MEETING REPORT-
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
13 NOVEMBER 1975
Office of Energy, Minerals, and im
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA-600/9-76-006
February 1976
MEETING REPORT
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP (AFFSG)
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
13 NOVEMBER 1975
Prepared by:
Stanford Research Institute
1611 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Contract No. 68-01-2940
Task 026
Technical Monitors:
Dr. Gary J. Foley, Chairman
Mr. William N. McCarthy, Jr.
Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Project Officer:
Mr. Albert Pines
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ENERGY, MINERALS AND INDUSTRY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Energy, Minerals, and
Industry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MEETING MINUTES (AFFSG) 1
Morning Session (Control Technology) 1
Afternoon Session (Pollutant Priorities) 3
MEETING REPORT MINUTES 5
Morning Session (Control Technology) 5
Speakers:
Dr . John Burchard 5
Dr. Gary Foley 5
Mr. James Durham 7
Mr. Harold Coughlin 10
Mr. Robert Hangebrauck 12
Mr. Kelly Janes 12
Dr. Myron Gottlieb 13
Mr. Milton Beychok 16
General Discussion 21
Afternoon Session (Pollutant Priorities) 22
Speakers :
Dr. Stephen Gage 22
Mr. Karl Bombaugh 22
Dr. Max Samfield 23
Dr. John Cleland 23
Dr. Murray Schulraan 25
Dr. Robert Tardiff 29
General Discussion 30
Meeting Recommendations 33
ATTACHMENTS 35
Attachment I: Agenda 35
Attachment II: List of Attendees 37
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Title/Subject
1 Interaction Diagram
2 Advanced Fossil Fuel Sector Group
Relationship
3 Organizational Chart, ERDA, Office
of Assistant Administrator for
Environment and Safety
4 WESCO--Emissions vs. Regulations
5 WESCO--Sulfur Disposition
6 Recommendations for Industry
Emissions Standards
7 Event Sequence for Pollutant
Identification, Toxicity Determination
and Control
8 Number of (Potentially Toxic)
Substances
9 Prioritization Factors
Speaker Page
Dr. Gary J. Foley 6
Dr. Gary J. Foley 8
Dr. Myron Gottlieb 14
Mr. Milton Beychok 18
Mr. Milton Beychok 19
Mr. Milton Beychok 20
Dr. Max Samfield 24
Dr. John Cleland 26
Dr. John Cleland 27
Iv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MEETING MINUTES
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
13 NOVEMBER 1975
Morning Session
Mr. Robert Hangebrauck, sector group member from EPA's Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory (IEKL/RTP) introduced Dr. John Burchard.
IERL Director, who welcomed the group and pointed out that IERL was con-
ducting environmental research for all new energy sources except oil shale.
Dr. Gary Foley of the Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry (OEMI),
EPA, the meeting chairman, reviewed events leading to the establishment of
EPA's new energy R&D program and the Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group.
The major function of the Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group is to identify
the interests of all groups involved in R&D or commercialization in order
to produce timely and useful environmental R&D results. Opinions and
recommendations from group participants were solicited.
The first speaker, Mr. James Durham, of EPA's Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, discussed air pollution standards, emphasizing the
importance of setting these standards early in the development process.
He noted that EPA is required to define standards in terms of emission
control taking control costs into consideration, although not in terms of
health and welfare cost benefit trade offs, and that standards are not
static.
Next, Mr. Harold Coughlin of the Effluent Guidelines Division, EPA,
discussed the philosophy and process for establishing effluent limitations
and standards under the 1972 amendments to Public Law 92-500. The effluent
standards are technology based—either on best practicable technology (BPT)
or best available technology (BAT)—with deadline dates of 1977 and 1983
for compliance. It was mentioned that zero discharge of pollutants into
streams by 1985 was an ultimate goal, with the 1983 standards aiming at
achieving swimmable and fishable waters. Coordination of comprehensive
limits on air and water standards for a single facility was also discussed.
Considerable discussion about standards and their relevance followed these
two talks.
-------
The chairman introduced Mr. Robert Hangebrauck and Mr. Kelly Janes.
IERL, who are managing the EPA R&D program in synthetic fuel with a multi-
media approach, treating the industry as a whole and taking local environ-
mental goals and pollutant effects into consideration. An approach to
control technology development was presented which assumed similar control
technology would be used for similar operations—i.e., preparation,
reaction, purification, upgrading, etc.--independent of process or product
type.
Dr. Myron Gottlieb from ERDA's Office of the Assistant Administrator
for Environment and Safety (AES) indicated that his office addresses prob-
lems of environment and safety across all of the line divisions of ERDA
including fossil fuels. Dr. Gottlieb represents a new group in AES whose
primary responsibility is to monitor, review and evaluate the activities
of developers of new energy technology and to serve as an overview and
assessment group to ensure that environmental adequacy is developed in
parallel with the development of the technology. He stated that specific
coordination links with EPA are now being developed.
The next speaker, Mr. Milton Beychok, a consulting engineer, gave an
industrial viewpoint of environmental control technology development. He
feels that industry is quite willing to accept emission regulations if they
are based on realistic data and commercially viable technology. He voiced
some disagreement with current procedures and made suggestions for improve-
ment of interactions between regulatory agencies and industry. He also
presented a brief case study of the WESCO design for coal gasification
plants in New Mexico and indicated that there was excellent cooperation
between the State of New Mexico and WESCO resulting in standards which have
not been contested by the strong environmental groups in New Mexico. He
further discussed the WESCO sulfur control system and stated that the single
standard concept for sulfur emissions does not fit all situations.
The general discussion following the morning session involved: fugi-
tive emissions, the problems of multiple sources in close geographic prox-
imity, and the integration of ERDA and EPA roles in the development of
acceptable control technology along with new energy production technology.
-------
Afternoon Session
The afternoon session was introduced by Dr. Stephen Gage, who empha-
sized the importance of the Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group, particu-
larly in view of the continuing large-scale demonstration program and
recent executive and legislative proposals. Mr Gerald Rausa, in charge
of health effects planning at the Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry,
EPA, chaired the afternoon session.
Mr. Karl Bombaugh of Radian Corporation presented an engineering
approach developed for EPA for prioritizing pollutants by extrapolating
effects from known emission streams and drawing analogies.
Dr. Max Samfield, IERL/RTP, discussed individual pollutants, their
sources and the establishment of acceptable levels. Discussion followed
this talk concerning the status and results of this work.
Dr. John Cleland of Research Triangle Institute indicated that only
500 chemical compounds out of thousands which are potentially toxic to
humans have had standards set, and emphasized the importance of prioritizing
pollutants in order to conserve research funds. He also showed different
methods of prioritization and the lack of correlation among the results.
Dr. Murray Schulman of ERDA reviewed the key elements of their bio-
medical research program which included: (1) rapid in vitro and in vivo
bioassay to identify agents capable of producing carcinogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic or pathophysiological effects; (2) determination of the uptake,
translocation, deposition, or excretion and enzymatic modification of
chemical agents identified as toxigenic; (3) quantitation of risk estimate
for carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and pathophysiological effects
in model, short-lived experimental animals; (4) acquisition and analysis of
all human information relevant to metabolism and effects of fossil energy-
related chemical agents; and (5) development of theoretical and animal
models to insure the extrapolation of the animal information to man.
Dr. Robert G. Tardiff of the Water Quality Division, EPA, Cincinnati,
discussed problems of organic compounds in drinking water. He suggested
three classes of factors that are important in prioritization—chemical,
human (i.e., the population-at-risk) and response (or toxicity) factors.
-------
He observed that it is difficult to weigh the relative importance of differ-
ent classes of criteria, and in the final analysis, best professional
judgments by experts were used to define the final research priorities.
Following the afternoon presentations, the following points were dis-
cussed: Impact of EPA and ERDA R&D programs on industry; the need for more
direct communication between EPA and ERDA; the importance of research and
development on environmental effects to identify those pollutants causing
the greatest damage, since total removal of all pollutants would be too
costly; the importance of knowing the extent to which a pollutant will
occur in the emissions from comnercial plants; the need for social impact
inputs; the current stage of development of new source standards for the
Lurgi-type processes (especially the need for actual operations data); the
importance of establishing the population-at-risk in any prioritization
method; and the relevance of research to the standards-setting process.
The general meeting was then adjourned and the Executive Committee
met to summarize the major points and draw conclusions pertinent to the
R&D program.
-------
MEETING REPORT
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS SECTOR GROUP
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK (RTF)
13 NOVEMBER 1975
MINUTES
Morning Session
The Director of EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
(IERL), Dr. John Burchard, was introduced by Mr. Robert Hangebrauck, also
of IERL. Dr. Burchard pointed out that Research Triangle Park was conduct-
ing environmental research for all new energy sources except oil shale.
They have major programs underway for both the development of environmental
control technology and the evaluation of effects of energy related pollutants,
The chairman of the meeting, Dr. Gary Foley of the Office cf Energy,
Minerals and Industry (OEMI), EPA, reviewed the events leading up to the
establishment of EPA's new energy R&D program. The first energy study was
conducted in 1960 and resulted in the conclusion that energy supplies were
adequate to meet the needs of the country since they were considered nearly
inexhaustible. In 1967 an energy policy office was established in the
Executive Office. In 1971 the President delivered his first energy message
to Congress. In 1973 a report was produced under the chairmanship of Dr.
Dixie Lee Ray that recommended a five-year $10 billion energy research and
development program. In part, the result of that program recommendation
was a request for an expenditure in FY 75 of $191 million for environmental
R&D. This request was subsequently reduced in budget negotiations to $134
million. In 1974 the Office of Management and Budget organized two inter-
agency task forces—one under Dr. King in health and environmental effects
and the other under Dr. Gage which studies programs of control technology.
Both of these reports recommend major interagency programs.
The research and development problems discussed in these reports are
many and stem from uncertainties related to emissions, toxicity, control
technology capabilities and environmental effects. There are also many
different groups involved (Figure 1)--those who set environmental standards
at both Federal and State levels, those who conduct research and development
-------
Figure 1
INTERACTION DIAGRAM
ERDA
TVA
Private Sector
Energy/
Environmental
R&D
(Planning and
Execution)
Regulatory
Offices
EPA
ERDA &
Private
Sector
Health and
Ecological Effects
R&D
(Planning)
Commercialization
Interests
EPA
ERDA
Private Sector
NIOSH
NIEHS
Private
Sector
FEA
Major Impact
Considerable Impact
<} Feedback
6
-------
in both production and emission control technology and environmental effects
and the industry that must implement the control technology and develop the
energy resources.
It was indicated that the major function of the Advanced Fossil Fuels
Sector Group is that of identifying the interests of all of the groups
involved in the process to produce timely and useful results (Figure 2).
Specific recommendations from group participants for EPA research were
solicited.
Dr. Foley pointed out that the Sector Group is composed of an executive
board of EPA representatives and members from other Federal agencies who are
involved in energy R&D. Historically, the first organizational meeting was
held in March 1975. Since that time application has been made to become an
official Federal advisory committee, but the Office of Management and Budget
decided that there are, in its opinion, already too many advisory committees.
However, it is planned that Sector Group activities are to continue by limit-
ing membership to Federal agency representatives and obtaining industrial
inputs through contractors and consultants.
Two documents had been prepared to assist in formulating recommendations
for the EPA R&D program. One is a status report on the overall research in
advanced fossil fuels and the other describes the environmental problems and
associated research programs. Copies of these reports were sent to partici-
pants prior to the meeting. Comments on the usefulness and recommendations
for modification of these documents were solicited.
The first speaker, Mr. James Durham of EPA's Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, discussed air pollution standards. He stated that
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act of 1970 requires EPA to establish new
source performance standards, and emphasized the importance of setting these
standards early in the development process to ensure uniform standards and
regulations, to reduce development costs and times, and to assist in early
financing. He noted that EPA is required to define standards in terms of
the best technical system of emission control with cost taken into consid-
eration, and that the standards are not static but are continuously reviewed
and subject to modification. It was further pointed out that:
-------
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUEL SECTOR GROUP RELATIONSHIP
EPA Program
Offices
EPA R&O
ERDA
00
OEM!
R&D
Program Development
AFF
Sector
Group
Issues/and
Priorities
Consideration
Recommendations
EPD
Development of
dynamic environ-
mental R&D
Program
IERL-RTP
Program Execution
IAG Program
EPA Processer & Effects Program
I
I and EPD
Development of
dynamic environ-
mental R&D
Program
OALW
OHEE
OMTS
DOC
D01
ERDA
FEA
FPC
HEW
HUD
NASA
NBS
TVA
USDA
IERL-CINC
Program Execution
Pass through
Advisory
Internal
-------
• more technical judgment is involved than is required in more
established industries.
• the standards group is not required to conduct economic cost-
benefit analyses before setting standards. That is, the
Agency need not evaluate the health and welfare cost-benefits
that would be derived from the emissions reductions that
would result from a standard.
• EPA must demonstrate that the standard can be technically
achieved and that the technology is available.
• the emission reductions achieved by the standards are reason-
able when compared to the economic and environmental costs of
applying the technology.
Mr. Durham's talk was followed by a question and answer period that
focused on the following points:
• Both liquid and solid wastes are considered when emissions
standards are set. However, the allowable liquid effluents
are set by water standards.
• The Agency's preliminary thoughts regarding standards for
sulfur emissions from coal gasification plants will be
publicly reviewed early next year. This review procedure
will provide ample opportunity for industry comment before
proposed standards are published in the Federal Register.
• National emission standards will be uniform and will not be
site-specific.
• The emission standards are based on the capabilities of the
best demonstrated control technology, and with consideration
of the reasonableness of costs and not directly on the environ-
mental effects of air pollutants from a cost-benefit point of
view.
• The goal is not to run cost-benefit analyses on the benefits
to the environment, but to reduce mass emission by a certain
tonnage, unrelated to the number of lives and structures saved
-------
or the number of plants that will live as a result. This
type of analysis is not required under the standards.
• A control technology is considered to be "demonstrated"
when it can reasonably be expected to achieve specific
levels of pollutant reduction at reasonable cost. It is
not necessary to obtain actual emission data on commercial
installations to prove the standard can be achieved,
although this is most desirable. So, technical judgment
is heavily involved. The objective is to set attainable
levels (allowing latitude for error) using current control
technology. However, as more data are generated, the
criteria relative to attainable standards may change in
the future.
/
• Feedstock variation is a major consideration and standards
will not necessarily preclude development of gasification
plants using high sulfur coal. Unless impractical, a single
nationwide standard will be set considering the fuels and
feedstock which are available throughout the country.
• One of the factors considered in the selection of sources
of pollutants is the overall reductions that will be
achieved. Section 110 of the Act provides for States to
prepare plans to comply with national air quality standards—
that is where health and welfare efforts play a stronger role
in Federal regulations, but not under new source standards.
Next, Mr. Harold Coughlin of the Effluent Guidelines Division of EPA
Headquarters, discussed the philosophy and process for establishing effluent
limitations and standards. He stated that the requirements for direct dis-
chargers are established by several sections of the 1972 amendments to
Public Law 92-500, and like the air quality standards, the effluent stan-
dards are technology based.
Existing industrial point sources must meet best practicable technol-
ogy (BPT) by July 1, 1977 and must meet best available technology (BAT) by
10
-------
July 1, 1983. BPT is the average of the best technology; BAT is the best
plan within an industry category or subcategory.
New sources (defined as any construction beginning after the day a
regulation is proposed) must use best demonstrated technology.
However, effluent quality requirements can be overriden in specific
geographic areas if more stringent limitations are needed to achieve state
and local water quality standards. Additional requirements may also be
imposed if the effluents contain pollutants that have been established to
be toxic in amounts above a certain level. As with air quality emission
regulations, no cost-benefit analysis regarding impact on fish or wildlife
is required as regards environmental impact. Consideration will be given
to the total cost of BPT application in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits to be achieved.
The following points were discussed during the question and answer
period that followed Mr. Coughlin's presentation:
• The idea behind BPT was not to set a number that everyone
could meet, or there would be no purpose in setting that
number in the first place. The fact that half are above
and half below, was not felt to be contrary to congressional
intent. This point was challenged by the example of the
development of petroleum industry guidelines. Of 173 petro-
leum plants surveyed, five had best technology available.
The questioner felt that the intent of Congress was that
the remaining 168 should be brought up to the level of
those five, not to a median level of the total 173 plants.
t Effluent guidelines for coal mines are now published as
preliminary values in the regulation preamble. The current
data base was felt to support the numbers in the preamble,
and they will be moved to the actual regulation after the
economic impact study is finished.
• It is important that the data base for both water pollutant
emissions and in-stream water quality take seasonal varia-
tions into account.
11
-------
• The Act sets zero discharge of pollutants into the streams
as a water quality goal for 1985. A lot of effluent dis-
charges are zero. However, some retreat from the 1977
objective has been suggested by the National Commission on
Water Quality. Zero discharge is defined as the complete
absence of liquid waste at the end of the pipe discharging
water into U.S. navigable waters. Standards for discharge
quality may be related to the quality of the input waters
at the discretion of the Regional Administrator.
• Effluent standards allow the mixing of effluent streams of
different types before they are discharged. The effluent
regulations are designed to apply to the end point only.
• The water quality guidelines for 1977 cannot be expected
to apply to new synthetic fuel plants because most plants
have five-year permits now. The big question is what stan-
dards will be required for 1983 in order to achieve swim-
mable and fishable waters. Emphasis will probably be on
new source standards where there is high growth potential.
• With regard to coordination of comprehensive limits on air
and water standards for a single facility, the laws under
which EPA is operating and the court decisions on these laws,
give some indication of what EPA can do under the Act. EPA
is not presently structured to develop air and water stan-
dards at the same time. It was not felt that this was
retarding development of badly needed energy. The Office
of Planning and Evaluation is doing an overview study of
about six industries to assess the impact and cost of the
Agency's total environmental regulatory activity in those
industires. This may result in an Agency policy to inte-
grate the different areas. There is concern at EPA about
this potential problem.
Mr. Robert Hangebrauck, Division Director, and Mr. Kelly Janes. Branch
Chief, IERL, manage the EPA R&D programs in synthetic fuels, advanced oil
processing and coal cleaning. They made the following points:
12
-------
• The EPA R&D program is a multi-media approach to environ-
mental problems. The industry is treated as a whole,
unlike the media-oriented standards program, to determine
what kinds of control technology requirements should be
applied and/or developed.
• Local environmental goals and pollutant effects are
considered.
• Each industrial sector is asked four basic questions:
(1) Can control technology achieve existing stan-
dards and operating practices?
(2) Can control technology meet existing ambient
standards?
(3) Are the projected environmental effects accept-
able?
(4) Is it possible to eliminate waste streams?
• The environmental impact analysis is conducted for alter-
native control technologies based on the expected outcomes
of specific R&D projects.
• The approach to control technology development will be based
upon the assumption that similar control technology will be
used for similar unit operations independent of process or
product type. These unit operations would be preparation,
feeding, reaction, purification, product upgrading, waste
treatment and byproduct recovery.
The Chairman asked the audience to be thinking about comments on EPA's
approach to control technology development. He asked if it should be more
process specific and stated that thase points would be discussed at the end
of the morning session. He then introduced Dr. Myron Gottlieb representing
ERDA's Environmental Control Technology Division (ECT) which was established
in July 1975.
Dr. Gottlieb initially described the overall ERDA organizational chart.
He explained that ECT has concerns that cut across the ERDA organizational
chart (Figure 3). These concerns include coal extraction, combustion,
13
-------
Figure
DIVISION OF BIOMEDICAL
AND ENVIRON, RESEARCH
J, LIVERMAN, DIRECTOR
NEW YORK HEALTH AND
SAFETY LABORATORY
J, HARLEY, DIRECTOR
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY
J. LIVERMAN
DIVISION OF OPERATIONAL
SAFETY
M, BILES, DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
H, HOLLISTER, ACTING DIRECTOR
REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH
COORD, STAFF
R, BARBER, ACTING DIRECTOR
-------
gasification and liquefaction, petroleum and natural gas, oil shale, marine
oil spills, geothermal, conservation, and solar technologies. They recog-
nize the fact that the developers of energy technology are in the best posi-
tion to provide environmentally acceptable energy systems. They expect that
this work will be done during the development of the energy technology and
that retrofits may be required to respond to new environmental requirements.
Their primary responsibility is to monitor, review, and evaluate the activi-
ties of developers of new energy technology. Where necessary, selected R&D
will be supported. They conduct assessments by: (1) identifying the nature
and extent of the problem, (2) defining control technologies or strategies
applicable to these problems, (3) evaluating the efficacy and practicability
of control options, and (4) recommending a control option for the systems,
or, if there is a gap, a development program to close that gap. They plan
to ensure that environmental adequacy is developed in parallel with the
development of the technology.
The following points were made during the discussion:
• The Division of ECT was started in July 1975, and coordina-
tion links with EPA are being developed.
• ECT expects to use existing emission standards and to
establish required levels of control and will initially
rely heavily on existing data on environmental controls.
• Health and ecological effects are being considered primar-
ily by the Division of Biomedical and Bnvrionmental Research,
Assistant Administrator for Environment and Safety, ERDA.
• ERDA has specific legislative authority for carrying out
the environmental functions for new energy technologies.
• It is not clear yet how results from the ERDA regional
studies will be incorporated into ECT activities but ECT
will follow their progress.
• A primary function of ECT is to serve as an overview and
assessment group.
15
-------
The Chairman then asked the participants to compare the EPA and ERM
approaches to control technology development and be prepared to discuss
these points at the discussion period which would follow the next speaker.
He then introduced Mr. Milton Beychok, a consulting engineer, who presented
a talk on the industrial viewpoint of environmental control technology
development.
Mr. Beychok felt that the industry is quite willing to accept emission
regulations if they are, in fact, based on realistic data and upon control
technology that has been demonstrated to be commercially viable. However,
he felt it was insufficient to rely on the 30 to 60 day comment period that
is provided for a proposed regulation. The industry must be involved early
in the standard-setting process because of the long lead times required for
control technology development. He felt that an understanding established
in the early stages of the energy technology development would greatly
reduce the amount of court litigation that would follow. He drew a sharp
distinction between first and second generation gasification technologies.
He stated that there were currently 10 gasification processes that were
ready for full-scale commercial development. These processes are based
primarily on the first generation technology. Specifically, the WESCO pro-
cess has received approval by the Federal Power Commission and the State
of New Mexico. The Environmental impact Statement is currently being pre-
pared. Equipment specifications have been developed. All that is needed
is some form of Federal financial assistance that is now being worked out.
He felt that EPA should establish emission standards based on the first
generation plants that are already designed. A great deal of money has
already been spent by these 10 industrial developers. They have paid care-
ful attention to environmental control technology. EPA R&D programs could
not make significant new contributions to this effort. However, the stan-
dards should not yet include second generation demonstration plants.
Instead, the EPA should wait until the wide variety of new demonstration
plants have been tested and their commercialization has been clearly
established.
A brief case study of the WESCO design was then presented. He stated
that the environmental standards for the specific site and specific design
16
-------
had been worked out with the State of New Mexico and that these were the
only existing standards for coal gasification plants (Figure 4). In 1971,
the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency asked WESCO to assist them
with establishing reasonable standards. Both groups drafted standards which,
after a public review, were redrafted and finally adopted by the Board in
1973. They were subsequently accepted by WESCO which was then granted a
permit. Excellent cooperation was achieved by both parties and the stan-
dards have not been contested by the strong environmental groups that exist
in New Mexico.
The sulfur control system was then discussed in detail (Figure 5).
The net result is that the total gasification plant sulfur emissions amount
to only 0.7 percent of the sulfur in the total gasifier coal feedstock.
He stated that the single national standard concept for sulfur emissions
does not fit all situations. New Mexico has emission standards 2-3 times
more stringent than the Federal regulations. It is also important to con-
sider the number and diversity of gas streams. In the case of WESCO there
are 13, which makes it particularly difficult to simplify to a single
regulation expressed as a point source concentration in parts per million.
He recommended that the regulations not be stated in parts per million.
They should include all sulfur species, including carbonyl sulfide. The
emission standard should be related to the feedstock sulfur content and to
regional differences in sulfur content (Figure 6).
The discussion after his talk made the following points:
• The design of the WESCO plant results in 70 Btu's output
for every 100 Btu's of input of 70 percent efficiency in
gas production.
• WESCO has been severely criticized for accepting the New
Mexico regulations because of the precedent that it might
set for higher sulfur coals in other regions. Even though
less stringent sulfur emissions were recommended for
Eastern coals, they're still very much better than direct
burning.
17
-------
Figure 4
EMISSIONS VS. REGULATIONS
(SLIDE 2)
Gasifier Coal Heating Value
= (24,820)(2000)(8,325)
= 413,253 x 105 BTU/day
Gasification Plant Sulfur Emissions
= 0.08 + 1.23 -i- 0.21
= 1.52 tons/day
= (1.52)(2000)/413,253
= 0.0074 pounds/106 BTU (New Mexico regulation = 0.0080)
Boiler Plant Coal Fines Heating Value
= (3,870)(2000)(10,040)
= 77,710 x 106 BTU/day
Boiler Plant SOo Emissions (from coal-firing)
= (3.23)(2)
= 6.46 tons/day
= (6.46)(2000)/77.710
= 0.166 pounds/106 BTU (New Mexico regulation = 0.340)
(Federal regulation = 1.20)
Superheater Fuel Oil Heating Value
= (224)(20001(17,250)
= 7,728 x 106 BTU/day
Superheater S02 Emissions (from oil-firing)
= (0.20)(2)
= 0.40 tons/day
= (0.40)(2000)/7,728
= 0.104 pounds/106 BTU (New Mexico regulation = 0.340)
(Federal regulation = 0.80)
18
-------
Figure 5
(4.2) [0.1] <2>
(144.7)
(137.46)
NAPTHA SEP. GAS
STARTUP VENT,
COAL LOCK VENTS
(0.08)*
(226.4)
SASIFIER. COAL
24.820 TONS/D
6,325 BTU/LS HHV
0.912 WT% 5
(3.01)
I.I I
CAT. REGEN. GAS
GAS-LIQ. VENT,
0AS-LIQ. FLASH
SULFUR
BY PRODUCT
3 RECOVERY;
(1.23)
(34.0)
3.B70 TONS/P COAL FINIE1
|O,O40 BTU/LB HHV
0.87 WTJ5 5
(3-23)
(40.14)
(fcs.os)
*. SULFUR REMOVED
(907. REMOVAL)
GASIFIERS,
SHIFT CONVERSION,
RECTISOL PRECOOL
F6
CRUDE PRODUCT GAS
,.I [0.1]
TARS, OILS (9-2)
NAPTHA (2.1)
SULFUR
BY PRODUCT
(98.6% RECOVERY
(0.21)
[0. 19]
<77>
/« -,^
(0.20)
JJ24 TONS/P OIL.
17.250 BTU/LB HHV
0.09 WT7. S
(0.20)
RECTISOL
GAS PURIFICATION
METHANATION
••****ir**ii-nrf**mt
jM^amp^rr—• ~—~.
SNS PRODUCT
ASH
( ) ALL SULFUR SPECIES, TONS/D
[ ' ] CARBONYL SULFIDE, TONS/D
< > HYDROCARBONS, TONS/D
NH3 PRODUCT
PHENOL PRODUCT
». REUSE WATER
* DAILY EMISSIONS ON ANNUAL!ZED BASIS
(a) 21 VOL 7. HZS
(b) 0.9 VOL % HzS
(c) APPROX. 70 VOL
-------
Figure 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
(SLIDE 3)
1 — Regulations should not be in terms of concentrations
(i.e. ppm by volume).
2 — Regulations for gasification should not include auxiliary
steam boilers and superheaters. Burning of coal, oil and
gas in steam plants is covered by existing EPA regulations.
3 — The gasification plant regulations should include all sulfur
species from all vents and stacks (including annualized
intermittent operations).
4 — Carbonyl sulfide emissions should not be "excused".
5 — Recommended wording for high-Btu gasification regulation:
"THE TOTAL EMISSION OF ALL SULFUR SPECIES IN ALL VENTS AND
STACKS FROM A COAL GASIFICATION PLANT (EXCLUDING ANY STEAM
GENERATION FACILITIES) SHOULD NOT EXCEED 1.5 - 3.0 PERCENT
OF THE SULFUR CONTAINED IN THE GASIFIER FEEDSTOCK COAL"
The 1.5 - 3.0% should be sub-categorized for regional
differences in coal sulfur contents. Thus, low-sulfur coals
might be limited to 1.5% emission and high-sulfur coals to
3% emission.
20
-------
• The cost for all environmental controls, both air and
water, has been estimated to be $70-80 million out of a
total plant cost of $800 million, approximately 10 per-
cent of the cost.
• All solid residuals, including trace elements, are planned
to be returned to the strip mine pits during reclamation.
There is a possibility of leaching, which is under study,
but now real problems are expected.
General Discussion
The general discussion following the morning session involved the
following points:
• EPA regulations have not yet been set for fugitive dust
emissions. New Mexico has such regulations for mining
operations, but not plant operations as yet.
• The problems of multiple sources in close geographic
proximity is the states' responsibility. They must
develop their own standards for maintaining ambient
air quality. Department of the Interior analyses of
seven coal gasification units and two major electric
power plants in close geographic proximity in New Mexico,
processing over 200,000 tons of coal per day have clearly
indicated that the SO , NO and particulates standards
X X
would not be violated. There are potential problems
with hydrocarbons, but the WESCO design has effectively
dealt with them.
• An ERDA representative felt that acceptable environmental
control technology would be developed along with the new
energy production technology. It is difficult to integrate
outside agencies in the process. The EPA role is not clear,
and ERDA developers are suspicious of the role that EPA
might play. The development of control technology was
felt to be an integral part of the process for the develop-
ment of the primary energy technology.
21
-------
Afternoon Session
The afternoon session was introduced by Dr. Stephen Gage. He stated
that the activities of the Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group were very
important, particularly in view of the continuing large demonstration
program and recent executive and legislative proposals. He referred to
the $11.5 billion incentives program designed to spur early development
*
of commercial-scale synthetic fuel plants , and to the $100 billion energy
independence program proposed by the President, observing that a dynamic
Sector Group is required to keep up with these various events. The
Chairman for the afternoon was Mr. Gerald Rausa who is in charge of health
effects planning at the Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry.
The first speaker was Mr. Karl Bombaugh of the Radian Corporation.
He presented a systematic approach to the problem of characterizing the
emission potential of energy conversion processes which they developed
for EPA. He defines systems approach as "an engineering approach to analy-
tical chemistry". Since there are no commercial coal conversion plants in
operation in the United States, their approach was to extrapolate effects
from known emission streams and draw analogies. They first defined the
expected stream composition from the simile process and developed a modular
strategy for analysis that could be extrapolated to the new stream. An oil
refinery was selected as having emission streams most like those expected
from synthetic fuel processes. Procedures that could be applied to the new
process as system modules were developed for collecting samples, preserving
them, and preparing them for analysis by spectrometry. Each pollutant is
identified at the source or at the point of highest concentration and then
traced downstream. This strategy was preferred to one identifying traces
of compounds in either final gas streams or in the fugitive emissions where
they may be present at very low concentrations.
There were no questions.
*Viewed as highly likely to be passed at that time, but which failed to pass
the legislature. It is still a strong indication of things to come in the
future.
22
-------
Dr. Max Samfield of the IERL/RTP Special Studies Staff discussed
individual pollutants, their sources, and the establishment of acceptable
levels (Figure 7). He identified three primary questions to be addressed:
(1) What are the pollutants of concern? (2) What are the pollution
sources of concern? (3) As a guide to control technology, to what level
must these pollutants be reduced to provide an adequate measure of safety
for the general public? It was pointed out that this was a particularly
difficult task because of the many thousands of chemical compounds that
were potentially toxic. They have used models for human respiration and
liquid ingestion to forecast pollutant levels in the body as a function of
exposure. IERL intends to use the proposed model as a guide to the develop-
ment of control technology for pollutants for which no standards have been
set.
Questions following his presentation brought out the following points:
• There is a list being compiled by RTF of Threshold Limit
Values (TLV) for pollutants that are likely to be asso-
ciated with the synthetic fuel processes. It is not yet
complete.
• IERL is presently developing a computerized list of
pollutants of interest to IERL. They are primarily
interested in putting in mass spectra to assist in
analytical work.
• Some pesticides are included in the RTF list. No claim
is made that the RTF model works for carcinogenic or
mutagenic substances; they were surprised at close agree-
ment with some of these compounds. The only comparison
made was with proposed standards or those that have been
set.
Dr. John Cleland of Research Triangle Institute began his presentation
with a lengthy list of synonyms for the word "prioritize." He illustrated
that it is not clear exactly what the word means. He pointed out that there
were about 500 chemical compounds that have standards set for them. How-
ever, there are many thousands of substances that are potentially toxic to
23
-------
Figure 7
Biolorjical
Testing
Observed or
Calculated
Biosphuric
Efforts
Epidemiology
Development of
Analytical
Techniques
Establishment
of Pollutant
Identity
Establishment of
Control
Limits
t
I
u.
Cost-benefit
Analysis
I
I
I
i
..j
Development of
• Control
Technology
Controls
Instituted
Development
of Control
Monitoring
Instruments
Monitoring
24
-------
humans, and it can require approximately $500,000 and 1 3/4 man-years of
effort per substance to develop criteria upon which a standard can be
based (Figure 8). It is therefore extremely important to prioritize the
pollutants to conserve research funds. He presented a list of 27 factors
that could be used as criteria for prioritizing pollutants (Figure 9).
They were classified as being health-oriented, location-oriented, by type
of source and type of substance. He pointed out that all methods for
prioritization use some level of judgment and opinion. He compared three
different methods that had been used and observed that there was little
correlation among the resulting priority lists. The most widely-used
method today is what he referred to as the "wise-man" approach, where a
group of knowledgeable researchers agree on the best strategy for toxicity
research. He stated that RTI had catalogued 400 substances into a conve-
nient format. When asked if enough data were available, he replied empha-
tically, "No." There were no other questions.
Dr. Murray Schulman of ERDA's Division of Biomedical and Environmental
Research (DBER) noted that the goal of biomedical and environmental research
programs in coal conversion is to evaluate processes and materials to deter-
mine potential biomedical/environmental problems and to communicate the
results to cognizant managers of related environmental programs. Two basic
"populations" are addressed—the industrial workers subjected to chronic,
medium level exposures of untransformed pollutants and the general public
which may be exposed to lower levels of dispersed and possibly transformed
effluents.
Research for ensuring safety of industrial workers is both more easily
implemented and of more immediate concern than that necessary to evaluate
potential effects on the general public and the environment, because infor-
mation on environmental transport and transformation is not necessary.
Initially, acute effects studies must be conducted to determine carcinogenic
and toxic potential of process, products, and effluent materials. These
tests should be concerned with determining the concentration of materials
necessary to produce specific health effects as well as the effect produced
by expected ambient concentrations. Initial toxicological screening can
probably be done using a hierarchical tier (composite materials, fractions,
specific compounds).
25
-------
FIGURE 8
NUMBER OF SUBSTANCES
KNOWN 3 X 106
ANNUAL ADDITION 10*- 1Q5
TOXICITY INFORMATION 1 X 105
TOXICITY LIMITS 1*2 X 10*
STANDARDS 5 X 10*
$500,000 + 13A MANYEARS/SUBSTANCE
26
-------
FIGURE 9
PRIQRITIZATIQN FACTORS
HEALTH ORIENTED
CARCINOGENCITY
TOXIC ITY, HAZARD
SEVERITY OF EFFECT
DISEASE LIKELIHOOD
FIRE, EXPLOSION, ETC,
STANDARDS, LIMITS
SOURCE ORIENTED
RAW MATERIALS, PRODUCTS
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CAPACITIES
EFFLUENT MEDIA
EMISSION HEIGHTS
MEASURED EMISSION RATES
MEDICAL RECORDS
GROWTH
LOCATION ORIENTED
POPULATION DENSITY
SOURCE—POPULATION DISTANCE
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS
TOPOGRAPHY, METEOROLOGY
WATER USE
MEDICAL RECORDS
GROWTH
SUBSTANCE ORIENTED
PERSISTANCE
MOBILITY
SOLUBILITY
DECAY
OTHER CHEMICAL-
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
27
-------
The main known hazard for personnel involved directly in coal conver-
sion is exposure to carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). However,
there are a number of other materials, including phenols, organosulfur
compounds, and others to which such personnel may be exposed. Little is
known about the long-term effects of chronic medium level exposure to the
complex organic mixtures produced during coal conversion processes. Thus,
both rapid screening tests, longer term tests, and quantitative dose-effect
determinations will be required to assure that industrial personnel are not
being exposed to undue hazards. As long as coal conversion is in the pilot
plant stage the number of exposed individuals will be too small to allow
detection of any but the most obvious and ubiquitous effects, but medical
surveillance and epidemiological studies with personnel involved in estab-
lished fossil fuel processes may give valuable information.
While research related to the health of coal conversion workers is
the most immediate need, it may not answer the questions affecting the
ultimate acceptability of the coal conversion technologies. The biomedical
and environmental research which may be most important centers on the
effects of chronic exposures of large segments of the population and general
environment to low level effluent concentrations. Biomedical and environ-
mental research needed to evaluate these risks requires a long leadtime
and cannot be forced easily into the short-term time constraints necessary
for quick technology development. Such research will follow some of the
classical pathways initiated in evaluating potential radiation effects,
but is more complex, in that analytical capabilities are less well under-
stood and biological transformation products exist. In particular, the
synthetic crude oil produced by coal conversion has a considerably higher
concentration of PAH's than does natural crude oil. Such materials repre-
sent a potential hazard, since there is some indication from work with lower
organisms that they may not only be carcinogenic but mutagenic as well.
The key elements of research will be: (1) rapid in vitro and in vivo
bioassay to identify agents capable of producing carcinogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic or pathophysiological effects; (2) determination of the uptake,
trans location, deposition, or excretion and enzymatic modification of
chemical agents identified as toxigenic; (3) quantitation of risk estimate
28
-------
for carcinogenic, tnutagenic, teratogenic, and pathophysiological effects in
model short-lived experimental animals; (4) acquisition and analysis of
all human information relevant to metabolism and effects of fossil energy-
related chemical agents, and (5) development of theoretical and animal
models to insure the extrapolation of the animal information to man. It
may be expected that much of this research will be applicable to the esti-
mation of health hazards for industrial workers and to the general public
including the development of tests for identifying and quantitatively
evaluating hazards, analysis of damage-producing mechanisms, and studies
of how biological systems may repair or recover from the damage. Since it
is not economically or scientifically feasible to evaluate the pollutants
emitted from every coal conversion process, some research must be directed
toward developing classification techniques whereby similar materials
(e.g., PAH) may be grouped for testing.
Dr. Robert G. Tardlff of EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory in
Cincinnati discussed problems of organic compounds in drinking water. The
priority system they have developed is sufficiently general to apply to
pollutants from several different sources and several different routes of
exposure. He suggested three different classes of factors that were impor-
tant in prioritization--chemical, human (i.e., the population-at-risk) and
response (or toxicity) factors--and defined them in detail.
• Chemical factors deal with the identification of the kinds
of materials to which people are exposed, their bioaccumu-
lation potential measured by their liquid solubility, their
structural class as a predictor of possible biological
responses, obligatory contaminents, chemical stability in dif-
ferent media. Other chemical factors include those relating
to the manufacture, use, and disposal of chemicals.
• Human factors were those of concentration (the total number
of people exposed), exposure intensity (the integrated
amount by the various routes of exposure), chronic exposures,
and special problems raised by pulsed exposures, and the
duration of the exposure (the total time and the point of
life, e.g., fetal, geriatric, etc., in which the individual
is exposed).
29
-------
• Human response or toxicity data are the compounds'
structure and activity relationships, their metabolites,
micro-molecular bindings and the effects resulting
from the use of biological screens, maintenance of
toxicity files, and professional observations. Analy-
sis of these factors suggested criteria for further
testing. He observed that it is difficult to weigh
the relative importance of different classes of cri-
teria, and in the final analysis, best professional
judgments by experts were used to define final research
priorities.
General Discussion
The following points were made in the discussion that followed the
afternoon presentations.
• It is still not clear how industry will be affected by
the EPA and ERDA R&D program structures. The Standards
Programs have specific legal requirements, and their
philosophies are structured accordingly. It is not
clear to the majority of people outside of EPA how the
R&D program is related to the standard-setting process.
There is absolutely no evidence of a working communi-
cations system.
• There is too much subjective internal debate, little
communication between EPA and ERDA, and it is impor-
tant to make these links much more direct.
• There has been too much emphasis on the adversary
approach which tends to cloud any clear understanding
of the technical issues,
• The presentations by representatives of the Standards
Program gave no requirements for the R&D program.
• Mr. Beychok's talk illustrated the benefits of main-
taining a dialogue with open and early communication
between a company and the State in which it is located
in setting standards.
30
-------
• If best control technology currently available were
applied, without emphasis on characterization of pollu-
tants, how serious would the consequences be? Control
technologies will go on and will do just what has been
suggested—apply the current state-of-the-art. The
challenge for the health and the control technology
people is to find ways of decreasing cost. Total
removal of all pollutants would be too costly.
• The seriousness of fugitive emissions of pollutants
from accidents should be studied in the R&D program.
• It is very important to characterize the pollutants in
emission streams from actual commercial-sized plants
as soon as possible. The development of control strat-
egies for individual pollutants is premature without
a good knowledge of the extent to which that pollutant
will occur in the emission streams. Early definitions
of when and what control are very important.
• Concern was expressed that so much time is being spent
prioritizing pollutants when they have not yet been
identified. Control criteria should be applied to
specific systems and not in general. What is the use
of these lists? More emphasis should be put on what
these compounds are, analyzing them, building process
development units to simulate the kind of emissions
coal gasification will produce and find out what the
real problems are. No one appears to be doing this.
• In response to these concerns about the need for inter-
agency communication, it was asserted that a great deal
of communication is taking place. An interagency meet-
ing with regard to energy-related health effects studies
is in the planning stages now.
i With regard to carcinogen policy, Dr. Albert, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Health and Ecological Effects,
has been assigned responsibility for developing EPA's policy.
31
-------
Standards (regulations) are not simply based on techni-
cal data but are essentially socially developed and the
technical data base is only a component of that .
The question was raised as to when new source standards
will be set for Lurgi-type processes. What stages are
they in now? It was stated by Mr. Durham that EPA's
Emission and Standards Division is in the preliminary
stages of standard development for coal gasification
plants and that the current schedule calls for a first
draft of a Standard Support Environmental Impact Statement
to be put out lor general industry comment this spring.
The procedure for developing new source standards was
explained. First, information is obtained by the author-
ity of the Clean Air Act through formal information
requests, visiting the people concerned. Then a tech-
nical document is put together summarizing what can be
done today, the costs—environmental and economic — the
projected achievable emission levels, and the standards
recommended as a result. This is all printed in a
"Standard Support Environmental Impact Statement" which
is distributed to interested parties. It is then
reviewed by an open national committee, the National
Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee,
which all interested parties are invited to attend.
Comments received are then analyzed to determine what,
if any, changes are necessary. In many cases new
information must be gathered. Once it is felt that
all the issues are in hand, it is published in the
Federal Register as a proposed standard. It is not
an arbitrary process.
32
-------
Meeting Recommendations
The meeting chairman, Dr. Foley, reiterated that the primary purpose
of the meeting was to obtain recommendations on what the EPA R&D program
should be doing. He stated that the meeting minutes would be analyzed to
extract indirect recommendations, but he asked for direct recommendations.
This invitation was responded to with the following points.
• It is important to point out the population-at-risk in
any pollutant prioritization method.
• It is important to establish the degree of relevancy
in research tasks, to separate that which is of purely
academic interest from that which is truly useful
input to the standards-setting process.
• It is important to gain access to operating Lurgi
plants to find out what the emissions actually are.
Commercial plants currently operational are in foreign
countries, particularly South Africa and Poland. These
plants are at a smaller scale than commercial plants
proposed for the United States, and it is very difficult
to gain access to operational data. There are problems
making the necessary political arrangements.
• It is important to specify specifically how the research
and development program should be involved in the
standard-setting process. Working relationships must
be improved.
• The analytical strategy developed for coal gasification
*
was based on the third report of the Radian Corporation
study and on addressing the variety of gasification
sources and clean-up systems, taking the composition
of the gas streams and probable composition of all of
the water streams from data reported to EPA.
K. J. Bombaugh, et al., "Sampling and Analytical Strategies for
Compounds in Petroleum Refinery Streams," EPA Report No. 68-02-
1882, September 15, 1975.
33
-------
• It is clear that EPA does not have samples and must
have them. EPA will be happy to take samples and run
emission tests at any plant which is made available
to them.
• It is important to document the results of this meeting
and to specify how these results are used in the next
meeting.
The general meeting was adjourned and the Executive Committee con-
vened to summarize the major points and draw conclusions for the R&D
program.
34
-------
AGENDA
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS MEETING
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
November 13, 1975
8:00 Registration and Coffee
9:00 Opening Remarks
9:15 How We Got To Where We Are
9:45 Introduction, R&D Strategies for
Control Technology
10:00 Federal Regulation of Atmospheric
Emissions from Advanced Fossil
Fuel Conversion Facilities
10:20 Water Standards
10:40 EPA Environmental Assessment and
Control Technology Program
11:00 ERDA Control Technology
11:20 Industrial Approaches to Control
Technology
12:30 Lunch
1:40 Introduction, Pollutant Priorities
1:40 A System Approach to the Problem
of Characterizing the Emission
Potential of Energy Conversion
Processes
1:55 Estimation of Permissible Pollutant
Concentrations for Air and Drinking
Water
2:10 Factors to be Considered in Priori-
tization of Pollutants
2:25 The ERDA Approach to Prioritizing
Pollutants
Speaker
John Burchard, EPA, Director,
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
Gary J. Foley, Chairman
EPA-Office of Energy, Minerals,
and Industry
Gary J. Foley, Chairman
James F. Durham, Chief, Performance
Standards Section, Emission
Standards and Engineering
Division, EPA-RTP
Harold Coughlin, EPA-Effluent
Guidelines Division
Robert Hangebrauck and Kelly
Janes, EPA-Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory
Myron Gottlieb, ERDA-Environ-
mental and Safety Research
Milton Beychok, Consulting
Engineer
Gerald Rausa, EPA-Office of
Energy, Minerals and Industry
Karl J. Bombaugh, Radian
Corporation
Max Samfield, EPA-Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory
John Cleland, Research Triangle
Institute
Murray Schulman, ERDA-Division
of Biomedical and Environmental
Research
35
-------
ATTACHMENT I (Continued)
2:40 Screening Prioritization
Strategies
3:00 Discussion
4:00 Summary
4:15 Adjourn
4:30 Executive Committee Meeting
5:00 Adjourn
Speaker
Robert G. Tardiff, Chief,
Organic Contaminants
Branch, Water Quality
Division, Health Effects
Research Laboratory,
EPA-Cincinnati
Gary J. Foley, Chairman
36
-------
ATTACHMENT II
LIST OF ATTENDEES
ADVANCED FOSSIL FUELS MEETING
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
November 13, 1975
John H. Abrahams
Energy Research & Development
Administration
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, DC 20545
Milton R. Beychok
17709 Oak Tree Lane
Irvine, CA 92715
Julie F. Bishop
Stanford Research Institute
1611 N. Kent Street
Arlington, VA 22209
Karl J. Bombaugh
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX
Paul E. Brubaker
Greenfield, Attaway ,& Tyler, Inc.
Chief, Pathophysiology
98 Larkspur St.
San Rafael, CA
John K. Burchard
Director, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (MD-60)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
John G. Cleland
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Harold Coughlin
EPA, Office of Water Planning &
Standards
401 M Street, S.W. (WH-452)
Room 913, East Tower
Washington, DC 20460
Ronald L. Dickenson
Stanford Research Institute
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
James F. Durham
EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning & Standards (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Henry F. Enos
Deputy Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, GA
George Erskine
MITRE Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.
McLean, VA 22101
Gary J. Foley
EPA, Office of Energy, Minerals
ft Industry
Waterside Mall, RD-681
Washington, DC 20460
R. John Garner
EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Myron Gottlieb
ERDA, Environment & Safety Research
Washington, DC 20545
Robert P. Hangebrauck
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Gerald Ho Hind en
Tennessee Valley Authority
503 Power Bldg
Chattanooga, TO 37401
37
-------
ATTACHMENT II (Continued)
Charles W. Hulburt
Stanford Research Institute
1611 N. Kent Street
Arlington, VA 22209
T. Kelly Janes
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
James C. Johnson
EPA, OEMI, Energy Processes Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Room 639, West Tower (RD-681)
Washington, DC 20460
John E. Johnston
U.S. Geological Survey
National Center Stop 956
Reston, VA 22092
james C. Jones
Director, Environmental Quality
Peabody Coal
301 N. Memorial Drive
St. Louis, MO 63102
John H. Knelson
EPA, Health Effects Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Kathleen Kozey
U.S. Geological Survey
Reston, VA 22092
William N. McCarthy, Jr.
EPA, OEMI, Energy Processes Division
401 M Street, S.W. (RD-681)
Room 639, West Tower
Washington, DC 20460
Rayburn Morrison
EPA, Office of Quality Planning &
Standards, SASD
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Jim Mulvihill
ERDA
4800 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
William E. Pepelko
EPA, Health Effects Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Frank Princiotta
Acting Director
EPA Energy Processes Division
Washington, DC 20460
Gerald Rausa
EPA, Environmental Science
Washington, DC 20460
Robert H. Rea
Resource Planning Associates, Inc,
44 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Max Samfield
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (MD-63)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Frank C. Schora, Jr.
Vice-President, Process Research
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 South State Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Murray Schulman
ERDA, Division of Biomedical &
Environmental Research
Washington, DC 20545
Lowell Smith
EPA, OEMI
Washington, DC 20460
New address:
Office of Environment and Safety, ERDA, Fossil Energy,
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20545
38
-------
ATTACHMENT II (Continued)
John 0. Strakey
ERDA, Pittsburgh Energy Research
Center
4800 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 152L3
Mark J. Stutsman
EPA, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (MD-61)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
John Talty
National Institute for Occupational
Safety & Health
Chief, Engineering Branch
1014 Broadway
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Lloyd T. Taylor
EPA, Science Advisory Board Staff
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
Edythalena A. Tompkins
EPA, Health Effects Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Cene Tucker
EPA, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (MD-63)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Kurt Yeager
Program Manager,
Environmental Control
Electric Power Research Institute
P.O. Box 94303
Palo Alto, CA 94303
39
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/9-76-006
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Meeting Report: Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group,
Research Triangle Park, 13 November 1975
5. REPORT DATE
February 1976
i. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
N/A
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Stanford Research Institute
1611 North Kent Street, Rosslyn Plaza
Arlington, Virginia 22209
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-2940
Task 026
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Energy, Minerals, & Industry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
OF-
es/_
Sector Group
13,.TYP
Minu
.
eeting
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Nov.
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Contacts: Dr. Gary Foley -- (202) 755-0207
Mr. William McCarthy -- (202) 755-0635
16. ABSTRACT
The minutes of the second Advanced Fossil Fuels Sector Group Meeting cover
the content of the presentations which were made as well as the discussion which
followed. Two general areas of concern were addressed:
(1) R&D strategies for control technology and the relationships of control
technology R&D to development of standards and in respect to impact on industry.
(2) Pollutant prioritization and the relationship of characterization and
prioritization to control technology, standards and the impact on other government
agencies and industry.
These areas of concern were considered in the context of current control technology
versus that which may be required in the future, in particular as it relates to
coal gasification and liquefaction.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Coal gasification
Coal liquefaction
Environmental control technology
Pollutant prioritization
Pollutant characterization
Water standards
Air standards
Environmental standards
Control technology
Pollutants
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
46
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
41
------- |