v>EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
of
SYNTHETIC FUELS
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORY
VOL. 2 NO. 3
AUGUST 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 program is evaluating the envi-
ronmental impacts of synthetic fuel processes with a high
potential for commercial application. It is directed by the
Fuel Process Branch of EPA's Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, NC (IERL-
RTP).
The primary objectives of the EPA Synthetic Fuels
Environmental 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
overall objectives, the EPA has defined six major task areas:
current process technology background, environmental data
acquisition, current environmental background, en-
vironmental objectives development, control technology
assessment, and impact analysis. The contractors 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 activities in EPA's synthetic fuels program. Activities
of EPA contractors are covered In sections on current
technology background, environmental data acquisition, and
control technology assessment. Highlights of technology
and commercial development, 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 technology. 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 iden-
tified on page 16 of this review.
CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
Liquefaction
Environmental Assessment of Solvent Refined Coal
(SRC) Systems — Hittman Associates, Inc., Is preparing an
Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) for SRC systems.
The EAR examines both the SRC-I (solid product) and SRC-II
(liquid product) variations of solvent refining for a
hypothetical plant producing 0.09 m3/s (50,000 bbl/day)
liquefied coal products.
The EAR discusses the processes involved in SRC
systems and characterizes feed materials, process streams,
waste streams, products, and by-products. Based on
available stream characterization data, control and disposal
options are surveyed to determine their applicability to
process discharges. The EAR also surveys potential
regulatory requirements and compares them to after treat-
ment discharge levels.
Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEGs) and Source
Analysis Models (SAMs) are applied to determine the en-
vironmental effects of treated discharges. SAM analysis of
existing data indicates that the solid wastes produced by
SRC systems pose the greatest environmental problem. A
major difference between SRC-I and SRC-II systems is the
potential for particulate emissions in the form of SRC-I solid
product dust.
Environmental Data Bast for Coal Liquefaction
Technology — A major portion of Hittman Associates' work
in synthetic fuels is designed to establish a comprehensive
environmental data base for coal liquefaction. This task
Involves the following areas:
• Identification and description of all major coal lique-
faction schemes currently under development.
• In-depth appraisal of the most advanced liquefaction
schemes from a process development standpoint.
• Quantification and characterization of waste streams
associated with the most advanced processes.
• Expected environmental and health effects of coal lique-
faction products.
• Pollution control options applicable to liquefaction
discharge streams.
• Review of environmental standards for related fossil fuel
technologies which might be applicable to liquefaction
facilities.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
The results of Hittman’s work in these areas have been
compiled in two recently completed reports (EPA-600/7-78-
184a and b), which are summarized in the “Report Sum-
maries” section of this issue. These studies, together with
the Standards of Practice Manual for the Solvent Refined
Coal 4ique faction Process (EPA-600/7-78-091, see the En-
vironmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Volume 2, Number 2)
represent EPA’s current data base for the environmental
assessment of coal liquefaction technology.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
General Topics
Hazards and Health Effects of Pollutants from a Laboratory
Gasifle, — Research Triangle Institute (RTI) has now per-
formed more than fifty tests with a laboratory semi-batch
coal gasifier. Tests have typically consisted of air blown,
autothermic operation resulting in low-Btu gas. Operating
parameters and pollutant levels parallel those of full-scale
gasifiers.
Pollutants have been summed or averaged over all tests
in order to compare coal types and reactor streams. The
highest gas stream hazards result from gasifying high sulfur
eastern coals. Tar and condensate hazards of western and
eastern coals were comparable.
Various streams were analyzed to identify those con-
stituents having potentially severe health effects. In tars and
aqueous condensates, the hazardous effects result from
oxygen-containing species and polynuclear aromatics
(PNAs). In the primary gas stream, carbon monoxide, ben-
zone, and hydrogen sulfide are of concern. Constituents in
the reactor residue that might present significant hazards
include specific trace elements.
Statistical correlations of the total data base have
shown several relationships between coal properties, waste
stream constituents, and operating parameters:
• Phenols and condensates inversely correlate with
percent tar and coal rank.
• The percent of organic bases in tar increases with
higher steam.to-air ratios.
• Carbonyl sulfide production increases with higher air-to-
coal ratios.
• Tar hazard factors are reduced by extending the time
period to reach maximum reactor temperature.
• Increased sulfate levels in coal correlate directly with
quantities of sulfur in the ash after reaction.
• Percent PNAs in tar correlates poorly with coal rank
and only slightly with tar mass produced.
Bioassay studies (Ames Tests) of tar fractions from two
coals showed dissimilar mutagenic properties. The Western
Kentucky crude tar and its fractions were three to four times
more mutagenic than the corresponding Wyoming fractions.
This difference is likely due to the higher content of PNAs
and other known mutagens in the Kentucky tar. No
mutagenicity or toxicity was observed when these same
coals were tested as coal dust (raw unfractionated coal).
Experiments suggested for future work are Chinese
hamster ovary cell culture for mutagenicity and cytotoxicity
tests, and sister chromatid exchange to determine
chromosome damage.
Gasification
Testing Completed at Glen Gary Wellman-Galusha Gasi-
ficatIon Facility — Radian Corporation has completed a
source test and evaluation (STE) program for the Wellman-
Galusha gasification system at the York, Pennsylvania plant
of the Glen Gory Brick Co. The objective of this program was
to gather data for evaluating the environmental and health
effects of the pJant’s multimedia waste streams and for
determining the equipment required to control problem
waste streams.
To meet this objective, samples of 12 process and waste
streams, and flow rate and operating data were obtained.
This information was used to:
• Calculate a mass balance for the facility.
• Characterize the waste streams (including the low-Btu
combustion products).
• Characterize the collection efficiency of the product gas
cyclone.
Process and waste streams sampled included coal feed-
stock, gasifier ash, ash sluice water, coal hopper gases,
pokehole gases, cyclone dust, and clean product gas.
Overall results from chemical analyses indicate that all
waste streams sampled contain organic and/or inorganic
constituents in potentially hazardous concentrations ac-
cording to SAM/IA evaluation. However, a non-tar/oil
producing anthracite coal is used at this facility, and the
potential hazards of these streams are much lower than
those of the waste streams produced by gasifying
bituminous coal.
The study recommends priorities, based on SAM/IA
evaluation, for future chemical ahalyses of each waste
stream. Control recommendations for most waste streams
are also given. In addition, the Study recommends that the
hazardous organics be identified for those waste streams
where the organics are the major contributors to the total
stream discharge severity.
Phase I Testing Completed at Overseas Gaslfier — The
first of two phases of testing has been completed at the
Lurgi gasification facility (Kosovo Kombine) at Obilic,
Yugoslavia. This environmental data acquisition program is
being jointly sponsored by EPA and the government of Yugo-
2
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
slavia. Test efforts are being directed by Radian Corporation,
the Rudarski Institute of Yugoslavia, and other technical
organizations within Yugoslavia.
Because the Lurgi process is proposed for several U. S.
plants, EPA wants to develop a sound basis for ensuring the
environmental acceptability of these facilities. At Kosovo,
EPA hopes to gather critical data needed to specify control
priorities and to support reasonable performance standards
for future U. S. Lurgi gasification facilities.
The Phase I test was a broad screening study of the
process and waste streams at the Kosovo plant. In this
phase, about 50 key streams were sampled and analyzed. Air
emissions received primary attention, and the results give a
reasonable definition of the scope and magnitude of the air
emission problems to be addressed in U. S. Lurgi ap-
plications.
The Phase I testing identified nine major emission
sources which must be examined further:
• Fleissner Lignite Drying Process.
• Coal Feeding System (Lock Hopper) Vents.
• Generator Start-up Gases.
• Gas Cooling/Tar Separation Section Flash Gases.
• Rectisol Process.
• Phenosolvan Condensate Strippers.
• By-Product Storage Tank Vents.
• Incinerator.
• Air/Oxygen-Rich Vents.
The Rectisol unit is one of the most significant air
emission sources at Kosovo. This unit is a selective acid gas
removal system which generates two emissions: a COz-rich
stream containing minor amounts of HiS and other sulfur
species, and an HaS-rich stream which should contain most
of the other acid gases and sulfur species. The COj-rich
stream is vented directly to the atmosphere at Kosovo. This
same approach has been proposed in conceptual designs for
several U. S. plants. Phase I data do not indicate that this
vent stream would be a serious problem, except perhaps
during upset conditions. Components other thai COz which
were found in the COa-rich vent gas included primarily
methane and other light hydrocarbons, with minor amounts
of HzS, HCN, and mercaptans.
The HzS-rich gas~streahTgerierated~by'theTRectisol unit
is a very significant waste stream. At Kosovo, this stream is
flared. In the U. S., the use of a treatment process which
produces a marketable by-product (e.g., Claus, Stretford) is
the preferred approach. However, Phase I test results in-
dicate potential problems with this option. First, the CO:
content of this stream may be too high to permit the
economical use of a Claus system. Also, the mercaptans and
hydrocarbons in this stream could interfere with tail gas
treatment and product purity.
EPA's Source Analysis Model (SAM) methodology was
applied to the air emission streams and to individual stream
components studied in Phase I. The SAM methodology is a
rapid screening technique which determines the discharge
severity associated with the pollutants and waste streams.
The SAM methodology is thus a convenient method for
assessing potential environmental problems associated with
waste streams and pollutants.
SAM procedures were applied to Phase I test results for
fixed gases, light hydrocarbons, and nitrogen species. CO is
the most significant pollutant of the fixed gases. Of the light
hydrocarbons examined, the most important pollutant is
benzene. The analysis of sulfur species indicates that
mercaptans are at least as significant a pollutant as HzS.
Finally, of the two nitrogen species analyzed, Nhh appears to
be more of a problem than HCN.
Phase I testing also yielded useful data concerning the
liquid and solid waste streams at Kosovo. (For a summary of
these data, see the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels,
Volume 2, Number 1.) These streams will be characterized
further during the Phase II tests. Major efforts will focus on:
• Quantification of trace and minor components, par-
ticularly teachable species, in solid waste streams and
water soluble or highly volatile components in liquid
wastes.
• Potential for hazardous emissions from the use of liquid
hydrocarbon by-products as onsite fuels.
Future work at Kosovo will address some of the key
questions raised by the Phase I test results. Key emission
streams will be further characterized to determine levels of
potentially hazardous components such as trace elements
and trace organics. Control and treatment of the Rectisol
acid gas streams will also be studied. Plans have also been
made to characterize generator start-up gases and fugitive
emissions.
A comprehensive summary of the Kosovo Program was
presented in April at EPA's Symposium on Environmental
Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology (see "Recent Major
Meetings" in this issue).
Sampling Effort to Aid In Environmental Assessment of
Low-Btu Gasification Process — Union Carbide Corpor-
ation's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is conducting
a DOE-sponsored test program at the University of Min-
nesota gasification facility. The facility includes a Foster-
Wheeler Stoic two-stage gasif ier, which provides a low-Btu
fuel gas. The product gas is fired in conventional boilers to
produce steam for campus heating. Tar and oil generated by
the gasifier are combusted in an oil-fired boiler. Data
gathered during this program will aid DOE and other federal
agencies in evaluating the environmental acceptability of the
low-Btu gasification process.
Under subcontract to^OFTNL, Radian Corporation is
supplying all gas sampling equipment, operating manuals,
and training of sampling personnel. Radian will also provide
equipment for pretreating a side stream of the low-Btu
product gas prior to analysis by on-line gas chromatographs.
To meet the objective of the ORNL program, product
gas streams will be sampled for biological testing and also I
to determine stream velocity, particulates (including size
distribution), liquid aerosols, and inorganic and organic
chemical compositions. Two fuel gas particulate removal
devices, a hot cyclone and an electrostatic precipitator (ESP),
will be evaluated by upstream and downstream sampling.
To aid in the sampling efforts, Radian has developed a
new adaptation of the electrostatic precipitator (ESP), as
shown below. The adapted ESP can be used both to sample
aerosol streams and to remove aerosol tars and oils in
preparation for gas chromatography analysis. The aerosol
tars and oils are a major problem in sampling and cannot be
removed by standard filtering methods.
The ESP has a cylindrical design with a 0.3 m (1 ft)-long
collection zone. The electron source, a fine wire mounted in
the center of the cross-sectional area, runs the length of the
collection chamber. The electric potential occurs between
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
this wire and the outer wall. The ESP has a high collection
efficiency because ionization occurs over the full length of
the collection zone. The ESP is enclosed in an oven for
temperature control. Gas stream temperature can thus be
maintained at process levels to control sample integrity, or
at lower temperatures to cause condensation and tar/aerosol
removal in the ESP.
ADAPTED ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
The conditioning system which will supply gas samples
to on-line chromatographs consists of two ESPs in parallel,
each in a separate oven. When the ovens are maintained
below process temperatures, the aerosols and tars in the
incoming stream will condense in the ESP. This prevents
fouling of the downstream instruments. The system is de-
signed to switch the gas stream automatically from one ESP
to the other when one becomes fouled by tars and oils. If
both ESPs are fouled, gas flow to the process gas chromato-
graphs stops automatically.
Arrangements for testing at Kopprs.Totzek Gasification
Facility — TRW is finalizing arrangements with Krupp-
Koppers (KK), licensors for the Koppers-Totzek gasification
process, for a program to acquire data from the Modder-
fontein gasification plant. This facility is operated by the
African Explosives and Chemical Industries (AE & Cl) of
South Africa. KK is responsible for all sampling of the
selected streams and will perform limited analyses in South
Africa. Samples of liquids will be stabilized and shipped to
the TRW laboratory for analysis. The sampling effort is
scheduled for this fall.
Liquefaction
Testing at SRC II Pilot Plant — riiuman Associates, IflC.,
is performing a sampling and analysis program at the SAC-Il
pilot plant in Ft. Lewis, Washington. The plant, operated by
the Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Mining Company, can
convert 0.52 kg/s (49 tons/day) of coal to SRC products.
Hittman’s sampling plan is based on the phased levels of
samoling and analysis develooed by EPA’s IERL-RTP.
Level 1 studies, consisting of quantitative sampling and
analysis, provided preliminary environmental assessment
data on SAC products and on the wastewater treatment
facility of the Ft. Lewis plant.
The wastewater treatment system significantly reduced
levels of SRC-ll pollutants. The bio-unit was especially ef-
fective in removing organics. TOG, oil and grease, and TGO
material with boiling points between 100 and 3000 C were
decreased by over 99 percent; COD was reduced by 93
percent. The reduction efficiency for ammonia was relatively
low because ammonia levels exceeded the nutrient
requirements of the microorganisms in the bio-unit.
Very toxic chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons were
present in the clarifier influent and flottazur effluent streams.
No quantitative data are available to verify their sources or
the reduction of these substances in tt e wastewater
treatment system.
The treatment process showed a removal efficiency of
over 50 percent for all trace elements except calcium, lead,
and sulfur.
Infrared analysis of solid wastes showed phenolic
compounds in all streams. Polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbons (PNAs) were the major organic components in the
flottazur skimmings and clarifier sediment. Of the trace
elements studied, only iron in both the clarifier sediment and
flottazur skimmings exceeded the health.based discharge
multimedia environmental goal (DMEG) value. However,
several trace elements did exceed the ecologically based
DMEG value. The bio-unit sludge and clarifier sediment were
quite toxic, largely because of the presence of phosphorous
components. Since the chemical form of these components
was not determined, the interpretation procedure requires
that the worst case component, elemental phosphorous, be
assumed.
Levels of non-volatile trace elements in product streams
and resioue seemed to correlate with trace element boiling
points. Highest trace metal levels occurred in the residue.
Lower amounts were found, in order of decreasing con-
centration, in the heavy distillate, middle distillate, and
naphtha. PNAs were the main constituents of the heavy
distillates; phenolic compounds were most abundant in the
middle distillates. Aliphatics were the major components of
the naphtha. The heavy distillate sh wed the greatest
discharge severity, based on concentrations of pollutants
and OMEG values.
Additional Phase I testing, started in February 1979, was
designed to confirm the results of original Phase I data and
to obtain additional data. Several streams were sampled and
prioritized according to levels of potentially toxic materials.
These streams are listed below, in decreasing order of
priority:
• Recycle process water tank.
• Sulfur recovery area drain.
• Wastewater treatment plant inflow.
• Wastewater treatment plant effluent.
• Coal storage area drain.
• C.rain from general surfaced area.
• C.: l preparation area drain.
• Dissolver/separator area drain.
r
I • _ ! 1 LI ’
4
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
• Solvent fractionation area drain.
• Boiler blowdown.
• Sandvik belt water.
Cooling water.
A significant result of the preliminary sample analysis is
that large variations in the concentrations, and even the
presence, of certain chemicals occur due to minor shifts in
operating conditions. Thus, a single grab sample may not tell
enough about the chemicals or concentrations that can exist
in a waste stream from an SRC plant. Detailed information is
required on operating temperature and pressure, changes in
coal type and feed rate, and other physical parameters, to
evaluate changes in wastewater constituents.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
General Topics
Blot ,eatabliltv and Toxicity of Coal Conversion Waste-
waters — The University of North Carolina (UNC) is studying
the biotreatability and toxicity of wastewaters generated by
coal conversion processes. This work is part of UNC’s
overall project to assess environmental impacts and alter-
nate methods of controlling wastewater contaminants.
For the biotreatability studies, UNC developed a syn-
thetic wastewater which includes 28 organic compounds in
addition to nutrients and buffers. These constituents
represent the major classes of organics and virtually all
specific compounds found at high concentrations in real
synthetic fuel wastewaters. The synthetic wastewater
provides a medium for developing an acclimatized microbial
community for use in biodegradation and treatability studies.
The studies are conducted in 25-liter reactor units which
use activated sludge from a municipal wastewater treatment
plant. The synthetic wastewater is fed to the reactors over a
period of several days to permit acclimatization of the sludge
to the wastewater.
High performance liquid chromatography analysis of the
raw feed and effluent from one of the reactors showed a
reduction in nonpolar compounds, including xylenols,
pyridines, quinolines, indoles, naphthols, and trimethyl-
phenol. UV absorbance and simultaneous fluorescence
analyses indicated that, although much of the carbon in the
feed is phenolic, few of the organics remaining after treat-
ment are phenolic.
Toxicity studies using Chinese hamster lung cells
demonstrated that substantial reductions in toxicity occur in
the reactors. Only about 1 percent raw feed was required for
a 50 percent reduction in cell plating efficiency; 90 percent
reactor effluent was necessary to achieve the same reduc-
tion.
Ongoing work at UNC includes respiration rate studies
to evaluate biodegradability and toxicity of wastewater
constituents. Fresh sludge from the reactor is exposed to
the individual wastewater constituents in order to determine
the effects of the constituents on respiration rates over a
period of several hours. A dec se in the respiration rate
indicates inhibition of the sludge by the particular con-
stituent in question.
Low!Medium..Btu Gasification
Pollution Control Guidance Report for Low-Btu
Gasification Technology — Radian Corporation Is preparing
a PollutIon Control Guidance Report (PCGR) for low-Btu coal
gasification technology. The purpose of this work is to
compile, in one document, a data base for applicable multi-
media pollution controls. The PCGR will be useful to both
private industry and those regulatory agencies responsible
for permitting or licensing low-Btu gasification facilities.
The PCGR will provide information about:
• The uncontrolled discharge streams of potential en-
vironmental concern.
• Applicable control methods for these streams.
• The effectiveness and associated costs of these control
methods.
In addition to data on specific pollution control
technologies, the PCGR will provide EPA with information
that can be used in standards setting activities. The PCGR
will identify suggested discharge limits and long term
monitoring needs for various pollutants in the absence of
standards or other criteria. It will also discuss EPA’s ap-
proach to developing emission standards for Iow-Btu
gasification technology.
Preparation of the PCGR will continue into the winter of
1979. The final report should be available in early 1980.
TECHNOLOGY AND/OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Joint Rupture Most Probable Cause of BIGAS Fire —
Investigations are underway at DOE’s BIGAS coal
gasification pilot plant in Homer City, Pa., to determine the
cause of a February 1978 explosion. Preliminary analyses
indicate that corrosion cracking caused a stainless steel
expansion joint to rupture. The expansion joint was part of a
tube which served to recycle coal char, in addition to natural
gas and steam, back to the gasifier. The fire probably started
when hot fuel gas from the high-pressure gasifier flowed
back through the rupture and contacted oxygen in the air.
Additional studies of companion char burner expansion
joints are being conducted to confirm the diagnosis. The
problem may be avoided in the future by using metal alloys
other than stainless steel for the expansion joints.
Brazilian Oil Company to Use Koppers-Totzek Process
— Petrobras, Brazil’s state oil company, has awarded Krupp-
Koppers, West Germany, a $245-million contract to design
and build a coal gasification plant in Rio Grande deSul in
s üthern Brazil. The plant wiU use the Koppers-Totzek
process to produce gas to feed a 6.3 kg/s (600 tons/day)
ammonia plant. Start-up is planned for 1983. The project Is
Intended eventually to provide municipal gas that will replace
imported LNG.
Slurrled Coal to be Gasified in FluId-Wall Reactor —
Southern California Edison (SCE) and Thagard Technology
Co. have recently started a test program to gasify slurried
coal in a high-temperature, fluid-wall reactor. The slurried
coal is exposed to intense infrared radiation at temperatures
up to 3,315°C (6,000°F) In a reactor developed by Thagard.
SCE’s Mohave plant Is currently the only facility in the
U. S. supplied by a coal-slurry pipeline. SCE will conduct
tests to determine equipment reliability and energy ef-
ficiencies for gasifying (without previous dewatering) coal
5
-------
En*eramestai Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
slurries similar to the 5W50 waterand-coal mix that it now
receives. Small-scale gasification tests have been suc-
cessful, yielding at least a 70 percent carbon conversion In a
single 0.3-second pass through the reactor. The level of
contaminants in the product gas is very low, and the process
produces a dry, granular, free-flowing slag.
According to Thagard, capital costs of such a system
would be almost 10 percent less than those for current coal
gasification technology. This decrease in costs results from
the elimination of an oxygen plant, teed-preparation, and gas
purification equipment Operating costs would also be
reduced, since SCE could avoid using costly low-sulfur oil.
Hyd,ogasiflcatlon Proc.ás to be Tested — Rockwell
International’s Energy Systems Group (Canoga Park, Ca,)
wilt design, build, and operate a 1.1 kg/s (100 tons/day) hydro-
gasification reactor. The $18-million test program, a joint
effort of DOE and the Gas Research Institute, is planned for
fail, 1980.
The hydrogaslflcatlon process may be one of the most
efficient methods of producing pipeline quality gas from
coal. The unique reaction chamber employs a fuel injector
system similar to rocket engine designs. The reactor mixes
pulverized coal directly with hot 1093°C (2000°F) hydrogen to
produce gas with I heating value of 35-37 mJlNm’ (900-950
Btu/scf), The rapid mixIng (2-3 seconds) prevents bituminous
coale from caking and plugging the gasifler. Also, the direct
reaction produces pipeline quality gas, eliminating a major
part of the purification equipment needed by other
processes. Current findings Indicate the process has
potential for a 20 percent Increase In coal con-
verelon/utlllzatlon efficiency compared to other processes
under development.
Kilagu DemonstratIon Plant Planned — A $100-million
demonstration plant using Mile-Chalmers Corporation’s
(Milwaukee, WiS .) Kilngas process will be constructed near
Wood River, Illinois. Illinois Power is examining the process
as a way of using high-sulfur, high-caking Illinois coal to
produce low-Stu gas for their power plant. The Kilngas
project will use about &3 kg/s (000 tone/day) to produce 57
kWls (700 x 10’ Btulhi of product gas.
Recently, the state’s Energy Resources Commission
voted to allocate $18 million to the project, bringing current
funding commitments to about half the total needed. Illinois
Power, along with twelve other utIlities and EPRI, will make a
complete assessment of the project by the end of the year.
Depending on the assessment, construction could begin in
the first quarter of 1980.
NCB Plans P .o Uquef action Plants — Britain’s National
Coal Board (NCB) has started engineering and design studies
for two coal liquefaction plants. Each plant will use 0.26 kg/s
(25 tone/day) of feed coal. One will use a liquid-solvent ex-
traction process to produce 0.14 kg/s (13 tons/day) of fuel. In
this process, crushed coal Is slurrled with anthracene oil and
pumped to a dissolver where up to 85 percent of the coal
dissolves at temperatures of 370-450°C (698-842°F). The
resultant liquid is filtered, stripped of solvent, and then
hydrogenated over a cobalt-molybdenum catalyst.
NCB’s supercritical-gas solvent extraction (SOSE) pro-
cess will be used at the second plant to produce 0.08 kg/s
(8 tone/day) of such aromatics as benzene, toluene, and
xylene. In this process, one of the aromatic products Is used
as a supercrltlcal fluid at pressures of 20-27 MPa (200-270
atm) and temperatures of 573-673 (1063.1243F). The fluid
enters an extraction vessel where It contacts a heated bed of
coal. Coal constituents dissolve into the fluid and are pre-
cipitated from the extract in a separator operating at at-
mospheric pressure.
Construction of both plants is scheduled to begin in
mid-1980. Construction costs of around $60 million are
predicted.
High-Sulfur Coal Beneficial for Liquefaction — Pen n-
sylvania State University researchers are studying coal
samples to predict which coals can most successfully and
economically be converted to clean fuel oil. The University
has established a coal sample data base containing in-
formation on over 1,000 coals from across the country. The
data base has been extensively characterized and analyzed in
a series of experiments on 104 types of coals. Fourteen coal
properties were analyzed to determine which properties have
a significant effect on the liquefaction process.
An unexpected result is that coals with higher sulfur
levels or certain macorals (organic materials derived from
different plant organs) are more readily liquefied. Resear-
chers do not know why sulfur content is important but
speculate that during liquefaction the sulfur Is converted
into pyrrhotite, a mineral with catalytic properties.
Cresap Liquefaction Test Facility in Full Operation —
DOE’s liquefaction test facility at Cresap, W. V., has been
brought on-line for sustained integrated operation. The
facility integrates two separate steps: the first is extract and
solvent production and extract storage, and the second Is
the hydrogenation process. The hydrogenation unit has
been tested on a continual basis for more than 400 hours.
Mechanical difficulties encountered with the high-pressure
heat pumps used in the hydrogenation process are con-
sidered solvable. The Cresap facIlity represents the largest
scale at which hydrogenation technology has been
operated. Conoco Coal Development Company’s de.ashing
process is also being used on an unprecedented scale at
Cresap. So far, this process has proven mechanically
reliable.
New Process for High-Ash Coals Tested in West Ger-
many — A new coal gasification process Is being tested at a
$9-million 0.38 kg/s (1.5 tonslhr) plant at Hueckeihoven, West
Germany. The process, especially suitable for gasifying high-
ash coal, was developed by Projektierlng Chemischer
Verfthrenstechnlk, a subsidiary of the Flick Group.
The new process can treat coal with an ash content of
up to 40 percent. Since high temperature coke is the only
feedstock used, the raw product gas contains easily
removable impurities, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen
sulfide.
Air rather than oxygen is fed directly to the gasifier,
eliminating the need for an oxygen plant. However, this
practice does yield a product gas with significant nitrogen
levels, which reduces the heating value and makes the
process most suitable for low- or medium-Btu fuel needs.
Study to Examine Health Effects of Liquefaction
Processes — DOE’s Energy Technology and Environment
Divisions are planning a five-year study of the health effects
of coal liquids. In the first phase of the study, Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories will assess DOE’s solvent
refined coal (SRC) pilot plant at Fort Lewis, Washington.
Subsequent phases, to be carried out by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and others, will examine the H-coal and the
Exxon donor solvent processes.
Earlier studies have shown that coal liquids, particularly
the heavier fractions, contain carcinogenic materials. The
DOE study will take samples from several stages of the
production process and examine them for toxicity, carcino-
genicity, mutagenicity, and other properties. The goal is to
identify those stages of the process with the potential for
exposing workers to harmful substances, so that protective
measures can be developed.
6
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 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
Radian Corporation
William J. Rhodes
of Low/Medium-Btu
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
IERL-RTP
Gasification
(March 1976-November 1979)
Austin, TX 78766
(512) 454-4797
(Gordon C. Page)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Environmental Assessment
TRW, Inc.
William J. Rhodes
of High-Btu Gasification
1 Space Park
IERL-RTP
(April 1977-April 1980)
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(213) 536-4105
(Chuck Murray)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Environmental Assessment
Hittman Associates, Inc.
William J. Rhodes
of Coal Liquefaction
9190 Red Branch Road
IERL-RTP
(August 1976-October 1979)
Columbia, MD 21043
(301) 730-7600
(Wayne Morris)
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Acid Gas Cleaning
North Carolina State Univ.
N. Dean Smith
Bench Scale Unit
Department of Chemical Engineering
IERL-RTP
(October 1976-September 1981)
Raleigh NC 27607
Environmental Protection Agency
(Grant)
(919) 737-2324
(James Ferrell)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Water Treating Bench
Univ. of North Carolina
N. Dean Smith
Scale Unit
Department of Environmental
IERL-RTP
(November 1976-October 1981)
Sciences and Engineering
Environmental Protection Agency
(Grant)
School of Public Health
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 966-1023
(Phillip Singer)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Pollutant Identification
Research Triangle Institute
N. Dean Smith
From a Bench Scale Unit
P.O. Box 12194
IERL-RTP
(November 1976-October 1981)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Environmental Protection Agency
(Grant)
(919) 541-6000
(Forest Mixon)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
lhree control technology projects pre
viously listed here have been terminated due to t
he lack of available funds.
REPORT SUMMARIES
Environmental Assessment Data
Base for Coal Liquefaction Technology
Volume I — Systems for Fourteen
Liquefaction Processes
by
C. Koralek and S. S. Patel
Hittman Associates, Inc.
Volume I of this report (EPA-60017-78-184a) is part of
EPA’s current data base for the environmental assessment
of coal liquefaction technology. Ii is an assessment of 14
coal liquefaction systems now under development. In
general, these liquefaction operations begin with pretreat-
ment of the coal. Coal feed must be reduced to the required
particle size and either dried or slurried by mixing with a
process-derived slurry. In the liquefaction operation,
7
-------
Ea*osatal R of Syiams Foils
M,ist 1919
hydrogen is added and the components in the coal
dissociate. These components are then separated from the
coal residues through a variety of operations. The resulting
products and by-products are purified, upgraded, and refined.
The study data for the fourteen systems examined In
Volume I Include process descriptions, flow diagrams, and
lists of the materials entering and leaving each 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, identifiable raw
materials, products, and discharge streams. A general
discussion of potential, applicable control techniques Is pre-
sented, along with the current status and development plans
for the fourteen coal liquefaction systems.
The fourteen processes addressed in Volume I are:
Solvent Refined Coal (SRC)
• H-Coal
• Exxon Donor Solvent
• Consol Synthetic Fuel
• Clean Coke
• Supercrltlcal Gas Extraction
• Fiecher-Tropsch
• Methanol
• Co-Steam
• Syntholi
• COED
• Liqul-Coal
• Toscqal
These processes are grouped into the general
technology categories of hydrogenation, pyrolysis and hydro.
carbonization, and extraction and gasification followed by
catalytic synthesis.
The hydrogenation processes are the most advanced.
Two SRC pilot plants are successfully operating. A full scale
test of the combustion characteristics of solvent refined coal
(SRC-l) was conducted In the spring of 1977. Construction of
an H-Coal process pilot plant is nearing completion. When
operational, this facility will be the largest liquefaction plant
in the United States. A pilot demonstration of the Exxon
Donor Solvent (EDS) process Is also planned. A 227-metric
ton (250-ton) per day pilot plant will be built at Baytown,
Texas, as a joint government-industry project. Plans are for
operation to begin in FY 80 in this major development effort.
Pyrolysis and hydrocarbonlzation projects Include two
primary efforts: the Char-Oil-Energy-Development (COED) and
Coalcon processes. COED has progressed successfully
through the pilot plant stage, and work on this process has
been terminated — however, the developers are pursuing
related efforts. The Coalcon process developers, faced with
escalating costs as well as technical problems, have ter-
mInated plans for constructing a pilot plant. All processes in
this category will have the disadvantage of comparatively low
thermal efficiency.
The Supercritical Gas Extraction process has not been
developed beyond the laboratory stage. In systems using
gasification followed by catalytic synthesis, carbon
monoxide and hydrogen (produced In the gaslfler) react in
the presence of a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst to produce a wide
variety of liquid products.
The multImedIa waste streams produced by these
processes must be characterized to supply the information
necessary for environmental assessment. Hlttman is now
formulating test plans and contacting system developers to
fill these data gaps.
Environmental Assessment Data
Base for Coal Liquefaction Technology:
Volume H — Synthoil, H-Coal, and
Exxon Donor Solvent Processes
by
C. 1. Parker and D. I. Dykstra, Editors
Hittman Associates, Inc.
Four coil liquefaction processes are generally con-
sidered the most technologically advanced at this poInt in
time: Solvent Refined Coal (SRC)I H-Coal, Exxon Donor
Solvent (EDS) and Synthoil. This study (EPA-80W7-78-184b) is
an environmental characterization of three of these
processes Qf.Coal, EDS, and Syntholl). It Includes an In-
tegrated multimedia assessment of the discharges to the
environment from conceptualized 0.09 m’ls (50,000 bbl!day)
systems. The fourth process mentioned above, SRC, is
specifically addressed In the Standards of Practice MaAuaF
for the Solvent Refined Coal Process (EPA-60017-78-091, see
the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Volume 2,
Number 2)
Events since lnItiatiot of this study indicate that the
Synthoil process will not be developed to a larger scale.
However, since work was already completed on this process,
the information was included in the report.
The H-Coal, EDS, and Syntholl liquefaction processes
have similar products and wastes. The amounts and com-
posItions of these materials are functions of several
variables:
• Composition of the feed coal.
• Treatment and control technology.
Operating conditions.
• Operations and auxiliary processes such as coal
preparation; generation of hydrogen, oxygen, steam, and
electricity; and by-product recovery.
8
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
Auqust 1979
Generally these variables have a greater influence on the
environmental discharges, impacts, and needed safeguards
than the specific liquefaction process itself.
For the purposes of this report, components of the
three coal liquefaction processes were compared and
grouped Into two categories: (1) general operations common
to all three systems, and (2) operations specific to each
system.
General operations, processes, and facilities include
coal preparation; heat and power generation; cooling water
provision; hydrogen and oxygen generation; storage for raw
materials; waste treatment and control installation; and
personnel and process-related buildings, storage, and trans-
portation facilities. Environmental discharges, with the
possible exception of hydrogen generation, can be estimated
directly from similar installations In other industries.
Operations and processes specific for each system
include hydrogenation, phase separations, and acid gas
treatment. Other operations and processes will be present
for specific system variations. The product and waste stream
discharges from this portion of the system were not
estimated from a similar facility, since there is none. Instead,
product and waste stream discharges for this portion of the
system have been estimated from information available as of
September 1977 for bench-scale, PDU, and pilot plant units.
Waste Characterizations
Substantial effort In this study was devoted to
characterizing emissions. Tables 1, 2, and 3 Illustrate the
results for gaseous, solid, and aqueous discharges
generated by conceptualized systems using the three
processes.
Environmental Effects
In line with earlier research on available technology to
remove or control wastes such as hydrogen sulfide, sulfur
dioxide, ammonia, and phenols, the most critical concerns
over potential environmental effects are with the lesser-
volume waste and product components, such as trace
elements and biologically active organics. This is true par-
tially because, while some attention is being addressed to
the high-volume pollutants, neither the presence nor the
effects of these lesser-volume substances have been
quantified at this time. A detailed discussion of current
STREAM
Total
HS
NH ,
CO 2
Hydrocarbons
H20
TABLE 1. GASEOUS DISCHARGES FROM COAL LIQUEFACTION
PROCESSES’
659
2-10 ppm
0.5
493
20
145
553
2-10 ppm
7.5
540
3.9
SYNTHOIL
1,169
2-10 ppm
5.7
988
42
133
Acid Gas From Hydrogen
Purification
Total
H ,S
NH,
CO 2
so 2
HCN
N 2
NO,,
Flue Gas From Heal
and Power Generation
Total
SO 2
NO,,
Acid Gas From Product
PurIfication
PROCESS 2
H-COAL
EDS
8,789
6,146
8,395
2-10 ppm
2-10 ppm
2-10 ppm
0.9
0.6
0.9
8,738
6,110
8,346
Trace
50.8
Trace
Trace
35-4
Trace
Trace
48
Trace
18.7
‘Facility is a conceptual 0.09 m ’Is (50,000 bbl/day) plant.
‘Units are in metric tons per day except where indicated otherwise.
9
-------
Ea*eementd Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
knowledge regarding their possible presence, known
behavior, and potential for environmental impact is included
in this study. On the basis of very limited information, it
appears that the environmental effects of discharges from
coal liquefaction complexes will lie between those from
petroleum refineries and those from coal tar facilities.
To supplement this environmental or health charac-
terization study, it is recommended that the following in-
vestigative priority be established:
(1) QuantIfy process wastewater streams and their com-
position, using the control assay procedure approach of
IERL-RTP methodologies. Laboratory experiments
should first be run for oil separation, suspended solids
removal, soluble organics, phenol extraction, and carbon
adsorption. Analyses should then be made for the oil,
water, and solid phase compositions, particularly for
trace elements and biologically active organics.
Hydrogen Generation
Discharges
1444
722
722
(2) Similarly quantify gas stream compositions both before
and after treatment. Special attention should be given to
trace components.
(3) Determine product, solid waste, and residue corn-
positions. Analyses should be primarily aimed at known
toxic and hazardous chemicals.
(4) Assemble all known information to form a data base and
model for determining plant discharges to the en-
vironment.
(5) Supplement information present in Multimedia En-
vironmental Goals (MEGs) with other known Information
on the toxicological properties of identified product and
waste constituents.
(6) Perform environmental assessment of coal liquefaction
processes.
PROCESS 2
2,106
1,445
661
SYNTHOIL
206
98
108
Total Wet Ash
Ash
Water
Discharges froni Heat
and Power Generation
Boiler Ash
SOz Scrubber Sludge
Coal Preparation
Discharges
Total
Dry Refuse
Wet Refuse and Tailings
Dust Partlculates
1,889
1,116
773
1 ,007
998
9
2,600
1,051
1,548
7,175
1,451
5,715
9
3,526
2,115
1,411
1,279
1,270
9
TABLE 2.
STREAM
RESIDUE AND SOLID WASTE DISCHARGES
FROM COAL LIQUEFACTION PROCESSES 1
Process Rssldues*
Total
Organic
Ash
H.COAL
EDS
557
4,744
‘Facility is a conceptual 0.09 m 3 Is (50,000 bbllday) plant.
Units are In metric tons per day except where indicated otherwise.
3 Based on excess of that required for hydrogen generation. Does not include spent catalyst and other miscellaneous solid wates.
1 Dry coal preparation techniques used.
5 Wet coal preparation techniques used.
10
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
TABLE 3. AQUEOUS DISCHARGES FROM COAL LIQUEFACTION PROCESSES 1
STREAM PROCESS 2
Total
H S
Oil
Phenols
NH3
Hydrogen Generation
Discharges 3
Cooling Tower Blowdown
H-COAL
EDS
SYNTHOIL
4,154
1,776
3,411
0.15 ppm
0.15 ppm
0.15 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
0.1 ppm
loppm
l oppm
loppm
Total 563
Coal Preparation
Discharges
Total
Water
Tailings
Coal Pile Runoff 63.5
‘Facility is a conceptual 0.09 m 3 /s (50,000 bbl!day) plant.
‘Units are in metric tons per day except where indicated otherwise.
MEETING CALENDAR
1979 Intersoclety Energy Conversion Engineering Con.
ference, August 5-10, 1979, Boston, MA. Contact: Barbara
Hodsdon, Manager of Meetings and Expositions, 1155 16th
St., NW., Washington, DC 20036.
ALChE 87th NatIonal Meeting, August 19-22, 1979, Boston
MA. Contact: Ralph A. Buonopane, Department of Chemical
Engineering. Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Ave.,
Boston MA 02115.
1979 SymposIum on instrumentation and Controi 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 Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439; telephone (312)
972-5585.
10th World Petroleum Congress, September 1979 (dates not
known), Bucharest, Romania. Contact: William F. O’Keete,
American Petroleum InstItute, 2101 L St., NW, Washington,
DC 20037.
178th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society,
September 9-14, 1979. Contact: A.T. Winstead, ACS, 1155
16th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036.
National Energy Economics lii, September 16-19, 1979.
Houston, TX. Contact: Charles F. O’Connor, Council for
Energy Studies P. 0. Box 7374, Tulsa, OK 74105; telephone
(918) 582.1582.
4th Annual Conference on Materials I or Coal Conversion and
Utilization, October 9-11, 1979, Gaithersburg, MD. Contact:
W. T. Bakker, DOE, Fossil Energy Program, DSE, Ger-
mantown Office C -156, Washington, DC 20545.
2nd international Coal Utilization Conference, November 6-8,
1979, Houston, TX. Contact: David I. Johnson, Coal
Technology ‘79, 6006 Bellaire Boulevard, Suite 101, Houston,
TX 77081; telephone (713) 665-5188.
7th international Conference and Exhibition on LNG and
LPG-Gastech 79, November 13-16, 1979, Houston, TX.
Contact: Gastech Ltd., 2 Station Rd., Richmansworth, Herts.
WD3-1QP, U.K.
72nd AIChE Annual Meeting, November 25-29, 1979, San
Francisco, CA. Contact: C. Judson King, Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA
94720.
Process Sour Water
Clarifier Overflow
Other
419
1,204
621
63.5
‘Koppers-Totzek Process
63.5
11
-------
Envlreementaf Review 01 Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
Fourth Symposium on Environmental
Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology
EPA’S Fourth Symposium on “Environmental Aspects of
Fuel Conversion Technology” gave participants an op-
portunity to discuss the environmental aspects of coal
gasification and liquefaction. Presentations emphasized the
environmental assessment methodology as well as results
obtained from research and field studies. The Symposium
was held April 17-20 in Hollywood, Florida. Over 300
representatives from process developers, process users,
environmental groups, and research scientists attended the
meeting. General Chairman was William J. Rhodes, EPA
Program Manager, Synthetic Fuels.
Session I provided a general overview of environmental
assessment, including methodology as well as specific
assessment programs. Several key elements of IERL-RTP’s
methodology were explained, such as Multimedia En-
vironmental Goals (MEG5) and Source Assessment Models
(SAMs). Other presentations concerned various en-
vironmental assessment and health programs sponsored by
EPA, the Department of Energy, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, the ElectrIc Power Research
Institute, and the Bureau of Mines
The major emphasis of SOSS’Jfl II was on data and
conclusIons from ongoing research and field studies. Several
gasification and liquefaction applications were summarized,
including the gasifier in Kosovo, Yugoslavia and the Solvent
Refined Coal pilot plant in Fort Lewis, Washington. Also
discussed in Section Il were some major pollutants
generated by coal conversion processes, such as phenols
and trace constituents.
SessIon Ill featured the evaluations of environmental
control technology. Topics included control assay screening
procedures, wastewater treatability, and control technology
for particulate and tar emissions from coat converters. Other
presentations described a gas cleaning pilot plant and
chemical analysIs and leaching of solid wastes. Water
requirements for synthetic fuel plants were also discussed in
Session Ill, as was the applicability of petroleum refinery and
coke oven control technologies to coal conversion.
Session Ill also included summaries of EPA’s regulatory
activities by representatives from EPA Program Offices.
D. Friedman of the Office of Solid Waste explained EPA’s
definition and regulation of hazardous waste materials. J. W.
Lum of EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Division described the
development of effluent limitations guidelines.
A comprehensive list of Symposium presentations Is
included in the “Recent Major Paper and Publications”
section of this issue. For orderIng Information, contact the
Symposium Coordinator, Franklin A. Ayer, Research Triangle
Institute, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27709, (919) 541-6260.
Ammonia From Coal Symposium
The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) Ammonia From
Coal Symposium provided a wide range of technical and
economic information on substituting coal for natural gas as
a feedstock in ammonia production. Approximately 300
participants from the U. S. and abroad attended the
meetings, held May 8-10, 1979, at TVA’s National Fertilizer
Development Center in Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
Papers were presented on a variety of topics, including
the overall processes and the individual unit operations
involved in producing ammonia from coal. Other papers
summarized the role of coal in the U. S. fertilizer industry,
the status of coal gasification today, and applicable en-
vironmental regulations. Also featured were descriptions of
TVA’s major project to demonstrate efficient technology for
using coal to make ammonia.
The Coal Gasification Processes Session included
summaries of several major processes:
• Lurgi Pressure.
• Winkler.
• U-Gas.
Koppers-Totzek.
• Texaco.
Papers presented during the Auxiliary Systems Session
described air separation plant technology, treatment of
wastewater effluents, ammonia production, carbon monoxide
shift catalysts, and carbonyl sulfide hydrolysis catalysts.
Acid gas removal and sulfur recovery systems were
featured in a separate session, which also included sum-
maries of operating experience at plants in India, South
Africa, and West Germany.
The final session on Future Plans and Projections
focused on the economic prospects for future ammonia
production and also on TVA’s project to produce ammonia
from coal. TVA’s demonstration plant now under con-
struction in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, will use the Texaco
gasification process to produce 1.4kg/s (135 tons/day)
ammonia from a coal feed of 1.8 kg/s (7 tonsThr). The facility
is scheduled for completion in 1980.
Copies of the Symposium Proceedings (TVA Bulletin No.
Y.143) may be obtained by sending a written request to the
Technical Library, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals,
Alabama 35660. (See also “Recent Major Papers and
Publications” in this issue for a comprehensive list of papers
presented.)
RECENT MAJOR PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS
Gasification Technology
Alman, W. R., C. B. Thorsness, R. W. Hill, R. B. Rozsa, and
R. Cans, Ho. creek II Flew Ezperlmewt on Underground
Coal Gasification, Preliminary Reeults. Report UCRL-80592,
DOE Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48. Livermore, CA, Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory, February 1978.
Anderson, Gerald L., Andrew H. Hill, and Donald K.
Fleming, “Predictions on the Disposition of Select Trace
Constituents in Coal Gasification Processes,” Presented at
the EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel
Conversion Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20,
1979.
RECENT MAJOR MEETINGS
12
-------
Environmental Review 01 SynthetIc Fuels
August 1979
Bailey, E. E., S. Brown, J. Anwer, and F. Bogner, “Winkler
Gasification Process,” Presented at the TVA Symposium,
Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Beck, Bruno, “The Koppers-Totzek Coal Gasification
Process,” Presented at the NA Symposium, Ammonia
From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Becker, P. D. “Lurgi Pressure Gasification and Its Ap-
plication for Ammonia Manufacture,” Presented at the TVA
Symposium, Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May
8-10, 1979.
Brown, R., J. Joiner, and B. McElmurry, Economic Study of
the Toscodyne Gasification — Combined-Cycle System for
Electric Power Generation, Final Report, Report EPRI AF-
930, RP 239. Irvine, CA. Fluor Engineers and Constructors,
Inc., October 1978.
Child, E. T., “Current Status of the Texaco Coal
Gasification Process,” Presented at the NA Symposium,
Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Clark, E. 1., “Coal Gasification — The State of the Art,”
Presented at the NA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal,
Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Cleland, John, and John Pierce, “Pollutant Evaluations for
a Laboratory Semi-Batch Coal Gasifier,” Presented at the
EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Con-
version Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Cornlls, B., J. HlbbeI, J. Langhoff, and J. Selpenbusch,
“Status of the Texaco Coal Dust Gasification Operating in
the Ruhrchemle/Ruhrkohle Demonstration Plant at
Oberhausen-Holten,” Presented at the NA Symposium,
Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979,
Cowser, K. E., G. V. McGurl, and R. W. Wood, “Monitoring
and Testing Program of Low-Btu Gasifiers,” Presented at
the EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel
Conversion Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20,
1979.
Fen’ell, J. K., It. M. Felder, and R. M. Rousseau, “A Coal
Gasification Gas Cleaning Pilot Plant: Operating Experience
and Initial Results,” Presented at the EPA Symposium on
Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV,
Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Fillo, John P., and Michael J. Massey, “Fate of Phenols
During the Gasification of Coal,” Presented at the EPA
Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion
Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Ghasseml, M., K. Crawford, S. Quinlivan, and D. Strehler,
“Environmental Assessment Report: High-Btu Gasification,”
Presented at the EPA Symposium on Environmental
Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL,
April 17-20, 1979.
Gibson, Elizabeth D., and Gordon C: Page, “Low/Medium-
Btu Gasification: A Summary of Applicable EPA
Regulations,” Presented at the NA Symposium, Ammonia
From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Hale, G. 1., N. C. Mohn, and J. V. Smolenski, Environmental
Considerations for L.ow-Btu Gasification of Coal for Electric
Power Generation, Report FE-1545-44, DOE Contract No.
EX-76-C-O1-1545. Windsor, CT, Combustion Engineering,
Inc., August 1977.
Institute of Gas Technology, Experimental Program for the
Development of Peat Gasification, interim Report No. 3.
Coiled Tube Reactor Experiments, Report FE-2469-1 7, DOE
Contract No. EX-76-C-01-2469. Chicago, IL, January 1978.
Lln, v_I. I., Structural Mechanics Simulations Associated
with Underground Coal Gasification, Thesis, Report
MERC/CR.78/4, DOE Contract No. EY-76-S-05-5088.
Morgantown, WV, West Virginia UnIv., April 1978.
Lummus Co., Hot and Dry Char Letdown System for the
Synthane Pilot Plant. Phase II Report, Report PERC-0058-
30, DOE Contract No. EY-76-C-02-0058. Bloomfield, NJ, April
1978.
Lummus Co., Prototype Pilot Plant Operation: Synthane
Process. Annual Operations Report No. 3, October 1, 1976
— September 30, 1977, Report C00-0003-14, DOE Contract
No. EY.76-C-02-0003. Bloomfield, NJ, November 1977.
Lummus Ce, Synthane Pilot Plant, South Park Township,
Pennsylvania. Run Report No. 1-DB. Operating Period:
February — August 1977, Report C00-0003-26, DOE Con-
tract No. EY-76-C-02-0003. Bloomfield, NJ, 1977.
Lyczkowskl, R. W., D. Gidaspow, and I. R. Galloway,
Hydrodynamic Modeling of Fluidized-Bed Gasifiers and
Combustors, Report UCID-1 7759, DOE Contract No. W-7405-
ENG-48. Livermore, CA, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,
April 1978.
Malow, N,, and A. S. West, Evaluation of the Batteile
Agglomerating Ash Burner High Btu Coal Gasification
Process, Report ORNLJSub-7240/1, DOE Contract No. W-
7405-ENG-26. New York, NY, Scientific Design Co., Inc.,
June 1978.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Criteria for a Recommended Standard... Occupational
Exposures in Coal Gasification Plants, Report No. 78-191.
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
September 1978.
Nitschke, E., J. Kell r, F. H. Franke, and E. Pattas,
“Production of Synthesis Gas from Coal by the High-
Temperature Winkler Coal Gasification Process,” Presented
at the TVA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal, Muscle
Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Northrop, 0. A., and L. C. Bartel, Instrumentation
Development for In-Situ Coal Gasification, Report SAN D-78-
0757C, DOE Contract No. EY-76-C-04-0789. Albuquerque,
NM, Sandia Laboratories, 1978.
Olsen, D. L., Market Opportunities for Low-and-Intermediate-
Btu Gas from Coal in Selected Areas of Industrial Con-
centration, Final Report, Report HCP112441-02, DOE
Contract No. EX•76-C-01-2441. Menlo Park, CA, SRI In.
ternational, June 1978.
Overend, Ralph, “Wood Gasification — An Overview,”
Presented at the Hardware for Energy Generation in the
Forest Products Industry Conference, Seattle, WA, January
30-February 1, 1979. Sponsored by Forest Products
Research Society.
Parsons, William A., and Walter Nolde, “Water Treatment
Needed in Gasification,” Oil & Gas J. 77(5), 157 (1979).
Patel, J. G. and 0. Leppin, “U-Gas Gasification Process,”
Presented at the NA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal,
Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8.10, 1979.
13
-------
Eavireomsettl Huvisw of Synthetic Foals
Assst 1979
S4a, B.dr, MIre Mitrovic, and Dragan PsikOVIC, “En-
vironmental and Engineering Evaluation of the Kosovo Coal
Gasification Plant, Yugoslavia, Phase I,” Presented at the
EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Con-
version Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL April 17-20, 1919.
SIIØI.ns , D. R., and K. J. Mlnksl, LLL tn-Situ Coil
Gasificadon Program. Annual Report Fiscal Ye.r 1977,
October 1979 — September 1977, Report UCRL-5003277,
DOE Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48. Livermore, CA, Lawrence
Livermora Laboratory, March 1918.
Thoma . Willium C., and Gonlon C. Page, “Environmental
Assessment Report for Weilman-Galusha Gasification
Systems,” Presented at the EPA Symposium on En-
vironmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV,
Hollywood, FL April 17-20, 1979.
Won, C. Y., J.T. Seers, and A. F. 0.111, Ails o f the C—COt
Reectle. In GasificatIon of Coil and Char, Report FE-0497-
T-8, DOE Contract No. EX-76-C O1-0497. Morgantown, WV,
West VirgInia Univ., Dept of Chemical Engineering,
December 1977.
Woo4 .a..oae, Donald E., Anthony H. Furman, and Joachim
K. Reese, Davslopment of and Exfnidr Feed System for
Fixed Bed Coal Gasth.rs, Final Report, Report EPRI AF-
954, AP 357-1. Schenectady, NY, General ElectrIc Co.,
Corporate Research & Development, January 1979.
Wyatt, J. Michael, “Tmatment of Waste Water Effluents
from Coal Gasification Units,” Presented at the NA
Symposium, Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL May
8-10, 1979.
V.., W., Coil GasificatIon Valuaar Phase I. Thermal
Analysis Report, Report FE-2355-16 (Add. A), DOE Contract
No. EX-76.C-01 .2355. El Segundo, CA, Consolidated Con-
trols Corp., December 1971.
Liquefaction Technology
Buddsn, Ki ith 0., and Sobhesh S. PaW, Air Emissions
from Combustion of Solvent Refined Coal, Report EPA-
60017-79004 (NTIS No. PB 290 946). Columbia, MD, Hlttman
Associates, Inc., January 1979.
Burnett, Joi st A. Jr., “The WA Project far Production of
Ammonia tram Coal,” Presented at the WA Symposium,
Ammonia From Coal. Muscle Shoals, AL May 8-10, 1979.
C. H., ‘1VA -NFDC Role In Fertilizer Development,”
Presented at the WA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal,
Muscle Shoals, AL., May 8-10, 1919.
Gales, Bruce C., “Liquefied Coal By Hydrogenation,”
China. Tech. 9(2), 97 (1979 .
Civsns, E. N., at aL “Hydroprocess Solvent Refined Coal,”
Hydrocarbon Proc.aiog 57(11), 195 (1978).
Moors , H. F., 8. T. Kim, and R. I. Ksnnods, “Synthetic Oil
From Coal — The Economic Impact of Five Alternatives for
Making Hydrogen From Coal and Steam,” mt. J. Energy
Research 3(1), 41-67 (197 .
Mozisy, C. Raymond , and DavId K. Schmalzsr, “En
vlronmental Assessment of SRC-Il — An Update,”
Presented at the EPA Symposium on Environmental
Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL,
AprIl 17-20, 1979.
O’Hara, J. B, it aL, “Feedstocks From Coal: How? When?,”
Hydrocarbon Processing 57(11), 117 (1978).
Reddy, G. N., Advanced Processes for Generation of
Electric Powsc Solvent Refining of Coal and Combined
Cycle Plants, Report CONF-7710101-1 1, DOE Contract No.
W-31-109-ENG-38. Argonne, IL, Argonne National
Laboratory, 1978.
Shields, Kevin J., “Environmental Assessment Report —
SRC,” Presented at the EPA Symposium on Environmental
Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL,
April 17-20, 1979.
Waltzman, D. A., 0. M. Spickard, P.C. Williamson, and 0. E.
Nichols, “Coal Technology for Ammonia Production,”
Presented at the WA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal,
Muscle Shoals, AL May 8-10, 1979.
Woodbddge, David D., “Initial Sampling of the Fort Lewis
SRC Pilot Plant,” Presented at the EPA Symposium on
Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV,
Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Other
Allen, Duane W., “Final Sulfur Removal In Ammonia from
Coal Plants,” Presented at the WA Symposium, Ammonia
From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
After, A., “Evaluate Sulfur In Coal,” Hydrocarbon Processln
58(1), 175 (1979).
Baughman, Gary L., Compiler, Synthetic Fu.1s Data
Handbo* Second edition, Denver CO, Cameron Engineers,
Inc., 1978.
Bush, W. A., and E. C. Sleds, Survey of Industrial Coal
Conversion Equlpm.nt Capsbliltlear Values, Report
ORNLITM-6071, DOE Contract No. W-7405-ENG-26. Oak
Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, June 1978.
“Compliance with Regulations,” Environ. ScL Technol. 13(2),
144 (1979).
Drury, Orcutt P., “Synthetic Fuels Implementation,”
Presented at the EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspect
of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL April 17-
20, 1979.
Dybkta.r, lb. “Carbon Monoxide Shift Catalysts and Carbonyl
Sulfide Hydrolysis Catalysts,” Presented at the WA Sym.
posium, Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL May 8-10,
1979.
Dzlsdeng., P. S., F. G. M.slch, and ft. A. Magee, “Sampling
and Analysis of Synthetic Fuel Processes,” Environ. ScL
TechnoL 13(3), 288(1979).
Engelbrecht, Andre, “Modderfontein Plant,” Presented at the
TVA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL
May 8-10, 1979.
Fleming, Donald K., “Acid-Gas Removal Systems,” Presented
at the WA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals,
AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Gasklns, N. H., and F. W. Sexton, Compilation of Level 1
Environmental Assessment Data, Final Task Report, Sep-
tember 1977 — June 1978, Report EPA-600/2-78-21 1 (NTIS
No. PB 286 924). Research Triangle Park, NC, Research
mangle instItute, October 1978.
14
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
Glass, Norman H., Environmental Effects of Increased Coal
Utilization Ecological Effects of Gaseous Emissions from
Coal Combustion, Final Report, Report EPA-600 17-78-108
(NTIS No. PB 285 440). Corvallis, OR, Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory, June 1978.
Gold, Harris, and David J. Goldstein, “Water Requirements
for Synthetic Fuel Plants,” Presented at the EPA Symposium
on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology,
IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Griffin, R. A., R. M. Schuiler, S. J. Russell, and N. F. Shimp,
“Chemical Analysis and Leaching of Coal Conversion Solid
Wastes,” Presented at the EPA Symposium on En-
vironmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV,
Hollywood, FL, April 17.20, 1979.
Hampton, Norman F., and Bonnett V. Ryan, Jr., Water Related
Constraints in Energy Production, Final Report, Report ATR-
78(9409).1 (NTIS No. PB 285 713). Germantown, MD,
Aerospace Corp., Environment and Safety Directorate, June
1978.
Harris, J. C., M. J. Hayes, P. L. LevIne, and D. B. Lindsay,
EPAIIERL.RTP Procedures for Level 2 SamplIng and Analysis
of Organic Materials, Report EPA.600 17-79-033 (NTIS No. PB
293 800). CambrIdge, MA, Arthur 0. Little, Inc., February
1979.
Institute of Gas Technology, Coal Conversion Systems
Technical Data Book, Washington, DC, U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1978.
Kappa Systems, Inc., Workshop Proceedings on Primary
Sulfate Emissions from Combustion Sources. Volume 1.
Measurement Technology and Volume 2. CharacterizatIon,
Report EPA-600/9-78-020a and b (NTIS No. PB 287 436 and
PB 287 437). Arlington, VA, August 1978.
Kennedy, D. M., L. Breitstein, and C. Chen, “Control
Technologies for Particulate and Tar Emissions from Coal
Conversion,” Presented at the EPA Symposium on En.
vironmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV,
Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Kingsbury, Garrie L., and James B. White, “Multimedia
Environmental Goals,” Presented at the EPA Symposium on
Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV,
Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Laska, Richard, Series Editor, Energy/Environment Ill, Report
EPA-60019-78 -022 (NTIS No. PB 278 776). Washington, DC,
EPA, Technical Information Office, RD-674, 1979.
Leonard, Joseph P., “SynthetIc Gas and Chemicals From
Coal: Economic Appraisals,” Chem. Eng. 86(8), 183 (1979).
Longaker, WIlliam F., Alfred B. Cherry, and Sohrab M.
Hossain, “Control Assay Screening Procedures,” Presented
at the EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel
Conversion Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Lum, John W., “Factors Considred In Effluent Limitations
Guidelines Development,” Presented at the EPA Symposium
on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology,
IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
McAllister, R. A., “Applicability of Petroleum Refinery and
Coke Oven Control Technologies to Coal Conversion,”
Presented at the EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspects
of Fuel Conversion Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-
20, 1979.
Maloney, K. L., P. K. Engel, and S. S. Cherry, Sulfur Retention
in Coal Ash, Report EPA-600 17-78-153b (NTIS No. PB 291 448).
Tustin, CA, KVB, Inc., November 1978.
Marsh, H., and P. L. Walker, Effects of Impregnation of Coal
with Potassium and Sodium Salts, Report FE .2030-TR6, DOE
Contract No. EX-76-C-01-2030. University Park, PA, Penn-
Sylvania State Univ., Coal Research Section, January 1978.
Pamell, David C., “Sulfur Recovery Processes,” Presented at
the TVA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals,
AL, May 8.10, 1979.
Perry, Harry, “Future Availability of Feedstocks for Ammonia
Production,” Presented at the WA Symposium, Ammonia
From Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8.10, 1979.
Phllpot, John A., and J. P. Leonard, “The Future Ammonia
Business: Market and Economic Considerations,” Presented
at the WA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal, Muscle Shoals,
AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Scharle, William J., “Air Separation Plant Technology,”
Presented at the WA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal,
Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Shay, H. D., R. B. Crawford, and J. T. Staehle, Energy and
Technology Review, Report UCRL-52000.78.4, DOE Contract
No. W-7405-ENG-48. Livermore, CA, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory, April 1978.
Straus, Matthew A., and Alan S. Corson, “Proposed Hazar-
dous Waste Regulatory Program,” Presented at the EPA
Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion
Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Todd, F. A., Sulfuric Acid Versus Elemental Sulfur as By-
Products, Final Report, Report FE.2240-54, DOE Contract No.
EX-76-C-01 -2240. Alhambra, CA, C. F. Braun and Co., January
1978.
Tomlinson, M., et al., Chemistry for Energy, ACS Symposium
Series 90 Washington, DC, American Chemical Society,
1979.
Torrey, S., Editor, Trace Contaminants from Coal, Park Ridge,
NJ, Noyes Data Corp., 1978.
TRW Energy Systems Group, Design Criteria for Lock
Hopper Valve Development, Report MERCIWP-7813, DOE
Contract No. EY-77-C-21-8085. Morgaritown, WV, May 1978.
U. S. Department of Energy, International Coal Technology
Summary Document, GPO Stock No. 061.000-00206.5.
Washington, DC, U. S. Government Printing Office, no date
given.
U. S. Department of Energy, EconomIc Regulatory Admin.,
Office of Fuels Regulation, Draft Programmatic En-
vironmental Impact Statement, Fuel Use Act, Report
DOEJEIS-0038-D. Washington, DC, U. S. Government Printing
Office, November 1978.
Van der Burgt, M. J., “Clean Syngas From Coal,”
Hydrocarbon Processing 58(1), 161 (1979).
Vasan, Srlnl, “Desulfurization of Tail-Gases from Acid Gas
Systems,” Presented at the P/A Symposium, Ammonia From
Coal, Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
15
-------
Environmental Review ol Synthetic Fuels
August 1979
Wagner, P., J. D. Olsen, E. M. Wewerka, J. M. Williams, and
J. P. Bertlno, High-Temperature COi/Oi — Coal Reaction
Rate Experiments, Report LA-7277-MS, DOE Contract No. W-
7405-ENG-36. Los Alamos, NM, Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory, May 1978.
Waterland, L. R., and L. B. Anderson, "Source Analysis
Models for Environmental Assessment," Presented at the
EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Con-
version Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
Wheeler, Edwin M., "Potential Importance of Coal as a
Feedstock for the U. S. Fertilizer Industry in the Future,"
Presented at the TVA Symposium, Ammonia From Coal,
Muscle Shoals, AL, May 8-10, 1979.
Witmer, F. E., "Department of Energy Environmental
Assessment Program for Coal Conversion," Presented at the
EPA Symposium on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Con-
version Technology, IV, Hollywood, FL, April 17-20, 1979.
16
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/IERL-RTP Project Officer is William J. Rhodes, (919)
541-2851. The Radian Program Manager is Gordon C. Page, the Project Director is C. L. McCarthy, and the Task Leader for preparation
of this issue is E. D. Gibson, (512) 454-4797. Comments on this issue, topics for inclusion in future issues, and requests for sub-
scriptions should be communicated to them.
The views expressed in the 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 recom-
mendations for use by EPA.
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)
Postage And Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA - 335
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Penalty For Private Use $300
An Equal Opportunity Employer
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.
------- |