.«/
»«x
VOL. 1, NO. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
of
SYNTHETIC FUELS
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORY
JUNE 1978
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
INTRODUCTION
In response to the shift in the U.S. energy supply priorities
from natural gas and oil to coal, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has initiated a comprehensive assessment program
to evaluate the environmental impacts of synthetic fuel
processes having a high potential for commercial application
This overall assessment program is being directed by the Fuel
Process Branch of EPA's Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park (IERL-RTP).
The primary objectives of the EPA Synthetic Fuels En-
vironmental Assessment/Control Technology Development
Program are- 1) to define the environmental effects of synthetic
fuel technologies with respect to their multimedia discharge
streams and their health and ecological impacts, and 2) to define
control technology needs for an environmentally sound, synthetic
fuel industry. The synthetic fuel technologies being studied in this
program include low/medium-Btu gasification, high-Btu
gasification, and liquefaction. To achieve the program's overall
objectives, the EPA has defined six major task areas that are
discussed in this review. The contractors involved in the overall
program, their EPA Project Officers, and the start and completion
dates of each contract are tabulated on page 8
This is the second publication in a series of periodic reviews of
recent activities in the EPA's assessment program of synthetic
fuel processes. Included are activities of the EPA's contractors,
summaries of major symposia, summaries of commercial and/or
technical developments, a calendar of upcoming meetings and a
list of major publications. This issue also features a summary of
a technology overview report of low- and medium-Btu coal
gasification. The third in this series is scheduled for distribution
in late summer, 1978. Comments or suggestions which will
improve the content or format of these reviews are welcomed.
Such comments should be directed to the EPA or Radian Cor-
poration personnel named on page 15 of this Review.
CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
BACKGROUND
High-Btu Gasification
Hlah-Btu Gasification Ovanlaw and Environmental
Assessment Data Bass Reports — TRW, Inc., is completing a
technology summary report as a first step in its environmental
assessment of high-Btu gasification. A draft of the report is
expected this spring.
A draft of the environmental assessment data base report for
hioh-Btu gasification should also be completed this spring. Draft
rtata sheets have been prepared for all ten gasification processes
seecKto* Stalled analysis, including HYGAS, BI-GAS. COGAS,
Hydrane Synthane, Texaco, CCyAcceptor, Self-Agglomerating
Ash Lurgi, and Koppers-Totzek. Some of the gasification
processes (e.g.. Texaco and Koppers-Totzek) are more suitable
forthe production of low- or medium-Btu gas. However, they are
included in this study because they have features and processing
teps similar to those employed in the production of high-Btu gas.
Also some of the environmental data on these technologies can
be used in the environmental assessment of h.gh-Btu
gasification. Work Is continuing on the preparation of data sheets
?or gas treatment, air pollution control, water pollution control.
methanation and shift conversion processes. To date, draft data
sheets S°e been prepared for 19 gas treatment processes, 9 air
SI ocontrol processes, 4 water pollution control processes
Trne hanation processes, and 1 shift conversion process. Most
of These data sheets have been forwarded to the process
devebpers for review and comment. Comments already received
from process developers are being reviewed and will be ,n-
corporated into the data sheets where appropriate.
Costs for a Koppers-Totzek gasifier are summarized in a draft
data sheet included in TRW's "Environmental Assessment of
High-Btu Gasification: Annual Report" (EPA-600/7-78-025,
February 1978; NTIS PB 278-175/AS). The costs were reported
by D. M. Mitsak (et al.) at the Third International Conference on
Coal Gasification and Liquefaction (August 3-5,1976). The costs
describe 15 four-headed K-T gasifiers operating at 1.2 MPa (170
psig) to produce 12.6 million Nms (470 million scf)/d of gas from
8220 metric tons (9700 tons) coal/d. The gas has a heating value
Of 11 MJ/Nm3 (300 Btu/scf). The costs include the costs of the
following downstream equipment: a water spray at the exit of the
gasifier to solidify molten entrained particulates, a waste heat
boiler, a venturl scrubber/washer cooler, a Thiesen disintegrator,
and a mist eliminator. Capital costs are reported to be $454
million (1976). Annual operating costs are reported to be $95
million per year.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
ACQUISITION
General Topics
Pollutants from a Laboratory Qasltlor — Research Triangle
Institute (RTI) is continuing a parametric evaluation of pollutants
from a laboratory gasifier. Screening studies are underway to
investigate the pollutants produced during various reactor
operating conditions, including the operating conditions of
existing or proposed large-scale gasifiers. Most recently,
gasification tests using Illinois No. 6 coal have been conducted.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
The RTI gasifier has been operating at higher steam-to-coal ratios
and lower temperatures than Morgantown Energy Research
Center and syntharre gasifier pilot units. Future test runs will vary
the steam rates and temperatures to simulate more closely the
larger gasifiers.
Control Assay Development — Catalytic, Inc., has continued
work on Control Assay Development (CAD) for coal conversion
processes. The objective is to provide quick screening treat-
ments on streams suspected of containing pollutants which
require control. Analyses will be made before and after treatment
to evaluate the effectiveness of pollutant control. The program is
expected to shorten the period of time between problem iden-
tification (through Level I assessment) and tinal recom-
mendations for application of control technology.
It is proposed to accomplish the wastewater CAD in three
steps:
• Pretreatment, when appropriate, to remove gross quan-
tities of known pollutants normally recovered by com-
mercial synfuel processes and t hose not present in the
wastewater in significant concentrations.
• Pre-screening with materials such as activated carbon and
ion exchange resins to establish operating parameters for
specific wastewater characteristics.
• Screening to determine which treatment methodology will
effect pollution removal.
Technologies under consideration in the wastewater CAD are
filtration, coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation, carbon
adsorption, bio-oxidation, and ion exchange. Drafts of pie-
screening and screening methodologies have been completed on
all but ion exchange.
CAD for air emissions has been initiated. The screening
methodology will include elements for particulate removal and
sorption of organic and inorganic gases.
Field Manual for Sampling the Strettord Sulfur Recovery
Process — Catalytic, Inc., is preparing a manual containing the
procedures to be used in the field by a sampling team con-
ducting Level 1 environmental assessment testing of the
Stretford process. The test plan presents sampling techniques for
gases, particulates, liquids, solids and fugitive emissions.
Analytical procedures for tests that can be readily performed in a
mobile field laboratory are also presented. Sample handling
techniques are given for those samples that must be shipped to
an off-site laboratory for completion of Level 1 testing.
Low/Medium-Btu Gasification
Envitonmental Testing — Radian Corporation arranged to
conduct environmental tests at tour low/medium-Btu gasification
plants. In 1977, tests of Chapman (Wilputte) gasifiers were
completed. Testing of a Wellman-Galusha gasifier was completed
in April 1978. A series of tests of Lurgi gasifiers at the Kosovo
Kombine in Pristiria, Yugoslavia, began in late 1977 and will
continue through the spring of 1979. In late 1978, tests of a
Foster Wheeler/Stoic gasifier will be conducted.
At the facility using Chapman (Wilputte) gasifiers, low-Btu gas
is produced from bituminous coal by fixed-bed single-stage
gasifiers operating at atmospheric pressure. Each gasifier is
equipped with a cyclone for particulate removal. The hot gas
leaving the gasifier is quenched by a series of sprays inside the
exit lines from each cyclone. The gas is scrubbed and further
cooled in tray and spray scrubbers. Tars and oils are separated
from the quenching and scrubbing liquors in a liquor separator.
The main goal of this test program was to characterize the
multimedia discharge streams leaving the gasification facility.
When possible, waste stream characterization was accomplished
through the use of the EPA’s Level 1 methodology. A second
objective of the test program was to evaluate the sampling and
analytical techniques defined by Level 1 procedures to determine
their applicability to the waste streams from low-Btu gasification
plants. In some instances, more detailed and/or specific methods
were used to supplement the information provided by the Level 1
procedures. In addition to waste stream characterization, some
data were obtained to determine the origin and fate of potentially
hazardous components which were identified in the samples
collected. In particular, the performance of the hot cyclone as a
particulate and trace contaminant removal device was studied.
The samples collected during Radian’s test program were the
coal feedstock, barrel valve (coal feeder) vent gases, ash,
separator vent gas, cyclone dust, separator liquor, by-product
tars and oils, product gas, and the cyclone inlet and outlet gas
streams.
The following conclusions and recommendations can be drawn
from the preliminary results of the test program:
• Waste streams having high concentrations of tar, such as
the barrel valve vent stream, will require modifications to
the Level 1 procedures for collecting particulate and gas
samples. Electrostatic precipitation is one recommended
method for collecting tar and particulate samples and for
purifying the stream for subsequent gas sample analysis.
This sampling technique may have the added benefit of
reducing the tar-gas contact time which may reduce the
possibility of certain gaseous species (such as H 2 S, COS)
being sorbed in the tar.
• Streams having high moisture contents, such as the
separator vent stream, require additional cooling in the
source assessment sampling system (SASS train) organic
module. This can be accomplished by circulating ice water
through both the outer and inner cooling jackets and/or by
increasing the cooling surface area.
• Pretreating XAD-2 resin by washing the resin with water,
methanol, pyridine, and ether reduces amounts of im-
purities in the resin blank. Storing the resin in methanol
improves the resins handling characteristics and reduces
the possibility of substrate cracking.
• Placing the XAD-2 resin cartridge at the exit of the SASS
train organic module allows the conciensibles to be
collected before the gas passes through the resin car-
tridge. This modification should increase the resin loading
time and decrease the potential for gas channeling.
• In-line alundum thimbles for determining particulate
loadings in the gas entering and exiting the hot cyclone
appear to give reasonable results. The total parliculate
collection efficiency for the hot cyclone was calculated to
be 60%.
• Impingers should be used to collect samples for HCN and
NH 3 because concentrations of these species are much
lower than the detection limits of the analytical device
prescribed by Level 1 methodology.
• Sample containers and injection syringes for sampling and
analyzing gaseous sulfur species should be preconditioned
with a standard gas containing H 2 S and SO 2 . This will
reduce the sorption of these species on the walls of the
containers and syringes.
• The preliminary analytical results indicate that if the
dilution air were eliminated from the barrel valve and
separator vent streams, the composition of the resulting
stream would be similar to that of the raw product gas.
2
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
At the facility using Wellman-Galusha gasifiers, low-Btu gas is
produced form anthracite coal by a new, fixed-bed single-stage
gasifier operating at atmospheric pressure. The gasifier is
equipped with a cyclone for paniculate removal. The hot gas
leaving the cyclone is combusted.
This test program includes environmental assessment tests, a
material balance test, and a control technology characterization
test. The objectives of the environmental assessment tests are to
determine the composition and potential biological activity of
waste streams leaving the gasification facility, and to charac-
terize the combustion products of low-Btu gas produced from
anthracite coal. Results of the environmental assessment tests
will be reported according to EPA Level 1 methodology. The
objective of the material balance test is to determine the origin
and fate of major, minor and trace elements around the Wellman-
Galusha gasifier. Elemental balances will be performed for
carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, nitrogen, ash, volatile trace elements
(antimony, arsenic, mercury, and selenium), and five additional
trace elements. The goal of the control technology charac-
terization test is to determine the total paniculate collection
efficiency of the hot cyclone and to remove particulates from the
product low-Btu gas. Streams sampled at the facility are the coal
feed, dry ash, cyclone inlet and outlet gases, cyclone dust,
combustion gases, coal hopper gases, poke hole gases, gasifier
inlet air, combustion air, jacket water, ash sluice water, and serv-
ice water.
At the Kosovo plant, medium-Btu gas for an industrial complex
is produced from lignite by pressurized, oxygen-blown Lurgi
gasifiers. Major operations at Kosovo are gasification, gas
cooling, gas purification, tar separation, and phenol extraction
Raw gas removed from near the top of the gasifier is water-
quenched and cooled to 25°C and routed to gas purification
Hydrocarbons, H2S, and C02 are sorbed form the raw gas by cold
methanol in a Rectisol gas purification unit. An H2S-rich waste
gas stream is produced by thermally regenerating the methanol
sorbent and is then incinerated.
Liquid products from quenching, cooling, and Rectisol gas
cleaning are separated into tar, oil, and phenolic water during tar
separation. Phenols are removed from process wastewaters by
the Phenosolvan process.
The objectives of the Kosovo test program have been defined
as follows:
• Phase I: To measure the emission levels of specific major
and minor pollutants emitted from the Kosovo plant.
• Phase II: To characterize the emissions of minor and trace
pollutants from the Kosovo plant.
During Phase I, the mass emissions of specific pollutants are
being determined on 36 effluent streams. During Phase II, ap-
propriate streams are to be analyzed for trace elements, trace
organics, and particulate characteristics. The Phase II program
involves 18 streams plus fugitive emissions at 3 in-plant
locations.
Corporation and the South African Coal, Oil, and Gas Company to
plan and perform an environmental assessment of the Lurgi
gasification complex in Sasolburg, South Africa. Through
discussions with the DOE, TRW is arranging testing at the DOE
HYGAS and Synthane pilot plants. Environmental test plans are
currently being developed for testing at the HYGAS, Synthane,
Koppers-Totzek, and Lurgi dry ash gasification plants.
Liquefaction
Analysis of Coal Liquefaction Samples — Hittman Associates,
Inc., has completed an analysis of coal and SRC test samples to
determine the presence and distribution of radionuclides. The
final report of the radionuclide analysis is currently being
prepared. Other laboratory analyses of coal liquefaction process
streams and waste materials are continuing.
Characterization of Coal Liquefaction Process Modules —
Hittman is developing a methodology to characterize the ef-
fluents from coal liquefaction processes as functions of process
variables. A draft preliminary report identifying priority process
variables and pertinent process variables has been written and is
currently under review. Efforts to visit and sample coal
liquefaction pilot plants are continuing.
CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL
BACKGROUND
General Topics
Environmental Standards — Under EPA contract, Pullman
Kellogg, a division of Pullman, Inc., has compiled existing and
proposed Federal standards for air emissions, water effluents,
and solids disposal. Standards for the 22 states in which coal
conversion plants are likely to be located have also been com-
piled. A draft of this standards report is currently being revised
by EPA. The "most stringent standards" have been summarized
from the list of Federal and state standards. Continuing work is
directed at incorporating regional and international standards into
the summary of "most stringent standards," and comparing those
regulations with the EPA's Multimedia Environmental Goals.
High-Blu Gasification
Preparation for Testing — TRW has identified seven sites for
potential environmental testing. The potential test sites include: a
Lurgi dry ash gasifier at Sasolburg, South Africa; a Lurgi slagging
gasifier at Westfield, Scotland; a Koppers-Totzek low-Btu gasifier
at Modderfontein, South Africa; a HYGAS gasifier in Chicago,
Illinois; a BI-GAS gasifier in Homer City, Pennsylvania; a Syn-
thane gasifier in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and a Texaco gasifier
in Montebello, California. A secrecy agreement is currently being
negotiated with Krupp-Koppers as a first step in acquiring data
on the Koppers-Totzek coal gasification facility in Modderfontein,
South Africa. TRW has also contacted the American Lurgi
ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
DEVELOPMENT
General Topics
MEG's Development Status — RTI is currently preparing a
supplement to "Multimedia Environmental Goals for
Environmental Assessment" (EPA-600/7-77-136 a and b,
November 1977, NTIS PB 276-919/AS and PB 276-920/AS). Drafts
of background information summaries are now complete for 175
compounds. Literature searches are continuing for information
describing the less common species.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
Process Assessment Methodology for Environmental
Assessment Hittman has nearly completed development of a
methodology which ranks candidate processes according to the
need for further attention in an environmental assessment. For
processes of concern to EPA, assessment criteria include the
likelihood, timing, and extent of commercialization, and the
resulting environmental impacts of commerciatization. Hittman
chose the Decision Alternative Rational Evaluation (DARE) model
to assist in the weighing of process assessment criteria.
Using the general methodology for process assessment,
candidate systems in coal liquefaction technology were ranked
as follows: Solvent Refined Coal (highest priority), H-coal, Exxon
Donor Solvent, Synthoil, COED, COSTEAM, Clean Coke, Fischer-
Tropsch, ORC (Garrett), Coalcon, Methanol Synthesis, TOSCOAL,
and Bergius (lowest priority). This is a preliminary list and does
not reflect more recent developments.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSM ENT
General Topics
Applicability of Petroleum Refinery Control Technology to
Syn fuels Processes — TRW’s control technology assessment
activities to date comprise a comparison of refinery waste
streams to coal conversion plant streams, and an evaluation of
refinery control equipment and technology for application in coal
conversion facilities. Streams from refinery sour gas treatment
operations are similar to acid gases and treated streams
encountered in the production of synthetic fuels. Characteristics
of streams encountered in refinery sour gas treatment operations
have been reported by TRW in the “Environmental Assessment
of High-Btu Gasification: Annual Report” (EPA-600/7-78-025,
February, 1978, NTIS PB 278-175/AS). Feeds to refinery sour gas
treatment operations contain 16-63% H 2 S and substantial
quantities of CO 2 and hydrocarbons. In refineries, acid gases
have been recovered via MEA, Sultinol, ADIP, DGA, and Selexol
processes. Sulfur recovery processes used in refinery sour gas
treatment operations are the Claus and Stretford processes. The
Scott and Beavon/Stretford processes have been employed in
refineries to clean the tail gas f om sulfur recovery. The vent
from tail gas clean-up contains up to O.03°Io H 2 S, 250 ppm COS,
and 1 ppm CS 2 .
Process streams from the individual refinery process units are
still under study for counterparts in synthetic fuels upgrading.
Facility Concept for Product/B y.Product Streams —
Catalytic, inc., has conducted a preliminary evaluation which
indicates that a mobile test facility housing bench-scale
equipment can provide data suitable for studying coal conversion
systems product/by-product stream characteristics and their
control requirements. The mobile laboratory facility, located in a
single, self-contained van, would have capabilities for
investigating major unit operations/processes including
absorption, adsorption, distillation, extraction, filtration,
hydrodealkylation, hydrotreating, methanation, precipitation,
scrubbing, sedimentation, and shift conversion.
The facility would be equipped to conduct studies in the
following areas:
• Recovery of by-products from liquid and gaseous streams.
• Upgrading of products/by-products from coal conversion
systems.
• Evaluation of feasibte processing schemes and their
environmental effects.
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of potlutant removal/control
methods.
• Development of improved control measures where needed.
Assessment of Stret ford Process for Removing H,S From
Acid Gases — Catalytic Inc., has completed a draft report on
the Stretford process for gas purification and sulfur recovery.
The Stretford process is well-proven commercially and can
reduce the H 2 S content of acid gases to less than 1 ppm by
volume. H 2 S can be recovered as pure sulfur from gas streams
containing various ratios of H 2 S:C0 2 The process can be
operated over wide pressure ranges (0.1-7.0 MPa, 0-1 000 psig)
and can accept variations in the characteristics of acid gases.
However, organic sulfur species, such as COS, commonly
encountered in acid gases from coal conversion processes
cannot be removed, Pre- or post-treatment may be required to
remove organic sulfur, Pretreatment is also required for feeds
containing large quantities of SO 2 , HCN, or heavy hydrocarbons.
The system produces a large purge stream containing vanadium
compounds, anthraquinone disulfonic acid, thiocyanates, and
thiosulfates which then requires further treatment. The process
operates at low temperatures (ambient to 49°C, 120°F) and is
usually uneconomic for treating gases containing more than 15
vol % H 2 S.
Catalytic has reported the capital and operating costs for two
Stretford plants. The costs are those prepared by J.F. Pritchard
and Co. (a Stretford process licensee) and are based on 1974
data. Both plants operate at a pressure of 0.72-1.03 MPa (90-135
psig). One plant removes H 2 S from 1.5 million Nm 3 /d (55 million
scf/d) of natural gas. The H 2 S loading is reduced from 1490 ppmv
to 2.5 ppmv. Capital costs are shown to be $800,000; annualized
costs are $166,000. The second plant removes H 2 S from 1 .3
million Nm 3 /d (49 million sct/d) of a refinery synthesis gas. The
H 2 S loading is reduced from 14,000 ppmv to 10 ppmv. Capital
costs are shown to be $1,100,000; annualized costs are
$274,000. The overall cost of operation for the second plant is
$30/ton sutfur.
Application of Coke Oven Controls to Coal Conversion
Systems — The environmental aspects of by-product coke
ovens and coal conversion systems have many similarities.
Catalytic Inc., has begun a study to compare the process and
waste stream characteristics of the two systems and to
determine the applicability of coke oven controls and processes
to coal conversion systems.
Process wastewaters from by-product coke plants and coat
conversion plants contain phenol, ammonia, sulfide, cyanide, oil,
and grease. At by-product coke plants, ammonia is typically
removed and recovered from process wastewaters by using
steam stripping and distillation, or by Phosam-W. This latter
process from U.S. Steel uses ammonium phosphate scrubbing
and distillation to produce an anhydraus ammonia product.
Phenols are typically removed by solvent extraction, steam
stripping and/or biological oxidation. Biological oxidation has
successfully removed phenols, oil, grease, and suspended Solids
from coke oven wastewaters.
Both coke ovens and coal conversion systems produce gases
containing hydrogen sulfide. Processes used to remove hydrogen
sulfide from coke oven gas include the dry oxidation process
using iron oxide, the Vacuum Carbonate process, the Stretford
process, the Claus process and, more recently, the Sulfibari
process.
Control Technology for Particulates end Tar Emissions —
Hydrocarbon Research, Inc. (HRI) has initiated a study of control
technology for particulates and tar emissions from coal
conversion processes. A literature search is in progress to
characterize particulates and tar emissions from various coal
converters. The study objectives are (1) to determine the ultimate
fate of particulates and tars, (2) to estimate the costs of alternate
control technologies, and (3) to develop a prioritization R&D plan
for particulates and tar control technology.
Control Engineering Handbook — Under EPA contract,
Cameron Engineers is compiling a “Multi-media Environmental
Control Engineering Handbook.” The handbook Includes a
detailed description of environmental control technologies
applicable to coal conversion. Objectives of the handbook are:
4
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
• To categorize all commercially available control
technologies into a readily accessible systematic format.
• To provide technical data for each process, including
process description, ranges of application, efficiencies, and
capital and operating costs.
• To supply a list of specific equipment vendors and/or
technology licensees.
Cameron has completed approximately 35 specific device data
sheels.
Control Technology for Waste Utilization and Disposal —
Pullman Kellogg has identified the compositions and quantities of
the gaseous, liquid, and solid waste streams from coal
conversion processes in sufficient detail to study treatment and
disposal options. Waste stream treatment techniques and the
efficiencies, costs, and fulure needs associated with these
techniques are currently being studied.
The draft of the final report on this study is scheduled for
completion this summer. The report will compare available and
developing control technologies to projected environmental goals
of 2, 5, and 10 years in the future. In instances where available
and developing technologies do not meet the environmental
goals, other alternatives such as extending existing technology or
developing new technology w ll be evaluated.
Assessment and Control of Wastewater Contaminants
from the Production of Synfhetic Fuels — Under EPA
contract, the University of North Carolina has initiated bench-
scale testing of processes which treat wastewaters resulting
from the production of synthetic fuels from coal. In recent tests,
two of the three activated sludge reactors receiving synthetic
wastewater failed to degrade organic constituents in the wastes.
The cause of the failure has riot yet been determined. Aquatic
bioassay testing of the synthetic wastewater has been initiated
using algae and daphnia as test organisms.
Adsorption isotherms have been developed for the adsorption
of phenol, the isomers of cresol, and xylenols from synthetic
wastewaters. Studies involving the adsorption of alkyl phenol
mixtures are continuing. Coagulation studies on a sample of coal
gasification wastewater are also continuing. In one test, total
organic carbon was reduced by 15-20%. The goal of current
studies is to identify the species removed by coagulation.
Study of Hot Gas Desulfurizatlon Technology — HRI has
initiated a study of hot gas cleanup processes. Twelve processes
have been identified that use a variety of absorbents including
dolomite, molten salts and metals, and iron and copper oxides.
Detailed process descriptions are being prepared for each
process. Advantages of hot gas cleanup will be assessed relative
to low temperature cleanup.
Control Technology Report for a Koppers-Totzek
Gasification Plant — Catalytic, Inc., has recently completed a
draft report for a Koppers-Totzek gasifier used in the production
of ammonia or methanol. The report gives a multimedia summary
of environmental requirements, guidelines, and control/disposal
options for a K-I gasification plant under design consideration.
Liquefaction
Control Requirements of the H-Coal and Exxon Donor
Solvent Processes — HAl has assessed process design
information of the H-Coal pilot plant and has prepared a process
flow diagram detailing the control requirements of each process
operation. Similar information is being collected for the Exxon
Donor Solvent Pilot Plant.
Control Technology Report for SRC Liquefaction —
Hittman is revising a control technology report for SRC-1
Liquefaction to incorporate review comments from the EPA. The
report is intended to provide a multimedia summary of
environmental requirements and control/disposal options
applicable to solvent refined coal plants.
Wastewater Treatment for Coal Liquefaction — Hlttman is
currently comparing alternative integrated raw water and
wastewater treatment schemes for coal liquefaction.
Wastewaters from different liquefaction processes have been
characterized. Ultimately, Hittman will develop an integrated
water management plan based on the worst wastewater
characterizations.
Zero Discharge in Coal Liquefaction — Hittman is
evaluating existing and proposed zero discharge options in
related industries to determine the applicability of such options to
the SAC process. Work to date involves a search of publications,
periodicals, and literature from equipment manufacturers.
Coal Gasification
Coai Gasification — Gas Cleaning Plant — The coal
gasification — gas cleaning plant at North Carolina State
University is scheduled to be completed in August 1978. The
facility consists of a continuous fluidized bed gasifier; a cyclone
and scrubbers for removing particulates, condensables, and
soluble matter from raw synthesis gas; and an acid gas removal
system. The gasifier operates at pressures up to 0.8 MPa (100
psig) with a capacity of 23 kg (50 Ib) coal/h. The gasifier uses
either steam-C 2 or steam-air feeds to produce 0.67 Nm 3 (25
scf)/min of product gas. The acid gas removal system will test at
least four processes for the removal of acid gases: refrigerated
methanol, hot potassium carbonate, monethanolamine, and
dimethylether of polyethylene glycol.
The overall objectives of the project are to characterize
completely the gaseous and condensed phase emissions from
typical coal gasification cleaning processes, and to determine
how emissions depend upon various process parameters. The
gasifier will be operated for the first 6 months using a chemical
grade coke. The first tests of acid gas removal will use a
synthetic feed gas mixture.
TECHNOLOGY ANDIOR
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Coalex Demonstration Plant Staf ted Up — In February,
Coalex Energy Corp. started up a coal gasification demonstration
plant producing 4.2 GJ (4 million Btu)!h of low-Btu gas (4.8-5.6
MJ/Nm’, 130-150 Btu/scf). The Coalex process features an air-
entrained slagging gasifier that operates at atmospheric
pressure. The process also includes a proprietary additive that is
mixed with pulverized coal prior to gasification. The additive
promotes gasification of fixed carbon, lowers the ash fusion
temperature, and improves the capture of sulfur in the slag.
Coalex maintains that the gas produced from the gasification of
high-sulfur coals can be combusted without violation of NSPS (for
the combustion of coal). Commercial gasifier units producing 63
GJ (60 million Btu)/h are expected to cost $485,000, not including
the cost of the coal-feeding mechanism. The quoted price in-
cludes the cost of retrofitting combusion systems to permit
burning of the low-Btu gas.
5
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
ARCO Plans Test of In-Situ Gasification — This summer,
ARCO ’s Synthetic Crude and Minerals Division will test the in-situ
gasification of coal in a 21 meter (70 foot) thick seam south of
Gillette, Wyoming. ARCO will use the linked vertical walt method
developed by DOE’s Laramie Energy Research Center (LERC),
ARCO ’s work will ditfer from that performed by LERC because
the hydrology, thickness, and tractures ot the coal seam at
ARCO’s test site are different from those encountered by LEAC.
In this summer’s tests, air will be used to produce a low-Btu gas.
If the summer tests are successful, future tests may use oxygen
to produce a medium-Btu gas.
Gulf Plans Tests in in-Situ Gasification — Through a $1 3.5
million cost-sharing contract with DOE, Gulf Research and
Development Corp. is beginning a 5-year program to test in-situ
coal gasification In contrast to tests conducted by the Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory and the Laramie Energy Research Center,
Gulf’s tests will involve steeply-dipping coal seams. Field testing
will start next summer.
Pilot Plant Produces High-Octane Gasoline from Methanol
— Mobil Research and Development Corporation has demon-
strated a process for the direct catalytic conversion of methanol
to high-octane gasoline. In a pilot plant operation at Paulsboro,
N.J., Mobil has produced 0.24 m 3 (1.5 barrels) of gasoline daily
from 0.64 rn 3 (4 barrels) of methanol. The cost of converting
methanol to gasoline via Mobil’s process is about 5 to 10 cents
per gallon of gasoline produced. Using a methanol feedstock
produced from coal, gasoline produced by Mobil’s process would
cost about 40 to 50 cents per gallon more than gasoline
produced from crude oil in the U.S. today.
Laboratory Testing of Materials for Coal Gasifiers —
Southwest Research Institute of San Antonio, Texas, is con-
ducting an experimental program to identify materials of con-
struction best suited for use in coal gasitiers. The new laboratory
used in this program will eventually contain 34 test retorts, 12 of
which are currently operational. A matrix of 2760 tests on 9
different alloys will be developed to determine the suitability of
the materials for use in corrosive environments at temperatures
up to 980°C (1800°F) and pressures up to 7 MPa (1000 psig).
Foster Wheeler to Engineer U-Gas Process for Memphis
Light, Gas, and Water — Memphis Light, Gas, and Water
Division (MLGW) has awarded a $14.4 million contract to Foster
Wheeler Energy Corp. to engineer and provide construction
supervision for a commercial-scale industrial gas-from-coal
demonstration plant. The plant will feature the U-Gas process
developed by the Institute of Gas Technology.
The initial phase of the contract involves the expenditure of $3
million over a 20-month period for process development,
definitive design, and project cost estimates. Then, if DOE
selects the Memphis project over a competing project being
developed by W.R. Grace. Foster Wheeler wilt receive the
balance of the $14.4 million. The plant will be designed to
produce 50 million m 3 (175 million cf)/d of gas with a heating
value 0111 .2 MJINm 3 (300 Btu/scf) for use by industrial
customers. The total project cost of $1 79.5 million over a 6-year
period would be shared by DOE and MLGW.
Conoco Coal Development and Shell Development Com-
plete Liquefaction Pilot Plant — Conoco Coal Development
and Shell Development have completed a $2.5 million pilot plant
for the catalytic hydrogenation of coal to fuel gas, gasoline-range
naphtha, and oil. The pilot plant is part of an $1 1 million program
with the Department of Energy. Conoco and Shell are each
contributing 5% to the cost of the project. The pilot plant will
process 0.9 metric tons (1 ton) of coal daily. In the process, coal
is hydrogenated in the presence of molten zinc chloride catalyst
at 343-441°C (650-825°F) and 10-31 MPa (1500-4500 pSig). Initial
tests will use solvent refined coal (SRC) from the Ft. Lewis
(Wash.) SRC pilot plant. Coal will not be processed directly until
next fall.
Allis Chalmers to Design Kiln gas Gasification Plants —
Allis Chalmers Corp. has agreed to prepare preliminary
engineering designs of Kilngas gasification plants for Illinois
Power Co. and Ohio Edison Co. The Kilngas plants are to be
located in Wood River, Illinois, and West Lorain, Ohio. The
Kilrrgas process is claimed to operate at sufficiently high
pressure to be easily integrated with the more efficient combined
gas and steam turbine cycle power plants expected to be
available in the 1980’s, Allis Chalmers is currently operating a 36
metric ton (40 ton) per day pilot plant in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
Texas A&M Tests In-Situ Gasification — Petroleum
engineers at Texas A&M University are conducting tests of the
in-situ gasification of lignite. The test involve a technique similar
to the linked vertical wall method developed by DOE’s Laramie
Energy Research Center. The initial tests wilt produce methane,
carbon monoxide, and hydrogen gases with energy equivalent to
7000 m (250,000 cf)/d of natural gas.
Bell Aerospace Tests Low-Btu Gasitier — Under a contract
with DOE, Bell Aerospace Textron has developed and tested a
gasifier producing low-Btu gas from coat. A test unit designed to
gasify a half ton of coal an hour has been operated in runs of up
to an hour in length. Commercial prospects of the Belt gasifier
have not been discussed.
DOE and Combustion Engineering Evaluate Synthane
Processes — Data released by DOE and C-E Lummus, a sub-
sidiary of Combustion Engineering, show that pipeline-quality
substitute natural gas can be produced by the Synthane process
at a cost of $3.20 per GJ ($3.40 per million Btu). A commercial
plant producing 265 TJ (250 billion Btu) of pipeline-quality gas
daily would cost about $1 billion. Operation of the pilot plant has
demonstrated a carbon conversion of 65-80 percent, an efficient
high-pressure dry coal feed system, and an effective method for
removing char by-product. The raw product gas contains few tars
and heavy oils and has an H 2 to CO ratio of 3:1. This ratio is high
enough to eliminate the need for a separate CO shift conversion
unit ahead of a methanator.
Texas Lignite Gasified in Lurgi Gasifier — Texas lignite has
been gasified in a Lurgi gasifier operated by the South African
Coat, Oil, and Gas Corp. Exxon Corp. is encouraged by the
preliminary results of the tests in Sasotburg, South Africa. Exxon
expects to complete technical evaluations of the test run by
spring. If the process is economical, Exxon may build a 38,000
metric ton (42,000 ton)/d plant at Troup, Texas in the early
1980’s. The plant could produce 23 million m 3 (800 million cu It)
of 15 MJ/Nm 3 (400 Btu/scf) synthesis gas and 1600 m 3 (10,000
barrels) of a fuel-like liquid product daily.
NRC Advises DOE Not to Build Coal Liquefaction
Demonstration Plants — A panel formed by the National
Research Council has recommended that DOE forego plans to
build coal liquefaction demonstration plants. The panel maintains,
“if a demonstration plant is too small to be economical for
continued commercial operation after the demonstration period,
it should not be built. Instead, the pilot plant should be carefully
designed and operated so that the data obtained can be used in
the design of at least a single train of a commercial plant.”
Specifically, the panel suggests that the successful
development of either the H-Coal or Exxon Donor Solvent
process should be followed with construction of at least one
commercial unil. Demonstration plants for other liquefaction
plants should not be constructed until small-scale and pilot plant
results demonstrate substantial advantages over the Exxon and
H-Coal processes. The panel also recommends consideration of
the construction of a Fischer-Tropsch plant based on the latest
developments from operations in South Africa. Promising areas
for improved technology are the direct catalytic conversion of
synthesis gas to high-octane gasoline, and the direct catalytic
conversion of coal to aromatic and isoparaff in distillates,
6
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
Fluor Contends Gasoline-From-Coal Plant Commercially
Feasible In Near Future — In a study conducted for the DOE,
Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., concluded that an ad-
vanced coal liquefaction plant using a hydrogen donor process
could produce gasoline for $1 52/rn 3 ($24.35/bbl). That cost can
be compared to the current refinery price for gasoline of $100-
$112/rn 3 ($16-i 8/bbl). A plant producing 11,000 m 3 (66,000 bbl)/d
of unleaded gasoline, 2.4 million Nm 3 (84 million cf)/d of SNG,
and lesser amounts of butane, propane, sulfur, and ammonia
would cost about $2.5 billion.
Combustion Engineering Completes Nation’s Largest Low.
Btu Gasifler — During the fall of last year, Combustion
Engineering and DOE dedicated the Nation’s largest low-Btu
gasifier at Windsor, Conn. The gasifier features a two-stage
entrained bed and operates at atmospheric pressure. From a
feed of 4.5 metric tons (5 tons)/h pulverized coal, the gasifier
produced 25,000 Nm 3 (890,000 scf)/h of gas with a heating value
of 3.7-4.6 MJ/Nm 3 (100-125 Btu/scf). The cost of the $25 million
plant was shared by DOE, Combustion Engineering, and EPRI.
Cities Service Tests Coal Liquefaction — Cities Service
Energy Research Laboratory in Cranbury, N.J., has begun pilot-
plant operations of a process producing light aromatic liquids
from coal. The process converts pulverized coal directly to
methane gas and light aromatic liquids by hydrogenation at high
pressures and temperatures. The pilot-plant tests are being
funded by DOE.
UK Coal Plans Demonstration Plant to Convert Coal to
Naphtha and Gasoline — The National Coal Board of the
United Kingdom plans to build a demonstration plant producing
naphtha and gasoline from coal. The plant will process 10 tons of
coal daily and obtain coal conversion efficiencies as high as
70%. Naphtha produced at the plant will not need to be refor-
med arid will cost about the same as naphtha produced from
petroleum. Gasoline will be more expensive than that produced
from petroleum. The demonstration plant will be part of a 4-year
program examining the commercial potential of the process.
H•Coai Product on Schedule — Hydrocarbon Research
Inc.’s H-Coal liquefaction project at Catlettsburg, Kentucky, is
scheduled for a startup later this year. The commercial-scale
pilot plant is funded by the DOE, the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
HAl, and four oil companies. The plant will have a capacity to
produce 350 rr 3 (2200 barrels) of oil per day and will be operated
on an experimental basis for 2 years. In the H-Coal process, light
distillate and heavy fuel oils, and hydrocarbon gases are
produced from the catalytic hydrogenation of coal. Both the
liquid and gas fractions could be used as petrochemical feed-
stocks. Product yields are expected to be about 3 barrels of
liquid fuels per ton of coal (0.5 m 3 liquid/i 0 kg coal).
UK National Coal Board Builds Supercritlcai Coal Ex-
traction Pilot Plant — The National Coal Board has completed a
$1 .3 million pilot plant to extract hydrocarbon components from
coal. The extraction uses inexpensive solvents such as toluene
under supercritical conditions (above the solvent’s critical
temperature and pressure). As much as 40 percent of the coal
can be recovered in the hydrocarbon extract. The extract can be
easily hydrogenated to a distillate oil. The pilot plant processes
20 kg of coal per hour. A 1 metric ton/hour plant may be built
later at a cost of $26 million.
TVA Selects Texaco Process for Coal -teA mmonla Project
— Tennessee Valley Authority has chosen Texaco’s gasification
process for a coal-to-ammonia demonstration plant at Muscle
Shoals. Alabama. The demonstration plant, to be completed in
the early fall of 1979, will produce 123 metrIc tons (135 tons) of
ammonia per day from a coal feed of 6.5 metric tons (7 tons) per
hour.
U.S. and Germany to Form Joint Coal-Research Venture —
The U.S. and West Germany have signed an agreement for
coordination of coal liquefaction research. The coordination effort
will avoid duplication, accelerate technical progress, and allow
German participation in a planned large-scale U.S. refinery for
liquefied coal products. In addition, the U.S. will participate in
modifications to a high-temperature gasification pilot plant to be
operated by Saarbergwerke AG (Saarbruecken) and Dr. C. Otto &
Co. GmbH (Bochum). The plant will convert 5 metric tons of coal
per hour into 10,000 m 3 of low-Atu gas. The U.S. is expected to
assume 40% of the $12 million cost.
Erie Mining to Build Gasification Demonstration Plant —
Erie Mining Co. is designing a small-scale coal gasification
demonstration plant under a $2.2 million DOE contract. The
plant, which will be located in Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota, will use the
Woodall-Duckam process to convert 450 metric tons (500 tons)/d
of high sulfur coal into gas with a heating value of 6.0-6.7
MJ/Nm 3 (1 60-i 80 Blu/scf). The gas will be used in a nearby
taconite plant.
W.R. Grace Designs Ammonia-from-Coal Plant — Under a
$10.2 million contract from DOE, W.R. Grace and Co. is
preparing a conceptual design of a medium-Btu coal gasification
plant for use in the manufacture of ammonia. The plant, which is
to be located in Baskett, Kentuc y, will use the Texaco Coal
Gasification process to gasify 1500 melric tons (1700 tons)/d of
coal for the production of 1100 metric tons (1200 torrs)/d of
ammonia. The project is competing for final construction funding
with a gasification project by Memphis Light, Gas, and Water.
Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Demonstration Plant
Planned — Southern California Edison Co. and Texaco, Inc., are
planning an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant
to be located near Barstow, California. The plant will process 900
metric tons (1000 ions) of coat daily and will cost about $300
million. SCE and Texaco hope to attract other private and
governmental participants to the project.
Initially, medium-Btu gas produced by Texaco’s oxygen-blown
gasifier will fire an existing conventional 65 MW steam-
turbine/generator that is currently fired by oil or natural gas. New
burners will be required to burn the 10-11 MJ/Nm (270-300
Btu/scf) gas.
In the second phase of the demonstration, the gasitier will be
coupled to a combined cycle generator rated at about 90 MW: 60
MW from a gas turbine and 30 MW from a steam turbine. Special
equipment is being designed to introduce waste heat to the
steam turbine system from both gas turbine exahust and gasifier
product cooling. Construction of the plant could start at the end
of 1979: the gasifier could begin operations in 1982.
DOE Tests Coal Liquefaction Process — The Department of
Energy’s Morgantown Energy Research Center is researching a
coal liquefaction process involving the catalytic hydrogenation of
coal/oil slurries. The catalyst is applied as an inner coating in a
tubular reactor made of permeable or porous metal. Under heat
and pressure, hydrogen diffuses through the wall from the
outside.
MERC has tested tubes made of nickel, which Is permeable to
hydrogen, and of porous nickel-molybdenum and cobalt-
molybdenum. The interiors of the tubes are coated with a
catalytic-metal sulfide layer. In one experiment, powdered coal
slurried in a coal-derived oil (one part coal, three parts oil)
achieved 80% conversion to benzene-soluble material at a
temperature of 425°C and a pressure of 10 MPa (1500 psig). At
least 95% of the available hydrogen was consumed by the coal.
The process is said to avoid carbon deposition, a common mode
of catalyst deactivation.
7
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
PROJECT TITLES, CONTRACTORS, AND EPA PROJECT OFFICERS
IN FUEL PROCESS BRANCH ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Project Title Contractor EPA Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Radian Corporation William J. Rhodes
of Low/Medium-Btu 8500 Shoal Creek Blvd. IERL-RTP
Gasification Austin, Texas 78758 Environmental Protection Agency
(March 1976-March 1979) (512)454-4797 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(E.C. Cavanaugh/G.C. Page) (919)541-2851
Environmental Assessment TRW, Inc. William J. Rhodes
of High-Btu Gasification 1 Space Park IERL-RTP
(April 1977-April 1980) Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Environmental Protection Agency
(213)536-4105 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(Chuck Murray) (919)541-2851
Environmental Assessment Hittman Associates William J. Rhodes
of Coal Liquefaction 9190 Red Branch Road IERL-RTP
(August 1976-August 1979) Columbia, MD 21043 Environmental Protection Agency
(301) 730-7800 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(Dwight Emerson) (919) 541-2851
Control Technology For Catalytic, Inc. Chester A. Vogel
Products/By-Products 1500 Market Street IERL-RTP
(September 1976-September 1979) Center Square West Environmental Protection Agency
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(215)864-8104 (919)541-2851
(A.B. Cherry)
Control Technology For Hydrocarbon Research, Inc. Chester A. Vogel
Converter Output P.O. Box 2391 IERL-RTP
(January 1977-January 1980) 334 Madison Avenue Environmental Protection Agency
Morristown, NJ 07960 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(609)896-1300 (919)541-2851
(John Kunesh)
Waste Stream Disposal Pullman Kellogg Chester A. Vogel
and Utilization Research and Development Center IERL-RTP
(April 1977-April 1980) 16200 Park Row Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Park Terrace Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Houston, Texas 77054 (919) 541-2851
(713) 493-0291
(Louis Bostwick)
General Support Cameron Engineers, Inc. L. David Tamny
(April 1976-1978) l3l5SouthClarkson Street IERL-RTP
Denver, CO 80210 Environmental Protection Agency
(303) 777-2525 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(Ted Borer) (919)541-2709
Acid Gas Cleaning North Carolina State Univ. Thomas W. Petrie
Bench Scale Unit Department of Chemical Engineering IERL-RTP
(October 1976-September 1981) Raleigh, NC27607 Environmental ProtectionAgency
(Grant) (919) 737-2324 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(Dr. James Ferrell) (919)541-2708
Water Treating Bench Univ. of North Carolina Thomas W. Petrie
Scale Unit Department of Environmental IERL-RTP
(November 1976-October 1981) Sciences and Engineering Environmental Protection Agency
(Grant) School of Public Health Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919)541-2708
(919) 966-1052
(Dr. Philip Singer)
Pollutant Identification Research Triangle Institute Thomas W. Petrie
FromA Bench Scale Unit P.O. Box 12194 IERL-RTP
(November 1 976-October 1981) Research Triangle Park, Environmental Protection Agency
(Grant) North Carolina 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-6000 (919)541-2708
(Dr. Forest Mixon)
8
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
EPA Energy Conference, May 31 -June 2, 1978, Washington,
DC. Contact: Kathleen Dixon, EPA-OEMI Washington, DC. 20460.
85th National AIChE Meeting, June 4-8, 1978, Philadelphia, PA.
Mtg. Prog. Chmn.: A.A. Winkler, CPC International, Moffett
Technical Center, Box 345, Argo, IL, 60501.
Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,
August 20-25, 1978, San Diego, CA. Contact: Floyd A. Wyczalek,
Eng. Statf, General Motors, GM Technical Center, Warren, Ml,
48090.
176th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society,
September 10-15, 1978. Contact: A.T. Winstead, ACS,
Washington, DC, 20036.
EPA Coal Cleaning to Achieve Energy and Environmental
Goals, September 11-15, 1978, Hollywood, FL. Contact: J.D.
Kilgroe, EPA, IERL-RTP, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711.
International Coal Utilization Exhibition and Conference,
October 17-19, 1978, Houston, TX. Contact: David l.Johnson,
6006 Bellaire Blvd., Rm. No. 101, Houston, TX, 77081.
AIChE 71st National Convention, November 13-16, 1978,
Miami, FL. Write: AIChE, 345 E. 47th St., New York, NY, 10017.
RECENT MAJOR MEETINGS
Process Measurements for
Environmental Assessment
The Process Measurements for Environmental Assessment
Symposium was held February 13-15, 1978, in Atlanta, Georgia,
under the sponsorship of U.S. EPA’s IERL-RTP. The symposium
consisted of sessions defining the uses of environmental
assessment data, the techniques for acquiring data, and users’
field experiences with environmental assessment measurement
programs.
The initial sessions provided an overview of environmental
assessment programs. The EPA environmental assessment
program has been developing a data base capable of supporting
standards for air emissions, water effluents, and solid waste
disposal practices. The environmental assessment program
includes:
• Evaluation of emission rates.
• Evaluation of the degree of control attainable with con-
ventional control equipment.
• Evaluation of the biological activity of waste stream
samples.
• Estimation of “safe” emission rates,
When control technology required to attain “safe” emission rates
is unavailable, inadequate, uneconomical, or otherwise unac-
ceptable, funding is provided for the development of the needed
control techniques, The Integrated Environmental Assessment
Programs of the DOE and related EPRI programs were also
discussed,
Later sessions of the symposium emphasized the sampling and
analytical techniques used to acquire data for environmental
assessments. Applicable measurement technologies for en-
vironmental assessments were reviewed and critiqued.
Procedures were presented for the measurement of inorganic,
organic, and fugitive emissions. ModificatIons to EPA Level 1
Analysis Methods were suggested, based on experience in
characterizing emissions from coal gasification plants.
The last session focused on experiences with environmental
assessment measurements In industrial and energy process
applications. The industrial applications sessions discussed:
assessments of atmospheric emissions from petroleum refining,
wastewater effluents from nonferrous metal processing,
emissions from conventional combustion systems, and emissions
from glass manufacturing furnaces. Assessments of emissions
from fluidized bed combustion processes, multimedia emissions
from the HYGAS gasification process, and multimedia emissions
from a Paraho shale oil demonstration plant were discussed in
the session on energy process applications. Characterization of
the Syrithoil and Synthane processes was also discussed.
Ninth Synthetic Pipeline
Gas Symposium
The Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium was held October
31-November 2, 1977, in Chicago, Illinois. Sponsored by the
American Gas Association, DOE, and the International Gas
Union, the symposium included sessions on the coal gasification
pilot plant program, methanation and combined shift
methanation, gasification, biomass and hydrogen, materials
engineering, and environmental considerations.
The first session of the symposium featured a panel review of
the coal gasification pilot plant program. Solids flow control using
a non-mechanical L-valve was also discussed.
In the afternoon session, a panel review of methanation and
combined shift methanation was presented. Featured topics
Included a one-stage combined shift-conversion and partial
methanation process, and the Ralph M. Parsons process for
methanation.
Underground coal gasification and the A.G.A. oil shale
hydrogasification program were discussed during the session on
gasification. Additional topics of this session included the
production of SNG from peat and factors influencing the
utilization of SNG. German experience in the fixed-bed
gasification of brown coal, and gas production from coal for
hydrogen synthesis were also discussed. A later session featured
a panel discussion on materials used in gasification, and included
examinations of refractory applications in gasifiers and quench
system corrosion research.
The final session considered the environmental consequences
of coal gasification. The principal topic addressed in this session
was the removal of acid gases from coal gas. A recently
developed permselective membrane for acid gas scrubbing was
reviewed. Additional topics of discussion included new source
performance standards for Lurgi gasifiers, and the gasilication
pilot plant environmental assessment program.
MEETING CALENDAR
9
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
RECENT MAJOR PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS
Gasification Technology
Anastasia, L.J., W.G. Bair, and D.P. Olson, ‘Environmental
Assessment Program for the HYGAS Process,” Presented at the
Process Measurements for Environmental Assessment Sym-
posium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Bakker, W.T., “Refractory Applications in Gasifiers,” Presented
at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, IL,
October 31-November 2, 1977.
Beychok, M.R., “New Source Performance GL.delines for Lurgi
Gasification Plants,” Presented at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline
Gas Symposium, Chicago, IL, October 31-November 2, 1977.
Bombaugh, Karl J., “Analyses of Grab Samples from Fixed-Bed
Coal Gasification Processes,” EPA-600/7-77-141, NTIS No. PB
276-608/AS, Austin, TX, Radian Corp., December 1977.
Cavanaugh, E.C. and W.C. Thomas, “Environmental
Assessment of Low/Medium-Btu Gasification: Annual Report,”
EPA-600/7-77-142, NTIS No. PB 276-580/AS, Austin, TX, Radian
Corp., December 1977.
Christensen, K.G., “Acid Gas Removal in Coal Gasification
Plants,” Presented at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Sym-
posium, Chicago IL, October 31-November 2, 1977.
Ferrell, J.K., R.M. Felder, R.W. Rousseau, and D.W.
Alexander, “A Coal Gasification — Gas Cleaning Pilot Plant at
North Carolina State University,” Presented at the Miami In-
ternational Conference on Alternative Energy Sources, Miami
Beach, FL, December 5-7, 1977.
Flockenhaus, C., “One Stage Combined Shift-Conversion and
Partial Methanation Process for Upgrading Synthetic Gas to
Pipeline Quality,” Presented at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas
Symposium, Chicago, IL, October 31-November 2, 1977.
Ghasseml, M., and C. Murray, “Environmental Assessment of
High-Btu Gasification: Annual Report,” EPA-600/7-78-025, NTIS
No. PB 278-175/AS, Redondo Beach, CA, TRW, Inc., February
1978.
Hoogendoorn, J.C., ‘Gas from Coal for Synthesis of
Hydrocarbons,” Presented at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas
Symposium, Chicago, IL, October 31-November 2, 1977.
Jarvis, J., “Economics of Low-Btu Gasification,” Presented at
the Fifth Energy Resource Conference, Lexington, KY, January
10-11, 1978.
Kimura, S.G., ‘Permselective Membrane for Acid Gas Scrubbing
from Coal Cas,” Presented at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas
Symposium,” Chicago, IL, October 31-November 2, 1977.
Luthy, Richard G., “Manual of Methods: Preservation and
Analysis of Coal Gasification Wastewaters,” FE-2496-8. ERDA
Contract E(49-1 8)-2496. Cargenie-Mellon University, En-
vironmental Studies Institute, July 1977.
Massey, M.J., “Gasification Pilot Plant Environmental
Assessment Program: A Status Report,” Presented at the Ninth
Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago IL, October 31-
November 2, 1977.
Matson, Stephen L., Carlyle S. Herrick, and William J. Ward,
Ill, “Progress on the Selective Removal of H 2 S from Gasified
Coal Using an Immobilized Liquid Membrane,” md. Eng. Chem.,
Process Des. Day. 16 (3), 370-374 (1977).
National Research Council, Commission on Sociotechnical
Systems, Ad Hoc Panel on Low.Btu Gasification of Coal of
the Committee on Processing and Utilization of Fossil Fuels,
“Assessment of Low- and lntermediate-Btu Gasification of Coal.”
ERDA Contract E(49-18)-1216. National Academy of Sciences,
1977.
Seifert, G., “German Democratic Republic Experience in Fixed-
Bed Gasificatioan of Brown Coal,” Presented at the Ninth
Synthetic Pipeline Gas Sympoisum, Chicago, IL, October 31-
November 2, 1977.
Seward, W.H., “Process Alternatives for Sulfur Management in
Coal Gasification,” Presented at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas
Symposium, Chicago, IL, October 31-November 2, 1977.
Sparacino, Charles M., “Synthetic Fuels Production: Analysis of
Process By-Products from a Laboratory Scale Coal Gasifier,”
Presented at the Process Measurements for Environmental
Assessment Symposium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Stearns-Roger Engineering Company, “Conceptual Design and
Cost Estimate, CO 2 Acceptor Coal Gasification Process Com-
mercial Plant.” FE-i 734-10. ERDA Contract EX-76-C-01 -1734, 3
vols., October 1977.
White, G.A., “The RMProcess for Methanation,” Presented at
the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Symposium, Chicago, IL, Oc-
tober 31-November 2, 1977.
Wieber, P.R., “Prospects for Producing Synthetic Natural Gas
Through Underground Coal Gasification,” Presented at the Ninth
Synthetic Pipeline Gas Sympoisum, Chicago, IL, October 31-
November 2, 1977.
Liquefaction Technology
Brown, Frank, “Make Ammonia from Coal,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, 56(11), 361-66 (1977).
Budden, Ken T., and Werner H. ZIegler, “Environmental
Assessment of Coal Liquefaction: Annual Report,” EPA-600/7-78-
019, NTIS No. PB 278-333/AS, Columbia, MD, Hittman
Associates, February 1978.
Jones, J.E., “Cost of Synfuels from Coal,” Presented at the Fifth
Energy Resource Conference, Lexington, KY, January 1 0-1 1,
1978.
National Research Council, Commission on Sociotechnical
Systems, Ad Hoc Panel on Liquefaction of Coal of the
Committee on Processing and UtilizatIon of Fossil Fuels,
“Assessment of Technology for the Liquefaction of Coal.” ERDA
Contract E(49-i8)-1216. National Academy of Sciences, 1977.
Netzer, David and James Moc, “Ammonia from Coal,” Chem.
Eng., 84 (23), 129-32 (1977).
10
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
Schiller, Joseph E., ‘Composition of Coal Liquefaction
Products,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 56 (1), 147-52 (1977).
Sharkey, A.G., Jr., “Characterization of Synthoil/Synthane
Processes, Presented at the Process Measurements for En-
vironmental Assessment Symposium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-
15, 1978.
Taupitz, K.D., ‘Making Liquids from Solid Fuels,” Hydrocarbon
Processing, 56 (9), 219-25 (1977).
Other
Berkau, Eugene E., “An Integrated Approach to the Assessment
and Control of Industrial Pollution Problems,” Presented at the
Process Measurements for Environmental Assessment Sym-
posium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Blake, David and J.M. Kennedy, “Source Assessment Sampling
System Design and Development,” Presented at the Process
Measurements for Environmental Assessment Symposium,
Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Bombaugh, Karl, “Alternative Level 1 Analysis Methods,”
Presented at the Process Measurements for Environmental
Assessment Symposium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Duke, Kenneth M., “Biological Testing Methodology,”
Presented at the Process Measurements for Environmental
Assessment Symposium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Hamel, F.B., “Quench System Corrosion Research Program,”
Presented at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Sympsoium,
Chicago, IL, October 31-November 2, 1977.
Harral, J.K.A., “Comparison of Energy Options; Coal Gas or
Electricity,” Presented at the Fifth Energy Resource Conference,
Lexington, KY, January 10-11, 1978.
Hughes, Thomas W., “Source Assessment Methodology,”
Presented at the Process Measurements for Environmental
Assessment Symposium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Jones, Peter W. and Robert J. Jakobsen, “A Critique of
Organic Level 1 Analysis,” Presented at the Process
Measurements for Environmental Assessment Symposium,
Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Knowlton, T.M., “Solids Flow Control Using a Non-Mechanical L-
Valve,” Presented at the Ninth Synthetic Pipeline Gas Sym-
posium, Chicago, IL, October 31-November 2, 1977.
Kolnsberg, Henry J., “Fugitive Emissions Measurement
Techniques for Environmental Assessments,” Presented at the
Process Measurements for Environmental Assessment Sym-
posium, February 13-15, 1978.
Levins, Philip 1., “Measurement of Organic Emissions for En-
vironmental Assessment,” Presented at the Process
Measurements for Environmental Assessment Symposium,
Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Maddalone, Ray F., and Lorraine E. Ryan, “Inorganic
Emissions Measurements,” Presented at the Process
Measurements for Environmental Assessment Symposium,
Atlanta, Ga, February 13-15, 1978.
Page, Gordon C., “Source Unit Operations,” Presented at the
IERL-RTP Environmental Assessment Methodology Projects
Meeting, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 20-21, 1977.
Page, Gordon, C. and Paul W. Spaite, “Technology Overview
Reports,” Presented at the IERL-RTP Environmental Assessment
Methodology Projects Meeting, Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 20-21, 1977.
Rhoads, Richard G., “EPA Air Programs’ Use of Environmental
Assessments,” Presented at the Process Measurements for
Environmental Asessment Symposium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-
15, 1978.
Schmeal, W.R., A.J. MacNab, and P.R. Rhodes, “Corrosion in
Amine/Sour Gas Treating Contactors,” Chem. Eng. Prog., 74 (3),
37-42, March 1978,
Smith, Franklin, Eva D. Estes, and Denny E. Eagoner, “Field
Evaluation of the SASS Train and Level 1 Procedures,”
Presented at the Process Measurements for Environmental
Assessment Symposium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Statnick, Robert M. and Dave Berg, “OEMI Overview of En-
vironmental Assessment,” Presented at the Process
Measurements for Environmental Assessment Symposium,
Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
Telliard, William A., “Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants,”
Presented at the Process Measurements for Environmental
Assessment Symposium, Atlanta, GA, February 13-15, 1978.
11
-------
REPORT SUMMARY
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
Technology Overview:
Low. and Medium .Btu
Coal Gasification Systems
by
P.W. Spaite and G.C. Page
The technology overview of low- and medium-Btu coal
gasification is one of a series of overviews of coal conversion
technologies being prepared by the EPA. Each technology
overview is intended to describe a system or combination of
processes that are likely to be used in coal conversion. The
overview consists of:
• An assessment of the status and future prospects of the
conversion technology.
• A description of the conversion technology and associated
processes likely to be commercially employed.
• A summary of the environmental impacts associated with
the conversion technology.
The technology overview of low- and medium-Btu gasification is
largely based on Radian Corp.’s “Environmental Assessment
Data Base for Low/Medium-Btu Gasification Technology” (EPA-
600/7-77-125 a and b, November, 1977; NTIS PB 274-844/AS and
PB 274-843/AS). The major portions of the technology overview
are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Technology Status
Technology for the production of low- and medium-Btu gas
from coal has existed since the 1800’s. In the mid 1920’s, about
11,000 gasifiers were in service in the U.S. Most of these were
retired when cheap natural gas became available.
Future development and commercialization of low/medium-Btu
gasification are dependent on several factors such as the cost of
the product gas and the energy efficiency of gasification. Other
variables affecting future development and commercialization
include the applicability of gasification technology to different
end-uses, the progress of on-going development, and factors
related to the large-scale introduction of gasification systems.
Relatively simple systems that gasify low-sulfur coal and use
hot cyclones for particulate removal can produce fuel gas
costing $2.50/GJ ($2.60/million Btu). Sophisticated gas cleaning
(including sulfur removal) could increase costs by $1-$2/GJ
($1 .05-$2.10/million Btu). Low-Btu gasification used in conjunction
with combined cycle power generation would produce ap-
proximately 1,8 GJ/sec (150 billion Btu/d), cost $250-$400 million,
and produce gas costing 2 to 3 times the price of coal (about $2-
$3/GJ or $2.1O-$3.l5lmillion Bfu).
Energy efficiencies of present low/medium-Btu gasification
systems are on the order of 6O-65%. Future improved gasifiers
will probably attain efficiencies near 75%. Gasification with
combined-cycle power generation can be more efficient than
direct coal-fired power plants with flue gas desulfurization;
however, advances in boiler and turbine technology are needed
for significant improvement in efficiency.
In the near term, the most promising use of low- and medium-
Btu gas are as a synthesis gas in the production of ammonia and
methanol and as fuel for direct process heat (as in brick and lime
kilns). Use as fuel in industrial boilers is less promising, since
retrofit of the existing boilers may be impractical. However,
combustion of low-Btu gas in boilers designed for its use may be
economically attractive in the near future. Medium-Btu gas
distributed to new and existing boilers from a central gasification
plant may also become economical. Use of low-Btu gas in
combined-cycle, electric generating plants may become com-
petitive with fluidized-bed combustion of coal, or the direct
combustion of coal with desulfurization of the flue gas.
Extensive operating experience has been obtained with coal
gasification systems. Present research is directed towards
characterizing the environmental impacts from plant discharges
and developing high temperature product gas cleanup systems.
Investigations also aim to improve coal feeding and ash removing
mechanisms (for pressurized gasifiers), to improve gasifier
designs and water treatments, and to develop better construction
materials. Most research involves adapting existing technology to
newly identified markets. However, fundamental studies of
gasification are needed. Additionally, tolerable environmental
discharges need definition.
Until recently, only a few vendors were actively marketing
gasification systems. Immediate growth in the coal gasification
industry will thus probably be limited by the time needed to
design and build the specialized equipment required by
gasification plants, Commercial application of central gasification
plants supplying medium-Btu gas may be limited by large capital
requirements, siting constraints, and complicated marketing
arrangements. Commercial development of combined cycle
systems requires improvements in gasifier and gas turbine ef-
ficiencies. Those gasification systems most likely to attain
widespread use are:
• Pressurized systems producing low-Btu gas for use in
combined cycles.
• Pressurized systems producing medium-Btu gas as fuel for
off-site boilers and process heat or synthesis gas for both
on- and off-site use.
• Systems operating at atmospheric pressure and producing
low-Btu gas as fuel for on-site boilers and process heat, or
reducing gas for on-site use.
Technology Description
The coal gasification system consists of three operations: coal
pretreatment, coal gasification, and raw gas cleaning. Generally,
any coal can be gasified if proper pretreatment is employed. With
some high-moisture coals, coal drying may be desirable. For
some caking coals, partial oxidation may be employed to simplify
gasifier operation. Other pretreatment operations include
crushing and sizing, and briquetting of fines for feed to fixed-bed
gasifiers. The coal feed is pulverized for fluid- or entrained-bed
gasifiers.
About 70 gasifiers have been used commercially in the past or
are currently under development. Seven gasifierS are presently
used to satisfy commercial demand: Chapman (Wilputte), Kop-
pers-Totzek, Lurgi, Weilman-Galusha, Wellman Incandescent,
Winkler, and Woodall-Duckham/Gas lntegrale. In addition to these
gasifiers, seven gasifiers have been identified as “promising”:
Foster Wheeler/Stoic, Riley-Morgan, pressurized Wellman-
Galusha (MERC), BGC/Lurgi slagging, Coalex, 81-GAS, and
Texaco. These gasifiers fall into one of six classes depending on
the type of bed (fixed, entrained, or fluidized), the operating
pressure (pressurized or atmospheric), and the method of ash
removal (as slag or dry ash). Gasifiers within each class have
similar environmental impacts.
The specific processes used for raw gas cleaning are
determined mainly by the type of coal processed and the product
gas requirements. Essentially four gas purification processes
may be required: particulate removal, tar and oil removal, gas
quenching and cooling, and acid gas removal. The primary
function of the particulate removal process is the removal of coal
12
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
dust, ash, and tar aerosols entrained in the raw product gas
leaving the gasifier. During tar and oil removal and gas quen-
ching and cooling, tars and oils are condensed and other im-
purities such as ammonia are scrubbed trom raw product gas.
Acid gases such as H 2 S, COS, CS 2 , mercaptans, and 002 can be
removed from gas by an acid gas removal process Where sulfur
in the input coal is low, sulfur removal may not be required if the
gas is used for process heat or burned in boilers. Gas in com-
bined-cycles, synthesis gas, and gas transported in pipelines will
usually require sulfur removal. Gasification systems operating
above atmospheric pressure will probably use chemical solvent
or direct conversion processes. The amine and alkaline salts acid
gas removal processes only concentrate the acid gas, producing
streams requiring the removal of sulfur. The Stretford process
will convert H 2 S directly into sulfur, but does not remove organLc
sulfur compounds such as COS, CS 2 , and mercaptans.
Environmental Impacts
All of the three basic operations associated with low- and
medium-Btu gasification technology (coal pretreatment,
gasification, and gas cleaning) can produce discharges with
potential environmental impacts These discharges are sum-
marized and discussed in Table 1.
Wastes from coal storage, handling, and sizing can be con-
trolled using available techniques tor reducing coal dust
emissions, mineral wastes, and storage pile runoffs. Controlling
air emissions from coal dryers, briquetting, and partial oxidation
processes is more difficult because of the volatile hydrocarbons
and possible trace metals which are liberated as the coal is
heated. The potential toxicities of these wastes have not been
determined.
The coal gasification process itself appears to be the most
serious source ot potential pollution problems. The feeding of
coal and the withdrawal of ash release emissions of coal or ash
dust and organic and inorganic gases that are potentially toxic
and carcinogenic. Because of their reduced production ot tars
and condensable hydrocarbons, slagging gasitiers pose less
severe emission problems at the coal inlet and ash outlet.
Gasif ers and associated equipment will also be sources of
potentially hazardous tugitive leaks. Fugitive leaks may be more
severe from pressurized gasifiers and/or gasifiers operating at
high temperatures
The gas treatment processes also present ditficultcontrol
problems. Particulate collection and gas treatment produce ash,
tars, and water contaminated with toxic organics and inorganics.
All sulfur collection systems will produce a purge stream of
contaminated sorbent liquid. In addition, volatilization or carry-
over of sorbent can be a potential source of air pollution. The
sulfur removal processes will also produce fugitive emissions
which are sim lar to those generated during gasificaiton. Tail
gases from sulfur recovery may require further treatment betore
release.
Table 1. DISCHARGES FROM LOW AND MEDIUM-BTU GASIFICATION SYSTEMS
Operation
Discharge
SourcelStream Description Remarks
Coal Pretreatment
Storage, handling, and
crushing/sizing
Dust emissions
Water runoff
The air emissions from coal storage piles,
crushing/sizing and handling will consist
primarily of coal dust. The amount of these
emissions will vary from site to site
depending on wind velocities and coal size.
The amount of data are minimal on dissolved
and suspended organicS and inorganics in
runoff water produced for coat storage pites
and dust control or supression processes.
Asphalt and various polymers have been used to
control dust emissions from coal storage piles.
Water sprays and enclosed equipment have
been used to control coal handling emissions.
Enclosures and hoods have been used for coal
crushing/sizing.
Proper runoff water management techniques
have been developed. More data on the
characterisitcs of this wastewater are needed to
determine the necessity for treating this effluent.
Solid wastes from
crushing and sizing
This stream consists of rock and mineral
matter rejected from crushing and sizing
coal. There is little data concerning the trace
components in this stream. The potential of
these components to contaminate surface
and groundwaterS is not known.
This waste has been disposed of in landfills.
Leaching data are required to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts associated with
this solid waste.
(Continued)
13
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
Table 1. DISCHARGES FROM LOW- AND MEDIUM-BTU GASIFICATION SYSTEMS
Continued
Operation
Discharge
Source! Stream Description Remarks
Coal drying, partial
oxidation, and
briquetting
Vent gases
Coal Gasification
These emissions will contain coal dust and
combustion gases along with a variety of
organic compounds liberated as a result of
coal devolatization reactions. There are
currently little data on the characteristics of
these organic species,
The organic compounds must be characterized
to determine whether this discharge stream
requires control. Afterburners in addition to
particulate collection devices may be required.
Coal feeding device
Vent gases
Ash removal device
Vent gases
Spent ash
quench water
Ash or slag
There are currently no data on the
characteristics of these gases. These vent
gases may contain hazardous species found
in the raw product gas exiting the gasifier.
No data are presently available on the
characteristics of this discharge stream. This
stream may contain hazardous species found
in the raw product gas and may require
control.
There are limited data on the discharge
stream. This stream will contain dissolved
and suspended organics and inorganics and
will require control.
Data are limited on the characteristics of the
ash and slag, especially with respect to the
amount of unreacted coal, trace elements
and total organics.
Vent gases from coal feeders can represent a
significant environmental and health problem.
Control of these emissions is required; however,
the characteristics of these gases must be
determined to implement an adequate control
method.
Many sources of contaminated water may be
used for ash quenching. Therefore, volatile
organics and inorganics may be released in
these vent gases. Characterization of emissions
is needed to define control technology
requirements.
Characterization of this waste stream is required
to define control technology requirements.
Further treatment of this stream is essential.
Leaching tests must be done on this solid waste
to determine whether further treatment is
necessary betoro final disposal. The organic
content of the liquor used to quench the ash
may affect the final disposal of the ash.
Coal Gasifier
No data currently exist on the composition of
the start-up vent stream. Depending on the
coal teedstock, there may be tar and oil
aerosols, sulfur species, cyanides, etc., in
this stream; therefore, control of pollutants
generated during start-up is required.
This stream can be controlled using a flare to
burn the combustible constituents. The amount
of heavy tars and coal particulates in this stream
will affect the performance of the flare. Problems
with tars and coal particles can be minimized by
using charcoal or coke as the start-up fuel.
Start-up vent
stream
(Continued)
14
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1978
Table 1. DISCHARGES FROM LOW- AND MEDIUM-BTU GASIFICATION SYSTEMS
Continued
Operation
Discharge
Source! Stream Description Remarks
Fugitive
emissions
Gas Purification
There are no data available on these
emissions, They can be expected to contain
hazardous species present in the raw product
gas such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon
monoxide and hydrogen cyanide.
These emissions will determine the extent of
workers’ exposure to hazardous species and
define the need for continuous area monitoring
of toxic compounds and personnel protection
equipment.
Particulate removal
Collected particulate
matter
Limited data are available on the
characteristics of this solid waste stream.
This stream will contain unreacted carbon,
sulfur species, organics, and trace elements.
Characterization of this stream is necessary to
determine whether it c n be used as a by-
product or whether further treatment is
necessary before disposal. Current data indicate
that there is a significant amount of unreacted
carbon in this stream, and it may be used as a
combustion fuel.
Gas quenching and
Cooling
Spent quench
liquor
Data are insufficient regarding the
composition of this stream: however, existing
data indicate that there are significant
quantities of suspended and dissolved
organics (primarily phenols) and inorganics
present in this stream.
Characterization of this stream will determine
the type of water pollution control techniques
required to treat the spent quench liquor. These
control techniques will vary depending upon the
quantity and composition of this effluent stream.
Acid gas removal
Tail gases
Spent sorbents
and reactants
There are little data on the composition of
these tail gases. These gases wilt contain
sulfur species and hydrocarbons.
No data have been reported on these
streams. These streams will contain
hazardous species such as cyanides, heavy
metals, and organicS , and will require further
treatment before disposal.
These gases are the primary feedstock to the
sulfur recovery and control processes. Trace
constituents such as hydrocarbons, trace
elements, and cyanides will affect the
performance of these sulfur recovery processes.
Characterization of this stream is required if it is
to be treated using on-site pollution control
devices.
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels is prepared by Radian Corporation under EPA contract 68-02-2147. Each contractor listed in the
Table of Contractors on page 8 of this report contributed to this issue. The EPA/IERL-RTP Prolect Officer is William J. Rhodes, (919) 541-2851.
The Radian Program Manager is Eugene c, cavanaugh, (512) 454-4797. Comments on this issue, topics for inclusion ri future issues, and
requests for subscriptions should be communicated to them.
The views expressed in Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA.
15
------- |