acids
G
G
G
F
G
E
G
G
E
E
F
E
Resistance
Alkalies
F
F
F
G
G
E
F
G
G
E"
P
G
Oxidizing
Agents
F
G
G
F
G
G
G
G
G
E
P
E
Solvents
E
E
E
E
G
G
E
E
E
E
E
E
E * Excellent
G - Good
F - Fair
P = Poor
-------
D-l.1.5 Wet Scrubbers
Wet scrubbers comprise a large variety of equipment,
the main types being spray chambers, impingement plate
scrubbers, venturi scrubbers, cyclone-type scrubbers,
orifice-type scrubbers, and packed bed scrubbers. Low
pressure scrubbers, such as spray towers collect coarse
dusts in the range of 2 to 5 microns. High pressure drop
venturi scrubbers are effective at removing 0.1 to 1.0
micron particles at up to 98 percent efficiency (155).
The wet scrubbers remove dust from the carrier gas
stream by contacting it with water or a specified scrubbing
liquor. The following is a list of the characteristics of
wet scrubber technologies (154).
• The flue gas is both cleaned and cooled.
• Stack effluent will contain fines, mists, and
steam plume.
• The temperature and moisture content of the inlet
gas is essentially unlimited.
• Corrosive gases can be neutralized with proper
scrubbing liquor selection.
• Consideration of freezing conditions is important,
• Hazards of explosion are reduced.
• Equipment is relatively compact and capital cost
is less than dry collection equipment.
645
-------
• The equipment is highly efficient in collecting a
wide range of particulate sizes.
• Removes simultaneously gaseous pollutants such as
sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and nitrogen
oxides.
• Maintenance cost is lower because of simple
design.
• Water utilization is high and is an important
consideration in certain areas.
Efficiencies of various scrubbers at different particle
sizes are shown in Table 131. Wet scrubbers that can be
applied to coal dusts and fly ash control are shown in Table
132.
TABLE 131. EFFICIENCY OF SCRUBBERS AT
VARIOUS PARTICLE SIZES (154)
Percentage Efficiency at
Type of Scrubber 50n 5/j I/
Jet -impingement scrubber
Irrigated cyclone
Self-induced spray scrubber
Spray tower
Fluid bed scrubber
Irrigated target scrubber
Disintegrator
Low energy venturi scrubber
Medium energy venturi
scrubber
High energy venturi scrubber
98
100
100
99
99+
100
100
100
100
100
83
87
94
94
98
97
98
99+
99+
99+
40
42
48
55
58
50
91
96
97
98
646
-------
TABLE 132. APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS WET
SCRUBBERS TO COAL DUSTS AND FLY ASH (154)
Type of Scrubber Coal Dust
Elbair scrubber X
Floating bed
Flooded bed
Cyclonic
Self -induced spray
scrubbers X
Mechanically induced
spray X
Venturi scrubbers X
Fly Ash
X
X
X
X
X
Collection
Efficiency (70)
99+, 99
N.A.
N.A.
96+
N.A.
N.A.
96, 99+
IT.A. = Not Available
D-1.2
Hydrocarbon Controls
Four types of control technologies that can be employed
to treat gas streams containing hydrocarbons are: (1)
direct-fired and catalytic afterburners, (2) condensation
systems, (3) adsorption systems and (4) flares.
Direct-fired and catalytic afterburners employ high
temperatures to carry out oxidation of organics to carbon
dioxide and water. They are applicable to gases with hy-
drocarbon content below the limit of flammability. In gen-
eral, catalytic afterburners, with platinum or palladium
catalysts to facilitate oxidation, utilize temperatures
lower than the direct-fired afterburners. A comparison of
temperatures required to convert various combustibles to
carbon dioxide and water for both direct-fired and catalytic
afterburners is given in Table 133.
647
-------
TABLE 133. COMBUSTION TEMPERATURES IN DIRECT-FIRED
AND CATALYTIC AFTERBURNERS (154)
Ignition Temperature (°C)
Combustible Direct-Fired Catalytic
Methane 632 500
Carbon Monoxide 665 260
Hydrogen 574 121
Propane 480 260
Benzene 580 302
Direct-fired afterburners have exhibited conversion effi-
ciencies of more than 99 percent while catalytic units have
slightly lower efficiencies (85 to 92 percent) (155).
Direct-fired afterburners are designed to operate at
about 760°C with retention times of at least 0.8 seconds (155)
Catalytic afterburners operate at about 538°C with retention
times of 0.05 to 0.1 seconds (155). Operating temperatures
are sustained by combustion of a fuel gas. This fuel con-
sumption can only be partially offset by heat recovery
systems in which heat from exhaust gases is used to preheat
incoming gases. Another general disadvantage of afterburners
is that they produce no saleable product.
Catalytic afterburners have a number of important ad-
vantages and disadvantages compared to direct-fired units.
Because they operate at lower temperatures, they have lower
operating and maintenance costs. Initial capital equipment
cost, however, is higher. Catalysts also are easily poisoned
by heavy metals, halogens, and sulfur compounds, or fouled
by inorganic particulates. Catalytic incineration devices
have been judged by the Los Angeles County Air Pollution
Control District to be incapable of meeting efficiency
requirements of 90 percent conversion.
648
-------
In condensation systems, the gas stream is cooled and
compressed to facilitate condensation of vapor phase pollu-
tants. Condensation is applicable when pollutants with dew-
points above 30°C are present in high concentrations. Con-
densers are normally used in conjunction with other control
equipment, since they are a relatively inefficient means of
control at lower organic concentrations.
Carbon adsorption systems employ parallel cycling beds
of activated carbon to adsorb gaseous organic pollutants.
Removal efficiencies are claimed to be up to 95 percent (154).
Carbon bed regeneration and desorption of organics is accom-
plished by a number of means, i.e., steam contacting, hot
inert gas contacting, or vacuum desorption. The concentrated
organic vapor is either incinerated or recovered as solvent
by condensation, distillation, or adsorption.
The major advantages of carbon adsorption systems are
that a saleable organic solvent may be recovered through
desorption, or the desorbed concentrated gaseous pollutant can
be incinerated in a much smaller unit with much less fuel .
consumption than if the original gas stream were incincerated.
Another major advantage of carbon adsorption is that sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide are concurrently
adsorbed with organic vapors.
There are a number of important design criteria that must
be considered when selecting carbon adsorption systems (154).
If pollutant concentration is below 0.1 percent by volume,
carbon regeneration is not economical and a nonregenerative
system should be utilized, in which spent carbon would be
disposed of or regenerated in external equipment. The capacity
of the solid adsorbent decreases with increasing temperature;
therefore operating temperatures should be kept below 40°C
649
-------
for efficient operation. Because the adsorption reaction is
exothermic, there is a temperature rise of about 10C° for
dilute organic solvent-air mixtures. However, concentrated
hydrocarbon streams can cause temperatures to rise to
dangerously high levels, presenting an explosion hazard if the
gas-air mixture is within explosive limits. Excessive tempera-
ture fluctuations must be avoided since periods of temperature
rise can cause massive desorption (154).
Operational problems are mainly related to the adsorbent
surface. High molecular weight molecules may not be easily
desorbed under normal regeneration; high temperature steam
stripping may be required to control organic build-up.
Particulate matter may adhere to the adsorbent surface and
become alsmost impossible to remove. Plugging may occur from
particulate build-up. In some operations it may be necessary
to place a filter at the inlet to the adsorber to protect
against particulate entry. Corrosion can be a problem if
steam stripping is used for adsorbent regeneration. Light
hydrocarbons, such as methane and ethane, are not effectively
adsorbed and will be present in the off-gas (154).
Flares incorporate direct combustion of the pollutant
gases with air, and can be used only if the organic concentra-
tion of the gas stream is in the flammable range. Flaring
is the least costly form of incineration since the fuel is
usually made available to maintain a flammable mixture in
the event the organic concentration drops below the lower
explosive limit.
The hydrocarbon-rich pressure control releases from SRC
systems are considered suitable for disposal by flaring.
There are three basic classifications of combustion flares, as
follows:
650
-------
• Elevated combustion flares
• Ground combustion flares
• Ground pits
Burning pits are generally unacceptable except as a
device to handle catastrophic emergency situations. They
are excavated units with alloy steel burners along one or
more sides. The walls are usually concrete or refractory-
lined. Dense clouds of smoke are released during operation
and the combustion products are not dispersed efficiently.
Elevated and ground combustion flares are discussed below.
ELevated combustion flares are the most commonly used type.
The combustion tip is usually 33-100 meters above grade, which
drastically reduces the effects of heat radiation. Conse-
quently, the flare can be located close to process units. In
this way, the amount of vent piping and land requirements
are minimized. The extra height also gives the added advantage
of better dispersion of combustion products than with ground
flares. Minimum height is determined with respect to radia-
tion protection and is adjusted upward so that ground level
contaminant concentrations will meet ambient air standards.
The elevated flares, depending upon the method of achieving
smokeless combustion, utilize air inspiration with steam or
mechanical air blowing.
Steam injection into the flare tip can greatly reduce
or even eliminate smoke generation. This reduction results
from two effects. Steam has an inspirating effect and drass
large quantities of air into the combustion zone. This
supplies necessary oxygen for burning, provides intense
mixing, and has a solvent cooling effect which reduces
cracking and polymerization. The steam also reacts with
651
-------
untreated carbon particles to form carbon monoxide and hydro-
gen.
The principal methods for injecting steam into flares
involve the use of multiple jets, single nozzles, or a shroud,
In the multiple jet design, waste gases are exhausted from
the open end of the flare tip. A large header located
around the periphery of the tip distributes steam to several
jets. The jets are oriented so that their discharge covers
the tip and creates turbulence and mixing of the waste gases
with the surrounding air. Steam consumption is relatively
low, 0.1-0.2 kg of steam per kilogram of waste gas; however,
this is balanced against the maintenance costs which are
slightly higher than the single nozzle design. Tip construc-
tion utilizes corrosion-resistant alloy steel (154).
In single steam nozzle design, the steam line enters
the flare and continues upward in the center until it
terminates several inches below the top of the tip. As the
steam exits the supply line, it expands to fill the inside
of the flare tip and, in so doing, mixes with the waste gas.
The turbulence created is not as great as with multiple
jets. However, the system requires less maintenance due to
its simple design (154).
In the shroud type design, the flare tip is surrounded
by a metal skirt or shroud. This reduces some of the cross-
wind effects and forms a turbulent zone for premixing of the
air and steam. Waste gas exits radially from the center
portion of the tip and travels toward the shroud, causing
intense mixing with the vent gas. Steam utilization is com-
parable with that of the multiple steam jet type. (154).
652
-------
In mechanical air blowing, blowers are utilized to pro-
vide air for smokeless combustion of small gas streams. For
gas rates over 45.4 Mg-moles/hr, the amount of air requires
large equipment. Capital investment is not competitive with
steam injection systems, if steam is available.
Ground flares are built near grade level and seldom
exceed 20 meters in height. Consequently, heat radiation
effects require that flares be limited in size and located
away from the process areas. This raises piping costs and
eliminates them from consideration in plants with little
available space and high-vent gas rates. Greatest applica-
tion is for locations where elevated flares would be un-
sightly and complete smokeless operation is not required
(154).
Ground flares have an important advantage in that water
can be substituted for steam in many cases. Consequently,
operating costs are greatly reduced. However, as the water
requirement increases at high vent gas rates, it becomes
increasingly difficult to obtain satisfactory combustion.
Therefore, smokeless operation is limited to a maximum of
45.4 Mg-moles/hr gas flowrate (154).
A typical water injected ground flare is composed of
three concentric stacks. The innermost stack contains the
burner and water atomization nozzles. The second stack is
slightly larger and serves to confine the tiny water drop-
lets for effective mixing with the incoming air and the vent
gases. The outermost stack merely directs the flame upward
and protects against crosswinds. Slots are provided near
the base of all three stacks to. allow entrance of air by
natural draft (154).
653
-------
Ground flares can be designed to handle higher vent gas
rates by using air inspirating venturi burners. Application
is limited due to a pressure requirement 7,000-28,000 Pa at the
burner and 48,000 Pa backpressure (154).
Several burners are required to handle a wide range of
vent gas rates. These auxiliary burners and their automatic
control valves become a significant cost item. A major
drawback of the system is that it cannot handle vent rates
which substantially differ from the design basis.
D-1.3 Sulfur Dioxide Controls
There are well over thirty processes that have been
developed for the control of sulfur dioxide stack emissions.
They can be divided into a number of broad categories, namely
dry additive injection (limestone), dry adsorptive processes,
wet adsorption processes, adsorption by charcoal, and catalytic
conversion processes.
The dry additive injection process involves the in-
troduction of pulverized limestone or dolomite directly into
the flue gas. The additive reacts with sulfur dioxide and
oxygen in the flue gas to form calcium or magnesium sulfate.
Major characteristics of dry additive injection techniques
are listed below (154):
• Flyash and limestone particles are carried along
in the gas stream and must be removed by another
pollution control unit.
• Capital cost is low. Feed materials are rela-
tively inexpensive.
654
-------
• SOo removal efficiencies are low.
• Operational difficulties included sintering and
slagging of limestone.
• There is little corrosion and no interference with
boiler operation.
• It is a throw-away process and presents solid
waste disposal problems.
Dry adsorption processes utilize a bed of metal oxide
to adsorb sulfur dioxide from the gas stream. The metal
oxide is converted to the sulfated form and must be regenerated,
A list of characteristics of dry adsorption techniques is
given below:
• Adsorbent generation is difficult and the adsor-
bents lose their activity after a number of re-
generation cycles.
• The most effective adsorbents are very expensive.
• Fly ash and metal oxide particulates must be
removed in a second pollution control unit.
• Little corrosion of metal surfaces occurs, and in
most cases there is no pressure loss through the
system.
• A saleable by-product such as ammonium sulfate can
be produced; hydrogen sulfide, which can be
routed to the Stretford unit for recovery of sul-
fur, may be produced.
655
-------
• Particulate matter may plug absorbent beds.
Wet adsorption processes employ a spray tower or other
wet scrubber to carry out sulfur dioxide removal. The
adsorbent liquid is usually a water solution of lime, dolo-
mite, metal sulfite, magnesium and manganese oxides, ammonia,
or caustic soda. Products from regeneration are concentrated
sulfur dioxide, ammonium sulfate, or a waste stream. A
number of characteristics in the processes are listed below
(154):
• Wet adsorption methods are not restricted by
temperatures or residence times within the fur-
nace.
• They can be added to existing units without
boiler modifications.
• Heat loss due to scrubbing reduces plume buoyancy
and the effluent gas stream must be reheated.
• Adsorbents have a capacity for heavy loading but
require complex regeneration unless a throw-away
system is acceptable.
• Wet adsorption techniques remove particulates and
nitrogen oxides as well as sulfur oxides.
• Mist eliminators must be included to avoid excess
plume opacity.
• Efficiencies in most wet absorption processes are
better than 90 percent.
656
-------
Charcoal adsorption systems utilize commercial acti-
vated carbon to chemisorb sulfur dioxide from the gas stream.
The sulfur dioxide is oxidized to sulfuric acid in the
presence of water vapor and oxygen. The spent carbon is
regenerated thermally. Both dry and wet adsorption technolo-
gies are available. Advantages and disadvantages of charcoal
adsorption systems are listed below:
• Smaller adsorber-desorber units are required due
to the short retention periods.
• Problems with regeneration are inherent including
loss of carbon due to carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide formation during thermal regeneration.
• Wet processes require added equipment and cor-
rosion resistant construction.
• Due to the continuous movement of the charcoal
material in the system, carbon abrasion becomes a
problem.
• Wet processes generate a; wastewater stream and
reduce plume buoyancy.
In catalytic conversion processes, gaseous sulfur
dioxide is oxidized to sulfur trioxide in the presence of a
vanadium catalyst. The sulfur trioxide reacts with water
vapor in the flue gas and is condensed as sulfuric acid.
The characteristics of catalytic conversion of sulfur dioxide
are discussed below (154):
657
-------
• It is a simple process with no catalyst recycling
required. There is no heat loss and plume buoy-
ancy is maintained.
• Corrosion resistant materials are required.
• A particulate control unit is required to remove
fly ash so that reactor plugging does not occur.
• The gas stream must be reheated to a high tempera-
ture for efficient conversion (371 to 472°C).
• A mist eliminator or electrostatic precipitator
must be added at the end of the process.
• A saleable by-product (sulfuric acid or ammonium
sulfate) is produced.
Because of the large number of sulfur dioxide removal
processes, it is not possible to discuss each one separ-
ately. A summary of known removal processes is given in
Table 134.
D-1.4 Secondary Sulfur Recovery Processes
D-l.4.1 Beavon Process
In the Beavon process, entering tail gas from primary
sulfur recovery is mixed with hot flue gas. The gas is
passed through a catalytic reactor containing a cobalt-
molybdate catalyst. Sulfur compounds are hydrogenated to
form hydrogen sulfide. The gas is then cooled. Water vapor
condenses, leaving a cool, dry gas. The gas is then passed
658
-------
TABLE 134. SULFUR DIOXIDE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES (156)
fHoccss
&..itacid
Wes;v.iro
Th,o<,
Af. "itn.j
Ai"-Mf.M,,l
f ...-!, f.)
A" ••.,,,,, 1
h,T"™
Batic aluminum
suit ate
Maiqoenum oxide
and hydioxide
(ChemtCO-tutic)
and maqne.ium
hydroxide
Formate
Citrate
Sulfidme
Organic scrubber
DMA(bnme*tone)
Re.niuft
Bolioen
Catalytic
oxidation
Aitaai./ed
alumina
Alkah
Alkaline -earth
Lignite ash
MnO, (DAP)
CuO
Liqu.d SO,
Molten
Liquid clau,
Soi>d clau*
on aiumma
F'yash
Low temperature
'eduction
Owed reduction
M.O
H,O. charcoal
H,0
H;O.O..MnSO4
N-j.CO,
NjOM.NdjSOj
v>;so,
I- CO , f , SO ,
'jiijO"
NH4OH
NH,
NM, IN,H.
1 J' i , .!l.iL
A1(OM)SO4
M9°-My(°H>I
MnO,H):'
KOOCM
Sodium cil>«tc
Xyhdine or
toluidme
Glyrol, Am me
Dimethy
analme
Activated
charcoal
Coke
fe°5ca°,'.,yst,
N,O.AI,0,
Nancohte
CaO. M«0
CaO
MnOj.ZnO
Cu • Al o.,d»i
Liduidificadon
Carbondles of
Ui. Ma. K
-
-
-
-
-
^Sfrnm
H!S0,.«,.»
H.SO, H.SOj
H.SO,
H,S04
Nj.SO,
NjMSOj
H HSr, ( K.^.Ot
SiiSl
NH4'V,O ,
'•"-
(fj .11 ) ,',0 ,
< J',C) , <.,i-,O4
AI(OSO",H)SO4
MflSO,. ' ''
Mq SO;
M,|04.MnS04.
K.S.O,
HSOj complCN
Lo« leiiipcidlure
-
SO,
SO,
-
S°!
N.^O.^.SO.
-
M,S04
CaSO,
MnS04,ZnS04
CuSO4
SO,
of (Ii. Nj.K
-
-
-
-
-
-
«( 01 Nt RATION
CaO. Mn-' CaSO4
Dilute H.SO4
H;S S. SO,
BaS S. S04'.S,04!
-
ZnO ZnSO4.ZnSO,.
2nO.Na,SO>.
SO,
tn-.liolysil «;S04
•iO,.M,«>,
H-tt!4 SO..S.
[NHjJjSO,
Sti-j" M.SOj.tjO. CaSO4.NH,^
C'."!'. I Mj
.',.0
CaO. CaCOj CiSO4. SO,
(NM4|,S04.
NHj H.SOj.
Coal S. M.S.
SO,. MnO,
Sleam.CO,.CO H,S.S
H,S S
Aantuu-. bui;)l,'>n jna Me^trneialior.
SO,
Steam SO;
Relormed CH4 S
Steam SO,. M, SO 4
- S
NHj SO,.M,SO«.
(NH4),SO,
Relormed CH4 s. H,S
so;1
CO C.CaS04.
MqSO*
SO, .CaO
NH4OH (NH4),SO4.
SO,. MnO!
CH4.H2 S
- -
C * H»O, H,S
CO * H,
H,S S
A,,O,.HiS S
Ox.fl«. CO $
Flyatn.CH4 S
Oxidts. CH4. S
CO. H,
O»id*\, CH4,C S
SAONVORtMG
OPC.AM.ZATlONS
Bati*t«et>
GATX
Allied Chemical,
TexavGulf Sulfur
Outokumpu Oy
659
-------
to a Stretford section where hydrogen sulfide is converted
to elemental sulfur. Final tail gas concentrations in the
range of 40 to 80 ppm sulfur (as sulfur dioxide) have been
reported for the process. The process flow sheet is shown in
Figure 101.
The Beavon process effectively recovers sulfur from
carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide as well as from hydrogen
sulfide. Operation of the Beavon process requires supple-
mental fuel gas. Beavon recovers sulfur in its elemental form
as a by-product. The process condensate may require further
treatment prior to discharge.
D-l.4.2 SCOT Process
Figure 102 shows a simplified SCOT process flow chart.
The catalytic reactor converts organic sulfur to hydrogen
sulfide according to the following reactions:
COS
CS2 + 2H20 - ^ 2H2S + C02 (89)
Sulfur dioxide and free sulfur react as follows:
S02 + 3H2 _ „ H2S + 2H20 (89)
S + H - - * HS (96)
2
Alkanolamine scrubbing removes the hydrogen sulfide
from the tail gas stream. The hydrogen sulfide can be
recovered in an hydrogen sulfide stripper and recycled to the
sulfur recovery process. Reports indicate treated tail gas
have a total sulfur content of 200 to 500 ppm by volume.
The SCOT process requires additional fuel gas to provide
660
-------
TREATED
TAIL GAS
FUEL GASi-
AIRf-
FEED
GAS
CATALYTIC
REACTOR
LINE
BURNER
COOLER
ABSORBER)
V
C__i
|REACTK>N!
HOLD
TANK I
T
COOLING
WATER
STRETFORO UNIT
OXIDIZER VENT
MAKE-UP MAKE-UP
'WATER CHEMICALS
l
WATER
UJ
1ST
SORBENT
SLOWDOWN
CONDENSATE TO
TREATMENT
SETTLING
TANK
—J ELEMENTAL
1 SULFUR
TO STORAGE
AIR
Figure 101. Beavon tailgas cleanup process
-------
N>
FUEL GAS ?-
AIR?-
rttu
f* AC
uMd
CATALYTIC
REACTOR
f
V
-
X.
1
1
1.
^*
~
-
•W.
X
>
— ^
LINE
BURNER
V
7
^
X
COOLER
^
-------
reducing gas and heat for the reactor section. The equip-
ment utilized is proven and removal efficiencies higher than
reported are theoretically possible.
D-2 Water Effluent Control Alternatives
Water effluent control processes may be divided into
three classes according to their treatment function, i.e.,
primary, secondary or tertiary treatment. Table 135 lists
the general classes of treatment methods and applicable
processes within each class which may be employed in a coal
liquefaction plant.
TABLE 135. PROCESSES FOR WATER EFFLUENT CONTROL
Class of Treatment
Primary
secondary
Tertiary
Equalization
Sedimentation
Neutralization
Oil and Grease
Separation
Recovery Processes
Ammonia
Phenol
Sulfur
Stripping
Biological treatment
Flocculation/flotation
Filtration
Carbon adsorption
Advanced:*
Electrodialysis
Reverse osmosis
Ion exchange
*Advanced process for sidestream treatment in water cooling
process.
663
-------
In the selection of control alternatives, the most
significant pollutants to be removed from each wastewater
stream must first be determined. Then it must be decided
whether to segregate or integrate various wastewater streams
prior to treatment. Also, it must be decided if any stream
constituents may be recovered. Once the chemicals to be
recovered and main treatment systems needed to treat various
wastewater streams have been identified, then the appropriate
pretreatment (primary) and post treatment (tertiary) methods
may be selected.
The following sections deal with the various treatment
operations included under the three classes of treatment.
D-2.1 Primary Treatment
Primary treatment units are designed to remove waste-
water stream constituents which may adversely affect the
operation of the main treatment processes and/or may be
recovered economically. Applicable primary treatment
operations are enumerated in Table 135.
D-2.1.1 Recovery Operations
In SRC systems, there are a number of pollutants,
namely, sulfur, ammonia, and phenols, which may be recovered
economically from the wastewater streams. Although they
are, by definition, auxiliary processes, they are, in
essence, primary (pretreatment) treatment processes. If it
had not been economically feasible to recover these com-
pounds, then it most likely would have been necessary to
incorporate various treatment methods into the overall
treatment process to remove them or render them harmless.
664
-------
D-2.1.2 Sedimentation
Sedimentation is a solids-liquid separation process
whereby suspended solids are separated from water and con-
centrated by gravity settling. This type of separation is
effective when the suspended solids are capable of settling
readily as is the case for domestic wastewaters. Often,
wastewaters may contain finely divided suspended matter
which does not settle easily. Chemical coagulants are
usually added in these instances to agglomerate the suspend-
ed matter into larger particles which exhibit improved
settling characteristics. Typical coagulants are alum,
ferric chloride, and aluminate. Popular coagulant aids are
bentonite, powdered carbon, activated alumina, and poly-
electrolytes.
Sedimentation removal efficiencies vary widely depend-
ing on the nature of the influent suspended matter. A well
designed and operated tank should remove between 50-60 per-
cent of the influent solids (93).
Sedimentation tanks may be either rectangular or circu-
lar. The detention times in circular tanks is usually
between 90-150 minutes with surface loading not to exceed
36.7 m3/day/m2 (93).
The design of rectangular sedimentation tanks is usually
based on the wastewater flow, solids loading, and settling
characteristics. The horizontal velocity through the chamber
is given by the following equation (93):
V = Vg L
d
665
-------
where* V = maximum horizontal velocity (ft/sec)
V_ = terminal settling velocity of the particle
s
to be removed (ft/sec)
L = length of basin (ft)
d — depth of basin (ft)
The terminal settling velocity in ft/sec may be estimated
from the following equation (93):
(PS-
o
where: p_ = density of solid particle (Ib/ft )
S
PJ0 = density of wastewater (Ib/ft3)
D = diameter of solid particle (ft)
U = viscosity of wastewater (Ib/sec-ft)
o
g = acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/sec )
Horizontal velocities are usually less than or equal to 0.3
m/s (93). This fixes the size of the chamber for a given
flow rate.
^Metric conversion factors are given in the appendices
666
-------
Tube settlers may also be used to remove suspended
matter in lieu of sedimentation basins. They essentially
act as a series of rectangular basins, where water enters
the bottom of the inclined tube settler and flows upward
through the tubes. Particles tend to move toward each tube
wall where they become entrapped in a layer of particles
previously settled. The steep incline of the tubes causes
the sludge to counterflow along the side of the tubes after
it accumulates. In then falls into a sediment storage sump
below the tubes assembly. The inclined tube settler config-
uration also requires influent and effluent chambers to
distribute the flow to the tubes and to collect if after
clarification.
Inclined tube settlers are manufactured with tubes
having various geometrically-shaped cross sections. Systems
employing flocculation with inclined tube settlers are
capable of removing particles less than 10 microns in dia-
meter (fine sand). They are usually used to clarify in-
fluent waters which have under 1000 mg/1 of suspended solids
(157). The number of tubes may be increased to provide
treatment for virtually any flow rate desired.
The horizontal velocity through the settler is given by
the following equation (151):
T, _ Vs L cos A
v 3
where: A = angle of inclination (0.0 < A < tan~
•>
Tube settlers are generally designed for flows of 3.4 x 10
to 5.4 x 10"3 m3/s/m2 (158).
667
-------
In addition to sedimentation basins, screening devices
may also be used to remove suspended solids. Separator
screens normally consist of rectangular or circular struc-
tures supporting wire mesh screens. Water is introduced
directly onto the screen surface. Solids are detained on
the surface while the screened water exits downward. Trap-
ped solids are vibrated to the outer periphery of the screen
element for disposal. Typical separator screens may remove
particles ranging from a few hundred microns in diameter to
as small as 45-50 microns (157). Screen designs are based
on the screen opening and solids loadings which can be
accommodated without blinding the screen. The sedimentation
removal rate decreases with decreasing size of particles
removed.
D-2.1.3 Steam Stripping
Steam stripping may be used to remove hydrogen sulfide,
ammonia, and phenol from a wastewater stream. Depending on
the operating temperature and pressure, the ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide content of the raw feed, the type of
system - refluxed or nonrefluxed and the number and effi-
ciency of trays or packing, approximately 98-99 percent of
the hydrogen sulfide and 95-97 percent of the ammonia pres-
ent in the raw feed stream may be removed (159). It has
also been observed that up to 40 percent of any phenols
present in the raw feed may also be removed by this process
(159).
The volume of steam required in this process has been
found to vary between 0.11 and 0.13 kg of steam per liter of
tower feed (159). As high as 0.24 kg per liter have been
used. Typical design parameters include 8-10 trays, a tower
pressure of 3.4 x 10 to 2.1 x 10 Pa, and a tower tempera-
ture of 110-132°C. The stripper volume will depend on the
668
-------
composition of the feed stream and the number of trays
required to produce the desired effluent.
This process has an advantage over air stripping pro-
cesses in that chemical addition is not required and addi-
tional compounds can be removed.
D-2.1.4 Equalization
Equalization is a process whereby the composition of a
wastewater stream is made uniform and the volumetric flow
rate constant. It is normally required when a number of
streams with highly variable chemical compositions and flow
rates are combined for treatment. The addition of equal-
ization facilities to a treatment plant improves the effi-
ciency, reliability, and control of subsequent physical,
chemical and/or biological treatment processes.
Equalization basins are normally designed with a preset
detention period for chemical mixing (i.e., 15-30 minutes)
based on the average daily flow, or, in the case of highly
variable flows, to retain a sufficient portion of the
wastewater stream, while maintaining adequate freeboard, in
order that a predetermined constant flow rate is discharged
to the treatment plant (160).
D-2.1.5 Neutralization
When biological treatment processes are used to treat
industrial wastes, the influent wastewater stream pH should
be between 5.0 and 10.0. Extreme pH wastewaters may be
adjusted within these units by the addition of acids or
bases. Common reagents used for neutralization are summar-
ized in Table 136.
669
-------
TABLE 136. NEUTRALIZATION REAGENTS
Acid Wastes Alkaline Wastes
Waste alkalisWaste acids
Limestone Sulfuric acid
Lime slurry Hydrochloric acid
Soda ash Sulfur dioxide
Caustic soda
Ammonia
Selection of neutralization reagents is based primarily on
cost considerations. Reagent solubility, neutralization
reaction rate, neutralization end products, and ease of
operation also require consideration.
The process flow scheme used for neutralization depends
on the neutralization reagent(s) employed, desired degree of
neutralization and waste flow characteristics. Depending on
the rate of waste flow, either continuous or batch-wise
neutralization is employed. Generally continuous neutrali-
_ o
zation is used when the waste flow exceeds 4.4 x 10
o
m /s. Detention times of 10-30 minutes are typical (158).
D-2.1.6 Oil and Grease Separators
Oily wastes may be grouped in the following classifica-
tions:
• Light Hydrocarbons - These include light fuels
such as gasoline, kerosene, and jet fuel, and
miscellaneous solvents used for industrial pro-
cessing, degreasing, or cleaning purposes. The
670
-------
presence of these light hydrocarbons may encumber
the removal of other heavier oily wastes.
• Heavy Hydrocarbons (Fuels and Tars) - These in-
clude the crude oils, diesel oils, #6 fuel oil,
residual oils, slop oils, and in some cases,
asphalt and road tar.
• Lubricants and Cutting Fluids - These are gener-
ally in two classes, non-emulsifiable oils such as
lubricating oils and greases, and emulsifiable
oils such as water soluble oils, rolling oils,
cutting oils, and drawing compounds. Emulsifiable
oils may contain fat, soap or various other addi-
tives.
These compounds can settle or float and may exist as
solids or liquids, depending upon such factors as method of
use, production process, and temperature of wastewater.
Primary oil-water separators are designed to remove
free oils readily separated from a wastewater stream. This
process provides a reduction in the oxygen demand of the
wastes (both BOD and COD) and reduces operational difficulties
caused by oils and grease in subsequent biological treatment
processes.
Gravity separators are most commonly used to remove
free oils from wastewaters. The difference in densities of
oil or grease and water will cause free oily wastes to rise
to the surface of the wastewater, where they are collected
and removed by skimming devices.
671
-------
The parameters considered in the design of oil-water
separators are: (1) rate of rise of oil globule, (2) minimum
horizontal area, (3) minimum vertical cross-sectional area,
and (4) minimum depth to width ratio. Design equations are
given in Table 137.
The horizontal and vertical areas and the depth to
width ratio fix the size of basin to be used.
D-2.2 Secondary Treatment
Biological treatment and flocculation/flotation are the
two main treatment processes most commonly employed for
wastewaters similar to those found in coal liquefaction pro-
cesses. When flocculation/flotation is needed, it usually
precedes the biological treatment system.
D-2.2.1 Flocculation/Flotation
Air flotation is a process whereby suspended matter,
including both suspended solids and insoluble oily wastes,
is separated from water. This process is often used in
conjunction with gravity oil/water separators when there are
significant quantities of both free and emulsified oils
present in wastewaters.
Air flotation separates oil globules from the waste-
water by introducing tiny air bubbles into the flotation
chamber. The air bubbles attach themselves onto oil glo-
bules dispersed throughout the water. The resultant buoyancy
of the oil globule - air bubble complex causes it to rise to
the water's surface where it is removed by surface skimming
devices. Air flotation processes are classified as dispersed
672
-------
TABLE 137. GRAVITY OIL-WATER SEPARATOR
DESIGN EQUATIONS (6)
(1) Vt - 0.0241 (Sw - SQ)
y
(2) Ah = F Qm/Vt
(3) Ac =
(4) d/B =0.3
where* V = rate of rise of a 0.015 cm diameter globule,
(ft/min).
S = specific gravity of wastewater at design tempera-
w ture
S = specific gravity of oil in wastewater at design
° temperature.
y = absolute viscosity of wastewater at design tem-
perature (poises).
2
A, = minimum horizontal area (ft )
o
0 = wastewater flow (ft /min)
F = correction factor for turbulence and short cir-
culating in separator (see Figure 103)
2
AC = minimum vertical cross-sectional area (ft )
V. = horizontal flow velocity (fpm), not to exceed
n 3 fpm
d =* depth of wastewater in separation (ft)
B = width of separator channel (ft).
*Metric conversion factors are given in the appendices
673
-------
OL
O
I—
O
-------
air or dissolved air depending upon the method of air intro-
duced into the flotation unit. Pressure dissolved air
flotation units are most commonly employed in industrial
wastewater treatment. The basic equation governing the
separation of oil from water is given below (158):
po~ pw)
Where*
V = terminal velocity attained by suspended
solids passing through water (ft/sec)
2
g = acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/sec )
D = diameter of suspended impurity (ft)
o
p = density of oil in waste (Ib/ft )
3
p = density of wastewater (Ib/ft )
iV
M = viscosity of wastewater (Ib/sec-ft)
Based on this principle, the following design criteria have
been recommended for rectangular flotation chambers (158):
• The ratio of depth to width should be between
0.3 and 0.5.
*Metric conversion factors are given in the appendices
675
-------
• The maximum ratio of the horizontal water velocity
to particle rise velocity is recommended to be 15.
• The maximum horizontal water velocity is recom-
mended to be 1.5 cm/s.
• The optimum length to width ratio is set at 4 to
1.
• A maximum width of 6.7 m is recommended.
Typical operating parameters are given in Table 138.
TABLE 138. AIR FLOTATION UNIT OPERATING CONDITIONS (158)
Parameter Value
Residence time in flotation chamber 10-40 minutes
Residence time in pressurization tank 1-2 minutes
Hydraulic loading in flotation chamber 41-244 1/m -minutes
Q
Oily waste loading 9.8-19.5 kg/hr-m
Air requirement (full flow operation) 0.075 scm/m
There are three basic flow schemes employed for the
pressure type dissolved air flotation process. They are
designated as full-flow operation, split-flow operation, and
recycle operation. Full-flow operation is the most general
form of the process. Split-flow operation is used primarily
to remove oily wastes from wastewaters of low suspended
solids concentration, while the recycle operation is used
when a delicate floe is present in the influent wastewater
stream. These operations are shown in Figure 104 (158).
676
-------
OILY WASTE
AIR
1
WA5TL i \*/
1
FLOCCULATING
AGENT
(IF REQUIRED)
•f^T
LJ
PRESSURE
RETENTION
TANK
1
^ FLOTATION
^ ' CHAMBER
t CLARIFTFR
EFFLUENT
AIR FLOTATION PROCESS: FULL-FLOW OPERATION
OILY WASTE
1
WASTE
FLOCCULATING
AGENT
(IF REQUIRED)
A]
r-^
[R r
\s
FLOCCULATION
CHAMBER
(IF REQUIRED)
FLOTATION
CHAMBER
1
^ i
PRESSURE RETENTION
TANK
AIR FLOTATION PROCESS: SPLIT-FLOW OPERATION
OILY WASTE
t
WASTE
FLOCCULATION
CHAMBER
(IF REQUIRED)
FLOTATION
CHAMBER
FLOCCULATING
AGENT
(IF REQUIRED)
CLARIFIED
EFFLUENT
CLARIFIED
EFFLUENT
PRESSURE
RETENTION
TANK
AIR
RECYCLE PUMP
AIR FLOTATION PROCESS: RECYCLE OPERATION
Figure 104.
Three flow schemes employed in the dissolved
air flotation process
677
-------
The efficiency of the air flotation process is depen-
dent upon the influent water characteristics. Water contain-
ing free oil is readily removed by this process, while
emulsified oil is not. Pretreatment methods, encompassing
chemical addition, usually precede the flotation chamber
when the influent wastewater contains significant concentra-
tions of emulsified oils. Coagulation/flocculation and
acidification are the most common pretreatment methods used.
Dissolved air flotation treatment efficiencies are given in
Table 139.
TABLE 139. DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION (158)
Oil Removal. Percent
Treatment Description Floating or Free Oil Emulsified Oil
Flotation without chemical 70-95 10-40
pretreatment
Flotation with chemical 75-95 50-90
pretreatment
D-2.2.2 Biological Treatment
The three basic types of biological treatment systems
applicable to coal liquefaction wastewaters are activated
sludge processes, aerated lagoons (oxidation ponds), and
trickling filters.
Important parameters to be considered in the design of
biological treatment processes are:
• BOD loading
• Oxygen availability
• Temperature
678
-------
• pH
• Toxicity
• Dissolved salts
Design parameters for various biological treatment
systems are given in Table 140.
The treatment process required for any industrial
wastewater will mainly depend on the biodegradability of the
waste, cost considerations taking into account other unit
processes which may be required, and the degree of treatment
required. For example, wastes which degrade very slowly
will require longer detention times than wastes which degrade
rapidly. This would most likely necessitate the use of
lagoon systems in lieu of conventional systems.
In addition to the basic biological treatment unit,
secondary clarifiers are also integral components of the
biological treatment system. The clarifiers serve two
functions: to settle out suspended matter from the bio-
logical aeration basin effluent and to recycle a portion of
the solids to the aeration basin.
The secondary clarifiers are normally designed for 4-6
hours detention based on the average daily flow (93).
Surface loading rates and weir loading rates do not normally
o o o
exceed 36.7 m /day/m and 126 m /day/m, respectively (93).
The recycle volume from the clarifier to the aeration basin
usually ranges from 30-100 percent of the influent flow (93).
In the case of trickling filters, there is no recirculation
of solids to the filter in standard rate filter systems. In
high rate filters, however, the recycle ranges from 100-400
percent of the influent flow (93).
679
-------
TABLE 140. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS (93)
oo
o
Loading ~
Process kg BOD/ day /nr
Activated sludge
Extended aeration
High rate aeration
Convent ional
Aerated Lagoon
Stablization Ponds
Trickling Filters
Standard rate
High rate
0.16-0.40
1.6-16.0
• 0.32-0.64
0.32-0.80
0.14-0.22
1.11
Detention Time
(hours}
18-36
0.5-2
4-8
72-240
240-720
Treatment Efficiency
(percent)
75-95
75-90
85-95
80-95
80-95
85
65-75
-------
D-2.3 Tertiary Treatment
Tertiary treatment basically consists of physical-
chemical processes which polish or refine the effluents from
secondary processes to within acceptable limits either for
discharge to surface water or for plant reuse. Some tertiary
treatment processes are filtration, carbon adsorption, ion
exchange, electrodialysis, and reverse osmosis.
D-2.3.1 Filtration
There are numerous filtration processes which may be
used to polish secondary effluent wastewaters. Filtration
processes applicable to coal liquefaction wastewaters are
given in Table 141 along with design parameters. Filtration
processes may be divided into two classes: deep bed filtra-
tion and polishing filtration. Microscreening and vacuum
filtration are considered polishing filtration while gravity
and pressure filters are considered deep bed filtration.
There are three types of deep bed filtration systems
which will be described: gravity downflow, gravity upflow,
and pressure filters.
Deep bed filtration utilizes a bed of granular filter
media to separate suspended matter from water. These sys-
tems are usually applicable up to 1,000 mg/1 of solids with
particle sizes ranging from 0.1 to 50 (161). Since the
entire filter media is available to capture solids, a clear
filtrate is produced.
Downflow filtration involves the filtration of water in
a downward direction through progressively coarser filter
media. Upflow filtration involves the filtration of water
681
-------
TABLE 141. FILTRATION PROCESSES
<*
Process
Microscreening
t
Gravity filters
Downflow
Upflow
Pressure filters
Vacuum filtration
Filter
Media
Garnet
Coal
Sand
Garnet
Coal
Sand
Garnet
Coal
Sand
Diatomaceous
Loading
(Ipm/m2)
81-407
81-244
81-244
81-244
81-407
20-41
Solids
Removal
Capacity
kg /unit area
0.14-0.23
(one layer)
0.23-0.45
(multi-layer)
0.23-0.45
0.14-0.23
___
Efficiency
(Suspended Solids
Removal)
45-85%
( 5 mg/1)
50-90%
80-90%
50-90%
90%
98%
earth
-------
in an upward direction through progressively finer filter
media. Prevention of the movement of the filter materials
is accomplished by the use of restrictive screens and grids.
Polyelectrolytes can be added to the sediment-laden influent
for further solids removal by these filters. Pressure
filters rely on pumps to force sediment-laden wastewaters
either upward or downward through a filter media.
The loading rates are essentially the same for both
gravity downflow and upflow filters. The use of upflow
filter is generally more advantageous because the filter
runs are usually longer and consequently the number of
backwashings required are reduced. The use of downflow
filters is somewhat disadvantageous because sufficient
hydraulic head must be available for successful operation of
the filter. A disadvantage of the upflow filter is loss of
filter material during the normal operating cycle.
Pressure filters are basically more advantageous than
gravity filters for wastewater applications because they can
handle higher solids loadings and higher pressure heads and
are more compact and less costly. A major disadvantage is
the difficulty encountered in servicing the filters when
they malfunction. The filter is completely enclosed.
Those parameters which must be considered in the design
of deep bed filters are available head loss, filtration
rate, influent characteristics, media characteristics, and
filter cleaning system. Media characteristics have been
found to be the most important considerations in the design
of deep bed filters. Media particle size determines the
performance and operation of the filter. It has been ob-
served to be inversely proportional to both filtrate quality
and pressure drop across the filter. A distribution of
683
-------
particle sizes (multi-media beds) enables the filter to be
utilized more efficiently in that it will not clog as readily
as a filter containing only one filter medium. Multi-media
filters consequently require less frequent backwashing.
Polishing filters such as the diatomaceous earth vacuum
filter are capable of removing suspended solids in the
micron and submicron range from very dilute aqueous suspen-
sions. Although they are capable of producing a high quality
effluent, the occurrence of varying quantities of influent
suspended solids has led to erratic operation of this filter
in tertiary treatment operations. A microscreen consists of
a rotating drum with a fine screen around its periphery.
r
Feed water enters the drum through an open end and passes
radially outward through the screen, depositing solids on
the inner surface of the screen. At the top of the drum,
pressure jets of effluent water are directed onto the screen
to remove the deposited solids. A portion of the backwash
water penetrates the screen and dislodges solids, which are
captured in a waste hopper and removed through the hollow
axle of the unit. Particles as small as 20-40 microns may
be removed by this system. Disadvantages include incomplete
solids removal and inability to handle solids fluctuations.
D-2.3.2 Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption is usually employed as a tertiary
treatment unit for the removal of soluble organic matter in
wastewaters. Approximately 70-90 percent of the influent
BOD and 60-75 percent of the influent COD may be removed by
this process when it is preceded by secondary biological
treatment (162).
684
-------
Carbon adsorption design considerations include adsorp-
tive capacity of the carbon, wastewater flow and character-
istics and method of carbon contacting. The general range
- ^ ^ ^ 9
of hydraulic flow rates are 1.4xlOto6.8x 10 m /s/m
(118). Bed depths are typically 3.3-10 m (162). The maximum
o
area for good flow distribution is 93 m (162).
The alternatives for carbon contacting systems include:
downflow or upflow contacting, series or parallel operation,
pressure or gravity downflow contactors, and packed or
expanded bed upflow contactors. Upflow beds have an advant-
age over downflow beds in that there is a minimum usage of
carbon. Upflow expanded beds are able to treat wastewaters
relatively high in suspended solids and can employ finer
carbon (reduces contact time) without excessive headless. A
disadvantage of the upflow packed bed is that it requires a
high clarity influent. The principal use of the downflow
contactor is to adsorb organics and filter suspended materials
Pressure downflow contactors increase the flexibility of
operation since they allow the system to be operated at
higher pressure losses.
The carbon dosage required depends on the strength of
the wastewater feed and the desired effluent quality. Rough
estimates of the carbon dosage required for secondary bio-
logical effluents plus filtration are 48-72 Mg/m of waste-
water (162).
Bench scale tests determine more quantitatively the
carbon dosages needed to produce a desired effluent. The
carbon column contact time (empty bed basis) is generally
6.8 x 10'3 to 3.4 x 10"2 m3/s/m2 (162).
685
-------
D-2.3.3 Reverse Osmosis
The reverse osmosis process is capable of removing
particles from water in the range of 0.0004-0.06 microns.
Removal efficiencies range from 90 to 99+ percent in most
cases (163).
The principal use of reverse osmosis is for purifica-
tion of brackish waters. It is also used as water pretreat-
ment for ion exchange deionization to make ultrapure water
for subsequent use as boiler feed, cooling tower makeup, and
washwater of essentially zero hardness. Organic matter is
also removed by this process which offers a significant
advantage over demineralization systems such as ion exchange
or electrodialysis.
Measures required to reduce the incidence of membrane
fouling represent a significant disadvantage of the reverse
osmosis process in terms of operation and cost. Membrane
fouling is due to biological growth, manganese and iron,
suspended solids scale, and/or organics. Pretreatment is
generally required to reduce the incidence of fouling which
consequently increases the capital and operating costs
considerably over other processes. Pretreatment measures
commonly used are chlorination to control biological growth,
polishing filters to reduce suspended solids levels, soft-
ening to reduce scale, and precipitation of iron and man-
ganese as ferric hydroxide and manganese dioxide.
The most important parameters considered in the design
of a reverse osmosis plant include recovery, product water
quality, brine flow rates, the necessary degree of pre-
treatment, flux maintenance procedures, and post treatment.
686
-------
3 2
The design flux, expressed in m /m /day, is a function
of the feed composition, temperature, and pressure. Given
the operating conditions and influent flow rate, the mem-
brane area required can be determined. Membrane manufac-
turers should supply these data. The product water quality
can be determined by iterative techniques from the following
equations (169):
i r - CiP (l (Vavg)
l' Cip '
Z -
2. Qf = Qc +
3. QfC.f = QCC.C + QpC.p
4' Cim
Cip - Cim
where:
C. = concentration of salt i in product stream (mg/1)
Cif = concentration of salt i in feed stream (mg/1)
0 = volumetric flow rate of product (1/min)
Qf = volumetric flow rate of feed stream (1/min)
(R.) = average salt rejection by membrane
C. = mean local brine concentration on upstream side
m of membrane (mg/1)
C. = concentration of salt i in concentrate stream
687
-------
Qc = volumetric flow rate of i in concentrate stream
(1/min)
Pretreatment and post-treatment methods are designed
based on influent water constituents and effluent limitations,
D-2.3.4 Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process whereby ions that are held by
electrostatic forces to charged functional groups on the
surface of a solid are exchanged for ions of similar charge
in a solution in which the solid is immersed. This process
is used extensively in water and wastewater treatment,
primarily for the removal of hardness ions such as calcium
and magnesium. A series of cationic and anionic ion ex-
changers (demineralization) are also often used to produce
water of high' purity for industrial applications.
The design of ion exchangers is based on the ion ex-
change capacity of the selected ion exchange resin. The
basic resin usually consists of a three dimensional matrix
of hydrocarbon radicals to which are attached soluble ionic
functional groups. There are two types of ion exchange
resins, namely, cationic and anionic. Cationic resins have
positively charged functional groups such as hydrogen or
sodium attached to the hydrocarbon radicals, while anionic
resins have negatively charged functional groups such as
hydroxide or chloride ions attached to the hydrocarbon
radicals. The ability of the resin to adsorb ions is the
ion exchange capacity expressed in kg/m3. Each resin has a
different capacity which must be specified by the manu-
facturer of the resin. Also, resins have observed pref-
erences for certain ions which must be considered in the
selection of a particular resin.
688
-------
Once the resin has been selected, the volume of resin
required may be determined from the following equation (177):
R = QT
C
where:
R = cubic meters of resin required
Q = equivalents of ions which must be removed per day
to meet certain effluent limitations (i.e. 90-99
percent removal for two stage operations)
T = selected operating period (days) beyond which the
effluent limitations will be exceeded and the resin
requires regeneration (economic selection based on
cost of regeneration chemicals and required
removal efficiency)
C = ion exchange capacity of resin in equivalents/day
The depth of the exchanger is usually at least 50
percent greater than the depth of the resin to allow for
expansion during backwash and regeneration (163).
Other factors to be considered in the design of ion
exchangers are the flow rate and volume of chemicals needed
to regenerate the ion exchange resin. Flow rates of 4.1 x
10~3 to 6.8 x 10~3 m3/s/m2 are typical (163). Typical re-
generant solutions are sodium chloride, sulfuric acid,
sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, ammonium hydroxide, and
hydrochloric acid. Cost considerations and type of ion
exchanger dictate the chemicals to be used. Since it is
6&9
-------
not the intention of ion exchangers to remove large quantities
of suspended solids, filtration usually precedes the ion
exchange process. If filtration was not normally required
for a particular wastewater, then it must be included in the
cost considerations for selecting the ion exchange process.
Typical removal efficiencies for the ion exchange
process preceded by biological treatment and filtration are
given in Table 142.
TABLE 142. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF ION EXCHANGE (93)
Vastewater Constituent Percent Removal
BOD 5^50
COD 30-50
NH3 85-98
organic nitrogen 80-95
N03 80-90
P04 85-98
dissolved solids depends on resin used
D-2.3.5 Electrodialysis
The electrodialysis process is capable of removing
particles in the range of 0.0004-0.1 microns (93). The
removal efficiency for wastewaters which have been treated
by biological processes, filtration, and carbon adsorption
is approximately 40 percent (93).
690
-------
Parameters used in the design of electrodialysis sys-
tems are dilute cell compartment velocity, cell power input,
cell current, product concentration, current efficiency,
cell resistance. Experimental analyses are usually per-
formed for a significant wastewater constituent such as
sodium chloride. The first four parameters listed above are
measured in a specific volume electrodialysis cell. The
current efficiency, required membrane area, power require-
ments, and energy requirements may be determined from the
following equations using the experimental results (163) :
) F
n
• Qd - Wtl
V (Nd) lnNf
• Ap =
Rp = (P/I2)LW
• i = I/Ao
• F
Na - C
1000(MW)
• E = P/Qd
691
-------
• NQ = Q/24(Qd)
. A = N0Ap
. Pt = P NQ
where:
Q, = flow rate in dilute compartment (ml/s)
ANi = Nf - N = difference in feed and product water
normalities
F = Faraday's constant - 96,500
I = input current (amps)
n - current efficiency
W = width of test cell (cm)
t = thickness of test cell (cm)
2
A = effective required cell area (cm )
N, = waste product concentration of wastewater
constituent (equivalents/I)
i,. « limiting current density » i (amps)
Nf = feed wastewater constituent concentration
(equivalents/I)
N = effluent wastewater constituent concentration
(equivalents/1)
692
-------
o
R = cell area resistance (ohm-cm )
C - concentration of wastewater constituent
(gm/equivalents)
MW = molecular weight of wastewater constituent
(gm/equivalents)
E = energy requirements (kWhr/1000 gal product)
N = number of cells required
2
Ao = area of test cell (cm ) = LW
P = total power required (KW)
P = test power (W)
L = length of test cell (cm)
Na = definition of normality of wastewater constituent
(equivalents/1)
P = power required per cell (W)
D-3 Solids Treatment Alternatives
This section discusses control alternatives applicable
to the treatment of sludges generated within the SRC plant
and from the operation of the wastewater treatment facili-
ties. A representative survey of applicable equipment has
been included.
693
-------
Solids treatment encompasses solids volume reduction
and/or treatment processes designed to render solid wastes
harmless for ultimate disposal by improving their handling
characteristics, reducing their volume, and/or reducing their
leachability. Typical control equipment available to accom-
plish these objectives is listed in Table 143. Each type
of equipment is discussed separately.
TABLE 143. SOLIDS TREATMENT
Volume Reduction Processes
Treatment Processes
Thickeners
Filter press
Centrifuges
Rotary vacuum filter
Lagoons
Other processes:
Moving screen concentrators
Belt pressure filters
Capillary dewatering
Rotating gravity concentrators
Wet oxidation
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Lime recovery
Heat drying
D-3.1
Volume Reduction Processes
Sludge volume reduction processes are, most often,
essential components of a wastewater treatment facility when
a significant quantity of sludge must be disposed of. Eco-
nomically, it is more advantageous to dispose of sludge which
has a low moisture content and is relatively compact. The
dewatering equipment listed in Table 143 is capable of
providing a significant reduction in the moisture content of
wastewater sludges.
694
-------
The selection of dewatering equipment depends on the
characteristics of the sludge, the method of final disposal,
availability of land, and economics involved.
D-3.1.1 Thickeners
There are three basic classes of thickeners: gravity,
dissolved air flotation, and centrifugal. Design parameters
for each class of thickener are given in Table 144 (170).
Performance of these units is dependent upon the solids
loading, hydraulic loading, and removal efficiencies.
Dissolved air flotation thickeners are preferred over
gravity thickeners because of their reliability, thicker
product, higher solids loading, lower capital cost, and
better solids capture. The operating costs, however, are
higher for the flotation unit. Centrifugal and dissolved
air-flotation units are generally used for excess activated
sludge while gravity units may be used for both primary and
excess activated sludge.
D-3.1.2 Filter Press (Pressure Filtration)
The design of filter presses depend on the quantity of
waste sludge to be processed and the desired daily filter
press operating period. Often, chemical conditioning agents
must be added to the sludge prior to being applied to the
filter press to aid in the dewatering process. Typical aids
are ferric chloride ash, and lime. It has been observed
that the moisture content of pressed sludges ranges from 40-
70 percent (164).
695
-------
TABLE 144. DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THICKENERS
\0
(*
Parameters*
Hydraulic loading
Solids loading
Air/solids rates
Percent solids inlet
Percent solids outlet
Percent solids recovery
Recycle ratio (percent)
Pressure
Flow range
Detention time (hours)
Thickener depth
P. = primary sludge A.
Gravity
P.
A.S.
NA
P. 2.5-5.5
A.S. 0.5-1.2
P. 8-10
A.S. 2.5-3.0
NA
NA
NA
24
S. * activated
Class
Dissolved
Air Flotation
Max. acceptable
0.5-1.2
4
90
30-150
NA
0.33
NA
sludge NA = not
Centrifu
Disc So
NA
NA
NA
0.7-1.0 0
4-7
80-97
NA
NA
NA
NA
applicable
fal
id Bowl
NA
NA
NA
.5-1.5
5-13
65-95
NA
NA
NA
NA
*Data presented are typical parameters used for domestic wastewater solids. Con-
sequently, thickeners do not have to be designed strictly within these limits. Also,
data on dissolved air flotation and centrifugal units are presented for excess
activated sludge.
-------
Approximately 1 to 3 hours is required to press a
sludge to the desired moisture content (93) . The whole
process, including the time required to fill the press, the
time the press is under pressure, the time to open the
press, the time required to wash and discharge the cake, and
the time required to close the press varies from 3-8 hours
(93).
Advantages of this process are high cake solids con-
centration, improved filtrate quality, improved solids
capture, and reduced chemical consumption. Disadvantages
include batch operation, high labor costs, filter cloth life
limitations, operator incompatibility, and cake delumping.
V
D-3.1.3 Centrifuges
The three basic types of centrifuges which may be used
to dewater sludges include solid bowl (countercurrent and
concurrent), basket and disc. Polymeric flocculants are
most often used with this type of equipment. The use of
flocculants is dependent upon the characteristics of the
sludge to be dewatered.
Hydraulic capacities and applications of the three
types of centrifuges are given in Table 145. The theore-
tical maximum capacities of these centrifuges are given by
the following equations (164):
For basket and solid bowl centrifuges;
T - -75-
Zg
'I2)
697
-------
TABLE 145. CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRIFUGES (165)
Centrifuge
Hydraulic
Capacity
Application
Basket
up to 227 1pm
decrease to 151 1pm
Metal hydroxide wastes, aerobic sewage sludges, water treatment
alum sludges
Solid bowl
to 151 1pm
as low as 284 1pm
Raw primary or mixed primary & biological sludges (domestic),
anaerobically digested primary or mixed sludges, and heat-
treated of limed chemical sludges. It may be applied at high
cost to excess activated sludge, aerobic digested sludges, and
alum or ferric chemical sludges. In water treatment, it is
excellent on water softened lime sludges.
Disc
vo
oo
78-1135 1pm
1151 1pm
Excess activated sludge for feed concentrations of 0.3 to 1.0
percent suspended solids.
-------
For disc centrifuges;
T _ 2 nw2
3gtan0 \ o i
where*
T = theoretical capacity
L = effective length of settling zone (ft)
w = angular velocity in centrifugal zone (radian/sec)
TCJ - radius of inside wall of cylinder (ft)
r-, = radius of the free surface of the liquid layer
in the cylinder (ft)
2
g = acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/sec )
n = number of spaces between discs
d = half the included angle of the discs
r = radius of outside measure of the disc (ft)
r, = radius of inside measure of the disc (ft)
Variables of importance which affect the performance of cen-
trifuges include bowl design, bowl speed, pool volume, con-
veyor design, relative conveyor speed, and sludge feed rate,
*Metric conversion factors are given in the appendices
699
-------
The hydraulic loadings which may be applied to each centri-
fuge is a function of Q/T, where, Q is the flowrate and T
is the theoretical capacity of the centrifuge.
Solids concentrations of 15 to 40 percent have been
observed from various centrifuges (164). Solids capture
ranges from 80-95 percent for oxygen activated sludges
(170). For excess activated sludges, a higher degree of
dewatering may be expected from a basket centrifuge than
from a disc centrifuge. Typically, basket centrifuges have
been found to concentrate solids in the range 0.5-1.5 per-
cent to approximately 10-12 percent. Given the same sludge,
disc centrifuges can concentrate the solids to only 6 per-
cent. Also, 90 percent solids capture is possible in the
basket centrifuge with no chemical addition (164).
In many cases, two or more types of centrifuges may be
operated in series to increase the solids concentration of
sludges. A typical design may include a disc centrifuge to
thicken a sludge followed by a solid bowl centrifuge.
Disc centrifuges have a high clarification capability
but possess an upper limit on the size of particle which can
be handled. Feed waters should be degritted and screened
prior to entering this equipment.
D-3.1.4 Rotary Vacuum Filters
Rotary vacuum filters consist of a cylindrical rotating
filter partially submerged in an open tank filled with the
slurry to be filtered. The filter elements can be coated
with a substance such as diatomaceous earth or other precoat
material so that particles much finer than the openings in
the filter element can be retained.
700
-------
Vacuum filters operate at low differential pressures,
on the order of 0.04-0.07 MPa (164). When a precoat sub-
stance is utilized on a vacuum filter, particles down to
about 1 micron in diameter can be removed, resulting in very
clean effluents. Influent slurries, however, usually must
be limited to less than a one precoat solids concentration.
The vacuum filter can be cleaned by hosing, internal
sluicing, or air pump backwashing.
The use of vacuum filters is governed by the media1s
opening and size distribution of particles in the sludge.
It has been observed that the solids captured by vacuum
filters may range from 85-99.5 percent depending on the type
of filter media, chemical conditioning, and solids concen-
tration in the applied sludge. Cake yields usually range
2
from 2.7 - 20 g/s/m for domestic sludges. The surface area
2
of vacuum filters generally ranges from 4.6-28 m . Estimated
performance for design purposes is usually taken to be 4.7
2
g/s/m (dry weight basis) <164),
The filtrate discharge rate and cake thickness left on
the filter may be calculated by the following equations
(165) :
= 60n f ~ 7200( P)Bn 1/2
A W
L - * n 7200B( P)nW
Lc " 515 cn
701
-------
where*
o
Zc - filtrate in gph/ft total area
n = cycles per minute
volume filtrate (gal)
A - filter area (ft2)
P = pressure differential maintained across the leaf
(psi)
B = fraction of total area actually being filtered
at any given time
= specific resistance of cake (to be calculated)
= viscosity of filtrate (Ib/sec-ft)
W * mass of dry solids/volume of slurry (Ib/gal)
c - density of cake (lb/ft3)
Wf = solids content of filtrate (Ib/gal filtrate)
L = cake thickness (ft)
The quality of the filter cake is measured by the percentage
moisture content of the cake on a weight basis. A typical
range of moisture contents which may be expected from this
equipment is 60-80 percent (164).
*Metric conversion factors are given in the appendices.
702
-------
Typical chemical conditioning agents for the raw sludge
are lime and ferric chloride.
D-3.1.5 Lagoons
Drying lagoons are most ideally used where there is a
great deal of land and the climate is hot and arid. Lagoon
depths are generally not more than 0.6m with loading rates
o
of 35-38 kg/yr/m (164). Sludge can usually be removed from
the lagoon in 3 to 5 months (164). If it were feasible to
load a lagoon for a period of 1 year and allow a drying
period of 2-3 years, then it is conceivable that the applied
sludge may be dewatered from 5 percent to 40 to 50 percent
solids (164). An obvious disadvantage of this method is the
extensive time required to obtain the desired product.
D-3.1.6 Other Systems
There are four types of dewatering systems manufactured
by various companies which do not fall into any of the
previous categories. They include moving screen concen-
trators, belt pressure filters, capillary dewatering, and
rotating gravity concentrators.
Moving screen concentrators are capable of processing
182-364 kg/hour of excess activated sludge and 364-728
kg/hour of primary sludge (164). These concentrations have
been reported to increase the solids content of primary
sludges to 20 to 30 percent (164). Typical yields vs. sludge
cake solids are shown in Figure 105. These units handle
thickened polymer treated sludges.
Belt pressure filters have been reported to produce
mixed sludge concentrations of 25 to 30 percent (164).
Polymer aids are generally used with these filters.
703
-------
— 16
fe
co
0
3 U
O
CO
UJ
$ 12
UJ
O
§ 10
co
8
RAW
ANAEROBICALLY
DIGESTED
ACTIVATED
1
I
I
I
100 200 300 400 500
YIELD I IBS/HOUR )*
600
*Metric conversion factors are given in the Appendices,
Figure 105. Moving belt concentrator yield vs.
cake solids*
704
-------
Pilot scale studies on domestic sludges using capillary
dewatering systems have indicated that loading rates of 7.25
o
g/s/m will produce cake solids of 14-19 percent with solids
recoveries of 50-90 percent (164). Polyelectrolytes and
ferric chloride were used as filter aids in these systems.
The rotating gravity concentrator has been mainly
employed as a concentrating device when more complete de-
watering was required. In one instance, it was reported
that a 25 percent filter cake was produced from a 6 percent
raw primary sludge (164). A disadvantage of the system is
the short life of the dewatering belt.
D-3.2 Treatment Processes
In addition to dewatering equipment there are numerous
processes which may be required in a wastewater treatment
plant to render solids wastes harmless prior to ultimate
disposal, to recover valuable chemicals, and/or to make sub-
sequent processes operate more efficiently. Typical pro-
cesses include heat drying, wet oxidation, pyrolysis,
incineration, and lime recovery. In many cases, one or more
of these processes may be combined with appropriate dewatering
equipment to produce sludges acceptable for ultimate disposal.
D-3.2.1 Heat Drying
Heat treatment may be used in lieu of chemical pre-
treatment to improve the dewatering characteristics of
sludges. In this process, sludge may be thickened to approx-
imately 7 to 11 percent by breaking down particle structures
within the sludge. Operating conditions are generally 182°C
and 1.2 MPa (166). The detention time is approximately 30
minutes (166). Up to 379 liters per minute can be processed
by this method. It has been observed that, in many instances,
705
-------
the moisture content of sludges may be reduced to lower
levels by using heat drying than by chemical addition.
D-3.2.2 Wet Oxidation
The wet air oxidation process is based on the principle
that any substance capable of burning can be oxidized in the
presence of liquid water at temperatures of 121°-371°C. It
is excellent for waste sludges which do not dewater easily.
Typical operating conditions are given in Table 146. Figures
106, 107, and 108 provide operating conditions as a
function of each other.
TABLE 146. WET AIR OXIDATION PROCESS
OPERATING CONDITION (172)
Operating Condition Value(s)
Feed COD'25-150 g/1
Temperature 149-316°C
Pressure 2.1-13.7 MPa
COD reduction 5-80%
VSS reduction 30-98%
Four important parameters which control the performance
of the oxidation process are temperature, air supply, pres-
sure, and free solids concentration. The degree and rate of
sludge solids oxidation are significantly influenced by the
reactor temperature. It has been observed that higher
degrees of oxidation and shorter retention times are possible
with increased temperatures. The air requirements are based
on the heating value of the sludge and the degree of oxida_
tion desired. Operating pressures must be carefully con-
trolled to prevent excess water vaporization in the oxidation
reactor.
706
-------
350 400 450 500 550
TEMPERATURE I
600
650
*Metric conversion factors are given in Appendix B.
Figure 106. Steam-to-air ratio at saturation in the
reactor vapor space for various operation temperatures
and pressures (166)
707
-------
coo
(GM. OF 02 REQUIRED PER LITER OF SLUDGE)
/t
100
80
60
40
20
- 8.9 % SOLIDS, PRIMARY SLUDGE
11.4% SOL IDS,
6.2% SOLIDS,
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
- 2.0%SOLIpS,pR1MARY
100 ZOO 300 400
TEMPERATURE (°F)*
500
600
Figure 107. Reduction in COD resulting from sludge being
exposed to excess air for one hour at various
temperatures -(166)
PERCENT OF
MATERIAL OXIDIZED
100
60
60
40
20
572 °F*
482 °F
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
REACTION TIME (HOURS)
3.0
*Metric conversion factors are given in Appendix B.
Figure 108. High operation temperatures result in
high COD reduction and low reaction time (166)
708
-------
Advantages and disadvantages of the process are listed
in Table 147.
TABLE 147. WET OXIDATION PROCESS
Advantages
Disadvantages
does not require dewatering
no air pollution
produces easily filtered and
biodegradable end products
potential to generate or recover
steam, power and chemicals
flexible in degree of oxidation
and type of sludge handled
need stainless steel con-
struction materials
need to recycle wet air
oxidation liquors, high in
organic content, phosphorus,
and nitrogen back through
the plant
possible frequent shut-down
and maintenance problems
odor problems
D-3.2.3
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis involves the destruction of longchain organic
materials by high temperature exposure. Retorts, rotary or
shaft kilns, or fluidized beds are used to pyrolyze waste
sludges. This process has been proposed as an alternative
to incineration since it partially disposes of solid wastes.
Volume reduction also occurs in the process. It has an
advantage over incineration methods because it eliminates
air pollution problems and produces useful by-products.
Little data has been published, as yet, on the pyrolysis of
sludges.
D-3.2.4
Incineration
Incineration is a two stage process including drying
and combustion. It is most often used to render offensive
sludge wastes harmless so that the sludge may be safely
disposed of in landfills. The most commonly used incinera-
709
-------
tion processes are the multiple hearth furnace and the
fluidized bed furnace.
Considerations important in the design of incineration
processes are the following:
• familiarity with state and local air and water
quality regulations and with occupational, health
and safety standards
• nature and amount of sludge to be incinerated
• applicability of incineration processes to sludge
treatment
• auxiliary fuel and excess air requirements
• economics
The composition of industrial sludges may vary so widely
from one plant to another that standard incineration pro-
cesses are usually not applicable. Hence, special incin-
erators must be designed to handle the complex compounds
found in these sludges. Often more than one incinerator
must be provided to combust complex organic materials
formed in the first incineration process.
Multiple hearth furnaces have been adapted to numerous
uses including burning of raw sludge, digested sludge and
sewage greases; recalcination of lime sludges; and pyrolysis
operations. Capacities generally range from 91 to 3636
kg/hr dry solids (166). Combustion zone temperatures range
from 760 to 927°C) (166). Fluidized bed incinerators are
most often used for sewage sludge disposal. Capacities
710
-------
range from 100 to 2273 kg/hr dry solids (166). Operating
temperatures range from 704 to 816°C (166).
Although well-designed incinerators are relatively
simple to operate and maintain, a major disadvantage result-
ing from the process is the air emissions which must be
controlled. Advantages and disadvantages of incineration
are listed in Table 148.
TABLE 148. INCINERATION
Advantages
Disadvantages
Less land required for disposal
of incinerated sludges
Incinerator residue is free of
food for rodents and insects
Incinerators can burn a variety
of refuse materials
Adverse weather conditions
should have no effect on incin-
eration process
Incineration construction is
flexible
Large initital expenditures
Disposal of remaining residue
must be provided
Air pollution
Possible incomplete reduc-
tion of waste materials
High stacks needed for
natural draft chimneys
present safety problems
D-3.2.5
Lime Treatment
Lime treatment is a process whereby lime is recovered
from a waste sludge. Economic considerations dictate whether
or not this process should be included in industrial waste-
water treatment facilities.
The lime treatment process typically includes dewater-
ing devices such as thickeners or vacuum filters, centri-
fuges, a furnace, lime cooler, classifier, and lime storage
711
-------
unit. The design of thickeners, vacuum filters, and furn-
aces has been previously discussed. Contactive (direct)
heat transfer methods may be used to cool the resultant
furnace residue prior to directing it to the classifiers.
Centrifuges (also previously discussed) may be used prior to
the furnace to purge the sludge of inert solids. They also
reduce the required furnace volume. Dry classifiers are
used after the furnace to separate the calcium oxide from
the residue. This is accomplished by air separations based
on particle size. The regenerated calcium oxide is then
sent to a lime storage tank for reuse.
D-4 Final Disposal Alternatives for Solid Wastes
There are numerous wastes resulting from SRC systems and
from the operation of wastewater treatment facilities which
may be ultimately disposed of on land. Wastes discharged to
land may be in the liquid or solid phase. Typical land dis-
posal methods include spreading on soil, lagooning, dumping,
landfilling, composting, spray irrigation, and evaporation
ponds. The first five are considered sludge disposal techni-
ques while the latter two are considered liquid waste disposal
techniques. State, federal, and local regulations, avail-
ability of land, applicability of ultimate disposal processes,
and economics will dictate which of the aforementioned methods
may be employed to ultimately dispose of liquid and solid
wastes.
D-4.1 Sludge Disposal
Land disposal of sludges includes the application of
sludge on soils used for crops or other vegetation, and the
stockpiling of sludges on land. Stockpiling refers to the
disposal of sludges in mines, quarries, landfills, and
712
-------
permanent lagoons. An inherent disadvantage of land dis-
posal is that it is not a permanent solution because the
sites fill and new locations must be found.
D-4.1.1 Land Spreading
Land spreading encompasses the disposal of sludge on
soils used for crops or other vegetation and on lands oc-
cupied by abandoned strip mines. Sludge may be spread on
the land as a soil conditioner or as an organic base for
fertilizers (biological sludges). It also serves as a
source of irrigation water. Other areas where land spread-
ing may be applicable are forest regeneration, development
of new parklands and institutional lawns, and top dressing
for parklands.
There are six acceptable methods of land application
including: plow furrow cover, contour furrow, trenching,
subsod injection, spray or flood irrigation, and spreading
(solid) (167). The application method selected will depend
on physical properties of the sludge, quantity of sludge,
acceptable application rate, site characteristics, crops
grown, site management, and public acceptance. Land spread-
ing of both liquid and dewatered sludges are feasible by the
above methods. An analysis of liquid sludge transport costs
vs. dewatering equipment costs must be undertaken when there
are no regulations restricting the moisture content of the
sludge to determine the most economic means of sludge
disposal.
Spray and flood irrigation systems are applicable only
to the disposal of liquid sludges. This method may be used
year round with proper maintenance on crop covers located on
713
-------
0.5 to 1.5 percent sloping lands (167). Power requirements
may be significant when stationary application systems are
used. Flood irrigation is less costly than spray irrigation,
but can only be used in basin shaped sites. Problems re-
sulting from this method include fly breeding, odors, and a
tendency of solids to settle out near the outlets.
The plow furrow cover method may be used for both
liquid and dewatered sludge application. Sludge may be
applied in a plow furrow manner using trucks, wagons or
irrigation systems. This method eliminates odor and pest
problems but is not usable on wet or frozen soils and on
highly sloped lands.
Contour furrows are normally used for the application
of liquid sludges. This method leaves the soil in only a
partially plowed condition.
Subsurface injection is reserved for the disposal of
liquid wastes. The site must be level or slightly sloped
and must not be wet, hard, or frozen.
Trenching may be used for both liquid and dewatered
sludges. Problems encountered with this method include
possible groundwater pollution and difficulty in keeping the
sludge where placed during backfilling operations.
Spreading applies only to the disposal of dewatered
sludges. This method encompasses the spreading of sludges
on reasonably dry solid surfaces with bulldozers, loaders,
graders or manure spreaders, and plowing it under.
714
-------
It has been recommended that several alternative land
spreading methods should be made available at each site to
coincide with weather conditions, presence of crops, poor
quality sludge (odors) and equipment breakdown.
D-4.1.2 Lagooning
Sludge lagooning is a simple and economical method of
sludge disposal especially in remote locations. Sludges can
be stored, indefinitely in this type of system or removed
periodically to other sites after draining and drying.
Lagoons are usually 1.3 to 1.7 meters deep. This method is
usually feasible only when there are large tracts of land
available for dedication to lagoons.
D-4.1.3 Dumping
Dumping is a process whereby stabilized sludge is
deposited in abandoned mines and quarries. Where available,
this provides an alternative to other disposal methods.
D-4.1.4 Landfills
Sanitary landfills are the most widely used type of
landfill. In many cases, it is permissible to mix domestic
and industrial waste sludges for disposal in a sanitary
landfill.
Criteria commonly used in the selection of a suitable
landfill site include the following:
• The site should have a relatively low permeability
and low water table.
715
-------
• The site should be far enough away from surface
water bodies or shallow wells.
• A liner and drain system is recommended at the
site.
• The site should be covered with an impervious
layer to maximize runoff.
• Vector control should be provided.
• A wooded barrier should be provided.
Sludges applied to a landfill site should be dewatered as
much as possible to minimize the quantity of free water
which may leach out of the sludge.
Application rates will depend on sludge composition,
soil characterisitcs, climate, vegetation, and cropping
o
practices. Loading rates of 0.056 to 11.2 kg/m are common
(166).
Problems associated with the use of landfills include
the following:
• groundwater pollution
• surface water pollution
• land requirement
• health hazards
716
-------
D-4.1.5
landfill gases (explosive)
aesthetic effects on neighboring communities
Composting
Composting requires larger.tracts of land than other
stabilization methods and produces a solid product which
must be disposed of. Its uses are similar to those for land
spreading, namely, as a soil conditioner and organic base
for fertilizers. Considerations with regard to site selec-
tion and maintenance are also similar to land application
methods previously discussed. Land requirements are 0.17
o
m /kg of sludge using the forced air, static pile process.
Advantages and disadvantages of the process are listed in
Table 149.
TABLE 149. COMPOSTING
Advantages
• odor free product
• easy to store product
• able to return nutrients
and organics to soil
• nitrogen levels are
reasonably low
Disadvantages
• cost of transport to com-
posting site may have high
levels of heavy metals
• requires large tracts of
land
• product requires further
disposal
D-5 Accidental Release Technology
Accidental releases of pollutant materials from a coal
conversion process are very similar to those encountered in
a conventional petroleum refinery. Generally, there are two
main categories of accidental releases: material spills,
and gaseous venting during emergency operating conditions.
717
-------
Spills are the result of leaks from tanks, pipes, valves,
and fittings; ruptures in storage and process equipment;
overfilling of tanks; and poor operation and maintenance
processes in general. Material spills in coal conversion
plants are mostly on land rather than on water. However,
land spilled pollutants may find their way into the aquatic
environment via groundwater contamination, so proper pre-
vention, control, and cleanup procedures are essential to
maintain environmental integrity.
Provisions must be made to handle huge quantities of
process gases released by pressure release valves during
emergency operating conditions. These emergency conditions
occur due to compressor failures, loss of cooling water,
vessel overpressure, power failures, fires, and other emer-
gency conditions. It is common practice to tie all emer-
gency relief valve outlets, along with any continuous waste
gas streams, into a common header system that vents to a
flare system.
Preventive and countermeasure techniques will be
discussed with respect to material spills within the plant.
A description of the types of flare systems that can be used
for emergency venting will then -be discussed.
D-5.1 Material Spill Prevention
There are a number of engineering practices which can
be applied to a material spill prevention program and they
are discussed below:
Leaks from storage tanks seem to be an ever present
source of soil and groundwater contamination in oil refin-
eries. Leaks develop when the tank bottom undergoes sig-
718
-------
nificant corrosion, and so many prevention practices involve
the control of tank corrosion and include:
• Insure that structural materials are compatible
with the material being stored.
• Assess structural integrity for conformance to
code construction.
• Contained water promotes corrosion. Proper
methods for draining water from tank bottoms
should be employed. Figure 109 shows several
commonly used methods for draining tank bottoms.
It is also possible to develop automatic methods
employing oil/water interface sensors such as
density sensors, conductivity sensors, and diel-
ectric constant sensors.
• Repair of leaks and corrosion must be prompt,
no matter how minor. Leaks may be repaired by
patching while the tank is in service, and numer-
ous products are commercially available for
patching.
• Buried carbon steel tanks should be coated,
wrapped, and lined. Depending on the nature of
the soil, cathodic protection may be appropriate.
Partially buried carbon steel tanks can set up
galvanic corrosion and increase the rate of cor-
rosion at the soil/air interface.
719
-------
SLOPE
HATER
.
;"
MATCH
Figure 109. Tank bottom drainage systems (168)
720
-------
i Tanks should be examined periodically for evidence
of external leakage (especially bottoms). This
examination may consist of visual inspection,
hydrostatic testing, and/or nondestructive shell
thickness testing.
Shell thickness may be measured by ultrasonic
analysis. Inspection records should be kept on a
frequency basis that is consistent with the his-
torical failure rate of tanks in the same service.
• Corroded tanks should be lined and coated with
epoxy. This treatment fills small pits and cre-
vices and prevents inside corrosion.
Normally, tanks are sandblasted to remove rust,
dirt and scale which not only prevents product
contamination but prepares the interior surface
for epoxy coating. The coating needs to be sel-
ected for its compatibility with the material
stored. X-ray analysis will locate pits and
crevices.
• Deteriorated bottoms should be replaced with
inverted cone-type bottoms. Figure 110 illu-
strates one technique for replacement of tank
bottoms.
• Mobile storage tanks should be isolated from
navigable waters by positioning and containment
construction.
One of the most common sources of leaks and spills
is the mobile storage tank such as the diesel fuel
tank used for construction machinery. It is
721
-------
I
UAL me
AROUND
CKCUHFIUfNCE
tOTTOA
T
• IM
t \
tS? «
FILL
.
COMOOCO MTTOM
.
Figure 110. Tank bottom replacement (168)
COIL *
-
VISUAL
^
COIL o
AUTOMATIC
V
STH TJUf
V
' —
. SIM
*
INSPECT IM JUMf
CONDEHSATE
G *L**M
1
'COWXICTIVITY
1^ SENSO*
f U 1»
COMOENSATE
'
•
Figure 111. Internal heating coil monitoring system (168)
722
-------
usually a simple task to dig a small pit or con-
struct temporary dikes around the tank.
• The condition of foundation and supports of tanks
should be assessed regularly.
In order to allow for adequate inspections and
possible structural calculations, up-to-date
drawings of the tank, foundation and structure
must be maintained. Records of inspection should
be kept for future reference.
• If a tank has internal heating coils, the conden-
sate from these coils must be monitored for oil
content.
Condensate oil content can be monitored visually
or automatically. Figure 111 depicts the visual
method using an inspection sump and the automatic
method using a conductivity probe.
• Condensate from heating coils should be directed
to oil/water separator or similar systems.
• Heating coils should be tested, maintained and
replaced as needed.
• External heating systems are preferable to inter-
nal heating coils.
Typical external systems use plate coils which are
placed on the outside of the tank near the bottom.
Plate coils are bolted together and equipped with
723
-------
a band that can apply pressure to the contact
surface between tank and coil for improved heat
transfer.
• Internal condition of tank should be checked dur-
ing every clean out maintenance.
Overfilling of storage tanks is a frequent cause of
accidental spills. Preventative engineering techniques are
listed below:
• Tanks should be carefully gauged before filling.
• High level alarms and pump shutoff devices should
be in place.
Figure 112 shows a control system that will auto-
matically stop a tank from overfilling. The sig-
nal generated by the level alarm can be used to
close the inlet valve, stop the pump or both.
• Overflow pipes connecting to adjacent tanks should
be in place.
• Automatic gauges and fail-safe devices must be
tested periodically.
• A communication system between pump operation and
tank gauging operation should be available.
A number of preventive techniques are available with
respect to storage tank rupture and boilover:
724
-------
'
.
y-v
( } ALARM
XTX
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
'TO ADJACENT TANKS
'
. .
Figure 112. Tank filling control system (168)
725
-------
• Insure structural integrity by code construction.
• Relief valves for excessive pressure and vacuum
should be in place.
Many types of relief devices are possible. One of
the most common is a pressure release manhole in
the tank top which provides a large opening that
can quickly relieve any pressure buildup.
• Safety relief provisions should be tested period-
ically.
• Adequate fire protection facilities must be avail-
able.
Even tank maintenance practices, such as tank cleaning
and water drawoff, can generate material spillage and us-
ually do. Pollution problems can be minimized by practicing
the following guidelines.
• Water drawoff from crude storage should go to
oil/water separator or oily sewer system.
• Water drawoff must be accomplished under con-
trolled conditions with fail-safe devices, direct
supervision, visual inspection, etc.
• Tank bottoms (sludge) during cleanout should be
disposed of promptly.
• Temporary containment should be provided for
bottom sludge.
726
-------
Underground pipes, valves, and fittings have a high
leak potential due to their susceptibility to corrosion.
The following practices should be considered when installing
and maintaining underground piping systems:
• Corrosion resistant pipe is preferable.
• Carbon steel pipe should be coated and wrapped
(coal tar, asphalt, waxes, resins, fiberglass,
asbestos, etc.).
• Cathodic protection system should be in place
where surrounding soils contain organic or car-
bonaceous matter such as coke, cinders, coal, acid
wastes, or other conditions. A soil resistivity
survey may be in order.
There are companies that specialize in cathodic
systems and they provide routine inspection ser-
vices.
• Corrosion inhibitors should be used in piped pro-
ducts where internal corrosion is found and the
inhibitor is compatible with the product.
• Marking lines should be obvious to prevent damage
by third party excavators.
• Block valves should be located at strategic loca-
tions and periodically checked for operability.
• Insure that pipe meets specifications codes.
727
-------
• Pressure drop fail-close devices should be in
place. If the pressure in a line changes, then
alarms can be activated and shutdown procedures
initiated.
• Check valves to insure one-way flow should be in
place where required.
• Rate of flow indicators should be in use.
• Pipe corridors should be inspected visually.
• Pipe lines should be hydrostatically tested
periodically.
• Accoustical or magnetic testing equipment should
be used to check for leaks.
• Condition of pipe should be checked and recorded
when construction activities expose buried lines.
• Inventory of emergency repair equipment and fit-
tings should be maintained.
• All abandoned lines should be removed, plugged or
capped.
Above-ground piping systems also exhibit potential for
leakage. Proper preventative techniques are as follows:
• Frequent inspection should be made.
• Protection from vehicle collision should be used.
728
-------
• Abrasion around pipe supports should be controlled.
• Pressure drop fail-close devices should be in
place.
• Block valves should be installed at strategic
locations.
• Rate of flow indicators should be in place.
• A preventive maintenance program should be in
force.
• Inventory of emergency repair equipment and fit-
tings should be maintained.
• All abandoned lines should be removed, plugged or
capped.
If a storage area spill does occur, the spill should be
contained by a system of dikes, which should surround each
storage tank. Dikes must be constructed to accommodate the
maximum expected spill volume. Adequate freeboard allowance
for rainfall retention is imperative. Dikes should be
stabilized with an impervious coating such as asphalt, clay,
or concrete, so that leak potential is minimized. Material
of construction should be of an erosion-resistant nature.
With respect to maintenance, the following guidelines should
be established as practice.
• A program of dike inspection and maintenance
should be in force.
729
-------
• Vegetation on earth dikes should be controlled.
• Through-the-dike pipes no longer in use should be
removed or plugged.
• Breaches made in dikes for maintenance purposes
should be minimized. Build ramps for vehicle
access.
Even if the diking system is adequate and well main-
tained, overspills or leaks may occur due to a problem with
the containment area drainage valve. The following general
practices should be employed:
• Positive shutoff valves should be used, instead of
the flapper type.
• Full operational range (positive open and closed)
should be assured.
• Valves should be locked in closed position.
• Visual indicator should be installed in the
drainage system
• Easy access to drainage valves should be main-
tained.
• All weather operation should be assured, and no
debris should be present in the valve area.
When draining dikes of oily water or stonnwater, the fol-
lowing guidelines should be practiced:
730
-------
• Retained water should be checked for oil con-
tamination before release.
• Contaminated waters should go to oily water sewer
(oil/water separator system).
• Storm waters (uncontaminated) can be routed to the
stormwater drain.
• Records of drainage operations should be kept.
Miscellaneous practices that do not fit into any one cate-
gory are listed below:
• A closed drainage system should be installed at
sample locations.
• A maintenance and housekeeping program for drain-
age ditches and sewer inlets should be followed.
• Flooding of separator facilities must be precluded
by retention, designing separator for stormwater
flow and installing connected spare pumping
capacity. Such designs may be governed by NPDES
regulations.
• Procedures for minimizing concentrated oil dumps
to the separator (sample coolers, bleed valves,
etc.) must be followed.
• Absorbents are preferable to flushing to sewer
during maintenance of piping and equipment.
731
-------
• Security should be observed through limited access
lighting, fencing, patrols, alarms, etc.
• Overpressure release valves should be installed on
all process vessels to prevent plant losses and
subsequent material spills.
D-5.2 Material Spill Countermeasures
A material spill contingency plan indicates procedures
to be followed in the event that a spill occurs. There are
four phases to a material spill contingency plan: detec-
tion, containment, recovery, and disposal.
D-5.2.1 Detection
Suitable detection methods must be employed, so that a
material spill, no matter how minor, can be detected quickly,
Although large spills usually receive immediate attention,
this may not be true with smaller spills, whether continuous
or intermittent. Frequently, small spills go unnoticed and
unreported unless suitable detection methods are used. Some
methods lie midway between prevention and detection.
Periodic inspections are essential. A complete survey
can identify potential problem areas for periodic or con-
tinuous surveillance. Target areas should include heavily
eroded stream banks where pipeline crossings occur, points
of pipeline exposure, and any area where construction or
excavation work is in progress. Generally, observation
methods are marginally effective, and companion methods
should be employed.
732
-------
Oil sensitive'probes can be located throughout a drain-
age system of a potential spill. When a spill occurs, feed-
back to a central control panel will immediately identify
the location. Two types of probes are predominant: a
conductivity type which depends on an induced change in the
dilectric constant, and an ultrasonic type which is trig-
gered by a change in viscosity. These units will signal the
presence of oil in an area but not the source location of
the spill.
Tagging may be used to identify both the source of a
leak and the spread. This consists of adding coded mater-
ials to the stored or piped materials and then periodically
analyzing drainage samples for their presence. The mater-
ials used must satisfy the following criteria:
• ^Physically and chemically stable
• Readily identifiable
• No effect on commercial uses of material
• Soluble and dispersible in the material, yet
insoluble and nondispersible in water
• Inexpensive
Examples of tagging substances include halogenated aro-
matics, nitrous oxide, and radiochemicals. Tagging has not
been widely used because of cost and complicating factors.
733
-------
D-5.2.2 Containment
In the event that storage tanks are undiked or a
material spill extends beyond the diked area, diversion
systems, such as a catchment basin containing an oil trap,
should be available. These should be designed to contain at
least the amount of stored material plus sufficient excess
capacity to insure complete interception. The primary
separation of oil from the water should be accomplished as
early in the system as possible so that the problem of
handling large volumes of oil/water mix is minimized.
Should a spill take place outside the confines of a
drainage system, a temporary dike or diversion trench must
be constructed. The location would depend on expected
direction and rate of flow. Information concerning these
two factors, and in particular their relationship to tempera-
ture, should be included in a reaction plan.
Materials and equipment necessary for the construction
of diversion or holding structures should be on hand. Bar-
riers may be manufactured or improvised from a wide variety
of materials including wood, plastics and metal. In some
cases, locally available materials such as hay bales and
sandbags will suffice. Aside from the requirement for
mechanical strength, other considerations would include
susceptibility to heat in the event of a fire and softening
or cracking in the presence of some mineral oil components.
Equipment that should be available includes standard exca-
vation machinery and tools and commercially marketed booms.
734
-------
BALLAST FILLED
PLASTIC SKIRT
Figure 113. "Navy" boom (169)
CHAIN LINK FENCE
Figure 114. Kain boom (169)
735
-------
LEAD-BOAT
12 BOAT
TURBULENCE AND
LOSS Of OIL AT
THIS SHARP BENO
• — -
gg.
Qfti *•
o-
>'
ABRIDGE
•—SLUICEWAY
SKIMMER
—PUMP
TANK
BOWSTRING TENSION
LINE REDUCES SHARP
BEND IN BOOM
Figure 115.
Boom/skimmer configuration for oil
spill cleanup (169)
STAGNATION LINE
/."o
ojy—BUBBLE PLUME
Figure 116. Circulation pattern upstream of an
air barrier in a current (169)
736
-------
Surface tension modifiers inhibit the spread of oil in
water. When relatively small quantities of these chemicals
are placed on the surface next to the floating oil, the oil
is repulsed and tends to agglomerate. Application is sim-
ple; only a small amount need be used, applied as a coarse
spray on the water at the edge of the spill. The effects
last only a matter of hours, so cleanup plans should be
implemented as soon as possible. As with any chemical,
approval for the use of surface tension modifier must be
obtained from appropriate governmental agencies.
D-5.2.3 Recovery
Numerous harvesting devices and various removal tech-
niques exist for handling harbor and inland spills. Sor-
bents are oil spill scavengers, cleanup agents which adsorb
and/or absorb oil. Based on origin, sorbents may be divided
into three classes:
• Natural products include those derived from veget-
ative sources such as straw, seaweed and sawdust;
mineral sources such as clays, vermiculite and
asbestos; and animal sources such as wool wastes,
feathers and textile wastes.
• Modified natural products include expanded per-
lite, charcoal, silicone-coated sawdust and
surfactant-treated asbestos,
• Synthetic products include a vast array of rubber,
foamed plastics, and polymers. Table 150 details
the effectiveness of various materials.
737
-------
TABLE 150. SORBENTS RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS (169)
00
Pick-up ratio-weight Unit cost absorbent $ cost of absorbent for
Type material oil pick-up/weight ab- ($/T absorbent) cleanup of 1,000-gal. oil
sorbent spill*
Ground pine bark, undried
Ground pine bark, dried
Ground pine bark
Sawdust, dried
Industrial sawdust
Reclaimed paper fibers, dried,
surface treated
Fibrous, sawdust and other
Porous peat moss
Ground corn cobs
Straw
Chrome leather shavings
Asbestos, treated
Fibrous, perlite and other
Perlite, treated
Talcs, treated
Vermiculite, dried
Fuller's earth
Polyester plastic shavings
Nylon-polypropylene rayon
Resin type
Polyurethane foam
Polyurethane foam
Polyurethane foam
Polyurethane foam
Polyurethane foam
0.9
1.3
3
1.2a
1.7
3
1.0
5 .
3-5b
10
4
5
2.5
2
2
3.5-5.5
6-15
12
70
15
70
40
80
6
15
15
56
30
30
30
indicated comparable
to straw in cost.
500
416
230
70-120
25
100
3,100
20,000
4,500
2,260
1,200
27
47
50
75
21
27
440
290
320
120-210
80
900
1,000
1,050
195
55
Another reference gives a ratio of 20
*1000 gal - 3785 liters
Other reports have indicated ratios of 20 and above
-------
The requirements for a satisfactory sorbent include the
following:
• Aids in handling and removing oil
• Minimizes spread of oil
• Is nontoxic
• Enhances performance of booms and other skimming
devices
Removal of soil on water may require skimming. Skim-
mers may be purchased commercially or built for a particular
application. Additionally, they may be floating, fixed, or
mobile (mounted on boats, barges, trucks, etc.). The type
of skimmer depends on its probable application. Of primary
concern is its capacity in terms of total fluid handling
volume, recovered oil volume, and pumping rate. These
factors should be compatible with the expected utilization.
Of secondary importance is the size, seaworthiness, speed,
maneuverability, and other skimmer characteristics. Figure
117 shows the classes of skimmers.
Once the spill has been contained, it is usually re-
moved and disposed of with a vacuum truck. One or more of
these should be permanently assigned to the installation.
If this is not the case, outside contractors must be iden-
tified and made familiar with the site facilities.
An underground water supply may be endangered by a land
spill. A considerable portion of the oil can be removed by
excavating the contaminated soil before the oil has reached
great depths. The extent or depth to which this would be
739
-------
ROTATING BELT
COLLECTION WELL
fe£
INVERTED ENDLESS_BELT
ROTATING
DISKS
FIXED WIPER
COLLECTION
'TROUGH
OLEOPHILIC DISK
TO PUMP
TO PUMP
HYDRO-ADJUSTABLE
SAUCER WIER
SIMPLE SAUCER WIER
DEFLECTOR
ROATS
TO OIL PUMP
SOOEEZE
ROTATING POROUS
WATEfl PUMP
VOBTEX WIER
WATER
•WATER
r
OLEOPHILIC BELT
TO PUMP
OVERFLOW WIER
CALM REGION TO PUMP
AOVANCING WIER
WATER
DOUBLE ADVANCING WIEB
BROADCAST SORBENT
RECOVERY OIL SOAKED SORBENT
WATER
Figure 117. Classes of skimmers (169)
740
-------
economically feasible is a function of the type of oil as
well as the underlying soil structure.
Oil from a land spill may reach the water table. If
its viscosity is not too high, large amounts may be recovered
by pumping. A well is drilled, centered in the spill, and
screened at a depth no further than the oil/groundwater
interface. In the pumping process, a cone of depression of
the oil/water interface will be formed and will prevent oil
from spreading further. At first the pump should extract
oil exclusively; it should extract progressively more and
more water. The amount of pumping is a function of recovered
oil, spilled oil, and oil retained by the soil. Generally,
pumping should stop when the oil/water ratio becomes less
than 1 percent.
Spills eventually reach the plant drainage system;
therefore, the site treatment facilities play a significant
role in the oil removal process. Various types of sepa-
rators are in use. Besides the classical API type, there
are gravity plate separators and a host of multistage
separators, some equipped with coalescence filters. In
addition, there are other devices that employ proprietary
methods ranging from ultrasonic treatment to polyelectrolyte
injection.
Separation is ideally followed by physical-chemical
treatment. This will incorporate some sequence of coagula-
tion, flocculation, sedimentation and possibly air flota-
tion. The remaining petroleum fraction can be removed by
biological treatment. The activated sludge process is
commonly used, often in conjunction with an aerated lagoon
and a trickling filter. Following a dewatering step, the
sludge may either be incinerated or hauled off for land-
filling operations by a local contractor.
741
-------
D-5.2.4 Disposal
Slop oil which has been recovered prior to reaching the
drainage system or which has been separated in the initial
step of the treatment system can be disposed of in several
ways :
• Recycling recovered oil back into the plant pro-
cess is the most common and the most economical.
This is done by bleeding the slop oil into the
feedstock over a period of time. Any impurities
picked up during recovery of the spill are removed
along with the usual bulk, sediment, and water.
Any emulsions which have been formed can be broken
using chemical agents and heat. As long as exten-
sive "weathering" (evaporation of volatile com-
ponents) has not significantly affected the fuel
quality, this method can be used.
• Reclaiming recovered oil for other uses is a less
desirable alternative. It is economically feasi-
ble only when the oil is not amenable to blending
with the feedstock. This is normally done by an
outside contractor equipped with appropriate re-
refining facilities. These might include steam-
ing, filtering, and additive rebalancing. Such
contractors frequently specialize in storage tank
and sump cleanout operations as well.
• Burning is another method of final disposal of
oil, particularly nonreclaimable sludges. Large
amounts can efficiently be disposed of in this
manner with the help of combustion agents or by
blending with lighter grades of fuel such as
742
-------
kerosine. The mixture is then atomized and burned.
This course of action requires careful control to
obtain complete combustion to avoid air pollution.
• Dispersing. Dispersants are chemical agents which
emulsify or solubilize oil in water. Their use is
governed by Annex X of the National Contingency
Plan. They should not be employed except when
other methods are inadequate or infeasible.
t Sinking. As oil weathers and becomes more dense,
there is a natural tendency of the residual frac-
tion to sink. This phenomenon depends, of course,
on the type of oil involved in the spill. Oil can
be made to sink by application of a nucleus of
high density material having an affinity for the
oil (oleophilic property) and not having an affinity
for water (hydrophobic property). The resulting
mass of material then settles to the bottom.
Typical oil sinking agents include sand, fly ash,
lime, stucco, cement, volcanic ash, chalk, crushed
stone, and specially produced materials such as
carbonized-silicanized-waxed sands. These are
effective on thick, heavy, and weathered oil
slicks.
The major problem in sinking oil is that the
bonding of the agent with the oil must be nearly
permanent. Many agents will release oil back into
the environment after a period of time or as a
result of agitation and turbulence. Microbial
action on the oil-soaked particles also produces
gaseous by-products which give the particle a
tendency to float.
743
-------
D-5.3 Fugitive Emissions Control
Hydrocarbon vapors and particulate matter are released
to the atmosphere from storage tanks or piles and leaks from
pipe and process vessels flanges. Emissions from storage
tanks are due to several mechanisms that occur simultaneously
as the tanks become warmer. The vapor within the tank
expands and is released to the atmosphere, carrying hydro-
carbons with it. The higher temperature also raises the
equilibrium partial pressure of the hydrocarbons. In an
effort to maintain equilibrium, more hydrocarbons are evaporat-
ed from the vapor phase. These evaporated hydrocarbons dis-
place some of the vapor phase, causing further venting. Vent
emissions from storage tanks can be controlled by the
following practices:
• Eliminating the vent and building a tank which is
strong enough to withstand the expected pressure
• Installation of a floating roof, thereby minimizing
the vapor phase and allowing for changes in the
volume of the stored hydrocarbons with temperature
• Passing the vented hydrocarbons through a control
unit such as an adsorber.
These control methods can not only recover valuable
hydrocarbons for use or for sale. They also decrease the
hazard associated with the handling and storage of these
materials. Moreover, in many cases, they improve the
working conditions for operating personnel.
Leaks from pipe systems and process vessel flanges will
occur and present yet another source of fugitive emissions.
744
-------
Guidelines for the prevention of fugitive emissions from
piping systems and process vessels are listed below:
• Tighten all flanges
• Replace leak-prone threaded couplings with flanges
or welded joints
• Gasket materials and pump seals should be corrosion
resistant and compatible with the process fluid
• Double sealed or canned pumps should be employed
• Rupture disks should be installed under relief
valves, to avoid leaks if a valve reseats im-
properly
• Preventative maintenance and inspection programs
for above-ground and buried pipelines should be
set up. These procedures are similar to those
discussed under material spill control
• Double-pipeline systems for leaks monitoring of
buried pipelines should be considered
• The number of flanges, valves, and pumps should be
minimized while provisions for promt isolation of
leaking sections and disposition of their contents
must be planned with great care
• Prior to maintenance work or routine disassembly,
material scavenging systems should be used, such
as evacuating a process vessel using a compressor
or purging the vessel with an inert, gas.
745
-------
Fugitive dusts from coal, sulfur and SRC storage will
generally be of a highly variable nature, depending on
environmental conditions. Particle sizes are generally in
the 1 to 100 micron range (169). For relatively small storage
piles, such as sulfur storage, enclosures with particulate
control apparatus must be weighted against outside storage
piles using organic polymer coatings for dust control. For
larger storage piles, such as the raw coal pile, enclosure
is infeasible.
746
-------
APPENDIX E - Baseline Factors for SRC-II Development
E-l Planning and Design Factors
To a large extent, the planning effort conducted before
the construction and operation of a commercial synfuels
facility will greatly influence the magnitude of impacts.
The development of acceptable and viable coal liquefaction
technologies will entail the application of effective plann-
ing and design programs, from conceptualization to commer-
cialization, during a period of 15 to 20 years. The scope,
pace, and objectives of such activities will be influenced
by the evolving national energy plans that combine initia-
tives to increase domestic energy supply, decrease domestic
energy demand, and provide emergency preparedness measures
(138).
Implicit to these efforts will be the development of
research programs that will provide the following items:
• The location of alternative sites distributed geo-
graphically in the national interest.
• Technical information needed to verify plant
design, establish precise operating procedures and
plant reliability and the cost-effectiveness of
emissions control technology.
• Environmental and industrial hygiene information
needed to support and improve plant siting and
design, assess impacts on the physical, biological
and socioeconomic environments, and to prepare an
overall synfuels development plan that is coor-
dinated with the land use, transportation, and
747
-------
other plans of local and state agencies. The
development plan should specify criteria for
preventing adverse environmental impacts on air,
water, and land during the construction and opera-
tion of the facility, and set forth the appropriate
ecological and health effects monitoring and
surveillance programs that would extend from the
preconstruction through the construction stages
and the operational and post-operational stages
(e.g., for at least 40 years). Also desirable
would be the development of procedures at an early
date for state and county inputs into specific
project decisions (138).
E-2 Government Rulemaking Factors - Environmental
Requirements
Following closely upon the recent enactment of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, and the 1977 amendments to the Clean
Air and the Clean Water Acts, representatives of major
industrial groups (petroleum, power, transportation and
chemicals), have expressed much concern over several items
that they perceive as a threat to their economic well-being
(138); these issues are discussed here because of their rele-
vance to an emerging synthetic fuels industry. The issues
are as follows:
• Existence of an apparent "dollar crunch" to cover
the cost of applying the best environmental
control measures by the affected industries (138).
• An apparent consensus that existing environmental
regulations are arbitrary and have been promulgated
748
-------
without sufficient federal research to ascertain
their cost-effectiveness (138).
The belief that the existing regulatory philosophy
is based mainly on technological feasibility, with
little or no regard to environmental need or
benefit; this approach is perceived by some as
wasteful in the control of toxic substances, in
that the technologies for achieving new regulatory
standards have yet to be fully demonstrated
(138),
The opinion that blind adherence to the zero-risk
concept is inconsistent with governmental legisla-
tion and regulatory control in other areas such as
auto traffic safety, radiation exposure and quality
control for manufactured products (136).
The new amendments to the Clean Air Act will cause
licensing delays, increase the cost of building
and operating power plants, reduce the number of
suitable sites for building new power plants, lead
to the loss of economics of scale by forcing
construction of smaller plants, and generally
limit industrial growth (138).
The TSCA chemical inventory reporting requirements
will increase the manpower needs of power plants
through the requirement that by-products sold or
used at levels greater than 45 Mg (100,000 pounds)
per site requires the filing of comprehensive
reports because, under TSCA, such outputs
would make it necessary to classify the power
plant as a manufacturer of chemical substances
(138).
749
-------
• The Clean Water Act requires industrial discharges,
because of the stringent technology-based water
quality requirements, to meet these standards
while oftentimes ignoring the fact that municipal
discharges and nonpoint stormwater discharges
continue to pollute the waters (138).
• The opinion that improved mechanisms are needed to
provide additional opportunities for industry
groups to interface with regulatory agencies,
particularly during the early stages of the rule-
making process and prior to the publication of new
regulations in the Federal Register (136).
• The consensus that the federal government should
require long range planning for the construction
of energy facilities, consider all relevant socio-
economic factors, and provide for full citizen
participation in the decision making process. In-
addition, it was recommended that EPA should pro-
mulgate new ambient air quality standards as soon
as significant risks of harm to the health of the
general population are established (138).
One rather interesting aspect of these concerns voiced
by the industrial sector has been the recognition by President
Carter that the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air and Clean
Water Acts will have economic and resource impacts of their
own, and that these impacts will require close analysis.
The extent to which these factors will likely affect the
U.S. Department of Energy Alternate Fuels Demonstration
(AFDP) Program for a synthetic fuels technology cannot be
fully assessed at this time. However, the proposed AFDP
reportedly includes provisions for conducting performance
750
-------
tests on various types of environmental control equipment,
on the premise that the best available technology will be
identified for use by the synthetic fuels industry (AFDP).
Whatever the outcome, the Congress has passed laws that are
perceived as capable of protecting environmental quality.
The DOE position on the impacts of existing regulations and
standards is to give a higher priority to research directed
towards producing cost-effective control technologies than
to the determination of the impacts of alternative levels of
control. In the final analysis, however, commercialization
of any synfuels technology will largely be controlled by the
extent to which national standards and criteria can be met
(138).
E-3 Source Factors and Their Interactions
Discussions of pollutant releases and characteristics
for nonpoint and point sources during the construction and
operation phases of SRC liquefaction system and likely
interactions between SRC source factors and the various
abiotic and biotic features of a hypothetical site in White
County, Illinois were addressed given in a previous report
(47). Beyond these data, it appears fruitful to discuss the
influence of variations in the operating parameters of an
SRC facility on pollutants and their characteristic effects
in by-product and product streams. For example, the rank
and origin of the coal feed may influence the yield, distri-
bution, and compositon of the product as well as the composi-
tion of waste streams (63). The kinds and quantities of
trace elements in coal can act either to inhibit the lique-
faction catalysts, or to act as catalysts themselves (43).
At the relatively low reactor temperatures of the SRC process
(less than 500°C) the chemical composition of the coal tar
pitches varies widely with the nature of the coal feed, the
751
-------
temperatures, program, residence time, and the maximum
temperature (43) .
A major concern with regard to the effect of temperature
on the production of carcinogenic agents in the SRC process
is that the amount of these agents in coal tar pitches
produced at less than 450°C, was reportedly very small while
at temperatures between 450° and 560°C the amount of known
or suspected carcinogens (primarily polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons) increased markedly (43). Table 151 summarizes
the general effects of using higher versus lower temperatures
for coal conversion processes. Additional research will be
required to resolve these and related problems associated
with the SRC liquefaction process.
TABLE 151. EFFECTS OBSERVED FOR TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS
USED DURING FOSSIL FUEL PROCESSING OR CONVERSION
Quantities Observed Quantities Observed
With High Process With Low Process
Temperature «500°C) Temperature (<500°C)
Aromatics greater less
PAHs greater less
Carcinogens greater less
Cancer rate among coke greater less
plant workers
Another point relating to the temperature factor is
that of the boiling point of various fractions of the SRC
product. For example, laboratory studies show that the car-
cinogenic potential of oil fractions having boiling points
above 260°C is greater than that for oil fractions with
boiling points below 260°C (43). However, it has been
reported that SRC liquefaction oils will be less carcinogenic
than coal tars, but likely more hazardous than petroleum
crude (43).
752
-------
E-4 Dissipative Forces
Contaminant dissipation in abiotic environments is one
of the least explored ecological subjects, yet it has a
great deal to do with the ability of people and entire
ecosystems to resist or to recover from exposure to pollutants;
this fact stems from the principle that the eventual effect
of a contaminant is largely determined by the duration and
level (or dose) of the exposure. However, strict confirma-
tion of the dose-response concept has not been made at the
ecosystem level (43). Suffice to say that physical dissipa-
tive forces act to establish the physical half-life of many
organic contaminants in air, water, and soils.
Another aspect of the role of physical dissipative
forces is seen in the ability of mobile organisms (including
man) to detect the presence of ambient contaminants and then
move away to areas of lower stress. Immobile organisms
often respond to contaminants by sharply curtailing their
rate of filtration or feeding activities (43).
The operation of these forces leads to the establishment
of the biological half-life of many inorganic and organic
contaminants in various media.
The most striking biological dissipative forces at the
level of the organism include:
• Species-specific control of the permeability of
cell membranes and tissues, thereby securing a
slow or rapid absorption rate irrespective of
dose.
753
-------
• Storage of potentially toxic chemicals in fat,
bone, and protein depots.
• Metabolic detoxification (i.e., degradation) of
organic contaminants, converting them either to
innocuous forms or to forms more toxic than the
parent substance. Passage of degradation compounds
across a food web can produce serious effects on
higher life forms.
At the ecosystem level, the forces of physical dissipa-
tion and biological degradation provide the chief resistance
mechanisms. Stress on ecosystems occurs in two forms, acute
and chronic. In a chronically stressed ecosystem, the
inference is usually made that losses of a given organic
contaminant are partially offset by a continued fresh input.
Under these conditions, the most sensitive species may be
decimated or lost, but if sufficient species diversity
exists, there can be restructuring of the ecosystem over a
period of time. Adaptation normally is greatest among the
microflora and insects having short generation times. Some
evidence suggests that continued exposure to certain contamin-
ants can induce an enhanced capacity for biodegradation at
many, and perhaps all levels of the ecosystem (43).
With reference to acute ecosystem stresses, periodic
acute contamination stresses may provide the greatest prob-
abibility of damage. Sudden losses of key (or sensitive)
species could trigger extensive ecosystems changes; this
condition is particularly important for airborne contaminants
Large quantities of all volatile organic contaminants and
many aerosols can be transported for long distances, trans-
formed oxidatively in the atmosphere, and then deposited on
vegetation and surface waters, sometimes with destructive
754
-------
effects (171). The problem of assessing the risks associated
with the development of a synfuels technology will require
the delineation of the reversible from the irreversible
effects on ecosystems and on human populations (171).
E-5 Development and End Impacts
The socioeconomic impacts resulting directly from the
construction and operation of a synfuels industry are termed
development impacts; those resulting from the interplay
between the primary development impacts (e.g., land area
required by the plant and conjunctive developments, or the
workforce) are termed end impacts. As pointed out elsewhere,
because the potential end impacts could be almost as varied
as that of existing local communities (e.g., highly site
specific), it is generally more instructive to "match" the
development impacts of synfuels industry with the existing
features of selected illustrative impact communities (171).
In turn, these results can be compared with data from a so-
called average U.S. county, as shown in Table 152. The
comparison of predicted operating and maintenance costs
versus existing local expenditures reveals that differences
in perceived public service needs between the population
associated with the synfuels plant and the native (original)
population, could produce political conflicts regarding the
scale and the type of budgetary allocations, tax assessments,
and the already established loyalties between the citizens
and public officials (171). Further details on these and
related comparisons are found elsewhere (171).
The importance of the analysis of end impacts by use of
comparisons between impact communities and an "average" U.S.
county situation is that it serves to flag needed policy
decisions and actions that, if taken early, could greatly
755
-------
TABLE 152. END IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A
HIGH-BTU GASIFICATION PLANT (138)
Factor (a)
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
CRAFTSMEN, FOREMEN, OPERATIVES
MALE EMPLOYMENT
Total
Average Earnings (Dollars)
Employment Rate
FEMALE EMPLOYMENT
Total
Average Earnings (Dollars)
Employment Rate
PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT
Agriculture
Mining
Manufacturing
POPULATION
Urban
Rural
Total
MIGRATION RATE
During 1960 's
During Early 1970' s
CITIES AND TOWNS (Number)
2,500-5,000 Population
5,000-10,000 Population
10,000 and Over Population
POPULATION AGE GROUPS
Ages 5-17
Ages 18-39
Ages 65 and Over
OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS
Non-White
Honstandard Households
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Total (Million Dollars)
Per Capita (Dollars)
HOUSING STOCK
Single-Family Units
Mobile Home
Multi-Family Units
Total
Adjusted Total
Plant
Development
Impacts (b)
f4,240(c)
\1,610
f2,640(c)
\ 390
1,130
12,200
•*
480
9,400
—
-
700
-
3,350
-
3,350
-
—
-
-
—
960
1,360
110
-
fl,450(c)
\ 240
22
6,500
680
280
170
1.130
-
Illustrative Impact Communities
A-
1,690
140
1,340
6,300
96Z
360
3,700
29Z
960
10
0
0
4^900
4,900
-35*
-10Z
0
0
0
1,660
970
410
410
310
15
3,010
1,400
90
80
1,570
0
B
4,470
850
2,750
10 ,POO
882
1,720
4,100
53Z
610
50
120
9,020
3.150
12,170
-17t
-2Z
0
1
0
3,540
2,820
1,550
100
1,280
50
4,120
3,130
260
920
4,310
3,100
C
4,800
2,070
3,610
13,200
93Z
1,200
4,400
36Z
600
1,320
150
7,190
5,770
12,960
+101Z
-37Z
0
1
0
3,770
4,170
620
120
810
67
5,190
1,790
1,670-
490
3,950
3,150
D
15,200
5,370
9,850
11,000
75Z
5,310
4,100
37Z
380
2,250
1,430
25,310
27.200
52,510
-26Z
+28Z
1
0
1
18,430
13,760
2,570
18,960
4,500
170
3.230
11,520
1,590
1.640
14,750
7,550
E
26,100
11,350
17,010
9,200
83Z
9,130
4,600
. *2Z
1,720
1,330
7.260
16.500
59.500
76,000
-7X
OZ
1
2
0
19,080
18,170
9,280
150
6,580
273
3,590
19,770
1,270
4.400
25,440
5,530
Avar***
U.S.
County
24.550
7,710
15,270
11,200
85Z
9,280
5.300
49Z
910
200
6.360
47.890
17.280
65.170
^
•
0.6
o.s
0.6
16,830
8,760
6,450
8,170
6,230
300
4,610
15,060
590
6.050
21,700
15,070
(continued)
756
-------
TABLE 152. (continued)
Factor (a)
LAND REQUIREMENTS
Plant and Community Develop-
ment (Acres)
Extraction Land (Acres) (e)
Total (Square Miles) (£)
LAND SUPPLY (Square Miles)
1Z Total Land Area
Gently Sloping Land
Federal Administration Land
LAND VALUE (Thousand Dollars)
As Farmland
Market Value Farm Production
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COSTS
VERSUS LOCAL DEBT OUTSTANDING
Total (Thousand Dollars)
Per Capita (Dollars)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
VERSUS CURRENT LOCAL EXPEN-
DITURES
Total (Thousand Dollars)
Per Capita (Dollars)
LOCAL TAXING DISTRICTS (Number)
MUNICIPALITIES (Number)
Plant
Development
Impacts (b)
821
(d)
(d)
-
-
—
-
-
16,090
3,540
2,000
600
-
-
Illustrative Impact Communities
A
821
5,500
9.9
20
1,100
500
800
120
490
100
1,560
380
16
4
B
821
1,600
3.8
40
1,310
1,110
180
30
1,680
140
4,240
350
19
2
C
821
1,600
3.8
50
2,380
890
140
20
6,700
520
8,940
690
4
1
D
821
7,100
12.4
55
3,580
4.810
310
40
6,250
120
18,070
340
12
3
E
821
4,800
8.8
380
0
2,400
280
20,760
270
25.400
330
62
25
Average
ir.s.
County
821
(d)
(d)
12
-
-
-
-
19,230
300
25,744
400
21
6
(•)" All costs and revenues are' expressed in 1975 dollars.
(b) All values are for the operational phase except as noted.
(c) Peak construction.
(d) Varies by coal region.
(e) Land required over 20 years
(f) Sun of plant, community development and mining land.
757
-------
temper the predicted impacts. For example, early community
action prior to the time that a synfuels technology becomes
operational could (138):
• Report the potential for friction among racial,
ethnic, age, or income groups in the impact com-
munity.
• Reduce the front-end financing problems of local
government.
• Increase job opportunities for various groups of
local residents.
• Assist planning for the transition to a post -
synfuels situation after the plants are closed
down.
• Assist local business and financial groups to
respond to housing and secondary employment needs.
• Enhance the beneficial effects of the synfuels
development on the existing local infrastructure.
• Improve the coordination responses of state,
local, and federal agencies in meeting the problems
of synfuels development.
E-6 Standards Applicable to SRC Development
E-6.1 State Emission Standards
The following tables are a summary of selected state
emission standards (organized according to EPA region)
758
-------
TABLE 153. PENNSYLVANIA STANDARDS FOR CONTAMINANTS
Particulates - unspecified process
For effluent gas discharge rates greater than 8500
dscm/min, 458 mg/dsctn is allowed.
Particulates - petroleum refineries
20 kg/metric ton of liquid feed
Visible Emissions - unspecified process
Opacity equal to or greater than 207<> is not allowed for
aggregate periods of more than three minutes in any
hour. Additionally, 6070 opacity may never be exceeded.
Opacity due to uncombined water mists is excluded in
determining opacity levels.
TABLE 154. APPLICABLE AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS
IN WEST VIRGINIA
Coal Preparation
Drying and Handling
Particulates - for volumetric flow rates greater
than 6800 scm/min., the allowable emission rate
is 0.16 g/scm.
Air Table Operation
Particulates - 0.11 g/scm
Manufacturing Process Operations
Particulates - for process weight rates exceeding
45,500 kg/hr the allowable emission rate is 9.6
kg/hr.
Smoke - no smoke darker than No. 1 on the Ringlemann
Smoke Chart is permitted. No smoke darker than
No. 2 on the Ringlemann Smoke Chart is permitted
for more than five minutes in any sixty minute
period.
759
-------
TABLE 155. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PETROLEUM
REFINERIES IN KENTUCKY
Particulates
1.0 kg/metric ton 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.
TABLE 156. APPLICABLE ILLINOIS EMISSIONS REGULATIONS
New Fuel Combustion Emission Sources
Sulfur Dioxide
For actual heat input > 264 x 10 kJ/hr resulting from
the burning of solid fuel exclusively, S02 emissions must be
exceed 0.5 kg/million kJ.
Nitrogen Oxide
For actual heat input > 264 x 10 kJ/hr resulting from
the burning of solid fuel exclusively, NO emissins must not
exceed 0.3 kg/106 kJ.
Carbon Monoxide
For actual heat input > 10 M Btu/hr, CO emissions must
not exceed 200 ppm corrected to 50 percent excess air.
Emissions should not exceed 0.043 kg/10 kJ actual heat
Fugitive Particulate Matter
Emissions should not exceed
input using solid fuel exclusively over a period of one hour
(continued)
760
-------
TABLE 156. (continued)
Particulates
Discharge of particulates from new process sources during
a one hour period shall not exceed the allowable emission
rates specified by the following equations:
Process weight rate < 450 tons/hr
E = 2.54 (P)°-534
Process weight rate > 450 tons/hr
E = 24.8 (P)0-16
where
E = allowable emission rate in pounds/hour
P = process weight rate in tons/hour
Waste Gas Disposal
Organics
Emissions from any petroleum or petrochemical manufactur-
ing process should not exceed 100 ppm equivalent methane.
TABLE 157. NEW MEXICO EMISSIONS STANDARDS
FOR COMMERCIAL GASIFIERS
Constituent/Operation Standard Remarks
Particulates
Briquetting 69 mg/scm Based on heat input to
General operations 69 mg/scm fi boiler
Gas burning boiler 0.013 kg/100 kJ
(continued)
761
-------
TABLE 157, (continued)
Constituent/Operation
Standard
Remarks
Hydrogen sulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbon oxysulfide
(Any combination)
General operations
Hydrogen cyanide
General operations
Hydrogen chloride
General operations
Ammonia
General operations
Storage
Sulfur dioxide
100 ppm (total)
14 mg/m3 (hydrogen
sulfide)
11 mg/nT
7.4 mg/m~
17.4 mg/nT
Gas burning boilers 0.07 kg/10 kJ
Sulfur
6
General operations 0.003 kg/10 kJ
Based on heat
input to boiler
Based on heat
input to feed
Hydrocarbons
Storage - for a vapor pressure greater than 0.1055 kg/cm2
a floating roof, vapor recovery and disposal system or equiva-
lent control technology is required.
Loading systems - vapor collection adapters are required.
762
-------
TABLE 158. NEW MEXICO EMISSIONS
STANDARDS FOR REFINERIES
Constituent Concentration Remarks
(Metric)
Mercaptan 0.11 kg/hr New facilities
o
Carbon monoxide 573 mg/m ~ Existing faci-
22,900 mg/mj lities
TABLE 159. TEXAS EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR FOSSIL FUEL
BURNING STEAM GENERATORS
Constituent Concentration Remarks
Particulates0.13 kg/106- kJ24 hr max (2)
0.04 kg/10° kJ 2 hr max (3)
Suflur dioxide 1.3 kg/106 kJ
Nitrogen oxides 0.30 kg/106- kJ 2 hr max (4)
0.21 kg/10? kJ 2 hr max
0.11 kg/10b kJ 2 hr max
(1) applicable for heat inputs greaters than 2640 x 10 kJ/hr.
(2) solid fuel burners
(3) gas and liquid fuel burners
(4) standards apply to opposed fire, front fired, tangential
fired-steam generators, respectively.
763
-------
TABLE 160. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PETROLEUM
REFINERIES IN COLORADO
Particulates
1 kg/metric ton
307o 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 0.0507o
carbon monoxide by volume.
Sulfur Dioxide
Emissions may not exceed those resulting from fuel gas
containing 230 mg/dscm of hydrogen sulfide.
TABLE 161. SELECTED SOUTH DAKOTA INDUSTRIAL
EMISSIONS STANDARDS
Fuel Burning Installations
Particulates
0.13 kg/106 kJ of heat input
Sulfur Oxides
1.3 kg/106 kJ of heat input
Nitrogen Oxides
0.09 kg/106 kJ 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
764
-------
TABLE 162. APPLICABLE WYOMING EMISSIONS REGULATIONS
New Fuel Burning Equipment - Sulfur Dioxide
0.09 kg/10 kJ input (applicable to coal burners)
New Fuel Burning Equipment - Nitrogen Oxides
0.30 kg/10 kJ input (applicable to nonlignite coal
burners)
Stationary Sources - Carbon Monoxide Requirement
Stack gases shall be treated by direct flame after burner
as required to prevent exceeding ambient standards.
Stationary Sources - Hydrogen Sulfide Requirement
Gases containing hydrogen sulfide shall be vented, in-
cinerated, or flared as necessary to prevent exceeding
ambient standards.
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
F _ 17 01 22 OOP ton/day n .,
E - 17.31 ^24 hr/day) 0'16
E = 17.31 (917)0'16 - 51.6 Ib/hr = 23.4 kg/hr
TABLE 163. ARIZONA AIR QUALITY GOALS
Constituent
Particulates
Nonmethane hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Photochemical oxidants
Concentration
100
80
7
80
«ffi
g/nr
g/m3
Remarks
24 hr max.
3 hr max.
(6-9 A.M.)
8 hr max.
1 hr max.
Standard Conditions:
Temperature = 16°C «
Pressure =1.03 kg/cm
765
-------
TABLE 164. INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS IN ARIZONA
Particulate Emissions - Process Industries - General
E - 55.0 p0*1:L-40 (E - 17.31 p°'16 for Phoenix-Tucson Air
Quality Control Region)
where:
E = max. allowable emission rate (Ib m/hr)
P - process weight rate (ton m/hr)
For commercial SRC plants:
E - 55'° 2°(S4°hr/day)ay U-40 = 75'2 lb m/hr - 165'4 kg/hr
E - 17.31 p°'16 = 50.8 lb m/hr - 111.9 kg/hr (Phoenix-Tucson)
Suflur - other industries
Requirement: a minimum of 907, removal
Storage of volatile organic compounds
(for storage capacities of 65,000 gallons or greater)
Requirement = A floating roof is required for compounds with
vapor pressure greater than 2 lb/in2 but less than 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.
TABLE 165. EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES AND FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT IN ALASKA
Visible Emissions 207o opacity*
Particulate matter 114.4 mg/m3
(coal burning equipment)
Sulfur compounds (as S02) 1310 mg/m3
+Denotes that the standard may not be exceeded for a total of
more than three minutes in any hour.
766
-------
potentially applicable to development or operation of SRC
facilities.
E-6.2 Air Pollutants Associated with SRC
E-6.2.1 Regulated Pollutants of Concern and Sugges-
tions for Environmental Goals Relative to
SRC Systems
For the reasons discussed previously, the MEGs are
probably the best suggestion for environmental goals.
Adverse environmental effects which may become a problem
when these concentrations are approached are found in Section
5 of this report.
E-6.2.1.1 Phenols
Because of its low volatility, phenol is primarily of
concern as a water contaminant rather than an air contaminant.
Only in the workplace does the potential air emission of
phenol present any health or ecological concern. OSHA
standards limit the workplace concentration of phenol to 19
mg/m3.
In Fort Lewis pilot plant studies, essentially all air
samples showed less than 0.04 ppm of phenol and less than
0.01 ppm of the three type of cresols. Xylenols, ethyl-
phenols and other higher phenols were not detected (135).
The highest airborne phenol concentration detected is
o
0.03 mg/m (0.008 ppm), which is about two orders of magni-
tude below the permissible occupational exposure level of 19
o
mg/m (5 ppm) for phenol (135).
767
-------
E-6.2.2 Alkanes, Alkenes and Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Emission limitation of hydrocarbons from SRC facilities
would be imposed primarily through New Source Performance
Standards. Hydrocarbons may be emitted to the atmosphere by
incomplete combustion, leaks in hydrocarbon by-product
transfer, evaporation from aqueous effluent of cooling
streams during slurry mixing, or emission of flue gases from
coal, char, and oil combustion.
Petroleum storage at refineries requires specified con-
trol technology, depending upon the vapor pressure of the
hydrocarbons. Storage vessels must be equipped with either
a floating roof or a vapor recovery system or equivalent.
Similar controls could, foreseeably, be imposed on SRC
product storage.
In addition to New Source Performance Standards, the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards specify the maximum
permissible atmospheric level of nonmethane hydrocarbons to
o
be 0.16 mg/nr. The enforeceability of such an ambient level
standard has increased and will continue to increase with
the implementation of the Clean Air Act. If nonmethane
hydrocarbons were to be included in determining prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) increment limitations,
then the building of coal liquefaction facilities in certain
areas could conceivably be restricted on the basis of such
ambient level regulations.
E-6.3 Summary of Most Stringent Water Quality Standards
(118)
The following compilation represents the most stringent
criteria as established by the individual states, regions,
768
-------
and countries considered for this project. It must be
emphasized that this compilation represents an analysis
based on numerical considerations only; compliance with
these criteria should, in all probability, allow construction
at any location. However, engineering design based on the
following criteria may result in over design, and this
should be considered for any cost data developed that are
based on the criteria.
E-6.3.1 General Criteria for Receiving Waters
The following minimum water quality procedures should
be applicable to all receiving waters, and such waters
should be:
• ' Free from substances that will cause the formation
of putrescent or objectionable sludge or bottom
deposits.
• Free from floating debris or other floating mater-
ials. (Alternate: Free from floating debris or
other floating materials in amounts to be unsightly
or deleterious).
• Free from substances producing color, or odor to
the water. (Alternate: Free from substances
which produce color or odor in amounts to be de-
leterious or to such degree as to create a nuisance)
• Free from substances in amounts which would impart
an unpalatable flavor to fish.
• Free from substances which would be harmful or
toxic to human, animal, plant, or aquatic 1ifo.
769
-------
(Alternate: Free from substances in amounts which
would be harmful or toxic to human, animal, plant
or aquatic life).
• Free from substances or conditions in concentrations
which would produce undesirable aquatic life.
(Alternate; Add to above, "Free from nutrients
entering the waters in concentrations that create
nuisance growths of aquatic weeds and algae").
• Free from toxic substances, heated liquids or any
other deleterious substances attributable to
sewage industrial wastes or other wastes. (Alter-
nate : Add to above, in amounts which would affect
public health or the desirability of the beneficial
water use).
Acid mine drainage control measure applicable to coal
processing include:
• Surface and ground water shall be diverted where
practicable to prevent entry or reduce the flow
into and through the mine workings.
• Refuse from the mining and processing of coal shall
be handled and disposed of in a manner so as to
minimize the discharge of acid mine drainage to
streams.
• Discharge of acid mine drainage to streams shall be
regulated to equalize the flow of daily accumula-
tion throughout a 24 hour period.
770
-------
E-6.3.2
Specific Water Quality Standards - Receiving
Waters
The following table illustrates specific water quality
criteria which should apply to all waters:
TABLE 166. SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS -
RECEIVING WATERS
Substance to condition
Limitation
pH (range)
Temperature
Dissolved oxygen
Color
Turbidity
Total colifonn bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria
Settleable solids
Dissolved solids
Oil and grease
7.0-8.8 (Br. Columbia)
1C0 Rise (Canada-Federal)
60°F (Alaska-Washington)
85°F (North Dakota)
9.5 mg/1 (fresh water)
7.0 mg/1 (Marine water)
5.0 mg/1 (Probable average)
None
15 Color units (other criteria)
No increase
10 JTU* (Probable average)
50/100 ml
10/100 mg (Domestic water
supply)
200/100 ml (Probable average)
None (Essentially free)
200 mg/1 - (Pennsylvania)
100 mg/1 (Br. Col., fresh
water)
None
10 mg/1 (Others)
*JTU - Jackson Turbidity Units.
(continued)
771
-------
TABLE 166
Substance to condition
(continued)
Limitation
Radioactivity
Odor and/or taste
Total dissolved gas
Hardness
Persistent organic contamin-
ants (harmful to human,
animal, or aquatic life)
Toxic substances
BODs (Deoxygenating waste)
Gross beta - 100 pCi/1
Strontium - 2 pCi/1
Radium 226 - 1 pCi/1
Alpha emitters - 3 pCi/1
None
3 threshold odor number
(Probable average)
100% of saturation
95 mg/1, max. 30 day average
(Delaware River Basin
Commission)
Substantially absent (North
Dakota)
Persistant toxicants - 1/2
of 96 hour TLM
Nonpersistant toxicants -
1/10 of 96 hour TLM
30 mg/1
Table 167 below, illustrates chemical pollutants which
should not exceed the specified concentrations at any time:
TABLE 167. MOST STRINGENT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Constituent
Concentration
Alkalinity
Alkyl benzene sulfonate (ABS)
Ammonia (as N)
20-100 mg/1 (Del. R. Basin,
tidal waters)
0.5 mg/1
0.02 mg/1 (N. Dakota; next
value is 0.15 mg/1)
(continued)
772
-------
TABLE 167. (continued)
Constituent
Concentration
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chloride
Chlorine, residual
Chromium (hexavalent)
Coablt
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
HoS, undissociated
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury in fish
Nickel
Nitrates
Phenols
*IJC = International
and Canada.
0.01 mg/1
Lowest practicable level (IJC*)
0.5 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.002 mg/1 ( 0.01 probable)
100 mg/1 ( 250 probable avg.)
0.002 mg/1 (proposed IJC) (Br.
Col.: Below detectable limits)
0.05 mg/1
.1.0 mg/1
0.005 mg/1 (proposed IJC; 0.10
probable average)
Q.005 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.002 mg/1 (proposed IJC)
0.3 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 (proposed IJC, Lake
Superior; Ohio = 0.04)
0.05 mg/1
0.0002 mg/1 (proposed IJC)
0.0005 mg/kg wet weight
(proposed IJC)
0.025 mg/1 (proposed IJC)
10 mg/1
0.001 mg/1
(continued)
Joint Commission of the United States
773
-------
TABLE 167. (continued)
Constituent Concentration
Phosphorus 0.05 mg/1
PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl), 0.00 mg/1
total
Selenium 0.005 mg/1 (0.01 probable
average)
Silver 0.0001 mg/1 (proposed IJC;
0.05 probable average)
Sulfate 250 mg/1
Uranyl ion 5.0 mg/1
Zinc 0.03 mg/1 (proposed IJC)
E-6.3.3 Effluent Standards
(When not specified differently by discharge permit).
Except as otherwise noted, compliance with the numerical
standards should be determined on the basis of 24-hour com-
posite samples, and no contaminant shall exceed five times
the numerical standards at any time or in any one sample.
No effluents shall contain the following:
• Settleable solids
• Floating debris
• Visible oil, grease, scum, or sludge solids
• Obvious color, odor and/or turbidity
• Fecal coliforms, concentration greater than
400/100 ml.
774
-------
The following table lists concentrations of contaminants
which should not be exceeded in any effluent.
TABLE 168. CONTAMINANTS AND CONCENTRATIONS NOT TO BE
EXCEEDED IN ANY EFFLUENT
Constituent
Aluminum
Ammonia
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chlorate
Chlorides
Chlorine,
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
residual
(hexavalent)
Concentration
0.2 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, one
industry category)
0.5 mg/1 (Br. Columbia,
tentative)
0.05 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, one
industry category)
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.005 mg/1 (Br. Columbia)
50 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, one
industry category)
250 mg/1
0.2 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, one
industry category)
0.05 mg/1
0.1 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, one
industry category)
0.05 mg/1 (Br. Columbia)
0.02 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1 (Br. Columbia)
(continued)
775
-------
TABLE 168.
Constituent
(continued)
Concentration
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrites (N)
Nitrogen
Phenols
Phosphorous
Selenium
Silver
Sulfate
Sulfides and mercaptans (S)
Urea
Zinc (Ohio at hardness 80
mg/1 as CaCOo)
BOD5
COD
Temperature, maximum
150. mg/1 (Br. Columbia, for
fresh water; one industry
category)
0.05 mg/1 (Br. Columbia)
0.001 mg/1 (Br. Columbia,
tentative)
0.50 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, one
industry category)
0.2 mg/1 (Br. Columbia)
10.0 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, for
several industry categories)
2.5 mg/1 - April-October
4.0 mg/1 at other times
0.005 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
50 mg/1 (Br. Columbia)
.011 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, one
industry category)
1.0 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, one
industry category)
0.075 mg/1 (usual 0.1)
30 mg/1 (deoxygenating wastes)
125 mg/1
90°F (Br. Columbia, several
industry categories)
(continued)
776
-------
TABLE 168. (continued)
Constituent Concentration
Turbidity
Solids: Total
Dissolved (Total)
Suspended
Oil
Persistent pesticides
Dissolved oxygen (nontidal
streams)
Toxicity
pH**
10 JTU (Br. Columbia, several
industry categories)
1500 mg/1 (Br. Columbia, several
industry categories)
1000 mg/1 (Delaware R.B.C.*)
25 mg/1 (Canada-Federal)
10 mg/1 (Delaware R.B.C.)
Not to exceed 1/100 of
value at 96 hours appropriate
bioassay test (Delaware R.B.C.)
Not to reduce dissolved oxygen
content of receiving water by
more than 5% (Delaware R.B.C.)
507o max. mortality in 96 hours
appropriate bioassay test with
1:1 dilution (Delaware R.B.C.)
6.5-8.5 (Br. Columbia, several
industry categories)
*R.B.C. = River Basin Commission
**The pH limitation should not be subject to averaging and
should be met at all times.
E-6.3.4
Other Water Quality Criteria
Criteria include the following:
• Waste treatment ponds - lagoons containing toxic
substances or petroleum products must be lined.
• Nondegradation - waters whose existing quality is
better than the established standards shall not be
lowered in quality.
777
-------
• Aesthetic values shall not be reduced by dissolved,
suspended, floating or submerged matter so as to
affect water usage.
E-7 Siting Considerations
Basic siting considerations involved in the use of the
joint site selection and impact assessment methodology,
discussed in the text (Section 5.0), are detailed in the
ensuing paragraphs. Existing state land use requirements
that may be important in the development of the synfuels
technology are shown in Table 169. Finally, the details of
the integration of impact assessment with the site selection
process are present in relation to recognized stages in
current site selection procedures.
E-7.1 System Planning and Design
System planning and design refer in part, to the
development of preliminary coordination with federal, state
and local agencies in the region of interest as to the
information concerned with: existing water, air, and land
quality and use; identification of potential water use,
water rights and other conflicts; identification of critical
natural areas and air quality control regions, and a host of
other activities. These informational contacts will save
much time and effort in establishing the necessary working
relationships at later stages, and also provide a basis for
identifying additional constraints or exclusions to siting
in a given region.
Implicit in the system planning category is the develop-
ment of design features that relate to the environmental,
health, and safety issues considered unique to the coal
778
-------
TABLE 169. STATE LAND USE PROGRAMS (172)
State
Alabama
Arizona
Colorado
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
Type of program
Comprehen-
sive perral
system3
Coordinated.
: Incremental
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mandatory
local
Planning
X
X
X
Coastal
zone
manage-
ment*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wetland*
manage-
ment6
X
X
X
Power
plant ,
siting
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
mining8
A
X
A.B
A,E
A.B
A,B
A,B
A
A
A
A
A
A,B
A
A,B
A.B
A
Designa-
tion of
critical
areas"
X
X
X
X
X
Differen-
tial as-
sessment
laws1
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
Flood-
plain
manage-
ment1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Statewide
Shore
lands
Act
X
a State has authority to require permits for certain types of development.
b State-established mechanism to coordinate state land-use-related problems.
c State requires local governments to establish a mechanism for land use planning (e.g., zoning, comprehensive plan, planning.commissions
d State is participating In the Federally funded coastal zone management program authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
e State has authority to plan or review local plans and the ability to control land use In the wetlands.
f State has authority to determine the siting of powerplants and related facilities.
g State has statutory authority to regulate surface mines. (A) State has adopted rules and regulations; (B) State has Issued technical
guidelines.
h State has established rules, or Is In the process of establishing rules, regulations, and guidelines for the identification and
designation of areas of critical state concern (e.g., environmentally fragile areas, areas of historical significance).
1 State has adopted a tax measure which is designed to give property tax relief to owners of agricultural or open space lands. (A)
Preferential Assessment Program: Assessment of eligible land la based upon a selected formula, which is usually use value,
(B) Deferred taxation: Assessment of eligible land Is based upon a selected formula, which is usually use vaiue and provides
for a sanction, usually the payment of back taxes, If the land Is converted to a non-eligible use. (C) Restrictive Agreements
ment of back taxes If the owner violates the terns of the agreement.
J State has legislation authorizing the regulation of floodplains.
k State has legislation authorizing the regulation of shorelandi of significant bodies of water.
-------
liquefaction process; these include: the development of in-
dustrial hygiene programs and operating safeguards for sus-
pected carcinogens and related hazardous substances important
to human health; the testing and development of equipment
and hardware that mitigate the health and other effects of
fugitive emissions; the development of effective plans for
the disposal of sludges and solid wastes, and the prepara-
tion of plans for coping with spills of toxic and hazardous
substances (142). By their assorted natures; these efforts
will require close interagency coordination and effective
cooperation with relevant industrial groups. For example,
one company found a way to circumvent the use of engineering
controls on workplace noise by the use of personal hearing
protection; this resulted in estimated annual savings per
worker of $3080 (173).
Detailed discussions of the significance of the EPA
offset policy and the PSD regulations of the Clean Air Act,
the implications of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water
Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the
Toxic Substances Control Act were presented in a previous
report (43).
Design considerations can be important with respect to
intake structures for the diversion of surface waters for
use in cooling towers. As pointed out elsewhere (138) con-
sideration should be given to the location, design, construc-
tion and capacity of water intake structures, especially
cooling water intake structures, to insure that such struc-
tures reflect the best technology available for minimizing
adverse environmental impact.
780
-------
Key environmental factors influencing impingement or
entrapment are water temperature and velocity, light inten-
sity, fish concentration and behavioral patterns, low dis-
solved oxygen concentrations, the presence of toxicants,
relative location and construction details of the intake
structure, and the location of the intake in relation to the
bottom, shoreline, and water surface (43). In situations
where the intake water is filtered through the river bed
(e.g., the Ranney Collector System) fish life will not be
impaired (138).
E-7.2 Regulatory Standards and Criteria
All SRC liquefaction sites must meet the federal,
state, and local environmental requirements for air, water,
land (solid wastes), products and by-products, nonchemical
pollutants (noise and thermal factors) and hazardous wastes
and toxic substances during the constructional, operational,
and post-operational phases. These factors represent a
significant portion of the several areas of conflict that
have arisen between federal and industrial groups since the
adoption of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air and Clean
Water Acts. Subcategories of the so-called regulatory
imperative include the following:
• The effect of the emissions and effluents resulting
from construction and operation of the plant on
the environment.
• The effect of the environment (e.g., floods,
tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.) on the facility.
Because of this dichotomy, it is understandable how these
two subcategories interact significantly with design, engineer-
ing, economic, and institutional factors (144).
781
-------
E-7.3 Engineering Factors
Engineering factors come into play both in terms of the
site related and the technical design factors.. Site related
factors must be well researched in order to make effective
use of technical design factors and vice versa, both during
the construction and operation of the synfuels facility.
For example, slope and topography dictate the degree of
environmental protection required during clearing and grading
operations; these factors are also important in terms of the
amount of borrow soils needed for fills, the size of borrow
pits and soil stockpiles, engineering geology, soil stability
under foundations, and the suitability of the subsurface
soils for impoundments, cooling ponds, and wastewater disposal
ponds. The number and complexity of site related factors to
be considered depends upon the stage of siting and the need
for site specific impact assessments. For example, deficienc-
ies in site related factors relative to environment/impinge-
/
ment can be overcome by use of sometimes costly engineering
designs.
In general, the most important engineering design
factors relate to an abundant supply of coal and water, with
an ample transportation infrastructure (including pipelines)
to move coal feedstock, the products and by-products, and
the solid wastes to their destined places. Other design
factors include: seismology and structural details; soil
permeability beneath solid waste disposal sites; land access
and acquisition; availability of construction materials and
labor; general layout of plant and auxiliary units, and the
preparation of erosion and sediment control and related
plans during the construction phase.
782
-------
E-7.4 Natural Environment - Abiotic and Biotic
Considerations
The physical, chemical and biological features of
specific areas must be well understood if detailed impact
assessments are to be made, as in Stage 3 of the siting
process. During Stage 1, interest centers largely on the
identification of natural land reserves and federal lands,
the location of adequate coal reserves and water, and the
potential for intrusion into sensitive ecosystems or en-
dangered species. In Stage 2, seismic, climatic, hydrologic,
topographic, and surficial geology factors are among the
most crucial.
E-7.4.1 Abiotic (Physical) Considerations
Abiotic features essentially determine the structure
and diversity of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, as well
as the dispersion of contaminants in air, water and on the
land. Among these latter items are: surface water supply
and its quality; groundwater supply and quality; stream low-
flows; air dispersion and stream flushing patterns; existing
air quality; land drainage patterns and related hydrologic
features, and natural landmarks, trails and scenic rivers.
The generic interaction of these factors with each other,
and with biotic features was discussed in an earlier report
(43) for a specific site.
E-7.4.2 Contamination of Groundwater with Regard
To Coal Liquefaction
Two major potential sources of groundwater pollution
associated with the SRC system are surface impoundments of
various liquids and solid waste landfills. Impoundments in
783
-------
the form of tailings ponds or sludge dewatering lagoons are
surface depressions in which waste fluids are pumped or
drained to the pond via pipeline or drainage ditch. The
suspended solids then settle to the floor of the pond and
the remaining portion (effluent) is either reused, discharged
into local surface water, or spread on land. As the solids
settle, the pond fills with sediment and is either abandoned
or dredged to create new storage space.
Seepage is the most prevalent source of groundwater
contamination from ponded wastes. Other routes by which
impoundments may contribute to pollution problems are through
pond overflow and dike leakage, both of which can recharge a
local aquifer with contaminated water. Also, prior to
abandonment of the waste site, failure to properly cover the
area (thus preventing or limiting the rainfall infiltration)
could result in the area continuing to be a contamination
source.
Solid waste land disposal sites associated with SRC
systems can also be sources of groundwater contamination,
because of the generation of leachate caused by water percol-
ating through the refuse. Precipitation falling on a site
either becomes runoff, returns to the atmosphere via evapora-
tion and transpiration (water use by plants), or infiltrates
the refuse. This infiltrating water ultimately will form
leachate containing soluble and suspended contaminants.
The process of leachate formation and subsequent
groundwater contamination is dependent upon the amount of
water which passes through the refuse. Water which infil-
trates the surface of the cover will first be subject to
evaporation and plant transpiration. Any water in excess of
field capacity will percolate through the layers of solid
784
-------
waste. Additional surface runoff from the surrounding land,
moisture contained in the solid or liquid waste placed in
the fill, moisture from solid-waste decomposition, and water
entering through the bottom or sides of the site also con-
tribute to the generation of leachate.
Figure 118 illustrates the flow of contaminants from a
surface source such as a disposal pit, lagoon, or basin.
Note that the contaminated water flows downward to form a
recharge mound at the water table and then moves laterally
outward below the water table.
SOURCE OF CONTAMINANTS
ZONE OF AERATION
RECHARGE MOUND
ZONE OF
CONTAMINATION
AQUIFER
1ATION ^*- •
r-~ i;S™,
^^-£^~_-_r-_-_-_r-_-_-_:CONFlNING /BED^IHIr£I-Z-ZHHH3£HI-Z-£:-I
Figure 118. Diagram showing percolation of contaminants
from a disposal pit to a water-table aquifer (43)
785
-------
Figure 119 indicates contaminant movement from a surface
stream or lake to a nearby pumping well. The drawdown of
the water table induces recharge of surface water to ground-
water. Thus, continuous pumping from municipal water supply
wells located adjacent to a polluted stream may lead to the
contamination of the water supply.
E-7.4.3 Mechanism of Contamination
Contaminants in groundwater tend to be removed or
lowered in concentration with time and with distance traveled.
Mechanisms involved include adsorption, dispersion, dilution,
and decay. The rate of attenuation is a function of the
type of contaminant and of the local hydrogeologic framework.
Attenuation in an aquifer is extremely slow as is the movement
of groundwater (typically less than 0.6 m/day). Therefore,
contaminants within the groundwater system do not mix readily
with native water and move as: (1) individual bodies or
slugs (e.g., caused by intermittent filling of and seepage
from wastewater impoundments); (2) local plumes (e.g.,
caused by continual flow of leachate from beneath a landfill
toward a pumping well); and (3) masses of degraded water
(e.g., caused by a large number of septic tanks discharging
nitrate-enriched water which travels with the regional
groundwater flow pattern).
Specific statements cannot be made about the distances
that contaminants will travel because of the wide varia-
bility of aquifer conditions and types of contaminants.
Also, each constituent from a source of contamination may
have a different attenuation rate, and the distance over
786
-------
CONTAMINATED
SURFACE WATER
AQUIFER
Figure 119. Diagram showing how contaminated water can be
induced to flow from a surface stream to a well (43)
787
-------
which contamination is present will vary with each com-
ponent. Yet, certain generalizations can be made. For
fine-grained alluvial aquifers, contaminants such as bac-
teria, viruses, organic materials, pesticides, and most
radioactive materials, are usually removed by adsorption
within distances of less than 100 m. However, most common
ions in solution move unimpeded through these aquifers,
subject only to the slow processes of attenuation.
A hypothetical example of a waste disposal site is
shown in Figure 120. Here groundwater flows toward a
river. Zones A, B, C, D, and E represent essentially stable
limits for different contaminants resulting from the steady
release of liquid wastes of unchanging composition. Con-
taminants form a plume of contaminated water extending
downgradient from the contamination source until they
attenuate to acceptable quality levels.
The shape and size of a plume depend upon the local
geology, the groundwater flow, the type and concentration of
contaminants, the continuity of waste disposal, and any
modifications of the groundwater system by man, such as well
pumping. Where groundwater is moving relatively rapidly, a
plume from a point source will tend to be long and thin; but
where the flow rate is low, the contaminant will tend to
spread more laterally to form a somewhat wider plume.
Irregular plumes can be created by local influences such as
pumping wells and variations in permeability.
In marked contrast to surface-water pollution, ground-
water contamination may persist for years, decades, or even
centuries. The average residence time of groundwater is on
the order of 200 years; consequently, a contaminant which is
not readily decayed or sorbed underground can remain as a
788
-------
^ WASTE SITE
DOWNSTREAM LIMIT
OF CONTAMINANTS
Figure 120. Plan view of a water-table aquifer
showing the hypothetical areal extent to which specific
containments (represented by the Letters A, B, C, D and E)
of mixed wastes at a disposal site disperse and move) (43)
789
-------
degrading influence on the resource for indefinitie periods.
Comparable residence time for water in a stream or river is
on the order of 10 days. Controlling groundwater contamina-
tion, therefore, is more difficult than controlling surface
water contamination. Underground contamination control is
best achieved by regulating the source of contamination. A
seconary control is physical entrapment and, when feasible,
removing the contaminated water from the underground.
E-7.4.4 Geology (Abiotic)
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service and most state
geological surveys provide various criteria for large-scale
site screening and impact assessments. One of these is the
slope from which estimates can be made of the amount of soil
and rock materials to be moved. Some states require that
routine estimates of the area and volume of cuts and fills
shall be included in the erosion and sediment control plan
as a contingency to the granting of a construction permit.
Included with the latter is an estimate of the location and
extent of borrow pit areas. As a matter of fact, the regula-
tory process incurs many costs, referred to as transaction
costs (115). These include the costs of hearings and public
meetings, costs of time losses resulting from unresolved
issues of various kinds, and costs incurred for environmental
monitoring and baseline surveys at specific sites (115).
E-7.4.5 Soil Factors
Soil organic matter is capable of reacting with, or
chelating a number of elements, possibly by the carboxyl or
phenolic hydroxyls, especially in chelation. There appears
790
-------
to be at least three different sites for the absorption of
zinc. Copper, tin (II), and lead are especially strongly
bonded by humus, so much so that many peaty soils contain
too little soluble copper to support the growth of crops.
Zinc is less strongly bonded and can be leached from certain
organic soils by solutions of pH less than 5. Manganese
(II), calcium, magnesium, and the alkali metals are readily
leached out (174).
The amount of phosphate organically bound in soils can
vary from 25 to 85 percent. Germanium, molybdenum, selenium,
uranium and vanadium may be retained by alkaline peat while
borate, sulphate and nitrate are not retained. Bromine and
iodine may be strongly absorbed by humus from the atmosphere
and from solution (174).
The small organic molecules present in soils include
the common amino acids, acetic, butyric, citric, formic, 2-
ketogluconic, malic, oxalic, tartaric and a variety of
lichen acids. The main effects of these acids are to lower
the pH of the soil solution, to increase the rate of dis-
solution of primary minerals, and to chelate and so render
more soluble many elements such as aluminum, copper, iron,
nickel, phosphorous and zinc (174).
Oxidation and reduction of arsenic, iodine, molybdenum,
selenium, tellurium, uranium and vanadium are known to occur
in soils. In well-drained soils which are rich in nitrates,
As (III) is transformed to As(IV), Se(IV) is changed to
Se(VI), Te(IV) gives Te(VI) and even 1(1) can be changed to
I(V). On the other hand in more or less reducing conditions
As(III), Se(IV), and Te(IV) may be changed to the elemental
form or to volatile di- or trimethyl forms. The soil fungus,
Scopulariopsis brevicaulis, can reduce arsenite to trimethyl-
791
-------
arsenic and the soil bacteria, Micrococcus lactilyticus,
reduces the higher oxidation states of many elements including
As, Fe, Mn, Mo, N, S, Se, and Te (174).
The most important surface soil properties affecting
the potential distribution, and/or ecotoxicological effects
of inorganic and organic contaminants, relate to the effec-
tiveness of the organic and inorganic (clay) colloids in
sorbing or trapping potentially toxic substances, soil pH,
percolation rate, level of organic matter, and the activity
of microorganisms.
The greater adsorptive capacities of the fine particles
of clay and silt (i.e., particle diameters of one micron or
less) compared to sand particles is widely recognized. Soil
colloids are described as complex aluminosilicates coated
with organic substances, broadly referred to as humic com-
plexes; these organoaluminosilicate complexes exhibit
selective ion adsorption. Many mineral colloid surfaces are
covered with a coating of hydrous oxides of iron and man-
ganese. These exist in amorphous or microcrystalline forms
and in themselves exhibit a high specific surface area; up
to 300 square meters per gram. The oxygen and hydroxyl
groups of the hydrous oxides exert electrical charges which
are pH dependent. Therefore, their capacity for sorption is
pH dependent.
The dissolution and deposition of the coatings are also
dependent upon the oxidation-reduction (redox) potential in
the system. This parameter then becomes indirectly impor-
tant in the adsorption or desorption of heavy metals. Sorp-
tion and desorption of metals further depends upon their
concentrations in the percolate and upon the ones present.
As with clays, there is an order of selectivity in adsorp-
792
-------
tion. It is quite possible, however, that some heavy metals
may move into the groundwater system prior to the exhaustion
of exchange capacity.
In general, the amount of negative charge and surface
area of clays is dependent on the clay type, being lowest
for the kaolinite type and highest for the montmorillonite
type. The negatively charged points of the clay surface
hold cations (which carry a positive charge) by electro-
static and van der Waals forces. Usually the attraction is
proportional to the positive charge on the cation. The
upper limit for fixation of cations is referred to as the
cation exchange capacity (CEC), and that of anions is known
as the anion exchange capacity (AEC) (175). When the cation
saturation point is reached, the percolate composition will
remain stable. Factors affecting CEC and AEC include soil
solute concentration, pH, and percolation rate. Thus, no
quantitative predictions of the sorption characteristics can
be made short of a site-specific analysis.
Recent work by Johnson and Cole (181) indicates that
anion production (HCOo) and leaching (N and P) can be used
effectively as an index of total ionic leaching through
soils. In general, the order of affinities of major anions
is P0^3-, S0^2-, Cl" = NO^-. Highly weathered iron and
aluminum-rich soils have higher adsorption capacities than
the younger iron and aluminum-poor soils.
E-7.4.6 Microclimatic Changes Resulting from the
Construction and Operation of SRC Plants
1 o
As much as 160 x 10 joules of heat, could be lost to
the environment during each day that a commercial-sized SRC
793
-------
plant is in regular operation (43). In an effort to estab-
lish once for all whether the release of heat from power
plants and moisture from natural draft cooling towers and
cooling ponds can affect local climates, the U.S. Department
of Energy launched the so-called METER program in 1976 at
four coal-fired power plants in the U.S. These results,
though useful, cannot be expected to produce an accurate
assessment of localized climatic effects of the heat release
from an operating SRC plant. In the second place, the
precise location of the operating SRC plant will be critical.
For example, if located near large metropolitan areas, such
plants would not likely exert any measurable impacts on
local climates since they would form but a fraction of the
total heat island. If located in remote areas the impacts
of heat release would be controlled largely by the air
dispersion characteristics of a specific site. According to
the AFDP report (138), the introduction of inadvertent
changes in local or regional weather patterns through the
construction and operation of synthetic fuel plants, inten-
sive surface mining, and other conjunctive developments
warrants careful consideration. Even slight changes in
rainfall could be significant in areas where agriculture
relies on marginally adequate rainfall or snowmelt.
The most frequently cited factor associated with inad-
vertent climate modification is the increasing carbon dioxide
(002) content of the atmosphere (182). The observed steady
growth in carbon dioxide concentration is attributed to the
rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels since the turn of the
century. Although the potential effects of atmospheric
carbon dioxide on global temperature and climate have serious
implications (the greenhouse effect through which the tempera-
ture could increase), no significant localized or regional
weather effects from carbon dioxide emissions are anticipated
794
-------
from synthetic fuels development, due to the relatively
small quantity of carbon dioxide expected to be produced
from synthetic fuels production in relation to production
from other sources. However, the CC^ emission from several
point sources within the standard SRC plant and auxiliaries
is estimated to be about 13,000 Mg/day (43).
The precise role of airborne particulates and other
aerosols emanating from synthetic fuels facilities with
regard to weather modifications cannot be determined com-
pletely. Their influence on the amount of short-wave solar
radiation is well established and has important implications
both on a global (182) and regional scale. In principle,
aerosol particles could also act as condensation nuclei and
either enhance or inhibit rainfall. A considerable body of
knowledge regarding cloud seeding has been built up over the
past 25 to 30 years (182) and numerous precipitation manage-
ment programs are in progress, notably in the U.S., Australia,
Israel and the Soviet Union. While certain aspects of
intentional weather modification are still regarded as
controversial, it is generally recognized that artifical
nucleation can be effective in producing increases or redis-
tributions of precipitation under very specific meteorological
conditions and through the use of appropriate techniques. A
definitive answer as to whether or not a local increase in
the concentration of atmospheric aerosols resulting from
dust or industrial emissions would cause a significant
change in precipitation patterns cannot be given (176). A
few instances of anomalous snowfalls have been recorded;
industrial and urban emissions are thought to be instrumental
in producing generally light snowfalls in these cases (176).
An increase in cloudiness due partly to the aerosol condensa-
tion nuclei and partly to the heating effect of cleared
surface areas appears to be a more likely regional phenomenon
795
-------
than persistent alterations in precipitation characteristics.
This could affect the enjoyment of scenic views by the
recreational sightseers. Differences in climatic conditions
and the nature of the airborne particulates could make this
a more severe problem in the Four Corners, Powder River and
Fort Union Regions than in the Eastern Interior or Appalachian
Regions (43).
Many studies (176) have indicated that precipitation is
increased downwind of power generating facilities and other
industrial complexes. Usually, this increase takes the form
of increased severe storms; this may be due to a thermal
effect caused by heat losses to the atmosphere or to an in-
creased particulate count. Such an effect is possible in
remote areas downwind of a commercial-sized SRC facility.
If an increased precipitation occurs on a local basis, two
detrimental effects are possible. First, since most rainfall
of greater than 1.25 to 2.5 cm does not increase crop yield
but rather leads to erosion (176), the.area receiving an in-
creased rainfall could be damaged due to increased erosion,
hail, lightning damage, etc. Second, the weather modifica-
tion induced by the industrial facility may lead to a deple-
tion in the moisture content of the air due to the increased
precipitation immediately downwind of the facility. This
latter effect could lead in some regions to partial drought
conditions further downwind of the plant.
Drift of the vapor plume from the cooling tower could
promote fogging and icing conditions. If this drift occurs
near highways, hazardous driving conditions could result.
As a rule, this action is limited to a 610 to 910 meter
radius from the tower (43).
796
-------
E-7.4.7 Biotic Considerations
Biotic features become increasingly important starting
about midway through Stage 2 and into Stage 3 where detailed
information on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems is collected
via baseline inventories at specific sites. Biotic considera-
tions of greatest concern usually relate to threatened and
endangered species, sensitive ecosystems, value of habitats
for fish and wildlife, and the plant and animal species
making up the agroecosystems.
The activities of soil microorganisms must be recog-
nized in predicting the movement and composition of leachates.
For example, under anaerobic soil conditions, microbes may
convert trace elements to the less mobile sulfides. On the
other hand, these activities under aerobic soil conditions
may facilitate leaching of trace elements with subsequent
passage into lower layers. The downward movement of trace
elements in the soil column is a function of cation exchange,
Eh, pH, and organic colloids. Trace elements with vacant d-
orbitals, such as Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn, and Mo tend to be bound to
soil organic matter. On the other hand, acidic soils tend
to have high trace element availabilities (e.g., Mn and Ni)
to the roots of crop plants. For selenium, the availability
to plant roots in neutral to alkaline soils is reported to
be greater than that in acidic soils, directly opposite to
Mn and Ni.
Table 170 shows some of the abiotic and biotic factors
influencing the environmental transport of trace elements in
soils. Key factors are the availability of trace elements
for uptake and potential bioaccumulation by plants, ability
of trace metals to travel through soil to groundwater, and
the immobilization of trace metals in surface layers of soil
797
-------
TABLE 170. INTERACTIONS OF SELECTED ELEMENTS IN SOILS (43)
Solubilized by Poor soil
Microbes capable of Bound by soil acid production drainage increases
Element changing chemical form organic matter or chelation availability
Aluminum +
Antimony +
Arsenic + +
Barium +
Beryllium +
Boron - (b) +
^ Bromine +
oo Cadmium + +
Calcium + (a)
Chromium + +
Cobalt + + +
Copper + + +
Gallium 4- (e)
Germanium +
Iodine + +
Iron + + +
Lead + + +
Magnesium + (a)
Manganese + + (a) + +
(continued)
-------
TABLE 170. (continued)
VO
Element
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Plutonium
Selenium
Silicon
Sulfur
Tellurium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Microbes capable of
changing chemical form
Bound by soil
organic matter
Solubilized by
acid production
or chelation
Poor soil
drainage increases
availability
- (c)
- (d)
+ (e)
+ (a)
(a) Relatively easy to leach from soil organic matter.
(b) As borate.
(c) As nitrate.
(d) As sulfate.
(e) Not in all cases.
-------
from which it can be transported to nearby ecosystems by
surface runoff, erosion, or wind blown dust. Most nonpoint
pollution sources can be attributed to the transport of
contaminated sediments. Most cationic trace metals are
immobilized in soil and are present in concentrations which
could not pose a threat of groundwater contamination unless
they are metylated (e.g., Hg), but anionic groups may pose a
potential hazard. A thoretical study of the potential
impact of coal gasification plant on the trace element
levels in soils surrounding the plant after 40 years of
operation identified copper, mercury, molybdenum, and tin as
elements whose endangerous soil levels would be greatly
exceeded (177).
E-7.5 Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Considerations
As pointed out elsewhere (138), a series of effects on
the human environment can be expected to result directly
from the construction and operation of a synethtic fuels
facility; these include economic, demographic, geographic,
social, cultural, land use, and water use effects on target
community (138). Table 171 (column two) shows the total im-
pact scores derived for six different candidate sites by use
of a formalized numerical rating and weighting system (144).
Thirteen different types of specific impacts constituted this
analysis, as shown in the footnote section of Table 171. The
application of formalized numerical rating techniques requires
the use of the following (144):
• Development of a hierarchical structure or matrix
for assessing impacts on the human and natural
environments
800
-------
TABLE 171. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS - MOST SIGNIFICANT SPECIFIC
IMPACTS OF POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION (144)
Sites-In Order of
Increasing Total
1 -
3 -
5 -
00
0 2 -
6 -
4 -
Impact
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
Cooling
tower
pond
tower
pond
pond
tower
Total
Impact
Scores
264
522
526
596
715
1000
HIGHEST
Type Percent-
of
Impact
A*
B*
C*
D*
E*
F*
age of
Site Total
16.
19.
16.
20.
13.
12.
INTERMEDIATE
Type Percent-
of
Impact
G*
H*
A*
F*
I*
J*
age of
Site Total
14.
14.
14.
19.
10.
12.
LOW
Type Percent-
of
Impact
H*
C*
K*
L*
A*
E*
age of
Site Total
11.
12.
12.
11.
10.
12.
LOWEST
Type Percent-
of
Impact
I*
G*
B*
E*
B*
M*
age of
Site Total
9.
7.
9.
6.
7.
9.
*Specific Impact Types (Partial Listing)
A - Transmission Line Construction
B - Loss of Recreational Land
C - Surface Water
D - Uniqueness of Habitats
E - Loss of Natural Habitats
F - Displaced Homes
G - Icing of Flora
H - Visual Exposure
I - Construction Activity
j - Damming and Ponding
K - Dissolved Solids Release
L - Irreversible Loss of Land Area
M - Increased Turbidity Surface Water
-------
• Assignment of values to the perceived impacts
• Application of specific impact models for combining
specific impacts into a composite value for total
impact, usually by use of a computer (144).
Two examples will illustrate the use of a specific impact
models, with reference to impact types "D" (uniqueness of
habitat) and "F" (displacement of homes) shown in Table 171,
as follows (144):
• "Uniqueness of habitat" is described as the per-
centage of such habitat occuring at the site as
compared to similar unique habitats within a
15-mile radius of the site.
• "Displacement of homes" is described by the number
of dwellings impacted by the site acquisition.
In Table 171 impact types A through H made the greatest
contribution to total impacts at the six candidate sites.
An important contribution to the methodology for assess-
ing adverse and beneficial impacts resulting from the con-
struction and operation of synthetic fuels (i.e., coal con-
version) technologies, relates to the Site Evaluation for
Energy Conversion Systems methodology (SELECS) developed for
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the Center for the
Environment and Man (CEM) (178). After reviewing more than
30 impact methodologies, and three major environmental impact
statements related to energy resource development, CEM
established eight criteria that an impact methodology should
meet, developed an underlying rationale, and prepared a
User's Guide for organizing and presenting the numerical
802
-------
results in the so-called Level 1 SELECS methodology (184).
In the forthcoming report, GEM will outline two additional,
more complex levels suggested for future development. Level
2 would be computer-automated and would provide numerical
ratings for the four categories of a project: construction,
operation, shutdown, and post-shutdown. The Level 3 SELECS
methodology would address air and water quality, water
supply, and community services at potential sites (178).
Impacts resulting from the interplay between the primary
industry development impacts and the multitude of community
variables are referred to as end impacts and include the
following items:
• Changes in traditional local life styles
• Changes in local economic functions
• Job opportunities and wage scales for qualified
local residents relative to those for the local,
long established core activities
« Changes in local government finances
• Changes in local crime rate
* Changes in local markets and prices for essential
goods and services
• Indian land ownership relative to coal
• Local water rights and water allocation conflicts.
803
-------
During Stage 2 of the process, it is essential that a
broad array of socioeconomic and sociocultural factors be
included in the considerations to be screened. For example,
public attitudes about the compatibility of a synfuels plant
with the local infrastructure, and the public perception of
the environmental and economic benefits of a synfuels plant
ought to be identified as early as possible in Stage 2 at
the local level. The necessary intergovernmental and in-
dustrial cooperation/coordination required to assist local
groups to cope with some of the key issues, both in the
short- and long-terms would be essential in Stage 2. As the
number of potential sites is narrowed, sufficient lead time
would be available to launch the programs necessary to
resolve conflicts so that Stage 3 would result in more clear
cut selection of the most suitable sites (138,144).
Existing state land use programs that may be useful in
coordinating the planning of synfuels development are shown
in Table 169, there are no extant federal statutes for this
purpose (138,144). At the local level, zoning ordinances
and master plans are often available to coordinate various
land uses.
Another aspect of the land use issue refers to the
prime farmland concept of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prime farmland is defined as soil associations considered
best suited to the production of food, forage, fiber and
oilseed crops, based on soil characteristics that include
soil fertility, soil moisture and other physical criteria.
The proper combination of these criteria, when applied to
specific soils so as to produce sustained high yields of
crops, can result in such soils being designated as prime
farmland (43). Agricultural lands and water uses could be
lost to other uses such as community expansion synfuels
plants and other uses.
804
-------
Finally, a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment (HUD) program to achieve management of the nation's
flood plains requires state and/or local assurances that
efficient land use policies, as established by HUD criteria,
be adopted and enforced to regulate land use and future
development in these areas. The program would provide
insurance at subsidized rates on certain existing structures
and their contents, but would serve as a deterrent to con-
tinued, unregulated construction in designated flood prone
areas (43).
E-7.6 Institutional Factors
Institutional factors exert both direct and indirect
effects on the overall siting process. More than 17 states
now require the submittal and approval of plans for mitigat-
ing soil erosion and overland flows of surface runoff as a
prerequisite to granting construction permits. This situa-
tion characterizes many environmental approvals and site
certifications presently required at various levels of
government.
As described in a previous report (43) both the owner
and the constructor of a coal conversion facility must be in
compliance with more than 14 federal approvals, and obtain
more than 15 state and local certifications and permits
before commencing construction operations (43). In addition
to this are the extant federal land management plans of the
bureaus of Land Management and Indian Affairs (USDI) and the
U.S. Forest Service (USDA). Local restrictions exert direct
effects on the siting of synfuels plants today. In areas
where earthquake hazards exist (e.g., the state of Indiana)
uniform building codes are applicable to new building con-
struction. With reference to the disposal of various hazard-
805
-------
ous wastes in the state of Illinois, the disposal site shall
be buffered by at least 3.04 meters of soil having a coeffic-
ient of permeability not greater than 1 x 10 cm/sec, or
not less than 3.04 meters of soil which can provide a contain-
ment life lasting 500 years; for less hazardous substances a
containment life of 250 years is required (IEPA). Other
regional aspects of institutional factors are described in a
previous report (43).
Indirect effects of institutional factors include the
1977 amendments (vis-a-vis, PSD and nonattainment areas) to
the Clean Air Act which will likely cause licensing delays,
increase the cost of building and operating commercial
synfuels plants, and limit the number of acceptable sites
for synfuels plants. Substantive land use and industrial
growth limitations are found in the Clean Air, Clean Water,
and Toxic Substances Acts; these factors act indirectly to
limit the site selection process as well as the potential
impacts of synfuels plants.
Other significant indirect effects refer to the energe-
tic pursuit of federal and state policies encompassing the
following areas:
• Development of criteria for locating synfuels
plants in remote areas (i.e., generally seven
miles to outer boundary of the low population
zone)
• Adoption of siting statutes by state governments
that provide streamlined application permit pro-
cedures
806
-------
4 Incorporation of the costs of environmental damage
resulting from the construction and operations of
synfuels facilities into the price of energy via
regulatory procedures
• Pursuit and execution of basic and applied research
programs that, under realistic conditions, permit
the selection of the proper plant operating condi-
tions and equipment design concurrently with the
assessment of the health and ecologic risks. As
new technologies are developed to a demonstration
(or higher) status, private enterprise should be
encouraged to finance the commercialization of the
preferred new design and operating parameters
(145)
• Clarification of water rights and the equitable
allocation of water to current and future uses
particularly with reference to the Colorado River
and other compacts
• Suitable recognition of the special attributes of
Indian ownership of coal lands in the Four Corners
region of New Mexico and Arizona and in the Fort
Union - Powder River Regions (Wyoming, North
Dakota, and South Dakota).
E-7.7 Impact Assessment and Determination of Proposed
Sites
The assessment of impacts generally begins on a rather
qualitative basis in Stage 2 of the site selection process.
In Stage 3, however, greater emphasis is placed on the
quantification or ranking of impacts and the combination of
807
-------
an appropriate mix of considerations (i.e., with primary
emphasis on design engineering, economic costs, and environ-
mental factors) to derive impact values and to determine
several acceptable sites (144).
Specific impact models are recommended to deal singly
with each impact independently of all other impacts. For
example, the U.S. DOE used a community development program-
ming model to generically estimate both the development
impacts and the end impacts of synthetic fuels plant con-
struction and development in the United States (AFDP).
Ramsay (115) inspired by the approaches to power plant
siting being used by the State of Maryland and other groups,
suggested a method of site selection whose goal was the
identification of the relative suitability of different
types of power plants at different geographic locations for
each reasonable permutation of a set of specific plant
design technologies, whereupon the environmental impacts and
dollar costs were determined sequentially in terms of the
following environmental categories: geology, seismology;
meteorology, population centers; hydrology; ecosystems, land
use, and several other factors (115). The rationale of this
approach was that an attempt be made to measure all economic,
plant design, and environmental variables in terms of dollar
values. In fact, this effort is made somewhat easier by the
existence of federal and state regulatory standards which
must be met on a site specific basis; these factors establish
the bottom line for the external costs of compliance (115).
The attractiveness of the Ramsay concept (115) stems from
its relevance to the dual need to select suitable site(s) on
the one hand, and on the other to conduct full-scale assess-
ments of expected environmental impacts. However, this
approach will require solid information on a number of
808
-------
variables, not the least of which is the need for compliance
with the extant environmental standards, and the cost-
effectiveness of the required controls (see also Section
5) at specific sites.
Certain rather formalized numerical rating and weighting
systems in current use (144) require (a) procedures for
structuring the individual components of total impact, (b)
methods for modeling, evaluating, and assigning numerical
ratings to those nontangible siting factors listed earlier
in Section 5.8, and (c) appropriate models for combining the
specific impacts into a composite rating of total impact
(144,180). Thus, the structured nature of this method
serves to formalize the subjective aspects of the process.
Delphi and related techniques probably will be increasingly
used to resolve this problem. The following steps have been
suggested for use in evaluating site-specific impacts (144):
1. Establish the objectives of the analysis, involving
a determination of how impacts are to be measured
and classified on a relative comparison basis.
2. Classify impact considerations, involving the
structuring of an environmental matrix or hierarchi-
cal system.
3. Develop models for each specific impact. A key
element of the formalized numerical rating methods
is the way in which each of the individual specific
impacts is described or modeled. Ideally, each
impact should be treated independently of all
other impacts and evaluated by the same ground
rules at each site. To the greatest extent possible,
specific impacts should be based on objectively
measured quantitative data; however, judgmental
809
-------
assessments will inevitably be present to some
extent.
Examples of specific impact models are as follows,
(144):
Displacement of residences
The environmental impact of displacing people
is assumed to be proportional to the number
of dwellings affected by site acquisition.
Uniqueness of habitats
The environmental impact of loss of a particu-
lar portion of natural habitat is modeled
as the percentage which occurs on the site
with respect to similar types of habitat
within, say, a 24 km radius on the site.
Develop a list of data requirements. The require-
ments for input data will depend upon the particu-
lar specific impact models developed. The limiting
constraint is the quality and quantity of data
that can be obtained for a reasonable amount of
effort.
Examples of sources that can be used include:
Current 7-1/2 minute or 15 minute series
U.S.G.S. topographic maps
Current U.S. Census reports
810
-------
County Plat books
U.S. Department of Interior Water Supply
Papers
Reports for the local State Departments of
Natural Resources
Local hunting and fishing guides
5. Establish weightings and determine site rankings.
Since all specific impacts are not of equal import-
ance, the significance of each relative to the
others is usually factored into the evaluation
using an importance weighting for each specific
impact. Following the application of a particular
weighting scheme, the order of site ranking is
determined by using the evaluation structure from
Step 2, and the models from Step 3. Employing
different sets of importance weightings can be
used to investigate the sensitivity of total
impact to particular considerations.
811
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-146
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Assessment Report: Solvent Refined
Coal (SRC) Systems
j.shields, H.T.Hopkins, E.E.Weir, and
Carolyn Thompson
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
B. REPORT DATE
June 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE623A
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
Final; 5/78 - 5/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES jERL-RTP project officer is William J. Rhodes, Mail Drop 61,
919/541-2851.
i6. ABSTRACT The report jg ^ integrated evaluation of air emissions, water effluents,
solid wastes, toxic substances, control/disposal alternatives, environmental regu-
latory requirements, and environmental effects associated with solvent refined coal
(SRC) systems. It considers the SRC-I (solid product) and SRC-n (liquid product)
variations of solvent refining in terms of a hypothetical facility to produce 7950 cu
m/day liquefied coal products. Discussions emphasize SRC-H production, identi-
fying differences applicable to SRC-I production. An overview of the SRC system
processes is followed by characterizations of applicable input materials, process
streams,waste streams, products, and byproducts. Control and disposal options are
surveyed to determine their applicability to subject discharges. Potentially applicabl
regulatory requirements are reviewed and compared to estimated after-treatment
discharge levels. Source Analysis Model (SAM) analyses indicate that solid wastes
produced by SRC systems are the greatest source of current environmental concern.
The major environmental difference between SRC-I and SRC-n systems is the poten-
tial for particulate emissions of SRC-I solid product dust. Additional information
needs for future environmental assessment are discussed. Supplemental information
pertinent to the discussions is included in appendices.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT i Field/Group
Pollution
Coal
Liquefaction
Assessments
Toxicity
Waste Disposal
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
SolveijtrReWhed1 Goal
Environmental Assess-
ment
13B
08G
07D
14B
06T
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
846
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-73)
812
-------
United States Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/7-79-146
Environmental Protection Laboratory June 1979
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Agency
Environmental
Assessment Report:
Solvent Refined Coal
(SRC) Systems
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports >n this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy Environment Research and
Development Program These studies relate to EPA s mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide'range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-146
June 1979
Environmental Assessment Report: Solvent
Refined Coal (SRC) Systems
by
K. J. Shields, H. T. Hopkins,
E. E. Weir, and Carolyn Thompson
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Contract No. 68-02-2162
Program Element No. EHE623A
EPA Project Officer: William J. Rhodes
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This Environmental Assessment Report is an integrated
evaluation of air emissions, water effluents, solid wastes,
toxic substances, control/disposal alternatives, environmental
regulatory requirements and environmental effects associated
with Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) systems.
Both the SRC-I (solid product) and SRC-II (liquid pro-
duct) variations of solvent refining are considered in terms
of a hypothetical facility to produce 7,950 cubic meters
per day liquified coal products. To prevent unnecessary
redundancy, discussions emphasize SRC-II production, identi-
fying any differences applicable to SRC-I production as
required. Following an overview of the processes comprising
SRC systems, characterizations of applicable input materials,
process streams, waste streams, products and by-products are
made. Based on available stream characterization data,
available control and disposal options are surveyed to
determine their applicability to the subject discharges. A
review of potentially applicable regulatory requirements is
made and compared to estimated af±er treatment discharge
levels.
In addition the environmental effects attributable to
treated discharges are evaluated using the Multimedia En-
vironmental Goals (MEGs), and Source Analysis Models (SAMs)
methodologies. Based on SAM analysis of the existing data,
solid wastes produced by SRC systems are considered the great-
est source of current environmental concern. In terms of
environmental assessment, the major difference between SRC-I
and SRC-II systems is the potential for particulate emissions
in the form of SRC-I solid product dust.
111
-------
A discussion of additional information needs for future
environmental assessment work is presented. Supplemental
information pertinent to the discussions presented in the
body of the report is included in the Appendices.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
List of Figures xii
List of Tables xix
List of Abbreviations xxxi
Nomenclature xxxiii
Acknowledgements xxxiv
1.0 SUMMARY 1
1.1 Overview of Solvent Refined Coal Systems .... 2
1.1.1 SRC-II Liquefaction 3
1.1.2 SRC-I Liquefaction 7
1.1.3 Auxiliary Processes in SRC Systems . . 7
1.2 Waste Streams and Pollutants of Major
Concern 12
1.2.1 Waste Streams to Air 12
1.2.2 Waste Streams to Water 17
1.2.3 Solid Wastes 20
1.2.4 Toxic Substances 23
1.3 Status of Environmental Protection
Alternatives 25
1.3.1 Air Emissions Controls 25
1.3.2 Water Effluents Control 28
1.3.4 Control of Solid Wastes 30
1.4 Data Needs and Recommendations 30
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION OF SOLVENT REFINED COAL
SYSTEMS 38
2.1 Technical Overview of Solvent Refined Coal
Systems 38
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
2.1.1 Status of Development 38
2.1.2 Industrial Applicability of SRC
Systems 43
2.1.3 Input Materials, Products and
By-Products 44
2.1.4 Energy Efficiencies 46
2.1.5 Capital and Operating Costs 47
2.1.6 Commercial Prospects 50
2.2 Description of Processes 51
2.2.1 Generalized System Flow Diagrams ... 51
2.2.2 Coal Pretreatment 55
2.2.3 Liquefaction 65
2.2.4 Separation 69
2.2.5 Purification and Upgrading 77
2.2.6 Auxiliary Processes 85
2.3 Process Areas of Current Environmental Concern . 133
2.3.1 Coal Pretreatment 133
2.3.2 Coal Liquefaction 134
2.3.3 Separation 134
2.3.4 Purification and Upgrading 135
2.3.5 Auxiliary Processes 136
3.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF INPUT MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, AND
WASTE STREAMS 138
3.1 Summary of Sampling and Analytical Activities. . 138
3.1.1 IERL/RTP Environmental Assessment
Activities 138
3.1.2 Non-IERL/RTP Evaluations of the
SRC Systems 151
3.2 Input Materials 163
3.2.1 Regional Characterization of U.S.
Coals 163
3.2.2 Regional Characterization of U.S.
Surface and Groundwaters 174
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.3 Process Streams 184
3.3.1 Coal Pretreatment 184
3.3.2 Coal Liquefaction 189
3.3.3 Separation 189
3.3.4 Purification and Upgrading 191
3.3.5 Auxiliary Processes 192
3.4 Toxic Substances in Products and By-Products . . 194
3.4.1 Inorganic Analysis 198
3.4.2 Organic Analysis 205
3.5 Waste Streams to Air 209
3.5.1 Coal Pretreatment 211
3.5.2 Coal Liquefaction 215
3.5.3 Separation 215
3.5.4 Purification and Upgrading 216
3.5.5 Auxiliary Processes 216
3.6 Waste Streams to Water 233
3.6.1 Coal Pretreatment 234
3.6.2 Coal Liquefaction 234
3.6.3 Separation 236
3.6.4 Purification and Upgrading 236
3.6.5 Auxiliary Facilities 237
3.7 Solid Wastes to Final Disposal 252
3.7.1 Coal Pretreatment 252
3.7.2 Coal Liquefaction, Gas Separation
and Hydrotreating 252
3.7.3 Fractionation 253
3.7.4 Solids/Liquids Separation Process. . . 253
3.7.5 Auxiliary Processes 257
3.7.6 Process Sludges . 257
3.7.7 Steam Generation 262
3.7.8 Hydrogen Generation 265
vii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
4.0 PERFORMANCE AND COST OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES ....
4.1 Procedures for Evaluating Control Alternatives . 267
4.2 Air Emission Control Alternatives 268
4.2.1 Coal Pretreatment 270
4.2.2 Coal Liquefaction Operation 271
4.2.3 Separation 272
4.2.4 Purification and Upgrading 273
4.2.5 Auxiliary Processes 273
4.3 Water Effluent Control Alternatives 279
4.3.1 Coal Pretreatment Operation 279
4.3.2 Coal Liquefaction Operation 281
4.3.3 Separation 281
4.3.4 Purification and Upgrading 281
4.3.5 Auxiliary Processes 282
4.4 Solid Waste Control Alternatives 286
4.4.1 Coal Pretreatment 286
4.4.2 Coal Liquefaction. 286
4.4.3 Separation 286
4.4.4 Purification and Upgrading 288
4.4.5 Auxiliary Processes 288
4.5 Toxic Substances Control Alternatives 289
4.6 Summary of Most Effective Control Alternatives . 290
4.6.1 Emissions Control 291
4.6.2 Effluents Control 291
4.6.3 Solid Wastes Control 297
4.6.4 Toxic Substances Control 297
4.7 Multimedia Control Alternatives 297
4.8 Regional Considerations Affecting Selection of
Alternatives 301
4.9 Summary of Cost and Energy Considerations . . . 307
4.9.1 Air Emissions Control Alternatives . . 307
4.9.2 Water Effluents Control Alternatives . 315
4.9.3 Solid Wastes Control Alternatives. . . 316
Vlll
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
5.0 ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACTS 319
5.1 Environmental Impact Methodologies 319
5.1.1 Multimedia Environmental Goals .... 319
5.1.2 Source Analysis Models 340
5.1.3 Bioassay Interpretations 358
5.1.4 Joint Site Selection and Impact
Assessment Methods 375
5.2 Impacts on Air 379
5.2.1 Summary of Air Standards and
Guidelines 379
5.2.2 Comparisons of Waste Streams With
Emission Standards 400
5.2.3 Impacts on Ambient Air Quality .... 409
5.2.4 Potential Ecological and Health
Effects of Unregulated Air Pollutants. 412
5.3 Impacts on Water 414
5.3.1 Summary of Water Standards 414
5.3.2 Comparisons of Waste Streams with
Effluent Standards 441
5.3.3 Impact on Ambient Water Quality . . . 442
5.3.4 Evaluation of Unregulated Pollutants
and Bioassay Results 450
5.4 Impacts of Land Disposal 450
5.4.1 Summary of Final Land Disposal
Standards 450
5.4.2 Comparison of Waste Streams with
Disposal Standards 466
5.4.3 Evaluation of Unregulated Pollutants
and Bioassay Results 468
IX
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
5.5 Product Impacts 485
5.5.1 Summary of Toxic Substances
Standards. . 485
5.5.2 Comparison of Product Char-
acterization Data with Toxic
Substances Standards 487
5.5.3 Environmental Impacts 487
5.5.4 Evaluation of Unregulated Toxic
Substances and Bioassay Results. . 502
5.6 Radiation and Noise Impacts 518
5.6.1 Radioactivity 519
5.6.2 Noise 519
5.6.3 Thermal Factors 5Z1
5.6.4 Potential Ecological and Health
Effects of Radiation, Noise, and
Thermal Emissions. 522
5.7 Summary of Major Environmental Impacts . . . 527
5.7.1 Air Impacts 536
5.7.2 Water Impacts 538
5.7.3 Impacts of Solid Wastes 538
5.7.4 Product Impacts 538
5.7.5 Other Impacts 547
5.8 Siting Considerations 551
5.8.1 Major Stages and Steps of the SRC
Siting Methodology 554
5.8.2 Basic Siting Considerations. . . . 559
5.8.3 Basic Exclusions 560
5.8.4 Suggested EPA Regions for Siting
Synfuels Plants 561
6.0 SUMMARY OF NEEDS FOR ADDITIONAL DATA 562
6.1 Categories of Data Needs 562
6.1.1 Data Needs to Support Standards
Development and Enforcement. . . . 562
6.1.2 Data Needs to Support Effects
and Control Technology Research
and Development 569
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
6.2 Data Acquisition by Ongoing Environmental
Assessment Activities 573
6.2.1 Ongoing IERL-RTP Environmental
Assessment Activities 573
6.2.2 Other Ongoing Environmental
Assessment Activities 573
REFERENCES 578
APPENDICES 594
A. Glossary 595
B. Metric Conversion Factors 603
C. Quality of Rivers of the United States . . . 606
D. Pollution Control Alternatives 632
D-l Air Emission Control Alternatives . . . 632
D-2 Water Effluent Control Alternatives . . 663
D-3 Solids Treatment Alternatives 693
D-4 Final Disposal Alternatives for Solid
Wastes 712
E. Baseline Factors for SRC-II Development. . . 747
E-l Planning and Design Factors 747
E-2 Government Rulemaking Factors -
Environmental Requirements 748
E-3 Source Factors and Their Interactions . 751
E-4 Dissipative Forces 753
E-5 Development and End Impacts 755
E-6 Standards Applicable to SRC
Development 758
E-7 Siting Considerations 778
XI
-------
FIGURES
Number ^ Page
1 SRC-II system 6
.2 SRC-I system 8
3 Auxiliary processes in SRC systems 10
4 Air emissions from SRC systems 13
5 Sources of water effluents in SRC systems ... 18
6 Sources of solid wastes in SRC systems 22
7 Controls for air emissions from SRC systems . . 26
8 Control of water effluents in SRC systems ... 29
9 Control of solid wastes in SRC systems 31
10 Fort Lewis SRC pilot plant 32
11 Current schedule for SRC research and
development 42
12 Overall material balance for SRC-II systems
with product capacity of 7,950 m3/day (8,699
ing/day) 45
13 Generalized flow diagram of SRC-II system ... 53
14 Generalized flow diagram of SRC-I system .... 55
15 Process modules of coal receiving, storage, and
pretreatment facilities 57
16 Block flow diagram of coal pretreatment opera-
tion (SRC-II mode) 60
17 Process module diagram of the coal liquefaction
operation 66
18 Block flow diagram of liquefaction operation
(SRC-II mode) 68
19 Process modules of gas separation process
(SRC-II mode) 70
Xli
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
20 Block flow diagram of gas separation process
(SRC-II mode) 73
21 Process flow schematic: solids/liquids
separation process (SRC-II mode) 75
22 Two solidification alternatives 76
23 Block flow diagram of solids/liquids separa-
tion process (SRC-II mode) 78
24 Process flow schematic: fractionation process
(SRC-II mode) 80
25 Block flow diagram of fractionation process . 81
26 Process flow schematic: hydrotreating process
(SRC-II mode) 83
27 Block flow diagram of hydrotreating process
(SRC-II mode) 86
28 Block flow diagram of coal receiving and
storage (SRC-II mode) 88
29 A typical raw water treatment process .... 90
30 Block flow diagram of water supply 93
31 Typical water cooling process 94
32 Block flow diagram of water cooling process . 96
33 Steam generation facilities 99
34 Block flow diagram of steam generation. . . . 100
35 Hydrogen generation auxiliary process .... 102
36 Block flow diagram of hydrogen generation
process 105
37 Typical oxygen generation process 107
38 Block flow diagram of oxygen generation
process 109
Xlll
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Schematic of MEA acid gas removal process . . .
Block flow diagram of acid gas removal
Schematic of Stretford sulfur recovery with high
temperature hydrolysis
Block flow diagram of sulfur recovery
Process flow schematic: hydrocarbon/hydrogen
recovery
Block flow diagram of hydrocarbon/ hydrogen
recovery process
Process flow schematic of ammonia recovery . . .
Block flow diagram of ammonia recovery process .
Typical solvent extraction phenol recovery
process
Block flow diagram of phenol recovery process. .
Block flow diagram of product/by-product storage
facilities (SRC-II mode)
Interrelationships among general areas involved
in preparing an environmental test plan ....
Air emissions discharged from SRC systems . . .
Sources of wastewater effluent discharges in
SRC systems
Sources of solid wastes in SRC systems
Two wastewater treatment alternatives applicable
to SRC systems
Zero discharge water management system for
SRC-II
Background information sample summary for
benzo(a)pyrene
Page
111
114
116
119
121
123
125
127
128
130
132
139
269
280
287
298
302
322
XIV
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
57 Sample MEG chart 324
58 Sample SAM/IA worksheet for Level 1 350
59 Sample SAM/IA worksheet for Level 2 352
60 Sample SAM/IA worksheet for notes and
assumptions 355
61 Sample SAM/IA summary sheet, Side 1 356
62 Example o f a hierarchical system for evaluating
the impacts of construction and operation of
synfuel plants 377
63 Potential emissions from SRC-II basic unit
operations and auxiliary process 401
64 Potential solid wastes from basic unit
operation 467
65 Level 2 analysis for SRC mineral residue ..... 475
66 Level 2 analysis for gasifier slag 482
67 Coal liquefaction environmental health and
safety impact and hazard control requirements. . 494
68 Diagrammatic representation of a conceptualized
SRC facility showing appropriate stream numbers. 528
69 SAM/IA summary using average U.S. coal 529
70 SAM/IA summary using maximum U.S. coal 532
71 Power plant siting methodology 555
72 Overall flow schematic for the SRC-II pilot
plant 567
73 Overall flow schematic of the SRC pilot plant
wastewater system 568
xv
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Page
74 Principal areas of water pollution 607
75 Acid mine drainage 608
76 Evaporation from open-water surfaces. . . . 609
77 Temperature of surface water - July and
August 610
78 Surface-water runoff (average annual) . . . 611
79 Flow of large rivers 612
80 Dissolved solids content of surface water . 613
81 Saline surface-water 614
82 Hardness of surface water 615
83 Concentration of sediment in streams. . . . 616
84 Natural fluoride in water supplies 617
85 Thermal pollution 618
86 Mean hardness as calcium carbonate at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year . . 619
87 Mean concentration of dissolved chloride
at NASQAN stations during 1975 water year . 620
88 Mean concentration of dissolved solids
measured as residue on evaporation (ROE) at
180°C at NASQAN stations during 1975 water
year 621
89 Mean concentration of dissolved zinc at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year. . . 622
90 Mean concentration of dissolved sulfate at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year. . . 623
91 Mean concentration of suspended sediment at
NASQAN stations during 1975 water year. . . 624
xvi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
92 Mean concentration of dissolved fluoride
at NASQAN stations during 1975 water year . 625
93 Mean concentrations of total phosphorus as
P at NASQAN stations during 1975 water
year 626
94 Mean alkalinity as calcium carbonate. . . . 627
95 Mean numbers of phytoplankton 628
96 Mean concentration of ammonia plus organic
nitrogen as N 629
97 Mean concentration of total nitrite plus
nitrite as N 630
98 Mean concentration of dissolved arsenic . . 631
99 Settling chamber configurations 634
100 Conventional cyclone separator 636
101 Beavon tailgas cleanup process 661
102 SCOT process 662
103 Recommended values of F for various values
of Vh/Vt 674
104 Three flow schemes employed in the dis-
solved air flotation process 677
105 Moving belt concentrator yield vs. cake
solids 704
106 Stream to air ratio at saturation in the
reactor vapor space for various operation
temperatures and pressures 707
107 Reduction in COD resulting from sludge
being exposed to excess air for one hour
at various temperatures 708
108 High operation temperatures result in high
COD reduction and low reaction time .... 708
xvii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
109 Tank bottom drainage systems 720
110 Tank bottom replacement 722
111 Internal heating coil monitoring system . . . 722
112 Tank filling control system 725
113 Navy boom 735
114 Kain boom 735
115 Boom/skimmer configuration for oil spill
cleanup 736
116 Circulation pattern upstream of an air
barrier in a current 736
117 Classes of skimmers 740
118 Diagram showing percolation of contaminants
from a disposal pit to a water-table
aquifer 785
119 Diagram showing how contaminated water can
be induced to flow from a surface stream
to a well 787
120 Plan view of a water-table aquifer showing
the hypothetical areal extent to which
specific contaminants of mixed wastes at a
disposal site disperse and move 789
xvi 11
-------
TABLES
1 Key Events in the Development of Solvent
Refined Coal Systems Including Projected
Plans 4
2 Air Emissions of Concern Associated With
SRC Systems Based on SAM/IA Analysis .... 16
3 Water Effluents of Concern Associated
With SRC Systems Based on SAM/IA Analysis. . 21
4 Solid Wastes of Concern Associated With
SRC Systems Based on SAM/IA Analysis .... 24
5 Some Toxic Substances Associated With SRC
Products 25
6 Energy Efficiency of SRC-II Systems 46
7 Summary of Capital Costs for Conceptual
SRC Plants 48
8 Required Selling Price for Investment
Return - SRC-1 and SRC-II Modes 49
9 Run of Mine (ROM) Illinois No. 6 Coal
Analysis 61
10 Average Ash Analysis of Illinois No. 6
Coal 61
11 Trace Element Composition of Illinois No. 6
Coal Samples 62
12 Composition of Liquefaction Reactor
Product Slurry 67
13 Typical Constituents in Raw Water From The
Wabash River 91
14 DOE SRC Contracts and Subcontracts Having
Published Reports of Environmental Assess-
ment Activities 152
xix
-------
TABLES (continued)
15 Primary and Secondary Raw Materials
Supplied to SRC Basic Unit Operations. . . . 164
16 Primary and Secondary Raw Materials
Supplied to Auxiliary Processes 165
17 Geographical Distribution of Major Coal
Resources and Reserves 168
18 Average Proximate Analysis of Coal by
Regions 169
19 Ultimate Analysis of Coal by Region 169
20 Average and Maximum Elemental Composition
of All U.S. Coals For Which Data Have Been
Published 175
21 Process Streams Associated With Operations
and Auxiliary Processes of SRC-II 185
22 Process Streams Associated With Auxiliary
Processes of SRC-II 187
23 Concentration of Streams from Gas Purifi-
cation and Hydrogen Production 193
24 Concentration of Atmospheric Emissions
from the Off-Gas from Gas Separation .... 193
25 Concentration in The Acid Gas to Sulfur
Recovery Process Stream 195
26 Concentration In Wastewater Process Stream
from Ammonia Stripping 195
27 Wastewater From Phase Gas Separation .... 195
28 SRC-II Product and By-Product Terminology. . 197
29 Partitioning Factors and Estimated Concen-
tration of Inorganics in SRC-I Light
Oil-Naphtha 199
xx
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
30 Partitioning Factors and Estimated Con-
centration of Inorganics in SRC-I Wash
Solvent 200
31 Partitioning Factors and Estimated Concen-
tration of Inorganics in SRC-I Filter Cake . 201
32 Partitioning Factors and Estimated Con-
centration of Trace Elements in SRC Sulfur
By-Products 202
33 Element Concentrations in Process Streams
as Detected by Spark Source Mass Spectros-
copy (ppm) 203
34 Inorganic Element Content in Liquid Samples
from Coal Liquefaction - Refined Solid . . . 206
35 Analysis of SRC-I Organics for PAH and
Neutral Fractions 208
36 Flue Gases from Auxiliary Processes 210
37 Estimate of Inorganic Composition of
Atmospheric Emission After Control of Coal
Dust from Coal Pretreatment Module 213
38 Composition of Fly Ashes from Different
(Unspecified) Locations Across the United
States 221
39 Concentrations and Concentration Trends
With Decreasing Fly Ash Particle Size for
Selected Elements 222
40 Concentration of Trace Elements in Coal
and Fly Ash in Different Geographical
Locations 223
41 Enrichment Factors for Fly Ash/Coal From
Unspecified Geographical Locations 225
XXI
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
42 Summary of Enrichment Factors 227
43 Estimated Elemental Composition of Boiler
Flue Gas Due to Fly Ash Component 228
44 Emissions After Treatment of Stretford
Tail Gas by Direct Flame inceration 232
45 Chemical Wastes Characteristics of Coal
Pile Drainage 235
46 Wastewater Composition from Hydrotreating
Module (Decanter Wastewater) 237
47 Quantified Sources and Composition of
Wastewater 238
48 Characterization of Foul Process Water . . . 238
49 Characteristics of Ash Pond Effluent from
Coal-Fired Power Plants Run on Kentucky
Bituminous or Illinois Coal 242
50 Effects on Refuse Pile Runoff on Stream
Composition 243
51 Organic Constituents of Bio-Unit Effluent. . 249
52 Partitioning Factors and Estimated Concen-
tration of Inorganics in SRC Wastewater. . . 251
53 Summary of Removal of Metals by Chemical
Clarification and Carbon Adsorption 250
54 Organics Quantified in SRC-I Filter Cake
Residue from Kentucky Bituminous Coal. . . . 254
55 Partitioning Factors and Estimates of
Inorganic Constituents in SRC-II Mineral
Residue Filter Cake 255
56 Absorbent Purge from the Stretford Unit, . . 257
57 Characteristics of Scrubber Sludge Generat-
ed in Coal-Fired Power Plants 261
58 Composition of Fly Ash from Average and
Maximum U.S. Coals 263
xxi i
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
59 Estimated Inorganics in Gasifier Slag. . . . 266
60 Low Temperature Acid Gas Removal Processes . 277
61 Summary of Air Emissions Control Technology
Applicability to SRC Systems 292
62 Summary of Water Effluents Control Techno-
logy Applicability to SRC Systems 295
63 Summary of Solid Wastes Control Technology
Applicability to SRC Systems 299
64 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Options
for SRC-II 303
65 Costs of Control Alternatives for Fugitive
Dust 308
66 Cost of Treatment Alternatives for Control
of Dust from Coal Sizing 310
67 Cost of Control Alternatives for Stack Gas
from Coal Drying 310
68 Estimated Costs for Flare System of A
7,950 Mg/day SRC Plant 312
69 Costs, Efficiencies and Final Emissions
for Commercially Available S02 Wet
Scrubbing Processes 313
70 Treatment Alternatives for Stretford Tail
Gas 314
71 Tailings Pond 316
72 Costs of Wastewater Treatment Processes
for SRC Systems 317
73 Ranking of the Materials Addressed by the
Current MEG's According to Potential
Environmental Hazard 329
XXlll
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
74 Epidemiological Mortality/Morbidity Studies .334
75 Adjusted Ordering Numbers for Several
Inorganics and Organics 341
76 EPA Level 1 Bioassays 361
77 Chemicals for Which Evidence Exists of
Carcinogencity to Both Nonhuman and Human
Animals 371
78 Relationship Between Predicted and Actual
Behavior of Human Carcinogens 373
79 National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards 380
80 Federal New Source Performance Standards
of Coal Liquefaction-Related Technologies . .382
81 PSD Permitting Agreements 386
82 Major Stationary Sources Subject to PSD
Review 388
83 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standards Compared to State
Standards 392
84 Summary of State Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Which No National Standards
Exists 393
85 Regulated Air Pollutants Which May Exceed
Unknown Standards and/or May Cause Health
Or Environmental Hazard 403
86 Suggestsions for More Stringent Mates for
Regulated Air Pollutants 409
87 SAM/IA Analysis of Atmospheric Emissions of
Coal Pretreatment and Fly Ash from Steam
Generation 410
xx iv
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
88 SAM/IA Analysis of Atmospheric Emissions
from Treated Stretford Tail Gas, Oxygen
Generation and Flare 411
89 Unregulated Air Pollutants Which May Cause
Health or Environmental Hazard 413
90 Suggestions for More Stringent Mates for
Unregulated Air Pollutants 412
91 Summary of Federal and Selected State Water
Quality Standards and Criteria 415
92 Toxic Pollutants - List of 129 Unambiguous
Priority Pollutants, Including the 65 Classes
Of Toxic Chemicals 418
93 EPA Effluent Standards for Coal Liquefaction
Related Technologies 421
94 Numerical Effluent Standards of Coal-
Producing States 434
95 Regulated Water Pollutants Which May Cause
Standards and/or Which May Cause Health
or Environmental Hazard 443
96 Regulated Water Pollutants for Which The
Predicted Environmental Hazard May Be Too
Low 447
97 SAM/IA Analysis of Aqueous Effluent of the
Hydrotreating Module, Phenol Recovery
Module, and Bio-Unit 448
98 SAM/IA Analysis of Aqueous Effluent from
Coal Pile Drainage, Ash Pond Effluent, and
Wastewater 449
99 Amount and Hazard Expected from Unregulated
Pollutants 451
100 Existing State Requirements for Hazardous
and Solid Wastes 455
xxv
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
101 Analysis Chart for Waste Groups 453
102 IEPA Acceptable Disposal Methods 460
103 Unregulated Solid Wastes Which May Cause
Environmental Hazards 459
104 SAM/IA Analysis of Solid Wastes From The
Inorganic Fraction of the Solid Residue,
API Separator Bottoms, Biosludge 473
105 Pollutants for Which The SAM/IA Method May
Underestimate the Environmental Hazard . . . 474
106 Concentrations of Constituents Identified
In SRC Products 491
107 Comparison of Combustion Emissions to
Standards for Solid Fossil Fuel-Fired
Steam Generators 495
108 Comparison of Inorganic Air Emissions --
Coal Vs. SRC 497
109 Comparison of SRC Air Emissions With MEG's . 499
110 Comparison of Combustion Emissions To
Standards for Liquid Fossil Fuel-Fired
Steam Generators 501
111 Estimated Concentrations of Inorganics
in SRC-1 Light Oil Naphtha 504
112 Estimated Inorganic Concentrations in
SRC-1 Wash Solvent 505
113 Estimated Inorganic Concentrations in
SRC-1 Heavy Oil 506
114 Estimated Inorganic Concentrations in
SRC-I Filter Cake 507
115 Estimated Inorganic Concentrations in
SRC Sulfur By-Product 508
xxvi
-------
TABLES (continued)
. Page
116 Summary Derived from SAM/IA Methodology
Applied to Spark Source Results from
Product Streams and Residue 509
117 Trace Elements Exceeding Health or Eco-
logical MATE Concentrations in the Heavy
Distillates 510
118 Summary of SAM/IA For Middle and Heavy
Distillates 511
119 Radiation Protection Guides 523
120 Estimation of the Maximum Amount of Radon
Associated with 28,123 MG of the Most
Radioactive Coal Known in the United States. 525
121 Summary of Individual Pollutants Which May
Be Hazardous in the Individual Aqueous
Waste Streams from The Conceptualized
SRC Facility 539
122 Pollutants Which Are Likely to Be Hazardous
in the Individual Solid Waste Streams. . . . 540
123 Inorganic Elements in SRC-I Product Streams
Having SAM/IA Analysis Potential Degree of
Hazards Greater Than "1" 543
124 Total Commitment of Construction Materials . 548
125 Estimated Maximum Annual Coal Consumption
By Synfuels Plants by The Year 2000 548
126 Technical Availability of Commercial SRC
System Components 566
127 DOE Contractors and Subcontractors 574
128 Efficiency of Cyclones 635
129 Air-To-Cloth Ratios for Coal Dust 643
130 Characteristics of Filter Fabrics 644
xxvi i
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
131 Efficiency of Scrubbers at Various
Particle Sizes 646
132 Applicability of Various Wet Scrubbers to
Coal Dusts and Fly Ash 647
133 Combustion Temperatures in Direct-Fired
and Catalytic Afterburners 648
134 Sulfur Dioxide Control Alternatives 659
135 Processes For Water Effluent Control 663
136 Neutralization Reagents 670
137 Gravity Oil-Water Separator Design
Equations 673
138 Air Flotation Unit Operating Conditions . . . 676
139 Dissolved Air Flotation 678
140 Biological Treatment Systems 680
141 Filtration Processes 682
142 Removal Efficiency of Ion Exchange 690
143 Solids Treatment 694
144 Design Parameters for Thickeners 696
145 Characteristics of Centrifuges 698
146 Wet Air Oxidation Process Operating Con-
dition 706
147 Wet Oxidation Process 709
148 Incinceration 711
149 Composting 717
xxviii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Page
150 Sorbents Relative Effectiveness and Costs. . 738
151 Effects Observed for Temperature Variations
Used During Fossil Fuel Processing or
Conversion 752
152 End Impacts Associated With A High-
Btu Gasification Plant 756
153 Pennsylvania Standards for Contaminants. . . 759
154 Applicable Air Pollution Regulations in
West Virginia • 759
155 Standards of Performance for Petroleum
Refineries in Kentucky 760
156 Applicable Illinois Emissions Regulations. . 760
157 New Mexico Emissions Standards for Com-
mercial Gasifiers 761
158 New Mexico Emissions Standard for
Refineries 763
159 Texas Emissions Limits for Fossil Fuel
Burning Steam Generators 763
160 Standards of Performance for Petroleum
Refineries in Colorado 764
161 Selected South Dakota Industrial Emissions
Standards 764
162 Applicable Wyoming Emissions Regulations . . 765
163 Arizona Air Quality Goals 765
164 Industrial Emissions Standards in Arizona. . 766
165 Emissions Standards for Industrial Processes
and Fuel Burning Equipment in Alaska .... 766
xxix
-------
TABLES (continued)
166 Specific Water Quality Standards -
Receiving Waters 771
167 Most Stringent Water Quality Standards. . . . 772
168 Contaminants and Concentrations Not To Be
Exceeded in Any Effluent 775
169 State Land Use Programs 779
170 Interactions of Selected Elements in Soils. . 798
171 Environmental Impact Analysis - Most
Significant Impacts 801
XXX
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AQCR
CEC
cm
COD
DCF
DES
DOE
dscm
DO
DAF
EAR
EPRI
ETTA
EPA
GCMS
HPOAS
HAI
I UP AC
IERL/RTP
kg
1
LPG
m
Air Quality Control Regions
Cation exchange capacity
Centimeter
Chemical oxygen demand
Discounted cash flow
Diethylstilbestrol
Department of Energy
Dry standard cubic meter
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved air flotation
Environmental Assessment Report
Electric Power Research Institute
Effluent transport and transformation analysis
Environmental Protection Agency
Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
High purity oxygen activated sludge
Hittman Associates, Inc.
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park
Kilogram
liter
Liquefied petroleum gas
Meter
Microgram
xxxi
-------
MATE
MEA
MEG
MPa
Mg
MW
NA
NASQAN
OCR
P&M
PAH
PDU
PSD
PVC
ROM
SSAM
sent
SNG
SRC-I
SRC-II
TDS
TOC
ZAD
Minimum acute toxicity effluent
Monoethanolamine
Multimedia environmental goal
Megapascals
Megagram
Megawatt
Nonattainment
National Stream Quality Accounting Network
Office of Coal Research
Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Process development unit
Prevention of significant deterioration
Polyvinyl chloride
Run of mine
Second source analysis model
Standard cubic meter
Substitute natural gas
Solvent Refined Coal-I
Solvent Refined Coal-II
Total dissolved solids
Total organic carbon
Zero aqueous discharge
xxx 11
-------
NOMENCLATURE
Environmental Assessment Report: An evaluation of air
emissions, water effluents, solid waste, toxic substances,
control/disposal alternatives, environmental regulatory
requirements and environmental effects associated with a
given energy process; in this case, the Solvent Refined Coal
liquefaction process.
MEG (Multimedia Environmental Goal): Levels of significant
contaminants or degradents (in ambient air, water or land)
that are judged to be (1) appropriate for preventing certain
negative effects in the surrounding populations or ecosystems,
or (2) representative of control limits achievable through
technology.
MATE (Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluent): Concentration
levels of contaminants in air, water or solid waste effluents
that will not produce significant harmful responses in
exposed humans or the ecology, provided the exposure is of
limited duration. MATEs are average daily concentrations.
SAM (Source Analysis Model): A methodology which allows the
identification of possible problem areas where a suspected
pollutant exceeds the MEG.
SRC System: A noncatalytic direct-hydrogenation coal lique-
faction process for converting high-sulfur and ash coal into
clean burning gaseous, liquid or solid fuels.
SRC-I Product: A solid coal like product of less than one
(1) percent sulfur and 0.2 percent ash.
SRC-11 Product; A low-sulfur fuel oil of 0.2 to 0.5 percent
sulfur, and naphtha product.
xxxiii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared under the overall direction
of Mr. J. Wayne Morris, Program Manager, of Hittman
Associates, Inc., and Mr. William J. Rhodes, EPA Project
Officer, IERL/RTP.
Grateful appreciation is extended for the efforts and
patient cooperation of the following HAI personnel for their
contributions in the preparation of this manuscript:
Marion E. Bowie, Support Services Supervisor
Sherry A. Simpson, Technical Typist
Linda Stanton, Technical Illustrator
Johanna Bincarcowsky, Technical Illustrator
Thomas Davis, Reproduction Supervisor
John Robbins, Technical Editor
xxx iv
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
As part of its overall goal of maintaining a healthy
environment, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's (USEPA) Industrial Environmental Research Labora-
tory at Research Triangle Park (IERL/RTP), North Carolina is
directing an effort to evaluate the environmental aspects of
emerging coal conversion technologies. Hittman Associates,
Incorporated (HAI) is a prime contractor to IERL/RTP, re-
sponsible for environmental analysis of coal liquefaction
systems. Environmental Assessment Reports (EAR) were de-
veloped to provide best available environmental assessment
data on specified coal conversion systems in a standardized
format, thereby facilitating utilization by EPA personnel
and other researchers in the field. This EAR addresses
Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) liquefaction systems.
Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) systems convert high sulfur
and ash coal into cleaner-burning gaseous, liquid and/or
solid fuels by noncatalytic direct hydrogenation. There are
two basic system variations: (1) SRC-I, which produces a
solid, coal-like primary product of less than 1.0 percent
sulfur and 0.2 percent ash by weight; and (2) SRC-II, which
produces low sulfur fuel oil (0.2 to 0.5 percent sulfur by
weight) and naphtha as primary products. Both system varia-
tions produce significant quantities of gaseous hydrocarbons,
which are further processed yielding substitute natural gas
(SNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) products. Some
constituents formed during coal hydrogenation may be re-
covered as by-products, including sulfur, ammonia, and
phenols.
-------
1. 1 Overview of Solvent Refined Coal Systems
Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) is currently being developed
by the Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company (P&M), part
of Gulf Oil Corporation, under sponsorship of the U.S.
Department of Energy. The concept of solvent refining in
this country originated with the Spencer Chemical Company in
1962. Acquisition of Spencer Chemical Company by Gulf Oil
Corporation transferred development responsibility to P&M.
Much of the early development work was performed in
bench-scale units such as those at the P&M research facilities
in Merriam, Kansas. Subsequent contracts were negotiated
with the Office of Coal Research (OCR) for the design,
construction and operation of an SRC pilot plant. The pilot
plant, located in Fort Lewis, Washington, became fully
operational in 1974. The 45.5 Mg (50 tons)/day coal feed
capacity pilot plant was designed by Stearns-Roger Corporation
and built by Rust Engineering Company.
During its four years of operation the Fort Lewis pilot
plant has permitted numerous technical achievements.
Process variable studies have examined the effects of varying
coal feed rates and reactor temperatures on SRC system
operations. About 2700 Mg (3000 tons)/day of SRC-I product
(solid at ambient conditions) were produced for combustion
testing. SRC-II, an alternate mode of operation yielding
products that are liquid at ambient conditions was tested
successfully. SRC-II yields were also produced in large
o
quantities (about 800 m ) for combustion testing. A number
of alternative methods for solids/liquids separation were
tested. In addition most of the operating problems associated
with pilot plant startup have been solved, permitting generally
reliable operation of the facility.
-------
In addition to the Fort Lewis pilot plant, a 5.5 Mg (6
tons)/day coal feed capacity pilot plant was built in Wilson-
ville, Alabama. The Wilsonville facility is operated by
Catalytic, Inc. under sponsorship of the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI). The Wilsonville facility has
operated only in the SRC-I (solid product) mode. Table 1
lists some noteworthy SRC milestones.
1.1.1 SRC-II Liquefaction
SRC systems are defined to consist of the following
system operations, which perform specific functions essential
to solvent refining:
• Coal pretreatment - preparation of the coal feed to
meet system specifications for size and moisture
content.
• Coal liquefaction - reaction of feed coal with
hydrogen, yielding a three-phase mixture of increas-
ed liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon content.
• Separation - includes all necessary phase separa-
tions. Gas separation and solids/liquids separa-
tion processes are employed in SRC systems.
• Purification and upgrading - a fractionation pro-
cess is used to separate components of the raw
liquid products mixture by distillation, due to
differences in boiling points. A hydrotreating
process may be optionally employed to upgrade the
quality of fractionated product liquids.
-------
TABLE 1. KEY EVENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLVENT
REFINED COAL SYSTEMS INCLUDING PROJECTED PLANS
1960
1962: OCR awards research contract to Spencer
Chemi c a1 Comp any.
1965 1965: Solvent refining successfully demonstrated
in 22.7 kg (50 lb)/hr continuous flow unit.
1969: Steams-Roger Corporation completes design of
45.5 Mg (50 ton)/day Fort Lewis pilot plant.
1970
1972: OCR/P&M contract extended for pilot plant
construction and evaluation; Rust Engineering
begins construction.
1973: Construction of Wilsonville pilot plant.
1975 1974: Both pilot plants become fully operational.
1975: Fort Lewis process variable studies, SRC-I
production runs for combustion testing.
1977: Fort Lewis plant modified, begins SRC-II
production; SRC-I combustion test.
(1978: SRC-II combustion test; DOE awards design
contracts for SRC-I and SRC-II demonstration
plants.
1980
1983: Projected startup of demonstration plants
1985
1987: Projected startup date of commercial SRC
plants.
1990
-------
A fully integrated SRC-II (liquid product) system flow
scheme is shown in Figure 1. Raw coal from coal storage
facilities is sent to the coal pretreatment operation where
it is sized, dried and mixed with reactor product slurry
recycled from the gas separation process. The resulting
feed slurry is combined with recycle hydrogen from the
hydrogen/hydrocarbon recovery process and makeup hydrogen
from the hydrogen production process. The hydrogen-rich'
slurry is pumped through a preheater to the liquefaction
reactor, or dissolver. Exothermic hydrogenation reactions
initiated in the preheater continue in the dissolver which
typically operates between 435 and 470°C. The reactor
product slurry is sent to the gas separation process which
removes gaseous products of the hydrogenation reactions.
Various auxiliary processes recover valuable constituents
from the separated mixture of gases including recycle hydro-
gen, SNG, LPG, and sulfur species which are converted to by-
product elemental sulfur. Part of the separated slurry from
gas separation is recycled to the coal pretreatment opera-
tion. The remainder of the slurry, along with condensed
oils produced during gas separation, is sent to the frac-
tionator. The fractionator generates three streams: a light
distillate which is hydrotreated to form naphtha and fuel
oil products; liquid SRC, the primary product; and a bottom
stream which is sent to the solids/liquids separation pro-
cess. The vacuum distillation unit in solids/liquids separa-
tion recovers additional SRC liquid product from the frac-
tionator bottoms, yielding a residue of high mineral matter
content. This residue is gasified in the hydrogen generation
auxiliary process to produce makeup hydrogen for the lique-
faction operation.
-------
MAJOR INPUTS
RAW COAL RAW WATER
I 1
AUXILIARY
PROCESS
FACILITIES:
COAL RECEIVING/STORAGE
x
WATER SUPPLY
WATER COOL IMG
STEAM/POWER GENERATION
HYDROGEN GENERATION
OXYGEN GENERATION
AC 10 GAS REMOVAL
HYDROGEN/HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
SULFUR RECOVERY
AMMONIA RECOVERY
PHENOL RECOVERY
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
COAL FROM STORAGE
COAL
PRETREATMENT
FEED
SLURRY
MAKEUP AND RECYCLE HYDROGEN
LIQUEFACTION
REACTOR
PRODUCT
SLURRY
WASTEWATER
FLASHED GASES
GAS
SEPARATION
WASTEWATER
FLASHED GASES
NAPHTHAS
FUEL OIL
CONDENSED
OILS
HYDROTREATING
RECYCLE
SLURRY
SEPARATED
SLURRY
FflACTIONATION
LIGHT
LIQUID SRC
DISTILLATE
RESIDUE
BOTTOMS
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
PHENOLS
AMMONIA
SULFUR
LIQUID SRC
FUEL OIL
NAPHTHAS
LIGHT OILS
LPG
MAJOR PRODUCTS
AND BY-PRODUCTS
SNG
Figure 1.
SRC-II system
6
-------
1.1.2 SRC-I Liquefaction
The SRC-1 (solid product) mode is illustrated in Figure
2. Raw coal is sized and dried as in SRC-1I. However, the
prepared coal is mixed with a recycle solvent recovered in
the fractionation process rather than slurry from the gas
separation operation as is done in the SRC-II system.
Slurry preheating, liquefaction, and gas separation proceed
as described for the SRC-II mode. Condensed oils recovered
during gas separation are sent directly to the hydrotreating
process for upgrading to naphtha and fuel oil. (Note that
in the SRC-II system condensed oils are sent to fractiona-
tion.) The separated slurry from the gas separation process
is sent to solids/liquids separation. Filtration is the
most likely process to be employed in the SRC-I system for
solids/liquids separation, however alternate approaches such
as solvent deashing and centrifugation have been suggested.
Filter cake produced during filtration is sent to the hydro-
gen generation process where it is gasified to provide
makeup hydrogen. Filtered product liquids are sent to the
fractionation process. (Note that fractionation precedes
solids/liquids separation in SRC-II.) Fractionation of the
filtered product liquids yields three outputs: a solvent
fraction, which is recycled to coal preparation for slurrying
with feed coal; a wash solvent recycled to the filtration
unit in solids/liquids separation; and SRC-I product which
is cooled and stored as a solid. The SRC-I system consumes
all light fractions (SNG and LPG) produced; hence, these
commodities are not available as saleable products.
1.1.3 Auxiliary Processes in SRC Systems
The following auxiliary processes are required for
either supply of input materials or recovery of by-products
-------
MAJOR INPUTS
RAW COAL RAW WATER
1 1
AUXILIARY
PROCESS
FACILITIES:
COAL RECIEVING/STORAGE
WATER SUPPLY
WATER COOLING
STEAM/POWER GENERATION
HYDROGEN GENERATION
OXYGEN GENERATION
ACJD GAS REMOVAL
HYDROGEN/HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
SULFUR RECOVERY
AMMONIA RECOVERY
PHENOL RECOVERY
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
COAL FROM STORAGE
MAKEUP AND RECYCLE HYDROGEN
WASTEWATER
FLASHED GASES
WASTEWATER
FLASHED GASES
NAPHTHAS
FUEL OIL
HYDROTREATING
FILTER CAKE
WASH
'SOLVENT
SOLID SRC
PHENOLS
AMMON I A
SULFUR
SOLID SRC
FUEL OIL MAJOR PRODUCTS
NAPHTHAS AND BY-PRODUCTS
LIGHT OILS
Figure 2. SRC-I system
8
COAL
PRETREATMENT
FEED
SLURRY
LIQUEFACTION
REACTOR
PRODUCT
SLURRY
GAS
SEPARATION
CON-
DENSED:
OILS
RECYCLE
SOLVENT
SEPARATED
SLURRY
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
FILTERED
PRODUCT
LIQUIDS
FRACTIONAL ON
-------
in SRC systems: coal receiving and storage, water supply,
water cooling, steam and power generation, hydrogen genera-
tion, oxygen generation, acid gas removal, hydrogen/hydro-
carbon recovery, sulfur recovery, ammonia recovery, phenol
recovery, and product/by-product storage. The role of
auxiliary processes is shown in Figure 3 and discussed below
in brief.
• Coal Receiving and Storage. Raw coal is typically
delivered by rail or truck. The coal receiving
and storage facilities stockpile raw coal until it
is required by the coal pretreatment operation.
• Water Supply. This auxiliary process prepares raw
water for use in SRC system operations and other
auxiliary processes such as water cooling, steam
and power generation, and hydrogen generation.
• Water Cooling. Water cooling provides cooling
water for heat exchange applications in SRC system
operations and auxiliary facilities including gas
separation and steam and power generation.
• Steam and Power Generation. Electrical power is
consumed throughout the liquefaction plant. Steam
is used in heat transfer applications.
• Hydrogen Generation. Mineral residue (SRC-II
mode) or filter cake (SRC-I mode) is reacted in a
coal gasifier to provide makeup hydrogen to the
liquefaction operation and hydrotreating process.
• Oxygen Generation. Oxygen generation recovers an
oxygen-rich fraction from air for use in the
hydrogen generation gasifier. (Oxygen production
-------
MAJOR
INPUTS
RAW
COAL
RAW
WATER
\ I
• COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
WATER
SUPPLY
PROCESS WATER
COAL TO COAL PREPARATION OPERATION
COAL
WATER
COOLING
COAL
*
STEAM AND
POWER
GENERATION
1
OXYGEN OXYGEN
GENERATION
ACID GASES
SULFUR SUL
s
KC.I.U
! ,
HYDROGF.N
GENERATION
STEAM AND POWER
COOLING WATER
RESIDUE (SRG-II) OR
FILTER CAKE (SRC-l)
[ MAKEUP HYDROGEN TO
LIQUEFACTION AND
HYOROTREATING
FUR ACI° GAS PROCESS OFF-GASES FROM GAS
WERY REMOVAL SEPARATION AND HYDROTREAT ING
PURIFIED GASES
1 PC •
HYDROGEN/
HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
SNG
(SRC:- ID
LI
01
LPG
(SRC- 1)
EHT
LS
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
AMMONIA «
RECOVERY
AMMONIA
PHENOL
RECOVERY
PHENOLS
SRC (L
1 1 " T
1 SRC FUEL
PHENOLS 1 °'L
» NAPHTHA
AMMONIA
LPG(SRC-H)
ULFUR * . , * Rlle
RECYCLE HYDROGEN—*
WASTEWATER FROM
HVDROTREATtNG
WASTEWATER FROM GAS
SEPARATION
IQUID OR SOLID)
NAPHTHAS
FUEL OIL
SOLVENT
REFINED
COAL
SYSTEM
OPERATIONS:
COAL PREPARATION
LIQUEFACTION
SEPARATION
PURIFICATION
AND UPGRADING
MAJOR PRODUCTS
AND BY-PKCDUCTS
SNG(SRC-1 I)
Figure 3. Auxiliary processes in SRC systems
10
-------
would not be necessary for hydrogen production by
an air-fired gasifier).
• Acid Gas Removal. Gases produced during lique-
faction and hydrogen production reactions contain
sulfur bearing constituents. Acid gas removal
separates these constituents and carbon dioxide
from gas mixtures.
• Sulfur Recovery. Sulfur recovery converts sulfur-
bearing acid gas constituents to elemental sulfur,
which is stored as a by-product.
• Hydrogen/Hydrocarbon Recovery. Purified gases
from acid gas removal contain significant amounts
of hydrocarbons and unreacted hydrogen. Using
cryogenic separation techniques this process
recycles hydrogen to liquefaction and hydrotreat-
ing. Hydrocarbons are recovered as SNG and LPG
which are used in system operations and auxiliary
processes. Operation in the SRC-II mode produces
excess SNG and LPG which are stored as products.
• Ammonia Recovery. This process removes by-product
ammonia from process wastewater before wastewater
treatment.
• Phenol Recovery. Phenol recovery removes by-
product phenols from process wastewater prior to
wastewater treatment.
• Product/By-Product Storage. This area holds
products and by-products of SRC systems until they
may be distributed for marketing.
11
-------
1.2 Waste Streams and Pollutants of Major Concern
1.2.1 Waste Streams to Air
As shown in Figure 4, air emissions are associated with
a majority of the operations and auxiliary processes which
comprise SRC systems. Air emissions specific to operation
in the SRC-I or SRC-II mode are noted. In addition to the
air emissions sources shown, fugitive emissions, such as
vapor leaks from pressurized process equipment may occur in
SRC systems. An overview of emissions shown in the figure
is given below.
• Flue gases - flue gases are produced by combustion
units (primarily preheaters) in the following
system operations and auxiliary processes: lique-
faction, separation, purification and upgrading,
hydrogen generation and sulfur recovery. Assuming
the SNG and LPG products are used as fuel in these
units, minimal environmental effects are antici-
pated.
• Coal dust - coal handling, processing and storing
in coal receiving and storage and coal pretreatment
results in particulate coal dust entering the
atmosphere. Composition of the dust is the same
as that of the raw coal.
• Dryer stack gas - in order to conform to system
feed specification for moisture content, feed coal
is dried in coal pretreatment operation. The
stack gas produced by coal drying contains particu-
late coal and possibly volatilized hydrocarbons
present in the raw coal.
12
-------
COAL DUST
t
I
COAL DUST
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
DRYER STACK
GAS
I
I
I
COAL
PRETREATMENT
DRIFT AND
EVAPORATION
t
BOILER
STACK GAS
• t
PREHEATER
FLUE GAS
I
LIQUEFACTION
DIOXIDE
GAS
PREHEATER
FLUE GAS
t
GAS
SEPARAT
ON
VAPORS
(SRC-
AND PARTICULATES
r* PREHEATER
| FLUE GAS
HYDROTREATING
FRACT
10 NAT
ON
HYDROGEN/
HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
VAPORS AND
PART ICULATES
(SRC-I I)
+
i
_ I
.PREHEATER
FLUE GAS
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
SRC DUST
(SRC-I)
t
HYDROCARBON
SULFUR
DUST
I
I
I
VAPORS
t
PHENOL
RECOVERY
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
LEGEND
AIR EMISSIONS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS)
Figure 4. Air emissions from SRC system
13
-------
• Vapors and particulates from cooling - mineral
residue resulting from solids/liquids separation
(in the SRC-II mode) and SRC product from fraction-
ation (in the SRC-I mode) require cooling. Air
cooling of these substances may result in emissions
of particulate solids and hydrocarbon vapors. In-
sufficient data exist to characterize these emis-
sions and estimate environmental effects.
• Drift and evaporation - the cooling tower loses
water to the environment as water vapor. Chemical
additives used in water cooling may also be present
in this emission.
• Boiler stack gas - presumably coal is fired in the
boilers of the steam and power generation auxiliary
process. The resulting stack gas contains oxides
of sulfur and nitrogen and particulates in the
form of fly ash. Utilization of SRC system products
is one alternative of minimizing these emissions.
• Nitrogen rich gas - the cryogenic oxygen generation
process separates an oxygen rich gas from ambient
air for use in the hydrogen generation process.
Other components of the air (mainly nitrogen) are
discharged as an air emission.
• Carbon dioxide rich gas - production of hydrogen
by gasification produces a carbon dioxide rich gas
during upgrading of the raw product gas. Untreated,
the raw product gas contains about 55 percent
hydrogen and 40 percent carbon dioxide on a volume
basis. Process designs indicate that hydrogen
makeup gas should be greater than 90 percent
hydrogen on a volume basis. A two stage amine
14
-------
scrubber is used to remove carbon dioxide, leaving
a treated hydrogen rich stream of the required
purity. Gases removed in the second stage are
predominantly carbon dioxide and have, in conceptual
designs, been emitted directly to the atmosphere.
Emission controls may need to be investigated when
characterization data become available.
• Low sulfur effluent gas - sulfur bearing acid
gases from hydrogen generation and SRC system
operations are treated to convert sulfur gases to
elemental sulfur. The resulting product gas is
flared and discharged.
• SRC dust (SRC-I mode) and sulfur dust - handling
and storage of SRC system solid products and by-
products results in release of dust to the environ-
ment.
• Hydrocarbon vapors - liquid products of SRC systems
contain volatile hydrocarbon components. Care
must be exercised in handling and storage of these
liquids to minimize emissions.
Analysis of existing information indicates that dust
emissions from coal receiving and storage and coal prepara-
tion, low-sulfur effluent gas from sulfur recovery, boiler
flue gas from steam and power generation, and the emission
from the flare system should be regarded as those emissions
to air of greatest environmental concern. (A flare system
is used to treat hydrocarbon emissions as discussed in
Sections 1.3 and 4.0). Component pollutants of concern are
summarized in Table 2, based on SAM/IA analysis using health-
based MATE's for evaluation of potential degree of hazard.
15
-------
TABLE 2. AIR EMISSIONS OF CONCERN* ASSOCIATED
WITH SRC SYSTEMS BASED ON SAM/IA ANALYSIS
Air Emission
Health-Based MATE,
Pollutant
Potential
Degree of Hazard**
Particulate
coal dust***
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Lithium
Silicon
5200.
2.0
1.0
1000.
22.0
l.OxlO4
2.3xlO-3
4.9x10 |
1.5x10 y
1.3x10 ^
1.4x10 ^
-1.7***
-3.6
-11.0
-9.9
-1.1
-1.5
Sulfur re-
recovery tail
gas****
Carbon dioxide
9.0x10
87.0
Boiler flue
gas
Arsenic
Carbon monoxide
Chromium
Iron
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
2.0
4.0x10*
1.0
1000.
9000.
1.3x10*
3.0
1.3
7.3
3.7
56
49
Flare system
emission
Carbon dioxide L
Carbon monoxide 4.0x10
20
14
*Based on liquefaction of average U.S. coal as defined in Section 3.0.
**Potential degree of hazard - Projected air concentration
0
Health based MATE
(yg/m3)
***Ranges due to different types of particulate controls employed. Low
values correspond to treatment by cyclone and baghouse filter. High
values correspond to treatment by venturi scrubber.
****Carbon monoxide and ammonia concentrations exceed ecological-based
MATE but not health-based MATE
16
-------
Two important conclusions can be drawn from Table 2.
The first is that all emissions cited are associated with
existing industries (coal mining, petroleum refining and
steam-electric power generation). Concern with these emis-
sions is not directly attributable to operations or auxiliary
processes unique to SRC systems. Secondly, in the case of
coal dust, application of the best recommended control
technology (cyclone and baghouse filter - see Sections 1.3
and 4.0) reduces the potential degree of hazard values below
one i.e., below the health-based MATE value.
1.2.2 Waste Streams to Water
Sources of wastewater are shown in Figure 5, and are
discussed below in brief.
• Coal pile runoff - precipitation striking the raw
coal in coal receiving and storage and coal prepara-
tion infiltrates the coal pile. During this
contact, leaching of both organic and inorganic
constituents of the raw coal occurs. Runoff water
is collected for treatment.
• Thickener underflow - wastewater from the coal
preparation operation is routed to a thickener.
Clarified water is recycled to coal preparation.
The underflow stream contains a high level of
suspended solids and coal-derived organic consti-
tuents.
• Cooling tower blowdown - drift and evaporation
from the cooling tower result in increased concen-
trations of dissolved and suspended solids in the
process cooling water. A blowdown or "bleed"
17
-------
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
THICKENER ^ 1
UNDERFLOW I
COAL
PRETREATMENT
i
I
I
I „
WATER
COOLING
STEAM AND
POWER
GENERATION
I COAL PILE
' RUNOFF
TO TAILINGS
POND
LIQUEFACTION
I
COOLING TOWERS
TO TREATMENT
SLOWDOWN | T0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT
OXYGEN
GENERATION
SULFUR
RECOVERY
PR
WA
HYDROGEN
GENERATION
PROCES
WASTEWAT
OCESSl- --
STEWATER
ACID GAS
REMOVAL
HYDROTREATING
PROCESS [ _
WASTEWATER" "*"
HYDROGEN/
HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
1
PROCESS
WASTEWATE
\
AMMONIA
RECOVERY
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
JL_ _-
R
i
PHENOL
RECOVERY
S
ER GAS
SEPARATION
FRACTIONAL ON
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
i
! PROCESS
"*VASTEWATER
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
LEGEND
WATER EFFLUENTS
PROCESS STREAKS FROM WHICH
WATER EFFLUENTS ARE GENERATED
Figure 5. Sources of water effluents in SRC systems
18
-------
stream is withdrawn to maintain dissolved and
suspended solids concentration within design
specifications.
Process wastewater from hydrogen generation -
wastewater from hydrogen generation may contain
tars, oils and ammonia. This stream is directed
to the main wastewater treatment facility.
Process wastewater from acid gas removal - a purge
stream is removed from the amine-based acid gas
removal process to maintain the concentration of
amine and to remove spent amines which have formed
nonregenerable compounds. This stream is directed
to the main wastewater treatment facility.
Process wastewater from ammonia recovery process -
wastewaters from hydrotreating, hydrogen genera-
tion and hydrogen/hydrocarbon recovery contain
significant quantities of ammonia. These waste-
waters are combined and input to the ammonia
recovery process. The effluent wastewater exiting
ammonia recovery contains hydrogen sulfide, phenols,
hydrocarbons and traces of ammonia. This stream
is directed to the main wastewater treatment
facility.
Process wastewater from phenol recovery process -
the gas separation operation removes gaseous
constituents of the liquefaction reactor effluent.
Condensation of the gases yield a phenol rich
aqueous phase which is sent to the phenol recovery
process. After phenol recovery the wastewater
stream, containing hydrocarbons, ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide and traces of phenol, is combined with
19
-------
other process wastewaters (from hydrogen generation,
acid gas removal and ammonia recovery) during
wastewater treatment.
Coal pile runoff and effluent water from the wastewater
treatment facility are considered water effluents of concern.
Specific pollutants of concern are shown in Table 3. The
characteristics of coal pile runoff are not a result of SRC
technology; however, combined wastewater characteristics do
result from SRC liquefaction.
1.2.3 Solid Wastes
Sources of solid wastes in SRC systems are shown in
Figure 6. Sources and characteristics of solid wastes are
described below.
• Coal cleaning refuse - refuse is a mixture of
mineral matter (such as slate and tramp iron),
water and coal. Refuse is recovered during coal
sizing and drying.
• Excess residue (SRC-II mode) or filter cake (SRC-
I) -depending on the method of hydrogen production
employed in SRC systems, the possibility exists
that an excess of SRC-II mineral residue or SRC-I
filter cake will be produced. These solids consist
of mineral matter present in the feed coal and
high molecular weight hydrocarbon species.
• Spent catalysts - the hydrotreating process uses a
catalyst to upgrade coal liquids. A catalyst also
may be employed in the shift converter to the
hydrogen generation catalyst. In order to maintain
conversion efficiencies, catalysts are withdrawn
periodically and replaced with fresh ones.
20
-------
TABLE 3. WATER EFFLUENTS OF CONCERN* ASSOCIATED
WITH SRC SYSTEMS BASED ON SAM/IA ANALYSIS
Water Effluent
Pollutant
Health-Based MATE,
(Mg/m3)
Potential
Degree of Hazard**
Coal pile
runoff
Aluminum
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Sulfate
8.0 x 10*
2.4 x 10
250.
1500.
250.
10.
250.
1.5 x 10
9.1
1.2
8.0
6000.
272.
1.4
4.3
170.
Combined
wastewater
Bismuth
Cresols
C -phenols
Naphthols
Phenol
Xylenol
6.1 x
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.2
188.
18.0
60.0
78.0
76.0
*Inorganics based on "average" U.S. coal as defined in Section 3.0.
Organics based on characteristics of bio-unit effluent as given in
Section 3.0.
**Potential degree of hazard
Projected water concentration
Health-based MATE
(yg/1)
21
-------
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
COAL
PRETREATMENT
SLUDGE
I
COAL CLEANING REFUSE
LIQUEFACTION
GAS
SEPARATION
SPENT
CATALYST
JSLAG
OR ASH
SULFUR
RECOVERY
ACID GAS
REMOVAL
HYDROTREATING
FRACTIONAL ON
HYDROGEN/
HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
SPENT CATALYST
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
EXCESS RESIDUE (SRC-I|)
OR FILTER CAKE (SRC- I)
LEGEND
-- SOLID WASTE
SOURCES
Figure 6. Sources of solid wastes in SRC systems
22
-------
• Sludge from water supply - demineralization of raw
water for use in SRC systems produces a sludge.
The sludge contains metal complexes, carbonate
compounds, suspended solids, and other trace
compounds present in the raw water.
• Ash from steam and power generation - ash is the
oxidized mineral matter present in coal fed to the
boilers.
• Slag or ash from hydrogen generation - gasification
of mineral residue or filter cake to produce
hydrogen converts mineral matter to ash. If a
high temperature gasifier is used, the ash may
fuse and be recovered as a slag.
Solid wastes of environmental concern, based on SAM/IA
analysis with the health-based MATE'S are shown in Table 4.
API separator bottoms and biosludge from the wastewater
treatment system and SRC mineral residues contain component
pollutant species which exceed their MATE values. These
solids are considered greater risks to the environment than
either SRC air emissions or water effluents. It is recom-
mended that any excess mineral residue be gasified both for
additional energy recovery and to reduce the toxicity of the
material (slag) which must be disposed. The gasifier slag
from hydrogen generation does not exceed any of the health-
based MATE'S.
1.2.4 Toxic Substances
The products resulting from operation of SRC-I and SRC-
II systems include substitute natural gas (SNG), liquified
petroleum gas (LPG), light oils, naphthas, fuel oils, solid
23
-------
TABLE 4. SOLID WASTES OF CONCERN* ASSOCIATED
WITH SRC SYSTEMS BASED ON SAM/IA ANALYSIS
Solid Waste
SRC- I I mineral
residue***
API separator
bottoms
Biosludge
Pollutant
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Dysprosium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Aluminum
Mercury
Vanadium
Health-Based MATE
1.6 x 104
50
1000
6 4
4.8 x 10
150
300
50
50
45
6000
10
50
6
10
150
4.6 x 10
50
45
10
1.6 x 104
5.0 x 10
500
Potential
Degree of Hazard**
3.7
1.1
1.2
1.2
2.2
2.4
310.
1.4
4.8
2.1
. 3.0
2.0
2.0
80.0
5.0
250.
350.
364.
530.
51.0
260.
1.1
7.0
1.1
*Based on liquefaction of "average" U.S. coal as defined in Section 3.0.
.._ _, , , c u j Projected pollutant concentration
"Potential degree of hazard = -
***Similar characteristics expected for SRC-I filter cake.
24
-------
and liquid solvent refined coal product, sulfur, phenols and
ammonia. Existing stream characterization data indicate
toxic substances to be associated primarily with the liquid
products and solid SRC. In addition to organic toxics,
essentially all trace elements found in the feed are also
present in SRC products. Toxics identified by analysis of
SRC-II product are shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5. SOME TOXIC SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED
WITH SRC PRODUCTS
Light Oil
Compound Concentration*
acenaphthalene
antracene/phenanthrene
ethylbenzene
fluorene
naphthalene
pyrene
2
25
9800
15
1630
20
SRC Liquid Product
Concentration*
8
300
not detected
27
1
280
Concentrations in parts per million (weight basis).
1.3 Status of Environmental Protection Alternatives
1.3.1 Air Emissions Controls
Air emissions control options are illustrated in
Figure 7. Coal dust is generated by both storage and sizing
of the coal. Spraying the storage piles with water or a
polymer minimizes fugitive dust emissions. A combination of
cyclones and baghouse filters is recommended to control coal
dust generated by coal sizing. The coal dryer stack gas
also contains particulates. A cyclone and baghouse filter
in combination or a wet scrubbing device such as a venturi
scrubber are applicable control alternatives.
25
-------
COAL DUSTU,
COAL DUST
AND2
DRYER STACK
GAS2OR~3
1
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
I
COAL
PRETREATMENT
DRIFT AND
EVAPORATION
t
BOILER ,
STACK GAS
t
WATER
COOLING
NITROGEN
RICH GAS
I
I
OXYGEN
GENERATION
PREHEATER
FLUE GAS
t
I
I
LIQUEFACTION
DIOXIDE
GAS
LOW SULFUR@FLUE QAS
EFFLUENT GAS^ f
PREHEATER
FLUE GAS
t
GAS
SEPARATION
SULFUR
RECOVERY
ACID GAS
REMOVAL
VAPORS AND PARTICULATES
(SRC-l)@orQ)^pREHEAT
_ I ! FLUE GAS
HYDROTREATING
FRACT
ONAT
ON
VAPORS AND
PARTICULATES
(SRC-1 I)©or(?
SRC D
(SRC
HYDROGEN/
HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
HYDF
UST \ii
-10
» SULFUR
' DUST®
! !
WCARBON
^PORS (?)
t
1
1
1
1
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
AMMONIA
RECOVERY
PHENOL
RECOVERY
PREHEATER
GAS
i^FLUE
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
AIR EMISSIONS CONTROLS
WATER OR POLYMER SPRAYS
CYCLONES AND BAGHOUSE FILTERS
WET SCRUBBERS
SULFUR DIOXIDE SCRUBBING
DIRECT FLAME INCINERATION
ENCLOSED STORAGE
PREVENTION OF VAPOR LOSSES
Figure 7. Controls for air emissions from SRC systems
26
-------
Vapors and particulates are produced during the solidi-
fication of residue in SRC-II systems and of SRC solid
product when operating in the SRC-I mode. Either wet scrubbers
or a combination of cyclones and baghouse filters can control
the particulate emissions.
Boiler stack gas contains particulates and sulfur
oxides. Sulfur dioxide scrubbers are effective in reducing
discharge levels of particulates and sulfur oxides.
The effluent gas from sulfur recovery may be in compli-
ance with applicable regulatory standards after direct-flame
incineration. However, more stringently regulated plant
sites may require additional treatment by a secondary sulfur
recovery processes such as SCOT or Beavon, or by carbon
adsorption treatment prior to incineration.
Air emissions are also associated with the product/by-
product storage area. By-product sulfur dust may be con-
trolled by enclosed storage of the sulfur. Solid SRC dust
may be minimized by methods applicable to the feed coal
storage pile. Hydrocarbon vapors from liquid products are
best controlled through proper storage procedures, and pre-
ventive maintenance to minimize accidental vapor releases.
Many of the processes in SRC systems generate preheater
flue gases. It is assumed that product substitute natural
gas (SNG) shall be fired in these units, thereby permitting
direct discharge to the atmosphere. In addition pressure
relief valves periodically discharge gases rich in hydro-
carbons from several of the processes. These releases are
directed to the header of the flare system.
27
-------
1.3.2 Water Effluents Control
Water effluent control options are shown in Figure 8.
Wastewaters from1 coal cleaning are sent to a thickener.
Overflow from the thickener is recycled to coal pretreatment
High-solids underflow from the thickener, along with runoff
waters from coal storage areas are routed to a tailings pond
to permit settling of solids.
Slowdown from water cooling requires sidestream treat-
ment prior to discharge to receiving waters. Ion exchange,
electrodialysis and reverse osmosis are three processes
commonly employed for this purpose.
Other process wastewaters from SRC systems are directed
to the main wastewater treatment facility. Due to the
similarity of wastewater from SRC with that from petroleum
refineries, a similar approach to wastewater treatment is
warranted. Process wastewater from ammonia recovery is
steam stripped to remove hydrogen sulfide and any additional
ammonia. The wastewater from phenol recovery is combined
with the stripper effluent and directed to an API separator
to reduce the amount of oil and grease in the water. Sour
water from hydrogen production and acid gas removal are
combined with the API separator outflow in an equalization
basin. Dissolved air flotation is then employed, reducing
levels of suspended solids and hydrocarbons in the combined
wastewater. The" effluent water from the equalization may
then be sequentially treated by either of the alternatives
shown below, each of which is commonly used in the petroleum
industry.
28
-------
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
L-*
COAL PILE RUNOFF(
THICKENER .
UNDERFLOW 1
COAL PILE RUNOFF
COAL
PRETREATMENT
COOLING TOWERS BLOWDOWNC2
LIQUEFACTION
HYDROGEN/
HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
I
1
PROCESS
WASTEWATER (
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
, PROCESS
1—-WASTEWATER(
GAS
SEPARATION
FRACT
ONAT
ON
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
PHENOL
RECOVERY
PROCESS
-*WASTEWATER(
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
WATER EFFLUENT CONTROLS
ROUTE TO TAILINGS POND
SIDE STREAM TREATMENT
ROUTE TO MAIN WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
Figure 8. Control of water effluents in SRC systems
29
-------
Alternative I
Alternative II
Biological treatment by
extended aeration
Filtration
Discharge
1.3.4
Control of Solid Wastes
Biological treatment by
aerated lagoon
Settling basin
Discharge
Solid waste control alternatives are shown in Figure 9.
Sludge produced during raw water treatment is suitable
landfill material after dewatering. It appears that sludges
from wastewater treatment may also be disposed of in land-
fills, providing proper stabilization and dispoal practices
are employed. Additional research is required in this area.
Catalysts are employed in the hydrotreating and hydrogen
production areas. Such catalysts are typically returned to
the manufacturer for regeneration.
Mineral matter in the form of refuse, ash or slag may
be directly disposed as solid wastes in landfills or, if the
plant is in proximity of an abandoned mine, minefilling.
The mineral residue or filter cake produced during
solids/liquids separation in SRC-II and SRC-I systems respec-
tively contains high molecular weight organic species. It
is recommended that all such material be gasified to render
it safe for land or mine burial. Energy recovered by gasifi-
cation of excess residue can be used on-site or sold as
additional SNG product.
1.4 Data Needs and Recommendations
Currently, the pilot plants at Fort Lewis (Figure 10)
and Wilsonville are the most advanced SRC facilities in
30
-------
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
COAL
PRETREATMENT
SLUDGE
I
I
OAL CLEANING REFUSE
STEAM AND
POWER
GENERATION
LIQUEFACTION
GAS
SEPARATION
HYDROTREATING
FRACTIONAL ON
HYDROGEN/
HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY
SPENT CATALYST(
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
PRODUCT/BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
EXCESS RESIDUE
OR FILTER CAKE
(SRC-II)
(SRC-I)
SOLID WASTE CONTROLS
LANDFILL ING
MINEFILLING
GASIFICATION
RETURN TO MANUFACTURER FOR REGENERATION
DEWATERING
Figure 9. Control of solid wastes in SRC systems
31
-------
Figure 10. Fort Lewis SRC pilot plant
32
-------
existence. Information obtained during solvent refining
operations at Fort Lewis and Wilsonville is being used to
design SRC demonstration plants. In an analogous manner,
data from demonstration plants will be used to permit suc-
cessful commercialization of SRC systems.
This environmental assessment is based on the best
existing information, namely SRC pilot data, bench-scale
data, and conceptual design studies. Just as additional
operating data are required to permit commercialization of
SRC systems, additional environmental assessment data are
necessary to adequately characterize discharges, estimate
environmental impacts, and evaluate control technology
applicability relevant to SRC systems. Expansion of the
existing environmental assessment data base for SRC systems
should include the following areas:
• SRC stream characterization - with the purpose of
developing representative physical, chemical
(inorganic and organic) and biological (with bio-
assays) characteristics of SRC plant streams, in
particular before and after treatment waste streams
While characterization of waste streams is most
essential to environmental assessment, better
characterized process streams will permit construc-
tion of an advanced material balance, ideally
permitting one to "track" pollutants through the
SRC system to the environment.
• Determination of the variability of waste stream
characteristics due to changes in system operating
characteristics - an expanded data base on stream
characteristics may permit such correlations,
possibly suggesting ideal operating conditions for
minimized environmental effects.
33
-------
• Performance evaluations and costs of applicable
control technology alternatives
• Reassessments of environmental impacts based on
the expanded data base.
Due to the relative applicability of SRC pilot plant data,
the above efforts would be more beneficial if performed at
SRC demonstration facilities.
Environmental assessment methodologies such as Multi-
media Environmental Goals (MEGs), and Source Analysis Models
(SAMs) have been developed to provide an organized, consistent
approach for evaluation of emerging energy technologies such
as SRC. Technically, there are many differences between
existing SRC pilot facilities and the demonstration and
commercial plants of the future. Consequently operating
data or process and waste stream characteristics from the
pilot plant are only an indication of commercial or demon-
stration plant behavior.
However, sampling, analysis and application of environ-
mental assessment methodologies to pilot plant data are
essential to permit the following prior to emergence of SRC
systems into the commercial sector:
• Sampling and analysis techniques may be tried and
any problem areas identified, thereby permitting
refinement of the techniques
• Sampling and analysis priorities for the demonstra-
tion/pilot SRC facilities may be identified based
on pilot studies
34
-------
• Application of the environmental assessment metho-
dologies to SRC pilot data will allow additional
development and evaluation
• Each of the above activities will provide those
involved with SRC systems with the necessary
expertise to confidently assess commercial SRC
systems at the time technical progress and economic
conditions permit their emergence.
The following recommendations can be made regarding future
environmental assessments of SRC systems:
• Efforts to characterize waste streams, process
streams, products and by-products should be con-
tinued at an increased level of effort. In so
doing, numerous benefits are derived including
expansion of the preliminary data base on SRC
systems, optimization of sampling and analysis
procedures, and additional sophistication of
environmental impact methodologies. Results of
these efforts will be invaluable in establishing
priortized research needs for environmental char-
acterization of SRC demonstration/commercial
facilities.
• Efforts should be undertaken to define suitable
sites for commercial SRC facilities. Subsequent
to definition, applicable sites should be identi-
fied. Information required to perform site-
specific environmental impact analyses should be
collected for those sites identified as potentially
suitable for SRC facilities including pre-construc-
tion ambient air and water quality monitoring.
35
-------
Initiation of expanded background monitoring
studies in applicable locations would be useful
for environmental assessment and could hasten
construction of commercial facilities.
Candidate control technologies identified as
applicable to control of wastes from SRC systems
should be tested at SRC pilot and demonstration
facilities to the extent technically and economi-
cally feasible. Sampling and analysis of discharge
streams before and after treatment would greatly
expand the environmental assessment data base.
Small-scale, skid mounted control technology units
could be placed on flatbed trucks and moved to
pilot or demonstration facilities for testing with
continuous samples of the plant's waste stream,
thereby providing a cost-effective means of per-
formance testing numerous candidate control options.
Continued efforts should be made to promote coopera-
tion, coordination and information exchange between
the various private and government organizations
involved in development and environmental analysis
of SRC systems. Preparation and presentation of
technical papers at appropriate symposia and other
technical meetings is an excellent way to informally
stimulate interaction of researchers, leading to
more formal interaction during performance of
research.
As SRC systems enter the demonstration stage and
available information applicable to environmental
assessment increases, consideration should be
36
-------
given to preparing separate Environmental Assess-
ment Reports on the SRC-I and SRC-II systems.
The benefits include reduced redundance of environmental
assessment efforts, permitting optimum utilization of avail-
able research funds.
37
-------
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION OF SOLVENT REFINED COAL SYSTEMS
2.1 Technical Overview of Solvent Refined Coal Systems
2.1.1 Status of Development
2.1.1.1 Origin and History of Solvent Refined Coal
Systems
Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) Systems convert high sulfur
and ash coal into clean-burning gaseous, liquid and/or solid
fuels by noncatalytic direct hydrogenation. There are two
basic system variations: (1) SRC-I, which produces a solid,
coal-like primary product of less than 1.0 percent sulfur
and 0.2 percent ash by weight; and (2) SRC-II, which produces
low sulfur fuel oil (0.2-0.5 percent sulfur by weight) and
naphtha as primary products.
In 1962 the Spencer Chemical Company was awarded a
contract by the Office of Coal Research (OCR) to investigate
the technical feasibility of a coal deashing process (1).
The contract was successfully completed by demonstrating
process feasibility in a 22.7 kg/hr continuous flow unit.
This process of coal deashing was named the Solvent Refined
Coal (SRC) process. Further development of the deashing
process has led to the development of the SRC liquefaction
systems addressed in this report.
In the course of completing the initial contract Spencer
Chemical Company was acquired by Gulf Oil Corporation. Sub-
sequent to acquisition of Spencer Chemical Company, the con-
tract was reassigned to the research department of the
Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company (P&M), also part of
Gulf Oil Corporation (1).
38
-------
Further development of solvent refining was facilitated
by an OCR contract awarded to P&M to design, construct and
operate a pilot plant with a coal throughput capacity of
45.5 Mg/day. Stearns-Roger Corporation completed the design
phase in 1969. In 1972, OCR extended the contract with P&M,
authorizing construction and operation of the pilot plant.
Construction of the pilot facility, located at Fort Lewis,
Washington, was performed by the Rust Engineering Company
between 1972 and 1974, when the plant became fully opera-
tional (1).
A number of significant accomplishments have resulted
from operation of the Fort Lewis pilot plant (1). Major
pilot plant efforts have included:
• Tests to determine the effects of varied coal feed
rates and dissolver (liquefaction reactor) tempera-
tures on SRC system operations.
• Production of approximately 2700 Mg of SRC for
combustion testing by Southern Company Services'
Georgia Power Company at Plant Mitchell, near
Albany, Georgia in May and June of 1977.
• Testing of various filtration alternatives for
solids/liquids separation.
• Studies of the SRC-II (slurry recycle) modifica-
tion of the system.
39
-------
o
• Combustion testing of approximately 800 m of
SRC-II liquid product produced at Fort Lewis while
operating in the SRC-II mode. The tests conducted
at Consolidated Edison in New York in September of
1978, assessed the storage, handling, combustion
and emissions characteristics of SRC-II liquid
fuel (5).
• Successful resolution of many mechanical problems
identified during pilot plant startup and early
operation.
In a separate effort, Edison Electric Institute and
Southern Company Services, Inc., with funding from OCR,
began a joint study of SRC liquefaction (1). A contract was
awarded to Catalytic, Inc. to design, build and operate a
5.5 Mg/day SRC pilot plant located in Wilsonville, Alabama.
The Electric Power Research Institute assumed utility industry
sponsorship in 1973.
In addition to the SRC pilot plant work, supporting
research has been performed (1) including:
• Bench-scale laboratory studies at P&M in Merriam,
Kansas.
• Catalyst development for desulfurization and deni-
trogenation of coal liquids, performed at Oklahoma
State University.
• Analysis of coal mineral residues and the fate of
trace elements in SRC systems by Washington State
University.
40
-------
2.1.1.2 Current Status
The current (as of March 1978) schedule for development
of SRC is shown in Figure 11 (2). Current efforts at Fort
Lewis are aimed at improving existing filtration and solvent
deashing techniques, environmental monitoring programs, and
toxicity studies of liquids and solids produced by the plant
(2). Under the existing contract, pilot plant operation and
evaluation of the SRC-II process are authorized through
1981. Laboratory studies at P&M in Merriam, Kansas are
scheduled for completion at the end of 1978.
Evaluation of the SRC process development unit (PDU) in
Wilsonville, Alabama began early in 1973. Under the existing
contract, the PDU will continue to operate until the end of
1979. Planned work efforts in this area are improvement of
solid SRC production, and testing of alternatives for solids/
liquids separation (2).
2.1.1.3 Announced Future Plans
Contracts have recently been awarded to P&M and Southern
Company Services by DOE to design demonstration plants
employing SRC liquefaction technology (3,4). Each plant
will have a design capacity of about 5500 Mg/day.
The P&M design is to be based on SRC-II technology, for
a plant that would be located near Morgantown, West Virginia.
The Southern Company Services design will be based on the
SRC-I operating mode, for a location near Owensburg, Kentucky
(4). Pending DOE evaluation, follow up work could include
implementation of the designs through construction and
operation of the demonstration facilities. Should construc-
41
-------
\ OF SRC
:ARCH
CALENDAR YEAR: |
FISCAL YEAR:
| 1977 | 1978
1977
1979 | 1980
1978 | i 1979
1980
SRC- I I RESUME SRC- 1 OPERATION
1 1981
1981 |
FORT LEWIS PILOT PLANT
PLANT MODIFICATION
WILSONVILLE PDU
MERRIAM LABORATORY
STUDIES
EVALUATION OF MODIFIED PLANT
LEVEL OF AUTHORIZED FEDERAL
FUNDING IN 106 $ (INCLUDES FUNDS FOR
RESEARCH EFFORTS NOT SHOWN ABOVE)
20.7
16.0
14.5*
A
V
- ESTIMATED
- PROJECT EVALUATION
- START WORK MILESTONE
- WORK COMPLETION MILESTONE
- COMPLETED MILESTONES
Figure 11. Current schedule for SRC research and development
-------
tion of the demonstration plants be approved, the plants
could begin operation as early as 1983 (4). In addition, if
the demonstration plants operate successfully, parallel
trains could be added to increase plant capacity to commer-
cial levels
of fuel (4).
o
cial levels producing the equivalent of around 16,000 m /day
Recently, West Germany and Japan have expressed interest
in making development of SRC-II an interntional venture.
Although negotiations are far from complete, the West German
and Japanese governments are willing to assist in funding
SRC-II projects in exchange for access to technical data
collected (5).
2.1.2 Industrial Applicability of SRC Systems
The primary product from coal liquefaction by the SRC-I
mode is a low-ash, low sulfur coal liquid which solidifies
between 175° and 205°C (2). The primary application of
solid SRC is as a boiler fuel, for power generation in the
utility industry, and for production of steam, heat and
power in other heavy industries such as iron and steel
manufacturing.
The more versatile liquid product resulting from opera-
tion in the SRC-II mode is also a suitable feedstock for
industrial boilers. Application of petroleum refinery
technology could permit upgrading of liquid SRC to distill-
ate fuels such as light and medium oils, diesel fuel, naphthas,
kerosene, and gasoline. Alternatively, the SRC-II product
liquid could serve the petrochemical industry as a feedstock
from which a wide variety of organic chemicals could be
produced.
43
-------
No legislation currently exists directly pertinent to
SRC liquefaction systems (6). However, the EPA New Source
Performance Standards for those existing industries and in-
dustrial operations which are technologically similar to
component parts of SRC systems may provide some insight as
to the standards which will be promulgated to govern SRC
systems discharges. The EPA industrial source categories
most applicable to SRC systems and product utilization
include petroleum refining, iron and steel manufacturing,
steam electric power plants, water supply, steam supply, and
the coal preparation segment of the coal mining industry.
The aspects of environmental regulation of SRC systems are
discussed in detail in Section 5.0.
2.1.3 Input Materials, Products and By-Products
2.1.3.1 SRC-II Mode
An overall material balance, showing major system
inputs, products and by-products is shown in Figure 12 (6).
The primary liquid products are liquid SRC and fuel oil,
although a naphtha fraction also is produced. Gaseous
hydrocarbons formed during the reaction of the coal are
processed to produce liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and
substitute natural gas (SNG). Some constituents produced by
coal hydrogenation are recovered as saleable by-products,
including sulfur, ammonia, and phenol (6).
2.1.3.2 SRC-I Mode
Operation in the SRC-I mode results in a mix of products
and by-products significantly different than what is shown
in Figure 12 for SRC-II. For example, lower quantities of
hydrocarbon gases are produced (7,8). The LPG and SNG pro-
44
-------
MAJOR INPUTS
COAL
(29,732 Mg/day)
AIR
(95,551 Mg/day)
WATER
(31,009 Mg/day)
WASTE GASES
127,910
, , „ t , Mft'n" PRnmir-n;
SRC- 1
SYSTEM
t LPG
(821 Mg/day)
r SNG
(1,312 Mg/day)
SRC
(5,527 Mg/day)
FUEL OIL
r (2,591 Mg/day)
NAPHTHA
* (b8l Mg/day)
SULFUR
•'-»• ( Lhl Mn/rlav^
*• ^H'tJ ng/aay;
AMMON 1 A
(6A Mg/day)
PHENOL
•> ("ill Mn/rlr>i/^
o" ng/aay^
SOLID WASTES
(17,009 Mg/day)
NOTE: All flowrates in Mg/day.
Figure 12. Overall material balance for SRC-II systems
with product capacity of 7,950 nr/day
(8,699 Mg/day)
45
-------
duced by SRC-I are consumed in meeting system heating re-
quirements whereas SRC-II provides a surplus of marketable
LPG and SNG. The quantity of liquid products exiting the
SRC-I system is substantially smaller compared to SRC-II.
This is due to the less extensive hydrogenation and hydro-
cracking conditions present in SRC-I. As a result, sub-
stantial quantities of solid SRC product are generated by
SRC-I liquefaction, while the quantity of solids residue
produced in SRC-II is controlled to meet the capacity re-
quired for hydrogen production (7,8). The lower reaction
severity characteristic of SRC-I processing results in lower
yields of by-product sulfur, ammonia, and phenols (6).
2.1.4 Energy Efficiencies
2.1.4.1 SRC-II Mode
Based on the Standards of Practice Manual for the
Solvent Refined Coal Liquefaction Process (6), the thermal
efficiency of SRC-II 'systems is 71.8 percent. Heat balance
data are shown in Table 6. This is in good agreement with
the energy efficiency of 70.3 percent reported by the
developers of SRC systems (7,8).
TABLE 6. ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF SRC-II SYSTEMS
Inputs
Coal
Electrical power
Total
Outputs
SNG
LPG
Naphtha
Fuel oil
Liquid SRC
Total
Thermal efficiency =
J/kg
1.37
0.05
1.42
0.20
0.09
0.05
0.23
1.02
1.02
71.8 percent
46
-------
2.1.4.2 SRC-I Mode
Exxon Research and Engineering (9) has reported a
thermal efficiency of 63.0 percent for SRC-I systems. It is
also noted that with improvements such as reducing hydrogen
consumption, the thermal efficiency could be improved to
greater than 70 percent (9). Developers of SRC systems have
reported the thermal efficiencies of conceptual SRC-I and
SRC-II systems to be 70.3 and 71.0 percent respectively (8).
2.1.5 Capital and Operating Costs
Numerous research efforts (8,10,11,12,13,14,15) have
investigated the economic aspects of SRC systems. One of
the more recent efforts compares the SRC-I and SRC-II systems
in terms of capital and operating costs. In addition,
minimum selling prices for SRC products are determined for
each operating mode for selected economic scenarios.
Table 7 shows the capital cost estimates for SRC-I
and SRC-II plants based on conceptual design information for
an assumed feed capacity of about 27,300 Mg of coal per day.
This corresponds to roughly 95 percent of the capacity of
the hypothetical facility described; costs shown in Table 7
would be similar for the hypothetical facilities. While
overall capital costs for the two alternatives are about the
same there are important differences in costs for correspond-
ing plant areas. Filtration, used for solids/liquids separa-
tion in SRC-I is not required in the slurry recycle SRC-II
mode. In addition, the quantity of solid carbonaceous resi-
due produced by the SRC-II mode can be controlled. By
designing so that just enough residue is generated to provide
solidification can be obviated for the SRC-II mode. Due to
the increased degree of hydrogenation associated with the
47
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR
CONCEPTUAL SRC PLANTS*
Plant Area
Cost, $ x 10
SRC-1
SRC-II
Coal pretreatment
Hydrogenat ion**
Fractionation
Hydrogen plant
Filtration
Product solidification
Hydrocarbon/by-product
recovery
Utilities/off -sites
General facilities
Total Cost
81
198
24
307
172
25
81
99
77
1064
81
367
22
277
NR
NR
117
114
76
1054
Basis: November ly/o dollars, based on conceptual plant
processing of approximately 27,300 Mg coal/day
**Includes cost of hydrogen recycle
NR - Not required for liquefaction by SRC-II.
SRC-II mode the capital costs associated with hydrogenation,
hydrocarbon gas and by-product recovery is also higher than
for the same areas of an SRC-I facility. The process
developers (8) state that higher cost for the hydrogen plant
in the SRC-I case is due to the fact that an ambient pressure
gasifier will be employed because of SRC-I system characteris-
tics. A less costly pressurized gasifier is specified for
the SRC-II system (8). Annual operating costs of SRC-I and
SRC-II systems, based on November 1976 dollars, are estimated
to be 118 and 83 million dollars respectively. Other capital
costs, such as land, working capital, licensing costs and
startup expenses are estimated to be 88 million dollars for
SRC-I and 79 million dollars for SRC-II, based on November
1976 dollars.
48
-------
Table 8 summarizes the selling prices required, on a
cost per energy unit basis, for investment return assuming
escalation rates of zero and six percent, contingencies of
10 to 20 percent, and discounted cash flow (DCF) rates of 12
and 15 percent for SRC-I and SRC-II plants (8). The lowest
selling price, $2.63/GJ of SRC-II product (assuming six
percent escalation, 10 percent contingency and 15 percent
DCF) is still above the estimated current sales price of No.
6 fuel oil (1% sulfur), $2.09/GJ (16,17). Although the
economics do not appear to favor market penetration by
synthetic fuels, either changes in oil-exporting nation's
pricing policies or federal government subsidies for synthe-
tic fuel producers or consumers could hasten commercializa-
tion.
TABLE 8. REQUIRED SELLING PRICE FOR INVESTMENT RETURN -
SRC-I AND SRC-II MODES
Constant Dollars (assumes 0% escalation) SRC-I
Contingency: 10% 20%
Selling price* (assumes 12% DCF): 3.34 3.49
Selling price (assumes 15% DCF): 3.84 3.99
Current** dollars (assumes 6% escalation) SRC-I
Contingency: 10% 20%
Selling price (assumes 12% DCF): 2.63 2.70
Selling price (assumes 15% DCF) : 2.95 3.03
SRC-II
10% 20%
3.24 3.39
3.74 3.89
SRC-II
10% 20%
2.51 2.58
2.83 2.91
* All selling prices in $/GJ
**Based on November 1976 dollars.
49
-------
2.1.6 Commercial Prospects
2.1.6.1 SRC-I Mode
Current government policy advocates increased domestic
utilization of coal. Combustion of high-sulfur coal requires
stack gas scrubbing to meet emissions standards. Solvent
refining reduces the sulfur content of feed coals, permitting
combustion while eliminating the need for stack gas scrubbing.
The SRC-I combustion test indicates that SRC-I solid fuel is
a potentially acceptable boiler fuel which complies with
existing EPA emissions standards (18). Endorsement of SRC-I
as a boiler fuel by Southern Company Services, Inc. indicates
the evident utility demand and potential market penetration
of SRC-I fuel.
Successful completion of the SRC-I demonstration program
discussed earlier will help to determine the technical and
economic viability of commercial SRC-I facilities. Commercial
prospects of the SRC-I system will be greatly enhanced if
the filtration and product solidification areas can be
operated efficiently at the demonstration level. Operation
of the demonstration facility will also permit better defini-
tion of the cost of commercially producing solid fuel with
the SRC-I system.
2.1.6.1 SRC-II Mode
Commercial prospects for the SRC-II system appear to be
more cost dependent than the SRC-I. The problems associated
with filtration and product solidification in the SRC-I mode
do not exist since they are not part of the SRC-II pro-
cessing scheme. The SRC-II demonstration program will
further refine commercial production cost estimates. Once
50
-------
SRC-II liquids can be sold at prices competitive with natural
petroleum products, market penetration could begin in any of
the numerous applicable areas where SRC-II liquid products
can be substituted for natural petroleum products.
2.2 Description of Processes
This subsection discusses those processes which comprise
the SRC-I and SRC-II systems. Discussions are based on the
generalized flow diagrams shown in subsection 2.2.1; however,
it should be noted that no fixed flow chart exists for
either SRC-I or SRC-II commercial facilities at this time.
Possible variations are identified in the individual process
discussions. Process discussions emphasize the SRC-II mode
because of information developed during a previous work
effort (6); however, significant differences between the
SRC-I and SRC-II modes are identified and discussed where
appropriate.
2.2.1 Generalized System Flow Diagrams
To facilitate an understanding of the basic components
of the SRC systems, a modular approach is taken. In the
modular approach, the SRC systems are subdivided into opera-
tions . Each operation is accomplished by carrying out a
group of processes, a process being the smallest unit of the
overall system. Auxiliary processes perform functions
incidental to the functions of system operations. All
processes may be represented visually by process modules
which display process input and output stream characteris-
tics. Sets of process modules may be used to describe SRC
system operation, the overall SRC-I and SRC-II systems, or
the entire coal liquefaction energy technology. Control
equipment facilities and final disposal processes are
51
-------
discussed in Section 4.0. The SRC-I and SRC-II systems are
described using the modular approach in the following sub-
sections.
2.2.1.1 SRC-II Mode
Figure 13 is a generalized flow diagram of the opera-
tions, auxiliary processes, control equipment facilities and
final disposal processes comprising SRC-II systems. Coal
from storage is sized, dried, and mixed with recycled product
slurry recovered from the gas separation process. The
mixture of coal and recycled slurry is pumped, along with
hydrogen from the hydrogen production and hydrocarbon recovery
processes, through a preheater to a liquefaction reactor,
commonly referred to as a dissolver. The ratio of slurry to
coal in the feed mixture is typically 1.5 to 2.5. The
hydrogen to coal ratio is about 1,250 scm/Mg (8).
The reaction mixture exits the preheater at a tempera-
ture of about 370°-400°C. The increase in temperature due
to preheating initiates hydrogenation and hydrocracking
reactions in the coal/slurry/hydrogen mixture. Heat produced
by these reactions raises the temperature to about 435°-
470°C in the liquefaction reactor.
The product slurry exiting the dissolver enters the gas
separation process where gaseous species produced in the
reactor are removed utilizing flash separators, heat ex-
changers , and condensers. Condensed oils recovered from the
flashing process are sent to the fractionation process. The
mixture of noncondensible gases is further processed, to
remove gaseous sulfur species and recover the sulfur as a
by-product, to recover unreacted hydrogen for recycle to the
coal pretreatment operation and to recover gaseous hydro-
52
-------
u>
'MT1CUUTCS ra@ XTMOSBI HrM06E« WKCONOE»SIBLF GASES TO Q-
JASTEW»Tr» ?0 @ FK» jj-j FMH gjj UA'TLUATEH TO © MOUIDSK
JREJ3SETO@ ^ I ^ -y-.i. -VLV
_^ COHOENSE3 OILS
.3AL FROmT) LOU FEED SLURRY ,„,„,.„. REACTOR PRODUCT SLCJRR1 OAS ' Irini| BOTTOMS SC4.IOS/LIOUIDS
12 14 &
1 1 PtECTCLE SLJK'T |
10 BOTTOMS
£^AND (H) T0 (|^
LlfiHT DISTILLATE
pfcSTICULATIS ID ^9, BIOWDOWN TO ^> STACK GAS T(l @
(COAL Pllt WHOFf T0@ WK£1|P _,,„
1 , ' raw •— " SUM ro
KLIIEKD COAL CDAL "^1""IC COAL TOST; MB UAIES aA'ER PSOCES5 ^"E( ^CIRCULATED HATER COOIIPK NATEH fn S1EAB ««0 PROC1SSE5
sronAEE *""•' -:- -«ffis-s cmm «TER u""". TO psocrsscs UIT^ '*" CCMIIATIOH [icmlcljf
'- . '. 1 ' ' ' 1 1 — TO PtOCESSES
BOILER 1
1 *»"* 1
SLUOSE -C P "» ® «SH TO @
BLCMXWI TO®
ACID GAS TO fTS1 HITROGEN-«lC-t RESICUAL
t CARBW OIOJ1DE MS ™ "ORIFIEO^ GAS TO
^1^®© I I | H-MOr-CNTO®
L. W^ H»DROGE« HTDRO&EN-RICH AIR MKREN OK»6€N "0 ^} MSE5 FROH WID GAS CONCENTRATED PURIFIED fiAS wfflDHVoSGEN *** ™ "
STEAH „ ^ T°© -2 ^*W^ , , «ID "5 T° ® FRW1 © RECWm „ LnMU'U' ,
I 1 LIGHT OILS T0(T3j
'0 (5J TO PS
WSTEHATER TO (gj
EFFLUENT
MS TO WSTfwJTIC WOSTEWA'tR
ATMOSPHERE T0 £1. TC .fT LIQIJID 5PC ., . K"
niri nnL . DISTtlBUTIOH ....
' ' uaiT Oil PWimiTT/M.MhinrT *"*
NON
PMT1CULATE
RECOVERY
19
GASEOUS
UASTC
TREATMENT
20
WASTEKATER
TREATMENT
Zl
TO ($
NAPHTHA
nornm* "W
6
ro os)
1
MASTEUATER TO @
:t)KDENSIBLE GASES TO©
EVAPORATION
POWS
^3
ASH
PONDS
?4
LANDFILLS
25
SOLID UASU
TREATMENT
22
EH OFEMTIWK OR COHPOMENT CBOCESSt
LIAR1 PflOCESSES:®-^!)
Ra EQUIPMENT FACIL JT1ES: @ -@
F-WCDJAHOQ "£C°¥E"' ™® FMH® «>••»'«• Toil ™KE •""""" TOOJ AMMIIA . DIST.IBUTIC* FIWL DISPOSAL PROCESSES: C|>-@
-— . i —2 |,|f| {fft '* 17 PHENOLS -La ^~
KlHEFltLS
* 0©
M1SCELLAHEOUS
DISPOSAL
PROCESSES
27
Figure 13. Generalized flow diagram of SRC-II system.
-------
carbons as both SNG and LPG. Part of the recovered hydro-
carbon gases can be used- to provide plant fuel requirements.
The slurry exiting the flash separator passes to the fractiona-
tion process to separate the mixture of hydrocarbons and
solids into the major products of the system. A portion of
the slurry, however, is diverted from fractionation back
to coal pretreatment for mixing with feed coal and hydrogen.
In the fractionation process, an atmospheric distilla-
tion unit separates the entering slurry into a naphtha
stream, a middle distillate stream, and a bottoms stream.
The naphtha and middle distillate may be stored as products
or be further upgraded in the hydrotreating process. Al-
though hydrotreating is not included in many recent SRC
conceptual designs (8) it has been retained in this design
(6) to permit environmental assessment of the wastes poten-
tially exiting a commercial SRC facility which may elect to
hydrotreat the products.
The bottoms stream from the atmospheric distillation
unit is sent to a vacuum still in the solids/liquids separa-
tion process. Overhead from this unit is similar to the
middle distillate exiting the atmospheric still. (This
stream also may be optionally hydrotreated.) The bottoms
from the vacuum distillation unit, consisting of undissolved
mineral matter and high-boiling hydrocarbon residuals is fed
to the hydrogen generation auxiliary process as a feedstock
from which makeup hydrogen is produced.
In addition to the hydrogen generation process the
following auxiliary processes are present in the SRC-II
system: coal receiving and storage, water supply, water
cooling, steam and power generation, oxygen generation, acid
gas removal, hydrocarbon and hydrogen recovery, ammonia
recovery, phenol recovery and product/by-product storage.
54
-------
Detailed discussions of the operations and auxiliary
processes which comprise the SRC-II system may be found in
subsections 2.2.2 through 2.2.8.
2.2.1.2 SRC-I Mode
The SRC-I system is shown in Figure 14. The major
differences between it and the SRC-II system lie in the
location of the solids/liquids separation process and the
separation method employed. Instead of vacuum distillation,
filtration is used for solids/liquids separation. Filter
cake produced by the filtration process, along with supple-
mental coal from the coal pretreatment operation is gasified
to provide makeup hydrogen. The quantity of hydrocarbon
gases recovered in SRC-I meets plant fuel demands, however,
there is no marketable surplus of gas as in SRC-II operation.
Solids/liquids separation will precede fractionation in SRC-
I. The opposite is true in the SRC-II systfem. In the
fractionation process, part of the feedstream is recycled to
the coal pretreatment area as recycle solvent as opposed to
the slurry mixture recycled in SRC-II. One fractionation
output stream, the middle distillate, is recycled to the
filtration process as a wash solvent. The other operations
and auxiliary processes of the SRC-I system operate gen-
erally the same as in the SRC-II mode.
Subsections 2.2.2 through 2.2.8 discuss the system
operations and auxiliary processes of the SRC-II system.
Where applicable, significant differences in the SRC-I
system are also noted.
2.2.2 Coal Pretreatment
Figure 15 is a schematic flow diagram showing the pro-
cesses comprising the coal pretreatment operation. Coal re-
55
-------
Ul
' HVfrU6tn' mi
'"F* "i" "
:•.'.">! -:t. 'rasiuNtY
2
EUP
•MO
'©
RIACTM KODUCT SL1»«I
O1*3^^
• :>. =:.E *.wr log; HAIHUP HAT
FROP,®
1 1 1— — 1 '
DEL;.T»E: :w. ::*, =-::;:, :ns COAL ™;T. tw HATER HATER
U
PMCESS HATER tECIRCUUTED
TO PROCESSES COOLING HATER
SLUOtt T0@ FR»(IO)
AC:; • ""•_ STEAP1 TO
HATER COOLING HATER '"' STEAd UtS PROCESSf.-
TO PROCESSES WTER "" ELEICTRICITY 1 1
1 21 1 — . • — lUro PROCESSES MSEOUS
M MSTE
_ TREATWIT
RAFKTHA
FUEL OIL
SOLID SRC
EVAPORATION
PONOS
ASH
tows
BLOHDOHN TO^
RESIDUAL
PW1FIE[L, fiAS
I ^ HASTEUATER
ACID GAS COHCETTMTE5 PURlFIEt «S tL^HYOOOKII *** ™ ^ - 21
kt*«AL J^IQ g^g T0^5 ct{(y T} RECOVERY LPG TO^g
13 '*" 4
LIGHT OILS
T(!^-
HA5TEHATER HASTWTER
T0^Jy TO 9? SOLID HASTE
TREATMENT
22
HASTEHATER
JJ | P»jm.lS IU - SYSTtK WEWTIWS M
FUEL OIL . DISTRIBUTION jUJIILIARY PTOCESSr
PHENOL PHENOLS «"*J« • *"*"* 1Y-PRODUCTS TO CO"™0- EWIFItNT FA
KtiuvtRV 1 ro jj S«NIA H IDISTRIBUTIOII ' FINAL DISPOSAL PROCE
" "' p«t«ois . _., is
LANDFILLS
COWMEMT PHOCE
CILITIES:@-@
SSES:@-(gl
26
S£S: O-©
NISCELLAWOUS
DISPOSAl.
PROCESSES
27
Figure 14. Generalized flow diagram of SRC-I system.
-------
BUCKET
WHEEL
TO REFUSE PILE
TO STACK
20" DIA.
CLEAN COAL
CLASSIFYING
CYCLONES
TO PREHEATER
(L1QEFACTION OPERATION)
Figure 15. Process modules of coal receiving, storage, and
pretreatment facilities
-------
ceiving and storage facilities are also shown. Coal is re-
claimed from the coal receiving and storage area by a bucket-
wheel which feeds the coal going to a transverse conveyor to
one or two belt conveyors. A transverse conveyor takes the
coal from either of the belt conveyors and delivers it to a
receiving hopper. The reclaiming system will handle up to
1,182 Mg of coal per hour. Coal is discharged to a 1.5 m
reciprocating plate feeder onto a 1.2 m belt driven conveyor,
fitted with a magnet to remove tramp iron. The coal is con-
veyed to a 7.6 cm scalping screen, which separates out over-
size coal (7.6 cm plus) and allows broken coal (7.6 cm
minus) to pass through. The oversize coal is charged to a
rotary coal breaker, where it is crushed to less than 7.6
cm. Oversize refuse present in the coal is separated in the
coal breaker. The broken coal is placed on a 1.2 m belt
conveyor, where it is combined with the undersize coal from
the scalping screens and discharged to a 9,100 Mg storage
pile (6).
The raw coal stockpile of coal receiving and storage
and the broken coal storage pile of the coal pretreatment
operation provide a total storage capacity of approximately
95,055 Mg of coal. A polymer coating may be applied to each
pile to minimize oxidation. Most rainfall coming in contact
with coated storage piles will run off while only a small
percentage will infiltrate. Assuming a storage pile is
conical and 7.6m tall, its total area has been calculated
2
to be approximately 33 Km (6).
Coal is withdrawn from the minus 7.6 cm, ground coal
storage pile and conveyed to the washing plant for cleaning
and reduction. A series of jigs, screens, centrifuges,
cyclones, and roll crushers clean the coal and reduce it to
minus .3 mm in pulverizers. The pulverized coal is suitable
for slurry feed mixing.
58
-------
The dried, pulverized coal is transferred by conveyor
to the coal/solvent tank, in which 18,182 mg of coal and
36,364 mg of unfiltered slurry are mixed per day. The feed
slurry is then pumped to the preheater.
2.2.2.1 Input Streams
A block flow diagram of the coal pretreatment operation
is shown in Figure 16. Quantities indicated for the streams
are based on an SRC-II design (6). Major input streams
identified include raw coal from coal receiving and storage,
recycle process slurry from the separations operation, air
used to dry the coal, and makeup water for coal cleaning.
Stream 2, recycled process slurry, would be recycled process
solvent if SRC-I operation was assumed.
2.2.2.2 Output Streams
Output streams, including waste streams, exiting the
coal pretreatment operation are also shown in Figure 16. No
major variation in stream characteristics or quantities
would be expected if SRC-I operation was assumed. Key
output streams are described below.
• Dust from coal sizing processes - The dust consists
of coal particles, typically one to 100 microns in
size, with composition similar to that of the
parent coal. The SRC-II material balance (6) is
based on Illinois No. 6 seam coal. Proximate and
ultimate analyses of Illinois No. 6 coal can be
found in Table 9, an ash analysis is presented in
Table 10. Data in Table 11 suggest that coal dust
will contain significant concentrations of the
trace elements titanium, magnesium, boron, fluorine,
zinc, and barium.
59
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
(T\ r
-------
TABLE 9. RUN OF MINE (ROM) ILLINOIS
NO. 6 COAL ANALYSIS (14)
Proximate analysis (weight percent):
Moisture 2.70
Ash 7.13
Volatile matter 38.47
Fixed carbon 51.70
Heating value 30 MJ/kg
Ultimate analysis (weight percent):
Carbon 70.75
Hydrogen 4,
Nitrogen 1,
Sulfur 3,
Oxygen 10.28
Total
69
07
38
90.17 (balance is moisture
and ash, as shown in
proximate analysis)
TABLE 10. AVERAGE ASH ANALYSIS OF ILLINOIS
NO. 6 COAL (19)
Component
Si02
A1203
Fe2°3
Ti02
P2°5
CaO
MgO
Na20
K2°
S03
Others (not specified)
Total
Percent of Ash
44.4
21.0
22.1
1.1
0.1
5.2
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.7
0.9
100.0
61
-------
TABLE 11. TRACE ELEMENT COMPOSITION OF
ILLINOIS NO. 6 COAL SAMPLES (20)
Element
Concentration, ppm
(wt. basis)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Europium
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Indium
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
13,500
0.98
5.9
111
1.5
135
15
<4
7690
13
1.2
1600
20
6.6
13
1.0
0.25
63
3.1
<5.6
0.52
0.14
1.9
18,600
7
27
0.08
510
53
0.18
9.2
22
45
1700
16
1.2
2.6
2.2
26,800
0.03
660
36
(continued)
62
-------
TABLE 11. (continued)
Concentration, ppm
Element (wt. basis)
Tantalum
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
0.16
0.17
0.67
2.2
4.7
700
0.7
1.6
33
0.54
420
52
Coal pile runoff - Coal pile runoff results from
rainfall and infiltration waters that come into
contact with the stored coal. The resulting
leachate may contain oxidation products of metalic
sulfides; it is frequently acidic, with relatively
high concentrations of suspended and dissolved
solids, sulfate, iron, calcium, and other coal
constituents. The quantity and concentration of
coal pile runoff water generated is dependent on
the type of coal used; the history of the pile;
and the rate, duration, frequency, and pH of
precipitation.
Assuming a stormwater runoff coefficient of 0.7,
the mass flow rate of coal pile runoff waters has
been calculated to be 67 Mg/day. This figure
includes runoff from the coal receiving and storage
stockpile and the storage pile in the coal prepara-
tion operation. This quantity of runoff is based
on the average annual rainfall (108 cm/yr) for the
63
-------
state of Illinois (a likely location for SRC
plants) and the total coal storage area (33 Km2),
(22,23).
Refuse from reclaiming and crushing - Refuse from
the reclaiming and crushing processes is composed
chiefly of tramp iron, slate, coal and "bone."
These materials are naturally present in the coal
seam. Particle size is greater than 7.6 cm.
Refuse from pulverizing and drying - This refuse
stream is generated after screening with the
double deck refuse screen. The stream contains
slate, coal, and water added during screening.
Both refuse streams are stockpiled before final
disposal.
Thickener underflow - Wastewater generated from a
number of processes in the coal pretreatment
operation is routed to a thickener where particu-
lates are removed and clarified water is recycled.
The underflow stream has a flow of 3,120 Mg/day,
with a suspended solids loading of 1,092 Mg/day
which corresponds to a concentration of 35 percent
suspended solids. The wastewater is expected to
contain a substantial quantity of coal-derived
organic constituents prior to wastewater treatment.
Gland water - Gland water is generated from leaks
in the piping system; hence, it has not been
quantified. It may contain substantial concentra-
tions of particulate and organic matter. Gland
water may be collected in a sump and pumped to
treatment.
64
-------
• Gaseous emission from drying - This waste stream
has been calculated to carry 2,983 Mg/day of
moisture and 29 Mg/day of particulates for the
SRC-II plant (6). A significant concentration of
coal-derived organics is also expected to be
present in this stream. Gas from fuel combustion
is composed of carbon dioxide, water, carbon mon-
oxide, nitrogen, oxygen and unreacted hydrocarbons.
2.2.3 Liquefaction
A process module diagram of the liquefaction operation
is shown in Figure 17.
In the liquefaction operation, the resultant coal/slurry
mixture from coal pretreatment is first injected with hydro-
gen gas. The hydrogen gas is a mixture of recycle hydrogen
and synthesis gas from the hydrogen production module and
has a total hydrogen content of 97 percent by volume. The
gas/slurry stream is pumped to a dissolver preheater elevating
the pressure to about 11.9 MPa. The preheater increases the
temperature to approximately 454°C. The preheater is fired
by fuel gas (6,14).
The heated mixture is then introduced into a dissolver
where the coal is depolymerized and hydrogenated. The
solvent is hydrocracked to form hydrocarbons of lower mole-
cular weight, ranging from light oil to methane; organic
sulfur is hydrogenated to form hydrogen sulfide. The tempera-
ture and pressure in the dissolver are about 454°C and 11.7
MPa, respectively (6,14).
The resultant product stream contains gases, liquids,
and solids. It is removed from the dissolver reactor and
65
-------
FLUE GAS
HYDROGEN
COAL/SLURRY
MIXTURE
PHASE GAS
_ SEPARATION
PROCESSES
SLURRY
PREHEATER
DISSOLVER
FUEL
Figure 17. Process module diagram of the coal liquefaction operation
-------
transferred to a series of vessels to separate various
products.
2.2.3.1 Input Streams
A block flow diagram of the SRC-II liquefaction opera-
tion with input and output streams is shown in Figure 18.
Input streams' composition and quantity would be similar for
SRC-I operation except the feed mixture, previously discussed
in Section 2.2.2.1. Other input streams include process
water, hydrogen-rich gases from the hydrogen production and
hydrocarbon/hydrogen recovery processes, and fuel and air to
the preheater.
2.2.3.2 Output Streams
There are four output streams associated with the
liquefaction operation. The reactor product slurry passes
to the gas separation process for additional processing.
Table 12 summarizes the estimated composition of the reactor
product slurry.
TABLE 12. COMPOSITION OF LIQUEFACTION
REACTOR PRODUCT SLURRY
Constituent Quantity, Mg/day
Liquid product 44,675
Residue and ash 2,784
Light and heavy oils 3,174
Hydrogen sulfide 426
Ammonia 55
Nitrogen 17
Carbon monoxide 361
Carbon dioxide 263
Unconsumed hydrogen 513
Water 3,042
Gaseous hydrocarbons 3,224
67
-------
LIQUEFACTION
OPERATION
STREAM
1. FEED SLURRY
2. WATER
3. SYNTHESIS GAS FROM HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
4. HYDROGEN FROM HYDROCARBON/HYDROGEN RECOVERY
5. FUEL GAS TO PREHEATER
6. AIR TO PREHEATER
7. LIQUEFACTION REACTOR EFFLUENT
8. PREHEATER FLUE GAS
9. VAPOR DISCHARGE
10. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
QUANTITY (Mg/dav)
54916
2411
667
538
691
12725
58532
13416
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
Figure 18. Block flow diagram of
liquefaction operation (SRC-II Mode)
68
-------
Accidental material spills may result during system shutdown
or reactor servicing. Reactor pressure release values emit
hydrocarbon vapors requiring treatment. Preheater flue gas,
consisting of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and water
vapor is vented to the atmosphere.
2.2.4 Separation
2.2.4.1 Gas Separation Process
The gas separation process separates hydrocarbon
vapors and other gaseous products from the dissolver effluent
slurry stream and directs the solids/liquid portion of the
coal slurry to other processing areas. There are five unit
processes within this module: high pressure separation,
condensate separation, intermediate flashing, intermediate
pressure condensate separation, and low pressure condensate
separation. A process module diagram of the process is
provided in Figure 19.
The reactor product slurry from the dissolver is first
introduced into a high pressure separator where the hot
vapor is separated from the slurry under dissolver outlet
pressure (i.e., 11.4 to 11.7 MPa). The temperature is
maintained at about 292°C. Since the influent slurry is
usually around 454°C, an air cooled heat exchanger may be
used ahead of the separator to aid in reducing the slurry
temperature. The separated gases are then directed through
a water cooled condenser to a high pressure condensate
separation vessel along with hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen,
ammonia, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The uncondens-
ed vapors are sent to gas purification and the condensate is
directed to a low pressure condensate separator. The remain-
ing solid/liquid slurry from the high pressure separator is
directed to an intermediate flash vessel (6,24).
69
-------
AIR COOLED
HEAT EXCHANGER
DISSOLVER
EFFLUENT '
GAS
PURIFICATION
MODULE
SOLID/LIQUID
SLURRY
INTERMEDIATE PRESSURE
FLASH SEPARATOR
COAL
PRETREATMENT
OPERATION
SOLID/LIQUID
SEPARATION
PROCESS
VAPORS!
HIGH PRESSURE
CONDENSATE
SEPARATOR
VAPORS
CONDENSATE
WATER
COOLED
CONDENSER
VAPORS
WATER COOLED
HEAT EXCHANGER
LIQUID
(HEAVY
INTERMEDIATE PRESSURE
CONDENSATE SEPARATOR
LIQUID'
HYDROCARBONS)
LOW PRESSURE
CONOENSATE
SEPARATORS
(LIGHT HYDRO-
CARBONS)
WATER
TO
PHENOL
RECOVERY
FRACTIONATION
PROCESS
Figure 19. Process modules of gas separation process (SRC-II mode).
-------
The solid/liquid slurry from the high pressure flash
separator enters an intermediate flashing vessel where the
pressure is descreased to approximately 3.4 MPa under a
constant temperature of 292°C (6,24). The reduced pressure
vaporizes numerous hydrocarbons which are discharged to the
intermediate pressure condensate separator. The remaining
slurry, consisting mostly of original solvent, dissolved
coal, and undissolved coal solids, is split into two streams.
The majority of the slurry flow is recycled back to the coal
preparation operation. The remaining slurry is routed to
the fractionation operation. If SRC-I operation is assumed,
all slurry is sent to the solids/liquids separation process.
Process-derived solvent, used for slurry preparation in SRC-
I, is recovered during fractionation of the filtered product
liquids.
The vapors from the intermediate pressure flash separa-
tors are directed through a water cooled condenser prior to
entering the intermediate pressure condensate separator.
Heavier-than-water hydrocarbons are separated from water and
lighter hydrocarbons and routed to the fractionation process.
Uncondensed gases are directed to the acid gas removal
process. The water and light hydrocarbon stream is combined
with the vapor stream from the filter feed flash unit (solids/
liquids separation) and the gas-liquid stream flows through
another condenser. The condensed mixture is charged to a
low pressure condensate separator in which the hydrocarbon,
water, and gaseous phases are separated. The light hydro-
carbons are routed to fractionation process. Sour water is
directed to by-product recovery processes. The uncondensible
gases flow to the gas purification module for the removal of
hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide.
71
-------
2.2.4.1.1 Input Streams
Two input streams are associated with gas separation.
The major input stream is the reactor product slurry exiting
the dissolver of the liquefaction operation. The other
input stream is composed of flash gases from solids/liquids
separation. A block flow diagram of gas separation, with
input and output streams is shown in Figure 20.
2.2.4.1.2 Output Streams
Seven output streams are shown in Figure 20. The
solids/ liquids slurry exiting the operation is split into
two streams. Part of the slurry is sent to fractionation,
as are oils condensed during the flashing process. The
majority of the stream is recycled to coal pretreatment.
Flashed gases are sent to an auxiliary process which recovers
the valuable hydrogen and hydrocarbon constituents from the
mixture. A sour water stream is generated and sent to
phenol and ammonia recovery processes. Other output streams
consist of vapor discharges and material spills.
2.2.4.2 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
The objective of solids/liquids separation is to remove
mineral matter, char and unreacted coal from the product
slurry, thereby yielding liquid products. Numerous approaches
have been considered to meet this objective including filtra-
tion, vacuum distillation, centrifugation and solvent deash-
ing. Recent SRC-I and SRC-II conceptual designs specify
utilization of filtration and vacuum distillation respectively
to perform solids/liquids separation.
72
-------
GAS
SEPARATION
PROCESS
-K8
STREAM
1. REACTOR PRODUCT SLURRY FROM LIQUEFACTION
2. FLASHED GASES FROM SOLIDS/LIQUIDS SEPARATION
3. SOLIDS/LIQUID SLURRY TO FRACTIONATION
4. GASES TO ACID GAS REMOVAL
5. CONDENSED OILS TO FRACTIONATION
6. SOUR WATER
7. VAPOR DISCHARGE
8. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
9. RECYCLE SLURRY TO COAL PRETREATMENT
QUANTITY (Mg/dav)
58532
943
12037
4799
3140
3135
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
36364
Figure 20. Block flow diagram of gas
separation process (SRC-II mode)
73
-------
The following description is applicable to SRC-II
liquefaction. A process flow schematic of the operation is
shown in Figure 21. Concentrated slurry from fractionation
is charged to a feed flash vessel. Flashed gases are returned
to gas separation. The remaining slurry exiting the feed
..flash vessel is processed in a vacuum still which removes
additional liquid SRC product from the slurry, leaving a
high-solids content residue. After secondary flashing to
remove additional liquid SRC, a solidification process is
employed to cool the hot liquid residue exiting the vacuum
distillation unit. There are a number of different solidifi-
cation units available, the most promising being the metal
belt, rotating drum, and rotating shelf types (6,17). The
solidification process involves feeding the liquid stream
onto a moving heat transfer surface. Cooling water is
sprayed on the other side of the heat transfer surface to
initiate cooling. Additional cooling may be provided by
passing refrigerated air over the product stream (6,17).
The cooled solid residue is scraped off the heat transfer
surface with a knife and is transferred to hydrogen genera-
tion and/or disposal by screw conveyor. Figure 22 shows
schematics of two types of solidification units.
Several differences should be noted if SRC-I operation
is assumed. Solids/liquids separation would be performed
prior to fractionation. Filtration rather than vacuum dist-
illation would be utilized. A wash solvent, derived from
fractionation of raw SRC product liquids would be used in
the filtration process. Collected solids would be in the
form of filter cake rather than a hot residue. A solidifi-
cation process of greater capacity would be required as part
of the SRC-I fractionation operation to cool SRC-I product,
a solid at ambient conditions.
74
-------
FLASH GAS TO
— PHASE (GAS)
SEPARATION .
OPERATION
CONCENTRATED
SLURRY FROM
FRACTIONATION
OPERATION
FEED FLASHING
LIQUID
SRC
TO PRODUCT
STORAGE
SECONDARY
FLASHING
VACUUM
DISTILLATION
SOLIDIFICATION
RESIDUE TO
HYDROGEN GENERATION
PROCESS
RESIDUE TO DISPOSAL
Figure 21. Process flow schematic: solids/liquids separation
process (SRC-II mode)
-------
LIQUID FEED ON
I.
KNIFE
COOLANT
SCREW CONVEYOR
TO GASIFICATION
AND/OR DISPOSAL
STEEL BELT SOLIDIFICATION
(SANDVIK SYSTEM)
LIQUID
FEED
COOLANT SPRAY
SCREW CONVEYOR
TO GASIFICATION
AND/OR DISPOSAL
II. ROTARY DRUM SOLIDIFICATION
Figure 22. Two solidification alternatives
76
-------
2.2.4.2.1 Input Streams
The major input to solids/liquids separation (Figure
23) is the bottom stream produced in the fractionation
operation. Fuel gas and air is used to fire the preheater.
Input cooling water is used in the solidification process.
2.2.4.2.2 Output Streams
Residue produced by solids/liquids separation is divided
into two streams. A portion of the residue is used to
produce hydrogen by gasification. Excess residue will
require disposal. Gases produced by flashing are returned
to gas separation. Liquid SRC produced by solids/liquids
separation is collected and stored as a product. Other
output streams are preheater flue gas, vapor losses (particu-
larly from the solidification process), accidental material
spills and output cooling water.
2.2.5 Purification and Upgrading
2.2.5.1 Fractionation
The main functions of fractionation in SRC-II operation
are: (1) to separate the high boiling liquid SRC product
from lower boiling fractions; (2) to combine low boiling
fractions for hydrotreating into light products; and (3) to
produce a bottom stream of high solids control for solids/
liquids separation.
In commercial SRC-I designs solids/liquids separation
is performed prior to fractionation. Vacuum distillation
and filtration, the respective solids/liquids separation
methods for SRC-II and SRC-I have been described in the pre-
77
-------
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
PROCESS
STREAM
1.' BOTTOMS FROM FRACTIONATION
2. FUEL GAS AND AIR
3. COOLING WATER INPUT
4. RESIDUE TO HYDROGEN GENERATION
5. EXCESS RESIDUE TO DISPOSAL
6. FLUE GAS
7. FLASH GAS
8. LIQUID SRC
9. COOLING WATER OUTPUT
10. VAPOR LOSSES
11. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
QUANTITY (Mg/dav)
9311
4537
NOT QUANTIFIED
1364
4203
4537
943
2801
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
Figure 23. Block flow diagram of solids/liquids
separation process. (SRC-II Mode)
78
-------
ceding subsection. The functions of fractionation in SRC-I
are to: (1) separate SRC product (solid at ambient conditions)
from lower boiling fractions; (2) recover a solvent fraction
for recycling to coal pretreatment; (3) to combine light
streams for hydrotreating; and (4) to recover a wash solvent
employed in the filtration process used for solids/liquids
separation in SRC-I.
The following description of the fractionation process
is applicable to the SRC-I1 mode. Separated slurry exiting
gas separation passes through a gas-fired preheater in which
it is heated to a temperature of 427° to 467°C (6,13). The
hot stream is charged to a vacuum flash drum, in which
lighter fractions are separated from high-boiling slurry
constituents. The light fractions are combined with condensed
oils from gas separation. Fractionator products consist of
raw naphtha and fuel oil, SRC liquid, and the fractionator
bottoms (concentrated slurry which is sent to solids/liquids
separation). A schematic illustration of fractionation is
provided in Figure 24.
2.2.5.1.1 Input Streams
Input and output streams associated with the fractiona-
tion process are shown in Figure 25. Two of the inputs,
separated slurry and condensed oils, are received from gas
separation. Input fuel and air are necessary to operate the
preheater.
2.2.5.1.2 Output Streams
As shown in Figure 25, seven output streams exit frac-
tionation. SRC liquid is collected as a product. Raw fuel
oil and raw naphtha which may be optionally collected as
79
-------
00
o
SLURRY
FROM GAS
SEPARATION1
FLUE GAS
FUEL GAS t AIR
BOTTOMS
CONDENSED OILS
FROM GAS SEPARATION
T
NAPHTHA TO HYDROTREATIN6
-^FUEL OIL TO HYDROTREATING
SRC LIQUID
TO PRODUCT
STORAGE
Figure 24. Process flow schematic: fractionation process.
(SRC-II Mode)
-------
FRACTIONATION
PROCESS
STREAM
1. SLURRY FROM GAS SEPARATION
2. FUEL GAS AND AIR
3. CONDENSED OILS
4. LIQUID SRC
5. RAW NAPHTHA
6. RAW FUEL OIL
7. BOTTOMS
8. PREHEATER FLUE GAS
9. VAPOR DISCHARGE
10. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
QUANTITY (Mq/da.y)
12037
7579
3140
2726
525
2615
9311
7579
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
Figure 25.
Block flow diagram of fractionation
process. (SRC-II Mode)
81
-------
products are upgraded by a hydrotreating process. (This
report assumes inclusion of raw fuel oil and raw naphtha
hydrotreating to permit discussion of pertinent environmental
aspects.) Preheater flue gas is an environmental discharge
which may require treatment, depending on composition. The
bottoms (concentrated slurry) from fractionation are further
processed in the solids/liquids separation process. Vapor
discharges and accidental material spills may occur.
2.2.5.2 Hydrotreating Process
Hydrotreating involves the reaction of raw hydrocarbon
streams with hydrogen to remove contaminants such as organic
sulfur and nitrogen compounds, and to improve combustion
characteristics so that they may meet commercial specifica-
tions. In the process, organic sulfur and nitrogen compounds
are converted to hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, which are
stripped from the product stream. The hydrogenation reaction
also serves to increase the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, which
improves the smoking characteristics of the fuel. It should
be noted that hydrotreating may optionally be used in SRC
systems; in fact, recent conceptual designs (8) do not
specify hydrotreating of SRC products. The hydrotreating
option has been retained in this discussion to permit complete
environmental assessment.
In the flow schematic shown in Figure 26, raw naphtha
and fuel oil streams from fractionation are mixed with
synthesis gas from hydrogen generation (85 percent FU by
volume) and pumped through a gas-fired preheater into an
initial catalyst-guard reactor to permit the deposition of
any remaining carbon on low surface-to-volume pelletized
catalyst in order to prevent plugging of the main hydrotreat-
ing reactor. From the guard reactor, the fuel oil or naphtha
82
-------
FLUE
HYDROGEN
RAW FUEL OIU-
RAW NAPHTHA"
CATALYST
GUARD
REACTOR
TO
PARALLEL
TRAIN
00
LO
CATALYTIC
HYDROTREATER)
HYDROGEN
i
TO ACID GAS REMOVAL
PROCESS
HEAT
EXCHANGER
FLASH
DRUM
OIL-WATER
SEPARATOR
(DECANTER)
*
TO ACID GAS
REMOVAL
PROCESS
STRIPPER
PRODUCT FUEL
OIL TO STORAGE
.PRODUCT NAPHTHA
TO STORAGE
— WASTEWATER
Figure 26. Process flow schematic hydrotreating process.
(SRC-II Mode)
-------
stream is fed into a three section downflow hydrotreating
reactor. Quench hydrogen injection points are spaced along
the length of the reactors at appropriate locations for
temperature control (6,25). Hydrotreating catalysts, such
as cobalt molybdate are used. Space velocity is typically
between 0.5 and 2 hour"1 (6,26).
The gas-liquid product is cooled in a heat exchanger
and fed to a high-pressure flash drum where fuel oil (or
naphtha), water, and gas separation occurs. Approximately
60 percent of the gas is recycled into the hydrotreaters
while the remainder is routed to the acid gas removal process
(6,25).
About half the separated fuel oil or naphtha is recycled
to the hydrotreaters. The remainder is depressurized into a
receiving tank where the water fraction is separated from
the solvent. The solvent fraction is pumped into a stripping
tower where hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are taken off the
top (6,25). The gas product of the stripper is sent to gas
cleanup. Product fuel oil and naphtha streams are routed to
product storage facilities.
Water formed by the hydrotreating reaction is separated
from the hydrocarbon phase in the decanter. The water may
contain substantial amounts of ammonia and organics. This
wastewater is routed to the ammonia stripping column of the
ammonia recovery process. Any remaining hydrogen sulfide or
ammonia in the main product stream is stripped and the off-
gas is routed to gas purification.
84
-------
2.2.5.2.1 Input Streams
A block flow diagram of the hydrotreating operation is
shown in Figure 27. Raw naphtha and fuel oil are inputs as
hydrotreater feedstocks. Hydrogen-rich synthesis gas is
introduced to react with these feedstocks. Makeup catalyst
is added to sulfur guard reactors and the main hydrotreaters
to maintain desired product quality. Fuel gas and air are
fired in preheaters. Water is used in the decanter.
2.2.5.2.2 Output Streams
Product, process and waste streams are produced during
hydrotreating. Products consist of hydrotreated fuel oil
and naphtha. Spent catalysts from both sulfur guard and
main hydrotreating reactors are solid wastes. (Catalysts
from sulfur guard reactors contain significant quantities of
carbon residues.) Vapor discharges from pressure vessels
and preheater flue gases are air emissions from the process.
Wastewater from the decanter, after processing to recover
by-products, is sent to wastewater treatment. Accidental
material spills will occur occasionally during normal opera-
tion of the system. Gases produced by flashing are sent to
gas separation.
2.2.6 Auxiliary Processes
This subsection discusses auxiliary processes associated
with SRC systems including: coal receiving and storage,
water supply, water cooling, steam and power generation,
hydrogen production, oxygen production, acid gas removal,
hydrogen/hydrocarbon recovery, sulfur recovery, ammonia
recovery, phenol recovery, and product/by-product storage.
85
-------
HYDROTREATING
PROCESS
STREAM
1. SYNTHESIS FEED GAS
2. RAW NAPHTHA
3. RAW FUEL OIL
4. FUEL GAS AND AIR TO PREHEATERS
5. WATER
6. CATALYST TO HYDROTREATERS
7. CARBON RESIDUE AND SPENT CATALYST (GUARD
REACTORS)
8. SPENT CATALYST (MAIN HYDROTREATERS)
9. DECANTER WASTEWATER
10. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
11. PRODUCT FUEL OIL
12. PRODUCT NAPHTHA
13. FLASH GAS AND STRIPPER GAS TO ACID GAS REMOVAL
14. PREHEATER FLUE GAS
15. VAPOR DISCHARGE
QUANTITY (Mq/dav)
270
525
2615
1543
775
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANTIFIED
795
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
2591
518
282
1543
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
Figure 27.
Block flow diagram of hydrotreating
process (SRC-II Mode)
86
-------
2.2.6.1 Coal Receiving and Storage
Mine-delivered coal may be received either by rail or
truck. It has been calculated that about 29,740 Mg/day of
coal would be needed for the hypothetical SRC-II facility.
If coal is received by rail, a railroad hopper car dumps
each carload into a hopper below rail level. Coal also can
be received from mine trucks, where it will also be unloaded
into a receiving hopper. A vibratory feeder transfers the
coal from the hopper to a belt conveyor, which in turn
transfers it to a rail-mounted slewing stacker. The slewing
stacker may move along the length of a belt, forming a
stockpile on one or both sides of the belt. The stockpile
has been designed to hold a three day supply of coal. The
stockpiling system will gather up to 1,182 Mg of raw coal
per hour. This stockpile does not include the storage
capacity of the coal pretreatment operation, since minus 7.6
cm coal (after reclaiming and crushing) is stored there.
Coal receiving and storage, as described, is applicable to
both the SRC-I and SRC-II modes.
2.2.6.1.1 Input Streams
The only input to coal receiving and storage is delivered
coal. Assumed coal characteristics are described in subsec-
tion 2.2.2, which describes the coal preparation operation.
A block flow diagram is shown in Figure 28.
2.2.6.1.2 Output Streams
Three output streams are associated with coal receiving
and storage. Dust is produced during coal handling. Coal
pile runoff results from rainfall striking and permeating
the coal stockpile. The major output stream, coal from the
stockpile, is sent to the coal pretreatment operation.
87
-------
COAL
RECEIVING
AND
STORAGE
STREAM
1. DELIVERED COAL
2. MOISTURE FROM ENVIRONMENT
3. COAL TO COAL PRETREATMENT OPERATION
4. DUST EMISSIONS
5. COAL PILE RUNOFF
QUANTITY (Mg/dav)
29740
6.4
29732
8
6.4
Figure 28.
Block flow diagram of coal receiving
and storage (SRC-II Mode)
88
-------
2.2.6.2 Water Supply
A continuous supply of water is needed in the lique-
faction operation for makeup water in the cooling towers and
for boiler feedwater softening and demineralization operations
It is also needed in the waste disposal treatment facilities
and as a general supply of potable, fire, and domestic
water. Water usage is dependent upon the size of the plant,
housekeeping practices, process operations, and pollution
control technologies. A typical raw water treatment process
is shown in Figure 29 (6,27). Characteristics of raw water
are site specific for illustrative purposes. Illinois's
Wabash River is of a capacity sufficient to meet the require-
ments of SRC plants. In addition it is located near abundant
coal reserves. Raw water characteristics for water taken
from the Wabash River are given in Table 13.
The following processing procedure applies to both SRC-
I and SRC-II systems. Raw water is usually pumped to a
treatment plant after being screened to remove large debris.
Chemicals are then added to the raw water in a rapid mix
chamber as aids in settling out suspended matter and heavy
metals in subsequent flocculation, sedimentation, and filtra-
tion unit operations. Softening agents are also added in
the rapid mix chamber. The water usually drains from the
sand filters to a clear well where it is lifted to a raw
water storage tank. Water is pumped from the storage tank
to the cooling towers and potable water storage area as
needed. Chlorination injection facilities are located on
the outlet end of the raw water storage tank pumps.
89
-------
CHEMICAL
INJECTION
SYSTEM
RAW WATER,
INTAKE
vO
O
RAW WATER
PUMP
STATION
sdLIDS
FILTRATE
SAND FILTER
COOLING
TOWER
SYSTEM
SAND FILTER
EFFLUENT
PUMP
STATION
RAW WATER
STORAGE TANK
POTABLE
WATER
STORAGE'
Figure 29. A typical raw water treatment process
-------
TABLE 13. TYPICAL CONSTITUENTS IN RAW WATER
FROM THE WABASH RIVER
Parameter
Specific conductance
(umhos)
Temp (°F)
pH (units)
Calcium
Magnesium
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
Phosphorous
Dissolved solids
(residue at 180°C)
Hardness as CaCO^ :
Calcium, magnesium
Noncarbonate
Detergent (MBAS)
Suspended solids
Range (ppm )
207-794
34-86
68-74
29-94
16-32
110-228
0
36-180
8-42
0.2-0.4
0.6-24
0.21-1.3
201-508
134-350
44-153
0.0-0.1
--
Ave. ^ppm )
535
61
7.6
66.5
24
199
0
83
25
0.3
12.3
0.75
355
242
97
0.1
40
91
-------
2.2.6.2.1 Input Streams
A block flow diagram of the water supply auxiliary
process is shown in Figure 30. These are two input streams
to the process: raw water and treatment chemicals. The
treatment chemicals consist of lime (6.9 Mg/day) and sodium
carbonate (7.0 Mg/day).
2.2.6.2.2 Output Streams
Output streams from water supply consist of sludges
produced during raw water treatment and treated water to
various areas of the plant. Water requirements for steam
production and water cooling, the two largest consumers of
water, have been quantified and reported separately from
remaining plant water requirements.
2.2.6.3 Water Cooling
Cooling water, an essential component of a coal lique-
faction plant, is needed to cool reactor vessels within the
plant and to cool directly various process streams. Cooling
towers maintain a continuous supply of cooling water. In
addition to the basic cooling tower structure, piping, and
other appurtenances, water treatment facilities are also
essential components of the cooling tower system since the
effective operation of towers can only be maintained by
recirculating relatively clean water. A flow diagram of a
typical cooling tower system is shown in Figure 31 (6,28).
Cooling water is directed from the cooling tower through
closed piping to plant heat exchangers. Before recirculation
back to the cooling tower, a portion of the cooling water is
directed through a side-stream (blowdown) treatment operation,
92
-------
WATER
SUPPLY
STREAM
1. RAW WATER
2. WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS
3. SLUDGE (5% SOLIDS)
4. WATER TO COOLING TOWER
5. WATER TO STEAM PRODUCTION
6. WATER FOR OTHER PLANT NEEDS
QUANTITY (Mg/day)
32057
14
370
23092
3937
4672
Figure 30. Block flow diagram of water supply
93
-------
DRIFT AND
EVAPORATION
VO
-P-
MAKEUP
WATER -
RECIRCULATED
BOILER —
SLOWDOWN
SIDE STREAM
TREATMENT
TREATMENT
FACILITY
PURGE STREAM
TO RIVER
(BLOWDOWN)
COOLING WATER
COOLING
TOWER
COOLING WATER
TO PLANT USE
PLANT
Figure 31. Typical water cooling process
-------
This is incorporated into the process to maintain a constant
level of dissolved solids in the recirculating cooling water
stream. With sidestream treatment, typical blowdown rates
are 3 to 5 percent of the makeup water rate (6,28). Side-
stream treatment facilities used include reverse osmosis,
electrodialysis, or ion exchange. The wastewater from the
treatment process is generally discharged to the river. Raw
water is added to the cooling tower influent as makeup water
to replace the water lost by heat dissipation (evaporation)
in the cooling towers, by cooling tower blowdown, and by
leakage. Evaporation represents the most significant source
of cooling water lost in the system.
2.2.6.3.1 Input Streams
Makeup water from the water supply process is an input
to water cooling. In addition to makeup water, water is
returned from system operations, auxiliary processes and
treatment facilities comprising SRC systems. Solids produced
by scaling during utilization of heat exchange equipment,
are present in these streams. More definitive characteriza-
tion is provided in Section 3.0. Input and output streams
associated with water cooling are shown in the block flow
diagram, Figure 32.
2.2.6.3.2 Output Streams
There are two environmental discharges resulting from
the operation of the cooling towers: drift and evaporation
and blowdown. Other output streams are process cooling
water and plant water.
Control measures for drift and evaporation from the
cooling towers are facilitated only through the design of
95
-------
sD
A)
WATER
COOLING
STREAM
1. MAKEUP WATER FROM WATER SUPPLY
2, BOILER SLOWDOWN
3. RECIRCULATED WATER
4. RECYCLE WATER FROM HYDROGEN GENERATION
5. RECYCLE WATER FROM TREATMENT PLANT
6. CHLORINE AND CHROMATES
7. WATER TO PLANT USE
8. DRIFT AND EVAPORATION
9. COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
10. COOLING WATER
QUANTITY (Mg/day)
23092
14
1145455
245
4614
NOT QUANTIFIED
4973
22299
693
1145455
Figure 32. Block flow diagram of water cooling process
96
-------
the towers. The concentration of chemicals which may be
discharged with the drift may, however, be controlled by
varying the rate of blowdown and/or by increasing the degree
of raw water treatment. A portion of the circulating cooling
water is continuously purged in order to maintain a dissolved
solids level of about 50,000 ppm.
2.2.6.4 Steam and Power Generation
Steam and electric power are usually generated on-site
in order to make a coal liquefaction plant self-sufficient.
There may be times, however, when it is more cost-effective
to purchase the required power off-site than to produce it.
In this report, it is assumed that power will be purchased.
This significantly reduces the on-site coal consumption,
cooling water requirements, and gaseous emissions to the
environment. It is estimated that about 110 MW are required
for the SRC-II facility described (6,13).
The quantity of steam which must be produced on-site is
dependent upon the volume of steam produced by various pro-
cesses and the volume of steam which is consumed.
Steam may be produced indirectly in waste heat boilers
located throughout the plant. This reduces the volume of
steam which must be produced and provides a means of cooling
hot effluents from various unit operations. Usually steam
at 4.1 MPa is produced in coal-fired boilers to fulfill the
plant steam requirements (6,13).
Most steam produced in the plant is recycled to the
boilers in a closed conduit for reuse. In some instances,
e.g., hydrogen production, steam may be introduced directly
into reactor vessels where it becomes part of the process
97
-------
stream. Makeup water, therefore, must be continuously added
to the steam generating facilities.
Typical steam generation facilities are shown in Figure
33 (6,13). Since boiler water must be of high purity, raw
makeup water is demineralized prior to entering the boiler
water circuit. In order to maintain relatively low concentra-
tions of dissolved solids in the circuit, a blowdown stream
also is continuously discharged. This stream is directed to
the cooling tower system. Blowdown rates are approximately
0.1 to 1.0 percent of the steam flow (6,29).
2.2.6.4.1 Input Streams
Three materials are required to produce steam: water,
fuel, and air. Coal, available in abundance at the SRC
facility, is assumed as fuel. Due to water losses during
steam utilization, makeup water must be supplied from the
water supply process.
2.2.6.4.2 Output Streams
In addition to steam produced to meet system require-
ments, several other output streams result. The boiler
stack gas produced is an air emission which contains particu-
lates and sulfur oxides. Two effluents are produced. The
first is the waste produced during demineralization of
boiler feedwater. The second is the boiler blowdown withdrawn
to maintain desired water purity levels within the boiler.
Ash, produced by coal combustion, is a solid waste produced
during steam production. Figure 34 is a block flow diagram
of the process.
98
-------
RECYCLE CONDENSATE
SLOWDOWN TO
COOL ING TOWER
MAKEUP
WATER
FLUE GAS
STEAM TO
SYSTEM
BOILER
AIR'
COAL
ASH
DEMORALIZATION
REGENERANT
WASTEWATER
TO DISPOSAL
Figure 33. Steam generation facilities
99
-------
STEAM
GENERATION
STREAM
1. RECYCLED WATER
2. MAKEUP WATER
3. COAL
4. AIR
5. STEAM TO PROCESSES
6. ASH
7. STACK GAS
8. BOILER SLOWDOWN (TO COOLING TOWER)
9. WASTE FROM DEMORALIZATION
QUANTITY (Mq/dav)
13345
4677
929
11087
18009
66
11950
14
NOT QUANTIFIED
Figure 34. Block flow diagram of steam generation
100
-------
2.2.6.5 Hydrogen Generation
Hydrogen is an essential reactant used in SRC systems.
In order to produce liquid fuels from coal, it is necessary
for the hydrogen/carbon ratio by weight in coal to be on the
order of 1:(6-10) (6,25). Since the hydrogen/carbon ratio
in unprocessed coal is only about 1:(15-20), hydrogen must
be supplied on site either by generation from the gasifica-
tion of coal, carbon residues, and/or char or by the recovery
of hydrogen from gases generated during the liquefaction
process (6, 25). This auxiliary process produces hydrogen
from coal and coal products. Numerous alternatives are
available for producing hydrogen. Figure 35 shows the
hydrogen generation unit considered for this design (30).
The four main processing steps employed in the produc-
tion of hydrogen from coal are gasification, quenching,
shift conversion, and hydrogen compression. Numerous pollu-
tion control devices are also used to purify the hydrogen
gas stream prior to its distribution to liquefaction and
hydrotreating operations.
Mineral residue from solids/liquids separation, which
contains heavy products, ash, and undissolved coal, is mixed
with coal and subsequently introduced into a Koppers-Totzek
gasification unit. Oxygen and steam are injected into the
coal/residue mixture prior to entering the gasifier. The
gasifier operating conditions are 1815° to 1930°C and atmo-
spheric pressure (6,30).
A mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, water, and other trace gases are produced
in this process. Approximately 50 percent of the slag also
produced in this process is carried along with the product
101
-------
COAL &
RESIDUE"
OXYGEN
STEAM
DRUM
STEAM
WASTE
HEAT
BOILER
KOPPERS
TOTZEK
GASIFIER;
RECYCLE
WATER TO
COOLING
TOWER
COOLING
WATER
STEAM
VAPOR
LEAKAGE
O
•=* O
crt-
STEAM
AMINE
SOLUTION
KNOCKOUT
DRUM
L
HYDROGEN SULFIDE,
CARBON DIOXIDE,
TRACE COMPOUNDS
TO SULFUR RECOVERY
PROCESS
QUENCH
WATER
-SPILLS
FOUL WATER
TO BY-PRODUCT
RECOVERY
AMINE SOLUTION
co cc.
SPENT AMINE
SOLUTION
CARBON
DIOXIDE
TO VENT
SOUR WATER
BYPRODUCT
RECOVERY
TO
SLAG
TO DISPOSAL
DROTREATI
ER 1
ER
NG
HYDROGEN
HYDROGEN
COMPRESSION
LULU
z oca
O •—'CQi
OQX=>
O OCO
WASTEWA1
UJ
to
TO
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
ER
SPENT AMINE
SOLUTION
Figure 35. Hydrogen generation auxiliary process
-------
gas (6,30). The remainder drops to the bottom of the gasifier
where it is water quenched. The slag slurry is then sent to
a clarifier where it is concentrated.
Prior to entering a venturi scrubber, the high tempera-
ture gasifier product gas produces steam in a waste heat
boiler. Cooling water recirculated from the slag clarifier
is introduced into the scrubber to remove more than 99
percent of the remaining slag from the product gas (6,30).
This slag slurry is then mixed with the slag from the gasifier
and concentrated in a clarifier prior to removal to a landfill
The gas is then water quenched to remove impurities such as
tar acids, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and
slag. The sour water stream is sent to an ammonia recovery
process.
The quench tower effluent process stream is sent to a
shifting process where carbon monoxide reacts with steam to
produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This operation supple-
ments the hydrogen already present in the product gas stream.
Temperatures and pressures in the shift reactor are expected
to range from 340° to 371°C and 1.0 to 9.7 MPa (6,24). A
catalyst is needed in this process. Foul water from the
shift reaction is directed to ammonia recovery.
An amine scrubbing unit removes both hydrogen sulfide
and carbon dioxide from the clean product gas stream. A
subsequent carbon dioxide scrubbing unit removes most of the
remaining carbon dioxide. The gases removed from the first
unit are sent to sulfur recovery while the carbon dioxide
removed from the second scrubbing unit is vented to the
atmosphere.
103
-------
The clean product gas is then compressed and distributed
to hydrotreating and liquefaction.
2.2.6.5.1 Input Streams
The following input materials are reactants in the
hydrogen generation process: oxygen, steam, water and a
mixture of coal and residue from solids/liquids separation.
Input fuel gas and air are combusted to preheat the reaction
mixture to the desired gasifier inlet temperature. Mono-
ethanolamine (MEA) solution is used in the amine scrubber to
remove acid gas constituents from the mixture of gases
produced in the gasifier. Makeup catalyst is periodically
charged to the shift converter to maintain catalyst effi-
ciency. Figure 36 shows a block flow diagram of hydrogen
generation with appropriate input and output streams.
2.2.6.5.2 Output Streams
From Figure 36 it can be seen that output streams from
the hydrogen production process include waste streams and
process streams. Accidental material spills, vapor discharges
and spent catalysts are three periodic outputs which may
require additional processing or treatment prior to disposal.
Output streams discharged on a regular basis include the
following:
• Wastewater streams, possibly containing ammonia,
tars and oils are continuously discharged from
hydrogen generation to wastewater treatment facili-
ties.
• Acid gases (carbon dioxide and sulfur gases,
primarily hydrogen sulfide) are discharged from
104
-------
£
&
HYDROGEN
GENERATION
STREAM
1. RESIDUE AND COAL
2. OXYGEN
3. STEAM
4. WATER
5. MONOETHANOLAMINE (MEA) SOLUTION
6. FUEL GAS
7. AIR
8. MAKEUP CATALYST TO SHIFT CONVERTER
9. SLAG/WATER MIXTURE (60 WT. % SLAG)
10. WASTEWATER
11. ACID GAS
12. CARBON DIOXIDE FROM SCRUBBER
13. HYDROGEN-RICH PRODUCT GAS
14. FLUE GAS
15. WATER TO WATER COOLING
16. SPENT CATALYST
17. VAPOR DISCHARGE
18. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
QUANTITY (Mg/day)
2753
2551
4064
671
0.9
52
965
NOT QUANTIFIED
1538
803
5826
684
937
1017
245
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
Figure 36.
Block flow diagram of hydrogen
generation process
105
-------
the amine scrubber to sulfur recovery. Other
impurities such as cyanides, nitrogen oxides and
ammonia also may be present in this output streams.
• Carbon dioxide is vented to the atmosphere from
the carbon dioxide scrubber.
• Slag, removed from the gasifier and venturi scrub-
bers, is concentrated in a clarifier for disposal.
Most of the water recovered in the clarifier is
recirculated to the venturi scrubbers, however
excess water is returned to the cooling tower.
• Spent MEA solution from the scrubbers is discharged
along with the slag.
• Flue gas is discharged as a result of the operation
of the gasifier.
• The hydrogen-rich product gas is used as a reactant
in liquefaction and hydrotreating.
2.2.6.6 Oxygen Generation
The hydrogen production process used in SRC plants to
produce makeup hydrogen for the hydrogenation reactors, may
require large quantities of oxygen which must be produced on
site. A cryogenic air separation system, consisting of air
compression, cooling, and purification, air separation by
distillation, and oxygen compression, is normally used to
produce the required volume of oxygen. Figure 37 depicts a
conventional air separation system (6,31).
106
-------
AIR FILTER ^w FOUR-STA
> ^^^^^^^
GE AIR 1
>
_ ^' - J T -
| COOLING
CONDENSATE COOLING
TO COOLING WATER
TOWER |
(DOUBLE-COLUMN |
RECTIFIER) 1 1
z
o
P LU
CO CO 3
^
Lr
OXYGEN
10 HYDROGEN1"
GENERATION
H
CONDENSi
IMPRESS
MM
ION A
^ND COOLING
P
h
u
II
[ COOLING
1,
COOLING
WATER
UTE
NITROGEN AND TRACE
GASES
LIQUID RICH
OXYGEN
1 COOL ING
COOLING
WATER
COOLING WATER-
o:
LLl ^ ,
cc
«c
-------
In a conventional cryogenic air separation system, air
is introduced into a four stage compression chamber which
compresses the air to approximately 20.3 MPa. The gas is
cooled between each compression stage and condensed water is
removed. The compressed gas passes through a water quench
tower and heat exchanger where the gas is cooled and contamin-
ants are deposited within the exchanger. The gas is then
further cooled to about -30°C by ammonia refrigeration. The
cooled gas enters the combined liquefier-distillation chamber
where the temperature is decreased to -191°C and the liquid
oxygen and nitrogen separated. The products are returned to
the heat exchanger. Nitrogen is discharged as a waste
product along with trace contaminants such as carbon dioxide,
argon, xenon, radon, krypton, oxygen, and water (6,31). The
purified oxygen is compressed, cooled, and forwarded to the
gasifiers.
Studies have indicated that about 1.5 Mg of oxygen must
be provided per Mg of carbon and hydrogen processed in the
gasifiers (6,32). Based on this factor and 3,000 Mg/day of
coal and residue containing 61 percent carbon and hydrogen,
approximately 2,495 Mg of oxygen must be separated per day.
2.2.6.6.1 Input Streams
Air and cooling water are the only input streams to
oxygen generation. Air serves as a feedstock from which the
desired component (oxygen) is recovered. Cooling water is
used in the four stage compression and cooling process to
provide initial cooling of input air. The block flow diagram
of this process is shown in Figure 38.
108
-------
OXYGEN
GENERATION
-16
STREAM
1. AIR (50% HUMIDITY, 15.6°C)
2. COOLING WATER
3. OXYGEN-RICH PRODUCT GAS
4. WASTE NITROGEN STREAM
5. CONDENSATE WATER
6. RECYCLED COOLING WATER
QUANTITY (Mg/day)
11650
14913
2551
9088
11
14913
Figure 38. Block flow diagram of oxygen
generation process
109
-------
2.2.6.6.2 Output Streams
Four output streams are associated with oxygen genera-
tion. The oxygen-rich product gas is utilized in hydrogen
generation. Condensed water is produced during initial
cooling (dehumidification) of air. After use, cooling water
is recirculated to the cooling tower. The waste gases
remaining after oxygen is separated from input air (primarily
nitrogen) are released to the atmosphere.
2.2.6.7 Acid Gas Removal
The gas separation and the hydrotreating processes
generate gases contaminated with hydrogen sulfide, ammonia,
carbon dioxide, and small amounts of carbon disulfide and
carbonyl sulfide. The substances are formed from the hydro-
genation of phenols, aromatic amines, and mercaptans and
sulfides naturally present in the parent coal. Reaction of
the coal polymer and hydrogen yields these contaminant gases
along with more saturated hydrocarbon species (desired
product). Most of the contaminated gases also contain
significant amounts of unreacted hydrogen and light hydro-
carbon fractions. The acid gas removal (gas purification)
process removes ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide,
carbon dioxide, and carbonyl sulfide from the gas stream,
and leaves a purified gas which can be separated into hydrogen
for recycle substitute natural gas, liquid petroleum gas and
light oils.
A number of available candidate acid gas removal pro-
cesses may be employed in SRC plants. The SRC-II system
described in this section is based on an earlier report (6)
which assumes that the amine-based monoethanolamine (MEA)
process is used for acid gas removal. Figure 39 presents a
110
-------
PURIFIED GAS TO
CRYOGENIC SEPARATION
OFF-GAS FROM PHASE
(GAS) SEPARATION
MODULE: FUEL OIL
HYDROTREATING AND
NAPHTHA HYDROTREATING
TO
PARALLEL
TRAINS
CQ
OL
O
CD
«c
MAKE-UP AMINE
MAKE-UP
r
WATER
AMINE
FILTER
ACID GAS TO
SULFUR RECOVERY
TO SKIMMER
DRAIN
-FILTER
BACKWASH
P CAUSTIC
STEAM
SLOWDOWN
Figure 39. Schematic of MEA acid gas removal process
-------
schematic flow diagram of the MEA process. The module con-
sists of a number of parallel process trains, with each
train carrying out a similar function. A representative
process train is depicted in this figure.
Generally, a gas stream entering the process would
first be pumped to the acid gas removal section, consisting
of an amine absorber. The gas stream is passed countercur-
rently through a 15 to 20 percent solution of MEA in the
amine absorption tower (6,33). Hydrogen sulfide and carbon
dioxide, present along with trace amounts of carbon disulfide
and carbonyl sulfide, form complexes with the MEA, described
by the following reactions:
(1) HOCH9CH9NH9
£+ £• &
(2) 2HOCH2CH2NH2
(3) HOCH9CH9NH9
£• £* £
(4) HOCH2CH2NH2
HS
HOCHCHNHUHS
CS
COS
HOCH9CH9NH9CS
t* £* £
HOCH2CH2NH2COS
Only reactions (1) and (2) are reversible. The absorp
tion process is essentially insensitive to the partial
pressure of acid gases. Removal efficiencies have been
estimated to be approximately 99.6 percent for hydrogen
sulfide and 88 percent for carbon dioxide (6,33).
The MEA absorbent is regenerated by thermal decomposi-
tion at elevated temperatures. Only hydrogen sulfide and
carbon dioxide can be removed in this manner, with carbon
disulfide and carbonyl sulfide forming nonregenerable com-
pounds with the amine. Off -gas from the amine regenerator,
containing almost all of the hydrogen sulfide and carbon
dioxide, is sent to sulfur recovery (6,13).
112
-------
The nonregenerable organic complexes are removed by a
purge stream from the regenerator. Caustic added to the
regenerator to precipitate metals also forms nonvolatile
salts with the amine complexes, which are discharged as
blowdown. Pure MEA is distilled off the regenerator and
recycled to the absorption unit (6,13). The purified gas
flows into the hydrogen and hydrocarbon recovery process
where it is separated into hydrogen for recycle, substitute
natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and light oils.
2.2.6.7.1 Input Streams
Figure 40 is the block flow diagram for acid gas removal,
Gases produced during gas separation and hydrotreating are
combined and charged to the acid gas removal process.
Makeup water and MEA are added to maintain MEA solution
concentration and absorption efficiency. Caustic, a chemical
additive, is used in the amine regenerator. Steam is also
input for regeneration of the MEA solution.
2.2.6.7.2 Output Streams
Two process streams are produced as a result of pro-
cessing the inlet gases. Acid gas constituents are concen-
trated and sent to a sulfur recovery process. Nonacidic
constituents of the inlet gas, or "purified gas" (as shown
in Figure 40), are sent to the hydrocarbon/hydrogen recovery
process.
Waste streams are also present in acid gas removal.
The major wastewater streams are blowdown from the amine
generator and ammonia scrubber effluent. An intermittent
wastewater stream is backwashed from the amine filter in the
acid gas removal unit. Frequency of backwash will depend on
113
-------
ACID GAS
REMOVAL
STREAM
1. OFF-GASES FROM GAS SEPARATION AND HYDRO-
TREATING
2. MAKEUP WATER TO PROCESS
3. ADDITIVES TO PROCESS
4. STEAM TO AMINE REGENERATOR
5. ACID GASES TO SULFUR RECOVERY
6. PURIFIED GASES TO HYDROCARBON/HYDROGEN RECOVERY
7. WASTEWATER (INCLUDES SLOWDOWN AND PURGES)
8. FILTER BACKWASH WASTE
9. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
10. FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
11. VENTS FROM STORAGE AND SUMP FACILITIES
QUANTITY (Mo/day)
5080
3
0.8
NOT QUANTIFIED
705
4374
6
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIED
Figure 40. Block flow diagram of acid gas removal
114
-------
the flow rate and solids content of the amine stream.
Accidental spills will also be a source of intermittent
wastewater generation. Fugitive vapor discharges and vents
from storage and sump facilities are periodic emissions to
air associated with acid gas removal.
2.2.6.8 Sulfur Recovery
Acid gas from the acid gas removal process contains
approximately nine percent by volume hydrogen sulfide. It
is feasible to convert the hydrogen sulfide gas to elemental
sulfur, using the Stretforu sulfur recovery auxiliary process
The Stretford process is applicable to gases with a
hydrogen sulfide content no greater than 15 percent. Concen-
trations as low as 5 to 10 ppm hydrogen sulfide can be
achieved for industrial gases, using the Stretford process
in combination with the high temperature hydrolysis recovery
system (6).
In the process schematic, shown in Figure 41, (6) feed
gas from acid gas removal and hydrogen generation passes
through a packed absorber where hydrogen sulfide is absorbed
in the Stretford solution. The solution consists mainly of
sodium metavanadate, sodium anthraquinone disulfonate
(ADA), sodium carbonate, and sodium bicarbonate in water.
The absorbed hydrogen sulfide is oxidized to elemental
sulfur by the reduction of sodium metavanadate. The reduced
vanadium compound is in turn oxidized by anthraquinone
disulfonate. The ADA is regenerated by air oxidiation in an
oxidizer tank. Sulfur floats to the surface as a froth and
can be processed by either filtration or centrifugation.
Filtrate and wash waters from sulfur separation are returned
to the absorption unit.
115
-------
TREATED TAIL GAS
REAGENT SALTS
TO RECYCLE
SULFUR
Figure 41. Schematic of Stretford sulfur recovery with high
temperature hydrolysis
-------
About 400 percent excess air is used to facilitate
oxidation and flotation. The overall process reaction is
described below (6):
H2S + 1/2 02 - - S + H20
A properly designed Stretford absorber and oxidizing
tank will lose about 1 percent of its sulfur production to
sodium thiosulfate formation, as shown by the following
overall reaction (6).
2 H2S + 2 Na2C03 + 202 — *-Na2S203 + 2NaHC03 + H20
Hydrogen cyanide present in the feed gas will be com-
pletely converted to sodium thiocyanate in the following
manner:
HCN + Na2C03 - — NaCN + NaHC03
NaCN + NaHS + 1/2 02 — — NaCNS + NaOH
NaHC03 + NaOH - - Na2C03 + H20
Sulfur dioxide present in the feed gas will be con-
verted to sodium sulfite in the absorber and oxidized to
thiosulfate form in the oxidizer, as follows:
S02 + H20 - - Na2S03 + 2 NaHC03
+ H2S + 1/2
Continuous purging of the Stretford solution steam
prevents the build-up of sodium thiocyanate and sodium thio-
sulfate to the crystallization point. The purge stream has
a total salt content of 20 to 25 percent by weight (6).
117
-------
The Stretford solution purge stream is decomposed by a
high temperature hydrolysis technique, in which vanadium is
recovered in solid form, along with sodium carbonate and
some sodium sulfide and sulfate. Hydrogen cyanide is com-
pletely converted to carbon dioxide, water, and nitrogen,
while sodium thiosulfate is converted to hydrogen sulfide
and water.
In the process, the liquid is first concentrated in an
evaporator. The concentrated solution is fed to a cocurrent,
high temperature hydrolyzer, where the solution is evaporated
to dryness and decomposed in a high temperature reducing
atmosphere. The reducing atmosphere is produced by the
stoichiometric combustion of fuel. Gases leaving the process
are cycloned to remove recyclable solids and are fed to the
Stretford absorber. The solids containing vanadium and
sodium are dissolved and recycled to the Stretford plant.
The nitrogen and water formed during the hydrolysis
step are recycled along with the gas stream through the
absorber and are eventually vented to the atmosphere in the
tail gas.
2.2.6.8.1 Input Streams
Figure 42, the block flow diagram of sulfur recovery,
shows six input streams. Two of these, the gases from acid
gas removal and hydrogen generation are the feedstock from
which sulfur is recovered. Air is used in the oxidizer to
convert absorbed hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur. Fuel
gas, air and water are used in the hydrolyzer which recovers
salts used in the Stretford absorber.
118
-------
SULFUR
RECOVERY
STREAM
1. GAS FROM ACID GAS REMOVAL
2. GAS FROM HYDROGEN GENERATION
3. WATER
4. AIR FOR OXIDATION
5. FUEL GAS
6. AIR FOR COMBUSTION
7. EFFLUENT GAS
8. BY-PRODUCT SULFUR
9. FLUE GAS
10. VAPOR DISCHARGE (OXIDIZER VENT GAS)
11. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
QUANTITY (Mg/day)
705
5912
74
4730
8
146
10979
443
154
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANFITIABLE
Figure 42. Block flow diagram of sulfur recovery
119
-------
OutpuL
The major output streams from sulfur recovery are the
recovered elemental sulfur, which is stored as a by-product
and the essentially sulfur-free effluent gas. This gas will
contain mostly water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen
with trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide,
ammonia, and nitrogen oxides. Other output streams consist
of flue gas from the absorber, the oxidizer vent gas, which
consists of air and water vapor, and accidental material
spills.
2.2.6.9 Hydrocarbon/Hydrogen Recovery
Purified gases entering the hydrocarbon/hydrogen recovery
process are cryogenically separated into recycle hydrogen
(99 percent pure), substitute natural gas, liquefied petroleum
gas, and light oils. A flow diagram of a theoretical cryogen-
ic separation process is shown in Figure 43.
Generally, purified gas from acid gas removal flows to
a series of cryogenic separators. The gas stream is first
compressed and condensed in a multistage refrigeration unit,
then charged to a flash tower. The liquid stream consists
of light oils, water, and dissolved ammonia. The liquid
stream is charged to a fractionation tower where various
hydrocarbon streams are taken off as product. The water and
ammonia are removed as a separate side stream and routed to
wastewater treatment. The flash gas contains lighter hydro-
carbons, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide. The flash gas is compressed and condensed in
another multistage refrigeration unit and is charged to a
de-ethanizer column. Liquefied petroleum gas (propane and
butane) is taken off the bottom, while the overhead gases
120
-------
REFRIGERATION HYDROGEN-RICH
REFRIGERATION ^ TQ ^^
MULTISTAGE
REFRIGERATION
GASES
FROM ACID
GAS REMOVAL
COMPRESSOR
_/
^^r-
.rt "
LIQUIEFIED
PETROLEUM
GAS
LIGHT OIL FRACTIONS
WATER & AMMONIA
REBOILER
STEAM
T
SYNTHETIC
NATURAL
GAS
Figure A3. Process flow schematic: hydrocarbon/hydrogen recovery
-------
are charged to another refrigeration unit and distillation
column (6,26,33).
Pure hydrogen is taken off the top and combined with
hydrogen from gasification for recycle to the hydrogenation
module. Substitute natural gas consisting mostly of methane,
ethane, and carbon monoxide is taken off as the condensed
stream and used for fuel gas or is sold as product.
The process scheme above is one of several alternatives
for hydrocarbon/hydrogen recovery, depending on the desired
end products.
2.2.6.9.1 Input Streams
Figure 44, a block flow diagram of hydrocarbon/hydrogen
recovery, shows input and output streams associated with the
process. The major input to the process is the effluent gas
from acid gas removal which contains significant quantities
of molecular hydrogen and volatile hydrocarbons. Process
cooling water and steam are used in process heat exchange
equipment such as the condensers and reboiler.
2.2.6.9.2 Output Streams
Substitute natural gas (SNG), liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG), and light oils are products from hydrocarbon/hydrogen
recovery. Recovered hydrogen is recycled to liquefaction
and hydrotreating. Condensed steam and used cooling water
are recycled to their respective auxiliary processes. A
wastewater stream, possibly containing ammonia and phenols,
is produced by the fractionator. Other output streams
consist of accidental material spills and fugitive discharges
from the process equipment.
122
-------
HYDROCARBON/
HYDROGEN
RECOVERY
STREAM
1. PURIFIED GAS FROM ACID GAS REMOVAL
2. STEAM
3. COOLING WATER IN
4. HYDROGEN
5. SUBSTITUTE NATURAL GAS
6. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
'7. LIGHT OILS
8. WASTEWATER
9. CONDENSED STEAM
10. COOLING WATER OUT
11. FUGITIVE VAPOR DISCHARGE
12. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
-H4
QUANTITY (Mg/day)
4374
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANTIFIED
538
2932
821
52
33
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANTIFIED
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
Figure 44.
Block flow diagram of hydrocarbon/hydrogen
recovery process
123
-------
2.2.6.10 Ammonia Recovery
Ammonia is present in and may be recoved from waste-
waters produced by hydrotreating and hydrocarbon/hydrogen
recovery. Depending on the composition, wastewaters from
hydrogen production may be processed to recover ammonia,
although it was not considered in this particular design
(6). The characteristics of wastewaters produced during
hydrogen production depend-on a number of factors including
the gasification process selected and feedstock used (34).
Ammonia-bearing wastewaters are directed to a two-stage
ammonia recovery stripping tower system (6,35). The process
schematic of a typical ammonia recovery process is shown in
Figure 45 (6,35).
In order to remove ammonia from the combined wastewater
stream, the pH must first be raised to approximately 11.0 by
the addition of calcium oxide. The wastewater then passes
through a clarifier, to remove any excess lime as sludge,
prior to entering the first stripping tower. This sludge is
recycled through a lime recovery unit to the lime slaker
hopper.
In the first stripping tower, the ammonia wastewater
stream flows downward through a packing media where it
contacts countercurrently with air. This air stream removes
a significant portion of the ammonia from the wastewater.
A second tower is used further to increase the quantity
of ammonia recovered from the wastewater. Upwards of 90
percent ammonia removal may be expected with this method
(6,35).
124
-------
D
WASTE
ro
Ui
CaO
SLAKER
tfATER.
AIR, NH
AIR, NH.
RAPID
MIX
vTANK
:LARIFIER
LIME
SLUDGE
LIME
RECOVERY
NH3
STRIPPER
AIR
NH3
STRIPPER
WASTEWATER
TO TREATMENT
PLANT
AIR
Figure 45. Process flow schematic of ammonia recovery
-------
2.2.6.10.1 Input Streams
The major input to the ammonia recovery process is the
combined wastewater stream, consisting of wastewaters from
hydrotreating and hydrocarbon/hydrogen recovery. Additional
inputs are calcium hydroxide solution (used for pH adjustment)
and air (used in the stripping columns). Input and output
streams are shown in Figure 46.
2.2.6.10.2 Output Streams
Air stripping of ammonii results in two output streams.
The first is the air, containing stripped ammonia. The
second is outgoing water which has a reduced ammonia content
and increased calcium oxide concentration and pH level as a
result of processing.
2.2.6.11 Phenol Recovery
One of the most common methods used for recovering
phenol is solvent extraction. It is proposed to use product
naphtha to recover phenol in the by-product recovery area.
Approximately 99 percent of the phenol is expected to be
removed (6,36). A typical phenol recovery auxiliary process
is shown in Figure 47 (6,36).
The pH of the phenolic water from gas separation is
first adjusted to about 4.0 by the addition of hydrochloric
acid. The acidic wastewater is then directed through a
series of vessels where it contacts naphtha solvent. The
naphtha solvent and wastewater streams pass countercurrently
through the vessels so that the most concentrated solvent
stream is contacted by the most concentrated phenolic waste-
water stream. The amount of phenol which can be removed is
126
-------
AMMONIA
RECOVERY
STREAM
1. WASTEWATER IN
2. CALCIUM HYDROXIDE SOLUTION
3. AIR
4. AMMONIA/AIR MIXTURE
5. WASTEWATER OUT
QUANTITY (Mg/day)
3932
7
14786
14850
3875
Figure 46.
Block flow diagram of ammonia
recovery process
127
-------
ro
oo
WASTEWATER FROM-
GAS SEPARATION
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
00
MIXING
TANK
MAKEUP
NAPHTHA'
SOLVENT
o
t—I
o *
O£ LU
^g
PHENOL/SOLVENT STREAM
TO WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
RECYCLE SOLVENT
PHENOL TO
BY-PRODUCT STORAGE
O
I
o
*There are a number of towers in series.
Figure 47. Typical solvent extraction phenol recovery process
-------
dependent upon the number of vessels and the ratio of phenol
to solvent flow. Economic considerations determine the
number of vessels and solvent flow rate to be used. Since
detailed economic analyses were not considered in the earlier
report (6), it was assumed that the solvent flow rate would
be equal to the phenolic wastewater flow rate and that an
unspecified number of vessels would be required to remove 99
percent of the phenol. The effluent from the extraction
process is directed to the wastewater treatment facilities.
In addition to extracting phenols, the solvent also
extracts other hydrocarbons from the wastewater. In the
process of extracting hydrocarbons, however, a small portion
of the naphtha is partitioned into the wastewater, since it
is slightly soluble in water.
The phenol/solvent stream is sent to a fractionation
tower where the phenol is separated from the solvent. The
solvent is recycled back to the extraction process, and the
phenol is directed to by-product storage.
2.2.6.11.1 Input Streams
Wastewater to phenol recovery is input from the gas
separation process. Hydrochloric acid is fed to the process
to control the pH of the incoming wastewater. Makeup naphtha
solvent is used to replace solvent lost during the extraction
process. Figure 48 is the block flow diagram for phenol
recovery.
2.2.6.11.2 Output Streams
Recovered phenols are sent to product/by-product storage
facilities. The wastewater, now reduced in phenols content
and of lower pH is sent to the ammonia recovery process.
129
-------
d>
©-
PHENOL
RECOVERY
STREAM
1. WASTEWATER FROM GAS SEPARATION
2. MAKEUP NAPHTHA SOLVENT
3. HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION
4. PHENOLS
5. WASTEWATER OUT
6. VAPOR DISCHARGE
7. MATERIAL SPILLS
QUANTITY (Mg/dav)
3135
3
31
34
3104
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
Figure 48. Block flow diagram of phenol recovery process
130
-------
2.2.6.12 Product/By-Product Storage
There are a number of products and by-products stored
on-site such as liquid petroleum gas, naphtha, SRC fuel oil,
sulfur, ammonia and phenols. Pipeline gas is also produced
but sent directly into a gas pipeline grid for distribution.
Liquefied petroleum gas is normally stored and shipped in
atmospheric pressurized tanks. All storage tanks have gas
vents which return hydrocarbon vapors to the gas purifica-
tion area. This system prevents hydrocarbon vapor leakage
in the storage area. Solid SRC is stored in open piles or
hoppers.
Various by-products such as sulfur, ammonia, and phenols
are removed from process waste streams, purified, and also
sent to storage. Ammonia and phenols are stored in tanks;
sulfur is stored outdoors in piles, or in an enclosed area.
2.2.6.12.1 Input Streams
A block flow diagram of product/by-product storage is
shown in Figure 49. It should be noted that the diagram is
applicable to the SRC-1I system (6). Product inputs consist
of liquid SRC, fuel oil, naphtha, SNG and LPG. Sulfur,
ammonia and phenols are by-product inputs. If solid-mode
SRC-I operation is assumed, solid SRC rather than liquid SRC
is input to product/by-product storage facilities.
2.2.6.12.2 Output Streams
No assumptions were made in the previous design (6)
regarding product/by-product storage capacity. Consumer
demand and selling price will influence the rates at which
the various products and by-products of SRC systems are dis-
131
-------
PRODUCT/
BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
STREAM
1. LIQUID SRC
2. FUEL OIL
3. SUBSTITUTE NATURAL GAS
4. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
5. NAPHTHA
6. SULFUR
7. AMMONIA
8. PHENOL
9. ACCIDENTAL MATERIAL SPILLS
10. FUGITIVE VAPOR DISCHARGES
11. FUGITIVE DUST FROM SULFUR STORAGE PILE
12. PRODUCTS/BY-PRODUCTS TO DISTRIBUTION
QUANTITY (Mg/dav)
5527
2591
1312
821
518
443
64
34
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIABLE
NOT QUANTIFIED
11,310.
Figure 49. Block flow diagram of product/by-product
storage facilities (SRC-II Mode)
132
-------
tributed for marketing. Other outputs from product/by-
product storage are accidental material spills, fugitive
vapor discharges and dust emissions from the sulfur storage
pile. For SRC-1 systems dust emissions will also result
from storage of solid SRC product.
2.3 Process Areas of Current Environmental Concern
This subsection briefly identifies known environmental
problems associated with the system operations and auxiliary
processes comprising SRC systems. Detailed characterization
of the streams cited is performed in Section 3.0. Environ-
mental control technology considerations are made in Section
4.0.
2.3.1 Coal Pretreatment
Numerous waste streams are generated from the coal pre-
treatment operation. These include coal dust particulate
emissions, refuse, coal pile runoff, flue gases from coal
dryers, and wastewater produced during coal washing. Despite
the number of wastes produced by coal pretreatment, and the
fact that waste characteristics can be influenced by many
factors, including feed coal characteristics and equipment
selection (such as dry cleaning methods as opposed to wet
methods), the coal pretreatment operation is not considered
an area of major environmental concern. This is because the
processes employed in the operation have been used by coal
mining and coal-consuming industries for many years and
during this time control methods have been developed to
minimize environmental problems caused by such wastes.
133
-------
2.3.2 Coal Liquefaction
Wastes from the liquefaction operation consist of pre-
heater flue gas, the only continuous discharge, and inter-
mittent spills and vapor discharges. Fugitive vapors and
accidental spills, although no major threat to the local
environment could pose serious problems for workers at the
liquefaction plant, because of the possibility of exposure
to toxic gases and liquids during attempts to control or
abate such discharges. For discharges of this type preven-
tion is as important as control.
2.3.3 Separation
2.3.3.1 Gas Separation Process
As in the coal liquefaction operation, material spills
and/or vapor discharges may occur within the gas separation
process. Again, problems may exist in the work place but
(assuming the accidental spill or vapor discharge is con-
trolled) there should not be any significant effect beyond
the SRC system boundary. A sour water stream is discharged
from the process. Major components of this water are hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia and phenol; however, other organic species
are probably present in lesser amounts. Better characteriza-
tion of these materials and assessments of their toxicities
and amenability to control by existing methods must be
determined in order to evaluate the relative hazard of this
effluent stream.
134
-------
2.3.3.2 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
The mixture of mineral matter, unreacted coal and
liquid organics processed in solids/liquids separation must
be given consideration when selecting prevention and control
methods for possibly hazardous material spills or vapor
discharges. This is true for both SRC-I (which uses filtra-
tion) and SRC-II (which uses vacuum distillation) systems.
Both systems, although employing different processes to
perform solids/ liquids separation, may have a common problem
concerning solid waste generation. Depending on the extent
to which residues from gasification (in SRC-II) or filter
cake (in SRC-I) can be utilized in the hydrogen generation
process, significant quantities of these solid wastes could
require disposal. Both residues and filter cake need to be
studied to determine what treatment measures (if any) should
be practiced prior to disposing of these solid wastes.
2.3.4 Purification and Upgrading
2.3.4.1 Fractionation
In many instances fractionation includes an oil/water
separator (25) although it is not included in the SRC-II
system (6) highlighted in this report. If an oil/water
separator is employed in the fractionation it is believed
that the wastewater characteristics would be similar to
those of the sour water produced in gas separation and that
the quantity of wastewater produced would be less than
produced by gas separation (11). The possibility of spills
or vapor leaks exist in fractionation just as it does in the
liquefaction and gas separation operations. Assuming the
situation to be controllable, environmental problems should
be contained to the work place.
135
-------
2.3.4.2 Hydrotreating Process
Wastes discharged from the hydrotreating process consist
of wastewater, spent catalysts and accidental spills/vapors
Existing wastewater treatment technology used for wastewaters
generated from hydrotreaters employed in the petroleum in-
dustry should, perhaps with minor modifications, minimize
environmental concerns regarding this stream. Spent catalysts
may either be disposed or regenerated. Disposal seems the
most likely option for the carbon residue and spent catalyst
withdrawn from the sulfur guard hydrotreating reactor.
Minor quantities of spent catalyst.are produced. Environ-
mental effects from their disposal should be correspondingly
small. As in several of the .other system operations, spills
and vapor discharges from the hydrotreating operation may
intermittently create problems for workers within the lique-
faction plant.
2.3.5 Auxiliary Processes
No environmental problems are anticipated for several
of the auxiliary processes used in SRC systems because the
processes are employed in numerous industrial systems without
causing environmental hazards. Such processes include coal
receiving and storage, water supply, water cooling, steam
and power generation, and oxygen generation. In addition
the sulfur, hydrocarbon/hydrogen, ammonia and phenol recovery
processes do not directly generate significant waste streams.
Instead they process output streams from other processes in
the SRC systems to recover useful products and by-products
from these streams prior to treatment and disposal. The
remaining auxiliary processes, hydrogen generation, acid gas
removal and product/by-product storage, produce output
streams which could cause environmental concern. These
processes are addressed in the remainder of this subsection.
136
-------
Spills and vapor discharges, while presenting potential
localized problems in nearly all operations and processes of
SRC systems, are especially dangerous in the product/by-
product storage area where, due to quantities of flammable
hydrocarbon liquids stored, great care must be exercised to
prevent fires or explosions. In addition fugitive dust
emissions from storage piles or solid SRC (SRC-1 mode) and
by-product sulfur must be contended with.
The hydrogen production process is an area of potential
environmental concern. Significant quantities of wastewater
and solid wastes are generated. The quantity and composition
of these waste streams are dependent on both the gasifica-
tion process and processing scheme selected as well as the
gasifier feedstock (coal, filter cake, vacuum residue or
mixtures of these materials) (34). Finalizatiori of the
hydrogen generation technique and detailed characterization
of the wastes produced are required ;to ascertain the extent
of possible environmental problems.
As in hydrogen generation, several process alternatives
are available for acid gas removal in SRC systems. Most
acid gas removal processes produce a small quantity of
wastewater, including a blowdown stream of the solution used
for acid gas absorption. Detailed characterization of these
discharges (after final designation of the acid gas removal
process) is necessary to determine the extent of possible
environmental problems.
137
-------
3.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF INPUT MATERIALS. PRODUCTS. AND
WASTE STREAMS
3.1 Summary of Sampling and Analytical Activities
3.1.1 IERL/RTP Environmental Assessment Activities
In July 1978, the EPA/IERL at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, issued a report setting forth the general
guidelines for the development of conceptually sound site-
specific environmental assessment sampling and analysis
plans (referred, to as test plans) for coal gasification
plants (37). These guidelines appear to be broadly applic-
able to Solvent Refined Coal liquefaction system(s), as
illustrated in Figure 50.
Within the limits imposed by any of the predetermined
test plan objectives, the performance of an engineering
analysis is a basic requirement in the development of the
sampling and analytical strategies. Another important
aspect of an environmental test plan is referred to as data
management, encompassing the following areas (37):
• Planning and statistical design of experiments
• Data validation
• Data evaluation, and
• Data handling.
The various types of source tests and descriptions of
test objectives are as follows (37):
138
-------
ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS
SAMPLING
STRATEGY
DEVELOPMENT
ANALYTICAL
STRATEGY
DEVELOPMENT
Co
VO
INFORMATION
NEEDED
DEFINITION OF TEST
PLAN OBJECTIVES
DATA EVALUATION
TECHNIQUES
COMPLETED
TEST PLAN
Figure 50. Interrelationships among general areas involved in
preparing an environmental test plan (37)
-------
Test Type General Statement of Test Objectives
Waste stream To identify and quantify the pollutants
characterization found in a facility's multimedia (gase-
ous, liquid, and solid) waste streams
and to evaluate their health and eco-
logical effects.
Control equipment To determine the effectiveness of
characterization existing or developing control equipment
for removing pollutants from waste
s treams.
Process stream To determine the origins and fates of
characterization pollutants as they pass through select-
ed processes and to evaluate the effects
that process operating parameters have
on pollutant types and concentrations.
These source tests may be conducted during one or more
of the following process or plant operating conditions: (1)
normal operation; (2) start-up; (3) shutdown, and (4) emer-
gency upsets (37). With regard to the waste stream char-
acterization test, the EPA has established guidelines for
Levels 1 to 3, and multimedia environmental goals for the
evaluation of health and ecological effects or hazards from
toxic substances (38,39,40). For a detailed discussion .of
the several key areas shown in Figure 50, the reader should
consult Reference 37, page et al. (1978).
3.1.1.1 Level 1 Assessments of SRC-II by Hittman
Associates, Inc.
In March 1978, Hittman Associates, Inc., conducted a
partial Level 1 environmental assessment of the SRC-II pilot
plant at Fort Lewis, Washington (41). In this initial
assessment, grab sampling was performed only on certain
liquid/slurry streams and solids streams of some main unit
operations (e.g., SRC products and by-products), and on
140
-------
certain streams of the wastewater treatment system. The
rationale for sampling and analysis of the wastewater treat-
ment process was to obtain an estimate of the efficiencies
of the various treatment units (e.g., the flottazur effi-
ciency) in lowering the concentrations of organic and in-
organic pollutants contained in the multimedia waste streams
discharged from specific treatment units. Such information
could be useful in the final design of a wastewater treatment
plant for a commercial SRC system. The sampling points
designated for this particular source test are given else-
where (41).
Grab sampling was also performed on the SRC liquid
product and the naphtha and middle distillate streams from
the fractionation unit, and the residue from the heavy
bottoms stream from the solids/liquids separation process.
During the grab sampling effort, the feed coal used in the
SRC-II pilot system was Illinois No. 6 coal, containing
about four percent sulfur, 14 percent ash and 18 percent
moisture, as received. Moisture-free coal was fed to the
liquefaction unit at.a rate of 27,194 kg per day. Coal
dissolution was carried out at an average temperature of
454.9°C and a pressure of 13.3 MPa (41). The reader is
advised that data from pilot plant facilities cannot be
translated directly into a standard-size (28,000 Mg of feed-
coal per day) commercial SRC system, without further testing
under demonstration plant conditions.
The results obtained on the effectiveness of the several
treatment units in removing organic and inorganic pollutants
were assessed, keeping in mind the factors that differentiate
between the SRC pilot plant and a commercial system, as
follows (41):
141
-------
• The wastewater feed from the SRC-II pilot plant to
the waste disposal treater is considered to be
diluted from 5 to 8 times more than that of a
commercial SRC system estimated to use about
32,000 Mg of water per day.
• The rate of production of the process related
wastewater in the SRC-II pilot plant amounted to
only about one percent of the total feed to the
wastewater treater system, compared to about 25
percent for a commercial SRC system.
• Phenols were not stripped from the SRC pilot plant
wastewater, as will probably be done in a commer-
cial SRC system.
• The sole point source effluent discharge from the
SRC-II pilot plant is reported to be the filter
backwash tank effluent.
Within the constraints imposed by the above factors,
the following observations appear pertinent:
• Results from the infrared analyses of the biounit
streams suggested that the following classes of
hydrocarbons remain in wastewater following bio-
logical treatment but below the Washington State
effluent requirements (41):
aromatics, including substituted benzenes,
naphthalenes, and other polynuclear hydro-
carbons.
142
-------
compound classes with carbon-oxygen single
and double bond stretches representing alde-
hydes, acids, and esters.
aliphatic hydrocarbons, or alipathic sub-
stitution on ring compounds.
compounds with carbon-nitrogen double bond
stretches including amines.
phenols.
• The Cg-C-,,- hydrocarbons were concentrated in the
flottazur skimmings.
• The biounit treatment removed 99 percent of the
Cg-Cn/- hydrocarbons remaining in the flow from
. flottazur through the biounit.
•. The carbon filter unit (the last in the wastewater
treatment unit chain) proved effective in removing
certain organics which were refractory to biologi-
cal treatment.
• The net reduction of dissolved solids by the
treatment system amounted to approximately 14
percent; this finding is relevant in that the
majority of the trace elements were found to occur
as dissolved solids rather than suspended solids.
The data from spark source analysis of the waste-
water streams suggested that calcium, sulfur,
vanadium, and fluorine exhibited poor removal
efficiencies; the relatively high concentrations
of sulfur and vanadium may warrant serious atten-
tion in the final treatment design.
143
-------
• Based on the high removal efficiency of the treat-
ment system for heavy metals, it appears that
these elements (e.g., Sb, Sn, and Ti) are largely
present on the suspended solids.
• The source of the high concentrations of poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons found in the feed to
the wastewater treatment system undoubtedly arose
from leaks in the washdown of process areas and
accidental discharges. Such leaks and spills
would likely be minimized in a commercial SRC
system (41).
3.1.1.2 Studies on Leachates from SRC Liquefaction
Residues by the Illinois State Geological
Survey (42)
Leachates from the SRC liquefaction dry mineral residue
(from Kentucky No. 9 coal) were analyzed for 43 soluble
constituents using atomic absorption and colorimetric techni-
ques. Soluble constituents in the SRC mineral residue were
measured in leachates (10 percent slurries), under conditions
of chemical equilibrium in the laboratory (e.g., from 3 to 6
months time) on duplicate sets of slurries over the pH range
from 2.9 to 10.2. Soluble constituents in SRC leachate
whose equilibrium concentration in the aqueous phase exceeded
recommended water quality levels were: boron, calcium,
ammonium (NH^) and sulfate (42).
In studies of the capacity of three different Illinois
soil types to attenuate the behavior of chemical consti-
tuents in leachates from SRC liquefaction solid wastes, the
results indicated that the degree of removal from leachates
of the pollutants Fe, Zn, and B varied directly with the
144
-------
cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil clay and organic
colloidal fractions. From this investigation, the cation
magnesium was found to present the greatest problem as a
possible pollutant from land disposal in two of the three
soil types, referred to as the Catlin silt loam and Ava
silty clay loam. For example, it was found that the concen-
tration of Mg in the original leachate, compared to that in
the filtrate (after elution from soil columns) showed a 20-
fold increase; this cation-exchange reaction has been found
i
sufficient to cause increases in the hardness of ground
waters around waste disposal sites with these soils (42).
3.1.1.3 Site-Specific Evaluation of the Conceptualized
SRC-II System by Hittman Associates, Inc. (43)
An effort was made to estimate the potentially adverse
effects of major polluant stressors predicted to emanate
^
from a hypothetical, standard-sized SRC-II system presumed
to be located and operated along the Wabash River in White
County, Illinois (43). The Standards of Practice Manual for
the SRC Coal Liquefaction Process (6), prepared earlier by
Hittman Associates, served as the conceptualized basis for
said effort. The White County study includes updated informa-
tion on the identity and levels of emissions, effluents, and
solid wastes associated with the construction and operation
of an SRC-II system, conceptually using about 28,000 Mg
Illinois No. 6 coal per day. In addition, updated informa-
tion on the existing regulatory requirements applicable to
the SRC-II system, and on the Multimedia Environmental Goals
(MEGs) and the Source Analysis Methodology (SAM) concepts
was used to evaluate the environmental goals and apparent
safe limits for the various pollutants resulting from the
operation of the White County SRC-II facility (43).
145
-------
Finally, a detailed description was made of the total
White County environment, as it presently exists, without
the proposed SRC-II system. Generic and site-specific
environmental issues and constraints were identified. A
detailed discussion was also made of the influence of known
environmental dissipative, and/or exacerbative forces (physi-
cal, chemical, and biological) that may act to decrease,
increase, or sometimes neutralize the adverse effects of
pollutants. For example, the chemical form of a pollutant
in combination with other pollutants appears determinant to
pollutant action via absorption, metabolism, excretion, and
bioaccumulation (43).
The highlights of this site-specific evaluati9n with
respect to the expected pollutant discharges are reported as
follows (43):
• Emissions to the atmosphere during the operation
of the SRC-II system are expected to arise primarily
from the auxiliary processes; these discharges
include flue gases and fugitive emissions from
coal pretreatment and the dryer stack gas. Emis-
sions from the main unit operations of the SRC
system are (mostly) expected to come from leaks in
pump seals, joints and flanges, and from product/by-
product handling and storage activities; these
emissions should be monitored in the workplace on
a regular basis since present evidence suggests
the likely presence of hydrocarbons, toxic aroma-
tics, and metal carbonyls.
Trace elements present in fugitive emissions
(i.e., dusts) from the coal pretreatment area
include aluminum, chromium, and nickel among
146
-------
others. Present evidence suggests that the fugitive
particulates escaping from treated stack gases are
enriched in copper, molybdenum, selenium, zinc and
zirconium. Unquantified amounts of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were reported to be
associated with the particulates that escape air
pollution control equipment. Carbon dioxide
emanations from the SRC-II system were reported to
be about 20,000 Mg/day.
Insofar as the SRC process wastewaters will be
treated and recycled and not discharged,
there appears to be nominal concern for any
untoward effects from cyanides, phenols, sulfides,
and ammonia. This is not true for the dissolved
solids (TDS) in wastewater streams with IDS levels
ranging up to 44,000 mg/liter. Effluent discharges
from the main unit operations of the SRC system
are expected to arise primarily from emergency
shutdown, cleanup and startup, and from accidental
spills during the handling of the process and
product aqueous streams. Until full scale demon-
stration plant tests are completed, however, the
actual degree of hazard from PAHs, .trace elements,
and other toxic substances cannot.be established
for these discharges.
The SRC process wastewaters reportedly contribute
essentially all of the organic polluants generated
in the system; however, the precise identity and
level of toxic organics in wastewaters cannot be
fully assessed until the demonstration plant(s)
are in operation.
147
-------
• One of the largest categories of solid waste to be
disposed of from the SRC-II system (excluding the
coal pretreatment operation) is the hydrogen
production slag (40 percent water), at 1538 Mg/day.
This solid waste will, like the coal operation
wastes, be sent to disposal at the mine site. In
the biological treatment unit sludge (discharged
at about 0.5 Mg/day) the mercury and nickel levels
may present a potential health hazard.
The 11,368 Mg/day of liquid SRC product, and the naphtha
and middle distillate by-products reportedly contain appre-
ciable levels of naphthalenes, alkyl benzenes, phenanthrenes
and other aromatics in the 343°-511°C fraction. The effect
of the several process variables (e.g., pressure, temperature,
and time) on the distribution of these suspected hazardous
substances is poorly understood and requires resolution in a
large-scale SRC-II demonstration system (43).
3.1.1.4 Estimation of the Average and the Maximum
Composition of Process and Waste Streams
by Hittman Associates, Inc. (44)
In the present state-of-the-art, estimates of pollutant
levels in SRC process and waste streams are sometimes based
on one sample of coal of unreported composition. In develop-
ing a technique for predicting the pollutant composition of
process and waste streams of a conceptualized SRC system,
there is some merit in establishing sets of values for U.S.
coals, referred to as the "average" and the "maximum" element-
al composition of U.S. coals. These values may be used, in
turn, to predict the average and the maximum possible pollu-
tant concentration (usually for the inorganics) in various
process and waste streams of the system, provided that one
148
-------
derives a set of partitioning factors for the various pollu-
tants in the several streams of interest.
The average and the maximal average composition of U.S.
coals (largely bituminous) was estimated simply by treating
the published average and maximal values for the constituents
as if they were raw data (44). Partitioning factors were
next derived by using the data of Filby et al. (45), and of
Dailey, et al. (46), whereupon sets of partitioning factors
(F), where:
Px
(ps or ws)
F =
Pv
rx coal feed
where (pv) is the average or maximal concentration of the
X.
pollutant (x) is either a process stream (ps), or a waste
stream (ws), and p in the average or maximal concentration
X
of the same inorganic element (x) found in the feed coal.
Thus, the partitioning factors are based on actual analyses
of the process or waste streams; it is assumed that these
factors have equal rank with any other actual stream analysis,
since these factors allow the data to be generalized to any
feed coal. Hence, once the composition of a given feed coal
is known, one may estimate the composition of the product,
process, and waste streams (44).
Implicit in these derivations are several other assump-
tions as follows: (1) that the concentration of the pollutant
in a given stream is rather more affected by the feed coal
composition than by the usual variations in SRC-II process
parameters, and (2) that every constituent in every particle
of coal in the United States acts similarly to those con-
149
-------
stituents in every other particle of coal in the United
States. These assumptions neglect any matrix effects and
other unidentified interactions (44). Results obtained by
use of this concept for multimedia waste streams of the
conceptualized SRC-II system are presented in Sections 3.5
to 3.7.
3.1.1.5 Radionuclides in Feed Coal and SRC
Samples (47)
Hittman Associates, Inc., conducted analytical studies
of the levels of major radionuclides and their potential
health hazard in Kentucky and Illinois bituminous coals, and
in the SRC-I product, SRC fly ash, and Kentucky coal fly ash
obtained from a combustion test at the Georgia Power Company's
Plant Mitchell during May and June 1977. Two sets of samples
were analyzed for radionuclides in the Georgia Power system,
taken from the 10-micron, 3-micron, and 1-micron cyclones,
and from the filters of Kentucky Coal Run No. 1 and SRC Run
No. 2 (47). Theoretical analyses were also carried out on
the Illinois No. 6 feed coal required to operate the concept-
ualized SRC-II system discussed in previous reports (43,6).
Results obtained from these studies strongly supports
the view that thorium arid its daughter products occur mainly
in the SRC bottom ash and the SRC particulates (i.e., the
collected fly ash). However, the levels of thorium, uranium,
and their daughter products that may be discharged from an
operational, standard-size SRC system (as dusts and bottom
ash from 28,123 Mg/day of Illinois No. 6 coal) were about
290 mCi (43).
With regard to the degree of radiological exposure of a
worker breathing 350 grams of coal dust (Illinois No. 6
150
-------
coal) containing 290 mCi of radioactivity, and considering
the total number of radionuclide disintegrations, the energy
of each disintegration, and the relative biological effective-
ness of each disintegration, the conclusion was reached that
the cumulative exposure of a worker during the 30-year life-
time of a commercial SRC facility (260 days worked per year)
-9 -8
would be 3.5 x 10 rad or 3.0 x 10 rem. This exposure
level was found to be well below the maximum permissible rem
for a worker breathing 350 grams of coal dust per year.
However, since it is generally accepted that at least 90
percent of the uranium and its daughters (e.g., polonium-
210; radon-222; polonium-210 and thorium-230), and of thorium
and its daughters (e.g., radium-228; thorium-228, and radon-
220) may be retained in the collected fly ash and bottom
ash, caution must be exercised in the land disposal of these
wastes where the rate of discharge exceeds 40 Mg/day (43).
3.1.2 Non-IERL/RTP Evaluations of the SRC Systems
Besides EPA, the United States Department of Energy
(DOE) is the other sponsor of SRC environmental assessment
activities. A summary of programs for which published data
are available is presented in Table 14.
3.1.2.1 Pittsburg and Midway Engineering and
Health Program (48)
The Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company (P&M), the
prime DOE contractor, is in charge of the overall Fort Lewis
pilot plant operations. In addition to overseeing the
engineering aspects of plant operations, P&M conducts a
health program composed of the following: an industrial
hygiene monitoring program, designed to provide quantitative
data of the contaminant levels to which employees are exposed
151
-------
TABLE 14. DOE SRC CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS HAVING PUBLISHED REPORTS
OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES
Contractors and
Subcontractors
Report
Reference
Area of Research
Reported on
Program Technical Approach
Pittsburg & Midway
(48)
WashingtoiuState
University
J-n Alsid, Snowden &
Associates
Battelle Northwest
Laboratories
(49)
(50)
(51)
• Health Programs:
Industrial hygiene program
Clinical examination program
Educational program
• Chemical Programs:
Analysis of trace element
distribution in SRC-I
• Environmental sampling/
monitoring program
•.Chemical Program:
Sampling and analysis char-
acterization of SRC products,
by-products and effluents
Monitoring in pilot plant for
potential air and skin contamina-
tion.
Periodic visual skin examinations
and pulmonary function tests.
Health protection indoctrination
presentations
Utilization of neutron activation
analysis (NAA) and atomic absorp-
tion spectroscopy (AAS)
Ongoing air, water and foliage
monitoring (sampling and analysis)
studies of environment surrounding
SRC pilot plant
Development of appropriate sampling
techniques. Inorganic analysis by
utilizing NAA, x-ray florescence
(XRF) and chemical speciation
methods. During organic analysis,
extracts are partitioned into
acidic, basic, polynuclear aromatic
and neutral fractions which are
then analyzed by gas chromatography/
mass spectroscopy.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 14. (continued)
Contractors and
Subcontractors
Report
Reference
Area of Research
Reported on
Program Technical Approach
Consolidated Edison
of NY and Electric
Power Research
Institute
>c.
SRC-II combustion test-
emission data comparison to
EPA standards
4500 barrels of SRC-II fuel
were burned, followed by a
comparison burn test using
low-sulfur oil
ui
aThe Fort Lewis pilot plant is the sample source of all programs listed
Subcontractors to Pittsburg and Midway
°Work is still being conducted on the burn test. A final report is therefore
not yet available
-------
at various locations in the plant; a clinical examination
program, an educational program, and a toxicological program.
The employee orientation and education program has been
generally successful. The toxicological program, which will
utilize animal bioassays to determine toxicity of various
materials, is in its early stages. A data summary of these
four health program efforts for the period January 1, 1974
to June 30, 1977 follows.
The major industrial hygiene monitoring studies accom-
plished thus far include the following results:
• Airborne Organic Vapors - 120 organic vapor samples
were collected and results indicate that in-plant
concentrations of organic vapors and hydrocarbon
gases were generally less than 0,1 ppm.
• Benzene Survey - two liquid streams (naphtha and
middle distillate) in the SRC process have benzene
concentrations great enough to require actions to
comply with the Benzene Standards as proposed by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(29 CFR Part 1910, Federal Register dated May 27,
1977). Each of these two streams normally has a
benzene concentration greater than 0.1 percent but
less than 1 percent volume percent. Air sampling
results indicate occupational exposures to benzene
were far below the 1 ppm time weighted average
level as specified in the proposed standard.
• Suspended Particulates - nearly two hundred sus-
pended particulate samples have been collected
with high volume air samplers and personal air
sampling pumps. In addition to determination of
154
-------
total mass collected, some of these samples have
been analyzed for benzene soluble fractions and
specific polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds.
Analytical data so far showed fairly inconsistent
and scattered results in terms of the ratio between
benzene soluble fraction versus the total mass
concentration for particulates from the same plant
areas.
Welding Fumes Study - this is a study of welders'
exposure to coal tar and liquids when cutting or
welding contaminated parts. Results so far show
that welders could be exposed to high concentra-
tions of coal-derived materials as evidenced by
the presence of elevated benzene solubles fractions
in the welding fumes.
Asbestos Survey - the only known source of asbestos
is the filter aid (basecoat) material, "Fibra-
Flow." Results of several surveys show that
occupational exposures to asbestos have been
brought under control by the installation of an
asbestos handling glove box and by stringent work
practices and respiratory protection. Later air
sampling results showed asbestos concentration of
less than 0.1 fiber per ml of air.
Free Silica and Mineral Residue Dust - several
types of calcined diatomaceous earth containing 50
percent by weight of free silica were used as
filter aid in the filter preparation building.
o
Dust concentrations as high as 10 mg/m have been
monitored. The situation is controlled by a
mandatory respirator program. The mineral residue
155
-------
contained an average of 4.5 percent free silica
as a-quartz. Occupational free silica exposure
could become a problem for future commercial SRC
facilities because of the large quantities of
mineral residue to be handled.
• Hydrogen Sulfide Study - potential I^S release
sources in the pilot plant were identified.
Thirty-four tUS samples showed l^S concentration
mostly below 0.1 ppm, indicating insignificant
chronic FUS exposure problem. It is predicted
that H^S will not present a chronic occupational
'exposure problem for future commercial-sized SRC
facilities.
• Sulfur Dioxide Study - potential SC^ release
sources in the pilot plant have been identified.
Forty-two SOo samples collected showed less than
0.1 ppm SOU, indicating no occupational exposure
problem. It is predicted that SC^ will not present
a serious threat to the health and safety of plant
workers in future commercial-sized SRC operations.
• Phenols Study - phenolic compounds exist in large
quantities in many liquid streams. However, 78
samples showed virtually no airborne phenols in
the workplace. It is concluded that phenolic
compounds may present serious occupational skin
contact hazards in SRC processing but present no
inhalation hazard.
• Noise Survey - plant noise and occupational noise
exposure surveys were conducted. Results indicate
that the SRC pilot plant has minimal occupational
156
-------
noise exposure as defined by noise dosimetry
personnel monitoring.
• Carbon Monoxide Study - results of plant CO survey
show that the major CO hazard in the SRC pilot
plant was related to the use of plant inert gas
which contains 1.5 percent CO. For a full-sized
SRC facility, CO should be much less in the inert
gas because of better combustion control and
better inert gas generation equipment.
• Settleable Particulates - monthly samples of
settleable particulates have been collected at six
fixed sampling stations. Results indicate that,
except for one month (November 15 to December 15,
1976), dustfall concentrations reported from the
SRC pilot plant's sampling stations were consider-
ably lower than those reported from a nearby urban
community.
• Skin Contamination Study - preliminary work has
been done towards developing a method for determin-
ing skin contamination by coal derived liquids.
This methodology is still under development and no
data are yet available from the study.
P&M's clinical program has been in effect since 1974
primarily for preemployment medical examinations and an
annual follow-up. The purpose of the program is to detect
at an early stage any changes in the various bodily functions
To date, there have been a few cases of mild transient
photodermatitis from exposure to the SRC materials but no
permanent or serious problems have been identified at this
time.
157
-------
The education program has also been in effect since
1974, primarily to advise the employee of potential health
hazards, protective measures, and personal hygiene practices.
New employees receive a health protection indoctrination
which includes an audio-visual slide presentation and a
health protection manual. Periodically, additional presenta-
tions are made to all employees on various health aspects,
such as first aid, health and hygiene, and toxic hazards.
Generally, such presentations are now scheduled at a frequency
of about three per year.
The toxicological program is still in the early stages
with only pilot studies (dose levels) and part of the acute
inhalation study completed. Substantial mice mortalities
were experienced in initial skin painting trials with the
light oil, wash solvent, and wet mineral residue, probably
because of improper dose levels when phenol concentrations
in these materials are taken into consideration. A pilot
study was then performed to establish dose levels, but, near
the end of the study, some corneal opacity was detected in
some of the animals, including the controls. A further 30-
day inhalation study was then initiated to study this effect
further, but, to date, this effect has not reappeared. Some
analytical development work remains to be completed for a
procedure to sample and analyze the atmosphere in the inhala-
tion chambers prior to the initiation of the long-term
inhalation studies. These and the two-year skin painting
studies are expected to be initiated in the near future.
The toxicology program is in a state of revision; details of
the revised program are not yet available.
158
-------
3.1.2.2 Trace Element Investigation by Washington
State University
Washington State University, subcontractor to Pittsburg
and Midway Coal Mining Company, is conducting an analytical
study of the distribution and fate of 34 trace elements in
the SRC process. A report of work.performed during the
period of August 1, 1974 to July 31, 1976 is available (49).
Neutron activation analysis was used to determine Ti,
V, Ca, Mg, Al, Cl, Mn, As, Sb, Se, Hg, Br, Co, Ni, Cr, Fe,
Na, Rb, Cs, K, Sc, Tb, Eu, Sm, Ce, La, Sr, Ba, Th, Hf, Ta,
Ga, Zr, and Cu in feed coals, process solvent, SRC, mineral
residues, wet filter cake, by-product solvents, process and
effluent waters and by-product sulfur. The sample points
were chosen such that the major process streams were adequate-
ly described and that the major input and" output materials
were included. Atomic absorption spectrophotometry was used
to measure the toxic elements Pb, Cd, and Be in plant-
derived solvents, effluent water and Hamer Marsh water.
Hamer marsh is located in the vicinity of the SRC pilot
plant at Fort Lewis, Washington and receives treated SRC
wastewater. Specific methods were developed for- analysis of
a wide range of material compositions. The neutron activa-
tion analysis procedures were divided into short and long
irradiation procedures for elements with short half lives
(less than 3 hours) and intermediate to long half lives (8
hours to 5.2 years).
Data are presented for preliminary SRC-1 process
materials and also for a set of materials taken during
operation of the pilot plant but not under equilibrium
conditions.
159
-------
Two separate sets of samples were taken when the pilot
plant had operated continuously for seven days and composite
samples were collected for each process fraction over a 24-
hour period. These are designated Equilibrium Sets 1 and 2.
A material balance (or budget) was calculated for each
element from the concentration data and the yields of each
process fraction for each equilibrium set in the SRC process.
The SRC and insoluble residue account for more than 95
percent of the input of each element (except for Hg and Co
in Equilibrium Set 1) with other process fractions contri-
buting little to the trace element balance. Except for Cl,
Br, and Ti, each element was substantially lower in the SRC
compared to the original feed coal.
3.1.2.3 Environmental Impact Assessment at
Alsid, Snowden and Associates
Alsid, Snowden and Associates, subcontractor to Pittsburg
and Midway Coal Mining Company, are conducting an environ-
mental sampling/monitoring program to determine whether the
SRC pilot plant has had any measureable impact on air
quality, water quality, and vegetation in the surrounding
environment.
Baseline studies were made on air and water quality
(December 1972 to December 1973) prior to pilot plant con-
struction. Ongoing monitoring studies of air and water
quality and foliage effects were made (and are continuing)
during plant operations. The published report (50), sum-
marizing the environmental program for January 1, 1972,
through June 30, 1977, indicates that the pilot plant had
virtually no measureable impact on air and water quality in
the surrounding environment. Foliage studies made during
plant operations at areas that would be receptors of plant
160
-------
emissions and at control areas indicate that the pilot plant
operation has had no discernible effect upon the vegetation.
In assessing air quality, samples of the following were
collected and measured: suspended particulates, gaseous
hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon
monoxide and carbon dioxide.
Water samples were collected once or twice monthly
(during sampling phases) from eleven sampling stations and
analyzed for the following physical, chemical and bacterio-
logical parameters: temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), dis-
solved oxygen percent saturation, specific conductance, tur-
bidity, color, pH, sulfate, phenol, chemical oxygen demand
(COD), total organic carbon (TOG), coliforms, nitrogen,
phosphorous and various trace elements.
Foliage samples were collected* to determine if growth
abnormalities were present. Samples from all sites were
compared in the field to determine variation between sites.
3.1.2.4 Three-Point SRC Program at Battelle
Northwest
Battelle Northwest Laboratories is conducting three SRC
studies - a chemical program, an ecological program, and a
biomedical program. The chemical program will be discussed
in this section, with the organic and inorganic analysis
data being presented in other parts of Section 3.0. No
published data are presently available from the biomedical
and ecological program, although reports are to be issued in
the near future.
161
-------
The objective of the chemical program is to characterize
products, by-products and effluents from the SRC conversion
process. Inorganic analysis data of the feed coal, mineral
residue, product solids and liquids, process liquids and
effluent gases taken from the SRC pilot plant indicate that
except for mercury, titantium and bromine, most elements
appear to remain with the mineral residue. For the case of
bromine, approximately 84 percent remains with the product,
whereas for titanium, approximately 56 percent remains with
the product. In the case of mercury, 89 percent is unaccount-
ed for in the solid and liquid products and is presumably
emitted in the process offgas. Product and effluent organic
analysis data are presented in Section 3.4.
A major component of the Battelle chemical program are
studies to determine aspects of SRC sampling and analysis
which should be considered in order to be most effective in
the following":
• Taking representative samples
• Interfacing with the plant and its personnel
• Avoiding sample contamination and degradation
• Choosing analytical techniques which minimize
matrix effects.
These aspects of the chemical program are presented in
Fruchter and Peterson, 1978 (51), and will also be incorp-
orated in a "program planning document," presently being
prepared by Battelle.
162
-------
3.1.2.5 Combustion of SRC by EPRI and Consolidated
Edison
Consolidated Edison of New York and the Electric Power
Research Institute recently participated with DOE in conduct-
ing a burn test of 4500 barrels of SRC-1I fuel. The purpose
of the test was to determine if SRC-II was a satisfactory
substitute for low-sulfur oil and if it would meet the EPA
proposed emission standards. Although work is still being
done with regard to the burn test and a final report is not
yet available, reported results appear "very encouraging"
with regard to the combustion and emission qualities of SRC-
II. Data from this study are presented in Section 5.5.
3.2 Input Materials
Input streams are the raw materials that must be supplied
to the processes of the SRC-II system. These input streams
will include primary and secondary raw materials, and the
output streams from other processes. The primary raw materials
used in the SRC-II system consist of coal, water and air.
The secondary raw materials consist of detergents, catalysts,
and additives produced by technologies other than the SRC-II
system. The raw materials used in the four system-operations
of the SRC system, per ser are shown in Table 15, while
those used in various auxiliary processes are shown in Table
16.
3.2.1 Regional Characterization of U.S. Coals
Because the chemical composition and other characteris-
tics of the coal and water materials that are supplied to
processes of the SRC-II system are quite site-specific, it
is essential to resort, to generalized characterization of
these materials on a regional basis.
163
-------
TABLE 15. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RAW MATERIALS SUPPLIED TO
SRC OPERATIONS AND AUXILIARY PROCESSES (6)
Process or
Operation
Coal pretreat-
ment
Primary Raw Materials
• coal from coal re-
ceiving and storage
• air to coal dryers
• makeup water
• moisture from environ-
Mg/day
29,732
29,827
2,028
60.6
Secondary
Raw Materials
• fuel gas /air mixture
Mg/day
3,601
Liquefaction
Separation
ment
• treated water from water
supply
• air to preheater
2,411
12,725
Gas separation None
Solids/liquids
separation
Purification &
Upgrading
Fractionation
Hydrotreat ing
cooling water for solid- unquanti-
ifying the SRC-II residue fied
None
water to oil-water separa-
tor (decanter)
775
• fuel gas to preheater
None
fuel gas/air mixture
• fuel gas/air mixture
• fuel gas/air mixture
• catalysts
691
4,537
7,579
1,543
unquali-
fied
-------
TABLE 16. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RAW MATERIALS
SUPPLIED TO AUXILIARY PROCESSES (6)
Process
• Coal receiving
and storage
• Water supply
• Water cooling
• Steam and power
generation
• Hydrogen gen-
eration
Primary Raw
Materials
raw coal
raw water
makeup water
boiler blowdown
coal
makeup water
air
coal
water
air
Mg/day
29,740
•32,057
23,092
929
4,677
11,087
1,392
671
965
Secondary
Raw Materials
chemicals used in
water treatment
chlorine disinfect-
ant plus chr ornate
inhibitor
recycled water from
oxygen
steam
monome t hano 1 amine
Mg/day
14
unquantified
13,345
2,551
4,064
0.9
sol.
fuel gas
makeup catalyst to
shift converter
52
unquantified
• Oxygen genera-
tion
• Acid gas re-
moval
cooling water
air
makeup water
14,913
11,650
stream to amine re- unquantified
generation
monoethano1amine 0.8
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16. (continued)
Process
Primary Raw
Materials
Me/day
Secondary
Raw Materials
Sulfur recovery water
air for oxidation
air for combus-
tion
• Hydrocarbon &
hydrogen re-
covery
cooling water
• Ammonia recovery air
• Phenol recovery none
74
4,882
146
unquantified
14,786
fuel gas
steam
calcium hydroxide
solvent
makeup naphtha sol-
vent
hydrochloric acid
Mg/day
8
unquantified
3
31
-------
The coal characteristics considered to be of greatest
importance in the siting and operation of SRC systems include
the following (52):
• Coal rank (characterized as bituminous, subbitumin-
ous, and lignite) determines the size of equipment
required to clean the coal
• Recoverable coal resources -and reserves (surface
and underground) determine the siting of SRC
liquefaction systems
• Proximate analyses (moisture, ash, volatile matter,
heating value and fixed carbon)
• Ultimate analyses (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, and sulfur)
Seven regions of major coal reserves have been included in
this study; these regions and associated coal types are
shown in Table 17..
Both the chemical and physical properties of coal, will
exert an effect on the performance and size of the equipment
needed for the operation of the SRC system. The proximate
and ultimate coal analyses presented in Tables 18 and 19
include only sulfur, nitrogen, and ash as major non-fuel
components. Most of these parameters will require evaluation
when a specific site is selected for the commercial SRC
system:
• Sulfur - three forms of sulfur can occur in coal,
organic, pyritic, and sulfate. In general, sulfate
sulfur amounts to only a few percent of the total
167
-------
TABLE 17. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR COAL
RESOURCES AND RESERVES (53)
GO
EPA Regions
III, IV, V
IV, V
VI
VIII
VI, VIII, IX
X
States Included
Coal Region (wholly or in part)
Appalachian Pennsylvania
Ohio
West Virginia
Kentucky
Eastern Interior Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Texas Gulf New Mexico
Texas
Fort Union - North Dakota
Powder River "South Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
Four Corners New Mexico
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
Northern Alaska Alaska
Surface Mineable Coals
Coal Rank Resources Reserves
Bituminous 15,124 3,727.
Bituminous 16,230. 4,002.
Subbituminous
Lignite 2,631 181
Lignite and 25,136.* 18,347
Subbituminous
Subbituminous 3,556.** 2,772.**
Bituminous and 14,219 106,000
Subbitumious
* does not include South Dakota resources or reserves
**does not include Colorado and Utah resources or reserves
-------
TABLE 18. AVERAGE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF COAL BY REGIONS
Region
Appalachia
Eastern Interior
Fort Union
Powder River
Four Corners
Coal Rank
Bi tumi nous
Bi tuminoirs
Li gni te
Sub- Bi tumi nous
Sub-Bituminous
Heating
Value
Btu/lb
13570
11630
6870
9780
10160
MoistureO)
%
3.4
11.2
37.5
19.1
11.4
Volatile
Matter
%
30.6
35.2
27.6
34.4
33.8
Fixed
Carbon
%
56.5
40.7
28.1
40.6
40.0
Ash
%
7.7
9.4
6.2
5.3
14.1
Sulfur
%
1.8
3.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
(53)
(1) As received basis
(2) Sulfur is distributed between the volatila matter as organic sulfur and
the ash (or mineral matter) as pyrite.
TABLE 19. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COAL BY REGION (53)
Region 7_
Appalachian
Eastern Interior
Fort Union
Powder River
Four Corners
Moi
3
11
37
19
11
sture
.40
.20
.50
.10
.40
Ash
7.70
9.40
6.20
5.30
14.10
C
76.
64.
41.
56.
58.
37
32
13
70
29
4
4
2
4
3
H
.45
.15
.73
.00
.90
5
6
11
13
10
0
.27
.15
.03
.00
.29
N
1.01
1.28
0.81
1 .30
1 .32
S
1.80
3.50
0.60
0.60
0.70
(1) In percent
-------
sulfur and tends to be associated with the mineral
matter. Organic and pyritic sulfur are the more
important forms.
Organic sulfur compounds which are reported to
exist in coal and in crude coal-derived products
include mercaptans, sulfides and disulfides, and
homoglogs of thiophene. Organic sulfur makes up
from 20 percent to 80 percent of the total sulfur
content of coal. Distribution of organic sulfur
is relatively uniform from top to bottom of the
coal seam. Sulfur organically bound to the coal
structure cannot be effectively removed by mechani-
cal or wet cleaning methods.
Sulfur present as iron pyrite, FeS, is part of the
mineral matter. It can occur associated with
inclusions of other minerals in the coal seam, as
inclusions of pyritic masses, or as veins of
particles distributed throughout the seam. Some
seams have higher concentrations of pyritic sulfur
at the. top and bottom than throughout. Depending
upon the manner of occurrence, crushing or grinding
may be used to physically separate the pyritic
material from the coal. The higher density of the
pyrite then permits its separation to a greater or
lesser extent from the bulk of the coal by gravity
techniques.
Ash - ash or mineral matter occurs in coal as true
mineral components, rock, overburden, partings,
and pyrite or to a lesser extent as mineral forming
inorganic elements combined chemically into the
coal structure. Some water in the form of water
170
-------
of hydration may be present in the mineral matter.
Ash constitues varying percentages of the coal
and, if it originates from overburden included
during mining, may be higher in the mined coal
than in the seam proper. Crushing and cleaning
can be used to reduce mineral matter resulting
from partings, inclusions, overburden, and pyrites.
Other major components and minor or trace elements
can include virtually all the other mineral elements.
Mineral elements in coal can influence filtration
capacities, the amount of slag generated, and the
ease of dissolution of coal in the liquefaction
process. For example, coals with high sodium or
iron content are reportedly more readily dissolved
than low-iron coals. Coals having low amounts of
these promoters may require the outright addition
of catalysts that promote dissolution. Combustion
of coal converts mineral matter to oxides which
form ash or slag depending upon temperature. Some
oxides such as those of lead, mercury, vanadium,
and boron may be volatilized.
Fusion temperature and viscosity are the physical
properties of the ash which are of interest.
Moisture - coal moisture content is affected by
moisture added to the coal by washing or weathering,
and moisture lost from the coal by exposure to dry
air. In some formations, the coal seam may be an
aquifer yielding higher as-mined moisture content.
Surface moisture usually is not included in coal
moisture.
171
-------
Moisture reduces the available heat from a given
coal by two mechanisms. Its presence increases
the total weight of the coal contributing nothing
to the heating value. In combustion, the moisture
is heated from ambient temperature to the exhaust
temperature of the combustion gas and the coal
moisture, as water vapor or steam, carries with it
sensible heat, heat of vaporization and superheat,
all of which are unrecoverable.
• Oxygen - excess oxygen in the coal requires more
hydrogen gas to convert it to water.
• Nitrogen - nitrogen in coal is exclusively asso-
ciated with the organic materials. Possible modes
of occurrence are as amines and heterocyclic
nitrogen compounds. Nitrogen contents of coal are
on the order of a few percent maximum. Because
nitrogen is relatively inert it is primarily a
diluent in the coal. However, compounds which may
be produced in coal liquefaction processes may be
undesirable. For example, the amine or ring
compounds may be retained as intact constituents
of the products in liquefaction processes.
• Chlorine, Phosphorus, and Other Elements - other
elements present in the coal are not usually
reported in the Ultimate Analysis. Chlorine is an
example and, although analytical techniques for
its determination exist, it usually is not deter-
mined unless a specific need for its analysis
exists. Chlorine usually amounts to only a
fraction of a percent. Phosphorus, associated
with the mineral matter, usually is not determined,
172
-------
although its level may present environmental
problems in some coals.
Coals containing unusually high concentrations of
specific elements, for example selenium, fluorine,
vanadium, or arsenic may pose special pollution or
boiler fouling problems; these would require
evaluation on a site-specific basis.
Physical Properties - grinding, washing, and
plastic properties of the coal are of importance
in determining the coal pretreatment steps required
prior to use in the SRC-II system. Processing
equipment for coal pretreatment will depend upon
the grinding characteristics of the coal used.
Grindability is influenced by other coal properties
such as hardness and strength.
Washability tests are conducted to- determine the
ability of the coal to be cleaned of mineral
matter (including pryitic sulfur) prior to use.
Float/sink separations indicate the appropriate
gravities which separate heavier minerals contain-
ing refuse from relatively cleaner coal.
The plastic properties of coal are related to the
softening of the material during heating. Tests
to measure these characteristics are generally
empirical. Fusible coals will require blending
with other coals or pretreatment to control this
property to acceptable levels prior to use in some
refining processes.
173
-------
3.2.1.1 Estimation of the "Average" and "Maximum"
Composition of U.S. Coals
In developing a technique for estimating the average
and maximum composition of SRC process and waste streams
(i.e. the worst case) sets of values for the "average" and
the "maximum" elemental composition of all U.S. coals were
first established. In this approach, the rationale was to
treat all published averages and maximum as if they were raw
data. The next important step was to derive from the pub-
lished data of Filby et al. (49) and of Gehrs et al. (54) on
SRC wastes and residues applicable partitioning factors, as
discussed in Section 3.1.1.4. Since the coal composition
estimated by use of the partitioning factors are based on
actual data that have been generalized to all U.S. coals, it
appears desirable, on the basis of the need in the SRC
assessment to establish realistic worst cases for the element-
al composition of coals, to use these derived values in pre-
ference to actual composition based, generally, on one
sample of coal whose composition was not reported. For the
purposes of this report, the "average" U.S. coal is defined
as that coal whose elemental composition is specified in
Table 20, column 2, under the term "arithemetic mean." The
"maximum" U.S. coal (i.e., the worst case) is that coal
whose elemental composition, as specified in Table 20,
column 5, under the heading "range", is described by the
highest (or last) number.
3.2.2 Regional Characterization of U.S. Surface and
Groundwaters
Some indication of the great variations in the quality
of surface and groundwaters of the United States can be
found in the series of hydrologic and related maps presented
174
-------
TABLE 20.
OF ALL U.S,
AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION
COALS FOR WHICH DATA HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED
Name
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Europium
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Indium
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Number
of
Surveys
6
12
26
8
11
27
8
16
9
4
6
7
32
31
29
3
5
20
11
10
5
4
3
10
13
22
15
4
6
25
19
29a
30a
2
4
10
8
4
9
26
Arithmetic
Mean*
13,400
2.2
10.9
1.4
55.
16.
3.4
7700.
18.
1.2
1000.
16.3
10.2
12.7
1.3
0.32
78.
4.4
6.2
0.82
0.17
1.3
14800
9.6
13.
35.
0.13
1120.
36.
0.15
5.2
Q
19. a
1.8
104.
2300.
28.
1.53
3.5
4.0
Geometric
Mean*
13,000
1.8
7.5
1.1
42.
14.
1.4
6400.
17.
0.83
890.
13.8
8.0
11.2
1.2
0.31
73.
4.1
4.5
0.80
0.16
1.1
11900
9.1
3.4
29.
0.12
900.
23.
0.11
4.0
Q
15. a
1.7
97.
1900.
18.
1.34
3.2
3.4
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation*
3,600
9.3
9.3
0.9
37.
10.
4.5
4700.
6.
0.76
510.
8.0
6.5
6.6
0.9
0.12
34.
1.5
4.5
0.24
0.06
0.7
9500
3.2
19.
22.
0.07
890.
34.
0.15
3.1
23
21. a
0.4
43.
1300.
30.
0.84
1.5
2.3
Range*
9700-18,500
0.48-5
0.828-35
500
0.2-3.
7. -120.
4.7-36.1
0.1-16.2
2000. -17, 000
11. -25.
0.11-2.
300-1700.
1.5-39.4
1.02-25.
3.2-33.8
0.63-2.3
0.2-0.52
30. -160.
2. -7.
0.91-14.
0.54-1.2
0.1-0.23
0.52-1.7
2890-33dOO.
5.1-15.
0.02-64.9
11-78.
0.07-0.22
500-2800.
1.42-138.
0.012-0.73
0.08-12.
3.3-121a
1.5- 2
64. -150.
500-5000
4.6-100.
0.61-2.6
1.43-5.89
0.8-10.4
(continued)
175
-------
TABLE 20. (continued)
Name
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
Number
of
Surveys
5
5
13
7
3
5
3
4
1
12
21
14
4
17
29
5
5
28
21
Arithmetic
Mean*
22800
0.17
2000.
120.
22000.
0.24
0.025
0.20
0.66
4.5
2.0
530.
0.72
2.2
26.
10.4
0.63
120.
57.
Geometric
Mean*
22500
0.06
18000.
90.
18000.
0.22
0.025
0.13
4.0
1.7
250.
0.72
1.8
24.
10.1
0.61
36.
49.
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation*
4300.
0.30
14000.
0.09
14000.
0.09
0.005
0.13
2.2
1.2
340.
0.09
1.7
11.
3.0
0.17
280.
25.
Range*
17000-28000
0.02-0.7
7600-36000
0.15-0.33
7600-36000
0.15-0.33
0.02-0.03
0.02-0.34
1.9-9.7
0.4-5.
0.052-1135
0.62-0.82
0.68-8.1
4. -50.
7.4-14.
0.38-0.83
0.05-1460
7.6-110.
*ppm, wt. basis
adeletes one survey of Pennsylvania coal which had 4,480 ppm nickel,
Next highest nickel concentration was 121 ppm in a Utah coal.
176
-------
in Appendix C. Any narrative summary of water quality in an
area as large as the U.S., with its broad variations in
natural and cultural features, is extremely difficult. All
of this suggests the truism that there is a wide range of
water quality indices in the United States. Aside from
this, however, it is possible to summarize those aspects of
water quality which might present problems to the operation
of SRC-II systems in coal-bearing states of the various EPA
regions.
3.2.2.1 EPA Regions III, IV and V (Pennsylvania, Ohio,
VesL Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana)
3.2.2.1.1 Pennsylvania,.Ohio, West Virginia,
Eastern Kentucky
The quality of surface water in these coal bearing
states is affected by changes in water and land use patterns
(industry, surface mining, etc.), high and low flow patterns,
degree of weathering and accelerated erosion, and rock
types. In the greater part of the region, the concentration
of total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters is less
than 300 ppm, with a range from 50-5000 ppm (53). Selected
water quality characteristics for major drainage basins in
these regions are shown in the Appendices.
Existing uses of surface waters include: municipal;
industrial; irrigation of crops and food processing; mining
and steam electric stations. The riparian concept of surface
water rights is adhered to throughout these regions. Some
of the states have adopted the rule that surface water can
be utilized so long as the proposed use is consistent with
similar uses by other riparian owners (53). Groundwater
quality in most locations is satisfactory for domestic and
177
-------
other uses; however, some problems may arise from SRC-II
systems in some areas having unusually hard waters, excess
iron, and salinity. In many river basins of these regions,
groundwater will continue to be a major source of water
supply for industrial use (53).
3.2.2.1.2 Illinois, Indiana, Western Kentucky
In parts of these regions, surface water quality pro-
blems occur as a result of acid mine drainage and the dis-
charge of industrial wastes (53); these and related problems
will need careful attention on a site-specific basis. The
hardness of surface waters is a problem in the northern
portions of Illinois, and dissolved solids may range from
200-700 ppm (or higher) during stream low flows of the
summer months, during which time the groundwater contributes
extensively to stream low-flows. Recent stream quality data
from these regions indicate that the trace elements occur at
higher levels in surface waters in these regions than in any
of the others (55). In fadt, many of the metals exceeded
the stringent aquatic-life standards at several of the
National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) stations
(U.S.). Suspended sediment concentrations range from over
1900 ppm, in western and southern Illinois to less than 270
ppm in western Kentucky. The riparian concept of surface
water rights is adhered to in these states.
Groundwater quality varies widely depending upon depth
and type of aquifer. For example, in the alluvial and
glacial drift aquifers, the water quality is good, but the
iron content exceeds 0.3 ppm and water harndess exceeds 250
ppm. In the deep aquifers, water hardness ranges from 300-
500 ppm, salinity exceeds 1000 ppm and sulfate concentration
can exceed 250 ppm. Groundwater is heavily used by rural
178
-------
homes, cities, towns, and industries in these regions. In
some river basins, all of the municipal water supply is
obtained from aqufiers (53).
3.2.2.2- EPA Region VI (Northeastern Texas and
Northwestern New Mexico
3.2.2.2.1 Northeastern Texas .
As would be expected, the surface water quality in this
area is very site specific. For example, salinity problems
occur in the tributaries abutting oil fields (brines). The
Trinity River basin reportedly suffers from .serious pollution
from municipal discharges; these produce severe dissolved
oxygen deficits at times. The Brazos and Colorado Rivers to
the south suffer from chornic salinity problems due to the
inflows of naturally saline waters. In the Navasota River
basin, oil field wastes produce periodic problems in the
tributaries and main stream of the Navasota River. In the
Guadalupe and San Antonio River basins, dissolved solids are
a problem, ranging from 300 ppm up to more than 600 ppm at
low flows. Work has been initiated to improve the surface
water quality in these areas.
Surface water supplies are most plentiful in the northern
portion of this area. The combined water surpluses for the
Sulphur, Cypress and Sabine basins in the year 2020 reportedly
will exceed 400,758 m per year. If additional reservoirs
o
can be realized, more than 2.426 million m per year of
additional water per year would be available. The avail-
ability of surface waters descreases to the south of the
Sabine River. The demand for water in the Neches, Trinity,
Guadalupe and San Antonio basins reportedly will exactly
balance the supply, after augmentation from the Texas Water
System or from other basins (53).
179
-------
The water rights doctrine presently in use includes
both the ripiarian and appropriation doctrines. Riparian
rights exist incidental to land ownership, while the Texas
Water Rights commission has discretionary powers of appro-
priation.
Groundwater availability is reported to be maximal,
both with reference to the estimated safe yield and surplus
of the Texas Water Plan for the counties of Brazos, Burleson,
Washington, and Bastrop. However, throughout the Texas
lignite area, aquifer recharge and water transmission will
present some problems in water availability (53).
3.2.2.2.2 Northwestern New flexico
The San Juan River displays increasing levels of dis-
solved solids, hardness, and sulfate as one proceeds down-
stream toward Farmington, New Mexico. Suspended sediment
loads are reported to be highest during summer storm flows
in the San Juan River.
Water use in New Mexico is regulated by the Colorado
River Basin Compact of 1922, wherein New Mexico is allocated
o
about 11 percent, or 790,262 m per year, from the Upper
Colorado River Basin system. The largest current allocation
in New Mexico goes to the Navajo Indian Reservation Project
(58). Irrigation is the largest water use in the San Juan
o
River, at an estimated 264,451 m per year.
Alluvial aquifers in the mainstem of the San Juan River
valley are reported to have an assured and constant recharge.
Wells in certain alluvial aquifers may yield more than 500
gpm at depths of about 21.3 m. The general yields, however,
range from 18.5-185 gpm.
180
-------
Groundwater quality of bedrock aquifers in the San Juan
basin is considered poor with a dissolved solids content of
more than 1,000 ppm, with some exceptions such as the San
Jose and Nacimiento formations where the dissolved solids
may be lower or higher than 1,000 ppm (53).
3.2.2.3 EPA Region VIII (Western North Dakota,
Eastern Montana, Eastern Wyoming, Eastern
Utah, and Northwestern Colorado)
Information on average dissolved chloride, dissolved
sulfate, alkalinity, dissolved fluoride, hardness, dissolved
solids, total nitrogen, and phosphorus for this region is
given in the Appendix for the Missouri, Yellowstone and
Bighorn Rivers and their tributaries. In the Western Dakota
sub-basin, surface water quality of most streams is considered
poor because of excessive, periodic overland flows (i.e.,
surface runoff) intermittent stream flows, and leaching of
rocks and soils containing high concentrations of water
soluble salts (53); these salts include sodium sulfate,
chloride, and bicarbonates.
Crop irrigation is considered the major water use in
this region; however, extensive industrial options and
applications for water in this region range from 0.878
million to 2.529 million cubic meters per year. Water
rights in this region are regulated by each state under the
so-called appropriation doctrine. For example, under the
Yellowstone River Compact of 1950, 80 percent of the unused
and unappropriated water of the Bighorn River is apportioned
to the state of Wyoming and 20 percent to the state of
Montana (53).
181
-------
Groundwater quality of this region is highly variable,
with hardness ranging from hard to very hard. The type of
groundwater varies from calcium bicarbonate or calcium
sulfate, to sodium or magnesium sulfate in the more widespread
glacial-drift and outwash aquifers. Bedrock aquifers con-
taining coal or lignite have TDS concentrations ranging from
less than 500 ppm to more than 6000 ppm. The paleozoic bed-
rock aquifers in North Dakota have TDS ranging from 200,000
to 300,000 ppm (53). In Wyoming and other states of the
region, groundwater is considered the most dependable source
for domestic and livestock purposes (53).
3.2.2.4 EPA Regions VIII and IX (Southwestern
Colorado and Arizona)
3.2.2.4.1 Arizona
Suspended sediment loads can become a problem in the
Little Colorado River .area of northeastern Arizona during
summer storm flows. Surface water quality is highly variable,
not only because of variable low flows, but also as a result
of irrigation and industrial use return flows to surface
waters. Additional information on surface water quality is
shown in the Appendices.
Major water uses in the Little Colorado River basin in-
clude crop irrigation and mining (particularly in the Black
Mesa coalfield). Su^ace waters are in extremely short
supply. The water rights doctrine of appropriation is
controlled by the State Engineers Office (53).
Groundwater supply from wells in alluvial aquifers
along the Chinle Wash directly east of the Black Mesa coal-
field in northeastern Arizona may be as high as 3400 1pm.
182
-------
Wells in bedrock aquifers of the Black Mesa coalfield may
yield from 39 to 1860 1pm (particularly in the northwestern
half of the Black Mesa field) (53).
Groundwater quality in the Black Mesa area is hampered
by dissolved solids levels ranging from 100 to 25,000 ppm.
Water hardness and sulfate levels are highly variable (58).
3.2.2.4.2 Colorado
Information presented for the San Juan River basin
(under New Mexico) is directly applicable to the souths^stern
corner of Colorado, where the state's major coal resources
are located.
3.2.2.5 EPA Region X (Northern Alaska)
Surface water quality data for northern Alaska are
limited, and long-term records are nonexistent (53). However,
data on the Colville River (the largest stream in the region)
have been collected intermittently since 1953, for dissolved
solids, hardness, pH, sulfate, iron, calcium, silica and
other constituents. Summary data for this region's water
quality are shown in the Appendices.
During the winter months, the Colville River freezes
solid to depth of 1.8 to 2.7 m. Measurements made in 1962,
indicated zero flows from the end of October to the middle
of May. Lakes of the region are usually less than 30 m deep
and they freeze from 1.5 to 2.1 m each winter.
Considering the surface water problems, one turns to
the groundwater as a source of water. Estimates of the sub-
permafrost water suggest that this offers the potential for
183
-------
large-scale development, if the salinity and freezing pro-
blems can be solved. This approach, however, may prove
uneconomical (53).
3.3 Process Streams
Process streams are defined as the output streams from
the basic unit operations, and/or the various auxiliary
processes that are input streams to another process in the
technology (56). As in Section 3.2, this discussion begins
with the process streams comprising the operations and
processes that are unique to the conceptualized SRC-II
system. Perintent information on the process streams of the
operations and processes is given in Table 21, while similar
data on the various categories of the auxiliary process
streams are shown in Table 22.
Process wastewaters from the main operations and pro-
cesses are usually considered to present potentially serious
water quality problems because of the suspected presence
therein of cyanides, complex phenols, ammonia, PAHs and
dissolved solids. However, these pollutants would likely be
of nominal concern if the main unit process wastewaters were
to be recycled. Furthermore, the auxiliary process-related
wastewaters account for slightly more than 10 times that
from the basic unit operations. Further discussion of the
chemical aspects of process wastewaters and leachates of
solid wastes is given in Section 3.6.
3.3.1 Coal Pretreatment
The coal preparation module is diagrammed in Figure 15,
and summarized in Table 21. By use of a series'of jigs,
screens, centrifuges, cyclones, and roll crushers the 76 mm
184
-------
TABLE 21. PROCESS STREAMS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONS
AND AUXILIARY PROCESSES OF SRC-II (6)
Process or Operation From:
rroceas Stream
To:
1. Coal pretreatmant KM coal ator-
2. Liquefaction
00
Separatloo
3. Gas separation
4. Solids/liquids
separation
3 mm cleaned,
dried, and
pulverised
Coal/ solvent
slurry from gas
separation
Coal/solvent
feed slurry
from coal
preparation
The slurry is
sent back to
coal prepara-
tion
The slurry is
sent to the
liquefaction
dlsaolver to
produce the
complete feed
stream) for
several other
operations
36.364
29.732
54.916
29,732
- 1.22
1.85
Hydrogen from To liquefaction 538
from HC/H2 re- 29,732
covery
Synthesis gaa
from hydrogen
production
process
Solids/liquid
•lurry from the
liquefaction
reactor/dis-
•olver
To liquefaction 667
fraction 29,732
- 0.22
The slurry is
sent to heat
exchanger and
pressure separa-
tion process.'
58.532 .
29,732
O.C
Flashed gases The flashed 943
froa the solids/ gaaes are sent 29,732
liquids process to heat exchang-
er and to inter-
mediate pressure
condensate sep-
aration of
liquid oils
Concentrated Feed flash ves- 9.311
bottom slurry sal distills- 29.732
remaining after tlon and secon-
th< recovery of dary flashing
SRC liquids in units of solid/
the fractlona- liquids separa-
tion process tlon to recover
liquid s*c (continued)
0.31
3 sal coal la conveyed from the pul-
verised coal storage bin to a slurry
mixer. The coal to solvent (naphtha)
ratio ranges typically from l.S to 2.S.
Other raw materials composing this
operation are water and air. aa shown
in Figure 16.
This slurry Is discharged froa the
intermediate flash separator of the gas
separation operation, a* shovn in
Figure 19.
The coal solvent slurry is pumped into
the liquefaction reactor along with
treated water from the water supply pro-
cess, hydrogen gas from the hydrocarbon
recovery process, synthesis gas from
hydrogen production process. The H_:
coal ratio is 1250 n per Hg of coal.
The solid/liquid slurry remaining after
passage through the intermediate pressure
flash separation is split into two pro-
cess streams, as shown in Figure 19.
Light and heavy oils are sent to the
fractlonatlon tower as shown in Figure 13.
The cooling water Input shown in Figure
13 1* required for the solidification of
the SRC-II residue. Flashed gases from the
initial flashing unit are routed back to
the gaa separation process, see Figures
19 and 23.
-------
TABLE 21. (continued)
Procesa Stream
Proceaa or Operation
To:
*Relativt flow
Purification and
Upgrading
5. Fractionatlon
Solid/liquid
slurry from
the Intermed-
iate preaaure
flash separa-
tor of the
gaa separa-
tion protest
The alurry is
sent to tha gaa/
fual preheater to
tha fractlonation
procaaa and even-
tual separation of
SBC-II liquid, raw
naphtha and fuel
oil
12.037
29.732 "
0.40
The bottoa solids separated fron Input
slurry are sent to the solid/liquids
separation process for recovery of addi-
tional StC-II liquid, aa shown in Figure
31.
00
6. Hydrotreatlng
Light t heavy The oils are sent 3,1*0
condensed oils to the fractlonation 29,732
from the In- tower
tenedlate
pressure con-
densate separa-
tor of the gas
separation
proceas
Raw naphtha Preheater, guard 525
from fraction- reactor and cataly- 29,732
ation tower tic hydrogenation
unit
0.11
0.018
Raw fuel oil Preheater, guard
froei fraction- reactor and cataly-
atlon tower tic hydrogenation
unit
Catalyst (as
aaondary raw
material)
Hydrotreating
- 0.088
unquantifled
Synthesis gas Hydrotreating
from H. pro-
ductloa
270
29,732
0.009
Raw naphtha and raw fuel oil are sent to
the hydrotreatlng process, as shown In
Figure 36.
The hydrotreatlng (i.e. hydrogenation)
reaction, catalyzed by colbalt molybdate,
converts organic sulfur and nitrogen
compounds in the oils to H-S and MR.
which can be removed in the sulfur strip-
ping and NH, stripping tower shown In
Figure 36 and 13.
•Relative flow
Me/day
ified at
Mg/day feed coal
-------
TABLE 22. PROCESS STREAMS ASSOCIATED WITH AUXILIARY PROCESSES OF SRC-II (6)
00
Auxiliary Process
Coal receiving and
storage
Hater supply
Hater cooling
Steam generation
Hydrogen generation
rro$4t*_£
Proa:
Raw coal from
coal atorag*
Recycle water
from hydrogen
production
process
Recycle water
from vastevater
treatment plant
Coal from coal
pretreatment
operation
The SRC-II res-
idue from
solids/liquids
separation la
mixed with:
coal from the
coal pretreat-
ment operation
Oxygen from
oxygen genera-
tion
Steam from
steam genera-
tion
*g? ^^ nmf „__
Coal pretreatmaat 29.740 _- The coal receiving and storage
29,732 " schematic la shown la Figure IS.
Water cooling _245 . „_„„,
Hater cooling 46*
29,732 "
Furnace and boiler 940 _ n rt...
units 29,732 " '
The SRC-II residue 2.753 _ - ... Hydrogen gas Is produced in the
plus coal becomes » 29,732 " " Koppers-Totzek gaslfler
source of hydrogen
gas when reacted In
the Koppers-Totzek
gaslfler
Eoppers-Totzek 2.531 _ A HA
gaslfler 29,732 ™ "
Koppers-Totzek 4.060 _
gaslfier 29,732 " '
Oxygen generation
Acid gas raaoval
Sulfur recovery
The primary raw The oxygen gas is
materials are routed to the hydro-
sir and cooling gen production process
vater
Feed gases from MEA absorption tower,
gas separation hence to the sulfur
and hydrotreat- recovery process
ing, primarily
Feed gases from Stretford absorber
acid gas re
705
29,732
- 0.024
The scneaatlcs for an oxygen
generation process are given In
Figures 37 and 38
Only H,S and CO. can be adsorbed
on ttwMEA; and^EA is regenerated
by thermal decomposition at
elevated temperatures
The absorbed H-S Is oxidized to
elemental sulfur by the reduction of
sodium metavanadate; acid gas removal
process reportedly contains about
nine percent B-S by volume. Concen-
trations of H.S In the treated tail
gas are reported to range froa 5-10
ppm.
Feed gases
hydrogen produc-
Stretford absorber
,912
- 0.20
(continued)
-------
TABLE 22. (continued)
Proceas Stream
Proceaa
Tram:
To;
•Relative Flow
CmaMiits
Hydrocarbon and
hydrogen recovery
ia recovery
Purified gu
from acid gu
val
This gas stream Is 4.37*
flret compressed and 29,372
condensed in • milti-
atage refrigeration
unit, and then, charged
to a flash tower
0.15
00
00
Phenol recovery
Combined process The aanonla bearing
Mstewaters froai vastevater passes
hydrotreating gaa first into a rapid
separation hydro- mix tank where the
carbon/hydro-
gen recovery and
several other
processes of the
SRC system
aablent pB Is raised
to 11.0 by addition
of Ca(OB) hence to
clarlfler. The clear
liquid Is sent to an
MR. stripping unit
Sours water frost Phenol extraction
gas separation unit using naphtha
as solvent
3.932
29,372
- 0.13
3.135 t
29,732
0.11
The flash gases are costpressed and
condensed In another Multistage
refrigeration unit, thence to a de-
ethanlier colusm, where propane and
butane are taken off the bottom and
the overhead gases are charged to
another cycle of dlatlllatlon
Upward of 90 percent of the aanonla
can be recovered by this method.
Upwards of 99 percent of the phenol
can be removed after adjusting the
pH of the sour (phenolic) water to
pfl 4.0 by the addition of BC1 solution
•Relative flow
Ktt/day specified streaai
Mg/day feed coal
-------
coal is cleaned and crushed to the minus 30 mm size, where-
upon it is dried in a flow dryer and then pulverized to the
minus 3 mm size. In the conceptualized SRC-II system produc-
o
ing 7950 m of product per day, about 18,553 Mg of this
pulverized coal is transferred daily by conveyor from a
storage bin into a slurry mixer containing sufficient solvent.
The coal to solvent ratio is about 1:2. This coal solvent
slurry comprises the major feed input into the slurry pre-
heater unit of the coal liquefaction operation.
The second process stream under coal pretreatment is
the slurry discharged from the intermediate (Figure 16)
flash separator of the gas separation process, the majority
of which (about 75 percent) is reportedly routed back to
coal pretreatment; this process stream consists of the
original solvent, dissolved coal, and undissolved coal
solids.
3.3.2 Coal Liquefaction
The coal liquefaction module is diagrammed in Figure
17. The only process stream is the coal/slurry mixture from
coal pretreatment. The actual chemical composition of this
stream is unreported, although it is known to contain gaseous
hydrocarbons, light and heavy oils, coal residue plus ash,
unreacted hydrogen gas, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, ammonia and nitrogen gases.
3.3.3 Separation
3.3.3.1 Gas Separation Process
In the gas separation process, the dissolver effluent/
product slurry is received from the liquefaction reactor,
189
-------
whereupon it is cooled. On passage through a high pressure
separator all of the uncondensed gases (e.g., I^S and C02)
are separated from the ambient liquids and routed to the
acid gas removal process, while condensed hydrocarbons are
sent to the fractionation process. The solids/liquids
portion of the slurry from the high pressure separator is
then passed sequentially through five processes in which the
solids/liquids slurry is stripped of gases, ambient water,
light oils, and heavy oils. The condensed oils become an
input stream to fractionation. The remaining solids/liquids
slurry from the high pressure separator is directed to an
intermediate pressure flash separator. In this process,
numerous hydrocarbons are again vaporized from the slurry in
an intermediate pressure condensate separator. The remaining
slurry emanating from the intermediate flash separator is
split into two streams, the larger of which (36,364 Mg) is
routed to coal pretreatment (see Section 3.3.1), and the
smaller stream is' sent to the fractionation process.
The flashed gases (about 943 Mg/day) from solids/liquids
separation comprise th'e second process stream in the gas
separation process. The composition and amount of uncon-
densible gases in the flash gas process stream are reported
to be as follows (6):
Flash gas Mg/Day
Carbon monoxide 58
Hydrogen gas 42
Hydrogen sulfide 10
Carbon dioxide 8.7
Ammonia 6.8
190
-------
The amount of condensible hydrocarbons in the flash gas was
reported to be 816 Mg/day (6).
^ '
3.3.3.2 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
The only process stream involved in this basic unit
operation is the concentrated (bottoms) slurry from the
fractionation process.
3.3.4 Purification and Upgrading
3.3.4.1 Fractionation Process
SRC products condensed from the fractionator column
consist of raw naphtha, raw fuel oil and liquid SRC-II at
2726 Mg/day. The concentrated slurry remaining in the
bottom of the fractionator (referred to as bottoms) is sent
as a confined stream to solids/liquids separation.
The complete chemical characterization of, and the flow
rates for the raw naphtha, raw fuel oil and the concentrated
slurry have not been determined. However, the suspected
presence of toxic and hazardous organic substances in the
processed naphtha and fuel oil is discussed in Section 3.4.
3.3.A.2 Hydrotreating Process
As indicated earlier, the hydrotreating (i.e., hydro-
generation of feedstocks) process may not be specified in
some SRC design systems; its use was retained to permit a
more complete environmental assessment. The presence of
suspected toxic and hazardous substances in the product
naphtha and fuel oil is discussed in Section 3.4. The
chemical composition of the feed gas (i.e., the synthesis
191
-------
gas from hydrogen generation) is discussed under Auxiliary
Process streams in Section 3.3.5.
3.3.5 Auxiliary Processes
3.3.5.1 Hydrogen Generation
The input stream referred to as the SRC-II residue from
the solids/liquids separation process, is mixed with coal (a
primary raw material from the coal pretreatment operation);
this stream qualifies as a process stream. The concentrations
of various chemical compounds in the SRC-II residue have not
been determined. The estimated inorganic element concentra-
tions in the SRC-II residue, derived from the partitioning
factor methodology discussed in Sections 3.2, are reported
in Section 3.7.2.
3.3.5.2 Acid Gas Removal
The only process stream for this process consists of
the off-gases from gas separation with the composition
reported in Table 23. The makeup water is considered to be
a primary raw material, and the additives to the amine
system are secondary raw materials consisting of monoethanol-
amine (MEA), oleyl alcohol, and polyrad 1110A.
3.3.5.3 Hydrocarbon and Hydrogen Gas Recovery
The purified gas from the acid gas removal process re-
portedly has the composition shown in Table 24.
192
-------
TABLE 23. CONCENTRATION OF ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
FROM THE OFF-GAS FROM GAS SEPARATION
Concentrat ion
Component (Grams/cubic meter)
Ammonia 0.046
Carbon dioxide 66.
Carbon monoxide 91.
Hydrocarbons 810.
Hydrogen 130.
Hydrogen sulfide 97.
Nitrogen 4.2
Water 9.1
TABLE 24. CONCENTRATION IN THE ACID GAS TO
SULFUR RECOVERY PROCESS STREAM
Concentration
Component (Grams/cubic meter)
Ammonia 0.050
Carbon dioxide 1.0
Carbon monoxide 110.
Hydrocarbons 940.
Hydrogen 150.
Nitrogen 6.5
193
-------
3.3.5.4 Sulfur Recovery
The two process streams for this auxiliary process re-
portedly have the chemical composition shown in Table 25.
The major constituents of the gas streams from both the acid
gas removal and the hydrogen production processes are H9S
and C02.
3.3.5.5 Ammonia Recovery
This auxiliary process has one auxiliary process stream-
namely the combined process wastewaters from several SRC
processes, whose chemical composition is reported in Table
26.
3.3.5.6 Phenol Recovery
Only one input stream enters the phenol recovery pro-
cess; namely, the process wastewater from gas separation
whose chemical composition is estimated in Table 27.
3.3.5.7 Other Auxiliary Processes
The input streams into coal receiving and storage,
water supply, water cooling, steam generation, and oxygen
production are not considered process streams; rather, they
typically conform to primary and secondary raw materials as
defined in the Appendices.
3.4 Toxic Substances in Products and By-Products
The Fort Lewis plant has operated under varying process
conditions, to produce either a solid or liquid fuel.
Variations in process conditions can significantly affect
194
-------
TABLE 25. CONCENTRATION OF STREAMS FROM GAS
PURIFICATION AND HYDROGEN PRODUCTION (GRAMS/CUBIC METER)
Gas from Gas Gas from Hydrogen
Component Purification Production
Ammonia 0.13
Ash 0.83
Carbon dioxide 442. 1200.
Carbon monoxide 2.2
Cyanide 0.28
Hydrocarbons 87.
Hydrogen sulfide 656. 18.
Nitrogen oxide 0.0011
Sulfur dioxide 0.2
Water 17.
TABLE 26. CONCENTRATION IN WASTEWATER PROCESS
STREAM FROM AMMONIA STRIPPING
Concentration
Component (Grams/Liter)
Ammonia 16.
Hydrocarbons 0.56
Hydrogen sulfide 13.
Phenol 0.18
TABLE 27. WASTEWATER FROM PHASE GAS SEPARATION
Concentration
Component (Grams/Liter)
Ammonia 17.
Hydrogen sulfide 13.
Phenol 11.
195
-------
the physical characteristics, chemical composition and
biological impact of the products and by-products. In
examining field and laboratory data it is therefore import-
ant to specify whether the data source for the study was
SRC-I (solid mode) or SRC-II (liquid mode).
As discussed in Section 2.0 of this report, the major
differences between the SRC-I and SRC-II systems lie in the
location of the solids/liquids separation process and the
separation methods employed. In SRC-I the solids/liquids
separation process precedes fractionation. The liquified
coal slurry is filtered to remove the undissolved mineral
matter (mineral residue) and the filtrate is flash distilled
to remove the solvent, leaving a black liquid which solidifies
on cooling. In the SRC-II fuel oil mode, some of the slurry
is flash distilled leaving the mineral matter in the vacuum
bottoms.
In both modes the distillate is further fractionated
into light, medium, and heavy cuts. The light and medium
cuts are treated by-products. The heavy cuts are either
recycled as process solvent (solid product mode) or used as
the fuel oil-type product (liquid mode). When operating iir
the liquid mode the product is the heavy distillate fraction,
equivalent to about a No. 5 fuel oil (51).
An area of confusion that is encountered when examining
data from SRC studies is the inconsistent terminology used
to designate various product and by-product fractions. A
partial listing of equivalent terms used to designate SRC-II
fractions and the general boiling point range to which they
refer, is presented in Table 28.
196
-------
TABLE 28. SRC-II PRODUCT AND BY-PRODUCT
TERMINOLOGY
Approximate
bp Fraction
<193°C
193°-249°C
249-454°C
Terminology
naphtha
light cut
middle distillate
medium cut
wash solvent
fuel oil
heavy distillate
distillates
heavy cut
fuel oil- type product
SRC liquid
Reference
41,50,51
51
41
51
51
6
41
50
51
51
6
>454°C residue (includes SRC, 41
insoluble organic
matter and ash)
Analyses of SRC product and by-products, performed by
several investigators, will be summarized and briefly dis-
cussed in the following section. Filby and co-workers (49)
of Washington State University conducted studies of the
trace element distribution and fate in the SRC-I process.
Their data forms the basis of the inorganic product composi-
tion and SAM/IA potential degree of hazard tables. Fruchter
and Petersen of Battelle Northwest Laboratories, have con-
ducted a program to characterize SRC products, by-products
and effluents. Their analyses have been performed primarily
on samples derived from the SRC-I process with limited
analysis of SRC-II samples. SRC-II samples were used in a
recent Level 1 sampling and analysis study by Hittman Asso-
ciates. The nature of the methodology used does, however,
restrict this preliminary data to qualitative/semi-quantitative
interpretation.
197
-------
3.4.1 Inorganic Analysis
3.4.1.1 SRC-I Partitioning Factors
Composition of various product and by-product streams
is known to vary with the composition of the feed coal. An
estimate of the concentration of the inorganic constituents
in the naphtha, wash solvent, heavy oil, SRC-I, filter cake,
and sulfur is presented in Tables 29 to 32. The tables are
based largely on the data generated by Washington State
University (49) with the incorporation of Battelle Northwest
data (51).
3.4.1.2 SRC-II Level 1 Methodology and SAM/IA Analysis
Hittman Associates has completed a preliminary char-
acterization of several SRC-II product and by-product streams
according to Level 1 methodology. Spark source analysis and
selective atomic absorption were run on naphtha, middle and
heavy distillates. A complete Level 1 organic analysis was
run on the middle and heavy distillates. The qualitative
organic nature of the naphtha stream was determined by
infrared analysis only.
3.4.1.3 Spark Source Results
Table 33 shows the results of spark source analysis for
the product streams (naphtha, middle distillates and heavy
distillates) and for the residue. The term residue refers
to the bottom material remaining after fractionation and
secondary flashing and contains SRC, insoluble organic
material and ash. Residue is included in this discussion
because it is most likely to be gasified to obtain useful
energy content rather than be disposed of as a solid waste.
198
-------
TABLE 29. PARTITIONING FACTORS AND ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION
OF INORGANICS/IN SRC-I LIGHT OIL-NAPHTHA
VO
Partitioning Factors
Number
of
Deter-
Name mination
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
iMriun
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
ChrcrnJum
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
All arithmetic
means above
All maximum
above
2
5
7
4
5
5
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
2
3
6
5
4
5
3
3
6
4
4
1
4
3
5
3
2
2
36
36
Arithmetic
Mean
0.0045
0.11
0.0043
<0.016
0.017
<0.023
2x10-4
1.2x10
0.41
0.009
3.1x10-4
0.020
<0.10
<0.0015
<0.0049
7x10-4
0.0029
<0.11
ca. 0.0065
0.0047
0.053
<0.008
<0.015
<0.010
0.010
5.7x10
0.037
0.0042
0.013 ,
<2.9xlO
1.9xlO-4
<5. 2xlO-4
0.0032
0.014
0.029
0.0012
0.029
0.09
Geometric
Mean
0.0044
0.0003
0.0002
<0.007
0.002
<0.017
2x10-4
1.1x10
0.21
0.001
0.16xlO-4
0.006
<0.01
<0-9.6xlO
<0.0038
1x10-4
2.2xlO-5
<0.05
ca. 0.0062
0.0045
0.031
<0 . 004
<0.001
<0.004
6.3x10
0.017x10
0.005
0.0023
0.006
<2.9xlO
0.02xlO"4
<5. 2x10-4
0.0028
0.008
0.009
0.0012
0.004
0.01
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation
0.0004
0.23
0.0082
ca. 0.018
0.030
ca. 0.017
°-° -6
0.3x10
0.35
0.014
3.7x10"*
0.034
ca.0.17
ca. 0.0021
ca. 0.0036
U.xlO-4
4.8x10-3
ca.0.14
^0.0030
>0.0017
0.057
ca. 0.011
ca. 0.027
ca. 0.017
0.017 ,
9.8x10
0.064
0.0039
0.016
i
3.8x10
Range
0.0042-0.0047
5.0x10-7-0.53
1.4x10-7-0.0224
<0.0016-<0.04
4.9x10-6-0.070
<0.0043-<0.049
2-2x10-4
0.92-1.4x10
0.065-1.04
3.4x10-7-0.03
3.5x10-7-7.4x10
0.0014-0.071
0.0044-<0.0086
<0. 0028-0. 006
0.0032-0.16
<0.002-<0.027
<6.4xlO-5-<0.055
<0.00085-<0.041
<6. 1x10-9-0. 030
5.2x10-0.0017
7.7xlO-6-0.167
0.00023-0.0094
0.00063-0.036
<2.9-<2. 9x10-6
3.1x10-7-7.7x10
ca.0.2xlQ-4<5.0-<5. 3x10-4
0.0014
0.011
0.009
0.0001
0.072
0.20
0.00081-0.0042
0.0017- 0.24
0.022-0.035
0.0011- 0.0013
1.2x10-6-0.41
-ft
1.4x10 -1.04
Estimated
Light Oil-Naphtha
Concentration
ug/1
Average Maximum
60,300.
242.
47.
4.
272.
<180,000
3.6
0.0014
4.1xl05
150.
3.2
250.
<32.
6.6
4.0
10,000
28
1,400
ca.7300.
170.
7.9
150
3i , 500 .
280.
15.
2.0
150.
8400.
1600.
7.0x10-4
0.038
2.3
1700.
360.
3500.
68.
83,250.
550.
150.
8.
614.
< 390, 000
5.0
0.0024
7.0x105
350.
7.8
680.
<52.
10.
5.9
23,000
44
7,100
ca.lSCOC
650.
39.
970
75,000
1,000.
26.
3.4
380.
43COO.
3400.
9.6x10-4
0.065
5.0
3600.
700.
42000.
132.
-------
TABLE 30. PARTITIONING FACTORS AND ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION
OF INORGANICS IN SRC-I WASH SOLVENT
NJ
O
O
Partitioning Factors
Number
of
Deter-
Name initiation
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercurv
Nickel'
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zirconium
All Arithmetic
4
4
2
4
5
5
4
3
4
6
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
3
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
4
3
34
Arithmetic
Mean
0.0015 ,
4.3x10"*
4.4x10
<0.005
0.005
0.015
0.014
l.lxlO~6
0.20
0.0015
0.0035
0.0035
0.013
0.010
<0.05
3.0xlO"4
4.8xlO"4
ca. 0.005
0.0055
0.29
<0.02
0.012
0.0021
0.0026.
7-xlO"3
0.0027
0.0027
0.0067 ,
2.3xlO~*
6.3x10 7
<5.3xlO
0.0029
0.0066
0.0016
0.020
Geometric
Mean
0.0010
0.2xlO~*
0.5xlO~*
<0.002
0.002
0.014
0.001
l.lxlO~b
0.07
0.0002
8.3xlO~6
0.0025
0.007
0.0001
<0.006 ,
1.4x10 *
0.029xlO~*
ca. 0.005
0.0054
0.11
<0.01
0.001
0.0017
0.0001
0.02x10
0.0002
0.0020
0.0045
2.3xlO~b,
0.04x10
<5.3xlO~4
0.0028
0.0055
0.0016
0.002 ;
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation
0.0014
5.0x10"*
6.2x10
ca. 0.007
0.005
0.007
0.023 ,
0.1x10
0.21
0.0013
0.0061
0.0035
0.018
0.015
ca.0.10.
2.2xlO~7
7 . 2x10
O.002
0.0007
0.44
ca.0.038
0.024
0.0015
0.0023
16x10°
0.0034
0.0020
0.0045 ,
0.3x10"°
12.5xlO~ ,
ca. 0.4x10
0.0007
0.0038
0.0004
0.059
Range
0.00020-0.0036
<5xlO-7-9.3xlOT4
0.034-8.8x10"*
<9. 4xlO-4- <0. 015
1.3x10-5-0.013
0.0079-0.023
<0. 0001-0. 048
0.93-1.2xlO-6
0.0083-0.40
6.9x10-7-0.003
2.3x10-7-0.0105
0.0014-0.0075
0.0038-0.040
3.1x10-8-0.0281
<0. 0017-0. 20
0.085-5.3x10
1. 5xlO-l°-0. 0013
X).003-<0.007
0. 0045- >0. 0059
0.022-0.94
<0.002-<0.059
6.4x10-5-0.055
0.00068-0.0044
9.1x10-8-0.004
7.7xlO-9-3.6xlO"4
4.1xlQ-6-0.007
0.00047-0.0051
0.00063-0.0113 ,
2. OxlO-6-2. 5x10"°
3.3xlO-?-0.0025
<5.0 <5.9xlO-*
0.0017-0.0038
0.0017-0.011
^.0013 0.0020
1.1x10-6^0.29
Estimated
Wash Solvent
Composition
Average Maximum
1.7xl04
0.80
4.1
1100
68
100,000
210.
0.0011
1.7xl05
20.
30.
37.
3.6
37.
35.
3800
3.9
4800.
170.
37.
323
24000.
50.
3.4
0.20
9.4
4600.
680.
4.7xlO~*
0.11
2.0
1300.
150.
77.
2.4x10
1.9
13.
2100
150
220,000
300.
0.0019
2.9xl05
50.
75.
100.
5.8
60.
51.
8400
6.1
12000.
65.0
180
2000.
51000.
180.
5.8
0.34
24' 4
2.4x10
1400.
6.5x10
0.18
4.3
2800.
280.
150.
-------
TABLE 31. PARTITIONING FACTORS AND ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION
OF INORGANICS IN SRC-I FILTER CAKE
Partitioning Factors
Number
of
Deter-
Name mination
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Cerium
Cesium
Chromium
Cobalt
Europium
o Hafnium
1—1 Iron
Lanthanum
Lutetium
Nickel
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Uranium
Zirconium
All Arithmetic
means above
All Maximum
above
4
5
7
6
7
7
7
7
5
6
5
3
6
7
5
6
1
6
8
6
5
6
6
7
2
6
26
26
Arithmetic Geometric
Mean Mean
2.1
2.1
2.7
2.3
2.8
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.9
1.1
2.8
2.3
2.7
3.2
3.3
2.4
3.0
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.6
3.5
1.9
2.1
2.6
2.1
2.8
3.1
2.7
2.9
2.4
2.5
2.8
0.0011
2.7
2.2
1.6
3.2
3.3
2.4
2.9
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.5
3.4
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation Range
0.8
0.4
0.6
1.3
0.7
0.5
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.5
1.7
0.6
1.0
1.5
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0'.5
1.8
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.89-2.6
1.6-2.7
1.8-3.6
1.4-4.7
1.9-3.5
2.5-3.7
1.5-4.2
2.1-3.5
1.5-3.8
1.9-3.3
2.2-3.4
1.5xlO~9-3.00
1.8-3.3
1.3-4.1
0.077-3.5
2.9-3.4
3.3-3.3
1.8-2.9
2.3-5.3
1.8-3.3
1.5-2.8
1.7-2.8
1.6-3.3
2.2-3.2
1.5-4.1
1.8-3.3
1.1-3.3
2.6-5.3
Estimated
Filter Cakea
Composition
Average Maximum
4.6
23.
675.
37.
50.
3.7
47.
30.
0.80
2.0
43000.
11.
0.36
44.
6200.
90.
5.0
8.4
12.
5600.
250.
0.50
0.48
13.
6.2
140.
10.5
74.
1350.
83.
70.
6.2
110.
75.
1.3
3.0
96000.
16.
0.62
280.
13500.
320.
8.6
14.
31.
29000.
540.
0.69
0.82
27.
23.
275.
filter cake part of SRC-I only
-------
TATUF 32 PARTITIONING FACTORS AND ESTIMATED
CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN SRC
SULFUR BY-PRODUCTS
Name
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Praseodymium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zirconium
Partitioning
Factor3
<5 . 1x10"^
<0.1
<0.16
<0.73
<0.66
<1.8
<0.096
0.26
<0.15
0.15
18.7
<0.05
<0.04
<0.42
<0.39
<0.05
0.238
<0.26
<0.24
1.4
0.12
ca. 2.
0.23
<0.008
<0.75
22.8
<0.51
1.4
<0.26
<0.1
<0.17
0.27
<0.97
Estimated
Sulfur
Composition (ppm)
Average Maximum
<6.8
<0.2
<1.7
<180.
<11.
<14000.
<1.7
0.31
<150.
2.4
190
<0.64
<0.013
<1.8
<0.32
<740.
2.3
<290.
<8.6
0.21
0.35
<0.028
<3.0
46000.
<61.
0.34
<0.052
<0.45
<90.
7.0
<55,
< 9.4
< 0.5
< 5.6
< 365.
< 24.
< 31000.
< 2.4
0.52
< 250.
5.9
470
< 1.7
< 0.021
< 2.9
< 0.47
< 1650
< 3.6
< 730.
< 33.
1.0
0.60
< 0.047
< 7.8
2 . 3xl03
< 130.
0.46
< 0.088
< 0.97
< 190.
14.
< 110.
Only one estimate available: Arithmetic mean of all partitioning factors: 1.7
Geometric mean of all partitioning factors: 0.3
Unbiased arithmetic standard deviation: 5.0
Range of all partitioning factors: 0.00051-22.8
202
-------
TABLE 33. ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN PROCESS STREAMS
AS DETECTED BY SPARK SOURCE MASS SPECTROSCOPY (ppm)*
Raw Middle
coal Naphtha distillates
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium '
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Fluorine
Gadolinium
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Halmium
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Lutecium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
fleodymium
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
>l(0.487o)
0.56(38)
0.59
40(26)
0.60
0.42
130
0.61
(**)
> 0.5% (0.16%)
17
210
5.8(7)
6.0
30(8.5)
0.84
0.98
0.24
90
0,43
2.2
1.0
0.45
0.32
>1%(0.1%)
8.0
4.3
0.60
0.12
1000(768)
73.0(34)
8.3
7.4
7.5(11)
2.6
35
1900(1243+)
7.3
18
1.4
1.3
1.4
0.004
0.009
0.080
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.034
4.2
0.004
0.053
0.034
0.002
0.18
0.012
0.001
0.057
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.042
0.003
0.002
0.23
0.002
0.063
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.025
0.068
0.002
Heavy
distillates
23
0.003
0.006
0.050
0.003
0.008
1.2
0.006
0.024
5.9
0.010
0.001
0.21
2.5
0.011
0.100
0.004
0.012
0.005
0.34
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.018
0.002
0.005
62.0
0.009
0.007
0.017
0.002
2.1
0.79
0.016
0.012
0.16
0.002
2.5
6.8
0.003
0.016
0.021
0.006
Residue
1
0.37
3.6
140
3.2
0.19
1000
4.0
0.23
1%
10
1.2
28
29
3.6
17
0.52
0.66
0.20
260
0.90
2.9
4.6
0.60
0.113
0.95
1%
3.7
6.2
67
1200
87
3.7
3.6
18
2.1
1400
1900
1.9
53
0.58
3.8
(continued)
203
-------
TABLE 33. (continued)
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Thallium
Thorium
Tellurium
Terbium
Thullium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Raw Middle
coal Naphtha distillates
0.58(41+,++) 0.003
1% 0.53 0.60
550(311+) 0.16 0.053
38
1% 0.053
0.43
3.0
0.15(**,++)
0.24
0.25(0.4++)
520 0.004
0.25
4.0
30.0(1.5++) 0.001
0.61
10
5.3(16) 0.001 0.21
11
Heavy
distillates
0.003
100
8.0
0.023
1.6
0.003
0.007
0.006
0.002
0.003
0.15
0.68
0.011
0.007
0.13
0.007
0.10
0.018
Residue
3.1
1%
0.08
500
56
0.5%
0.17
1.3
4.0
0.10
0.22
1.9
760
0.52
3.4
70
0.30
4.1
40
17
* Concentrations detected by atomic absorption in raw coal are indicated
in parentheses.
**Indicates concentrations below instrument detection limits.
+ Detection by flame emission.
++Detection by graphite furnace.
NOTE: Figures for elements for which values are not entered:
Raw coal
Middle distillates
Heavy distillates
Residue
< 0.001 ppm
< 0.001 ppm
<0.001 ppm
< 0.05 ppm
204
-------
The accuracy of spark source analysis is generally +
100 to 500 percent. HAI data suggest for the most trace
elements the desired accuracy for a Level 1 analysis (i.e.,
within a factor of 2 to 3) is achieved.
3.4.1.A Additional SRC-I and SRC-II Analysis
Rattelle's inorganic studies of the solid product mode
show that except for mercury, titanium, and bromine, most
elements appear to remain with the mineral residue. For
bromine, approximately 84 percent remains with the product,
whereas for titanium, approximately 56 percent remains with
the product. In the case of mercury, 89 percent is unaccount-
ed for in the solid and liquid products and is presumably
emitted in the process off-gas.
A comparison between liquid samples derived from SRC-I
solid and SRC-II liquid process modes is presented in
Battelle's inorganic analysis data, Table 34.
3.4.2 Organic Analysis
3.4.2.1 SRC-11 Level 1 Methodology and SAM/IA Analysis
The diversity of organic compounds which can comprise
the product streams from a liquefaction system preclude com-
plete identification without years of research. It has been
estimated that only 10 percent of the possible compounds in
hydrcgena*"ion products have been identified and that those
compounds found in the MEG's represent even a smaller per-
centage.
205
-------
TABLE 34. INORGANIC ELEMENT CONTENT OF LIQUID SAMPLES FROM COAL
LIQUEFACTION - REFINED SOLID (51)
NJ
O
Light Oil (Naphtha)
(Solid Product Process)
Na
S
Cl
K
Ca
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Br
Rb
Sr
Sb
Ba
La
Hf
Hg
Pb
Th
INAA*
1.7+0.3
1.8+.7
0.044+.009
1.1+.3
0.0026+.0005
<.10
0.58+.04
0.013+.001
0.065+.020
0.018+.002
.05
<.002
<1
<.001
<.003
0.05+.01
<.0009
XRF **
<36
< 3
< 3
2.2+. 15
< .6
<.2
0.21+.06
< 2
<.05
<.07
0.46+.07
0.01+.02
0.086+.030
<.07
<1.1
<1
Process Solvent
(Solid Product Process)
INAA
0.51+0.1
0.54+.02
58+2
0.0044+.0001
0.86+.04
0.105+.002
<.009
0.25+.01
<.06
0.006+.09
<2
0.0125+.008
<.003
.01
< .001
XRF
< 67
9.3+3.1
3.2
10.5+1.5
<1.11
102+7
1.35+.2
<.4
0.54+.14
<.23
< .15
0.29+.05
<-.26
<2..4
<1.7
Light Oil Naphtha
(Liquid Product
Process)
XRF
1600+500
<55
<34
<0.5
< 6
< 3
<1.8
<1.6
< .63
< .71
<1.68+.35
< .38
0.60+.20
< .61
< .61
< 5
<1.7
Heavy Oil
(Liquid Product)
XRF
3650+700
<55
102+17
36+5
12+3
6.3+1.8
<1.1
660+45
5.0+.5
0.80+.30
1.9+.2
0.34+.13
0.31+.10
<.26
<.26
<2.4
<.16
^Instrumental neutron activation analysis
**X-Ray Flourcficence
-------
Hittman Associates' Level 1 analysis of the SRC-II pro-
duct streams was intended to show relative distribution of
broad classes of compounds and to determine for the middle
and heavy distillates, quantitative estimates for organics
present in highest concentrations.
3.4.2.2 Comparison of Product Streams
3.4.2.2.1 Naphtha
Infrared analysis on the naphtha stream suggests that
aliphatics are the main compound type present, as indicated
by the carbon-hydrogen stretch at 2900 cm" and 2850 cm~
Considerable branching is evident. However, the presence
of phenols and substituted benzenes is also evident. A weak
band is observed at 3300 to 3400 cm"1 and at 1240 cm"1 sug-
gesting the presence of phenols. Several peaks in the
region of 700-800 cm indicate the presence of substituted
benzenes.
3.4.2.3 SRC-I
In conducting organic analysis of SRC samples, Battelle
Northwest utilized a separation scheme which partitions the
sample into four fractions: basic, acidic, neutral and PAH.
The fractions were then analyzed by gas chromatography and
gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
The SRC-I data presented in Table 35 are for the two
major fractions: PAH and neutral. The concentration of low
molecular weight members of both fractions are misleading
because their loss in the partitioning scheme has not been
corrected in this table. The light oil, wash solvent and
process solvent are three distillate cuts; the raw process
207
-------
TABLE 35. ANALYSIS OF SRC-I ORGANICS FOR PAH AND
NEUTRAL FRACTIONS (IN PPM) (51)
PNA Fraction
Xylene
o-ethylbenzene
m/p-ethylbenzene
C^-benzene
indane
methlindane
methylindane
methylindane
dimethyl indane
tetralin
dimethylteralin
6-me thy 1 tetralin
naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalen
l-methvlnaohthalen
dimethylnaphthalen
dimethyl nap thalene
dimethylnaphthalen
dimethvlnaphthalen
2- isopropylnaph thalene
1-isopropylnaph thalene
C4~naphthaiene
eye lohexylbenzene
blphenyl
acenaphtylene
dlmethylblphenyl
dime thy Ibiphenyl
dibenzofuran
xanthene
dibenzothiophene
methyldlbenzothiophene
thioxantbene
f luorene
9-methy If luorene
1-methyl f luorene
antrhacene/phenanthrene
raethylphenanthrene
1-methylphenanthrene
C2~anthracene
fluoranthene
dihydropyrene
pyrene
NEUTRAL FRACTION (n-alkan
n-octane
n-decane
n-undecane
n-dodecane
n-trldecane
n-tetradecane
n-hexadecane
n-heptadecane
n-octadecane
n-nonadecane
n-eicosane
n-heneicosane
n-docosane
n-tricosane
n-tetracoaane
n-pentacosane
n-hexacosane
n-heptacosane
n-octacosane
n-nonacosane
n-trlacontane
n-hentriacontane
n-dotriacontane
n-l ri tr iacont.ini.'
Light
Oil
9800
3900
4300
510
180
240
5
330
5
110
1630
690
110
80
70
10
80
2
15
21
8
10
3
15
15
10
25
6
6
6
15
6
20
1600
8700
9866
3900
1400
470
170
60
16
10
Wash
Solvent
1300
1700
700
1500
500
13000
2500
1400
2300
40
4100
1500
3200
32000
32000
12000
13000
700
4000
160
40
210
5
410
10000
500
35
30
400
30
50
15
2
250
110
130
15
25
35
25
40
900
2700
5006
8300
21000
14000
1100
4000
400
120
40
500
Process
Solvent
100
3800
930
11200
1700
4200
650
50
1400
50
5900
3400
2100
550
5800
840
4200
320
3300
6600
3100
3000
23000
15200
3900
500
10500
1266
11200
50
80
340
340
1000
2000
3100
420
800
930
600
670
980
900
740
450
300
150
90
60
40 .
10
5
Raw Process
1 Water
15
0.1
0.5
5
2
0.3
2
0.7
2
0. 2
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.1
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.05
0.4
0.05
0.6
2.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.02
Mineral
Residue
85
25
55
25
110
35
50
1500
740
ISO
260
60
150
2
1
15
5
270
45
30
20
60
20
70
8
5
80
40
500
100
50
10
200
10
200
90
550
9100
210
80
50
20
10
16
14 ~|
14
16
14
14
10
8
6
5
4
2
1
1
Solvent
Refined
Coal
8
5
6
T
8
9
7
9
30
4
3
27
11
T?
300
50
30
1
180
1
280
4
10
a
7
12
8
3
3
22
5
2
2
1
1
1
HartUulati-
Filter
Concent rat ion
ug/n3
15
15
170
20
10
0.5
20
*
75 -
60
no
40
156 ~
40
180
60
120
200 "
153
1500
400
300
30
700
36
900
4
12
18
56
35
18
30
20
35
55
35
45
43
40 -
25
28 -
IB
22
15
11
7
*The concentration of low molecular weight members of both
fractions are misleading because their loss in the partition-
ing scheme has not been corrected in this table.
208
-------
water, mineral residue, solvent refined coal and particulate
filter were extracted before analysis. The particulate
filter sample was collected directly over the cooling product
before any inline devices for aerosol control.
The gases evolved from the process are separated from
the slurry as the slurry is depressurized. In a commercial
plant these gases, after cleanup, would supply process heat,
but in the pilot operation after removal of the acid gases,
the mixture is flared. The major organic components of
these gases consist of aliphatic compounds, both straight
and branched members, methylated cyclohexanes, benzene,
toluene, xylenes, C^-benzenes. Battelle has also tentatively
identified carbon disulfide and pyrrolidine in the gases.
3.5 Waste Streams to Air
The SRC process is, for the most part, an enclosed and
pressurized system. Consequently, air emissions during
regular plant operations arise primarily from auxiliary
parts of the system, such as the cooling towers, boilers,
acid gas treatment, and sulfur recovery process. Process
related emissions should be limited to leaks in pump seals,
valves, joints, and flanges and from product handling and
storage.
The following subsections describe emissions to air
(except for process flue gases, summarized in Table 36.
"After treatment" characterizations are based on application
of control methods suggested in Section 4.0.
209
-------
TABLE 36. FLUE GASES FROM AUXILIARY PROCESSES (6)
Module
Coal pretreatment
Hydrogenation
Solids separation
Fractionation
Hydrotreating
Hydrogen production
Sulfur recoverya
Steam and power gen-
era tionb
Total
Mg/day
3590
13400.
9780.
2080.
1540
1020
157
11900
Nitrogen , Oxygen
Mg/day
2870
10700.
7800.
1660.
1230.
809.
122.
9090.
Water Vapor
Mg/day
225
844
616
131.
97.
64.
10.
410
Carbon Dioxide
Mg/day
500
1870
1363.
290.
215
142
21.
2320.
aAlso produces 4.0 mg/day ash (1.40x10"^ X input coal).
Also produces 37 mg/day ash, 64 mg/day sulfur dioxide, 8. mg/day nitrogen oxides,
0.5 mg/day carbon dioxide, 0.2 mg/day hydrocarbons (as ethane) and a total flow
rate of 10.6 m3/sec.
-------
3.5.1 Coal Pretreatment
Coal dust is generated during the transfer of coal from
shipping to receiving bins and during coal storage, conveying,
stacking, and sizing. Dust is composed of coal particles,
typically from 1 to 100 microns in size, with a composition
similar to the parent coal. It is estimated that 23 Mg/day
of particulates will be generated from coal receiving,
storage, and sizing and 29 Mg/day of particulates will be
emitted with dryer stack gas (6). By applying known removal
efficiencies for particulates estimates of emissions after
control have been determined.
3.5.1.1 Dust From Coal Sizing
Coal dust generated from coal sizing has been estimated
at 7.4 Mg/day without controls (6). Assuming four units,
3 3
each handling 1.9 m /sec with a loading of 11.12 grams /m
(8,646 ppm) , emissions after treatment are estimated as
follows:
Efficiency Emissions after Treatment
Treatment of Removal (ppm)
cyclone + baghouse 99.9% 8.6 11
wet scrubber 98.5% 129.7 167
3.5.1.2 Dust from Coal Storage
The problem of controlling dust emissions from coal
storage is a formidable one. Polymer spraying is recommended
to reduce dust emissions. Dust emissions following polymer
spraying have not been estimated.
211
-------
3.5.1.3 Dryer Stack Gas
Particulate emissions from dryer stack gas are estimated
at 29 Mg/day without controls. This assumes that the flow
dryer is equipped with a cyclone collector built within the
unit.
o
Assuming 378 m /sec gas flow (6) at 60°C with a loading
of 0.9 grams/m (712 ppm) the estimated emissions with
control technology are as follows:
Emission After
Treatment Efficiency Treatment, ppm (mg/m >
cyclone 80% (20) 142 ppm (183)
baghouse 99.9% 0.7 ppm (0.9)
wet scrubber 98.5% 10.7 ppm (13.5)
3.5.1.4 Trace Element Composition of Coal Particulates
from Coal Pretreatment
The trace element distribution in coal particulates is
somewhat a function of particle size. This factor complicates
our efforts to estimate the trace element makeup on a stream
containing particulates. Table 37 is a first approximation
of the trace element makeup in treated dust streams from the
coal pretreatment module, including coal receiving, crushing
and drying. The minimum value listed in this table refers
to the concentration of elements in the dust stream emanating
from the most effective dust control device (a cyclone with
baghouse), and the maximum refers to the dust emitted from
the least effective control device (a wet scrubber). This
approximation assumes that trace elements are evenly distri-
212
-------
TABLE 37. ESTIMATE OF INORGANIC COMPOSITION OF
ATMOSPHERIC EMISSION AFTER CONTROL OF COAL DUST FROM
COAL PRETREATMENT MODULE
Name
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt-
Copper
Dysprosium
Europium
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Indium
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Based on "Average
Concentration
Min.
12.
0.0019
0.010
0.22
0.0013
0.049
0.014
0.003C
0.016
0.0011
0.91
0.015
0.0092
0.011
0.0012
2.9x10
0.070
0.0040
0.0056 ,
7 . 3xlO"7
1.5x10
0.0012
13.
0.0046
0.012
0.0318 ,
1.2x10
1.0
0.032
1.3x10
0.0046
0.017
<0.0016 <
0.094
2.1
0.025
20.0014
0.0038
0.0037
U.S. goal"
Max.
8000.
1.3
6.4
146.
0.84
33.
9.8
2.0
10.
0.70
590.
9.8
6.1
7.7
0.78
0.19
46
2.6
3.7
0.49
0.098
0.77
9100.
3.0
7.7
21
0.077
660.
22
0.091
3.1
11.
a.o
61
1400
17
0.91
2.1
2.7
Based on "Maximum
Concentration
Min.
16.
0.0044
0.032
0.45
0.0027
0.11
0.032
0.015
0.022
0.0017
1.5
0.035
0.022
0.030
0.0021
4.6x10 *
0.14
0.0063
0.013
0.0011 ,
2.1x10
0.0015
30.
0.0086
0.059
0.070
1.9x10 *
2.5
0.12
6.5x10
0.011
0.11
<0.0017
0.14
4.5
0.091
0.0024
0.0052
0.0094
U.S. Coal"
(pg/m)
Max.
11000.
2.9
21.
290.
1.7
70.
22
9.8
15.
1.2
980
23.
15.
20.
1.4
0.31
98.
4.1
8.4
0.70
0.14
0.98
20000.
5.7
38.
46.
0.13
1700.
82.
0.43
7.0
70.
1*>
• £•
89.
2900.
59.
1.5
3.5
6.1
(continued)
213
-------
TABLE 37. (continued)
Name
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
Based on "Average U.S. ^oal"
Concentration (^g/rn )
Min. Max.
Based on "Maximum U.S. Coal"
Concentration (jjg/m )
Min.
Max.
1.5x10
1.7
0.11
19.
2.2x10
2.2x10
1.7x10
5.9x10
0.0040
0.0017
0.48
6.4x10
0.0019
0.024
5.7x10
0.11
0.051
-4
-*
-4
-4
-4
13000
0.098
1200
70.
13000.
0.14
0.015
0.12
0.39
2.7
1.2
3.10
0.43
1.3
15
0.38
70.
33.
25
6.4x10
9.2
0.23
3.0x10
-4
-4
5.9x10
0.0087
0.0045
7.3x10"
0.0073
0.044
7.5x10"
1.3
0.099
16000
0.41
6100.
150.
22000.
0.20
0.017
0.20
0.39
5.7
2.9
670
0.49
4.8
29.
0.50
865.
65.
214
-------
buted in dust particles independent of particle size. In an
analysis of the trace element composition in different
particle sizes of coal dust from a Pittsburgh seam coal, 27
trace elements were found to be evenly distributed independent
of particle size, while 11 trace elements were distributed
in concentrations that varied with particle size (57).
3.5.2 Coal Liquefaction
The waste streams to air of the coal liquefaction
module will consist primarily of fugitive (hydrocarbon)
emissions. The fugitive emissions cannot be quantified at
this time.
3.5.3 Separation
3.5.3.1 Gas Separation Process
As in the coal liquefaction module, the waste streams
to air from the gas separation module will consist primarily
of fugitive (hydrocarbon) emissions which cannot be quanti-
fied at this time.
3.5.3.2 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
The waste streams to air from the solids/liquids separa-
tion module will consist primarily of fugitive (hydrocarbon)
emissions and flue gases. The flue gases will be discussed
later; quantification of fugitive emissions is not possible
at this time.
215
-------
3.5.4 Purification and Upgrading
3.5.4.1 Fractionation Process
The waste streams to air from the fractionation module
will consist primarily of fugitive (hydrocarbon) emissions
and flue gases. The fugitive emissions cannot be quantified
at this time.
3.5.4.2 Hydrotreating Process
As in solids/liquids separation the waste streams to
air from the hydrotreating module will consist primarily of
fuigitive (hydrocarbon) emissions and flue gases. The
fugitive emissions cannot be quantified, the flue gases are
combined and treated by the auxiliary processes, and will be
discussed subsequently.
3.5.5 Auxiliary Processes
3.5.5.1 Receiving and Storage
Before treatment the emissions amount to approximately
7.3 Mg/day (6). Assuming a gas stream flow of 1.9 nr/sec
with a loading of 44.6 grams/m (34,689 ppm) and maximum
removal efficiencies for the treatment equipment, emissions
after treatment are estimated as follows:
Emissions After
Treatment Efficiency Treatment (mg/m^
cyclone + baghouse 99.9% 35 ppm (44.7)
wet scrubber 98.5 520 ppm (669)
216
-------
3.5.5.2 Water Supply
No estimates are available on dust emissions from lime
storage. These emissions are more likely to be a nuisance
than a serious health hazard.
3.5.5.3 Water Cooling
There are currently no emission standards for cooling
towers. In view of the large quantities of evaporation and
drift (22,448 Mg/day) (6) these losses warrant environmental
concern. The cooling tower will also require 23,000 Mg
makeup water per day.
Tower evaporative losses having undergone distillation,
should be quite free of dissolved solids. Thus, impact will
be limited to the effect of excess water vapor in the air
near the plant.
Cooling tower drift results from water droplets mechan-
ically generated in the tower. The composition can be ex-
pected to be similar to the tower circulating water. This
could result in contamination from dissolved minerals and
corrosion inhibitors. The actual composition of drift
depends upon the number of circulations as a multiple of the
river salinity. This is somewhat complicated by the fact
that a blowdown from steam generation will be used in cooling
tower makeup. In addition, an unidentified quantity of the
corrosion inhibitors and antifouling agents are lost in
drift.
217
-------
3.5.5.4 Steam and Power Generation
The steam generation module advocated in the Standards
of Practice Manual utilizes coal-fired boilers. A total of
approximately 930 Mg/day of coal are required to generate
the necessary steam. Particulates in the stack gas from
C. O
steam generation have been estimated at 3.69x10 ng/m .
Particulates in the stack gas are recovered as fly ash and
can be a potential source of emissions if not handled
properly. This will be considered as a, solid waste problem.
In order to meet standards such as Illinois emission standards
particulates from coal-fired boilers must be removed with an
efficiency of 98.65 percent. Elbair scrubbers and venturi
scrubbers are capable of removal up to 99 percent of the
particulates in fly ash. Medium energy venturi scrubbers
will remove almost 100 percent of particulates <50 microns,
99 percent of particules <5 microns, and 97 percent of
particulates <1 micron."
Organic compounds may reach the environment by being
sorbed on the fly ash during combustion and subsequent
volatilization. Since the concentration of the organics
introduced into the environment by this mechanism will be
considerably less than in the gaseous emission streams, and
since the organics in the emission streams are not toxic
(they may be asphyxiants), the only organics which are
likely to cause any environmental harm are the carcinogenic
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).
The ash residue resulting from the combustion of coal
is primarily derived from the inorganic mineral matter in
the coal. Generally, ash makes up from three to 30 percent
of the coal (58).
218
-------
During the combustion of coal, the products formed are
partitioned into three categories: bottom ash, fly ash, and
gases. The bottom ash is that part of the residue which is
fused into particles heavy enough to drop out of the furnace
gas stream (air and combustion gases). These particles are
collected in the bottom of the furnace. The fly ash is that
part of the ash which is entrained in the combustion gas
leaving the boiler. While most of this fly ash is collected
in either mechanical collectors and/or electrostatic pre-
cipitators, a small quantity of this material passes through
the collectors and is discharged into the atmosphere. The
gas is that part of the coal material which is volatilized
during combustion. Some of these gases are discharged into
the atmosphere; others condense onto the surface of fly ash
particles and may be collected in one of the fly ash collect-
ors. For the majority of elements found in coal, most of
their quantity (95 percent or more) will be found in the ash
fractions, while the remainder (5 percent or less) will be
discharged into the atmosphere. The quantity of vapors
produced depends primarily on the temperature history of the
combustion gases and the concentrations and properties of
the various elements in the coal (58).
The distribution of the ash between the bottom ash and
fly ash fractions is a function of the burner type, the type
of coal (ash fusion temperature), and the type of boiler
bottom (wet or dry). The first factor, burner type, is
especially significant in determining the distribution. The
second factor, ash fusion temperature, is important in that
ashes with lower fusion temperatures tend to be melted
within the boiler and collected as bottom ash. Finally, wet
bottom boilers are designed to produce and process a much
larger proportion of bottom ash than dry bottom boilers
(58).
219
-------
The ash particles vary from less than 1 micron to 4 cm
in diameter. The fly ash fraction generally consists of
fine spherical particulates usually ranging in diameter from
0.5 micron to 100 microns. The pH of fly ash contacted with
water may vary from 3 to 12, with the pH for the majority of
pulverized coal-burned fly ashes contacted with water
ranging from 8 to 12 (58).
Table 38 presents the average composition of fly ash
from six domestic power plants (58). The concentration of
trace elements in the fly ash depends on the particle size.
Generally, increasing concentrations are correlated with
decreasing particle size (see Table 39). There is a definite
enrichment of certain elements in the smallest particles
emitted from a power plant. These elements include lead,
thallium, antimony, cadmium, selenium, arsenic, nickel,
chromium, zinc and sulfur. The highest concentrations of
the trace constituents occur in particulates in the 0.5 to
10.0 micron diameter range.
Table 40 presents the concentrations of coal and fly
ash at different locations in ..the United States. This table
«u^
also presents enrichment factors which can be used to esti-
mate the elemental composition of any fly ash, provided the
elemental composition of the burned coal is known. The en-
richment factor is defined as the concentration in the fly
ash divided by the concentration in the coal. In this
report, the enrichment factors are used to estimate the
average and maximum elemental concentrations in all fly ash
found in the United States. Table 41 shows enrichment
factors for averaged analysis of National Bureau of Standards
coal and fly ashes (59) and for three power stations using
unidentified coals (60).
220
-------
TABLE 38. COMPOSITION OF FLY ASHES FROM
DIFFERENT (UNSPECIFIED) LOCATIONS ACROSS
THE UNITED STATES (58)
Compound Number
or of
Element Determinations
Si02 (%)
A1203 (%)
Fe203 (%)
CaO (%)
S03 (%)
MgO (%)
Na20 (%)
K20 (%)
P205 (Z)
Ti02 (%)
Arsenic (ppm)
Beryllium (ppm)
Boron (ppm)
Cadwiun (ppra)
Chromiun (ppm)
Cobalt (ppm)
Copper (ppm)
Fluorine (ppm)
Lead (ppm)
Manganese (ppm)
Mercury (ppra)
Nickel (ppm)
Selenium (ppm)
Vanadium (ppm)
Zinc (ppm)
5
5
6
6
4
5
5
5
4
5
6
5
4
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Arithmetic
Mean
51.
23.
9.
6.
0.8
1.5
1.3
1.3
0.5
0.9
27.
6.
366.
3.
126.
17.
89.
345.
52.
202.
3.
82.
16.
212.
230.
Geometric
Mean
50.
22.
7.
5.
0.7
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.2
0.9
14.
6.
325.
1.
81.
14.
84.
266.
47.
188.
0.1
52.
14.
177.
135.
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation Range
8.
5.
7.
5.
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.3
41.
2,
226.
3.
112.
.12.
36.
255.
24.
79.
8.
76.
8.
144.
274.
42. -59.
17. -28.
3.8-20.4
3.2-17.
0.4-1.7
0.96-2.23
0.38-1.88
0.4-2.4
0.04-1.00
0.43-1.17
6. -110.
3. -8.
200. -700.
0.5-8.0
20 .-300.
6. -39.
54. -140.
100. -624
30. -80.
100. -298.
0.01-20.
10. -207.
6.9-26.5
90. -440.
50. -740.
221
-------
S3
N>
TABLE 39. CONCENTRATIONS AND CONCENTRATION TRENDS WITH DECREASING
FLY ASH PARTICLE SIZE FOR SELECTED ELEMENTS (58)
Percent of
Particles
Particle diam. Pb Tl Sb Cd Se As Ni Cr Zn S in This Size
(microns)
Fly Ash Retained in Plant
A. Sieved Fractions
74 140 7
44-74 160 9
40 90 5
30-40 300 5
20-30 430 9
15-20 520 12
10-15 430 15
5-10 820 20
5 980 45
Particle diam. Fe
(microns) (wt Z)
1.5
7
B.
8
9
8
19
12
25
31
Mn
(ppm)
10 12 180
10 20 500
Aerodynamically Sized
10 15 120
10 15 160
10 15 200
10 30 300
10 30 400
10 50 800
10 50 370
V Si
(ppm) (wt Z)
Fly Ash Retained in
100 100
140 90
Fractions
300 70
130 140
160 150
200 170
210 170
230 160
260 130
Mg
(wt Z)
Plant
500
411 1.3
730 0.01
"570 0.01
480
720
770 4.4
1100 7.8
1400
C Be
(wt Z) (ppm)
66.30
22.89
2.50
3.54
3.25
0.80
0.31
0.33
0.08
Al
(wt Z)
A. Sieved Fractions
74
44-74 18
40 50
30-40 18
20-30
15-20
10-15 6.6
5-10 8.6
5
700
600
B.
150
630
270
210
160
210
180
150
260 18
Aerodynamically Sized
250 3.0
190 14
340
320
320 19
330 26
320
...
0.39
Fractions
0.02
0.31
• • •
• • •
0.16
0.39
...
12
11 12
0.12 7.5
0.21 18
0.63 21
2.5 22
6.6 22
5.5 24
24
...
9.4
1.3
6.9
• • .
• • •
9.8
13
...
-------
TABLE 40. CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL AND
FLY ASH IN DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS (58)
Eastern Interior Southwestern Eastern ICY, Southern IL
(IL.IN. Western KY) (AZ, MM, CO, UT) [.mean (range)]
Enrichment Enrichment
Name Coal Fly Ash Factor Coal Fly Ash Factor* Coal
Aluminum
Amcrlclum
Antimony 0.5 12 24 14
Arsenic 14 120 8.6 130
Barium 59 450 7.6
Beryllium <5 3-17
Bismuth
Boron 100-200 250-3000 2.5-15
Bromine
Odmium 6 (0.46) 160 (8.0) 26.7(17.4)
Calcium
Cesium
Chlorine 355-407 <5-50 • '1.01-0.14
Chromium 20 (20) 310(500) 15.5-25
Cobalt 0 (3.0) 60 (41) 13.7
Copper 20(50-100) 100(300-400) i(3-8) 9.6 280
Europium
Fluorine t2-60 '10-100 ca. 1.7
Gallium
Germanium *
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead T30C..9) 200(80) (lf>.3) 110
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese 90(34) 500(290) 5.6(8.5)
Mercury ?2(0.122) -0.2(0.05) £^0.1'(0.4)
11000
(10500-13000)
11000
(10500-13000)
<1
8.8(3.8-1.8)
120(100-150)
0.3 (-5)
<10
166(100-200)
2.3(2.0-2.6)
4200(3600-
5100)
1.5(1.5-1.5)
407
82(30-150)
3.9(3.3-5)
29.2 67(50-100)
0.24(0.17-
0.31)
13
10(5-15)
1 5800
(13000-20000)
5.3(4.8-6.)
£8. 20
50(25-100)
1600(1500-
1700)
53(51-54)
0.10(0.063-
0.170)
Enrichment
Fly Ash Factor*
67000
(57000-74000)
67000
(57000-74000)
'10
141(27-349)
1700(300-3000)
3 (15-17)
2
1750(250-300)
'2-5
17200(14000-
22000)
18(15-21)
50
160(70-250)
37(25-51)
367(300-400)
1.7(1.6-1.8)
70
135(70-200)
100000
(93000-139000)
33(30-36)
210(80-250)
280(200-350)
8600(5500-
11600)
321(316-325)
0.06(0.04-
0.10)
5.9(5.4-6.5)
12.4(5.7-19.4)
16(2-30)
10
9.2(2.5-15.)
<2
4.2(3.7-4.4)
12(10-14)
0.12
2.4(1.1-3.8)
9.3(7.6-10.2)
6(4-8)
7.9(5.2-10.6)
5.4
14(13-14)
6.9(6.5-7.2)
6.2(6. -6. 4)
ca. 10
8.6(2-12)
5.3(3.2-6.8)
6.1(6.0-6.2)
0.63(0.58-0.68)
Molybdenum 3.6
118
32.8 0.99
54
54.5 17(10-20)
350(150-700) 8.2(7-10)
(continued)
223
-------
TABLE 40. (continued)
_ - riar
(IL.IN, Western ICY)
Enrichment
Nam* Coal Fly Ash Factor3
Nickel 90(<100- 500(500- 5.6(>3.3)
150) 1000
Niobium
Phosphorous
Potainlun
Rubidium
Selenium 2.2 25 11. A
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Tellurium 1-3 <1-10 *10
Thallium 2 40-100 20-50
Thorium
Tin
Titanium 510 6080 11.9
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium 28.5 440 15.4
Zinc 1100(46) 5900(740) 5.4(16.1)
Zirconium
Southwestern Eastern 1
(AZ, HH, CO, UT) [nean
Enrichment
Coal Fly Ash Factor* Coal
ca. 100
< 15
50
2200(2000-
2500)
86(17-200)
1.9 73 38.4 3.0(2.6-3.2)
50000
<2-5
700(690-720)
200
0.1
2(1-3)
<2
2.7(2.4-3)
20
640(500-710)
1
2.7(1.67-
3.3)
34(12-69)
7.3 360 49.3 170(85-250)
40
CY, Southern 1L
(range) J
Fly Ash
666(500-1000)
10(6-15)
500
16000(11700-
19700)
380(200-650)
24(23-24)
300000
<3-5
6400(5800-7000)
300
1.2
-------
TABLE 41. ENRICHMENT FACTORS FOR FLY ASH/COAL FROM
UNSPECIFIED GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS (59,60)
NBS* Coal and Fly
Number of
Enrichment Coal Samples
Name Factors Analyzed
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Germanium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Protactinium
Rubidium
Scandium
Selenium
Strontium
Tantalum
Thorium
Titanium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Reference
1.97
7.0
8.0
5.94 , • '
.7.14
7.92
7.3
6.86
7.47
6.57
5.16
5.39
6.79
9.87
7.5
7.87
6.65
5.65
59
10
5
9
11
11
11
11
5
4
3
5
11
11
11
11
11
4
5
59
Ash
Number of
Fly Ash
Samples
Analyzed
10
4
10
10
10
10
10
4
5
3
4
10
10
10
10
10
4
5
59
Station
1
2.32
12.3
12.
11.8
6.41
13.9
3.73
5.65
6.98
7.11
9.81
0.9
14.86
0.4
2.3
60
Station
2
4.4
8.5
7,
5.76
7.5
28.
3.
5.09
4.17
0.43
12.14
4.
0.68
4.92
5.82
1.45
1.48
60
Station
3
3.04
16.17
7.5
6.23
6.31
17.66
8.23
2.1
5.7
1.45
6.28
6.57
15.12
5.77
4.66
12.5
60
*National Bureau of Standards
225
-------
Table 42 summarizes the enrichment factors found in
Tables 40 and 41. This table shows that fly ash will
contain approximately 10 times the concentration of the
trace elements (except for volatile trace elements; i.e.,
mercury, bromine, and chlorine) found in coal. This informa-
tion can be used along with coal compositions found in Table
20 to predict the concentrations found in fly ash assuming
that each individual element in each piece of coal in the
United States is chemically and physically identical to that
element in every other piece of coal in the United States.
These values can be used with the data presented in Table
40 to estimate the elemental composition of fly ash. The
amount of fly ash emitted by the boilers after treatment to
/ O
acceptable standards is estimated to be 4.98x10 j/g/m .
These values can be used with the estimated fly ash elemental
composition to estimate the air concentration of these
elements due to the emitted fly ash. These calculations
have been performed using the average enrichment factors and
are shown in Table 43.
3.5.5.5 Oxygen Generation
The oxygen generator emits the following to the atmos-
phere (6):
Component Mg/day Concentration
Nitrogen 8711. 1.157 x 10
Argon 117. 1.55 x 107
Carbon dioxide 5.8 7.7 x 105
Hydrogen 1.2 16. x 105
Neon, krypton, xenon 5.8 7.7 x 10
Water vapor 47.2 6.27 x 106
Oxygen 181. 2.40 x 107
226
-------
TABLE 42. SUMMARY OF ENRICHMENT FACTORS (59,60)
Nane
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Bar Lum
Beryl lium
Boron
Bronine
Cadmiun
Calciun
Cesium
Chlorine
Chroraiurn
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
ftolvbdenum
Nickel
Phosphorous
Potassium
Rubidium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Sodium
Stront ium
Tantalum
Tellurium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
Using Arithmetic
Means Above-
Kumber
of
Determinations
1
. 5
_:.. 6
6
4
4
1
5
1
1
2
7
3
7
I
I
1
3
1
5
2
5
1
2
6
5
5
1
1
4
!
2
1
2
1
3
I
1
2
1
7
I
43
Arithmetic
Mean
\ 5.9
I ll'
f - 10. ' -
8.
7.
<2.
21.
4.2
12.
0.13
, 9.
I 10.
8.
1 7.9
f ca.1.7
5.4
8.
*" 7.9 "'"
5.
6.5
10.
S.6
6.
7.
0.5
23.
in.
7.1
8.
6.8
16,
6.
9.2
6.
10.
<10.
35.
7.ft4
1.
8. _,
„._ 5_-
7.2
12.
5.65 "
16.
2,5
9.
1 Geometric
^_ Mean
'. 5.9
; 4.
j. 19^
t- - 9
s!
7.
<2.
20.
4.2
: 12.
0.13
' 10.
6.
7.9
ca. 1.7
! 5.4
7.
7.9
3.
6.5
10.
8.6
6.
6.
0.4
16.
10.'
7.1
7.
6.8
12.
6.
9.2
4.
J:
32.
7.83
1.
8.
5.
7.2
12.
5.65
9.
2.5
[
8.
Standard
Deviation
10.
3.
4.
L i3:
6.
0.01
I 8.
9'
5.
0
o.'s
4. '
2.
0.3
21.
4.
.
3.
15.
6.
3.
21.
0.05
3.
. . .. >- - .....
17.
6.
Range
1.97-24.
L. L^16J.2__
7. -16.
5.76-11.8
6.31-9.2
13.9-28.
; 0.12-0.14
I 2.4-25.
: 7.14-13.7
2. 1-29. 2
4.17-14.
0.43-7. 3
6.2-6.86
6.28-16.3
5.3-7.47
4. -9. 31
0.1-0.9
4.92-54 .5
3.3-14.86
5.39-9.8
6.79-38.4
1.5-9.87
7.5-12.
20-50
"' 7.8-7.87
5.6-11.9
9.1-15.4
1.48-49.3
1.-35.
*Exceptfor mercury^tellurium,bromine and chlorine.
-------
TABLE 43. ESTIMATED ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF BOILER
FLUE GAS DUE TO FLY ASH COMPONENT (59)
Name
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cesium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorous
Potassium
Rubidium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Tellurium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Based on "Average U.S._Coal"
Concentration ( //g/m )
4000.
0.76
6.0
130
0.55
19.
1.6
3.6
1600.
0.72
7.3
5.1
5.1
0.13
ca. 8.6
1.2
2.5
0.32
3700
3.1
6.5
15.
330.
13.
0.0038
5.9
6.6
52.
810.
11.
0.18
3.2
6800.
910.
36.
0.11
0.0013
1.1
1.8
0.18
210.
Based on "Maximum U.S. Coal"
Concentration ( ug/m )
5400
3.2
19.
250.
1.2
41.
3.6
17.
3600.
1.2
18.
12.
14.
0.53
ca.14.
1.8
5.5
0.47
8200.
4.9
32.
33.
840.
48.
0.018
14.
42.
75
1800.
40.
1.0
8.3
8400.
4700.
77.
0.17
0.0013
1.1
3.8
0.46
450.
(continued)
228
-------
TABLE 43. (continued)
Based on "Average U.S. Coal" Based on "Maximum U.S. Coal"
Name Concentration (/jg/m ) Concentration ( /jg/m )
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
0.18
0.79
15.
0.18
92.
7.1
6.4x10^
5.0x10,
ii
5.1x10*
l.OlxlO4
0.20
2.9
30.
0.23
1200.
9.2
The oxygen generator will also remove 2500 Mg oxygen
per day from the atmosphere (6). The effect of removal
should be minimal, however.
3.5.5.6 Other Sources of Hydrocarbon Emissions
Fugitive hydrocarbon emissions will be limited largely
to leaks in pump seals, joints, flanges, compressors and
from.handling and venting operations. There are no estimates
on the quantities of hydrocarbons lost in fugitive emissions,
but the source is largely controllable through good mainten-
ance practices. In many cases simply tightening pipe fittings
and flanges will greatly reduce hydrocarbon emissions.
Possible sources of hydrocarbon emissions include:
• Coal pretreatment
• Liquefaction
• Separation
• Purification and upgrading
• Acid gas removal
• Hydrogen/hydrocarbon recovery
• Hydrogen generation
229
-------
• Sulfur recovery
• Product and by-product storage
• Leaks from pipe systems and process vessel flanges
and other fugitive emissions
All quantities of gas will continuously be disposed of in an
elevated combustion flare system. While the flare loading
cannot be estimated, a comparable size refinery flares about
13.6 Mg/day. Examination of combustion products from elevated
flares shows the following relationship:
C02: hydrocarbons 2100:1
C02: CO 243:1
Other air contaminants depend upon the composition of the
gas burned. Hydrogen sulfide will be emitted as sulfur
dioxide. Nitrogen oxides will be emitted as a combustion
contaminant.
The third area in which hydrocarbon emissions may be a
problem is in product and by-product storage. In an environ-
mental overview of a commercial SRC-II facility (61) product
storage specifications have been made which should greatly
reduce hydrocarbon emissions. The specifications for each
fraction are given below.
LPG will be stored and shipped in heavy walled, pres-
surized tanks and consequently any hydrocarbon emissions
would be fugitive losses from valves, fittings, and seals
which must be regularly checked.
Naphtha should be stored in a floating roof storage
tank. The floating roof will eliminate working losses which
are the major source of hydrocarbon emissions. Floating
230
-------
roof standing storage emissions will vary depending upon
tank design, age, and other factors. Based on a simplified
estimation (62) we can expect between 5.44 g/day and 13.2
g/day for the 525 Mg/day of naphtha produced. We would
expect 772 to 1907 g/day of hydrocarbon emissions from
naphtha storage.
Fuel oil will be stored and shipped in atmospheric
pressure tanks. Hydrocarbon emissions from fixed roof
storage have been estimated at 4.56 g/m /day for breathing
o
emissions and 120 g/m for filling emissions. For fuel oil
production rates of 2,615 Mg/day, hydrocarbon emissions will
be approximately 0.32 Mg/day.
Product SRC-I is produced at a rate of 5,527 Mg/day and
storage of this product will result in losses of roughly
0.66 Mg/day. Total hydrocarbon emissions are therefore a
minimum of 0.98 Mg/day. The sum of the hydrocarbon emissions
is about 1.3 Mg/day.
With these significant hydrocarbon emissions, the
storage tank area would have a vapor recovery system to
return vapors to the gas purification module. Loading
faciltiies will also need a vapor recovery system to return
vapor from the transport tanks to the storage tanks as the
liquid is loaded.
3.5.5.7 Sulfur Recovery
Acid gas from the gas purification module (705 Mg/day)
and gas from hydrogen production (5,912 Mg/day) are routed
to the Stretford unit where I^S is recovered as elemental
sulfur. The process is greater than 99.5 percent efficient
in sulfur recovery, yielding only 2.35 Mg/day of hydrogen
sulfide.
231
-------
Treatment of the tail gas may be by direct-flame in-
cineration or by carbon absorption with incineration. The
stream compositions after treatment are shown in Table 44.
TABLE 44. EMISSIONS AFTER TREATMENT OF STRETFORD TAIL
GAS BY DIRECT FLAME INCINERATION
(CONCENTRATION IN //g/1)
Component
Hydrogen sulfide 240 /ig/m
Sulfur dioxide 4700
Hydrocarbons (as 9900
ethane) c
Nitrogen oxides (as NO) 1.2x10
Carbon monoxide 290 ft
Carbon dioxide 8.0x10°
Ammonia 1400
In either treatment method hydrogen sulfide emission
standards for commercial gasifiers (state of New Mexico) are
n
met. The New Mexico standard is 10 ppm (ca. 1400 jug/m ) .
The sulfur emission standard for general operations is 0.014
kg/kcal (heat input of feed). At a coal heating value of
2.99x10 joules/kg, the allowable sulfur discharge is 1.89
Mg/day. This standard could be met without tail gas treat-
ment in this system. Industrial emission standards in
Arizona require greater than 90 percent sulfur removal.
3.5.5.8 By-Product Storage
If Illinois No. 6 coal is utilized, as specified in the
Standards of Practice Manual (6) then recovered sulfur can
be estimated to be 444 Mg/day. The recovered sulfur is
expected to have the composition given previously under
products and emissions from sulfur storage and can be ex-
pected to have a similar distribution of trace elements.
232
-------
Insofar as storage facilities have not been specified, it is
not possible to estimate quantities of fugitive emissions
from sulfur by-product storage. One possibility for pre-
venting fugitive emissions would be to store by-product
sulfur as a liquid. A more economic method would be to
store sulfur in a lined pond with a water blanket.
3.6 Waste Streams to Water
Various studies on the pollution potential of coal con-
version processes have cited affluent water quality as a
particular area of concern since process waters contain
cyanides, phenols, ammonia, sulfides, and dissolved solids.
This would be of minimal concern in the commercial SRC
facility if the water could be reused as has been suggested
in the Standards of Practice Manual (6). Presently, the
Fort Lewis, SRC pilot plant is demonstrating the applicability
of various treatment systems to treat the wastewater for
discharge. However, the wastewater is diluted with cooling
water and therefore treatment results are not directly
applicable to a commercial facility.
Organic pollutants generated in the proposed SRC plant
will largely be formed within the process itself, with
little contribution from hydrogen generation or other auxi-
liary facilities. The proposed Koppers-Totzek gasifier
operates in the entrained flow mode and as such, the average
bed temperatures are too high for phenols, tars and oil to
be present in the discharged gas stream. Furthermore,
ammonia and cyanides are formed in amounts well under one
volume percent.
233
-------
The data used to evaluate pollutant levels expected to
be discharged from a once-through wastewater treatment
system are based upon Fort Lewis pilot plant data (63-65),
the AWARE report on the treatability of H-Coal wastewater
(66), and analyses of Synthane gasifier process condensate
(64). A comparison of the condensate from the two processes
shows similarity in COD and phenol levels (64).
3.6.1 Coal Pretreatment
3.6.1.1 Coal Pile Runoff
Coal pile runoff results when moisture comes in contact
with stockpile coal. The quantity and quality of coal pile
runoff can be highly variable and this is reflected in the
wide range of concentrations reported for several parameters
monitored in coal pile runoff in Table 45.
The concentrations of dissolved and suspended solids
from coal pile runoff will be highly variable. Table 45
shows a range of 247 to 44,050 mg/1 for total dissolved
solids and 22 to 3302 mg/1 for suspended solids in coal due
to runoff from several sources (67). The acidic nature of
this runoff can cause the dissolution of inorganic salts
which are present in the coal.
3.6.2 Coal Liquefaction
The aqueous effluent waste streams from the coal lique-
faction module are collected and routed to the water treat-
ment facility. Since the streams are combined, no estimates
were practical on the uncombined streams. The quantity and
composition of the effluent streams from the water treatment
facility which will eventually interact with the environment
are described under Section 3.6.5.
234
-------
TABLE 45. CHEMICAL WASTES CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL PILE DRAINAGE (PPM)
Ni
CO
Number of Arithmetic Geometric
Constituents Samples Mean Mean
Acidity (total), as
CaC03
Alkalinity
Biological Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Conductance (umhos/cm)
PH
Total dissolved solids
Total hardness (as CaC03>
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Turbidity, JTU
Aluminum
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silicon (dissolved)
Sodium
Sulfate
Titanium
Zinc
7
8
4
6
2
13
9
6
8
9
6
3
5
2
1
1
2
2
5
8
6
11
2
4
2
2
2
5
2
2
1
4
1
1
9
7400.
20.
3.3
680
2250
4.2
10,000
800.
4200.
800.
220
730
0.69
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.004
300.
100.
2.
1.5
9000
0.016
65
68.
0.014
1.0
1.31
0.72
0.02
91.
670.
2600.
1.
5.1
300.
0.0
0.0
300
2240
3.8
3200.
520.
4400.
390.
46.
570.
0.00
0.01
0.002
290.
0
0.
1.1
10.
0.015
4.5
54.
0.002
0.73
0.93
0.53
0.009
.
180.
2600.
1.
1.1
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation Range
12000.
28.
4.7
510.
210
2.0
15,000
660.
15000.
990
240.
500.
0.82
0.00
0.004
80.
220
6
1.1
28000
0.009
82.
58
0.019
1.0
0.94
0.69
0.02
680.
-
-
7.9
8.68-27,810
0.0-36.41
0.0-10.
9-1,099.
2,100-2,400
2.8-7.8
247-44,050
130-1850
1330-45,000
22-3302
2.8-505
190-1200
0.00-1.77
0.009-0.001
0.01-0.01
0.001-0.006
240-350
0-481
0.0-15.7
0.18-3.4
0.06-93,000
510-830
0.023-174
2.7-110.
0.0002-0.027
0.32-1.7
0.3-2.25
0.23-1.2
0.003-0.03
4.1-1260.
2600-2600.
l.-l.
0.006-23
-------
3.6.3 Separation
3.6.3.1 Gas Separation Process
The aqueous effluent waste streams from the gas separa-
tion module are collected and routed to the water treatment
facility. Since the streams are combined, no estimates were
practical on the uncombined streams. The quantity and
composition of the effluent streams from the water treatment
facility which will eventually interact with the environment
are described under Section 3.6.5.
3.6.3.2 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
The aqueous effluent waste streams from the solids/
liquids separation module are collected and routed to the
water treatment facility. Again, since the streams are com-
bined, no estimates were practical on the uncombined streams.
Characterization of the effluent streams from the water
treatment facility which will eventually interact with the
environment i.s described under Section 3.6.5.
3.6.4 Purification and.Upgrading
3.6.4.1 Fractionation
The aqueous effluent waste streams from the fractiona-
tion module are gathered and sent to the water treatment
facility. The streams are combined, so no estimates were
made on the uncombined streams. The quantity and composi-
tion of the effluent streams from the water treatment facili-
ty which will eventually interact with the environment are
described under Section 3.6.5.
236
-------
3.6.4.2 Hydrotreating
The aqueous effluent waste streams from the hydrotreat-
ing module are collected and routed to the water treatment
facility. Since the streams are combined, no estimates except
those shown in Table 46 were practical on the uncombined
streams. See Section 3.6.5 for a characterization of the
effluent streams from the water treatment facility which will
eventually interact with the environment.
TABLE 46. WASTEWATER COMPOSITION FROM HYDROTREATING
MODULE (DECANTER WASTEWATER-) (6)
Total Effluent Concentration
Compound Fraction of Input Coal Mg/day (/jg/1)
Ammonia 3.486 x 10~4 9.98 1.29 x 107
Hydrogen sulfide 3.169 x 10~4 9.07 1.17 x 107
3.6.5 Auxiliary Facilities
3.6.5.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Most wastewaters produced by SRC systems are combined
for treatment as described in Section 4.0. The quantified
sources and composition of wastewaters estimated by
Rogoshewski and co-workers (6) are found in Table 47.
The process wastewater contributes almost all of the
organic pollutants generated in the SRC facility. The foul
water is the most polluted water in the overall process.
The composition of this stream is estimated in Table 48.
237
-------
TABLE 47. QUANTIFIED SOURCES AND COMPOSITION
OF WASTEWATER
Module/Stream
Coal pile runoff
Thickener underflow
(35% solids)
Water cooling
Hydrogen generation
slag + water (60%
slag) wastewaters
Wastewater from acid
gas removal
Hydrogen/hydrocarbon
recovery
Ammonia recovery
Phenol recovery (input
from phase (gas)
separation) Output
Hydrotreating module
(decanter wastewater)
Total
Mg/day
67
3120
691
1535
801
554
33
3825
3129
3097
793
Water
Mg/day
67
2020
2.9
32.
3812
3000
3000
774
Ammonia
Mg/day
452
-4
1.4x10
0.2
0.6
54.2
40.7
10
Hydrogen
Sulfide Mg/day
1.5
49.8
40.7
40.7
9
Also emitted from the acid gas removal module is 0.3 Mg carbon dioxide,
0.5 Mg, MEA, 0.003 Mg Polyrad HOa; 0.007 Mg oleyl alcohol and 0.3 Mg
sodium hydroxide per day.
Emitted from hydrogen/hydrocarbons recovery module also is 0.07 Mg
hydrocarbons/day and 0.4 Mg phenols/day.
TABLE 48. CHARACTERIZATION OF FOUL PROCESS WATER
Component
Effluent Range
Source of
Data
Total organic carbon
Total carbon
BOD (5 days)
COD
Oil and grease
Dissolved solids
Suspended solids
6.6-7.3
8.2-9.0
32.5
25.0-43.6
0.03-0.60
2.7-5.3
0.002-0.020
Analysis of foul process
condensate SRC;
Kentucky - Bituminous
Coal (68)
Foul process condensate
H-Coal PDU (69)
238
-------
Foul water represents some 80 percent of process related
wastewaters which consist of the following items (6):
o
• Foul process condensate-about 3130 m /day
• Decanter wastewater-hydrotreating - about 790
o
m /day
•3
• Wastewater from gas purification - about 6 m /day
• Wastewater from cryogenic separation - about 33
o
m /day.
Nonprocess related water which will be treated in
wastewater treatment units consists of:
Raw water 32,057 m3/day
o
Cooling tower blowdown 693 tn /day
Oily water runoff Unquantified
3.6.5.2 Water Cooling Blowdown
The cooling tower blowdown can be expected to contain
the same constituents that are present in the raw water. The
concentration of trace elements in the blowdown depends upon
the frequency of purge; and the chemicals used for corrosion
inhibition and anti-fouling. It is not anticipated that
dissolved solids from the cooling tower blowdown will present
any problem, if the purge stream is treated in a side-stream
ion-exchange or reverse osmosis process. The feasibility of
these methods needs further investigation.
Nonoxidizing biocides used to control growth of slime,
algae and fungi are obviously toxic and cannot be discharged
239
-------
directly. Since ion exchange or reverse osmosis are the
treatment methods recommended, it is best to choose a biocide
which can be neutralized chemically.
3.6.5.3 Other Potential Water Effluents
3.6.5.3.1 Tailings Pond
Coal pile runoff and thickener underflow are proposed
to be routed to a tailings pond as discussed in Section 4.0.
Except in instances of severe precipitation (e.g., flooding)
no aqueous discharge from the tailings pond is anticipated.
3.6.5.3.2 Ash Ponds
Coal utilized in the steam generation module is antici-
pated to generate roughly 66 Mg/day of bottom ash and 36.6
»
Mg/day of particulates in-the stack gas. The fly ash will
be collected in hoppers below the mechanical collectors or
electrostatic precipitators. It is possible that the ash
will be mixed with a high velocity water jet, and then
sluiced through cast iron alloy pipes to a settling pond.
Bottom ash is removed from the bottom of the boiler using a
high pressure spray system. This ash-water mixture will
also be pumped to the settling pond. Alternatively, the
ashes could be hauled off-site, which would eliminate any
pollution potential from the ash ponds.
The characteristics of the ash pond are not only af-
fected by the coal type but also by the quality and quantity
of water used for sluicing.
The characteristics of ash pond effluent for coal-fired
power plants which use Illinois or western Kentucky coals
240
-------
are shown in Table 49 (67). Since the volume of the
effluent is quite site specific no SAM/IA analysis was
performed other than calculation of the potential degree of
hazard. In both plants suspended solids concentrations are
much lower than concentrations of dissolved solids. Never-
theless, suspended solids levels are too high to meet BPCTCA
or BATEA levels of 30 mg/1 for bottom ash or fly ash transport
water. The high concentrations of suspended solids in some
ash ponds are probably caused by low density, hollow sphere
ashes (cenospheres) which cannot be removed in the pond by
natural settling. Some means of removing the cenospheres
would be required to meet effluent guidelines for suspended
solids if the water was discharged. It is more likely that
the water will be reused in the process, although its use is
restricted by high levels of dissolved solids. Complete
reuse would require dissolved solids removal by reverse
osmosis, electrodialysis or ion exchange.
3.6.5.3.3 Refuse Pile Runoff
Many of the same variables influencing the quality of
coal pile runoff also affect the quality of refuse pile
runoff. In the case of the refuse pile, however, sealing
techniques may be used to reduce the amount of moisture
infiltration and subsequent leaching of coal refuse material.
Data in Table 50 show refuse pile runoff from a bit-
uminous coal refuse pile covered with clay and grass and,
for comparison, a refuse effluent from a pile which was not
covered (71).
241
-------
TABLE 49. CHARACTERISTICS OF ASH POND EFFLUENT FROM
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS RUN ON KENTUCKY
BITUMINOUS OR ILLINOIS COAL (70)
Pereaeter
Total elk. (CaCOj)
PH
Dieeolved *olldi
Suspended lolide
Aluaimm
Ammonia
Aricnlc
Barium
Beryllium
Cddalua
Calclua
Chloride
ChroBlua
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
MagneelUB
Mangeneee
Mercury
Nickel
Selcnlue
Silver
S.jjfate
Zinc
Tlmt
MlQ Ave
(Bg/1) (mg/1)
33 113
10.5 11.2
12 452
1 39
0.8 2.0
0.03 0.15
<0.005 < 0.005
<0.1 0.2
<0.01 <0.01
0.001 0.001
74 115
4 5
0.012 0.043
0.01 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
O.OS 0.23
<0.01 0.01
0.2 2.0
<0.01 0.01
<0.0002 0.038
<0.05 <0.05
0.009 0.016
<0.001 <0.01
14 156
<0.01 0.04
1"
Hex
173
11.4
1410
182
3.1
0.38
0.005
0.5
<0.0l
0.002
160
6
0.072
0.04
<0.01
1.10
0.04
7.2
0.04
0.300
<0.05
0.028
<0.01
240
0.06
Pleat 2b
Mln
5*
9.4
23
2
0.5
0.02
-------
TABLE 50. EFFECTS OF REFUSE PILE RUNOFF
ON STREAM COMPOSITION (71)
Pile Covered With
Stream
Component
Total
acidity
pH
SO,
Na •
Mg
Al
K
Ca
Mn
Fe
Clay and
Above
Pile
(mg/1)
0
7.5
106
16
35
1.0
2.2
70
0.01
0.1
Grass
Below
Pile
(mg/l)
0
7.5
106
16
35
1.0
2.5
70
0.01
0.1
Pile With No
Above
Pile
(mg/1)
-
7.9
564
20
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.03
0.5
Cover
Below
Pile
(mg/1)
5,660
2.9
10,544
256
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
10
2,233
It is quite evident from the data that runoff from an
uncovered refuse pile would pose serious threats; the data
showed that the concentration of iron and SO^ increases
4,466 and 18.7 times, respectively, and that the stream
adjacent to the refuse pile was extremely acidic.
3.6.5.3.4
Leachate from Slag
The leachability of slag generated by Koppers-Totzek
needs to be investigated. It is anticipated that the slag
will behave as bottom ash, and as such, will not leach
readily.
Slag could ultimately be disposed in the strip mine,
and bottoms from the ash pond are likely to be disposed with
the slag.
243
-------
3.6.5.4 Other Characteristics of SRC Wastewater
3.6.5.4.1 COD, BOD and TOG
The treatability and final effluent levels for non-
chemical water parameters can only be accurately evaluated
by actual plant data. Residual concentrations can only be
roughly estimated.
Phenol concentrations in the foul water process conden-
sate range from 5,000 to 12,000 mg/1 which represents between
47 to 64 percent of the total COD (72) . Phenol recovery
should reduce the COD concentrations to 13,490 to 23,500
mg/1. The ability of activated sludge to reduce COD in the
foul process condensate was investigated by AWARE Associates
for the H-Coal process (66). As expected, removal efficiency
is dependent upon loading rates to the activated sludge
units. Operational data indicate that a removal rate of
0.22 g BOD/g MLVSS-day be used for design. Under the opti-
mum conditions of this investigation, 99 and 93 percent of
the influent BOD and COD, respectively, could be removed.
Influent COD ranged from 2700 to 4200 mg/1 and influent BOD
ranged from 1700 to 2700 mg/1. The refractory BOD and COD
were 5 mg/1 and 150 mg/1 respectively. Foul process con-
densate would have to be diluted significantly to obtain
these desired organic loading rates. An alternative would
be to use high purity oxygen activated sludge (HPOAS) .
Experience with HPOAS systems in the coking industries
suggests that this may be an effective treatment method.
Effluent soluble BODc of 45 mg/1 can be successfully
achieved for the following loading conditions (69) :
• BOD5 - 18,000 mg/1
• COD - 28,000 mg/1
• COD/BOD - 1.56
244
-------
The effectiveness of the method for treatment of liquefaction
wastewaters, in which readily degraded phenols make up less
of the total COD, needs to be tested. Phenols have been
estimated to make up 68 percent of the COD of coking effluents,
The use of activated carbon for tertiary treatment has
been shown to effectively reduce COD in treatment of the
pilot plant wastewater (66); however, activated carbon
absorption of industrial wastes must be carefully evaluated.
Breakthrough geometry and adsorption kinetics of multicom-
ponent wastewaters are difficult to define. Certain organics
which would be encountered are not amenable to activated
carbon treatment. A third problem area with activated
carbon is that regeneration on carbon capacities are variable
and unpredictable. Carbon adsorption pilot plant results
from petrochemical and refinery wastewaters show that for a
COD of 100 to 150 mg/1, the percent removal ranges from 59
to 67 percent (69). Assuming that 150 mg/1 COD is the
refractory COD from biological treatment, as observed for
the H-Coal foul process condensates, effluent COD's may be
as low as 49.5 to 61.5 ppm.
If the refractory BOD is closer to 45 ppm, we may
expect a COD of approximately 340 mg/1 from biological
treatment. This treatment assumes that the relationship:
BODT =0.66 CODT - 180
determined for the H-Coal sour water (66) holds true for SRC
sour water as well.
2-45
-------
3.6.5.A.2 Oil and Grease
Oil and grease will be removed in wastewater treatment
largely by dissolved air flotation, possibly accompanied by
an API separator. The main source of oil and grease is the
foul process condensate and oily water runoff. The contri-
bution by the latter is unknown and variable.
Bench scale application of dissolved air flotation to
the H-Coal foul process condensate showed oil and grease
removal efficiency of 70 percent without emission breaking
chemicals. The following ranges of oil removal efficiencies
have been reported for dissolved air flotation (DAF) (73);
Oil Removed - Oil
Free Oil Emulsions
Air flotation (no 70-95% 10-40%
chemical)
Air flotation and 75-95% 50-90%
emulsion breaking
chemicals
There are few states with discharge criteria for oil
and grease. Colorado has an effluent discharge standard of
10 mg/1. Use of DAF alone would probably be insufficient to
meet these standards. Addition of emulsion breaking chemicals
may increase efficiency up to 90 percent. During stable
operations of activated sludge units treating H-Coal sour
water, oil and grease concentrations were reduced by 75 to
90 percent for influent concentrations ranging from 20 to 75
mg/1 (69). Therefore, use of activated sludge and DAF with
emulsion breaking chemicals should reduce oil and grease to
acceptable levels.
246
-------
3.6.5.4.3 Dissolved and Suspended Solids
There are several waste streams which require treatment
for dissolved and suspended solids, the degree of treatment
depending largely upon the end use of the water.
3.6.5.4.4 Dissolved and Suspended Solids in Foul
Process Water
As was mentioned earlier, dissolved and suspended solid
levels in the foul process condensate are 2690 to 5390 mg/1
and 2 to 20 mg/1, respectively.
The very low level of suspended solids (2 to 20 ppm)
from the process water do not warrant treatment. Dissolved
solids, on the other hand, are very high (2690 to 5300 ppm)
and removal efficiencies in wastewater treatment depend upon
the particular dissolved species. Dissolved solids, as
such, are not particularly harmful assuming that the individ-
ual pollutants are not toxic.
3.6.5.4.5 Solids in Cooling Tower Slowdown
The blowdown from the recirculating cooling system has
the same chemical composition as does the recirculating
cooling water. Soluble constituents in makeup water, however,
are concentrated as high as 1500 mg/1 to 10,000 mg/1 before
being removed in the blowdown stream. A sidestream filter
should remove most suspended solids generated in the cooling
system. It has been conceptualized that the blowdown be
treated separately, using reverse osmosis or ion exchange to
remove dissolved solids to acceptable levels; these pro-
cesses are highly effective in removing suspended solids.
Thus, it may be necessary to only treat a portion of the
247
-------
stream and to recombine the treated and untreated streams
before discharge. The feasibility and cost effectiveness of
these treatment methods remain to be demonstrated.
3.6.5.A.6 Straight Chain Hydrocarbons
Long chain alkanes and fatty acids have been detected
in process wastewater from several coal conversion processes.
MEGs have not been assigned to long chain fatty acids or to
long chain alkanes to date. Long chain alkanes detected in
the SRC foul water are given in reference 47. Straight
chain alkanes from crude oil have been found to be degraded
about 96.4 percent by microorganisms isolated from the
Chesapeake Bay (73).
Very low concentrations of long chain alkanes can be
expected in the bio-effluent. Fatty acids have been observed
in process condensate from Synthane, COED (73) and EDS
processes (70). Fatty acids have not been reported in SRC
foul water to date.
3.6.5.4.7 Heterocyclic N-Aromatics
Polycyclic N-aromatics have been observed in the process
wastewater from the Synthane gasification process.
3.6.5.4.8 Organic Constituents of Bio-Unit Effluent
The organic constituents of the bio-unit effluent are
estimated in Table 51. For the purposes of this report,
these concentrations will be taken as the final concentra-
tions in the wastewater effluent from the facility to the
environment.
248
-------
TABLE 51. ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS OF
_ BIO -UNIT EFFLUENT
Bio-Unit
Effluent
Component
Phenol 390
Cresols 940
Xylenol 380
C3~phenols 90
Methyllindane 2400-8400
Tetralin 50
Dime thyItetralin 80-400
Naphthalene 810
Dimethylnaphthalene 50-1120
2-Isopropylnaphthalene 110.-390.
1-Isopropylnaphthalene 320-1120.
Biphenyl 30-110
Acenaphthalene 10-60
DimethyIbiphenyl 790-1100.
Dibenzofuran 90-320
Xanthene 10-60
Dibenzothiophene 240.
Methyldibenzothiophene 10-60
Thioxanthene 10-60.
Fluorene 80.
9-Methylfluorene 50-170
1-Methylfluorene 40.
Antracene/Phenanthrene 260.
Methylphenanthrene 50-110.
C2-Anthracene 10
Fluoranthene 60-630
Dihydropyrene 7-30
Pyrene 240
Dimethyldibenzothiophene 7-30. c
DimethyIquinoline 0-1.0x10^
Dimethylindole 0-1.1x10
oi - naphthol
13 - naphthol 300-2900
methylnaphthol
indenol 200-1100
Cl-indenol 400-1500
4-indenol
249
-------
3.6.5.4.9 Trace Elements
Trace element concentrations have been estimated using
the partitioning factors described previously as well as
using the values found in the Standards of Practice Manual
(6). These data are found in Table 52.
3.6.5.4.10 Final Wastewater Effluent
The organic component of the final wastewater was
assumed to be that composition emanating from the bio-unit
(Table 51). The final inorganic component was assumed to be
the trace element composition given in Table 52.
Most trace elements in this stream are present in the
dissolved state. How they behave in wastewater treatment is
not well known. The treatability of these trace elements
and organic compounds needs to be further investigated.
Often concentrations of these materials remaining in effluents
are higher than is predicted by the solubility product
alone, due either to incomplete precipitation or to the
presence of finely divided colloidal particles. Table 53
shows estimates of the removal efficiency for several trace
elements by precipitation and carbon absorption.
TABLE 53. SUMMARY OF REMOVAL OF METALS BY
CHEMICAL CLARIFICATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION (74)
Percent
Removal
50
50-90
90-95
95-100
Lime System
Mo
Sb.Se*
Hg,Sn,Tl,V
Ag,Be,Bi,Co,Se,**
Ti
Ferric Chloride
System
Co, TI
Mo,Sb,Se
Ti
Ag,Be,Bi,Hg,Sn,
V
Alum System
Mo,Tl,Zn,Mn,Ni
Co,Cd,Sb,Se
Sn.Ba
Ag,Be,Bi,Hg,Ti,
V.Cr.Cu.Pb
**Initial concentration - 0.5 mg/1.
250
-------
TABLE 52. PARTITIONING FACTORS AND ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION OF
INORGANICS IN SRC WASTEWATER
Number
of Arithmetic
Name Determinations Mean
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bismuth
Bromine
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
All Arithmetic
means! above
All oaximum
above
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
34
34
1.85x10"
1.5x10
< 3xlO-5
4.8xlO~6
0.011
1.6x10
0.0043
0.0065
0.0055
6.95x10
0.0009 Q
5.8xlO~*
6.0x10"*
2.7xlO~
3.8x10
7x10-8
0.0016 ,
5.6x10"*
0.026
8.1x10^
6.5x10 7.
8.8x10"*
4.6x10 ~*
3.8x10"*
2.0x10
0.059 _,
2.8x10 7
0.9x10" H
2.85x10:"
2.6x10,
< 2. 35x10"
4.8x10
4.4xlO~*
0.003
0.005
Partitioning
Geometric
Mean
1.83xlO~5
1.1x10 6
<10"6
< 4xlO~4
4.3xlO"6
0.011
0.6x10"'
2.8x10 "
0.0065 s
8.7xlO~ _
6.95x10"
2.9x10 i!
5.5xlO~*
3.5x10;!
2.6x10"):
3.2x10
7x10-8
0.0016 ,
4.9xlO~*
0.011 ?
8.1x10"'
6.3x10:*
8.2x10 °
4.3xlO~*
2.3x10"** ,
0.035x10
0.059
1.8x10
0.3x10"°-
2.84x10"*
1.5x10"°
2.25x10 *
4.4x10
4.0xlO~4
0.001
0.001
Factors
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation
0.35xlO~5
1.5x10"*
>4.6xlO~:>
> 4x10-4
3.1xlO~6
0.004
2.1x10"'
0.0074
_
0.0078 „
0.07x10"*
0.0012
2.5xlO~*
8.5x10":
1.0x10"*
3.0x10
0.0001 ,
3.9x10"*
0.24
2.3X10I4
3.5x10 °
2.2xlO~°
3.0xlO[°
3.5x10
0.002
3.1x10 *
l.lxlO"6
0.35xlO"B
3.0xlO~e
0.77x10"*
2.5X10"3
2.8xlO~4
0.011
0.013
Range
1.6-2.1xlO~5,
0.45-2.6x10""
< 0.008-8x10
< 2-J.0017
2.9-8.4x10-4
0.00087-0.048
8.1-8.1x10-7
<4. 9-8. 1x10
0.48-1. 15x10"
3.0-6.1x10-8-
0.39-6.1x10"° ,
0.0012-6.0x10
0.058-0.061
0.63-5.0x10"*
0.07-1.7x10"°
2.6-3.1x10"*
0.5-4.7x10"°
<1.5-<3.0xlO
3-6.6xlO~3
2.5-3.2xlO~4
2.6x10-8-0.059
3.1x10-8-0.061
Estimated
Wastewaters Estimated
Composition 0
-------
3.7 Solid Wastes to Final Disposal
As air and water pollution regulations are implemented,
sludges and slurries which are toxic and/or hazardous are
generated at increasingly large quantities. It is assumed
for this discussion that most of the solid wastes generated
will be disposed of by landfilling; this means of disposal
is advocated in two other reports dealing with the SRC
process (6) and (61).
3.7.1 Coal Pretreatment
3.7.1.1 Coal Pile Refuse
Refuse generated in coal pretreatment consists of
refuse from reclaiming and crushing which consists of tramp
iron, slate, and coal. The total waste generated amounts to
some 7,713 Mg/day with a moisture content of 24 percent.
Refuse generated consists of materials ranging from colloidal
size to 30 cm long (75).
It is not possible to develop a characterization profile
for refuse dumps. The .chief concern is actually pollutant
discharge in the form of fugitive emissions and runoff or of
leachate as previously discussed.
Ultimate disposal of coal refuse will probably consist
of disposal in the strip mines with the slag and fly ash
from gasification.
3.7.2 Coal Liquefaction, Gas Separation and Hydrotreatina
Coal liquefaction and gas separation discharge no
solids to the environment. Periodically, spent catalyst is
252-
-------
removed from hydrotreating, however no characterization data
are available.
3.7.3 Fractionation
In the hypothetical SRC-II facility, it has been esti-
mated that 4075 Mg/day of residue will not be used in hydro-
gen production, due to operational problems resulting from
the high ash content of the residue (64 percent) (6).
However, the high carbon content of the residue (27 to 28
percent) (75,76), indicates that this solid should be further
utilized to recover useful energy.
Since it is unlikely that the residue will be disposed
of, as such, our solid waste problem is a temporary one. In
an effort to determine the leachability of the residue (68),
efforts were made to dissolve the solid in dilute acid.
Efforts failed to produce any leachate over the test period.
It is not anticipated that temporary storage would cause any
significant leaching problems.
3.7.4 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
Table 54 shows the organics quantified in the SRC-I
filter cake. This analysis was performed on a residue
derived from Kentucky bituminous coal during operation of
SRC-I process. Differences in the organic content of the
residue under the operating conditions for SRC-II are ex-
pected. Table 55 shows the inorganic constituents of the
filter cake as estimated using partitioning factors as
described previously.
253
-------
TABLE 54. ORGANICS QUANTIFIED IN SRC-I FILTER CAKE
RESIDUE FROM KENTUCKY BITUMINOUS COAL
Concentration
Compound (u£/£)
PAH Fraction
Indane
Methylindane
Dimethylindane
Tetralin
Dimethyltetralin
6-Methyltetralin
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethylnaphthalene
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
1-Isopropylnaphthalene
C4-Naphthalene
Cyclohexylbenzene
Biphenyl
Acenaphthylene
Dimethy Ib ipheny 1
Dibenzofuran
Xanthene
Dibenzothiophene
Methyldibenzothiophene
Dimethyldibenzothiophene
Thioxanthene
Fluorene
9-Methylfluorene
1-Methylfluorene
Anthracene/phenanthrene
Methylphenanthrene
1-methylphenanthrene
C2~Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Dihydropyrene
Pyrene
85
40
25
110
35
50
1,500
740
180
870
470
2
15
1
5
270
61
60
20
70
8
20
5
80
40
50
500
100
50
10
200
10
200
Compound
Neutral Fraction
n-undecane
n-dodecane
n-tridecane
n-tetradecane
n-pentadecane
n-hexandecane
n-heptadecane
n-octadecane
n-nonadecane
n-eicosane
n-heneicosane
n-docosane
n-tricosane
n-tetracosane
others
Concentration
(txc/ei
90
550
9,100
210
80
50
20
10
14
14
16
14
14
10
26
254
-------
Ln
TABLE 55. PARTITIONING FACTORS AND ESTIMATES OF INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
IN SRC-II MINERAL RESIDUE FILTER CAKE
Name
Partitioning Factors
Number of Unbiased
of Arithmetic Geometric Standard Range
Determination Mean Mean Deviation
Estimated
Mineral Residue
Composition
Avg. Max.
Actual
Estimated
Composition
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Gallium
Hafnium
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
2
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
7
6
6
2
2
3
4
4
3
1
1
5
3
2
7
4.4
5.7
5.1
4.94
5.
4.6
1.37
1.81
13.6
5.6
5.6
3.62
7.3
4.3
6.5
4.6
4.6
4.94
6.2
6.2
5.91
5.2
4.5
6.7
5.1
4.2
5.0
3.9
5.6
4.9
4.94
4.
4.1
1.36
1.69
13.8
5.5
5.6
3.62
5.8
3.3
5.5
4.5
4.5
4.92
6.1
6.1
5.86
4.6
1.2
4.1
3.8
2.8
1.8
1.8
0.26
54.
2.2
0.09
0.76
5.0
1.6
1.3
0.23
4.1
2.2
3.8
1.2
0.6
0.60
1.2
1.2
0.90
7.5
5.2
1.2
2.8
2.8-6.30
4.3-7.7
4.0-7.8
4.71-5.22
2.0-10.0
2.0-6.0
1.24-1.44
1.60-2.50
7.7-16.7
4.5-6.7
4.7-6.7
3.37-3.80
1.0-13.3
0.5-6.6
2.1-12.6
3.8-5.4
4.1-5.0
4.25-5.35
4.6-7.3
4.6-7.3
5.26-6.93
2.1-20.0
0.031-10.3
3.3-5.0
0.4-9.5
58,760
13.
56.
1235.
7.
250.
22.
6.2
105,000
100.
6.7
3600.
120
44.
83.
1.5
20.
4.1
92000
57
240.
0.76
22.
95.
81,400
28.
180.
2470.
15.
550.
49.
29.
230,000
140.
11.
6200.
290
110.
220.
2.4
32.
5.9
2.0xl05
80
920.
3.7
50.
600.
5.2
25.
580
19.
33,323
71.
7.3
1/8.
4.1
8.0
1.2
2.7
1.2xl05
126.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 55. (continued)
Ul
Partitioning Factors
Number of
of Arithmetic Geometric
Name Determination Mean Mean
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Terbium
Thorium
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
All Arithmetic
means above
All maximums
means above
3
4
2
2
3
6
4
2
2
3
6
1
6
2
2
41
41
7.9
8.6
4.84
4.6
4.9
9.4
4.7
4.3
3.4
5.06
2.9
6.6
5.9
3.3
5.6
5.3
7.8
7.5
7.9
4.84
4.5
4.6
4.9
3.9
4.2
2.1
5.02
2.4
6.6
5.1
3.0
5.4
5.0
6.9
Unbiased
Standard
Deviation
3.3
4.6
0.23
1.3
2.2
7.4
3.3
1.1
3.9
0.75
1.5
3.0
1.8
2.0
2.0
4.1
Range
5.5-11.6
6.3-15.5
4.68-5.00
3.6-5.5
3.6-7.4
0.2-17.5
2.0-9.1
3.5-5.1
0.7-6.2
4.52-5.91
0.5-4.9
6.6-6.6
2.1-10.0
2.0-4.6
4.2-7.0
1.4-13.6
1.4-20.0
Estimated Actual
Mineral Residue Estimated
Composition Composition
Avg. Max. ( M8/g)
18000 .
240.
7.4
16.
20.
19000.
560.
1.0
0.68
23.
1500.
15.
150.
400.
320.
40000
860.
12.6
27.
51.
97000.
1200.
1.4
1.1
49.
3300.
53.
300.
4800.
620.
15.
12.
1200.
0.71
0.69
11.
2.6
•1940
-------
3.7.5
Auxiliary Processes
3.7.5.1
Sulfur Recovery
There is a continuous purge stream from the Stretford
unit. It is recommended that this purge stream be decomposed
by high temperature hydrolysis (6) . This will recover
vanadium in solid form along with some sodium carbonate,
sodium sulf ide and sodium sulf ate .
Hydrogen cyanide is converted to CC^, H^O and N2
and sodium thiosulfate is converted to ^
purge stream has the following composition (Table 56) :
and H20. This
TABLE 56. ABSORBENT PURGE FROM THE
STRETFORD UNIT (6)
Compound
_—
Na2S2°3
NaCNS
NaV03
ADA*
Na2C03, NaHC03
H2°
g/Mg of Coal
68.1
28.0
4.13
7.02
19.0
503.9
Cone. (A/g/1)
1.1 x 105
4.4 x 104
6800
1.1 x 104
3.0 x 104
8.0 x 105
*Sodium anthraquinone disulfonate
Stream flow rate: 164 g/sec.
Mates not available.
3.7.6
Process Sludges
The sludges generated in the SRC facility are generally
hazardous wastes and must be disposed accordingly. This
discussion will consider the following sludges:
257
-------
• Surge tank bottoms
• Froth skimmed from air-flotation unit
• Biounit sludge
• Chromate reduction unit sludge
• Raw water treatment sludge (lime sludge)
• Desulfurization sludge
Landfilling is presently the most attractive for the
large quantities of sludge generated. A high pressure
sludge dewatering system will be needed to convert the
sludges into a filter cake suitable for disposal.
3.7.6.1 Surge Tank Bottoms
Residence time in the surge tank must be sufficient to
allow for settling of heavy sediment. In the case of the
surge tank utilized at the SRC pilot plant, much of the
heavy oil which accumulated on the bottom can be recovered.
However, an unquantified amount which must be disposed forms
a stable emulsion with oil (77).
3.7.6.2 Air Flotation Skimmings
In the air flotation unit remaining suspended solids
and entrained oils from the process wastewater are removed.
The concentration of air flotation skimmings is approximately
0.25 percent solids (by wt.) (78). It is unlikely that this
sludge will be disposed as such. Rather, the skimmings will
be sent through a series of hot and cold settling in which
most of the oil and water are recovered. There will be a
small but unquantified amount of resolved emulsions after
treating.
258
-------
3.7.6.3 Biounit Sludge
An estimation of sludge production is based upon design
data which make the following assumptions:
• 0.48 g of volatile suspended solids (VSS)/g BOD
removal (79)
• Removal of 200 ppm (wt.)
• Volatile solids concentration of waste sludge
equals 70 percent.
o o
For a wastewater treatment system receiving 1.0-1.2 x 10 m /day,
one can expect roughly 0.54-0.65 Mg/day of sludge.
3.7.6.4 Sludge from Water Cooling
Corrosion inhibitors used in the cooling tower will be
assumed to be hexavalent chromium, zinc, and phosphonate. A
chromate reduction unit will be required to remove the
chromium from the cooling tower blowdown. The discharge
from this unit contains zinc sulfide and trivalent chromic/
ferric hydroxide complex which has precipitated out. These
compounds are difficult to settle and will require use of a
coagulant aid. The concentration of chromate required for
corrosion inhibitor can be reduced by adding zinc and phos-
phonate (80). The following additives are assumed:
Chromate 20 to 25 ppm
Zinc 2 to 5 ppm
Phosphonate (Dosage sufficient to act as a
metal passivator and scale in
hibitor (20 to 50 ppm)) (80)
259
-------
The wastewater treatment sludges may be combined and chemic-
ally conditioned to improve specific resistance to filtra-
tion. The final filter cake will most likely be landfilled.
3.7.6.5 Raw Water Treatment Sludge
Raw water requirements for the commercial SRC facility
amount to 31,711 m /day for a facility in which the process
o
water is recirculated, and roughly 36,280 m /day for a once-
through system. The major waste stream discharged from the
raw water treatment facility is sludge removed from the
clarifiers. The raw water is treated with lime and sodium
carbonate and the resultant sludge is characterized as
follows below. It is recommended that the lime be recovered
from this sludge. Not only are valuable chemicals recovered
but the moisture content is reduced nearly 10 fold. The
sludge remaining to be landfilled amounts to 48.5 Mg/day.
Recirculated Once-Through
Process Water System
Component (Mg/day) (Mg/day)
Water 351.6 402.2
CaC03 16.0 18.3
Mg(OH)2 0.9 1.0
Ca5(OH)(C04)3 0.03 0.03
Detergent 0.003 0.003
Suspended solids 1.3 . 1.5
Totals 369.83 423.03
It is conceivable that all wastewater sludges would be
dewatered and disposed of as a single filter cake. This is
an attractive idea from the point of view of disposal problems
However, complex chemical interactions among components of
the sludge need to be investigated.
260
-------
TABLE 57. CHARACTERISTICS OF SCRUBBER SLUDGE GENERATED IN
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS (82)
Type S02
Control
Limestone
Injection
Wet
Scrubber
Lime
Scrubber
Tail-end
Limestone
Scrubber
Feed
Coal
Sulfur
Content
3.8%
3.7%
3.5%
Feed
Coal
Ash
Content
12%
14%
15%
Sludge
Composition -
Dry Basis
(wt. %)
Mg/D/MW
2.05
1.82
2.55
Solids
Content
After
CaS03.J5H20 CaS04-2H?0 CaCOi Flyash Dewatering
10 40 5 45 50
94 2 0 4 50
50 15 20 15 35
-------
3.7.6.6 Sludges from Steam and Power Generation
This sludge stems from flue gas desulfurization of the
coal-fired steam generation operation. The residue of a
convential calcium scrubbing process (lime or limestone) is
a slurry of mainly calcium sulfite. The slurry is thixo-
trophic even after dewatering. The quantity of sludge
generated depends upon the type of control, the extent of
control required and the load factor for the plant. Table
57 shows quantities of sludge generated and sludge char-
acteristics for power plants using different types of sulfur
dioxide control systems (81).
Since it has been assumed that the 150 Mw/day of elec-
tricity required to run the SRC plant will be purchased, the
use of coal for utilities is limited to steam generation.
3.7.7 Steam Generation
The coal-fired steam generation module will produce 66
Mg/day of bottom ash and 36.1 Mg/day of fly ash. As far as
solid waste disposal practices are concerned the distinction
is made because fly ash can contribute serious pollution
problems in the form of leachates or fugitive dusts if not
handled properly. Table 58 estimates the composition of fly
ash from average and maximum U.S. coals.
Bottom ash is recovered from the dry bottom boiler and
falls into a hopper filled with water. The ash and water
slurry is mixed with the fly ash. The mixture may be piped
to settling ponds or dewatered and hauled off-site for
disposal. If settling ponds are used impervious liners
(e.g., bentonite) may be required. The trace elements tend
to form insoluble compounds which, together with solids in
-------
TABLE 58. COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH FROM AVERAGE
AND MAXIMUM U.S. COALS
Name
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Europium
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Con.
(H8/g)
79000.
15.
120.
2500.
11
385.
32.
71.
32000.
14.
130.
150.
100.
100.
2.5
130.
24.
50.
6.5
74000
62.
130
300
6720
250
0.075
120
130
1000
16000.
220.
24.
64.
1.4xlOD
4
1.8x10
720.
Cone.
(Mg/g)
l.lxlO5
35.
385.
5000.
24
840.
72.
340.
71000.
24.
220.
350.
250.
270.
4.1
270.
38.
110.
9.5
1.6xl05
98.
650
670
1700
970
0.36
280
420
1500
36000.
800.
40.
170. ,
1.7x10
A
9.5x10
1600.
Arithmetic
mean
60900
IL, IN, AZ,
Western UT,
KY
CO, KY, South-
NM ern
Illinois
67000
12 14 10
27
6
366
3
43000
120 130 141
450
3-17
250-3000a
80-160
1700
5 3-17
2
1750
17200
18
5-50 50
126
17
89
345a
63000
52
9000
202
3
310-5003
41-60
160
37
100-400a 280 367
10-100
70a
135a
100000
33
80-200 10 210
290-500
0.2
8600
321
0.06
118 54 350a
82
2200a
10800.
16.
2.38x10
9600
500
666
10
500
16000
380.
25 73 24 ,
3.0x10
3-5
6400
300
(continued)
263
-------
TABLE 58. (continued)
Name
Tellurium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
Con.
0*g/g)
0.25
23
35.
2
4200.
3.6
16.
310.
3.6
1900
140.
Cone.
(|Ug/8)
0.3
23
76.
5.
9100.
4.1
58.
600.
4.7
23000
275.
Arithmetic
mean
5400
212
230
IL, IN, AZ,
Western UT,
KY
i-ioa
a
40-1003
6080
440
CO, KY, South-
NM ern
Illinoi
l-ca.10
70
20
3480
5a
18
307
s
740-5900 360 2200
100
264
-------
the suspension, will tend to fill and seal the pore space in
underlying soils. Therefore, the rate of movement of leachate
would decrease over an extended period of time. Good disposal
practices, however, would probably require liners neverthe-
less.
The organic composition of fly ash has not been quanti-
fied but considerable danger may exist. PAH are readily
adsorbed to particles having a diameter of less than 0.04
microns but are not readily eluted from them. Release in
the presence of appropriate solvents becomes more rapid and
greater in extent. Polycyclic organic matter detected in
the atmosphere is exclusively associated with particulate
matter, especially fly ash. Most data indicate that more
than 75 percent of the benzo(a)pyrene associated with particles
is associated with particles less than 5 microns in diameter
(83). These particulates easily move into the lung in
inspired air and are capable of loading in the alveolar
region. The well documented experience of chimney sweeps in
England in the 1600's shows the possible hazards of coal
soot and fly ash.
3.7.8 Hydrogen Generation
One of the large volume solids to be disposed of in the
SRC plant is the gasifier slag; this has been estimated at
92 Mg/day (40% water) (6).
The current design specifications for the treatment of
the slag require that it be crushed, slurried with water and
de-ashed. It is anticipated that the waste will be disposed
of in the strip mine. It is thought that the waste will
behave similarly to bottom ash from coal-fired power plants,
and consequently will not leach (61). This is an area which
requires investigation via laboratory leachate studies.
265
-------
One interesting possibility for disposal of some of the
other hazardous solid wastes would be encapsulation in the
slag. The possibility of injecting dried solids into the
molten slag should be investigated. The estimated composi-
tion of the slag is found in Table 59.
TABLE 59. ESTIMATED INORGANICS IN GASIFIER SLAG
Estimated Slag
Composition (/ug/g)
Name Average Maximum
Lead 20. 100.
Manganese 97 370
Mercury 0.0093 0.0045
Nickel 42. 270.
Potassium 4100. 9000.
Rubidum 56. 200.
Selenium 7.2 19.
Silicon 43900 48200
Strontium 230. 490.
Sulfur 18000. 30000.
Titanium 450. 2000.
Zinc 180. 2700.
All Arithmetic means
above
266
-------
4.0 PERFORMANCE AND COST OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Procedures for Evaluating Control Alternatives
This section presents a comprehensive survey of the
currently available environmental control technology alter-
natives applicable for installation on commercial SRC systems,
and discusses the relative effectiveness of these control
technologies in limiting emissions to the environment.
Economic and energy considerations of these technologies are
also presented.
The procedure utilized in the evaluation of each of the
control technology alternatives consists of the following
steps:
• Statement of Control Technology. A statement of
the control technology to be considered is made,
including the purpose and applicability of the
technology.
• Definition of Control Technology. A description
of the control technologies is made in the Appendi-
ces. This description includes the function,
design and operational criteria.
• Identification of Relative Technology Impact. An
evaluation of the relative efficiency and effective-
ness to perform the intended environmental control
function is included in the Appendices. This
assessment provides the degree of control exhibited
by the device, the parameter controlled, the
amount of variability in equipment performance,
and other criteria.
267
-------
This section emphasizes the SRC-II (liquid) process and
its applicable control technology needs; however, where
necessary, SRC-I process or control technology needs are
identified separately at the end of each major emission
category description.
Subsequent to identification of applicable alternatives
for control and disposal of air emissions, water effluents,
solid wastes, and toxic substances generated by operation of
SRC systems (in subsections 4.2-4.5), the most effective
control alternatives are summarized in subsection 4.6.
Evaluations of control alternative effectiveness are based
on the following:
• Available SRC waste stream characteristics
• Effectiveness of control alternatives
• Commercial availability of control alternatives
• Review of SRC conceptual plant designs
• Engineering judgement
Section 4.0 concludes with a discussion of the feasibility
of zero aqueous discharge (ZAD) for SRC systems (subsection
4.7), an overview of regional characteristics which can in-
fluence control technology selection (subsection 4.8), and a
relative comparison of cost and energy considerations for
some of the control alternatives considered.
4.2 Air Emission Control Alternatives
Air emissions associated with the operations and auxil-
iary processes comprising SRC systems are shown in Figure
51. In addition to the continuous emissions shown in the
figure, vapor discharges will result from releases by pressure
letdown valves, accidental leaks and during equipment main-
268
-------
DRYER STACK GAS
i
COAL DUST
t
COAL
PREPARATION
| LIQUEFACTION]
VAPORS FROM PRODUCT
COOLING (SRC-I)
VAPORS FROM RESIDUE
COOLING (SRC-II)
GAS
SEPARATION
t
PREHEATER
r*- FLUE
GAS
| FRACTIONAL ON |
i
^ PREHEATER
FLUE GAS
" FLUE GAS i
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
i
HYDROTREAT 1 NG |
COAL DUST
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
PREHEATER FLUE GAS
CARBON DIOXIDE
|~**RICH GAS
HYDROGEN
GENERATION
LOW SULFUR
EFFLUENT GAS
t
k FLUE
t
SULFUR
RECOVERY
NITROGEN
RICH GAS
t
OXYGEN
GENERATION
AMMONIA
RECOVERY
DRIFT AND
EVAPORATI ON
WATER
COOLING
ACID GAS
REMOVAL
PHENOL
RECOVERY
BOILER
STACK GAS
t
STEAM AND POWER
GENERATION
HYDROCARBON
AND HYDROGEN
RECOVERY
SRC DUST (SRC-I)
SULFUR DUST
HYDROCARBON VAPORS
1
PRODUCT
BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
Figure 51. Air emissions discharged from SRC systems
-------
tenance. The following subsections identify applicable
controls for the emissions. Additional information on the
alternatives is provided in the Appendices.
4.2.1 Coal Pretreatment Operation
The environmental control technology alternatives
applicable to coal pretreatment are discussed below.
4.2.1.1 Coal Receiving and Storage
Air emissions from coal storage primarily consist of
fugitive dusts. Air emission control technology alternatives
consist of either wetting down the coal with water sprays or
an asphalt-type liquified product during the receiving and
storage operation, or containing the coal as much as possible
within the confines of a permanent structure. Confinement
appears to have limited applicability due to the large
quantity of coal involved.
4.2.1.2 Coal Crushing, Cleaning and Pulverizing
Coal crushing, cleaning, and pulverizing activities
involve the mechanical sizing and cleaning of the coal.
Baghouses and cyclones are considered the most viable means
of particulate control in coal sizing processes. Two alter-
nate systems are available. In some instances, a single
baghouse (or fabric filter) may be adequate to control
dusts. In other applications a cyclone may be needed prior
to baghouse, in order to provide adequate and economical
particulate removal.
270
-------
4.2.1.3 Coal Drying
Coal drying utilizes a flow dryer to reduce feed coal
moisture content. The fuel utilized is normally a low
sulfur fuel, i.e., natural gas. It is assumed that SNG
produced by the SRC system will be fired in the dryer. The
major air emissions to be controlled from coal drying are
particulate matter from fuel combustion. These emissions
may be best controlled in dry or wet cyclone separators, or
baghouses. Wet scrubbing devices using self- or mechanically-
induced water sprays, such as venturi scrubbers may effect-
ively be utilized if exhaust gas temperatures exceed the
allowable limit for cyclone separators or filter baghouses.
The selection of the recommended control alternative will be
dependent on the type of fuel utilized, and the type and
quantity of emission vented to the atmosphere. An in-depth
description of particulate control technology is provided in
the Appendices.
4.2.1.4 Slurry Mixing
The dried and crushed coal is mixed with recycle solvent
(SRC-I) or recycle slurry (SRC-II), to form a coal/slurry
mixture which is pumped to the coal liquefaction operation.
There are no continuous air emissions from this process,
although fugitive vapor emissions from the mixing equipment
are anticipated. No control technology is required for
normal operation.
4.2.2 Coal Liquefaction Operation
The anticipated air emissions from the coal liquefaction
operation are flue gases from the slurry preheater. These
emissions may be characterized by the fuel type utilized,
271
-------
which in turn will determine the degree and extent of air
emission control technology required. Presently, it is
expected that SRC system-derived SNG will be utilized,
thereby eliminating the need for control technology.
Air emissions from the liquefaction reactor consist of
fugitive releases resulting from accidental leaks, pressure
relief valve releases and poor equipment maintenance. The
effective air emissions control technology likely to be
employed is a flare system.
4.2.3 Separation
4.2.3.1 Gas Separation Process
The three continuous process streams discharged from
gas separation are: product slurry to the fractionator and
slurry mixing tank; condensate to the fractionator; and acid
gas to the acid gas removal module. No air emissions are
produced since the system operates as a closed unit. However,
fugitive hydrocarbon emissions may result from accidental
leaks, pressure valve releases and poor equipment maintenance.
The effective air control technology likely to be employed
is flaring.
4.2.3.2 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
The air emissions from the solids/liquids separation
process consist of flue gas from the residue dryers and
hydrocarbon vapor discharges from pressure relief values.
Pressure relief value discharges will be controlled via
afterburner flare control technologies. Since the preheater
is fired with system derived SNG, flue gas discharges require
no control technology application.
272
-------
4.2.A Purification and Upgrading
A.2.4.1 Fractionation Process
Air emissions from fractionation consist of flue gas
from the gas-fired preheater. Since the gas (SNG) is
relatively pure, the flue gas emission requires no control
technology application.
4.2.4.2 Hydrotreating Process
The major air emission is flue gas from the feed pre-
heater. This gas is expected to contain no contaminants due
to the nature of the preheater fuel utilized (system-derived
SNG). However, fuel characteristics will determine control
technology needs. At this time no air emission control
technology application is required.
4.2.5 Auxiliary Processes
There are twelve auxiliary processes associated with
SRC systems.
Each of these auxiliary processes is discussed separately
in the following subsections.
4.2.5.1 Coal Receiving and Storage
Coal dust is the only air emission associated with this
process. The same control methods used in coal pretreatment
are applicable to coal receiving and storage and have been
included in Section 4.2.1.
273
-------
4.2.5.2 Water Supply
Water supply produces no emissions to air. No control
technology is required for this auxiliary process.
4.2.5.3 Water Cooling
The air emission from cooling towers consists of en-
trained water droplets, called drift, in the cooling tower
exhaust air. Cooling tower drift may contain trace compounds
of material contained in the cooling water; however, it has
been shown that 70 percent of these compounds and the drip
mass generally settle out of the drift within 500 ft of the
tower (6). Therefore, environmental impacts of cooling
tower drift are reduced. There is no applicable air control
technology other than to control the concentration of compounds
contained in the cooling water, which will control drift
emission characteristics.
4.2.5.4 Steam and Power Generation
The major air emission from this process is boiler
stack gas. Depending on the type of fuel utilized, air
emission control technology application will consist of
particulate and sulfur dioxide control techniques.
If clean fuels such as system-derived SNG are used as
fuel in boilers air emission control technology requirements
are minimized. However, if coal is utilized as the fuel
type both control of particulates and sulfur dioxide may be
required.
274
-------
4.2.5.5 Hydrogen Generation
Gaseous output streams from hydrogen production consist
of the following:
• Acid gases from the amine stripping unit
• Flue gases from the gasification unit
• Carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide scrubber
unit
• Fugitive hydrocarbon releases from pressure valve
releases and accidental discharges.
The acid gas stream from the amine stripping unit is a process
stream, sent to sulfur recovery for further processing. The
flue gas from the gasification unit is a primarily clean
emission since the fuel utilized in the gasification unit is
natural or synthetic gas; therefore, no air control technology
is required. The carbon dioxide rich gas from the carbon
dioxide scrubber is directly vented to the atmosphere. Fugi-
tive hydrocarbon releases are controlled via flaring.
4.2.5.6 Oxygen Generation
A cryogenic air separation system consisting of air
compression, cooling, and purification is employed for
oxygen production. Since the process employs only atmos-
pheric air, there are no air emissions except oxygen-
stripped air-nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and inert gas. No
air emission control technologies are required.
275
-------
4.2.5.7 Acid Gas Removal
This auxiliary process involves the removal of acid
gases such as hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, carbon
disulfide, mercaptans and carbon dioxide from the raw product
gas. The processes may involve the removal of the sulfur
compounds and carbon dioxide separately, or the removal of
the sulfur compounds alone. Acid gas removal may be divided
into two general categories:
• High temperature processes
• Low temperature processes.
High temperature processes require minimal product gas
cooling before treatment, however, these types of processes
are currently experimental and are not anticipated to be
used at the SRC facilities. Low temperature processes
require extensive cooling of the product gases before treat-
ment. Table 60 lists a number of the commercially available
low temperature acid gas removal processes.
Gaseous output streams from acid gas removal are sent
to other auxiliary processes, namely hydrogen/hydrocarbon
recovery and sulfur recovery. Air emissions from acid gas
removal are limited to pressure valve releases and fugitive
vapor discharges. Direct flare afterburners may be applied
to control these discharges.
4.2.5.8 Sulfur Recovery
The air emission stream from a sulfur recovery process-,
such as Stretford consists of off-gas from the absorber unit
which contains water vapor, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen,
276
-------
TABLE 60. LOW TEMPERATURE ACID GAS
REMOVAL PROCESSES (84)
Process Category
Process Name
Physical solvent
Chemical solvent
Amine solvent
Selexol
Fluor solvent
Purisol
Rectisol
Estasolvan
Monoethanolamine (MEA)*
Diethanolamine (DBA)
Triethanolamine (TEA)
Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA)
Glycol-amine
Diisopropanolamine (DIPA)
Diglycolamine (DGA)
Alkaline salt solution
Caustic wash
Hot potassium carbonate
Catacarb
Benfield
Alkazid
Lucas
Ammonia solution
Chemo Frenn
Collins
*The monoethanolamine (MEA) process has been considered for
acid gas removal in process descriptions presented in
Section 2.
277
-------
and trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide,
ammonia, and oxides of nitrogen. The trace emissions may
require combustion in a direct-fired afterburner as an air
emission control technology alternative.
4.2.5.9 Hydrogen/Hydrocarbon Recovery
The air emissions from the process are negligible,
consisting of fugitive pressure relief valve emission and
vapor losses. Flares are utilized to control intermittent
pressure relief valve releases.
4.2.5.10 Ammonia Recovery
Ammonia recovery produces no continuous emissions to
air. No air emission control technology applications are
required.
4.2.5.11 Phenol Recovery
Phenol recovery produces no continuous emissions to
air. Therefore, no air emission control technology applica-
tions are required.
4.2.5.12 Product/By-Product Storage
SRC systems produce a large number of products and by-
products which are stored on-site. The air emissions from
these facilities consist of fugitive vapor losses. Applica-
tion of vapor loss controls, such as a solid cover, floating
roof or vapor recovery system to product and by-product
storage vessels should minimize vapor losses (6).
-278
-------
Storage of solid products and by-products, namely SRC-I
solid product and by-product sulfur, produces particulate
emissions. Techniques used to control dust emissions from
coal piles are applicable.
4.3 Water Effluent Control Alternatives
Sources of water effluents in SRC systems are identified
in Figure 52. Discharges due to leaks and equipment main-
tenance are possible, but not included in the figure. The
following subsections identify applicable treatment for the
water effluents, with additional detail provided in the
Appendices.
4.3.1 Coal Pretreatment Operation
The wastewater discharges from the coal pretreatment
operation are discussed according to the component processes.
4.3.1.1 Coal Crushing, Cleaning and Pulverizing
The major source of wastewater from this area is the
coal cleaning process. Coal washing involves working the
coal with water to remove impurities. The wastewater from
the process is combined with coal pile runoff and sent to a
settling pond to allow for the sedimentation of suspended
particles. The clarified waters are then returned to the
operation for reuse.
4.3.1.2 Coal Drying and Slurry Mixing
There are no wastewater discharges from these processes,
hence, application of control technology is not required.
279
-------
COAL
PREPARATION
T
I LIQUEFACTION]
GAS
SEPARATION
THICKENER
UNDERFLOW
COAL PILE
RUNOFF
[ FRACTIONAL ON
SOLIDS/LIQUIDS
SEPARATION
| HYDROTREATING]
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
T
COAL PILE
RUNOFF
to
oo
o
HYDROGEN
GENERATION
PROC
ESS
WASTEWATER
WATER
SUPPLY
OXYGEN
GENERATION
WATER
COOLING
COOLING
TOWER
SLOWDOWN
ACID GAS
REMOVAL
I
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
STEAM AND POWER
GENERATION
HYDROCARBON
AND HYDROGEN
RECOVERY
SULFUR
RECOVERY
AMMONIA
RECOVERY
PHENOL
RECOVERY
T
PRODUCT/
BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
PROCESS WASTEWATER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Figure 52. Sources of wastewater effluent discharges in SRC systems
-------
4.3.2 Coal Liquefaction Operation
The coal liquefaction operation is a closed system from
which no aqueous effluents are discharged, therefore no
wastewater control technology alternatives are required.
4.3.3 Separation
4.3.3.1 Gas Separation Process
The gas separation process is a closed system operation
and effluents are limited to accidental material leaks;
therefore, wastewater control technology alternatives are
not required.
4.3.3.2 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
The solids/liquids separation process produces no
aqueous discharges. No wastewater control technology alter-
natives are required for this process.
4.3.4 Purification and Upgrading
4.3.4.1 Fractionation Process
The major aqueous process effluent emitted from the
fractionation process is steam ejector condensate. This
condensate contains significant amounts of organics which
require treatment. The fractionation process wastewater
discharge is combined with similar condensate steam and sent
to the plant's wastewater treatment system.
281
-------
4.3.4.2 Hydrotreating Process
The hydrotreating process involves the reaction of raw
hydrocarbon products with hydrogen to remove additional
sulfur and other contaminants. This process produces a
significant wastewater discharge. This effluent stream is
combined with other condensates prior to treatment. The
wastewater treatment system requires free and emulsified oil
removal units, phenol, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia stripp-
ing units. After treatment, a portion of the water is
returned to the process for reuse, while the rest is sent to
tertiary treatment for further processing.
4.3.5 Auxiliary Processes
4.3.5.1 Coal Receiving and Storage
The wastewater discharge from the process consists of
coal pile runoff resulting from the weathering of the stored
coal.
The water emission control alternatives consist of
either controlling the emission prior to the occurrence, or
containing the discharges. In the first instance the stored
coal may be kept within the confines of a permanent structure
to eliminate or reduce the amount of weathering of the coal
during storage. This will reduce or eliminate the major
amount of coal pile runoff discharges. The practicality of
using enclosure is limited due to the quantity of coal
involved.
The suggested control alternative for coal pile runoff
from unenclosed storage areas involves the collecting (via a
drainage system) of the runoff, and combining it with coal
cleaning wastewaters prior to disposal in a settling pond.
282
-------
4.3.5.2 Water Supply
No wastewater discharges are associated with the water
supply process. Therefore, no control technology is required
4.3.5.3 Water Cooling
The cooling system consists of a cooling tower or
series of towers, a recirculating cooling water system, and
a series of treatment units to process blowdown water.
4.3.5.4 Steam and Power Generation
The wastewater discharge system consists of boiler and
cooling tower blowdown which is treated in conjunction with
the cooling tower blowdown.
4.3.5.5 Hydrogen Generation
The major wastewater streams from hydrogen generation
consist of:
• Sour and foul water discharge
• Purge wastewater stream from amine scrubbing unit.
These wastewater streams are combined with other effluents
and directed to the plant wastewater treatment facility.
4.3.5.6 Oxygen Generation
Oxygen generation is a purely mechanical process involv-
ing no water intake or discharge stream; therefore, no
wastewater control technology is required.
283
-------
4.3.5.7 Acid Gas Removal
The wastewater stream discharges from acid gas removal
are absorber regenerator blowdown and intermittently dis-
charged filter backwash. These streams will be directed to
the wastewater treatment plant.
4.3.5.8 Sulfur Recovery
Sulfur recovery in SRC systems is accomplished via the
application of the Stretford sulfur recovery process. There
is no wastewater discharged from this process, therefore, no
wastewater emission control technology alternatives are
required.
4.3.5.9 Hydrogen/Hydrocarbon Recovery
The only wastewater discharge from this process is the
water and ammonia sidestream from the light oil distillation.
This stream flows directly into the ammonia recovery process
therefore, no wastewater treatment alternatives are required.
4.3.5:10 Ammonia Recovery
Ammonia recovery involves the removal of ammonia in
wastewater prior to final treatment. The process involves
the following steps:
• pH is adjusted to approximately 11.0 by addition
*
of calcium oxide (lime).
• The wastewater stream is clarified to remove
excess lime.
284
-------
• The discharged streams are passed through a series
of air contact packed towers which allows for the
removal of ammonia and discharge to ammonia recovery
and storage areas.
Stripped wastewater is discharged to the wastewater treatment
plant.
A.3.5.11 Phenol Recovery
The phenol recovery process involves the following
series of steps:
• Adjustment of pH of the wastewater stream to
approximately 4.0 by addition of hydrochloric
acid.
• Contact with naphtha to extract phenol.
• Phenol/naphtha stream is directed to a fractiona-
tion tower where the naphtha is recovered and re-
cycled back to the process.
• Collected phenol is sent to on-site storage facili-
ties .
The low phenol process wastewater discharge is directed
to the plant wastewater treatment facility.
4.3.5.12 Product/By-Product Storage
No wastewater effluent discharges are associated with
product and by-product storage facilities, hence, no control
technology application is required.
285
-------
4.4 Solid Waste Control Alternatives
A number of the processes and auxiliary processes
employed in SRC systems discharge solid wastes. Figure 53
shows these sources. The following subsections identify
applicable control/disposal practices for the solid wastes.
4.4.1 Coal Pretreatment Operation
Refuse from cleaning is generated as solid waste. Land
disposal without pretreatment is the most applicable alterna-
tive. Minefilling coal refuse may be preferable to develop-
ment of a landfill site, depending on cost considerations,
including the proximity of the mine-mouth to the SRC facility.
4.4.2 Coal Liquefaction
No solid waste discharges are associated with this
operation. Therefore, application of control/disposal
alternatives is not required.
4.4.3 Separation
4.4.3.1 Gas Separation Process
No solid wastes are discharged from the gas separation
process.
4.4.3.2 Solids/Liquids Separation Process
The solids/liquids separation process generates solids
in the form of filter cake in SRC-I systems, or mineral
residue in SRC-II systems. Existing information on the
characteristics of these materials is limited, however,
286
-------
ho
00
COAL r^
PREPARATION » v
COAL
CLEANING
REFUSE
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
HYDROGEN
GENERATION
i i
-UEFACTION| SEPARATION il™
WATER W;
SUPPLY C(
1
SLUDGE
OXYGEN ACI
GENERATION REM
TIONATION 1 c?p!SAimMUIU:> HYDROTREATING 1
1 1
EXCESS SPENT
RESIDUE (SRC-II) CATALYST
FILTER CAKE (SRC-I)
VTER STEAM AND POWER
)OLING GENERATION
I
ASH
n ... HYDROCARBON
iJyT, AND HYDROGEN
^-^ 1 RECOVERY
I
SPENT
CATALYST SLAG OR ASH
SULFUR
RECOVERY
AMMONIA
RECOVERY
PHENOL
RECOVERY
PRODUCT/
BY-PRODUCT
STORAGE
Figure 53. Sources of solid wastes in SRC systems
-------
efforts to better understand the properties of these solids
are underway as described elsewhere in this report. It is
expected that these materials will ultimately be landfilled
or minefilled, however, additional study is required to
determine if predisposal treatment of the solids or special
disposal procedures are necessary.
4.4.4 Purification and Upgrading
4.4.4.1 Fractionation Process
The fractionation operation does not discharge solid
wastes.
4.4.4.2 Hydrotreating Process
The hydrotreating process periodically discharges spent
catalysts, which is replaced with fresh catalysts. This
material may be returned to the manufacturer for regen-
eration, or landfilled, if proper precautions to prevent
groundwater contamination are taken.
4.4.5 Auxiliary Processes
Of the twelve auxiliary processes used in SRC systems,
only water supply, steam and power generation and hydrogen
generation discharge solid wastes. Control and disposal
options for solids from these processes are discussed below.
Conditioning of raw water for use within the SRC system
produces a sludge. Available alternatives for sludge disposal
are landfilling and landspreading. For the sludge produced
by raw water treatment, the former alternative is more
likely. Landspreading is generally practiced with biological
288
-------
sludges such as those generated by industrial or municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
If coal is consumed as fuel for steam and power genera-
tion significant quantities of bottom ash are produced. Ash
may be landfilled in suitable locations without predesigned
treatment.
The hydrogen generation process also produces ash from
the mineral matter present in the gasifier feed materials
(residue or filter cake from solids/liquids separation
and/or coal). The ash may be produced as slag (fused ash)
depending on the operating temperature of the gasifier.
Gasifier ash (or slag) can be landfilled with ash from steam
and power generation. The shift converter unit of the
hydrogen generation process uses a catalyst. Periodically
spent catalysts will be removed and replaced with fresh
ones. The spent catalyst can be either returned to the
manufacturer for regeneration or landfilled, although pre-
disposal treatment may be required.
4.5 Toxic Substances Control Alternatives
Toxic substances in SRC systems are primarily associated
with products and by-products. Best available characteriza-
tions of toxic substances in products and by-products are
presented in subsection 3.4. Toxics may enter the environ-
ment as a result of leaks or materials spills within processes
such as gas separation, fractionation, solids/liquids separa-
tion and hydrotreating or during storage, distribution and
utilization of the products and by-products. There are a
number of engineering practices which, if followed, act as
preventive measures to minimize the risk of material spills.
The following are some key practices in preventing material
spills:
289
-------
• Awareness of and adherence to applicable construc-
tion codes
• Detailed corrosion engineering appraisals
• Regular inspection of storage vessels
• Quick response preventive maintenance
• Installation and periodic testing of safety relief
valves.
As an additional measure a contingency plan defining proce-
dures to be followed in the event a spill or leak occurs
should be developed and distributed to plant personnel. A
material spill contingency plan addresses four areas:
• Spill detection
• Spill containment
• Material recovery
• Material disposal
Material spills prevention and contingency plans are discussed
in detail in the Appendices.
4.6 Summary of Most Effective Control Alternatives
Subsections 4.6.1-4.6.4 summarize recommended control
alternatives for control of air emissions, water effluents,
solid wastes and toxic substances present in SRC products.
290
-------
4.6.1 Emissions Control
Suggested control alternatives for controlling air
emissions from SRC systems are given in Table 61. Final
selection of controls for an actual facility should be based
on regional, regulatory, economic and site-specific considera-
tions. Accidental vapor discharges may occur due to leaks
caused by mechanical failure of equipment. Accidental
release technology is not addressed in Table 61 but is dis-
cussed in the Appendices.
4.6.2 Effluents Control
Table 62 is a summary of preferred control alternatives
for treatment of water effluents from SRC systems. In
addition to the discharges shown in the table accidental
leaks may occur. Accidental leaks and spills technology are
considered in the Appendices.
Runoff from coal preparation, receiving and storage is
combined with thickener underflow from coal preparation and
sent to a tailings pond. Overflow from the thickener is
recycled to the coal cleaning process.
Cooling tower blowdown is treated to remove dissolved
solids. Lime softening, ion exchange and reverse osmosis
are processes used to reduce dissolved solids content.
Selection of sidestream treatment should be based on more
detailed analysis of regional, economic, regulatory and
site-specific factors. The treated water is then discharged
to receiving waters.
The remaining process wastewater discharges are combined
during treatment in the plant's main wastewater treatment
291
-------
TABLE 61. SUMMARY OF AIR EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
APPLICABILITY TO SRC SYSTEMS
Operation/Auxiliary Process
Air Emissions Discharged
Preferred Control Technology Applications
Coal pretreatment
Liquefaction
Separation
Gas separation
Solids/liquids separation
Purification and Upgrading
Fractionation
Coal dust
Particulate laden flue
gas from coal dryers
Preheater flue gas
Pressure letdown releases
Pressure letdown releases
Preheater flue gas
Particulate laden vapors
from residue cooling
(SRC-II)
Preheater flue gas
Particulate laden vapors
from product cooling
(SRC-I)
Pressure letdown releases
(continued)
(1) Spray storage piles with water or
polymer.
(2) Cyclones and baghouse filters for con-
trol of dust due to coal sizing.
(1) Cyclones and baghouse filters.
(2) Wet scrubbers such as venturi.
(1) If other than clean gas, scrub for sulfur,
nitrogen, and particulate components.
(1) Flaring*
(1) Flaring*
(1) If other than clean gas, scrub for sulfur,
nitrogen, and particulate components.
(1) Cyclone and baghouse filter.
(2) Wet scrubbers.
Pressure letdown releases (1) Flaring.*
(1) If other than clean gas, scrub for sulfur,
nitrogen, and particulate components.
(1) Cyclone and baghouse filter
(2) Wet scrubbers
(1) Flaring
-------
u>
Operation/Auxiliary Process
TABLE 61. (continued)
Air Emissions Discharged Preferred Control Technology Applications
Hydro treat ing
Coal receiving and storage
Water supply
Water cooling
Steam and power generation
Hydrogen generation
Oxygen generation
Acid gas removal
Sulfur recovery
Preheater flue gas
Pressure letdown releases
Coal dust
None
Drift and evaporation
Boiler flue gas
Carbon dioxide rich gas
Preheater flue gas
Nitrogen rich gas
Pressure letdown releases
Flue gas
Low-sulfur effluent gas**
(1) If other than clean gas, scrub for sulfur,
nitrogen, and particulate components.
(1) Flaring*
(1) Spray storage piles with water or
polymer
(1) No controls available - good design
can minimize losses
(1) Sulfur dioxide scrubbing with aqueous
magnesium oxide solution
(1) None required
(1) If other than clean gas, scrub for sulfur,
nitrogen, and particulate components.
(1) None required
(1) Flaring*
(1) If other than clean gas, scrub for sulfur,
nitrogen, and particulate components.
(1) Carbon adsorption
(2) Direct-flame incineration
(3) Secondary sulfur recovery
Hydrogen/hydrocarbon recovery Pressure letdown releases (1) Direct fired afterburner
(continued)
-------
NS
TABLE 61. (continued)
Operation/Auxiliary Process Air Emissions Discharged Preferred Control Technology Applications
Ammonia recovery None
Phenol recovery None
Product/by-product storage SRC dust (SRC-I) (1) Spray storage piles with water
Sulfur dust (1) Store in enclosed area
Hydrocarbon vapors (1) Spills/leaks prevention
*Collection, recovery of useful products and incineration may be more appropriate.
**A secondary sulfur recovery process may be necessary to meet specified air emission standards.
-------
TABLE 62. SUMMARY OF WATER EFFLUENTS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
APPLICABILITY TO SRC SYSTEMS
Operation/Auxiliary Process
Water Effluents Discharged Preferred Control Technology Applications
00
vo
Oi
Coal pretreatment
Liquefaction
Separation
Gas separation
Solids/liquids separation
Purification and Upgrading
Fractionation
Hydrotreating
Coal receiving and storage
Water supply
Water cooling
Steam and power generation
Hydrogen generation
Oxygen generation
Acid gas removal
Coal pile runoff
Thickener underflow
None
None
None
None
None
Coal pile runoff
None
Cooling tower blowdown
None
Process wastewater
None
Process wastewaters
(1) Route to tailings pond
(1) Route to tailings pond
(1) Route to tailings pond
(1) Sidestrearn treatment (electrodialysis,
ion exchange or reverse osmosis) permits
discharge to receiving waters
(1) Route to wastewater treatment facility*
(1) Route to wastewater treatment facility*
(continued)
-------
Operation/Auxiliary Process
TABLE 62. (continued)
Water Effluents Discharged Preferred Control Technology Applications
Sulfur recovery
Hydrogen/hydrocarbon recovery
Ammonia recovery
Phenol recovery
Product/by-product recovery
None
None
Process wastewater
Process wastewater
None
(1) Route to wastewater treatment facility*
(1) Route to wastewater treatment facility*
N>
vo
ON
*Two alternatives for the wastewater treatment facility are shown in Figure 54.
-------
plant. Two alternative wastewater treatment schemes are
considered applicable to treatment of the water discharges.
These schemes are described in Figure 54. Sludges produced
by wastewater treatment may be landfilled.
4.6.3 Solid Wastes Control
Preferred control and disposal alternatives for solid
wastes discharged from SRC systems are summarized in Table
63. Most of the solids appear suitable for direct land-
filling or minefilling without predisposal treatment. Spent
catalysts produced may be returned to the manufacturer for
analysis and subsequent regeneration or disposal. Mineral
residue from SRC-II and filter cake from SRC-I are not well
characterized materials. If economically feasible, it is
recommended that these materials be gasified to recover
available energy. The slag or ash produced by gasification
may be safety disposed as solid waste.
4.6.4 Toxic Substances Control
Toxic substances control is best achieved by proper
preventive measures, with additional contingency measures
should toxic substances enter the environment as a result of
vapor leaks or material spills. Considerations for toxic
substances control are described in detail in the Appendices.
4.7 Multimedia Control Alternatives
No multimedia control alternatives have been identified
as applicable to SRC systems. However, the concept of zero
aqueous discharge (ZAD) wastewater treatment does represent
an attempt to integrate various discharges for combined
treatment within one wastewater treatment system.
297
-------
WASTEWATER
FROM AMMONIA
RECOVERY
WASTEWATER
FROM
PHENOL RECOVERY
WASTEWATER
FROM
HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION
*• HYDROGEN SULFIDE TO SULFUR RECOVERY,
GAMMON IA TO STORAGE
EFFLUENT
WATER
DISSOLVED
AIR
FLOTATION
T
EFFLUENT
WATER
TO ALTERNATIVE I OR I I
ALTERNATIVE I
EFFLUENT WATER
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT-
EXTENDED AERATION
EFFLUENT
WATER
FILTRATION
T
DISCHARGE
TO RECEIVING
WATERS*
ALTERNATIVE II
EFFLUENT WATER
i
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENTS-
AERATED LAGOON
EFFLUENT
WATER
SETTLING
BASIN
DISCHARGE
TO RECEIVING
WATERS
^Discharge preceded by tertiary treatment as
required.
Figure 54. Two wastewater treatment alternatives
applicable to SRC systems
298
-------
TABLE 63. SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTES CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
APPLICABILITY TO SRC SYSTEMS
Operation/Auxiliary Process
Solid Wastes Discharged
Preferred Control Technology Applications
N>
vo
vo
Coal pretreatment
Liquefaction
Separation
Gas separation
Solids/liquids separation
Purification and Upgrading
Fractionation
Hydrotreating
Coal receiving and storage
Water supply
Water cooling
Steam and power generation
Hydrogen generation
Refuse
None
None
Excess residue (SRC-II)
or filter cake (SRC-I)
None
Spent catalyst
None
Sludge
None
Ash
Ash or slag
(1) Landfill
(2) Dumping (minefill)
(1) Gasification to recovery energy con-
tent followed by disposal (landfill
or minefill)
(1) Return to manufacturer for regeneration
(1) Dewatering followed by landfilling
(1) Landfill
(2) Dumping (minefill)
(1) Landfill
(2) Dumping (minefill)
(continued)
-------
o
o
Operation/Auxiliary Process
TABLE 63. (continued)
Solid Wastes Discharged Preferred Control Technology Applications
Oxygen generation None
Acid gas removal None
Sulfur recovery None
Hydrogen/hydrocarbon recovery None
Ammonia recovery None
Phenol recovery None
Product/by-product storage None
-------
ZAD options for SRC-II liquefaction are currently being
investigated to determine their technical and economic
feasibility (85). The following water treatment requirements
are being addressed:
• Raw water treatment
• By-product recovery from system wastewaters
• Water treatment for the water cooling process
• Final wastewater treatment
The water management system is shown in Figure 55. Waste-
water treatment options for the wastewaters from SRC system
operations and water cooling process are summarized in Table
64.
Tentative conclusions of the work are that the zero
discharge system is technically feasible but expensive.
Installed capital costs total nearly $38 million, and annual
costs (operating costs plus fixed costs such as maintenance,
cost of financing the project, taxes and insurance) total
$14 million. Putting these figures in perspective, the zero
discharge system will add $0.87 to the cost of 0.16 cubic
meter (one barrel) of the SRC-II product from a 7,950 cubic
meter per day plant. Using a plant investment cost of $1
billion which is scaled from an Electric Power Research
Institute estimate (6), the zero discharge system will add
3.8 percent to the cost of the plant.
4.8 Regional Considerations Affecting Selection of
Alternatives
A number of factors should be considered when selecting
control technology for SRC systems, including the following:
301
-------
DRIFT —
VAPOR --
RAW
SURFACE
WATER
WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
SLUDGES
oe.
UJ
Q
COOLING WATER MAKEUP
COOLING WATER
COOLING
SYSTEM
BOILER FEED WATER
o
HYDROGEN GENERATION
WASTEI
SOLVENT L
REFINED
COAL
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
SLAG
SLUDGE
-^SALT
COOLING WATER
CO CD
coo: o
TREATED WASTEWATER
FOP. COAL PREPARATION
•* SLUDGES
HYDROGENATION
WASTEWATER
BY-PRODUCT
RECOVERY
.AMMONIA
HYDROGEN
'SULFIDE
PHENOLS
OIL
Figure 55. Zero discharge water management system for SRC-II
-------
TABLE 64. SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR SRC-II
Ma ior
Waste Stream
Wascevater from '
SHC-II system
operation
Pollutant
Tar and
Oil
Phenols
Ammonia
Treatment Method
(1) Gravity separation
(2) Centrifugation
(3) Heating
(4) Precoat filtration
(5) Coagulation or de-
mis t if icat ion witl)
chemicals, followed
by air flotation or
settling
(6) Biological treatment
(1) Stripping Processes
(2) Incineration
(3) Biological Treatment
(4) Physical-Chemical
Processes
(/) Stripping at pU of
10-11
(2) Biological
nitrification
(3) Ion exchange
Limitations
Does not remove
emulsion
High operations
and maintenance
costs
High operating
costs
High operntion
,ind maintenance
costs
Addition of alum-
forms sludge
which are diffi-
cult to dewater
High operations
and maintenance
costs, extensive
corrosion problems.
High concentrations
will upset plant
opernt ion
Expensive
Water adsorbs
C02-roay lead to
scale formation
Nutrient may be
required
High operations
and maintenance
costs
Applicable
Concentration
Range
Primary
treatment
Secondary
treatment
Secondary
treatment
Secondary
treatment
Secondary
treatment
Secondary
treatment
500 mg/1
7000 mg/1
50-500 mg/1
<50 mg/1
<1250 mg/1
Performance
Removes 60-99Z
floated oil
5-20 mp/1
50-902 Removal
Removal to
15/mg/l
5.2/.0 mg/1
Complete
99% Removal
90-99% Removal
50-90Z Removal
Removal to
2 mg/1
80-952 Removal
Industry
Usage
Common
Common
Not
practiced
Common
Common
Common
Common
Not
practiced
Common
Common
Extensive
Extensive
Not
practiced
Relative
Cost
Low
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Lou-
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
CO
o
CO
(continued)
-------
TABLE 64. (continued)
Major
Waste Stream
VUet«»9ter From
SRC-II system
ope me ion '
•
Cooling Tower
Slowdown
1550 kkg/day
(1,710 TPD)
Pollutant
Sulfide
Suspended
Solids
pH Control
Dissolved
Solids
Hardness
Treatment Method
(1) Biological oxidation
to sulfato
(2) Stripping
(1) Sedimentation
(2) Chemical coagulation
(3) Filtration
(4) Dissolved air
flotation
(1) Neutralization with
chemicals
(1) Concentration and
evaporation
(2) Reverse osmosis
(3) Distillation
(1) Softening
Limltat ions
Chemical addition
may be required
Cost depends on
buffer capacity
of waste
Efficiency
depends on
membrane
condi t ion
Sludges
difficult to
dispose
Appl icable
Conct-ntrat ion
Range
Secondary
t reatment
>50000 mg/1
Performance
Complete
oxidat ion
50-90X Removal
90-9 52 Removal
9 5-99% Removal
95% Removal
75-95!; Removal
Neutral pH
Complete
removal
50-9 5% Removal
60-90% Removal
Industry
Usage
Common
Extensive
Extensive
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Common
Limi ted
appl icat ion
desnl inat ion
technology
Limited
appl ication
desj 1 inat ion
technology
Limited
application
desal inat ion
technology
Common
Cost
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
HiKh
Moderate
High
Low
High
High
High
Moderarc-
O
•P-
-------
• Applicable federal, state, and local legislation
governing control/disposal practices
• Characteristics of the region proposed for locating
an SRC facility
• Characteristics of the specific site selected for
construction of the facility.
Applicable legal standards are discussed in Section
5.0, "Analysis of Regulatory Requirements and Environmental
Impacts." This subsection overviews some of the regional
characteristics which may influence selection of control
methods for treating SRC system discharges. Subsection 5.8,
"Siting Considerations for SRC Plants" provides additional
detail on regional considerations from the aspect of evaluat-
ing potential locations for future SRC commercial facilities.
The primary concerns with selection of air emission
control of alternatives are the physiographic characteristics
of the region. Macro- and micro-climatic concerns include
weather patterns, annual rainfall, water availability,
annual temperature ranges and related climatic variables.
These factors are important because, if, for example, the
annual water supply is limited due to low rainfall or poor
environmental water storage the selection of wet scrubbing
devices may not be feasible. Temperature characteristics of
a specified region could also affect selection of air emis-
sions controls. For instance, an SRC facility located in
EPA Region VII, which includes the states of Montana, Wyoming,
Utah, Colorado and the Dakotas could encounter difficulties
with operation and maintenance of water spray dust controls
due to freezing conditions prevalent much of the year. For
specific sites within EPA Region VIII detailed engineering
evaluation could also show such alternatives to be impractical
305
-------
Regional climatic and physiographic characteristics are
also important in selection of effluent and solid waste
control/disposal methods. For example, both water avail-
ability and temperature variation within a region can affect
selection of water effluent treatment. Insufficient water
supply could require maximization of water reuse within the
plant. A zero aqueous discharge wastewater treatment facility
as discussed in subsection 4.7 may be necessary to meet
constraints of water availability and demand. Temperature
variations can influence reliability of operation of water
effluent treatment alternatives, notably biological treatment
methods. Regional soil geology is important in making solid
waste disposal considerations. One such example is the
proximity of local groundwater aquifers to proposed disposal
sites. Some potential sites may be unacceptable for this
reason. Others may require exercising special control/disposal
alternatives to minimize the risk of contaminating aquifers.
Additional geographic characteristics which should be
considered are concerned with soil type, soil texture, soil
permeability and soil hydrologic conditions. These edaphic
conditions will determine the suitability of landfilling and
landfill site selection as a solid waste disposal alterna-
tive .
The selection, application and operation of pollution
control alternatives must include any regional variances or
considerations which may affect the control alternatives.
The above description is only an example of each site applica-
tion needing evaluation and assessment for the existing
influencing parameters.
306
-------
4.9 Summary of Cost and Energy Considerations
This section discusses economic aspects of the various
environmental control technology alternatives cited in sub-
section 4.6. Considerations of energy requirements for the
control alternatives are given in some instances, but are
primarily made implicitly in estimates of annual operating
costs. Data reported in this section are based on operation
0
of a 7,950 m /day SRC-II facility as described in Section
2.0. Reported costs are in July, 1977 dollars. Supple-
mental data on cost estimation are included in the Appendices
4.9.1 Air Emissions Control Alternatives
Subsection 4.6.1 specifies the following preferred air
emissions controls for application in SRC systems:
• Utilization of sprays to control emissions of
stored materials (coal, SRC-I, sulfur)
f
• Use of either wet scrubbers or cyclone/baghouse
filter combinations to control particulates from
the coal sizing and drying processes
• A flare system to control emissions attributable
to pressure control releases within the system
• A sulfur dioxide scrubber to treat boiler stack
gases from steam and power generation
• Three alternatives (carbon adsorption, direct-
flame incineration and secondary sulfur recovery
processes) to treat tail gas from the sulfur
recovery auxiliary process.
307
-------
Cost and energy considerations for these controls are des-
cribed below.
Particulate emissions in the form of fugitive dust are
associated with storage of coal, SRC-I product, and by-
product sulfur. Annual operating and capital costs for two
control alternatives, spraying the storage pile and enclosed
storage, as applied to the broken coal storage pile in the
coal pretreatment operation, are given in Table 65.
TABLE 65. COSTS OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
FOR FUGITIVE DUST
Basis: 9,100 Mg - Broken Coal Storage Pile
Operating Cost (Annual) Capital Cost
Polymer coating,$ 12,600-21,000$ 18,000
Enclosed storage $6-8 million
n.
From the table it is evident that enclosed storage is not a
cost effective control alternative, however, it may be used
for storage of by-product sulfur to prevent contamination.
The raw coal stockpile, obviously too large for enclo-
sure, also requires spraying. Material costs of polymer
<\
spraying the raw coal stockpile are approximately 7//m of
stockpile (84). The operating costs of spraying with a
hydromulcher range from $600 to 1000/day (84). Material
/ f\
costs for the raw coal pile (3.3 x 10 m ) would be $2,400
per application. An application every three days would
result in a material cost of about $240,000 per year with
operating costs of $180,000-300,000/year.
308
-------
Table 66 summarizes the cost of alternatives for con-
trol of dust from coal sizing processes. Due to insufficient
operating cost information for the cyclone/baghouse filter
alternative, additional cost analysis as well as regulatory
and siting considerations must be made prior to final selec-
tion of controls.
Baghouse filters and wet scrubbers are preferred alterna-
tives for control of particulates in the coal dry stack
gases. Table 67 shows cost and performance data applicable
to these alternatives.
SRC production, like petroleum refining and chemical
processing industries, must dispose of small quantities of
continuous hydrocarbon waste gas streams from the process
units such as the hydrogenation reactor, flash drum separa-
tors and the fractionation column. In case of accidental
release due to equipment failure, large flows of gases must
be disposed. The common practice of disposal is the use of
a flare. Elevated combustion flare systems will be most
applicable for the liquefaction plant, since large gas flows
are involved. Air inspiration with steam will be utilized
to achieve smokeless combustion (87).
Combustion in smokeless elevated flares is essentially
complete with the COo to CO to hydrocarbon ratio of stack
gas being 100:4:0.002. On a dry basis, carbon monoxide
levels would be 4,000--ppm and hydrocarbon levels would be
only 2 ppm (88).
The amount of gases to be flared and the composition of
these gases are assumed to be that of a refinery processing
o
7,950 m /day of oil. The stack height will be in the range
of 33 to 100 meters depending upon the location of the plant
309
-------
TABLE 66. COST OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR
CONTROL OF DUST FROM COAL SIZING
(82,84,85)
3
Basis: Four units, each handling 1.8 m /sec with a grain loading of
6.5 mg/m (8,646 ppra)
Treatment
Cyclone &
Baghouse
Costs
1 2
Capital Operating
($1000) (Annual)
4,500 NA
10,500
Efficiency
99.9%
Emission
After
Treatment
8 . 6 ppm
o
Secondary
Waste
7
dust
Per unit 15,000
Total 60,000
Wet Scrubber
Per unit 6,750
Total 27,000
$1600
$6400
98.5%
129.7 ppm wastewater
Includes installation.
Fuel, utilities and maintenance.
Wastes generated by operating pollution control unit.
(.
With recirculation.
TABLE 67. COST OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR
STACK GAS FROM COAL DRYING (82,86)
Basis: 377 m /sec at 60°C with a grain loading of 0.65 mg/m3 (712 ppm)
Costs
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Baghouse filter 1000
Wet scrubber
380
Operating
NA
$ 28,000
Efficiency
99.9%
98.5%
Emission
After
Treatment
0.7 ppm
10.7 ppm
Secondary
Waste
dust
wastewater
310
-------
and meterological conditions (87). Also, the amount of the
duct work required will depend on the flare system distance
from the processing units. These factors will affect the
cost of the flare system. Steam, if not available from the
process plant, will add to the operating cost.
Elevated flare system costs vary considerably because
of the disproportionate costs for auxiliary and control
equipment and the relatively low cost of the flare stack and
burner. As a result, equipment costs are rarely diameter-
dependent Typical installed costs for elevated flares range
from $30,000-$100,000. Operating costs are determined
chiefly by fuel costs for purge gas and pilot burners, and
by steam required for smokeless flaring. On the basis of 30
cents per million Btu's fuel requirement, typical elevated
stack operating costs are about $1,500 per year (88).
o
The cost of an elevated flare system for a 7,950 m /day
SRC plant has been roughly estimated from the cost of a
3
flare system for a 55,650 m /day refinery. The 55,650
m /day refining flare system incorporates two elevated
flares, each costing $100,000, and one ground flare, costing
$200,000. The waste gas collection system was valued at
$250,000. Total capital cost for the refinery was $750,000
(88).
Using six-tenth factor analysis and assuming a similar
scaled down version of the refinery flare system, the cost
of a flare system for the SRC plant has been approximated.
Results are listed in Table 68.
311
-------
TABLE 68. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FLARE SYSTEM OF
A 7,950 M-VDAY SRC PLANT (88)
Unit Capital Cost
Elevated flares (2)
Ground flare (1)
Waste gas collection
$ 64,100
64,100
80,000
$ 3,000/yr
1,500/yr
— — —
System
Total $208,200 $ 4,500/yr
A number of alternatives for controlling sulfur dioxide
and particulates in boiler stack gas from steam and power
generation have been evaluated. Costs and removal efficiencies
for six alternative sulfur dioxide wet scrubbers are compared
in Table 69. Additional cost, regulatory, and site specific
evaluations are required to select the best alternative for
a specified application.
Alternatives for treatment of the low sulfur effluent
tail gas discharged from the Stretford sulfur recovery
process include direct flame incineration and carbon adsorp-
tion with incineration. Table 70 presents cost data, re-
moval efficiencies, emissions characteristics and secondary
wastes for these alternatives. From a cost standpoint,
carbon adsorption is the preferred alternative, however the
after treatment emissions levels are not in compliance with
possibly applicable regulatory requirements, for example
hydrocarbon emissions in the state of Illinois (see Section
5.0). Regulatory requirements may in some instances require
application of secondary sulfur recovery processes such as
Beavon and SCOT. The costs of secondary recovery are roughly
equal to the costs of primary sulfur recovery (89).
312
-------
TABLE 69. COSTS, EFFICIENCIES AND FINAL EMISSIONS FOR COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE S02 WET SCRUBBING PROCESSES (90)
Basis: Coal-fired,boiler flue gas, 103.6 m /sec (2465 ppm S0~, 6,946 ppm NO , and
245.0 gm/in fly ash) X
Costs Removal Efficiencies
Operating (Annual)
Process Capital ($million) ($ Million) SO Particulates NO
Lime slurry 20.56 12.01 90% 99+% *
scrubbing
Soda-limestone 26.81 13.21 * up to 99% *
double-aklali
MgO scrubbing 29.04 13.14 90% 99.5% *
(recovery)
Limestone 24.65 12.16 70-80% 99% *
scrubbing
Potassium sulfite- 27.53 11.89 90% * *
bisulfite scrubbing
Wet activated * * 80% * *
charcoal absorption
Emissions after Treatment
SO- Particulates NO'
6.97 TPD 0.70 + TPD *
* 0.70 TPD *
6.97 TPD 0.35 TPD *
17.42 TPD 0.70 TPD *
6.97 TPD * *
13.94 TPD * *
*Data not available
-------
TABLE 70. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR STRETFORD TAIL GAS (91,92)
Basis: 82.1 m /sec throughput,
hydrocarbon cone. = 5,536 ppm (as ethane)
Treatment
Cost
Capital Operating
Hydrocarbon Removal
Efficiency
Emission
After
Treatment
Secondary
Wastes
u>
Direct-Flame
incineration
($1000)
572
(Annual $1000)
4,083
Carbon adsorption
with incineration
(AdSox)
1,843
3,546
98+% hydrogen sulfide 0.2 ppm
sulfur dioxide 17.7 ppm
hydrocarbons 79.0 ppm
nitrogen oxides 96.6 ppm
carbon monoxide 2.5 ppm
carbon dioxide 43.6 ppm
ammonia 2.0 ppm
up to 99% hydrogen sulfide 9.5 ppm
sulfur dioxide 278 ppm
hydrocarbons 42.9 ppm
nitrogen oxides 12.7 ppm
carbon monoxide 0.6 ppm
carbon dioxide 111 ppm
Water and carbon
dioxide from com-
bustion.
Water and carbon
dioxide from in-
cineration
-------
4.9.2 Water Effluents Control Alternatives
Subsection 4.6.2 suggests application of water effluent
controls in SRC systems as follows:
• Use of a tailings pond for water effluents from
coal preparation
• Treatment of process wastewaters in one of two
wastewater treatment schemes
• Direct discharge of cooling tower blowdown to re-
ceiving waters after traditional sidestream treat-
ment.
Economic aspects of coal preparation and other process
wastewaters are discussed below.
The relationship between depth and area affects the
cost of tailings ponds. Generally cost per unit area increases
with depth of the pond, 4.5 meters being the maximum depth
recommended for consideration. Table 71 compares costs for
two alternative tailings ponds, each of which can meet the
needs of a 7,950 m3/day SRC facility. A polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) liner is included in the cost analysis due to the
wastewater composition.
315
-------
TABLE 71. TAILINGS POND (93)
Costs $1000
Alternative I Alternative II
(4047 m2. 4.1 m deep) (8094.0 m2,
Pond
Hand Dress Slopes
Anchor Ditches
Liner (PVC)
Liner Installation
Contingency
Total
27.0
0.419
0.298
5.68
0.67
3.4
37.42
11.6
0.360
0.440
10.350
1.22
5.99
29.97
Costs for the two alternative wastewater treatment
plants described in subsection 4.6.2 are given in Table 72.
Alternative I appears to be more cost effective.
The two alternate treatment schemes have been extensive-
ly used in the petroleum industry for wastewaters containing
oils and grease, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, phenols, and
suspended solids. Coal liquefaction publications to date
have also indicated that these treatment units are expected
to be employed in commercial facilities when built.
4.9.3 Solid Wastes Control Alternatives
The following solid waste discharges, produced by exist-
ing industries, also require disposal by operators of SRC
systems: water supply sludges, ash from steam and power
generation, and coal cleaning refuse. Typical transportation
and landfill costs for these solids are approximately $2.72/Mg
and $7.72/Mg respectively (6), or a total disposal cost of
about $10.44/Mg.
316
-------
TABLE 72. COSTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PROCESSES FOR SRC SYSTEMS
COSTS
PROCESSES Capital ($1000) Operating Annual C$1000)
Common Units for Alternatives
Steam stripping
API separatee
Equalization basin
Aerators and basin
Dissolved air flotation
Flotation unit
Chemicals
Alternative I
Extended Aeration
Basin
Air
Clarifier
Chemicals
Installationq
Filtration Options
Pressure
Gravity
Alternative II
Aerated Lagoon
Basin
Chemicals
Settler
480.0 81.654
69.0 1.0
60.0 0.163
90.0 14.0
NA* NA*
17.4 (Total Cost)
62.0
100.0
88.0
2.263
100.0
87.5 4.083
104.5
67.12 (Total Cost)
813.0
2.263
88.0
317
-------
In addition, SRC facilities generate the following solid
wastes which are unique to liquefaction technology: spent
catalysts from hydrotreating and hydrogen production, slag or
ash from hydrogen production, wastewater treatment sludges,
and any excess mineral residue or filter cake produced. It
may be necessary to subject these wastes to additional treat-
ment to condition them for safe final disposal. Alternately
or additionally, disposal sites may require modifications,
such as liners and air or water monitoring devices. It is
impossible to predict what measures will be required, or their
corresponding costs at the time of this writing. Total trans-
portation and landfill costs for all solid wastes produced by
the SRC systems are approximately $53 million; however
specific requirements for predisposal treatment of wastes or
landfill site conditioning would require revision of this
estimate.
318
-------
5.0 ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
This section describes the EPA and other methodologies
that should be useful in establishing the environmental
viability of a commercial SRC liquefaction system. The
standards and criteria established for point source pollutants
under the amended Clean Air, Clean Water, and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Acts, among others, are summarized
and compared with the predicted levels of inorganic and
organic pollutants in waste streams. Multimedia impacts
resulting from the discharge of various waste streams,
products, and by-products are estimated in accordance with
the evolving protocols specified in the Multimedia Environ-
mental Goals (MEGs), Source Analysis Models (SAMs) and
Bioassay protocols currently being developed by the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park,
NC (IERL/RTP).
5.1 Environmental Impact Methodologies
5.1.1 Multimedia Environmental Goals
Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEGs) are defined as
levels of significant contaminants or degradents (in ambient
air, water, or land, or in emissions or effluents discharged
from a source to the ambient media) that are judged to be:
(1) appropriate for preventing certain negative effects in
the surrounding populations or ecosystems, or (2) representa-
tive of pollutant control limits achievable through techno-
logy. MEG values are currently projected for more than 650
pollutants. This list, to be expanded and revised as emergent
data warrant, was compiled on the basis of descriptions in
the literature of fossil fuels processes and of the associated
hazardous substances.
319
-------
Both Ambient Level Goals and Emission Level Goals based
on ambient factors are addressed in the MEGs. Existing or
proposed federal standards, criteria, or recommendations are
acknowledged as previously established goals and have been
utilized wherever applicable. For those substances not
addressed by current guidelines, empirical data indicating
toxic potential, reactions, and associations of the substance
within the various media, natural background levels, and the
conditions under which the substance may be emitted and
dispersed, have been utilized for the purpose of developing
MEGs.
The MEG concept represents an important step in EPA's
efforts to address systematically the problem of establishing
priorities for environmental assessment programs. MEGs
provide a ranking system for chemical substances on which to
base decisions concerning source assessment. The MEGs may
also be used to establish priorities for the pollutants to
be addressed by regulations, and thus, may influence future
control technology development.
The MEGs can be used by environmental assessors includ-
ing engineers, chemical analysts, toxicologists, industrial
hygienists, system modeling experts, and inspectors or plant
monitoring personnel. They can be used alone as a manual or
workbook with future supplements to update the data. The
MEGs establish a baseline of information for a great number
of substances and allow consideration of the potential
pollution hazard of these substances. Continued research
and reviews are obviously necessary to fill the many infor-
mation gaps that still exist; these gaps result either
because the data are nonexistent or the data are not readily
available in the literature. More detailed discussion of
these major concerns is given in the Appendix of this report
and in an earlier report (43).
320
-------
The MEG values are based, in part, on the concentrations
of pollutants already promulgated in existing or proposed
federal standards, criteria or recommendations, and an
acceptable empirical data relating to toxicity and health
effects in the multimedia context. Although the MEG concept,
in its current state of development, contains several simpli-
fying assumptions, the benefits to be realized from its
preliminary application seem to outweigh the risks of any
oversimplification. Furthermore, the overall MEG concept
should provide preliminary decision criteria for all of the
emerging coal conversion systems (i.e., gasification and
liquefaction) that require methodologies for environmental
assessment. : At the very least, the MEG concept should
generate further comments on possible applications, as well
as suggestions for refining the models used to calculate the
MEGs. MEGs can be used not only to evaluate the potential
hazards of various pollutants in waste streams, but also to
assess the need for making necessary changes in design,
inspection, and/or maintenance protocols.
The format for presentation of the MEGs consists of two
forms used together. The first form is called the Background
Information Summary, and the second form is called the MEG
chart; these two forms are discussed subsequently.
5.1.1.1 Background Information Summaries for the MEGs
An example of a MEG Background Information Summary (for
benzo(a)pyrene) is shown in Figure 56. The MEG Background
Information Summary gives the International Union of Pure
and Applied Chemistry's (IUPAC) name of the material, the
empirical chemical formula, major synonyms, a description of
the physical properties, the Wiswesser Line-Formula notation,
321
-------
MEG CATEGORY-
IUPAC NAME-
DESCRIPTION
OF PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES
NATURAL
OCCURRENCE
CHEMICAL .
CHARACTERISTICS,
ASSOCIATED
COMPOUNDS
EMPIRlCAL
FORMULAS
CATIOOIIT:
lEJgOl.lr-rBUE; CMH,2
•MAJOR SYNONYMS
Tollowlto plitos;
fli
. «(«)'
inhibit vloltt
WISWESSER LINE -
FORMULA NOTATION
VISUAL STRUCTURAL
DIAGRAM
UlUcuKr M: Oi.». M: in-. l»: 4M.5I01 •«. frm: M m a. HO-lirCl <«MI*I< In MUr.
ulrttllQ Mjr M i«imH t> nrfKUM t^grltlo In MMT (raf. H); ll»« ul-Hlltx: 2s ••/•! I.
lrtf. 7f). „___.
K«»(<)nmM oceun In CM! or iM In ill llMt of mt IM MMI. EnlraMMUl c«i»Mritf
•(<)» it rwu< M f>llw>: vto. •lr.^.W.0.4 rt'l.OOC .' Ir^l. I.JJj fw»,l. MM,. „« (•MMHcrM
•r«l)--0-ltr n«/t| (nf. 71). OtMr •>!•• eo«aMr«tlMI r^irtrt iMlMt: •^•»l«« MUr-n.4 .f/g1;
«~t «r flio-W Mytt; MMUtlii—• i«/t|i raMM coffw—ll m/t( (raf. »).
ckMlcil Mir.llft X wntdlMrw In M ••Mftara II rwortM « !•» tun I M> «lu ul.r
ndl.tto. |M MWI1 •» .ItMut wlir rMlltlM (raf. I). iMUdlWrm 1l MHCtlttl .1« Wtlc.UU
polycyelle irMitlc
TOXIC PROPERTIES
AND HEALTH
EFFECTS (INCLUDING
LD50 AND LC5())
Ojj (lukciiUKMU. rat):
MinlDnrnM ll coMIMrM to M M Ktln urctnMM. It KM MM MOOT to COIIM ilnmiin Mor-
rittMl I" MMllfm ullt (rof. 421. E«MrlM«u1 nuonci I«4I«U» Out I(.)P It i Mtotmlc m Un-
to<«ilc «Mt III tM MUM (rof. I), (ono(i)nrrm WMon In tm MOM SupocUO' brclMMm lilt. TM
MHO* tftfn-fef «Mr ttut m urclOMMIC rMMMO. U <«». TM lOMIl MM U lo*KO I welw.
tnlc mMOM ll rowrtx i> 1 .«/»•• "• Mlultot M*or ll 3.1U.UO UloO M unlMOMlclti. TM
!PV»IO» oroirlm «v*or bout m uratO|Mlc |
|