\
u)
O
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
of
SYNTHETIC FUELS
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORY
VOL 1. NO. 3
September 1978
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
INTRODUCTION
In response to the shift in the U.S. energy supply pnor.ties 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 pro-
gram is being directed by the Fuel Process Branch of EPA's Indus-
trial Environmental Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park
(lTheLp?imPary objectives of the EPA Synthetic Fuels Environmental
Assessment/Control Technology Development Program are 1) to de-
fine 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 maior task
areas that are discussed in this review: current process technology
background, environmental data aquisition, current environmental
background, environmental objectives development, control tech-
nology assessment, and technology and/or commercial develop-
ment. The contractors involved in the overall program, their EPA
Project Officers, and the start and completion of each contract are
tabulated on page 9.
This is the third publication in a series of periodic reviewsof recent
activities in the EPA's Synthetic Fuels Program. The areas discussed
include the activities of EPA contractors, summaries of major sym-
posia, summaries of commercial and/or technical developments, a
calendar of upcoming meetings and a list of major publications.
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 Corporation personnel identified on page 16
of this Review.
CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
High-Btu Gasification
High-Btu Data Base Draft - TRW, Inc., recently completed a three-
volume draft data base document entitled "Environmental Assess-
ment Data Base for High-Btu Gasification Technology." Volume I
of this report presents a summary and analysis of the data base and
an examination of pollution control options for commercial SNG
facilities. Volumes II and III (Appendices A-E) contain data sheets
for individual gasification, gas purification and upgrading, air pollu-
tion control, water pollution control and solid waste management
areas. The data base document presents technical data on gasifica-
tion and related operations, identifies gaps in existing data, and
identifies major on-going and planned programs which may generate
additional data. Currently, process developers/licensors are being
contacted for review of the draft data sheets. Work is in progress to
provide a final proof copy of the data base document which should
be published in the next few months.
Liquefaction
Environmental Assessment Data Base for Coal Liquefaction Tech-
nology, Volumes I and II - Hittman Associates has nearly com-
pleted a draft version of this report. Volume I, "Systems for 14
Liquefaction Processes," provides a summary of pertinent informa-
tion for 14 of the prominent coal liquefaction systems now under
development. It provides brief descriptions and flow diagrams of
each system including a list of materials entering and leaving the
system. The processes required to produce clean liquid fuels from
coal are divided into discrete operations. Each of these operations is
then further divided into discrete modules, with each module having
a defined function and identifiable raw materials, products and dis-
charge streams. Volume II, "Detailed Discussion of Synthoil, H-Coal
and Exxon Donor Solvent Processes," is a detailed environmental
data base report for those three processes. The characteristics of the
raw waste streams, treatment and control processes, treated waste
stream discharges, and the effects of those discharges on the environ-
ment are addressed.
With the exception of the solid carbon-containing residues result-
ing from phase separation operations, established treatment and
control technology exists for the removal of most major pollutants
such as sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, phenols, and ammonia.
There has been less attention given to the trace organic and in-
organic compounds, many of which are potentially hazardous.
The carbon-containing residues resulting from process phase separa-
tions represent a major area of potential environmental problems.
Both process economics and potential environmental effects indi-
cate the need for further work.
A difficult environmental or health characterization area is the
assessment of the effects of coal liquefaction products and wastes
on plant personnel. This assessment suffers from the dual handicap
of undefined plant discharges and the lack of sufficient human
health information.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
General Topics
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
Laboratory Gasifier Pollutants — Research Triangle Institute (RTI)
has now completed more than 30 runs with their laboratory gasifier,
some of which were to prove the sampling systems and reactor
operational systems. The gasifier has operated successfully using
FMC char. Illinois No. 6 coal. Montana Rosebud coal, and a peat
material. RTI has compiled a list of 102 potentially hazardous com-
pounds for which they are performing chemical analyses. THE EPA
Consent Decree list contains 42 of these compounds. Of the 42
compounds, 14 have been identified in the gasifier effluent. Of the
compounds found in the effluent from RTI’s laboratory gasifier, 21
also appear in the effluent from the fixed-bed-gasifier at the Morgan-
town Energy Research Center, 39 were reported in effluent from
various coal liquefaction tests and 52 were associated with coal
coking.
Results of work to date have indicated that the compounds found
in MEG category 18 (phenols and related cresols) have been the
major pollutants from the gasified coal. Other MEG categories with
compounds that have been identified are 13 (thiols and sulf ides); 15
(benzene and substituted benzene hydrocarbons); and 53 (inorganic
sulfurs). Future work will be directed toward studying the influence
of operating conditions on pollutant production rates and the
kinetics of pollutant production.
Control Assay Development (CAD) — Catalytic, Inc. is completing
laboratory procedures for conducting wastewater screening tests for
coal conversion process wastes. The basic strategy followed for most
wastewater streams is comprised of three distinct steps:
• By.product removal, when appropriate, to remove gross
quantities of known pollutants normally recovered in com-
mercial synfuel processes for their market value, and which
do not reach a final treatment plant in high concentrations.
• Pre-screening with activated carbon and dry mutant bacteria
to establish operating parameters for carbon columns and bio-
logical oxidation screening systems.
• Screening through a pre-established sequence of wastewater
treatment operations to determine the applicability of the
different unit operations to remove pollutants.
Technologies that have been reviewed with lEA L-RTP and will be
included in the wastewater CAD are filtration, carbon adsorption,
bio-oxidation and ion exchange. The by-product removal step will
employ unit operations practiced commercially, such as solvent
extraction and stripping. By-product removal procedures are not yet
completed.
Wastewater CAD testing was started in early July using a synthetic
wastewater. The formulation for the organic composition was pro-
vided by the University of North Carolina, and is the feed UNC is
using in their biological treatments studies.
CAD methodology for screening air emission controls is also being
developed. Unit operations for the removal of particulate and
gaseous (inorganic and organic) pollutants are included. The pollu-
tion control train is being developed from basic modules in the
Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS). When completed, the
CAD air methodology will be verified by laboratory testing.
CAD procedures for wastewater, air and solids are designed to pro-
cess sufficient source samples to permit complete Level 1 testing for
physical and chemical characterization, and health and ecological
effects. Catalytic will also recommend additional tests, not presently
contained in Level 1 protocols, to obtain data useful in subsequent
investigations of specific control technologies.
Low/Medium Btu Gasification
Guidelines for Preparing Test Plans — Radian Corporation recently
completed a report entitled “Guidelines for Preparing Environ-
mental Test Plans for Coal Gasification Plants,” (EPA-600/7-78-
134). This document, dated July 19]8, outlines a philosophy and
strategy for preparing environmental assessment sampling and
analysis plans. Its primary purpose is to provide general guidelines
for the development of conceptually sound site-specific test plans.
Five major points of test plan development are addressed: (a) de-
fining the test objectives; Ib) performing an engineering analysis of
the test site; (c) developing a sampling strategy; (d) selecting analyti-
cal methods; and (e) defining data management procedures. Each of
these areas is distinct and is discussed separately. However, the
report stresses the interrelationships among the areas since the deci-
sions which must be made within each area are dependent upon the
limitations inherent within all of the other areas.
The important considerations involved in each of the five major
points of test plan development are discussed in relation to three
basic types of environmental tests Ia) waste stream characteriza-
tion (Levels 1, 2, and 3), (b) control equipment characterization,
and Ic) process stream characterization. Some specific sampling and
analytical methods are presented, with numerous references cited
for more detailed information.
Application of SAM//A Methodology — Radian applied the SAM!
IA ISource Analysis Model) Methodology to waste stream data ob-
tained from an environmental sampling and analysis program at a
Chapman IWilputte) low-Btu gasification facility. The SAM/IA
methodology provides a rapid screening technique for assessing the
pollution potential of gaseous, liquid and solid waste streams. Major
simplifying assumptions implicit in the use of SAM/IA include the
following:
• The substances currently in the Multimedia Environmental
Goals (MEG’s) list are the only ones that need to be addressed
at this time.
• Transport of the components in the waste streams to the
external environment occurs without chemical or physical
transformation of those components.
• Actual dispersion of a pollutant from a source to a receptor
will be equal to, or greater than, the safety factors normally
applied to convert acute toxicity data to estimated safe
chronic exposure levels.
• The minimum acute toxicity effluent (MATE) values
developed for each substance are adequate for estimating
acute toxicity.
• No synergistic effects between the waste stream components
are considered.
In performing a SAM/IA analysis, values for “degree of hazard”
and “toxic unit discharge rates” associated with the pollutants and
the waste streams are determined. The degree of hazard for each
pollutant is defined as the ratio of the pollutant’s concentration in
the stream to its respective MATE value (health or ecological). The
degree of hazard for a waste stream is determined by summing the
degree of ‘azard for each pollutant in the stream. The toxic unit
dischargc rate is determined by multiplying the degree of hazard
value by the waste stream flow rate.
The waste streams sampled and anaylzed by Radian using SAM/IA
were:
• coal feeder vent gas,
• separator vent gas,
• gasifier ash, and
• cyclone dust.
2
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
The results of the SAM/IA analysis for the sums of the "degree of
hazard" and "toxic unit discharge" associated with the four waste
streams are given in Table 1. These results indicate that all of these
waste streams have potentially adverse health and ecological effects.
The coal feeder vent, separator vent and gasifier ash streams had the
highest "toxic unit discharge" values for health, while the gasifier
ash and cyclone dust had highest values for ecological effects.
Radian emphasized that there are several important factors that
need to be addressed in evaluating the sampling and analysis results
using SAM/IA methodology. These factors include the following:
• The coal feeder and separator vent waste streams will prob-
ably not be present and hence are not representative of new
low-Btu gasification facilities.
• Only a few compounds with low MATE values accounted for
a majority of the calculated "degree of hazard" and "toxic
unit discharge" sums for each stream.
• The SAM/IA results need to be compared to bioassay results
for the waste streams tested. (See Table 2.)
From the data presented in Table 2, the results of the SAM/IA
analysis compare favorably with the bioassay test for the cyclone
dust and the coal feeder and separator vent gases. However, the
SAM/IA results from the gasifier ash are not consistent with the
bioassay results. The SAM/IA analysis indicates that there is a
moderate potential health and rrological hazard associated with
the ash, while the bioassay tests indicates low potential.
Tests Continue at Overseas Gasifier — Radian has arranged to con-
duct a series of environmental tests of the Lurgi gasification facility
(Kosovo Kombine) at Obilic, Yugoslavia. Phase I of these tests is
designed to measure the emission levels of specific major and minor
pollutants emitted from the Kosovo plant. The first sampling effort
was completed in late 1977, while the second effort was completed
in July 1978.
The second phase of the Kosovo test program will be directed to-
wards characterizing the emissions of minor and trace pollutants
from the Kosovo plant. Phase II sampling is scheduled to start in
the Spring of 1979.
A related test effort at the Kosovo plant will commence this
Fall. This sampling program will involve ambient air monitoring at
three locations within the Kosovo plant. Pollutants of major interest
will be organics and airborne particulates.
High-Btu Gasification
Preparation for Testing — The TRW, Inc. coal gasification environ-
mental assessment program places considerable emphasis on environ-
mental sampling and analysis at selected sites. To date, several pre-
liminary discussions have been held with DOE, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity and several private process developers to arrange for sampling
activities. Arrangements are currently being made with IGT regard-
ing acquisition of environmental data and analysis of selected
samples at the HYGAS pilot plant located in Chicago, Illinois. Dis-
cussions are continuing with Krupp-Koppers for the purpose of ac-
quiring data on a Koppers-Totzek coal gasification facility. TRW
has also contacted the American Lurgi Corporation to solicit their
assistance in planning and performing an environmental assessment
of coal gasification.
Liquefaction
Analysis for Radionuclides — Hittman Associates, Inc. has com-
pleted a draft report, "Analysis for Radionuclides," which addresses
the levels of uranium, thorium, and their decay products found in
coal, SRC, coal flyash, and SRC flyash samples. The samples were
obtained from Georgia Power Company's Plant Mitchell during May
and June 1977, when combustion tests were made to compare the
environmental emissions resulting from the use of coal and SRC in
the boilers. Gross alpha and beta activities were also measured in
the samples.
Uranium and thorium were observed to be present at concentra-
tions ranging from 0.8 to 39 ppm and 3.73 to 20.5 ppm, respec-
tively. Calculated levels of other radionuclides in secular equilibrium
with uranium and thorium were found to range from 7.4 x 10"'7
to 1.02 x 10"" ppm. Quantitative alpha measurements could not
be made due to the self absorption of the alpha particles in the
samples. Beta measurements, however, could be taken and were
found to be on the order of 50 pCi/g.
Levels of radionuclides in the samples were also compared with
reported levels of uranium and thorium in coal and SRC and with
estimated emissions from coal-fired power plants. Uranium and
thorium levels in the samples were found to be of the same order of
magnitude as those reported in the literature. Data obtained from
Plant Mitchell and other coal-fired power plants, as well as data ob-
tained in this report, were used to estimate the level of uranium-238
which may be discharged from a power plant. The estimated level
was found to be 0.2 g/m3 (9 gr/100 ft3) which is lower than the
allowed general public dose radiation level of 7.0 g/m3 (300 gr/
100 ft3 ). Therefore, the radionuclide levels present in the tested
samples do not appear to pose a significant problem from a radio-
logical toxicity standpoint. Further analysis of various types of coals
and SRC products is recommended, however, before this may be
concluded on an overall basis.
Analysis of Coal Liquefaction Samples — Level 1 standard waste-
water analyses have been performed on SRC samples which have
been passed through a treatment system. Hittman Associates, Inc.
has completed Level 2 organic analyses for SRC wastewater, pro-
duct, and residue samples, and for H-Coal wastewater. The results
will be incorporated into a draft report scheduled for completion
in the winter of 1978.
Other work currently underway is Level 1 inorganic analysis on
SRC and H-Coal wastewater samples. Level 2 analysis will be initi-
ated soon on SRC samples on the basis of the Level 1 results.
Standards of Practice Manual — Hittman Associates has prepared a
Standards of Practice Manual for a coal conversion process. Released
in June 1978, "Standards of Practice Manual for the Solvent Re-
fined Coal Liquefaction Process" (EPA-600/7-78-091) provides an
integrated multimedia evaluation of control/disposal options, emis-
sions, and environmental requirements associated with a hypotheti-
cal 8000 m'/day (50,000 bbl/day) SRC-II facility.
The initial portion of the report provides a description of the over-
all process. A basic flow sheet, showing all processing steps, was
developed from existing design and economic studies and pilot plant
data. This flow sheet identifies the processes and identifies all rele-
vant process waste streams. Streams entering and leaving each pro-
cess module are identified in terms of quantity and composition.
Any waste streams that have to be treated by control/disposal mea-
sures are characterized in detail. For these streams, the characteriza-
tion includes quantity, conditions, composition, and identification
of the components that must be treated to comply with environ-
mental regulations. The quantities, concentrations and forms of the
components are estimated to fullest extent possible.
Applicable control/disposal practices are specified in accordance
with waste stream characteristics and pertinent environmental
requirements. Costs associated with the controls are delineated and
best practices identified. Based on a preliminary assessment of avail-
able data on quantities and constituents in SRC waste streams, it
appears promising that conventional control equipment can be used
to achieve compliance with emission control standards. Costs for
control equipment are significant, but do not appear to be prohibi-
tive.
Emissions after controls are compared with Multimedia Environ-
mental Goals (MEG's) and a number of areas are identified as dis-
charging specific constituents in excess of the MEG's. In coal pre-
paration—specifically in coal receiving and crushing—chromium,
aluminum and, in some cases, arsenic are found to be emitted in
concentrations significantly higher than their respective MATE
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
Table. 1. SUMS OF THE DEGREE OF HAZARD AND TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE FOR THE
GASI FICATION PLANT’S WASTE STREAMS
Stream
Degrees o
Heatth
f Hazarda
Ecological
Toxic Unit
Health
Dischargeb
Ecological
Coal Feeder Vent Gas
5.0 x
iü
410
3.0 X
106
24
Separator Vent Gas
1.0 x
108
2.1 x
6.0 X
i@
1.2 x
io
Cyclone Dust
1.7 x
iü
8.1 x 106
2.7 x
1.3 x
GasifierAsh
1.8x
io
lOx 106
3.1 x
106
1.9x
aDegree of Hazard is defined as the ratio of a pollutant’s concentration in a stream to its minimum acute toxicity effluent (MATE) value. The
numerical values shown are summations for all pollutants identified in the stream.
bToXjc Unit Discharge is determined by multiplying the value for Degree Hazard by the waste stream flow rate.
Table 2. SUMMARY OF SAM/IA ANALYSIS AND BIOASSAY TEST RESULTS FOR THE
WASTE STREAMS FROM THE CHAPMAN LOW-BTU GASIFICATION FACILITY
Degree of
Health
Hazarda. b
Ecological
Toxic Unit
Health
Dischargec
Ecological
Bioassay Test
Healthd Ecologicale
Coal Feeder
Vent Gas
5.0 x 1O 7
4.1 x 102
3.0 x 106
24
High
High
Separator Vent Gas
1.0 x 108
2.0 x
6.0 x i0 7
1.2 x
High
NA
Cyclone Dust
1.7 x
8.1 x 106
2.7 x i0 3
1.3 x io
Low
High
Gasifier Ash
1.8 x 1 o
1.0 x 106
3.1 x 106
1.9 x 1 o
Low
Low
aDegree of Hazard is defined at the ratio of a pollutant’s concentration in a stream to its minimum acute toxicity effluent (MATE) value. The
numerical values shown are summations for all pollutants identified in the stream.
bPotential for hazardous health and ecological effects can be estimated by the following:
Potential effect
High
Moderate
Low
Inconclusive
Degree of Hazard
>i0
i d 5 — iO
102 — iU
<102
cTOXlC Unit Discharge is determined by multiplying the value of Degree of Hazard by the waste stream flow rate.
dHealth tests included: AMES, Cytotoxicity (Wl-28, RAM), Rodent Acute Toxicity.
eEcological tests included: Soil microcosm, plant stress ethylene.
NA — Test not conducted.
4
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
values. Chromium and vandium exceed their MATE values by fac-
tors of less than 10 in air emissions from steam generation. Gasifier
slag contains metals at concentrations that exceed MATE limits
by significant amounts, Included are chromium, cobalt, nickel,
barium, arsenic, tin, zinc, and selenium Several metals (magnesium,
nickel, scandium, and barium), in wastewater effluent are also at
concentrations higher than their MATE values.
A listing of existing environmental regulations, standards and
guidelines is also included in the manual. There are no existing regu-
lations directed toward SRC facilities, so limits for related industries
such as oil refineries, petrochemical processing plants and coal-fired
steam electric plants are assessed as a guide for possible SAC plant
regulations.
Air Emissions from So/vent Refined Coal Combustion — Hittman
Associates has evaluated some of the data obtained from the SRC
combustion test conducted at Georgia Power Company’s Plant
Mitchell during the months of March, May and June 1977.
Significant reductions in S°2 emissions were observed. SO 2 emis-
sions were in compliance with the existing New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) of 520 ng/J (1.2 lb/b 6 Btu) input. However,
if 85 percent °2 removal is required, as is being proposed by EPA
at the time of this writing, then compliance is doubtful. Due to the
firing conditions (excess air values), NOx emissions for a normal
combustion condition are uncertain.
The electrostatic precipitator used throughout the test was an old
(1946) Research Cottrell unit which was inefficient for SRC flyash
collection. Total collection efficiencies ranged between 17 and 46
percent. When a more modern precipitator was briefly tested, collec-
tion efficiency increased to approximately 95 percent. Additional
testing appears necessary to provide a more accurate account of
actual atm ‘ , ric pcrticulate emissions associated with the com-
bustion of SAC
Pollutant Evaluation and Effects forSRC — Hittman Associates
is preparing a draft report, “Pollutant Evaluation and Effects for the
Solvent Refined Coal Process.”
The report is one of a series in an ongoing effort to characterize
the potential environmental effects of various waste streams likely
to be associated with the operation of a standard-sized Solvent Re-
fined Coal (SAC-I and 5CR-Il) facility utilizing 28,000 metric tons
(31 000 tons) of Illinois No, 6 coal per day. The objectives of this
study are to: (1) conduct a more detailed evaluation of SAC pollu-
tants that were characterized earlier in the Standards of Practice
Manual for the SAC liquefaction process, and (2) to estimate the
potential effects of various pollutants on the environment in a multi-
media context, Beyond this, an effort is made to estimate the
potential environmental effects of the various potential pollutants
associated with an SAC plant located in a known geographical area
(i.e.,White County, Illinois).
General Topics
CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
Federal and State Environmental Standards — Compilations of
existing and proposed environmental standards promulgated by fed-
eral, state, regional, and international authorities are being pre-
pared by Pullman Kellogg. Summary lists of “most stringent stand-
ards” are also being prepared for air, for water, and for solid waste
disposal. The lists are being compared with existing information on
Multimedia Environmental Goals to yield a series of projections for
environmental goals that may be recommended for application 2, 5,
and 10 years in the future. These recommendations are made in
view of both existing and developing control technologies,
With the summary of most stringent environmental standards as
the principal criterion, commercial and developing technology for
control of liquid effluents, gaseous emissions and solid wastes has
been surveyed for technical and economic applicability. The ulti-
mate goal is maximum recycle of liquid streams and such control of
gaseous emissions and solid waste which will allow the proposal of
a technically feasible and economically practical scheme for zero
discharge of pollutants to the environment. Heavy emphasis is
placed on means that are economically and technically realistic
and practical.
ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT
General Topics
Process Assessment Criteria — Hittman Associates continue to
develop a methodology which ranks candidate processes according
to the need for further attention in an environmental assessment.
For processes of concern to the EPA, assessment criteria include
the likelihood, timing, and extent of commercialization, Hittman
chose the Decision Alternative Rational Evaluation (DARE) model
to assist in the weighting of each process assessment criterion,
General Topics
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Coke Oven Emission Controls — Catalytic, Inc., as part of their
task to study the application of coke oven controls to coal conver-
sion systems, has made a brief literature survey on the health effects
of coke oven emissions. (Note: A summary of the technical aspects
of the study was discussed in Vol. 1, No. 2 of the “Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels.”) The summary findings of the study to
date are:
• Exposure to coke oven emissions provides an elevated risk
for cancer and non-malignant diseases to coke oven workers
and a moderate risk among lightly exposed workers (non-
oven workers in coke plant).
• The general population in the vicinity of the coke oven plant
should be considered more susceptible to these risks than the
work force, especially for development of chronic bronchitis,
since the population may include the young, the old, and the
infirm,
• There are only about 2 orders of magnitude difference in
exposure levels (estimated) between lightly exposed workers
and people living in the vicinity of a coke plant. Since it is
assumed that levels down to 1 percent of those to which
the non-oven workers in coke plants are subjected could cause
an increased risk to the general population, a significant health
effects risk is present among the general population in the
vicinity of coke oven plants.
5
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
The EPA has announced that in early 1979 it will propose a stan-
dard for coke oven emissions under the National Emissions Stan-
dards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS). A public hearing
will be held approximately 30 days afterward. This will be the first
time that such a diverse group of air contaminants classified as
“coke oven emissions” rather than a specific chemical compound
or hazardous material is proposed under this regulatory category.
The initial standard will specify limits and other requirements for
coke oven emissions from the charging operation and topside leak-
age. Subsequently, standards for the other major emission sources
related to coke oven operations will be proposed. Placing the en-
forcement under NESHAPS not only recognizes the hazardous
nature of coke oven emissions, but provides regulatory control of
both new and existing coke oven facilities.
Evaluation of Control Technologies for Particulates and Tar
Emissions — The Applied Research Division (ARD) of Dynalectron
Corporation, under subcontract to Hydrocarbon Research, Inc.
(HR I). is conducting a study to evaluate alternative control tech-
nologies for particulates and tar emissions from coal converters. A
comprehensive literature search has been carried Out to characterize
the emissions of particulates and tars from various types of coal con-
verters. Computerized literature searches of Chemical Abstracts.
Engineering Index. Pollution Abstracts, U.S. and foreign patents,
government publications, and numerous journals were made to
identify sources of information on those emissions. In addition,
other EPA contractors and over 20 process developers were con-
tacted for emission and process data. Emission data are being com-
piled and tabulated in terms of total particulates, total tars, the
chemical composition of both the particulates and tars, particle size
distribution, and other pertinent exhaust gas parameters. The emis-
sion data are being organized according to generic coal-converter
categories (e.g., fixed, fluidized and entrained-bed gasifiers).
A literature search is also being made to identify and characterize
the performance of alternate control technologies for particulates
and tars. The computerized literature searches discussed above and
library searches have been made to identify pertinent sources of in-
formation on these control technologies. Data on the performance
of the alternate control devices are being organized according to
generic categories (e.g., cyclones, electrostatic precipitators). A sum-
mary of available performance data for high-temperature particulate
removal devices has been included in the work.
Study of High Temperature Desu/furization Technologies — The
Applied Research Division lARD) of Dynalectron Corporation,
under subcontract to HRI. is also conducting a study of high
temperature desulfurization technologies for coal converters. A
comprehensive search has been carried Out to identify hot gas clean-
up )HGC) technolgies at all stages of development. This search was
directed not only at HGC technologies developed specifically for
coal conversion, but also at other related industrial applications
such as coke-oven and refinery gases. Computerized literature
searches of Chemical Abstracts. Engineering Index, U.S. and foreign
patents, government publications and numerous journals were
carried out. A thorough U.S. patent search was also conducted sepa-
rately. HGC process developers and evaluators, HGC project officers
at the U.S. Department of Energy, and other EPA contractors were
contacted for additional information.
Twenty-two HGC processes have been identified. All available
sources of information have been reviewed for each of these pro-
cesses. Status descriptions for each of the 22 HGC processes are
being summarized. An interim report of the status of the identified
HGC processes is being prepared.
Assessment and Control of Wastewater Contaminants from the
Production of Synthetic Fuels — Under an EPA grant, the Univer-
sity of North Carolina has initiated bench-scale testing of processes
which treat wastewater resulting from the production of synthetic
fuels from coal. Recently, coagulation studies have shown the best
pretreatment to be acidification of wastewater to pH 5. During
these studies, the following removals have been observed: tar, 90
to 95 percent; and TOC. 1 5 percent. Doses of alum and synthetic
organic polymers remove only small amounts of tar and TOC.
Studies of activated sludge, biodegradation, aquatic bioassay, and
adsorjtion are continuing.
Coal Gasification
Coal Gasification — Gas Cleaning P/ant — The coal gasification-gas
cleaning facility at North Carolina State University is scheduled to
be completed this summer. After shakedown, the initial tests will
study the methanol acid gas removal process.
During the next budget period, October 1, 1978 through Septem-
ber 20, 1980, the research will follow three principal lines of investi-
gation:
• measurement and characterization of emissions,
• process/environmental modeling, and
• evaluating the kinetics, thermodynamics, and transport
phenomena associated with the gasification and gas purifica-
tion steps.
Among the potential acid gas removal processes to be considered are
those using monoethanolamine, hot potassium carbonate, and the
dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol.
Liquefaction
Control Technology for the H’Coal and Exxon Donor Solvent Pro-
cesses — The Applied Research Division (ARD) of Dynalectron,
under subcontract to HR 1, is evaluating control technologies for the
H-Coal and Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) coal liquefaction processes.
The evaluation is based on design information for the pilot plants
being built. The H-Coal and EDS pilot plants have capacities of
6.3 kg/s (600 tons/day) and 2.6 kg/s 1250 tons/day) of coal, respec-
tively. Both plants are located adjacent to existing oil refineries.
For purposes of evaluating control technologies, the conceptual
commercial processes are divided into several sections (process
modules) such as coal handling, reaction and primary separations,
gas treatment, water treatment, and solids disposal. For each of
these sections, the input and output streams are determined. The
emissions are then characterized and the technology analyzed for its
applicability to commercial-size plants.
The pilot plants, as designed, are not completely integrated and
they do not treat the H 2 S-containing gases. These gases will be sent
to existing Claus plants in the adjacent refineries. Similarly, waste-
water streams will be fed to existing refinery wastewater treatment
plants. As a result, any assessment of control technologies, based
on the pilot plant design, is not complete and alternative concep-
tualized designs will be developed.
Furthermore, some of the solids from the vacuum tower bottoms
and anti-solvent de-ashing system are disposed of in landfills. It has
frequently been mentioned that these solids can be used to produce
the hydrogen necessary for the reactors. Conceptual designs of sys-
tems which use these solids for hydrogen production and for final
disposal of the resulting solid wastes will be developed. Other alter-
native control technologies are also being studied, however.
Zero Discharge Options for Coal Liquefaction — In evaluating
existing and proposed zero discharge options in related industries
to determine their applicability to the SRC process, preliminary
indications are that zero discharge of wastewaters from the SRC
process is technically feasible. However, the design and construction
of such a facility will result in an economic penalty over conven-
tional plant design.
For the purposes of this study, Hittman Associates developed a
zero discharge water management system for a conceptualized 8,000
m 3 /day (50.000 bbl/day) SRC-lt facility. In this design, four treat-
ment schemes are necessary. The first treats blowdown from cooling
towers in several stages, resulting in reuse of 95 percent of the blow-
down as a makeup and concentration of dissolved salts to a solid
form for disposal. The second recovers salable materials from pro-
cess condensates. Phenols, ammonia, and sulfur are recovered in
relatively pure state and, assuming good markets exist for each, cre-
dit from the sale of these materials would be used to reduce the pay-
back period on the high capital expenditures necessary for recovery
6
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
equipment. The third scheme treats intake water to levels necessary
for cooling, process and domestic requirements. The fourth treats
wastewaters from hydrogen generation, regeneration of demineral-
izers, and recycled wastewater from hydrogenation.
It should be pointed out that the zero discharge system used in
this project is only one of many systems which could be designed
using current technology. A draft report of this work is being pre-
pared.
TECHNOLOGY AND/OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
P0 we rton Project Name and Emphasis Changed — The Powerton
Combined Cycle Test Facility Project has been renamed the Gasifier
Development Program Test Facility. Along with the name change,
the test facility’s emphasis will be shifted to gasifier development.
Initially, two 3-m (10-ft) diameter Lurgi units will process 8.4 to
10.5 kg/s (800 to 1000 tons/day) of coal. The resulting product
gas will be used in combined cycle generating systems. Construction
is scheduled to begin next spring and initial operation should begin
early in 1981. The dry-ash Lurgi units will be tested for 3 years,
after which they will be replaced by slagging Lurgi units.
DOE to Award SRCStudies’ Contracts— DOE is prepared to
award two contracts ($6 million each) for the process design of sol-
vent refined liquid and solids plants as soon as funding can be ap-
proved. The two companies selected for the contract awards are
Gulf Oil Company and Southern Company Services, with Air Pro-
ducts / Chemicals, Inc. and Wheelabrator Cleanfuel Corp. assisting
the Southern Company subsidiary. It will take 6 to 9 months to
complete the designs after the contracts are signed.
While DOE has stipulated that both designs would process 63 kg/s
(6000 tons/day) of coal, Wheelabrator and the Electric Power Re-
search Institute maintain that a 10.5 to 21 kg/s (1000 to 2000
ton/dayl plant would be sufficient to demonstrate commercial
scale equipment. EPRI is basing its opinion in part on the belief
that a 63 kg/s 16000 ton/day) plant would require some equipment
not currently available. However, DOE maintains that, at a mini-
mum, a 63 kg/s (6000 ton/day) plant is required to demonstrate
commercial scale equipment.
Explosion at B/GAS P/ant Initiates Review — A mid-February
explosion at DOE’s BIGAS coal gasification pilot plant in Homer
City, PA, has brought about a major review of the facility. An
inductor feeding char into the reactor became clogged and backed
up, causing an explosive mixture to enter into a line nd resulted
in the explosion. A team of consultants was called in to check the
operations and safety of the plant after the explosion and fire. DOE
managers decided the overall plans for the plant needed to be re-
evaluated.
Homogeneous Catalysts for the Water-Gas Shift Reaction — Re-
searchers at the University of California (Santa Barbara), the Univer-
sity of Georgia, and the University of Rochester have reported the
use of homogeneous catalysts to promote the water-gas shift re-
action. The shift reaction involves the reversible conversion of car-
bon monoxide and water into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The
new homogeneous catalysts promote the reaction at temperatures
of 370 to 470 K (210 to 390° F). The standard heterogeneous
catalysts leech as iron and chromium oxides) promote the shift
reaction at high pressures and temperatures of 620 to 720 K (660
to 840° F). Although hydrogen yields in the experimental homo-
geneous Systems have been low, lower energy costs are possible
than with the heterogeneous catalysts.
Research at the University of California has primarily involved
mixed metal systems containing ruthenium and iron carbonyls.
Carbonyl complexes of iridium and rhodium have also been used
in mixtures of ruthium and iron carbonyls. The metal complexes
form active complexes in acidic or basic aqueous solutions.
Research at the University of Georgia has involved solutions con-
taining carbonyl complexes of iron, chromium, molybdenum, and
tungsten. Current research is on conditions required to maximize
hydrogen production. Researchers are also investigating catalyst
poisoning by compounds such as H 2 S and COS.
Research at the University of Rochester has involved hydrated tin
chlorides and platinum-containing salts.
Test Run Successful at COGAS Pilot Plant — The COGAS-
designed pilot plant in Leatherhead, England, has completed a suc-
cessful test run of more than 200 hours that demonstrated the
feasibility of the coal gasification process. The test, the latest of
22 conducted at the pilot plant, successfully gasified coal chars
from Illinois, West Virginia, and the United Kingdom. It demon-
strated the flexibility and control of the COGAS process and
showed that domestic high-Btu substitute natural gas and oil can
be produced in substantial quantities. The success of the tests may
cause a reversal of the earlier decision by DOE to halt design work
of a proposed demonstration plant in Illinois, based on the same
process.
Successful Use of Caking Coals by Conoco — Conoco Coal
Development Company’s tests at a Lurgi pilot plant in Westfield,
Scotland, have successfully completed a 5 day run using highly
caking, high-sulfur Pittsburgh No. 8 coal. Previous successful tests
were conducted with a mixture of coke and Pittsburgh No. 8 coal.
Conoco hopes this successful run will satisfy DOE and allow the
continuation of design work on a slagging Lurgi demonstration plant
planned for Ohio. Conoco did receive an extension from DOE to
continue operation for a month or two. If their runs continue to
be successful, DOE may authorize resumption of the design work.
DOE Selects Two Firms for Coal-to-Gas P/ant Designs — Foster
Wheeler Development Corp. and Combustion Engineering, Inc., have
been selected by DOE to design Iow Btu coal gasification plants to
fuel electric generating units. Each company would receive about
$2.5 to $3 million in government funding for the design work,
which will take approximately 20 months. Authorization to pro-
ceed with detailed design of one or both of the projects may come
from DOE under a 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement. DOE estimates
each demonstration plant will require between $50 and $100
million in direct spending if they are to be in operation by 1984.
Foster Wheeler’s proposal entails use of a chemically active
fluidized-bed gasification process now under development at the
Esso Research Center, Abingdon, England. It would be tested at
an Appalachian Power Company plant at Cabin Creek, WV. Twelve
kg/s (1100 tons/day) of high-sulfur, highly caking Ohio bituminous
coal will be processed with the resulting fuel gas used to fire a 90
MW generator. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. will be the A-E sub-
contractor.
Combustion Engineering proposed a commercial plant that uses an
entrained-flow atmospheric pressure gasifier to produce gas for use
in a combined cycle application at Gulf States Utilities’ Westlake,
LA, station. The gasifier will process 14 kg/s (1300 tons/day) of
high.sulfur, highly caking Midwestern coal. C-E’s Lummus subsi-
diary will be the A-E subcontractor.
Laboratory Analysis of Condensate from Pilot Plants — Argonne
National Laboratory recently initiated a 5-year program for the
analysis of organics in process streams of high and low/medium-Btu
gasification pilot plants. The first phase of the effort will involve
characterization of trace organics in HYGAS pilot plant con-
densates. A parallel effort is also being conducted at Argonne for
the biological characterization of waste stream constituents in order
to identify which compounds or sample fractions are carcinogenic
and/or mutagenic.
Financial P/an for Mercer County, No, Dakota, Coal Gasifica-
tion — A consortium of five major pipeline companies headed by
the American Natural Resources Co. of Detroit, with the assistance
of DOE, has devised a plan to finance a 77 Nm 3 /s (250 x 106 scf/
day) coal gasification plant in Mercer County. The plan, called an
“all events tariff,” enables the pipeline companies to increase their
7
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
rates to customers by enough to cover their debt, which will amount
to approximately $675 million, even if the project fails for any rea-
son. The companies will put up above $225 million in equity, which
would not be recoverable from customers if the plant failed for
technical or financial reasons. The plan still has to be approved by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). If the plan is
approved, the plant may be on stream in Mercer County by 1982.
Low-Btu Gasification Process Nears Market — A consortium of
Allis-Chalmers Corporation and 11 utility companies has privately
financed development of a low-Btu gasification process that is
nearly ready for commercialization. The consortium’s KilnGas pro-
cess is currently the focus of a 3-year basic engineering program in
which a 0.1 kg/s (10-ton/day) pilot plant is being used to generate
design data for a commercial plant. The process is expected to be
ready for commercial use by 1982. The KilnGas process is based on
the use of refractory-lined rotary kilns with special ports to permit
the introduction of air and Steam to a tumbling bed of coal, and
lends itself to the production of fuel for combined cycle power
generation.
Comparison Results Released on Combined Cycle Systems —
Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., conducted a study for the
Electri Power Research Institute on five hypothetical gasification-
combined cycle power plants. The results showed construction of
the GCC power p ants could cost as much as 15 percent less than
that of conventional coal-fired power plants and operation of such
plants could be as much as 20 percent less. Of the five CCC systems
studied, most have the potential of being commercialized within the
next decade. Some of the processes also presented environmental
advantages because of the high temperature operation and simplicity.
The study compared power plants with capacities of 1000 MW,
using advanced gas turbine technology (with a combustion of
1570 K. 2400°F), a Lurgi dry ash gasifier, a British Gas Corp.
slagger, and entrained-bed processes by Combustion Engineering,
Foster Wheeler and Texaco.
Conversion of Caking Coals Problems Solved — Westinghouse
Electric Corp. has completed the second of the two main steps in
its gasification process and seems to have solved two major problems
associated with caking coals. Test runs totaling 1,100 hours have
been completed on a 0.15 kg/s (15-ton/day) fluidized-bed, pres-
surized. agglomerating gasifier at Waltz Mill. PA. The gasifier can
handle char and raw coal feeds. The two problems solved are; the
tendency of some eastern coals to stick together; and need for
efficient removal of ash formed during gasification. Caking Pitts-
burgh seam coal was run through the gasifier for 24 hours without
problems and produced 4.7 MJ/Nm 3 (120 Btu/scf) gas at about
1.5 MPa (15 atm) and 1200 to 1366 K (1700 to 2000°F). A longer,
7-day, continuous test of caking coals is planned by Westinghouse.
The testing was performed under contract to DOE.
Coal Liquefaction Process Patent Received — The Houdry Division
of Air Products and Chemicals has received patent No. 4.075,082
for a coal liquefaction process. It outlines a method of hydrodesul-
furizing and liquefying carbonaceous feedstocks using a hydrogena-
tion catalyst from a Group VI or VIII metal, such as nickel cobalt,
molybdenum or chromium. Commercial possibilities are being con-
sidered although the process is still being evaluated by Air Products.
Exxon Coal Liquefaction Project Underway — Construction has
begun in Baytown, TX, on the $110 million pilot plant which is part
of the $240 million commercial development project for the Exxon
Donor Solvent coal liquetaction process. The pilot plant is scheduled
for completion in November 1979 and will process 2.6 kg/s (250
tons/day) of coal. The EDS process is expected to produce distillate
low-sulfur liquid fuels at a rate of 0.44 m 3 /metric ton (2.5 bbl/ton)
of coal feed. DOE is providing half of the project funding; the other
half will come from a group of U.S. and Japanese companies and
the Electric Power Research Institute.
SRC Solids Demonstration P/ant Evaluated — The design approach
for a solvent refined coal solids demonstration plant has been evalu-
ated by the Electric Power Research Institute for DOE. One remain-
ing question to define is the best system for liquid-solids separation.
The evaluation also recommends that the hydrogen production sys-
tem be compatible with the solids separation system. The present
method of solidifying the coal product must be redesigned into a
direct and contained cooling process to ensure environmental
acceptability. Sulfur emission standards for SRC solids plants need
to be defined because tighter standards could cause the process to
become impractical. The report also states that any demonstration
plant would have to process between 10 and 20kg/s 11000 and
2000 tons/day) of coal to provide sufficient information prior to
the commercialization phase.
Alternate Conversion Route for Western Coal — Oak Ridge
National Laboratory has developed a bench-scale, simplified coal
conversion process that produces pipeline-quality gas and light oil.
It requires no char gasifier, oxygen plant, or methanator, and con-
sumes very little net hydrogen. A fluidized-bed reactor at 833 K
11040°F) and hydrogen pressure of 2 MPa (300 psi) cause mild
hydrocarbonization of coal. Resulting products are 46 percent
clean char, 21 percent pipeline gas, 20 percent oil, and 13 percent
water. The estimated total capital cost for a 386 kg/s (36,700-
ton/day) plant using low-sulfur western coal is $1.7 billion. Exclud-
ing the cost of coal, annual operating costs are estimated at $55.8
million for the conversion plant and $28 million for the power
plant. Burning 21 percent of the char can satisfy process-heat re-
quirements. The plant would yield approximately 43 Nm 3 /s of
(140 million scf/d( of gas products and 0.08 m 3 /s (42,000 bbl/d)
of 1 percent S light oil.
EPRI Sponsors Equipment Cooling Methods Project — The
Electric Power Research Institute has authorized a 4-year, $20
million research project to demonstrate methods to cool equipment
used to burn coal gases and liquids. Temperatures required for the
most efficient burning of coal gases and liquids (1480 to 1530 K or
2200 to 2300° F) cause rapid deterioration of the high-alloy metals
used in combustion equipment. EPRI says a wider variety of metals,
reducing equipment costs, could be utilized if these temperatures
could be lowered to below 980 K (1300°F). A combustion-turbine!
steam turbine combined cycle system will receive emphasis in test-
ing because it is thought to be the most efficient coal-derived fuel
system. It uses hot gas from the combustion turbine to heat water,
producing steam that drives a turbine which generates electricity.
EPRI plans to test water- and air-convection cooling methods on
the section of the turbine from the burner to exhaust.
New Coal Liquefaction Process Developed in South Africa — A
new process to extract oil, other fuels, and by-products from coal
has been discovered by South African scientists. The research was
sponsored by the South African Coal Oil and Gas Corp. (SASOL),
the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Fuel Re-
search Institute. The existing process is accelerated and yield of
fuel and by-products are increased up to 70 percent. The process
features the economic use of coal, tar, and brown coal. The resulting
products are a high quality fuel and varied by-products. Researchers
say that manipulation of the reaction conditions can produce varied
amounts of light hydrocarbon gases, gasoline, diesel, and heavy oil.
8
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
PROJECT TITLES, CONTRACTORS, AND EPA PROJECT OFFICERS
IN FUEL PROCESS BRANCH ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Project Title Contractor EPA Project Officer
Environmental Assessment
of Low/Medium-Btu
Gasification
(March 1976-March 1979)
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78758
(512) 454-4797
(E. C. Cavanaugh/G. C. Page)
William 3. Rhodes
I ER L- RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Environmental Assessment
of High-Btu Gasification
(April 1977-April 1980)
TRW, Inc.
1 Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(213) 536-4105
(Chuck Murray)
William 3. Rhodes
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Environmental Assessment
of Coal Liquefaction
(August 1936-August 1979)
Hittman Associates
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, MD 21043
(301) 730-7800
(Wayne Morris)
William 3. Rhodes
lEA L-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Control Technology For
Products/By-Products
(September 1976-September 1979)
Catalytic, Inc.
1500 Market Street
Center Square West
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215) 864-8104
(A. B. Cherry)
Chester A. Vogel
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Control Technology For
Converter Output
(January 1977-January 1980)
Hydrocarbon Research, Inc.
P. 0. Box 6047
134 Franklin Corner Road
Lawrence Township, NJ 08648
(609) 896-1300
(John Kunesh)
Chester A. Vogel
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Waste Stream Disposal
and Utilization
(April 1977-April 1980)
Pullman Kellogg
Research and Development Center
16200 Park Row
Industrial Park Terrace
Houston, Texas 77054
(713) 4 3-0291
(Louis Bostwick)
Chester A. Vogel
lEA L-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
General Support
(April 1976-1 978)
Cameron Engineers, Inc.
1315 South C)arkson Street
Denver, CO 80210
(303) 777-2525
(Ted Borer)
L. David Tamny
lEA L-RTP
Envftonmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2709
Acid Gas Cleaning
Bench Scale Unit
(October 1976-September 1981)
(Grant)
North Carolina State Univ.
Department of Chemical Engineering
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 737-2324
(James Ferrell)
William 3. Rhodes
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Water Treating Bench
Scale Unit
(November 1976-October 1981)
(Grant)
Pollutant Identification
From A Bench Scale Unit
(November 1976-October 1981)
(Grant)
Univ. of North Carolina
Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
School of Public Health
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 966-1052
(Phillip Singer)
Research Triangle Institute
P.0. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709
(919) 541-6000
(Forest Mixon)
William J. Rhodes
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
William J. Rhodes
lEA L-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
9
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
REPORT SUMMARY
Applicability of Petroleum Refinery
Control Technologies to Coal Conversion
by
M. Ghassemi, D. Stehier, K. Crawford,
and S. Quinlivan
As part of a program aimed at the environmental assessment of
high-Btu gasification technology, a study was conducted to deter-
mine the applicability of refinery pollution control systems to the
control of gaseous liquid and solid wastes generated in coal gasifica-
tion and liquefaction facilities. The study included a collection of
toxicological and health effects data on components in analogous
wastes in coal conversion and refining industries. As a first step in
this effort, the refinery waste streams were reviewed and those
likely to have counterpaI s in coal conversion processes were charac-
terized. Based on the considerations of (a) availability of data on
waste stream character’.stics, Ib) attainment of or nearness to con-
mercialization status, and Ic) representation of integrated operations
producing upgraded or refined gaseous or liquid products, three
coai conversion processes were selected as being representative.
These processes are Lurgi. Koppers-Totzek and COED. The process!
waste streams from these processes were characterized and those
streams having refinery counterparts were identified. The refinery
control technologies for the management of refinery process/waste
streams were then evaluated from the standpoint of applicability to
their counterpart waste streams in coal conversion. All the data on
waste stream characteristics and control technologies were obtained
from the published literature and process vendors.
Compared to the relatively large amount of actual data available
for many refinery waste streams, very little data are available for
waste streams generated in integrated commercial coal conversion
plants. The insufficiency of characterization data on coal conversion
waste streams, which constitutes a major obstacle to accurate and
detailed assessment of the applicability of refinery control tech-
nologies to coal conversion waste streams, stems primarily from the
non-existence of commercial Lurgi, Koppers-Totzek and COED pro-
cesses in the U.S. and from inapplicability of some of the data from
U.S. pilot coal conversion facilities to large-scale operations. For
many of the unit operations where some discharge stream character-
ization data are available, such data are not comprehensive in that
all streams are not addressed and all potential pollutants and toxico-
logical and ecological properties are not defined. Commercial gasif i-
cation and liquefaction facilities which are in operation in foreign
countries do not generally incorporate design and operating features
which would likely be employed in a facility in the U.S to minimize
waste generation and to control pollutant discharge. Moreover, the
coals used at these facilities differ from those which will be em-
ployed at commercial plants in the U.S. Although many of the unit
operations for gas and liquid processing which may have applica-
tions in commercial coal conversion have been tested or used com-
mercially in other industries, their performance in coal conversion
service has often not been evaluated.
Comparison of Refinery and
Coal Conversion Streams
Based on the review of the available data and from a control tech-
nology applicability viewpoint, a limited number of refinery and
coal conversion process/waste streams appear to have certain similar
characteristics. These streams and the basis for their similarities are
listed in Table 3. Despite the noted similarities, there appear to be
significant composition differences between the analogous streams
which would affect applicability and design of a control technology.
For example, while both the refinery process sour gases and the
quenched product gas from coal gasification contain H 2 S and CO 2 .
the H 5 S concentration is considerably higher and the CO 2 level is
significantly lower in most refinery sour gases (16 to 65% vs. 1 to
2% and 2 to 5% vs. 7 to 32%. respectively). Even when selective
H 2 S removal processes are used, the treatment of the coal conver-
sion raw product gas results in the production of a concentrated
acid gas stream with CO 2 levels much higher than those in refinery
sour gases.
Unlike sour waters from refineries which contain high levels of
both sulfides and ammonia, most coal conversion condensates con-
tain low levels of sulfide and moderate levels of ammonia. Because
of the differences in the nature of the raw material (crude oil vs.
coal’l and the processing steps employed, the dissolved and particu-
late organics (oils, tars, organic acids, etc.) found in coal conversion
wastes are different from those in refinery wastewaters. The or-
ganics in coal conversion wastes are generally more aromatic than
those in refineries, which are largely aliphatic. These differences in
wastewater characteristics are also reflected in the characteristics
of oily and biosludges resulting from wastewater treatment. In
comparing coal conversion waste streams with their analogs in re-
fineries. it should be noted that there can be wide differences be-
tween stream composition from different coal conversion plants
depending on the coal processed, conversion process used, and on-
site product upgrading methods employed.
10
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
Applicability of Refinery Control Technologies
The refinery control technologies which may find application to
coal conversion are listed in Table 4. Some of the control processes
(e.g., sulfur recovery plant tail gas treatment processes) would be
applicable to waste Streams in a coal conversion plant and their
design would essentially be the same as in refinery applications.
Other processes such as Stretford, Claus and steam stripping would
require varying levels of modification to account for differences
in waste composition. Because of limited data on certain waste
characteristics (e.g., biodegradability of organics and settleability
of suspended solids in wastewaters), the applicability and efficien-
cies of processes such as biooxidation, flotation, sludge dewatering,
and emulsion breaking in coal conversion application cannot be ac-
curately assessed at this time. With the exception of very few pro-
cesses (e.g., Rectisol and DGA acid gas treatment processes and
Stretford tail gas treatment process) which have been tested in
coal conversion applications, the processes listed in Table 4 have not
been employed in such an application. For the processes which have
been used in coal conversion, only limited data are available on pro-
cess design and performance. Even though the processes listed in
Table 4 appear applicable to coal conversion wastes, the true test of
applicability and definition of criteria for large-scale design and cost
estimation requires laboratory and pilot-scale testing. It should also
be noted that the suitability of a control process for use in coal con-
version plants cannot be determined in isolation from other pro-
cesses and waste treatment operations within an integrated coal con-
version facility. The selection of a specific control process is merely
an element in the overall waste management plan for a facility
which includes considerations of overall emissions/effluent limita-
tions, energy and raw material availability and costs.
Some of the components in refinery and coal conversion wastes
are important from the standpoint of presenting potential occupa-
tional health hazards to plant workers and adverse health impact on
the general population. Several of the hazardous waste corjipofleflts
such as H 2 S, CU 2 , CO and mercaptans are not unique to refinery or
coal conversion wastes and are emitted from a variety of other in-
dustrial and non-industrial sources. The hazardous characteristics of
many of these commonplace substances are generally well docu-
mented. The hazardous chemicals which are more unique to coal
conversion and refineries fall into three categories: polynuclear aro-
matics, heavy metals and organometal(ic compounds, and ow mol-
ecular weight aromatic substances, Many of the control technologies
used in both refineries and coal conversion plants should result in
partial or total removal of the hazardous waste components. How-
ever, the fate of many of the hazardous components in pollution
control processes is not well known, and the requirements for add-
itional controls cannot be defined at this time.
TABLE 3. SIMILAR REFINERY AND COAL CONVERSION WASTE STREAMS
Refinery Streams
Coal Conversion Counterparts
Major Similarities
Gaseous
Process sour gas
Quenched product gas, acid gas and fuel
gas (from liquefaction)
High H 2 S and ammonia content; presence
of CO 2
Catalyst regenerator off-gas
Raw product gas and char combustion
flue gas
High CO and particulates, NO and N 2
Fugitive emissions
Fugitive emissions
Hydrocarbons, sulfur compounds, ammonia
Liquid
Sour waters
Raw product gas quench condensate,
waste liquor purge (from liquefaction)
and shift condensate
Ammonia, sulfide, phenols, oil and grease!
tar
Oily waters
Raw product gas quench condensate
and waste liquor purge (from lique-
faction)
Oil and grease/tar; phenols
Solid
Spent catalysts
Spent shift, methanation, hydrotreating,
and Claus plant catalysts
Metals (Ni, Co, Mo, etc.), bauxite
Sludges
Oily and biosludges
Oil and grease/tar, inerts, biomass, refractory
organ i cs
11
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
TABLE 4. REFINERY CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO COAL CONVERSION
Refinery Control Technology Applicability to Coal Conversion Waste Stream
Acid Gas Treatment
Amine solvents Potentially suitable for nonselective removal of H 2 S and CO 2 from product gases from atmospheric!
(DEA, Fluor Econamine, etc.) low pressure gasification/liquefaction. Also suitable for hydrocarbon removal from concentrated acid
gases. Extensive solvent degradation may be encountered in coal application.
Physical solvents Potentially suitable for selective removal of H 2 S and CO 2 from product gases. Best suited to high pres-
(Selexol, Rectisol. etc.) sure application. The resulting concentrated acid gas stream may contain high levels of hydrocarbons.
thus requiring further treatment prior to sulfur recovery.
Sulfur Recovery
Claus Split.f low mode applicable to coal conversion acid gases containing more than 10%H 2 S. Removal of
ammonia and hydrocarbons from feed gases would be required to prevent ammonium bicarbonate
scaling and carbon deposition on catalyst, respectively.
Stretford Applicable to acid gases containing low levels (around 1%) H 2 S. High CO 2 levels necessitate pH adjust-
ment and result in high blow-down rates. Relatively large unit sizes would be required with high CO 2
gases. Process does not remove non-H 2 S sulfur compounds.
Tail Gas Treatmenc
IFP-1, Sulfreen Suitable for Claus plant tail gas treatment; cannot achieve very low levels of total sulfur in the off.gas
which may be required by emission regulations.
SCOT, Beavon and CleanAir Sulfur removal efficiencies decrease when acid gases contain high CO 2 levels.
Chiyoda Thoroughbred 101, Potentially suitable.
Wellman-Lord, IFP-2 and
Shell CuO
Fugitive EmistAons and Odor Control
Vapor recovery, incineration, Applicable to analogous sources.
source elimination
Sour Water Stripping
Conventional stripping and Applicable to coal conversion sour waters. The design must be modified to allow for the sulfide and
Chevron W NT process often higher ammonia levels in coal conversion sour waters.
Oily Water Treatment
API separator and flotation Applicable; units must be designed based on specific wastewater characteristics.
Biological Wastewater Treatment Generally applicable; biodegradability of coal conversion waste components not established.
Carbon Adsorption and Chemical Should be applicable; design basis must be established for the specific wastewater.
Oxidation
Slop Oils and Sludge Treatment Generally applicable; design basis must be established for the specific waste.
(thickening, centrifugation,
emulsion breaking, drying beds)
In-Plant Waste Volume and Applicable.
Strength Reduction
Resource Recovery Applicable to spent catalysts for material recovery: sale of tars/oils.
Incineration Applicable to organic wastes; incinerator and emission control designs would be feed specific.
Land Disposal Applicable.
12
-------
MEETING CALENDAR
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
176th National meeting of the American Chemical Society. Septem-
ber 10-15, 1978. Contact: A. T. Winstead, ACS, Washington, D.C.,
20036.
EPA Coal Cleaning to Achieve Energy and Envorinmental Goals.
September 11-15, 1978, Hollywood, FL. Contact: J. D. Kilgroe,
EPA, IERL-RTP, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711.
Symposium on Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Syn-
thetic Fossil Fuels, September 25-28, 1978, Gatlinburg, TN. Con-
tact: J. Robert Hightower, Jr., Head, Advanced Technology Section,
Chemical Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
P. 0. Box X, Oak Ridge, TN, 37830.
International Coal Utilization Exhibition and Conference. October
17-19, 1978, Houston, TX. Contact: David I. Johnson,6006 Bet-
laire Blvd., Rm. No. 101, Houston, TX, 77081.
AIChE 71st National Conference, November 13-16, 1978. Miami,
FL. Write: AIChE, 345 E. 47th St., New York, NY, 10017.
Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, April
17-19, 1979. Hollywood, FL. Contact: W. J. Rhodes (MD-61)
EPA, IERL-RTP, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711.
RECENT MAJOR MEETINGS
85th NATIONAL MEETING OF
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
The 85th National Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers was held June 4-8, 1978, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The program for the National Meeting emphasized topics related to
chemical process technology, energy sources and utilization, and
environmental impact of the chemical process industries. The meet-
ing featured 74 sessions, including discussions on chemicals from
coal, instrumentation and controls at fossil fuel conversion plants,
utility gas produced from fossil fuels, and emissions from new coal-
based energy sources. Other sessions featured discussions of the
status of major synthetic fuel projects, coal liquefaction, and ad-
vances in coal conversion and utilization.
A session on chemicals from coal emphasized the potential use of
coal as a petrochemical feedstock. During this session, the potential
market and economics of coal-derived chemicals were discussed.
Separate papers discussed methanol and gasoline produced from
coal, the production of methanol from coal, and the production of
petrochemicals/petrochemical feedstocks. Another paper described
the hydropyrolysis of North Dakota lignite to produce a range of
products including methane, ethane, benzene, toluene, xylene,
ethyl-benzene, phenol, naphthalenes, and cresols.
The fossil-fuel conversion processes that operate at high tempera-
tures and pressures require special techniques for process instru-
mentation and control. One session at the AIChE meeting high-
lighted recent instrumentation applications at fossil-fuel conversion
plants. Separate papers discussed instrumentation for the H-coal
liquefaction process, the test burn of solvent refined coal, the
Y’GAS gasification process, and the BI-GAS gasification process.
Instrumentation being developed by the Argonne National Labora-
tory for large-scale coal conversion processes was also discussed.
Two sessions at the meeting discussed the production of low- and
medium-Btu gas from coal. Several papers discussed some of the
technology that could potentially be used to produce utility gas
from coal. Other papers discussed the use of low- or medium-Btu
gas for industrial needs. Several papers emphasized the economics
and technological feasibility of low- and medium-Btu gas.
One paper at the session on utility gas discussed the agglomerating
burner coal gasification process being developed by Battelle. Other
papers described the Foster Wheeler-Stoic gasifier, the molten salt
gasification process, and underground coal gasification. The use of
coal gasification processes in combined cycle power generation sys-
tems was also discussed.
One session at this meeting focused on the atmospheric emis-
sions from coal conversion processes. Comparisons were presented
between firing coal and liquefied coal products. Several papers
characterized the emissions from various coal conversion pro-
cesses. RTI ’s parametric evaluation of pollutant formation from a
laboratory coal gasifier was also discussed.
Large-scale coal conversion processes are in various stages of devel-
opment. In one session, the current Status of four coal gasification
and liquefaction processes was discussed, Included were the Power-
ton combined cycle demonstration plant (featuring Lurgi gasifiers).
the Illinois Coal Gasification Group’s COGAS demonstration plant,
the H-Coal liquefaction pilot plant, and the Exxon Donor Solvent
pilot plant.
Another session at the National Meeting featured discussion of
coal liquefaction processes. A conceptual process design and eco-
nomic evaluation of a 0.2 m 3 /s 1100,000 bbl/d) Synthoil plant was
presented. (The design was based on data from a bench-scale unit.)
Coat liquefaction and de-ashing studios for the Consol and Solvent
Refined Coal processes were also discussed. Other papers discussed
the hydro-liquefaction of coal in molten zinc chloride and in the
Synthoil reactor. A final paper described the effects of mineral
matter on coal liquefaction processes. The catalytic liquefaction of
coal by carbon monoxide and steam was discussed in a session
describing advances in fossil-fuel conversion and utilization.
13
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
Gasification
RECENT MAJOR PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS
Ahner, 0. J., and S. P. Gallagher, “Influential Factors in Coal Gasifi-
cation Fuel Systems for Combined Cycle Power Generation and
Their Impact on Performance and Costs,” Presented at the 85th
National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the
AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Ammons, H. L., “Instrumentation and Control at the BI-GAS Pilot
Plant,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant
Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8,
1978.
Anderson, G. L., W. G. Bair, and J. A. Hudsiak, “Ultrafiltration for
Coal Gasification Processes.” Presented at the 85th National Meet-
ing and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Phila-
delphia, PA,June4-8, 1978.
Barnett, F. M., J. S. Clawion, and K. C. Vyas, “Medium Btu Gas
Fits Refiner’s Needs,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 57(b), 131-133
(1978).
Broeker, R. J., “Considerations Involved in the Production of 300-
Blu Gas from Coal for Industry,” Presented at the 85th National
Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the AIChE,
Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Brandenburg, C. F., D. D. Fischer, and L. W. Plemmons, “The
Route to the Commerci Iization of Underground Coal Gasifica-
tion,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant
Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8,
1978.
Buder, M. K., and 0. N. Terichow, “Underground Coal Gasifica-
tion Can Reach Unminable Energy,” Oil& GasJ. 76(24), 54-61
(1978).
Campbell, J. H., “Pyrolysis of Subbituminous Coal in Relation to
In-Situ Coal Gasification,” Fuel 57(4), 21 7-224 (1978).
Chen, L. P., and 0. L. Keairns, “Particle Separation from a Fluid-
ized Mixture, Simulation of the Westinghouse Coal Gasification
Combustor/Gasifier Operation.” md. Eng. Chem., Process Des,
Develop. 17(2),135-141 (1978).
Cleland, J. G,, 0. A. Green, and J. L. Pierce, “Small Semi-Batch
Gasifier Operation for Pollutant Determination and Control Evalua-
tion,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant
Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8,
1978,
Fleming, D. K., and R. 0. Smith, “Pilot Plant Study of Conversion
of Coal to Low Sulfur Fuel,” EPA-600/2-77-206, NTIS No. PB
274-113/AS. Chicago, IL, Institute of Gas Technology, October
1977.
Gangwal, S. K., R. B. Denyszyn, P. M. Grohse, and D. E. Wagoner,
“Analysis of a Semi-Batch Coal Gasifier Product Gas Using an
Automated Gas Chromatograph,” J. Chromotogr. Sd. (August
1978).
Kohl, A. 1., R. B. Harty, J. G. Johanson, and L. M. Napthali,
“Design and Construction of a Molten Salt Coal Gasification Pro-
cess,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant
Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8
1978.
Lewis, R. P., and 0. F. Bress, “Installation of a Foster Wheeler-
Stoic 2-Stage Coal Gasifier for the Production of a Clean Boiler
Fuel,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant
Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8
1978.
McCray, R. 1., R. Bloom, Jr., and N. A. McClintock, Illinois Coal
Gasification Group —What Is It and Where Is It Going?” Presented
at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Ex-
position of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
McElmurry, B. R., and M. J. Gluckman, “Coal Gasification for Elec-
tric Power Generation,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and
Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia,
PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Mink, W. H., W. G. Steedman, and T. L. Tewksbury, “Production of
Utility Gas with the Agglomerating Burner Coal Gasifier,” Presented
at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Expo-
sition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Page, G. C., W. E. Corbett, and W. C. Thomas, “Guidelines for Pre-
paring Environmental Test Plans for Coal Gasification Plants,” EPA-
600/7-78-134, (NTIS No, not yet assigned) Austin, TX, Radian
Corp., July 1978.
Patterson, R. D., and C. A. Bolez, “A New Look at Low-Btu Gas for
Industrial Use,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemi-
cal Plant Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA,
June 4-8, 1978,
Stauffer, F. E., D. E. Welty, A. Sacker, and C. L. Miller, “Coal Gasi-
fication — Combined Cycle —A United States First,” presented at
the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposi-
tion of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Vyas, K. C., and R. A. Ashworth, “ Substitution of Low and Med.
ium Btu Gases as a Fuel for Natural Gas,” Presented at the 85th
National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment of the AIChE,
Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Weiss, A. J., “SYNTHANE Process Ready for Scale-up,” Hydrocar-
bon processing 57(6), 125-129 (1978).
Wohaldlo, S. J., D. P. Olson, and W. G. Bair, “Instrumentation and
Control for a High Pressure, High Temperature, Fluid Bed Coal Gasi-
fication Process,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and
Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia,
PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Liquefaction Technology
Boik, B.C., “Methanol and Gasoline from Coal as United States Re-
placement Fuels for Motor Gasoline,” Presented at the 85th Na-
tional Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the
AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Duncan, 0. A., J. L. Beeson, and R. 0. Oberle, “Coal Hydropyro-
lysis Permits Product Yield Variation,” Presented at the 85th
National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of
the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
14
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
Granoff, B., and R. K. Traeger, “Mineral Matter Effects in Coal
Liquefaction Processes” Presented at the 85th National Meeting
and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Phila-
delphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Hickman. C. E., “Instrumentation Used and the Results Obtained
from the Solvent Refined Coal Burn Test at Plant Mitchell,” Pre-
sented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equip-
ment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Jackson, C. E., “Air Pollution Control for a Coal to Methanol
Plant,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant
Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8,
1978.
Katell, S., “Ammonia from Coal — An Economic Evaluation,”
Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equip-
ment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia. PA, June 4-8, 1978.
King, H. H, R. W Uiams, Jr., and C. A. Stokes, “Methanol — Fuel
or Chemical?” Hydrocarbon Processing, 57(6), 141-145 (1978).
Kleinpeter, J. A., D. C. Jones, P. J. Dudt, and F. P. Burke, “Coal
Liquefaction and De-ashing Studies: 1. Consol Synthetic Fuel Pro-
cess,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Equip-
ment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Kleinpeter, J. A., D.C. Jones, P. J. Dudt, and F. P. Burke, “Coal
Liquefaction and De-ashing Studies: II. Solvent Refined Coal Pro-
cess,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Equip-
ment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Koch, R. C., J, L, Swift, and N. L. Nagda, “A Comparison of Air
Quality Impact of Using Solvent-Refined Coal vs. Conventional
Coal in Existing Power Plants,” Presented at the 85th National
Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the AIChE,
Philadelphia, PA, dune 4-8, 1978.
Koralek, C. S., K. J. Shields, and D. E. Dykstra, “A Comparison
of Air Emissions from Two Combustion Alternatives: Direct Com-
bustion of Coal vs. Production and Combustion of Liquefied Coal,”
Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Equipment
Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Lee, M. H., J. A. Gum, and A. R. Tarrer, “A Dispersion Model
for the Solvent Refined Coal Process,” md. Eng Chem. Process
Des. Develop, 17(2), 127-135(1978),
O’Leary, M., and V. K. Mathur, “Catalytic Coal Liquefaction by
CO-Steam,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical
Plant Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June
4-8, 1978.
Rogers, S. E., N. J. Mazzocco, S. Akhtar, and P. M. Yavorsky, “Coal
Liquefaction in Synthoil Reactor Without Added Catalyst,” Pre-
sented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment
Exposition at the AIChE. Philadelphia, PA, June 4.8, 1978.
Salmon, R., M. S. Edwards, and W. C. Ulrich, “Process Design and
Economic Evaluation of A 100,000-bbl/day Synthoil Plant.” Pre-
sented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment
Exposition at the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Schmidt, Bruce, “Recycle SRC for Liquid and Solid Fuels,” Pre-
sented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment
Exposition at the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Schutter, R. T., and H. H. Stotler, “H-Coal Pilot Plant Status and
Operating Plans,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and
Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition at the AIChE, Philadelphia,
June, 4-8, 1978.
Schwager, I., and T. F. Yen, “Coal-liquefaction Products from Maior
Demonstration Processes. 1. Separation and Analysis,” Fuel 57(2),
100-104 (1978).
Weber, C.. “Instrumentation for the H-Coal Process,” Presented at
the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposi-
tion of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Zielke, C. W., E. B. Klunder, J. T. Maskew, and R. T. Struck, “Con-
tinuous Hydro Liquefaction of Subbituminous Coal in Molten Zinc
Chloride,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical
Plant Equipment Exposition at the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June
4-8, 1978.
Other
Attar, A., “Chemistry, Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Reactions
of Sulphur in Coal —Gas Reactions: A Review,” Fuel 57(4), 201-
212 (1978).
Calvert, S., S. C. Yung, H. Barbarika, and R. G. Patterson, “Evalua-
tion of Four Novel Fine Particulate Collection Devices” EPA-600/
2-78-062, NTIS No. PB 281-320/AS, San Diego, CA, Air Pollution
Technology, Inc., March 1978.
Cavallaro, J. A., G. A. Gibson, and A. W. Deurbrouck, “A Wash-
ability and Analytical Evaluation of Potential Pollution from Trace
Elements in Coal,” EPA-600/7-78-038, NTIS No. PB 280-759/AS,
Washington, D.C.. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Div. of Solid Fuel Mining
and Preparation, March 1978.
England, C., R. Kushida, S. FeLnstein, and C. Dakala, “The Con-
tinuous Extrusion of Coal. The Coal Pump,” Presented at the 85th
National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition of the
AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8, 1978.
Managan, W. W., A. C. Raptis, N. M. O’Fallon, and C. L. Herzen-
berg. “Instrumentation for Advanced Processes for Coal Utiliza-
tion,” Presented at the 85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant
Equipment Exposition of the AIChE, Philadelphia, PA, June 4-8,
1978.
Oglesby, S., Jr., and G. Nichols. “Particulate Control Highlights: Re-
search on Electostatic Precipitator Technology,” EPA-600/8-77-
020a, NTIS No. PB 276-643/AS, Birmingham, AL, Southern Re-
search Institute, December 1977.
O.Hara, J. B., B. I. Loran, and W. H. Shallenberger, “Project POGO
Coal Refinery Air Emmision Control Procedures,” Presented at the
85th National Meeting and Chemical Plant Equipment Exposition
of The AIChE. Philadelphia, PA, June 4.8, 1978.
Parker, Richard, and Seymour Calvert, “Second EPA Fine Particle
Scrubber Symposium,” EPA-600/2-77-193, NTIS No. PB 273-828/
AS, San Diego, CA, Air Pollution Technology, Inc., September
1977.
Rosenthal, D., and W. F. Hargrove, “Development of Algorithms for
the Automated Processing of GC/MS Data,” Presented at the 26th
Annual Conference on Mass Spectrometry, American Society for
Mass Spectrometry, St. Louis, MO, May 28-June 2, 1978.
Schalit, 1. M., and K. J. Wolfe, “SAM/IA: A Rapid Screening
Method for Environmental Assessment of Fossil Energy Process
Effluents,” EPA-600/7-78-015, NTIS No PB 277-088/AS, Moun-
tain View, CA, Acurex Corp./Aerotherm Div., February 1978.
15
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1978
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 9 of this report contributed to this issue. The EPAIIERL-RTP Project 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 in 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 recommendations for use by EPA.
16
C)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
(Attn: W. J. Rhodes, Mail Drop 61)
OFFICIAl BUSINESS
Penalty For Private Use $300
An Equal Opportunity EmployeT
1..,
tPA
23 . Gi
C C 4 lG F’
Postage And Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA — 335
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemica’ Ubraries
EPA West 3 d Room 3340
Ma code 34041
1301 Cons ituthn Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
S y
If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label; tear off; and
return to the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report series, check
here ; tear off label, and return it to the above address.
------- |