oEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
of
SYNTHETIC FUELS
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORY
VOL. 2 NO. 2
MAY 1979
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. The pro-
gram is evaluating the environmental impacts of synthetic fuel pro-
cesses with a high potential for commercial application. It is
directed by the Fuel Process Branch of EPA's Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, NC (IERL-
RTP).
The primary objectives of the EPA Synthetic Fuels Environ-
mental Assessment/Control Technology Development Program are
1) to define the environmental and health effects of multimedia
discharge streams, and 2) to define control technology needs for an
environmentally sound synthetic fuels industry. The synthetic fuels
from coal 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: current process technology background, environ-
mental data acquisition, current environmental background,
environmental objectives development, control technology assess-
ment, and technology and/or commercial development. The con-
tractors involved in the program, their EPA Project Officers, and
the duration of each effort are tabulated on page 7
This is the latest in a series of periodic reviews of recent activ-
ities in EPA's synthetic fuels program. Activities of EPA contractors
are covered in sections on current process technology background,
environmental data acquisition, and control technology assessment.
Highlights of major symposia, a calendar of upcoming meetings,
and a list of major publications provide up-to-date information on
national and international development in synthetic fuels tech-
nology. Comments or suggestions which will improve the content
or format of these reviews are welcome. Such comments should be
directed to the EPA or Radian Corporation personnel identified on
page 16 of this Review.
CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
General Topics
Environmental Assessment Data Base Reports-\n late 1978,
TRW, Inc., completed an environmental assessment data base re-
port for high-Btu coal gasification technology. Reports for low/
medium-Btu gasification and liquefaction technology have been
compiled by Radian Corporation and Hittman Associates, respec-
tively. The data base reports complete a major step in the EPA
synthetic fuels program.
Each report is a comprehensive compilation and analysis of data
currently available for coal conversion technology. The reports pre-
sent technical and environmental data for various process and pollu-
tion control technologies and identify data gaps. The titles and re-
port numbers are:
• Environmental Assessment Data Base For High-Btu Gasifica-
tion Technology: Volumes I, II, III. Report EPA-600/7-78-
186a, b, and c. NTIS No. PB 288 602, 3, and 4.
• Environmental Assessment Data Base For Low/Medium-Btu
Gasification Technology: Volumes I, II. Report EPA-600/7-
77-125a and b. NTIS No. PB 274 844 and 3.
Environmental Assessment Data Base For Coal Liquefaction
Technology: Volume I. Systems for 14 Liquefaction Pro-
cesses; Volume II. Synthoil, H-Coal. and Exxon Donor Sol-
vent Processes. Report EPA-600/7-78-184a and b. NTIS No
PB 287 799 and 800.
Liquefaction
Air Quality Impacts of SRC Venus Co»/-A recent report by
Hittman Associates, Inc., compares the impact on ambient air
quality when burning Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) and coal. The re-
port, "Air Quality Impacts Using SRC Versus Conventional Coal
In Power Plants" (EPA-600/7-78-203), concludes that substituting
SRC for conventional coal in steam-electric power plants would
significantly reduce ambient SO, and particulate concentrations.
The three plants selected for the study were: TVA's Kingsville
Plant (1700 MW) in eastern Tennessee; Penn Electric's Shawville
Plant (640 MW) in western Pennsylvania; and Penn Electric's Seward
Plant (268 MW) in western Pennsylvania. National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) are exceeded in these areas when these
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1919
plants burn conventional coal.
Ambient air pollutant concentrations from burning both SAC
and conventional coal were estimated using the EPA CRSTER Gaus-
sian plume model. Data from a SRC test burn at Georgia Power’s
Plant Mitchell were used to calculate the particulate and SO 2 emis-
Sian rates used in the model.
The results of the ambient air modeling indicate that switching
from conventional coal to SRC would reduce the predicted ambient
SO 2 levels around the three plants by 60 to 72 percent. Predicted
annual mean particulate concentrations would be reduced to essen-
tially background levels. Abnormally high oxygen levels during the
SAC test burn at Plant Mitchell prevented reliable estimation of
NO concentrations.
So/vent Refined Coal (SRC) Systems—Hittman Associates, Inc..
is preparing an Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) on SAC
systems. (For a general description of EAR’s, see the Environ-
mental Review of Synthetic Fuels. Volume 2, Number 1). Pre-
liminary results indicate that SRC facilities can use existing control
technologies to comply with existing and proposed regulatory re-
quirements. However, solid waste discharges may be a potential
source of adverse environmental impact. Water can be conserved
using zero discharge wastewater treatment methods but at costs
higher than those associated with conventional wastewater treat-
ment methods.
Coal Liquids for Industrial Boilers—H ittman Associates, Inc., has
assessed the production of coal derived liquids and their use as fuels
for small industrial boilers. The results from this work, in addition
to assessments performed by other contractors, will be used by EPA
to develop standards for industrial boilers.
Of the commercial and developing liquefaction processes evalu-
ated, the SAC-I, SAC-Il, Exxon Donor Solvent, and H-Coal pro-
cesses were identified as offering the best prospects for near term
use. The evaluation focused on environmental impacts (especially
those associated with SO, , NOR, and particulate emissions), energy
impacts, and economics for both liquefaction facilities and coal
liquid-fired industrial boilers.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
General Topics
Laboratory Gasifier Pollutants—Research Triangle Institute
(RTI) recently completed the second year of research on a semi-
batch, fixed-bed, laboratory gasifier. During this past year more
than 30 tests were completed using 8 different kinds of char, coal,
lignite, and peat as gasifier feed. Over 400 pollutants were analyzed
from the gasifier streams and more than 100 of these pollutants
have been quantified for several test cases.
The semi-batch reactor produces a raw gas product closely simu-
lating that of proposed and operating processes. The reactor can ac-
commodate broad variations in operating conditions. Temperatures
may range from 790°C to 1034°C (1454°F to 1893°F), and carbon
can be converted at 50-100 percent. The reactor can also handle
variations in oxygen/coal ratios (zero/0.9) steam/oxygen ratios (0.9/
zero) and steam partial pressure/total pressure ratios (0.25/0.96 at
gas inlet).
Major pollutants in the gas stream are benzene, hydrogen sulfide.
and other sulfur species. When the product gas is an emission
stream, carbon monoxide is also considered a pollutant. Eliminat-
ing these pollutants from consideration reduces the gas stream
hazard factor by 4 to 5 orders of magnitude to a value of around
1. (Potential hazard factors are calculated as the pollutant concen-
tration in a stream divided by that pollutant’s minimum acute
toxicity effluent (MATE) value. The potential hazard factors for
the pollutants are added to determine the overall stream hazard
factor.)
Although phenols and cresols are major potential pollutant
hazards in the by-product tar stream, their elimination would lower
the tar hazard factor to only about iO . The remaining fused aro-
matic hydrocarbons (such as phenanthrene, chrysene, and 9-
methylanthracene) account for a significant portion of the tar
potential hazard factor.
Aqueous condensate from the new product gas is primarily con-
taminated by phenols and ammonia. Removal of these pollutants re-
duces the potential hazard factor in the condensate to approxi-
mately 10.
Pollutant levels, especially of trace constituents, were suprisingly
consistent when testing with different coals and under varied operat-
ing conditions. Micrograms of pollutant produced per gram of car-
bon converted in the reactor usually varied by less than 1 order of
magnitude.
Analysis of the gasifier pollutants is continuing. Coal gasification
process fractions under study include crude tar, tar fractions Ipolar
neutral, non-polar neutral, polynuclear arornatics, tar-acids, and
tar-bases), and extracted volatiles.
Various crude tar fractions have been evaluated in bioassay
studies (Ames Tests) for acute and synergistic effects of pollu-
tant mixtures. Bacterial strains of Salmonella typhimurium are be-
ing used to identify potential mutagens and carcinogens The his-
tidine-requiring mutant Strains indicate both simple DNA base pair
substitution and frame shift mutation. (This latter mutation is
usually a measure of more significant genetic alteration.)
Low/Medium-Btu Gasification
Testing at Overseas Gasifier—The EPA is sponsoring an environ-
mental data acquisition program in cooperation with the govern-
ment of Yugoslavia. Radian Corporation is the contractor. This pro-
gram focuses on a medium-Btu Lurgi gasification facility located in
the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia. The main objective of the program
is to gather information which will help the EPA define environ-
mental controls needed for U.S. gasification plants.
The Kosovo test program is divided into two phases. The Phase
I tests were completed during November 1978. Approximately 40
of the plant’s most significant emission streams were screened. As
part of this effort, stream flows were determined and analyses were
performed to identify the major components present.
Future (Phase II) tests at Kosovo will involve the sampling/
analysis of a more select group of about 20 streams. The work will
focus on detailed characterizations of trace and minor component
emissions, including trace metals and organics.
An overall summary of the Kosovo test program, including pre-
sentation of the results obtained to date, was given at the fourth
symposium on “Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Tech-
nology.” Sponsored by the EPA’s Industrial Environmental Re-
search Laboratory (RTP), this symposium was held April 17-20,
1979, in Hollywood, Florida.
Source Test and Evaluation Program—Another ongoing Radian
test program involves a Wellman-Galusha gasifier which produces
low-Btu gas for an iron ore pelletizing operation. The gasifier and
pelletizer are being operated by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (8DM)
2
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
and a consortium of steel companies on the BOM’s property at
Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.
Continuous monitoring data (fixed gases, light hydrocarbons,
and sulfur species) will be collected for both product gases and com-
bustion gases. Original plans included tests on four types of coal:
bituminous, semi-bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite. However,
since the BOM has postponed the subbituminous coal tests until
the spring of 1979, the subbituminous coal sampling effort is not
included in the current test plan.
Samples of all major process and waste streams were obtained
in December during the lignite test. Inorganic, organic, and biologi-
cal analyses of these samples will be conducted through July.
Environmental Assessment of Commercial Gasification Facility—
In connection with a third Radian test program, the final report.
“Environmental Assessment: Source Test and Evaluation Report—
Chapman Low-Btu gasification,” EPA-600/7-78-202, has recently
been released. The report is available through NTIS (PB 289 940).
It describes the first major environmental assessment sampling pro-
gram completed as part of the EPA’s Synthetic Fuels Environ-
mental Assessment/Control Technology Development Program.
The objectives of this study were to:
• Characterize the waste streams and potential fugitive emis-
sion and effluent streams from a commercial Chapman low-
Btu gasification facility.
• Evaluate the applicability of Level 1 sampling and analytical
methodology to such a characterization.
• Evaluate the particulate removal efficiency of the product
gas cyclone.
Level 1 methodologies required some modification to meet the pro-
gram objectives but all objectives were met. Results from the chemi-
cal and bioassay testing indicate that all waste and process streams
examined contain potentially harmful organic and/or inorganic
materials. Such materials in the coal feeder vent gases included
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s), CD, and chromium.
Potentially harmful species detected in the separator vent gases in-
cluded PAH’s, amines, CD, NH 3 , C 2 -hydrocarbons, heterocyclic
nitrogen compounds, chromium, vanadium, and silver. A variety of
trace elements occurred at potentially harmful levels (the specific
valence state or compound is not known) in the gasifier ash and
cyclone dust. These elements included beryllium, phosphorus, iron,
calcium, aluminum, lithium, barium, selenium, lead, copper,
titanium, cadmium, antimony, vanadium, cobalt, uranium, and
cesium. About 60 percent particulate removal was obtained in the
product gas cyclone.
High-Btu Gasification
Preparation for Testing—TRW, Inc., has been making arrange-
ments to conduct sampling and analysis at selected facilities in sup-
port of high-Btu gasification. Two potential test sites are a
Koppers-Totzek (K-T) plant and a Lurgi plant. In January, TRW
and Krupp-Koppers held final pre-test discussions concerning the
division of sampling and analytical responsibilities, costing, and
logistics involved in sampling the foreign K-T plant. TRW, on behalf
of EPA, DOE, and NIOSH, has contacted the German Democratic
Republic for access to their energy complex at Schwarze Pumpe.
Liquefaction
Site-Specific Pollutant Evaluation—H ittman Associates, Inc., has
completed a study of the potential pollutants associated with the
operation of a commercial size Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) plant.
The report, “SRC Site-Specific Pollutant Evaluation” (EPA-600/7-
78-223a and b), details the possible environmental effects of Waste
streams from a proposed SRC plant in White County, Illinois. The
commercial size facility would use 28,123 Mg (31 .000 tons) of
Illinois No. 6 coal per day. The objectives of the study were to (1)
evaluate the pollutants identified in the Standards of Practice
Manual for the SRC Liquefaction Process (EPA-60017-78-091); (2)
estimate potentially adverse effects from operating the proposed
SRC facility; and (3) provide background information for the SRC
Environmental Assessment Report (EAR).
The SRC system uses a non-catalytic direct-hydrogenation lique-
faction process. It converts high sulfur and ash coal into clean-burn-
ing gaseous, liquid, or solid fuels. There are two variations, SRC-I,
which produces a solid coal-like product of less then 1 percent
sulfur and 0.2 percent ash, and SRC-II, which produces a low-sulfur
(0.2-0.5 percent) fuel oil and naphtha product. Both produce
gaseous hydrocarbons which are further processed to substitute
natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. By-products recovered
from the hydrogenation reaction include sulfur, ammonia, and
phenol.
The estimated SRC pollutants were evaluated using multimedia
environmental goals )MEG’s) and the Source Analysis Model (SAM)
IA). (The SAM/IA procedure is explained in Volume 1, Number 3
of the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels.) The MEG’s were
determined using Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluent (MATE) values.
Results from the SAM/IA analysis of the hypothetical SRC
facility suggest that: (1) the most important gaseous emissions
appear to be carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide; (2) the most
important effluents appear to contain aluminum, copper, zinc,
nickel, and several organic compounds; and (3) the most toxic
general category of waste streams will be the solid wastes. However,
these findings should be used with caution until more definitive
data are obtained from a comprehensive pilot plant program and an
operational demonstration plant.
There is also a detailed discussion of the influence of environ-
mental forces that decrease, increase, or neutralize the adverse
effects of pollutants.
The SAM/IA procedure was used mainly to determine safe emis-
sion limits for major pollutants. However, suggesting safe limits for
discharge of pollutants is complicated by the complexity of the SRC
system and an incomplete understanding of certain phenomena.
Transportation of pollutants through air, water, and land and trans-
formation of compounds (from harmless chemicals to damaging pol-
lutants) by physical, chemical, or biological means are examples of
phenomena that need to be better understood.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
General Topics
Assessment and Control of Wastewater Contaminants From the
Production of Synthetic Fuels—The University of North Carolina
(UNC) has completed part of a study which assesses the environ-
mental impact of wastewater contaminants. The report for the
study, “Assessment of Coal Conversion Wastewaters: Characteriza-
tion and Preliminary B lotreatabil ity” )EP .A-600/7-78-1 8 ), describes
work during the first 18 months of the 5 year project. It sum-
marizes the characterization of coal conversion wastewater and pre-
liminary biotreatability experiments.
Chemical characteristics and organic contaminants were identi-
fied by reviewing published literature, visiting gasification and lique-
faction R&D installations, and analyzing reports and project docu-
ments from a variety of coal conversion operations. Results indicate
that approximately 60 to 80 percent of the total organic carbon
3
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
(TOC) is phenolic in nature, consisting of monohydric phenols,
dihydric phenols, and polyphenols. The remaining organic material
consists of mono- and polycyclic nitrogen-containing aromatics,
oxygen- and sulfur-containing heterocyclics, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, and simple aliphatic acids. Wastewater composition
appears to be relatively independent of process technology and coal
feed, especially in the case of the phenolic constituents.
The discharge of untreated wastewaters would have an adverse
impact on aquatic life. Aerobic biological processes may be among
the methods of choice for wastewater treatment, but more informa-
tion is needed to determine the applicability and to develop design
and operating guidelines.
An experimental program is underway to test activated sludge
reactors. Effluent TOC’s from 5-, 10-, and 20-day residence reactors
are 220, 100, and 50mg/I, respectively. The raw synthetic waste-
water feed has a TOC of 1600 mg/I. Ongoing tests will examine the
effects of varied reactor operating conditions and wastewater feed
composition. GC’/MS analysis and mammalian cytotoxicity screen-
ing of the reactor effluents have also been started.
Study of High Temperature Desulfurization Technologies—The
Applied Research Division of Dynalectrnn Corpnration, under sub-
contract to Hydrocarbon Research, Inc. (HRI), is completing a report
on hot gas cleanup (HGC) processes. The report summarizes the
status and operating characteristics of 22 HOC processes, identified
by thorough literature and patent searches. The processes are generi.
cally classified according to absorbent type: solid, molten salt, or
molten metal. HGC processes using solid absorbents are further
categorized according to the type of active cation in the sorbent in-
cludirg calcium, iron, copper, and zinc.
HGC absorbents purify gas streams by reacting with the hydro-
gen sulfide present in the gas to form sulfides. The reaction occurs
at temperatures above 430°C (800°F). The sulfide-rich sorbents are
regenerated in a reaction with oxygen, air, steam, carbon dioxide, or
a mixture of steam and carbon dioxide.
Evaluation of Control Technology for H-Coal and EDS Pro-
cesses—Another report on control technology for two liquefaction
processes is being completed by the Appi led Research Division of
Dynalectron Corporation, under subcontract to HRI. Controls for
the H-Coal and Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) processes are assessed
for both pilot and proposed commercial plants. Extrapolations to
the larger commercial size are based partly on pilot plant data and,
when such data are not available, on engineering judgement.
The report characterizes and quantifies gaseous emissions, liquid
effluents, and solid wastes. Emphasis is on process complexity and
efficiency, Information gaps are identified, and recommendations
for additional study are outlined.
Evaluation of Control Technologies for Particulates and Tar
Emissions—The Applied Research Division of Dynalectron Corpora-
tion, under subcontract to HRI. is completing another report which
evaluates alternative control technologies for particulate and tar
emissions from coal converters. Particulate and tar emissions in the
raw product gases of several gasifiers are characterized. Data for
total quantity, chemical composition, and particle size distribution
are presented for fixed-, fluid-, and entrained-bed gasifiers.
The report also describes the design and operating features of
alternate control technologies. These technologies include cyclones,
wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and granular bed filters.
Collection efficiencies are characterized as functions of particle size
and other important parameters.
Control technologies are evaluated in terms of their applicability
to gasifier types and various end uses. End uses include combined
cycles and gas-fired boilers. These evaluations are based on existing
and proposed environmental regulations and process requirements
for product gas purity. The purified product gases, liquid effluents,
and solid wastes or sludges resulting from the various gasifiers are
examined for the presence of particulate and tar emissions. The re-
port also identifies gaps in the present data base.
TECHNOLOGY AND/OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Loan Guarantee Program for 1-ligh-Stu Coal Gasification Plants—
The Department of Energy (DOE) is drafting regulations for a loan
guarantee program to benefit high-Btu gasification plants. The pro-
posed re ulations must be approved by the Office of Management
and Budget lOMB) and Congress. If approved, the regulations will
require a budget of $235 million in fiscal year 1980. Financial prob-
lems with the nation’s first commercial-size coal gasification plant
demonstrate that DOE loan guarantees would solve many of the
funding problems that face commercialization of coal technology.
The financing plan of a joint venture headed by American Natural
Resources Company was denied Federal Energy Regulatory Com-
mission (FERC) approval. The plan included customer financing for
75 percent of the $1 .4-billion plant if the project failed because of
technical problems. This plan was developed after other financing
requests were denied. Traditional funding sources are reluctant to
back large scale gasification plants because the technology has not
been applied in the U.S.
Competitors to Proceed with Designs for Coal-to-Gas Demon-
stration Plants—DOE has authorized both the Illinois Coal Gasifica-
tiori Group (JCGG) and Conoco Coal Development Company to
continue designs of a coal conversion demonstration plant.
Both firms were awarded contracts about 2 years ago to start
a competition for designing a facility capable of processing high-
sulfur Appalachian coals into substitute natural gas.
In late 1978 both projects reached comparable stages of con-
ceptual design, and DOE convened a panel to evaluate pilot plant
tests, technical feasibility, and commercial couceptual designs. A
review of the panel’s findings showed that insufficient information
was available for selecting one design over the others.
Thus both firms will now proceed with a detailed design of the
demonstration plant. While the designs are underway, better esti-
mates of construction costs, market potential, product economics,
and proposed cost-sharing arrangements will be gathered. Enough
information should be available to permit a selection sometime in
1980.
If selected, the Conoco plant would be built in Noble County,
Ohio. It would use a Lurgi gasifier to process up to 40 kg/s (3,800
tons/dayl of high-sulfur coal and produce 1.6 million m 3 (58
million ft 3 I of pipeline gas.
The ICGG plant would be n Perry County, Illinois. It would
integrate two previously piloted processes, COED and COGAS. The
COED process produces coal liquids and char; the COGAS process
uses the char to produce synthetic gas, The plant would convert 23
kg/s (2,200 tons/day) of coal into 0,51 million m 3 (18 million ft 3 )
of gas and 381 m 3 (2,400 bbls) of heavy coal liquids.
4
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
Feasibility of Low-Btu Gas for Ore Pe/letising Operations—Tests
are underway to determine if low-Btu gas can be substituted for
natural gas in firing iron ore pellets. The testing, conducted at the
Bureau of Mines metallurgy research center in Twin Cities, Minne-
sota, is a joint venture of the Bureau, DOE, and 17 private corpora-
tions. The Bureau of Mines wants to determine the technical feasi-
bility of using low-Btu gas for firing the iron ore pellets. DOE is
interested in the operations and technology of the gasifier. EPA is
providing separate funding to identify all the discharges of the pro-
cess. EPA also wants to determine the effects of varied operating
conditions on gas composition since this affects end-use emissions.
The research effort will consist of several tests (about 120 hours
each). Eastern Kentucky bituminous coal from Colorado, Wyoming,
and Montana, and North Dakota.lignite will be gasified.
100 MW Coal Gasification Power P/ant—Southern California Edi-
son (SCE), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and
Texaco are planning a 100 MW coal gasification, combined-cycle
power plant. The plant will cost about $250 million and will con-
vert 908 Mg (1,000 tons) of coal per day into a medium-Btu gas.
The product gas will be used to fire an existing 65 MW gas turbine
unit at SCE’s Cool Water plant near Doggett, California. Future
plans are to integrate the coal gasifier with a 100-MW combined-
cycle generating unit. The project is scheduled for completion in
1986.
Applicability of Slagging Gasifier to Power Plants—The Electric
Power Research Institute IEPRI) and British Gas have agreed to test
British Gas’ slagging gasifier under power plant operating conditions.
The test will determine if the gasifier can operate with variation in
load levels. The $1.97 million program is scheduled to begin in April
and continue for 3 months.
According to EPRI, British Gas’ slagging gasification process is a
second generation process similar to the Lurgi process except that
the former operates at much higher temperatures and produces an
ash residue from the coal. The residue must be removed as molten
slag.
Budget Cutbacks Force Closing of Synthane Plant—The Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE) has closed its Synthane pilot plant at Bruce-
town, Pennsylvania, because of budget cutbacks. All plant operations
were terminated in January, although the facility will be on standby
status for 2 years. The plant started operating in July 1936 and
was designed to test an advanced process for producing a clean-burn-
ing gaseous fuel that could be substituted for natural gas. When
operating at full capacity the plant could convert 65 Mg (72 tons) of
coal per day into 34,000 m 3 (1.2 million ft 3 ) of methane.
Hydrogen as Alternate Fuel for Power Plants—The State of Iowa
and Forrest City Municipal Utilities are jointly conducting a study
to determine the feasibility of converting coal into hydrogen fuel
for diesel generating plants. The city’s generating plants are now
capable of burning either natural gas or fuel oil. Using hydrogen gas
as fuel would require few modifications on existing equipment.
Billings Energy Corporation of Provo, Utah, will perform the
study. Three different gasifier feedstocks will be compared: Iowa
coal, western coal, and petroleum coke. Methods of gasification and
hydrogen storage will also be evaluated. A decision on the plant
should be reached by mid-1979.
DOE Cancels Powerron Project—The Department of Energy
(DOE) has cancelled plans to build an experimental combined-cycle
plant at Pekin, Illinois. The Powerton Project would have tested a
Lurgi gasifier in conjunction with a conventional gas turbine. )See
the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Volume I, Number
3.) This would have been an alternative to burning high-sulfur coal
and using flue gas scrubbers.
DOE has decided that potential benefits do not justify the esti-
mated $225 million cost for the facility. This projected cost reflects
a 33 percent increase over original estimates for the plant. Since
more laboratory work would be required to improve the gasifier
and other critical components of the combined-cycle facility, a
smaller-scale laboratory test facility will be operated before any
major plant is constructed.
Demex Process May Recover Usable Liquefaction Products—
DOE and UOP, Inc., are cosponsoring a project to determine if
UOP’s coal liquids refining technology can be applied to coal lique-
faction processes to recover valuable materials. The commercially
available Demex process will be evaluated at UOP’s Corporate Re-
search Center in Des Plaines, Illinois. The Demex process is a solvent
deasphalting-deashing separation technique. It will be applied to the
usable product materials in vacuum flash distillation unit bottoms.
The distillation procedure separates refinable products from solids
and nondistillate tars. These residual materials are difficult to re-
cover because of mechanical damage to the units caused by the high
temperatures required during the distillation process.
Methanol-From-Coal Pilot Plant to Produce Electricity—The
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Southern California
Edison (SCE) are conducting a project to combine a coal gasifier
with a superior methanol synthesis process. This system could sub-
stantially decrease methanol-from-coal costs. Electric power could
be produced at the same plant.
New Process Benefits SAC Systems and Direct Hydrogenation
Processes—The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has an-
nounced a substantial breakthrough in liquefaction research.
Separating solids from liquids has been a major problem in coal con
version processes. Kerr-McGee may have solved this problem by us-
ing organic solvents to separate the SRC product from ash, un-
reacted coal, distillate fuel, and residuum. Tests have been conducted
using products from EPRI’s 31 g/s (3 ton/day) reactor in Wilsonville,
Alabama.
The Kerr-McGee process capability to fractionate hydrocarbon
mixtures quite accurately may prove more valuable than its use in
SRC extraction. Potential hydrogen donors can be separated from
the reacted materials produced in direct hydrogenation processes
and recycled to the hydrogenation step to reduce overall hydrogen
requirements. Because of the major savings in process costs, plants
capable of producing a mixture of fuels could be constructed. A
variety of coal liquids ranging from cheap boiler fuel to premium
turbine fuel could then be selectively extracted from the mixture.
Joint So/vent Refined Coal (SAC) Project—A joint project in-
volving government and private industry in the U.S. and West Ger-
many will build a SRC-Ii demonstration plant. The 63 kg/s (6,000
ton/day) plant will be located near Morgantown, West Virginia. The
plant will convert high-sulfur bituminous coal to a low-viscosity oil
having a sulfur content of about 0.25 percent and a very low ash
content. The preliminary design should be completed in April
1979. West Germany will participate in the detailed design in con-
sultation with Gulf Oil Corporation, the prime contractor. Construc-
tion is scheduled to begin in mid-i 980 with operation beginning in
mid-1983. The West German government and German companies
will provide 25 percent of the $700 million needed for the 7- to 8-
year project. Negotiations are underway to determine if Japan will
also participate in the project.
TVA to Combine Coal Gasification, Fuel Cells, and Cogenera-
tion—Talks are underway between DOE and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVAI on a plan to combine medium-Btu coal gasifica-
tion, first generation fuel cells, and cogeneration to meet energy
needs in the TVA service area.
Mitsubishi Constructs Coal Gasification Plant—Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd., (MHI) is constructing a large coal gasification faci-
lity expected to process 36 Mg 140 tons) of coal a day. The project
is sponsored by the Coal Mining Research Center, which specializes
in the development of technologies based on coal and related mate-
rials. The gasification facility is located at MHI’s Wagasaki Shipyard
5
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
and Engineer Works and is scheduled to be completed in the spring
of 1979.
The MHI system produces a low-Btu gas and operates at 2 MPa
(20 atm). The system is suitable for a high-efficiency combined.
cycle power generating plant. This will decrease plant operation
costs and also enable the Japanese industries to accommodate their
current fuel supplies. The gasifier will be capable of handling a
variety of coals, including the slightly caking coal widely available
in Japan.
Koppers- Totzek Coal Gas/f/er Startups—A demonstration-scale
version of a pressurized Koppers-Totzek coal gasifier started up in
November 1978 after 4 years of development. The unit gasifies
150 Mg/day (165 ton/day) of coal and costs over $50 million. It is
located at Shell International Petroleum/Maatschappij B.V.’s Ham-
burg-Harburg oil refinery in West Germany. If all goes well with the
demonstration, a 1000 Mg/day (1100 ton/day) prototype is planned
for 1985. The Shell-Koppers process operates at 3 MPa (30 atm),
compared with 0.1 MPa (1 atm) for the conventional Koppers-
Totzek entrained-bed gasifier. The pressurized coal gasifier would
allow larger capacities than before and reduce energy costs since the
product gas does not have to be compressed.
Successful Test Burn of Liquid Solvent Refined Coal—A suc-
cessful test burn of liquid Solvent Refined Coal (SAC) was recently
conducted at Consolidated Edison Co. in New York City. The test
involved approximately 715 m 3 (4,500 bbl) of SAC II oil pro-
duced by Gulf Mineral Resources Company at its Ft. Lewis, Wash-
ington, pilot plant. Results of EPRI’s preliminary data analysis indi-
cate that NO emissions from the combustion of SAC II fuel would
meet the standard for coal-derived liquid fuels proposed in Septem-
ber by EPA. In addition, boiler efficiencies are comparable to those
obtained with fuel oil. Further assessment of the data is to be con-
ducted by KVB. Inc., of Tustin, California.
DOE Cancels Plans for Syncrude Pilot Plant—Plans for a $60-
million pilot plant to refine syncrude into gasoline or fuel oil have
been cancelled by the DOE. The plant would have produced up to
16 m 3 /day (100 bbls/day) of marketable fuel oil or gasoline from
liquids similar to those produced by the H-Coal or Exxon Donor
Solvent processes. DOE believes that a syncrude refining plant
would not be commercialized before mid- to late-1980 and that
other liquefaction plants, like SAC modules, would be onstream
before then. These plants would produce a boiler fuel that would
not need refining.
Bituminous Coal-to-Gas Unit—DOE and Exxon Research and
Engineering Company have signed an agreement to develop the
catalytic coal gasification (CCG) process for converting bitumi-
nous coal to pipeline quality gas. Exxon has been studying the pro-
cess since 1971 at their Baytown, Texas, pilot plant. The $16.8 mil-
lion awarded by DOE calls for the continuous demonstration of the
10 9/s 1 ton/day) integrated pilot plant by late 1980. Exxon will
conduct related research into gasification kinetics, catalyst recovery,
and catalyst/mineral interactions. Economic studies of the process
will also be performed.
In the CCG process, ground coal is sprayed with the catalyst
solution, dried, and then injected into the gasifier where it is mixed
with steam at relatively low temperatures. The product gas is re-
cycled continuously until it reaches pipeline quality. The CCG pro-
cess is considered superior to thermal gasification processes be-
cause higher methane yields are produced, less heat is required, and
less initial capital outlay is necessary. The CCG process also elimi-
nates swelling and caking problems which have plagued other pro-
cesses -
Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) in use.
6
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
PROJECT TITLES, CONTRACTORS, AND EPA PROJECT OFFICERS IN EPA’S
IERL-RTP FUEL PROCESS BRANCH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Project Title Contractor EPA Project Officer
Environmental Assessment
of Low/Medium-Btu
Gasification
(March 1976-November 1979(
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78766
(512) 454-4797
(Gordon C. Page(
William J. Rhodes
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919( 541-2851
Environmental Assessment
of High-Btu Gasification
lApril 1977-April 19801
TRW, Inc.
1 Space Park
Fledondo Beach, CA 90278
1213) 536-4105
(Chuck Murray)
William J. Rhodes
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 451-2851
Environmental Assessment
of Coal Liquefaction
(August 1976-August 1979)
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, MD 21043
1301) 730-7800
(Wayne Morris)
William J. Rhodes
IERL-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)
Robert A. McAllister
IERL-RTP
En ivronmental 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
1609) 896-1300
(John Kunesh)
Robert A. McAllister
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
1300 Three Greenway Plaza East
Houston, TX 77046
(713) 960-2625
(Louis Bostwick)
Robert A. McAllister
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Acid Gas Cleaning
Bench Scale Unit
(October 1976-September 19811
(Grant)
North Carolina State Univ.
Department of Chemical Engineering
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 737-2324
)James Farrell)
N. Dean Smith
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919(541-2851
Water Treating Bench
Scale Unit
(November 1976-October 19811
(Grant)
Univ. of North Carolina
Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
School of Public Health
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 966-1023
(Phillip Singerl
N. Dean Smith
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
(919)
Pollutant Identification
From a Bench Scale Unit
(November 1976-October 19811
(Grant)
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 541-6000
(Forest Mixon(
N. Dean Smith
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
7
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
REPORTS SUMMARY
Applicability of Coke Plant Control
Technologies to Coal Conversion
by
S. M. Hossain, P. F. Cilione, A. B. Cherry, and W. J. Wasylenko, Jr.
Catalytic, Inc.
Waste and process streams from the coke oven industry contain
pollutants similar to those discharged by coal conversion processes.
Control technologies used by the coke oven industry should there-
fore be applicable to the synfuels industry. Such technologies.
examined in a recent study (Report Number EPA-60017-78-190;
NTIS No. PB 288 630), include acid gas treatment, sulfur re-
covery, fugitive emissions control, wastewater treatment, and by-
product recovery and refining.
A comparative listing of coke oven and coal conversion process
and waste streams is presented in Table 1. Although the constituents
in the streams from the two industries are similar, their concentra-
tions, temperatures, and pressures vary. These variables determine
the best control technology for a particular stream.
Several processes are used to remove hydrogen sutfide and re-
cover sulfur from coke oven gas. These processes fall into three
major categories: 1) Liquid Absorption Processes (Vacuum Car-
bonate, Sulfiban (amine type), Firma Carl Still); 2) Wet Oxidative
Processes (Stretford, Takahax, Giammarco Vetrocoke); and 3)
Dry Oxidative Processes (Iron Oxide or Dry Box). Historically, the
Dry Oxidative Process with iron oxide has been used most exten-
sively. However, the Vacuum Carbonate Process, the Stretford
Process, and, more recently, the Sulfiban Process are now favored
for commercial use. The Claus Process is also used, despite initial
problems with hydrogen cyanide, iron sulfide, and iron cyanide.
These difficulties were resolved by adjustments to the Claus unit.
The H 2 S removal or sulfur recovery efficiencies possible for the
coke oven industry processes are 99 percent for the Dry Oxidative
(iron oxide) Process (for low gas volumes). 93 to 98 percent for the
Vacuum Carbonate Process, and 90 to 98 percent for the Sulfiban
Process. Sulfur recovery efficiencies attainable with the Stretford
Process are greater than 99.5 percent. while those possible using
Claus sulfur recovery are 95 to 96 percent.
The Claus and Strettord Processes are the most common sulfur
recovery processes in the coke oven industry. Generally, the Stret-
ford Process is more economical when treating acid gas containing
less than 15 percent H 2 5, whereas the Claus Process is the method
of choice for levels above 15 percent.
Both the Claus and Stretford Processes will have wide applica-
tion in coal conversion. The Claus is being used in several develop.
ing gasification processes: both the HYGAS and BIGAS pilot plants
have Claus sulfur recovery units. The Stretford Process is part of:
the Synthane pilot plant at the Pittsburgh Energy Research Center;
the SRC pilot plant at Fort Lewis, Washington; and the Sasol coal
conversion plant in South Africa.
Among the acid gas removal processes found in the coke oven
industry, the amine and carbonate type solvent processes should be
applicable to low pressure gasification processes. They may also be
used to treat low pressure off-gases from liquefaction processes.
Coke ovens are a major source of gaseous emissions in the steel
industry. Topside coke oven workers have a substantially higher risk
of lung cancer than the average worker, probably because of car-
cinogens in the particulate emissions. Various schemes to control
these emissions and alleviate potentially adverse health effects are
being developed. These include collecting and removing the smoke,
particulate matter, and gaseous emissions that occur during the
charging, coking cycle, coke pushing, and quenching operations.
These fugitive emission controls, described below, may have poten-
tial applications in the synfuels industry in analogous situations
such as ash quenching or SRC solidification operations.
An enclosed coke pushing and quenching system is being devel-
oped jointly by EPA and the National Steel Corporation at Na-
tional’s new Weirton Steel Division, Brown’s Island Coke Plant. In
this system the coke will remain totally enclosed from the time it
leaves the oven until after it is quenched. A high energy scrubber
TABLE 1. COKE OVEN AND COAL CONVERSION STREAM SIMILARITIES
Coke Oven Streams
Coal Conversion
Counterparts
Major Common Pollutants
or Similarities
Raw gas and acid gas
Raw gas and acid gas from gasification.
and off-gas from liquefaction
H 2 5, NH 3 , CO. CO 2 . and hydrocarbons
Fugitive emissions
Fugitive emissions
Same as above
Process wastewater
Process wastewater
NH 3 , phenols, oils, sulfides. and cyanides
Coal pile runoff
Coal pile runoff
Suspended solids and organic extracts
Coke breeze
Coal fines, chars
Similar by-products
Oily and biosludges
Oily and biosludges
Oil, grease and tar, biomass, refractory organics
Tar, riaphthalene, light oil, phenol, and
ammonia
Tar. naphthalene, light oil, phenol, and
ammonia
Similar by-products
8
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
removes emissions generated during the push and transfer to the
quench station.
Another system for abating coke oven fugitive emissions is being
tested by the Ford Motor Company. Its main features are a fume
collecting hood, a fume main, a venturi scrubber, and a modified
quench car with a synchronization system which coordinates the
quench car’s movement with that of the pusher.
Wastewater constituents are similar in gasification and coke oven
operations, although concentrations vary. Process wastewaters from
coke plants contain large amounts of phenol, ammonia, sulfide, cya-
nide, oil, and grease. Various control technologies are used to re-
move these pollutants.
Ammonia is being removed and recovered by steam stripping at
alkaline pH, or by the Phosam-W Process. The latter is a proprie-
tary (U.S. Steell process that uses combined scrubbing (ammoniurn
phosphate solutionl and distillation to produce an anhydrous
ammonia product. Steam stripping to remove wastewater sulfide is
not commonly practiced in the coke oven industry.
Phenol is removed by solvent extraction, steam stripping and/or
biological oxidation, and carbon adsorption. Biological treatment
of coke oven wastewaters has been successfully used to meet exist-
ing phenol regulations. The activated sludge system has achieved a
phenol removal efficiency of about 99.8 to 99.9 percent; B.O.D.
removal has ranged from 85 to 95 percent.
Many coke oven plants recycle wastewaters containing cyanide
and use them for coke quenching. Cyanide-laden wastewaters can
also be successfully treated by alkaline chlorination, although this
practice is not necessary for coke oven plants where existing cyanide
limitations are met without additional wastewater treatment.
Some coke oven plants use a by-product light oil upgrading pro-
TABLE 2. COKE PLANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR APPLICABILITY
TO COAL CONVERSION
Coke Plant Control Technology
Acid Gas Treatment
Applicability to Coal Conversion Systems
Amine solvents
Carbonate solvents
(e.g., Vacuum carbonate and Benfield)
Sulfur Recovery
Suitable for removal of H 2 S and CO 2 from ow pressure raw product and off-gases. Solvent degradation
may be encountered. Can produce high H 2 S concentration streams.
Same as above. Processes remove carbonyl sulfide and cyanides. Benfield process suitable for high
pressure application.
Stretford
Claus
Fugitive Emissions Control
Suitable for low H 2 S hess than 1 5%) containing gases. Organic sulfur not removed. High CO 2 levels
require large units.
Applicable for high H 2 S (greater than 15%) containing gases. Removal of high levels of cyanide,
ammonia, and hydrocarbons will be required.
Enclosed coke pushing and
quenching system
Fume recovery and scrubbing
Byproduct Recovery/Refining
Ammonia from wastewater
(Stripping, Phosam-W)
Ammonia from raw gases
(Scrubbing, Phosam-W)
Phenol from wastewater
(Solvent extractionl
Tar, naphthalene, light oil from
raw gases
Light oil refining
(e.g., Litol process and
solvent extraction)
Wastewater Treatment Technology
Biological oxidation; carbon adsorption;
ammonia, phenol, and oil removal
processes
Potentially suitable for ash quenching, SRC solidification applications.
Applicable to analogous sources.
Suitable for sour waters.
Applicable for low pressure gas purification.
Suitable for process wastewater containing 1.000 mg/I or more phenol.
Suitable, but design must be modified for different pressures, temperatures, and compositions.
Suitable for recovery of benzene, toluene, xylene from coal derived naphthas.
Generally applicable; design basis must be established for the specific waste.
9
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
cess which has potential application in the synfuels industry. This
method, known as the Litol process, has been developed and
licensed by the Houdry Division of Air Products and Chemicals,
Inc. It is a catalytic process by which coke oven light oils are refined
and dealkylated to produce quality reagent grade benzene at essen-
tially stoichiornetric yields. The Litol process has been in commer-
cial service since 1964 and is now used in the U.S. and several other
countries.
The various coke oven control technologies potentially applica-
ble to coal conversion are summarized .in Table 2. Many of these
control technologies have been tested in coal conversion applications;
however, most of these tests have been in pilot scale plants. A few
have been used at the commercial scale in first generation coal gasifi-
cation processes (e.g., the Lurgi Process).
Applicability of a control technology does not mean that the
coke oven design can be duplicated in the coal conversion applica-
tion. Different variables in wastestream characteristics must be
taken into consideration during control technology design. Design
information must be developed through laboratory or pilot scale
testing with actual wastes from coal conversion processes.
EPA has recently assessed the health effects of coke oven emis-
sions (seethe Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Volume
1, Number 3). Coal conversion plants generate many of the same
waste components (H 2 S, GO, CD 2 , hydrocarbons, and polynuclear
aromatics) found in streams from coke oven plants. Many of the
new control technologies under development in the coke oven in-
dustry should remove significant amounts of these potentially
hazardous pollutants. The need for additional controls can be deter-
mined after these new technologies have been operating for a
longer period.
Standards of Practice Manual
For The Solvent Refined Coal Liquefaction Process
by
P. Rogoshewski, P. Koester, C. Koralek,
P. Wetzel, and K. Shields
Hittman Associates, Inc.
EPA’s Standards of Practice Manual )SPM) for the Solvent Re-
fined Coal Liquefaction Process provides an integrated multimedia
appraisal of control/disposal options, emissions, 3nd environmental
requirements. The appraisal is based on a hypothetical 8000 m 3 /
day (50,000 bbl/day) Solvent Refined Coal (SRC( facility produc-
ing gaseous and liquid fuels. The following discussion summarizes
the major conclusions of the SPM (published in June 1978, Report
Number EPA-600/7-78-091 ; NTIS No. PB 283 028).
waste streams, conventional control equipment can be used to
achieve compliance with existing emission standards. Costs for
control equipment, though significant, are not prohibitive.
The SPM delineates available and developing control/disposal
practices for gas, liquid, and solids treatment schemes.
Air Emissions
The air emissions control options evaluated include:
• Particulate emission controls (gravity settling chambers, cy-
clones, electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, and others).
• Hydrocarbon emission controls Idirect-fired and catalytic
afterburners, flares, condensation systems, and adsorption
systems).
• SO 2 emission controls (over 30 control systems evaluated).
• NO emission controls Icombustion modification, flue gas
treatment, and several potential techniques for NO treat-
ment).
There are seven major gaseous waste streams which must be
treated to remove one or more specific pollutants. Table 3 lists these
streams and the contaminants which may have to be removed.
Liquid Effluents
EPA’s SPM evaluates pollution control equipment for coal lique-
faction wastewaters containing suspended and dissolved solids,
extreme pH, toxic chemical species, oil wastes, and oxygen demand-
ing species.
Selection and sizing of pollution control equipment for the SRC
process depend on flow rate, amenability of wastewaters to chemi-
cal and/or biological treatment, chemical composition, chemical re-
coverability, intended end-use of treated wastewaters, and economic
considerations. Parameters generally considered in the design of pol-
lution control equipment are BOD, COD, temperature, pH, sus-
pended solids, dissolved solids, heavy metals, toxic materials such as
cyanides and phenols, and oils and greases.
Numerous liquid wastewater streams which may be highly vari-
able in both volume and chemical composition are generated in coal
liquefaction processes. Wastewater streams in the SRC process result
from hydrogen production, gas purification, cryogenic separation,
cooling towers, hydrotreating. and gas separation. Typical stream
constituents are ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, phenols, organic com-
pounds, oils and greases, heavy metals, cyanides, suspended solids,
chemical additives )e.g., MEA, Polyrad, and oleyl alcohol), carbon
dioxide, trace elements, sulfates, phosphates, nitrates, organics,
nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and alkalinity.
Pretreatment processes (e.g., equalization, neutralization, solids
removal, heavy metals removal, oil and grease removal, toxic pollu-
tant removal, and chemical recovery operations) are sometimes re-
quired before the main treatment step. These methods prevent
various stream parameters from adversely affecting the operation of
the main treatment process. Depending on the efficiencies of the
main treatment processes, additional treatment may also be required
to reduce the wastewater constituents to acceptable levels.
Wastewater treatment processes can be divided into three classes
according to their function:
• Primary treatment (equalization, sedimentation, neutral iza-
tion, oil and grease separation, recovery processes, and strip-
ping).
10
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
TABLE 3. GASEOUS WASTE STREAMS IN THE SRC PROCESS —
MAJOR CONTAMINANTS AND STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Stream
Major Pollutants
Stream Characteristics and
Criteria for Control Module
Selection
1.
Dust from coal receiving
Particulates
Highly variable flow rate; ambient tempera-
ture and pressure; high grain loading; abrasive;
particle size 1 -100pm.
2.
Dust from coal storage
Particulates
Intermittent flow rate; dispersed, variable de-
pendent on wind conditions; same as 1
3.
Dust from coal reclaiming and
crushing
Particulates
Same as 1.
4.
Stack gas from coal drying
Volatile organics
Particulates
Moisture
High temperature, pressure, and flow rate; low
grain loading; high moisture content.
5.
Dust from SRC product storage
Particulates
Volatile organics
Same as 1.
6.
Effluent gas from Stretford sulfur
recovery
Light hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
Ammonia
Fly ash
Hydrogen sulfide
Moderate temperature and pressure; low grain
loading; high, relatively constant flow rate;
corrosive; low pollutant concentrations.
7.
Flue gas from coal-fired boilers
(steam generation)
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Particulates
Carbon dioxide
High temperature; near atmospheric pressure;
high, relatively constant flow rate; corrosive;
abrasive; moderate grain loading.
• Secondary treatment (biological and flocculation/flotation I.
• Tertiary treatment (filtration, carbon adsorption, electro-
dialysis, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange).
Solid Wastes
Solids treatment involves both mechanical reduction of solids
volume and treatment processes which improve waste disposal
characteristics such as handling and leachability. The SPM addresses
the following types of pollution control equipment:
• Volume reduction processes (thickening, filter pressing, cen-
trifuging, and others).
• Treatment processes (wet oxidation, pyrulysis, incineration,
lime recovery, and heat drying).
• Other processes (capillary dewatering and others).
Numerous sludges are produced in an SRC plant. These in-
clude lime sludge from raw water treatment; sludge from gasifica-
tion, scrubbing, and hydrogen production; spent hydrotreating
catalyst; solids separation residues; and reactor sludge from frac-
tionation tower bottoms.
The SPM addresses other aspects of control/disposal, including
final disposal, combustion modification, fuel cleaning, fugitive emis-
sion control, and accidental release technology.
Environmental Regulations
No legislation currently exists which directly concerns SRC or
other liquefaction systems. Before commercialization, such legisla-
tion could occur at federal, state, or local levels.
The SPM delineates environmertlal policies of the 16 states which
are potential sites for commercial SRC plants. The following federal
regulations are also presented by the SPM:
• National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards.
• Federal New Source Performance Standards of Related Tech-
nologies.
• Federal Effluent Guidelines and Standards for New Sources.
• Some EPA Requirements and Recommendations for Solid
Wastes.
11
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
Environmental Assessment
The SPM compares estimated concentrations of specific pollu-
tants in air, water, and solid waste streams (after treatment) with
Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEG’s). MEG’s are levels of con-
taminants judged (1) appropriate for preventing certain negative
effects on the surrounding populations or ecosystems, or (2) repre-
Sentative of the control limits obtainable with current technology.
A comparison of MEG’s with emissions characteristics is an integral
part of the environmental assessment methodology being develope”
at EPA/IERL-RTP.
The SPM compares the following emissions with MEG’s:
• Estimated air emissions from coal receiving—trace metals.
• Estimated air emissions from coal reclaiming and crushing—
trace metals.
• Estimated air emissions from the dryer—trace metals.
• Estimated Stretford tail gas emissions.
• Estimated air emissions from steam generation.
• Slag from the gasifier—trace metals.
• Estimated effluents from the wastewater treatment plant—
organics, trace metals, and others.
MEETING CALENDAR
Ammonia Production via Coal Gasification. May 8-10, 1979, Muscle
Shoals, AL. Contact: Phebus C. Williamson, National Fertilizer
Development Center. Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals,
AL 35660.
Sixth National Conference on Energy and the Environment, May
21-24, 1979, Pittsburgh, PA. Contact: Duane G. Nichols, Re-
search Triangle Institute, P. 0. Box 12194, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709.
10th Biennial Lignite Symposium, May 30-31, 1979, Grand Forks,
ND. Contact: Gordon H. Gronhovd, Grand Forks Energy Re-
search Center, P. 0. Box 8213, University Station, Grand Forks.
ND 58202; telephone (701) 795-8000.
Fourth Annual Conference on the Interagency Energy/Environment
RD&D Pro ’am, June 7-8, 1979, Washington, DC. Sponsored by
EPA’s Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry. Contact: Confer.
ence C ordinator, Automation Industries, Inc.. Vitro Labora-
tories Division,4/2109 14000 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, MD
20910.
72nd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, June
24-28, 1979, Cincinnati, OH.
Ninth Intersociety Conference on Environmental Systems, July 16-
19. 1979, San Francisco, CA. Contact: H. F. Brose, Hamilton
Standard, Windsor Locks, CT 06096.
1979 Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,
August 5-10, 1979, Boston, MA. Contact: Barbara Hodsdon,
Manager of Meetings and Expositions, 1155 16th St., NW,
Washington. DC 20036.
AIChE 87th National Meeting, August 19-22, 1979, Boston, MA.
Contact: Ralph A. Buonopane, Department of Chemical Engi-
neering, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Ave., Boston,
MA 02115.
1979 Symposium on Instrumentation and Control for Fossil Energy
Processes, August 20-22,1979, Denver, CO. Contact: Mrs. Miriam
L. Holden, Director, Conference Planning and Management,
Argonne National Laboratory. Building 223, 9700 South Cats
Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439; telephone (312) 972-5585.
10th World Petroleum Congress, September 1979 (dates not
known), Bucharest, Romania. Contact: William F. O’Keefe.
American Petroleum Institute, 2101 L St.. NW, Washington,
DC 20037.
178th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Septem-
ber 9-14, 1979. Contact: A. T. Winstead, ACS. 1155 16th St.
NW. Washington, DC 20036.
National Energy Economics III, September 16-19, 1979, Houston,
TX. Contact: Charles F. O’Connor, Council for Energy Studies
P. 0. Box 7374, Tulsa, OK 74105; telephone (918) 582-1 582.
12
-------
RECENT MAJOR MEETiNGS
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
AIChE 71st
Annual Meeting
The 71st Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers was held November 12-16, 1978, in Miami Beach, Florida.
There were 134 sessions on a variety of topics, a number of them
dealing with fuel conversion, liquefaction, and gasification.
A two-part symposium on reaction engineering in coal gasifica-
tion and liquefaction included papers on gasification modeling and
the use of catalysts in the SAC process. Models of the Synthane
process development unit (PDU) gasifier, an integrated coal pyrolysis
gasification and combustion reactor system, and entrained-bed coal
gasification were described, as was a simulation of the CO 2 Acceptor
Coal Gasification Process. The use of metallic sodium and dolomite
in the desulfurization of coal derivatives, coal liquefaction in
inorganic/organic liquid mixtures, and the application of a catalytic
two-stage concept in the SAC process were among other papers
presented.
Process design was discussed in a symposium on reaction engi-
neering in processing solid fossil fuels. The symposium included
papers on process design for coal conversion reactors, the produc-
tion of SNG via catalytic gasification, and liquefaction of coal in a
fixed-bed non-catalytic reactor. A steady state model of a counter-
current moving bed gasifier was described in one paper; liquefac-
tion of coal in a fixed-bed non-catalytic reactor was summarized in
another.
One session dealt with coal liquefaction processes and products.
Deashing of SAC and liquefied coal was discussed, as was the use of
a new rotary precoat filter for the filtration of liquefied coal. One
paper described the selective conversion of methanol to high octane
gasoline in a fluidized bed. Another summarized the flash hydro-
pyrolysis of coal with Rocketdyne short-residence-time reactors. A
general discussion of the H-Coal Process was also presented.
Several papers dealt with the conversion and utilization of lig-
nite. Liquefaction of lignite with hydrogen donor solvents and by
the Co-Stream Process was described. Gasification of lignite in a
slagging fixed bed gasifier was discussed. Operating data and a
discussion of problems were presented for the extended operation
of a solvent refined lignite process development unit.
Another two-part symposium dealt with the environmental
assessment of solid fossil fuel processes. Several papers were pre-
sented on the environmental aspects of coal gasification and lique-
faction processes. In another symposium the measurement of fugi-
tive hydrocarbon emissions in petroleum refineries was described.
Performance of several pilot plants was summarized in the sym-
posium on fluidization and fluid-particle systems in coal processing.
Among those described were an ash agglomerating combustor/
gasifier and the IGT U-Gas pilot plant.
More papers concerning gasification and liquefaction were pre-
sented in other symposia, including a numerical model of coal gasi-
fication in entrained flow reactors and a discussion of the TRI-GAS
low-Btu gasification concept. Separation of liquefied coal from resi-
dual solids by dense vapor stripping and new liquefaction technol-
ogy by short contact time processes were also described. In addi-
tion, the SASOL II project, in which the qovernrnent of South
Africa is building a large coal gasification plant, was summarized.
RECENT MAJOR PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS
Gasification Technology
Campbell, J. H., E. Pellizzari, and S. Santor, Results of a Ground-
water Quality Study Near an Underground Coal Gasification
Experiment (Hoe Creek /), UCRL-52405, DOE Contract No.
W-7405-ENG-48. Livermore, CA, University of California, Law-
rence Livermore Laboratory, February 1978.
chandra, K., B. McElmurry , E. W. Neben, and G. E. Pack. Economic
Studies of Coal Gasification: Combined Cycle Systems for Elec-
tric Power Generation, Report EPRI AF-642, RP 239. Irvine,
CA, Fluor Engineers & Constructors, Inc., January 1978.
Colaluca, M. A., M. A. Paisley, and K. Mahajan, “Progress in the
Development of the TB I-GAS Low-Btu Gasification Concept,”
Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL,
November 12-16, 1978.
FMC Corporation, Gasification of COED Chars in a Koppers’Totzek
Gasifier, Report EPRI AF-615, RP 264-1. Princeton, NJ, July
1978.
Gallagher, J. E., Jr., and H. A. Marshall, “Production of SNG from
Illinois Coal via Catalytic Gasification,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16.
1978.
Hartman, H. F., J. P. Belk, and D. E. Reagan, Low Btu Coal Gasifi-
cation Processes: Volume 1—Summary, Screening and Compari-
sons and Volume 2—Selected Process Descriptions. ORNL/ENG/
TM-13/V1, V2, DOE Contract No, W-7405-ENG-26. Oak Ridge,
TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November 1978.
Johnson, B. C., M. M. Fegley, R. C. Eliman, and L. E. Paulson, Gasi-
fication of North Dakota Lignite in a Slagging Fixed Bed Gasi-
fier,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami
Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Lee, H. H., “Rate Processes of Catalytic Hydrogasification of Coal
and Coal Chars,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting,
Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 197B.
McElmurry, B., and S. Smelser, Economics of Texaco Gasification-
Combined Cycle Systems. Economic Studies of Coal Gasifica-
tion Combined Cycle Systems for Electric Power Generation,
Report EPRI AF-753, RP-239. Irvine, CA, Fluor Engineers &
Constructors, Inc., April 1978.
McIntosh, M. J., “Entrained Gasification Characteristics of Various
Coals,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami
Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Overturf, B. W., C. V. Reklaitis, and F. Kayihan, “Modeling and
Analysis of an Integrated Coal Pyrolysis, Gasification, and Com-
bustion Reactor System,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE
Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
13
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1979
Pukanic, C. W., W. P. Haynes, and J. T. Cobb, Jr., “Mathematical
Model of SYNTHANE PDU Gasifier Using Montana Rosebud
Coal.” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting. Miami
Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Sandstrom, W. A., M. K. Vora, and A. C. Rehmat, “IGT U-Gas Pilot
Plant: High Temperature Fluidization,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16,
1978.
Schneyer, G. P., 0. H. Brownell, W. 0. Henline, and T. R. Blake, “A
Numerical Model of Coal Gasification in Entrained Flow Re-
actors,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami
Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Schulz, Helmut W., The Simplex Coal and Biomass Gasification Pro-
cess, Harrison, NY, Dynecology, Inc., 1978.
Southern California Edison, Preliminary Design Study for an Inte-
grated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plant, Report
EPRI AF-880, RP 986-4. Rosemead, CA, August 1978.
Springrnann, Helmut, “Oxygen for Coal Gasification Power Plants.”
Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL,
November 12-16, 1978.
Texaco, Inc., Gasification of Coal Liquefaction Residues from the
Wi/sonvillo SRC Pilot Plant Using the Texaco Coal Gasification
Process, Report EPRI AF-777, RP 714-3. June 1978.
Virgona, J. E., and 0. D. Fischer, “Environmental Assessment of an
Underground Coal Gasification Process,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting. Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16,
1978.
Won, C. V., and T. Z. Chaung, “Entrained-Bed Coal Gasification
Modeling.” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting.
Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Won, C. Y., and P. R. Desai, “Countercurrent Moving-Bed Gasifier
Simulation,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting.
Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Yang, W. C., G. Haldipur, P. Cherish, 1. A. Salvador, and D. K.
Keairns, “Performance of Pilot-Scale Ash Agglomerating Com-
bustor/Gasifier,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting,
Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Yoon, Heeyoung, James Wei, and M. M. Denn, “Transient Response
to Moving Bed Coal Gasification Reactors,” Presented at the
71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-
16. 1978.
Ziegler, F., P. Gupta, S. Tia, P. Gallier, and L. Evans, “Simulation of
the CO 2 Acceptor Coal Gasification Process,” Presented at the
71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-
16, 1978.
Liquefaction Technology
Babcock & Wilcox Co., Characteristics of Solvent Refined Coal:
Dual Register Burner Tests, Report EPRI FP-628, RP 1235-5.
January 1978.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Bench Scale Coal Liquefaction
Studies, Report EPRI AF-612. RP 779-2. Columbus, OH,
February 1978.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Evaluation of Materials for Use in
Letdown Values and Coal Feed Pumps for Coal Liquefaction
Service, Report EPRI AF-579, RP 458-2. Columbus, OH, Jan-
uary 1978.
DeVaux, C. R., “H-Coal® Commercialization,” Presented at the
71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-
16, 1978.
Dodge, l.A., and J. I. Fingleton, “SASOL II Program,” Presented
at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, Nay-
meber 12-16, 1978.
Garg, D., A. R. Tarrer, J. A. Gum, J. M. Lee, and C. Curtis, “Appli-
cation of Catalytic Two-Stage Concept in the SAC Process,”
Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL,
November 12-16, 1978.
Grens, E. A., II , Frank Hershkowitz, J. H. Shinn, and Theodore
Vermeulen, “Coal Liquefaction in Inorganic-Organic Liquid
Mixtures,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami
Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Hooper R. J., and D. C. Evans, “Reaction of a Coal Liquid with a
Hydrogen-Donor Solvent to Form a Carbon-Rich Solid,” Fuel
57(12), 799-801 (1978).
Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., H-Coal Integrated Pilot Plant, Report
EPRI AF-681, RP238-1. LawrenceTownship, NJ, March 1978.
Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., Solvent Refining of Indiana V Coal
and North Dakota Lignite, Report EPRI AF-666, RP 779-4.
Morristown, NJ, January 1978.
Kam, A. V., Sergei Yurchak, and Wooyoung Lee, “Fluid Bed Pro-
cess Scale-Up and Development Studies on Selective Conversion
of Methanol to High Octane Gasoline,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16,
1978.
Kirk, A. R., R. C. Everson, and E. T. Woodburn, “Fischer-Tropsch
Synthesis over Supported Ru Catalysts,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16,
1978.
Knebel, A. H., “Critical Solvent Deashing of Liquefied Coal,” Pre-
sented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL,
November 12-16, 1978.
Koester, Pamela A., and Warren H. Zieger, Analysis for Radionu’
clides in SRC and Coal Combustion Samples, Report EPA-600/
7-78-1 85 (NTIS No. PB 287-1 79). Columbia, MD, Hittman
Associates, Inc., September 1978.
Longanbach, J. R., J. R. Orange, and S. P. Chauhan, Short Resi-
dence Time Coal Liquefaction. Report EPRI AF-780, RP 779-5.
Columbus, OH, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, June 1978.
Ogren, D. R., “Application of Antisolvent Deashing to the Solvent
Refined Coal Process,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE
Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Ralph M. Parsons Company, Process Engineering Evaluations of
Alternative Coal Liquefaction Concepts and a Supplemental
Report on the Effect of Purchased Power and Steam Turbine
Drives on the So/vent Refined Coal Process, Report EPR I AF-
741, RP 411-1 - Pasadena, CA, April 1978.
Philip, C. V., and R. C. Anthony, “Liquefaction of Texas Lignite
with Hydrogen Donor Solvents,” Presented at the 71st Annual
AIChE Meeting. Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16. 1978.
14
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1919
Rockwell International, Coal Slurry Feed Pump for Coal Liquefac-
tion, Report EPRI AF-853, RP 775-1. Canoga Park, CA,
September 1978.
Rogers, Shelby, and P. M. Yavorsky, “Separation of Liquefied Coal
from Residual Solids by Dense Vapor Stripping,” Presented at
the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November
12-16, 1978.
Severson, D. E., G. G. Baker, B. C. Lee, and F, I). Nankani, “Ex-
tended Operation of a Solvent Refined Lignite Process Develop-
ment Unit,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting,
Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Smith, Gordon, J. D. Naylor, and H. H. Gilman, “Filtration of
Liquefied Coal at Tacoma, Washington Using a New Design
Rotary Precoat Filter,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE
Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Sondreal, E. A., C. L. Knudson, and R. S. Majkrzak, “Liquefaction
of Lignite by the Co-Stream Process,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach. FL, November 12-16,
1978.
“Supercritical Solvents Enhance Coal Liquefaction,” Chem. Eng.
News 56(47), 28-30 (19781.
Wh’ttehurst, D., T. 0. Mitchell, M. Farcasini, J. J. Dickert, T. R.
Stein, and M. J. Dabkowski, “New Liquefaction Technology by
Short Contact Time Processes,” Presented at the list Annual
AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach. FL. November 12-16, 1978.
Wrathall, James, and E. E. Petersen, “Desulfurization of Coal
Liquids by Sodium Metal Dispersion,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16,
1978.
Yavorsky, P. M., S. Rogers, N. J. Mazzocco, S. Lee, and S. Akhtar,
“Liquefaction of West Virginia Coal in a Fixed-Bed Noncatalytic
Reactor,” Presented at the list Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami
Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Other
Bodle, W. W., D. V. Punwani, and A. Talwalkar, “Process Design for
Coal Conversion Reactors,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE
Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Cameron Engineers, Inc., Syn feels —P rob/ems and Promises. Denver,
CO. 1978.
Cusumano, J. A,, R. A. Dalla Betta, and R. B. Levy, Catalysts in
Coal Conversion. New York, NY, Academic Press, 1978.
Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Coal Preparation Combustion and Conversion.
Report EPRI AF-791, RP466-1. May 1978.
Gold, H., J. A. Nardella, and C. A. Vogel, “Water Related Environ-
mental Effects in Fuel Conversion,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16,
1978.
Gold,Harris, and David J. Goldstein, Water-Related Environmental
Effects in Fuel Conversion: Volume I. Summary. Report EPA-
600/7-78-197a (NTIS No. PB 288-313). Cambridge, MA, Water
Purification Associates, October 1978.
Gould, G., “Key Steps to Coal Conversion,” Energy (Stamford. CT)
3(1), 14-17 (1978).
Hahn, 0. J., D. T. MacClellan, and R. W. DeVore, Proceedings:
Fifth Energy Resource Conference, Lexington, KY, January 10-
11, 1978. IMMR38-PD21-78. Lexington, KY, University of
Kentucky, Institute for Mining & Minerals Research, August
1978.
Hendriks, R. V., and A. R. Trenholm, “Polynuclear Aromatics
)PNA) Emissions from Coke Ovens,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16,
1978.
Hoffman, E. J., Coal Conversion. Laramie, WY, Energon Co.,
undated.
Oberg, C. L., A. V. Falk, and Jacob Silverman, “Flash Hydropyroly-
sis of Coal Utilizing Rocketdyne Short-Residence-Time Re-
actors,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami
Beach, FL, November 12-16,1978.
Oldham, R. G., R. 1. Spraggins, P. H. Lin, C. H. Williams, and I. A.
Jefcoat, “Characterization and Measurement of Organic Emis-
sions from Petroleum Refineries,” Presented at the 71st Annual
AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978.
Petrie, T. W., W. J. Rhodes, and G. C. Page, “Environmental Aspects
of Coal Gasification and Liquefaction Processes,” Presented at
the 71st Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November
12-16, 1978.
Probstein, Ronald F., and Harris Gold, Water in Synthetic Fuel Pro’
duction: The Technology and Alternatives. Cambridge, MA. MIT
Press, 1978.
Radian Corporation, Environmental Characterization P/an Develop-
ment for a Coal Conversion Demonstration Facility, Report
DCN 78-200-151-06-05, DOE Contract No. EX-76-C-01 -2314.
Austin, TX, May 1978.
Shoffstall, Donald R., and Richard T. Waibel, Low-Btu Gas Combus’
tion Research, Report EPRI FP-848, RP 210-0-6. Chicago. IL,
Institute of Gas Technology, August 1978.
Singer, P.C., F. K. Pfaender, J. Chinchilli, A. F. Maciorowski, J. C.
Lamb Ill, and R, Goodman, Assessment of Coal Conversion
Wastewaters: Caracterization and Preliminary Biotreatability,
Report EPA-600/7-78-181. Chapel Hill, NC, University of North
Carolina, Dept. of Environmental Sciences and Engineering,
September 1978.
Warren, John L., Status of IERL-R TP Environmental Assessment
Methodologies for Fossil Energy Processes, Report EPA-600/
7-78-1 51 (NTIS No. P82872101. Research Triangle Park, NC,
Research Triangle Institute, July 1978.
Wetherold, R. G., 0. 0. Rosebrook, 1. P. Provost, and I. A. Jetcoat,
“Measurement of Hydrocarbon Emissions from Fugitive Sources
inPetroleurn Refineries,” Presented at the 71st Annual AIChE
Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16, 1978. -
Yen, J. H., F. H. Rogan, and Kun Li, “Reaction Rate and Structure
Changes of Dolomite During Sulfidation,” Presented at the 71st
Annual AIChE Meeting, Miami Beach, FL, November 12-16,
1978.
15
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
May 1919
The Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels is prepared by Radian Corporation under EPA contract 68-02 .3137. Each contractor listed in the
Table of Contractors on page 7 contributed to this issue. The EPA/I ER L-RTP Project Officer is William J. Rhodes . (919) 541-2851. The
Radian Program Manager is Gcrdon C , Page, (5121 454-4797. Comments on this issue, topics for inclusion in future issues, and requests for subscrip-
tions should be communicated to them.
The views expressed in the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels do not necessarily reflect the views and polices of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA.
16
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
(Attn: IV. J. Rhodes, Mail Drop 61)
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Penalty For Private Use $300
An Equal Opportunity Employer
T ILLEy
Postage And Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA — 335
us
E PA REGION. V LIBRARY quarters and chOrr CaI Libraries
230 s. DEARBORN_ 1 4 y j6ad PAWeStBIGQR01 mS 34 O
C uic* 6 o Mailcode 34(,4T
1301 ë6n4 t dOfl Ave NW
hingtOfl DC 20004
202 566 OE 156
If you! 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 Itto the above address.
------- |