ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
of
SYNTHETIC FUELS
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORY
VOL. 2 NO. 4
DECEMBER 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 En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) has Initiated a
comprehensive assessment program. This program Is
evaluating the environmental Impacts of synthetic fuel
processes with a high potential for commercial application.
It is directed by the Fuel Process Branch of EPA's Indus-
trial Environmental Research Laboratory In Research Trian-
gle Park, NC (IERL-RTP).
The primary objectives of the EPA synthetic fuels En-
vironmental 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/medlum-Btu gasification, hlgh-Btu gasification, and
liquefaction.
To achieve the overall program goals, EPA has defined
six major task areas: current process technology back-
ground, environmental data acquisition, current en-
vironmental background, environmental 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 9.
This Issue of the Environmental Review of Synthetic
Fuels summarizes recent activities In EPA's synthetic fuels
program. Activities of EPA contractors are covered In
sections on current process technology background and
environmental data acquisition. 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. This Issue also
features a description of EPA's terminology for en-
vironmental Impact analyses.
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 Corpora-
tion personnel Identified on page 19 of this Review.
CURRENT PROCESS
TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
General Topics
Environment*! Assessment Report* (BAR't) — Several
organizations have prepared EAR'S of various synthetic
fuels technologies. These reports are Intended to provide
EPA with a sound technical basis for the development of
•UMMleMh. Each EAR evaluates the multimedia waste
streams, control/disposal options, regulatory requirements,
and environmental effects associated with a specific
Fur many processes such as Solvent Refined Coal
(•HO), aotnal site-specific, commercial-scale data are not
y*t auMMe; in these cases, the EAR'S are valuable In
i preliminary data, evaluating assessment
and recommending additional R&D activities to
netessary data. The EAR'S will be revised and
updated M these data become available.
TRW, Inc.'s EAR of Lurgl Coal Gasification Systems
for SNG has been published; results are described In the
"Report Summary" section of this Issue. Hlttman
Associates, Inc.'s EAR of Solvent Refined Coal (SRC)
systems has also been recently published. Radian Cor-
poration's EAR of Wellman-Galusha gasification systems will
be available this winter. Detailed summaries of these EAR'S
will be presented In subsequent Issues of the Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels. (For more Information, see Vol. 2,
Nos. 1 and 2 of this publication.)
Gasification
Current Status of Low-Btu Qas/floatfon — Radian Corpor-
ation has prepared a summary of the status of low-Btu gasifica-
tion facilities In the U.S. as of June 1979. The information
compiled (see Table 1) Includes type of gasif ler, coal feed-
-------
En*sementel 1 Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
stock, and gas purification process as well as companylloca-
tion, and number of gasiflers.
As indicated in Table 1,36 gasifiers are installed or under
construction at 16 facIlities. Most of these facilities are lo-
cated in the industrialized Northeastern United States. The
predominant type of gastfler Is Weliman-Galusha(21 total), al-
though there are 12 Chapman gasiflers installed at one loca-
lion in Tennessee. Other gasifiers used are Foster Wheel-
erlStoic, Weilman Incandescent, and Riley Morgan.
The most common feedstocks at the facilities listed in
Table 1 are low sulfur anthracite and bituminous coals. Gas
clean-up generally involves only particulate removal via hot cy-
clones. Because coal feedstocks are primarily low sulfur, sul-
fur removal from the raw gas is practiced at only one facility.
TABLE 1. CURRENT STATUS OF LOW-BTU GASIFICATION
Weliman-Galusha
Weliman-Galusha
Anthracite, low
sulfur
Bituminous, low
sulfur( O.7%)
• Cyclone
• Cyclone
Glen-Gery
Brick Co.
— York, PA
— Reading, PA
— Shoemakersvllle,
PA
— Watsontown, PA
— New Oxford, PA
Hazelton
Brick Co.
— Hazeiton, PA
Binghamton
BiickCo.
— Binghamton, NY
National Lime &
Stone Co.
—Caiy,Ol -I
4 • One gasit ier In use
• Three other gasifiers
inactive
• Product gas used to
fire brick kiln
2 • Gasifiers not currently
in use
• Currently in commercial
operation
• Product gas used to
tire lime kiln
• Lime will remove some
of the sulfur
species In the
flue gas
Wellman-Galusha Bituminous, low
sulfur
2 • To be completed
in 1980
• Product gas to be
used in an
industrial park
• Possibility of adding
two more gasifiers
• Partial funding by
DOE and DOG
• Commercial-size
demonstration unit
• Partial funding by 001
and DOE
• First series of test
runs completed In 1978
• Additional tests scheduled
in 1979
• Product gas was used to
tire an iron peiletizing
kiln
• Excess product gas
was combusted
2 • To be completed in 1981
• Product gas used to
tire boilers and
process heaters
• Partial fundin9 by DOE
Gailfier
Coal
Gas
Purification
Company!
Number of
Used
F..dstock
Process
Location
Gasifiers Remarks
Weliman -Galusha
Wellman -Galusha
Anthracite, low • Cyclone
sultur( ’ O.7%)
Anthracite, low • Cyclone
sulfur
8 • Currently In commercial
operation
• Product gas used to
fire brick kiln
Weilman-Galusha Anthracite, low
sulfur
Wellman-Galusha KY Bituminous
CO Subbituminous
MT Bituminous
ND Lignite
• Cyclone Can Do, Inc.
• Gas quench — Hazelton, PA
• Cyclone Bureau of Mines
— Fort Snelling, MN
‘Cyclone Pike County
• Possibly gas — Pikeylile, KY
quench, tarlllquor
separation, waste-
water treatment
and sulfur
removal
(Stratford)
2
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
TABLE 1. CURRENT STATUS OF LOW-BTU GASIFICATION (CONT.)
Gasifier
Used
Coal
Feedstock
Gas
Purification
Process
Company/
Location
Number of
Gasifiers
Wellman-Galusha
Chapman (Wilputte)
Anthracite, low
sulfur(-xfl.7%)
Bituminous, low
sulfur (-vO.6%)
Foster Wheeler/ Stoic
Bituminous, low
sulfur
We 11 man
Incandescent
Riley Morgan
Bituminous
Several types
tested.
1 Cyclone
• Cyclone
• Gas quench
• Tar/liquor
separation
• Wastewater
evaporation
1 Cyclone
• Electrostatic
precipitator(ESP)
Howmet Aluminum
— Lancaster, PA
Holston Army
Ammunition Plant
— Kingsport, TN
12
University of
Minnesota
— Duluth, MN
1 Cyclone
•ESP
• Sulfur removal
(Stretford)
• Cyclone
Caterpillar,
Inc.
— York, PA
Riley Stoker Co.
— Worchester, MA
Remarks
• To be completed in
early 1980
• Product gas used to
fire process furnaces
• Possibility of adding
up to 11 more gasifiers
• Currently in commercial
operation
• Product gas used to
fire process heaters
• Only two gasifiers are
operated at onetime
to meet current
fuel needs
• By-product tar used with
coal to fire a
steam boiler
• Construction completed
in 1978
• Partial funding by DOE
• 100 hours of start-up
tests completed
• Full time operation
scheduled for fall 1979
• Product gas to be used
to fire steam boilers
• By-product tar to be
used to fire a
steam boiler
• Start-up scheduled
for summer of 1979
• Product gas to be used
to fire process heaters
• Commercial-size
demonstration unit
Updated 6/79
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
ACQUISITION
Gasification
Test Results Indicate Process Modification for Emis-
sions Control — In experiments with a laboratory gasifier.
Research Triangle Institute (RTI) has performed parametric
tests using bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, lignite,
and these same materials treated with selected chemical
substances. These runs were performed in the fixed-bed
mode with semibatch feed to the gasifier.
Reactor operating conditions which were varied in the
parametric test run sequence included coal particle size.
reactor pressure, steam-to-air ratio, and such coal additives
as potassium carbonate (K2CO3), sodium hydroxide (NaOH),
and inert quartz. Alkaline additives are known to catalyze
gasification and potentially enhance the retention of
selected elements in the reactor residue. Quartz was added
to modify the bed swelling, agglomeration behavior, and heat
transfer characteristics.
Gasification of Illinois No. 6 coal treated with KaCOs
produced several effects compared to gasification of un-
treated Illinois No. 6:
• Higher carbon conversions (97 percent and greater).
• Higher sulfur rec.'ciue retention.
• Higher chloride residue retention.
• Lower hydrogen sulfide (H2S) levels in the aqueous
condensate samples.
-------
invironments Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
In addition, both K2C0 3 and NaOH treatment techniques low-
ered the free-swelling index of the gasifier feed material.
Larger coal particle size (8 x 16 mesh vs 4 x 8 mesh) af-
fected the yield of three major pollutants. H S levels in the
aqueous condensate samples increased with the larger mesh
size, while gas samples showed reduced ammonia and total
organic carbon levels.
Operation at reduced pressure with North Dakota lignite
coal decreased chloride levels in the aqueous condensate.
The reduced pressure conditions also lowered the levels of
ammonia in the product gas when gasifying standard lignite
and Illinois No. 6 coal.
The varied coal types and operating conditions studied
resulted in wide ranges of pollutant production in the
product gas:
Pollutant mg producedlg carbon converted
The wide ranges observed, usually greater than one order of
magnitude, point to process modification (i.e., changes in
coal type, pressure and mesh size) as an approach to
emissions control.
Bioassay Studies indicate Potential Mutagenicity of Ta,
Samples — RTI has conducted the Ames test for mutagenic-
ity on crude tar samples and their fractions. The test
organism for these bioassay studies was the TA.98
Salmonella bacteria strain, which tests for frame shift
mutagens. Fractions were obtained from gasification test
runs of Western Kentucky No.9, Illinois No.6, North Dakota
lignite, and Wyoming subbituminous.
Bioassay test results are presented in Table 2. One
significant finding is that tar base fractions from coal
gasification tests with three coals — Western Kentucky No.9,
Wyoming subbituminous, and North Dakota lignite —
showed more severe mutagenic effects on strain TA-98 than
the crude tar samples from which they were obtained.
Gasification and Gas Cleaning Facility Provides Environ-
mental Assessment Data — The Chemical Engineering De-
partment at North Carolina State University (NCSU) has
started to operate a coal gasification and gas cleaning
facility designed and constructed by Acurex Corporation.
The purpose of this facility is to provide environmental
assessment data concerning both the gasification and gas
clean-up processes.
The gasifler itself is a pressurized (0.8 MPaLIOO pslgj),
fluidized bed reactor capable of gasifying a 6.3gls (50-Ib/hr)
coal feed stream. The raw product gas passes through a cy-
clone for particulate removal and is then routed to a venturi
scrubber for quenching and removal of condensables,
solubles, and finer particulates. Acid gas removal is ac-
complished downstream of the venturi scrubber in two
packed towers (an absorber and a stripper) separated by a
rich solvent flash vessel.
System start-up has been completed using high sulfur
coke as the gasitier feedstock and a refrigerated methanol
solvent for gas clean-up. Approximately 15 gasification runs
have been accomplished along with an additional 5 runs of
integrated gasifier.acid gas removal operation. Several runs
have also been made using a synthetic feed stream to the
acid gas removal system.
Future experiments will examine the influences of
several gasification process parameters (i.e., temperature,
coal feed rate, steam-to-carbon ratio) on pollutant produc-
tion, with special attention to the yield of sulfur gases.
Alternative solvents for acid gas removal will also be studied,
such as hot potassium carbonate and monoethanolamine.
TABLE 2. BIOASSAY TEST RESULTS
FOR CRUDE TAR SAMPLES
AND FRACTIONS 1
Potential
Sample
Coal
Mutagenicity 2
Base
W. Ky. No.9
High
Fraction
Wyo. Subbituminous
N.D. Lignite
Ill. No.6
High
High
Medium
Acid
W. Ky. No.9
Negative
Fraction
III. No.6
Wyo. Subbituminous
ND. Lignite
Negative
Negative
Negative
PNA Fraction
W. Ky. No.9
III. No.6
Wyo. Subbituminous
N.D. Lignite
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Polar Neutral
III. No.6
High
Fraction
W. Ky. No.9
Wyo. Subbituminous
N .D. Lignite
Medium
Medium
Medium
Non-Polar
W. Ky. No.9
Negative
Neutral
Ill. No.6
Negative
Fraction
Wyo. Subbituminous
N.D. Lignite
—
Negative
CrudeTar
W. Ky. NO.9
III. No.6
Wyo. Subbituminous
N.D. Lignite
High
High
Medium
Medium
‘Two additional Western Kentucky No. 9 fractions (Insolubles
and XAD-2) both showed negative potential mutagenicity.
These same fractions from the other coal types were not
tested.
‘Brusick, D.J, “In Vitro Mutagenesis Assays as Predictors
of Chemical Carcinogenesis in Mammals, “Clinical Tox-
icology, 10(1):79-109, 1977.
HaS
COS
Thiophene
Benzene
Toluene
Phenol
Benzofuran
3.70 to 36.0
0.27 to 4.50
0.01 to 0.67
3.60 to 17.0
1.70 to 5.80
0.06 to 0.92
0.01 to 0.17
4
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Liquefaction
Source Test and Evaluation of Solvent Refined Coal (SRC)
Pilot Plant — Hittman Associates, Inc., has performed two
Source Tests and Evaluations (STEs) at Pittsburgh arid Midway
Coal Mining Company’s SRC II pilot plant in Fort Lewis, Wash-
ington. The first STE, in March 1978, focused on preliminary
environmental assessment (EA) data obtained from the waste.
water treatment facility of the SRC plant and from the SRC-II
products. In February 1979 the second STE was conducted to
confirm earlier results and to perform complete Level 1 EA
sampling on:
• All streams flowing into the wastewater treatment
facility.
• All emissions to the atmosphere.
• The atmosphere surrounding the SAC plant.
Product streams consisted mainly of benzenes, phenols,
arid naphthalenes; considerable amounts of polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons were also present. Many pollutants (phe.
nols, naphthalenes, esters and such elements as aluminum,
phosphorous, iron, zinc, and ammonia) were present in almost
all effluent streams at levels greater than their respective
health-based discharge multimedia environmental goal
(DMEG) values. This is based on the assumption that the
most environmentally hazardous form of the substance is
present. (For an explanation of DMEGs and related terms,
see “Terminology for Environmental Impact Analysis” in this
issue.)
The SAC plant wastewater system consists of a surge res-
ervoir, clarifier, dissolved air flotation unit, holding tank, sand
and charcoal filters, and filter backwash tank. The first STE in-
dicated that this treatment system achieved a removal efficien-
cy of over 98 percent for total organics. During the second STE,
however, this figuro dropped to 95 percent due to a malfuric.
tion of the aeration system.
Emission streams monitored at various system vents
showed high levels of organic species, especially in the boiling
range of C 4 to C5 normal hydrocarbons. In spite of the operat-
ing Stretford sulfur recovery process, the feed stream to the
existing flare system contained high levels of sulfur species.
Airborne particulate emissions, collected by eight high-volume
air samplers at various locations, were below the Washington
State standard of 60 , glm 3 for air quality.
ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
DEVELOPMENT
General Topics
Terminology for Environmental Impact Analyses —
EPAIIERL-RTP has developed a terminology for en-
vironmental impact analyses. It includes three categories of
terms — primary, secondary, and component — that can be
applied to judge the environmental acceptability of waste
stream or productlby.product discharges from industrial
processes or energy systems.
Primary terms, which have been used frequently in IERL-
RTP environmental assessment projects, are:
• Discharge Severity (OS), a simple index of the
potential harmful health or ecological effects of a
single substance in a discharge. The DS does not
require modelling or assumptions as to how the
substance might disperse in the receiving medium.
• Weighted Discharge Severity (WDS), a simple index
that reflects both the potentially harmful health or eco-
logical effects of a single substance as well as the
quantity of the total discharge The WDS is similar to
the DS except that it is intended for comparative
evaluations of streams having significantly different
discharge rates.
• Total Discharge Severity (TDS), a simplified index of
the overall potential health or ecological impact of a
discharge. The TDS is the sum of the individual
human health or ecological DS values of a given
stream; in terms of human health effects, the TDS
covers a broad range of physiological responses, and
when applied in terms of ecological effects it in-
cludes both species and biological ramifications.
• Ambient Severity (AS), an indicator of the potential
harmful health or ecological effects of substances on
the basis of estimated long-term ambient concentra-
tions resulting from stream discharges.
• Total Ambient Severity (TAS), the ambient analog of
TDS. Its uses are similar to those for TDS; in ad-
dition, it may be applied to compare impacts of two
or more waste streams.
The secondary terms of the IERL-RTP terminology are
still being developed and have been used infrequently to
date. However, they may gain prominence as risk
assessment becomes more widely practiced in en-
vironmental assessment programs. Secondary terms include:
• Impact factor, a representation of the number of re-
ceptors (plants, animals, or humans) exposed to am-
bient seventies (or total ambient seventies) greater
than some critical value.
• Ambient concentration profile, a tabular or graphic
display of estimated ambient concentrations shown
as a function of distance from the point of discharge.
• Exposure concentration profile, a tabular or graphic
illustration of the number of receptors exposed to es-
timated ambient concentrations of substances attrib-
utable to a discharge of concern.
5
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Component terms are used in the specific definitions of
primary terms, as shown in the equation for OS:
OS = dcIDMEG
where dc is the component term for the discharge con-
centration of a substance, and DMEG is the component term
referring to the discharge multimedia environmental goal for
the same substance. Individual DMEG values for a substance
are related to health or to ecological effects and specify the
substance concentration estimated to cause minimal adverse
effect in a healthy receptor (man, plant, or animal) exposed
once or intermittently for short time periods.
Component terms for the WOS are used in the equation:
WDS = OS. mr
where mr is the total rate of stream discharge; i.e., the
quantity (g, m , or I) of the total stream discharged per unit
of time.
Component terms for the TDS appear in the equation:
TDS = EDS = E(dcIOMEG)
For AS the equation is:
AS = ac/AMEG
where the component term ac is the ambient concentration
of a substance attributable to the discharge of concern, and
AMEG is the component term for the ambient multimedia
environmental goal for the same substance. The ac is
estimated from mathematical models for environmental
dispersion. AMEG values for specific substances are similar
to OMEG values except that they are based on a continuous,
rather than a single or intermittent, period of exposure.
For TAS the equation is:
TAS = EAS = E(ac!AMEG)
TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
ILL ’s tdatlon,J Coal Boerd Seeks Europe.., Economic
Community Funding føt Coal Liqum’actlon Project — The
United Kingdom National Coal Board’s proposal for a $6.4
million grant to fund a coal liquefaction project is being con-
sidered by the European Economic Community’s (EEC’s)
Energy Commission. The EEC will commit some $130 million
‘over the next 5 years to efforts for development of
alternative energy sources. Some $68 million is earmarked
for gasification or liquefaction processes, while geothermal
and solar development will each receive $31 million.
While many of the proposals submitted in 1978 have al-
ready been selected for funding, financial support for other
projects is still under consIderation P”y the CommissIon. The
National Coal Board’s proposal seeks support for a supercrlt-
Ical-gas solvent extraction plant which will process 0.29 kg/s
(28 tons/day) of coal feed. The process hydrogenates coal
dissolved In a supercrltlcal fluid to produce gasoline, diesel
fuel, and chemical feedstock&
HRrs Fluld-ked Gas/tint Starts Up — Hydrocarbon Re-
search, Inc. (HRl) (McLOan, Va.), has successfully completed
initial tests on a new fast fluid-bed coal gaslfier at the com-
pany’s research and development center in Lawrence Town-
shIp, N.J.
The 0.07-kg/s (7-ton/day) pilot plant was designed, built,
and operated by HRI under a $4-million DOE contract. It dem-
onstrates an advanced gasification concept in which low- c
medium-Btu gas is produced for industrial applications, in-
cluding gas-fired turbine systems. Coal is fiuldized at high
velocities, and entrained material Is recycled to build up bed
density. Unique features of the system include Independent
control of bed density and fluidizatlon velocity.
Coal De-Ashing Unit Commissioned at Solvent Refined
Coal (SRC) Pilot Plant — Combustion Engineering Inc., a
subsidiary of C-E Lummus (Bloomfield, N.J.), has suc-
cessfully commissioned its proprietary coal de-ashing unit
at DOE’s SRC pilot plant at Fort Lewis, Washington. The
plant which has nominal capacity of 0.52 kg/s (50 tons/day)
of coal feed, is one of two coal liquefaction pilot plants in
the U.S. Lummus’ de-ashing technology Incorporates a
gravity settling process rather than conventional rotating
mechanical filtration devices.
DOE Plans Incentives for Syn fuel Use in Tran-
sportet lon — DOE’s Policy Division is engaged In a 9-
month study to develop a package of incentives that will
stimulate production of synthetic liquid fuels for use in
transportation. The incentives package would form the
basis for legislation aiming at increased synfuels use in
the sector by the mid-1980’s. Coal-to-methanol conversion,
coal liquefaction, shale oil production, and upgrading heavy
oils are the technologies likely to receive most con-
sideration In the study.
DOE Awards Contract for Synthetic Fuel Study —
Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Linden, N.J., has
be n awarded a $61,800 contract by DOE to study the
stability of synthetic fuels manufactured from coal and oil
shale. The 1-year project will be administered by DOE’s
Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Energy Technology Center. it will
include a review of existing literature and studies of the
effects of trace elements and oxygen compounds on fuel
stability.
6
-------
crlvlronmenta( t eview Of ynmeuc ruels
December 1979
Thirteen Utilities Expected to Participate in Kilngas
Demonstration Project — According to process developer
Allis-Chalmers, about three-fourths of the funding
requirements for a kHngas demonstration plant have been
tentatively pledged by a group including 13 utilities and
the Illinois Energy Resources Commission. The Commission
has allocated $18-million of the $100-million total
requirement.
The 6.29-kg/s (600-ton/day) gasification plant will be lo-
cated near Illinois Power’s Wood River plant. Construction is
to start in early 1980, with start-up in 1982. Other utility par-
ticipants include Baltimore G&E, Central Illinois PS, Consum-
ers Power, Iowa Power, Monongahela Power, Niagara Mo-
hawk, Ohio Edison, Potomac Edison, PS of Indiana, PS of
Oklahoma, Union Electric, and West Penn Power. The kilngas
process gasifies coal by steam/air injection in a rotating,
refractory-lined kiln.
CE Describes Energy and Cost Savings of Low-Btu Gas
to Senate Subcommittee — In an effort to gain
Congressional support for continued DOE funding of
Combustion Engineering’s (CE’S) pilot scale gasifier, com-
pany officials have presented economic and energy con-
sumption data to the Senate Subcommittee for Energy
Research and Development. CE is seeking some $3 million
from DOE for pilot scale tests of different coal types as part
of a program to develop a gasification system for the electric
utility market.
The program is directed toward providing replacement
fuel for the existing 65,000 MW of gas- and oil-fired boilers.
CE officials pointed out that conversion to direct coal firing
with flue gas desulfurization (FGD) retrof its requires sub-
stantial derating and more extensive boiler modifications,
while firing low-Btu gas requires little or no derating and less
extensive boiler modifications. Cost savings of 2 mills/kWh
were estimated for a boiler burning iow-Btu gas compared to
a conventional coal fired boiler equipped with an FGD
scrubber. Use of a higher efficiency combined cycle system
would produce savings up to 5A mills/kWh. Oil consumption
could be reduced by an amount equivalent to 12 percent of
present import consumption (1.8 m 3 ls [ 1 million bbls/day]) by
converting half the potential market to Iow-Btu gas firing.
DOE Proposes Multi-Purpose Coal Gas Facility — DOE
proposed a $500-million multi-purpose facility in its FY80
budget as a replacement for the cancelled Powerton, Ill.,
combined-cycle coal gasification project. (For more on DOE’s
cancellation of the Powerton project, see the Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, No. 2.) The newly proposed
facility would be designed to test up to three different
gasifiers simultaneously, thereby allowing DOE to move
quickly toward the development of a system to produce
methane gas from coal at costs less than those of current
technology. Coal handling and other necessary systems
would be contained in the facility and could be used by all
gasifiers tested, saving the costs of separate ones. The FY80
budget for DOE included $10 million for the conceptual
design of the facility with start-up in 1984 or 1985, according
to DOE sources.
The facility will be 15 to 20 times larger than most coal
gasification pilot plants and will have the production
capacity of 16.4 m 3 ls (50 million fVlday) of gas and 6.3 kgls
(600 tons/day) of liquid fuels.
Other details of the proposed facility were released for
the first time, including a suggestion that it be used to test
methanol synthesis and liquid fuels production via the
Fischer-Tropsch process used in South Africa.
Exxon’s Baytown Gasifier Ready for Testing — Exxon
Project Manager Allen Barusch says the DOE-funded
catalytic gasifier test program is ready for start-up. Tests on
the 10.5-gls (1-ton/day) system originally planned for January
1979 were delayed to ensure the adequacy of safety
precautions. Initially, the three parts of the system will be
tested separately, with integrated operation of the solids
handling and reactor section, syngas recycle operation, and
catalyst recycle expected in early 1980.
In the Exxon catalytic gasification process, ground coal
Is sprayed with a catalytic solution containing either
potassium carbonate or potassium hydroxide. In the gasifier,
the coal reacts with steam at about 704°C (1300°F) at a
pressure of 3.5 MPa (35 atm). Low-Btu gas is recycled in
successive upgrading steps and piped into a commercial
system. The catalyst is reclaimed and recycled also. The
process renders all coals non-caking, allowing use of a
variety of coal types, and also reduces the temperature in
the gasification step.
EPRI Investigates Coal Gasltier/Combined-Cycle Gener-
ating System — A recently completed EPRI study shows
that conventional gas turbines can be used in combined-
cycle generating applications with a Texaco coal gasification
process in electric utility service. Capital requirements and
thermal efficiency of the system were compared to those of
a conventional coal fired steam generator equipped with flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers. Capital requirements
are about the same for the two systems, but the coal
gas/combined cycle system using a gas turbine operating at
1,093°C (2,000°F) has a thermal efficiency of 37-39 percent.
Conventional steam generator/FGD system efficiencies are
around 34 percent.
The study characterized the Texaco gasification process
as “ready for commercial scale demonstration” on the basis
of “very significant achievements in the past year.” Such a
gasifier/combined cycle installation is planned at Southern
California Edison’s Coolwater site with a target start-up date
in 1983 or 1984. The 10.5-kg/s (1000-ton/day) gasifier, which
will be linked to a 100 MW combined cycle power plant, is
now in the detailed design phase.
The EPRI study answered several questions about the
utility of conventional 1,093°C (2,000°F) gas turbines in gas-
if ier/combined cycle applications. Development of all these
systems had been slow in the past for two reasons. One was
the misconception that advanced, high temperature (1427°C
[ 2600°9) combustion turbines would be required. Another
was hesitancy based on poor historical evidence of turbine
reliability. The EPRI study showed that poor reliability has
been associated with peak-load duty cycles, but turbines in
base-load duty at Dow Chemical’s Salt Grass Power Project
have performed with an average reliability of 98.7 percent in
130,000 operating hours.
High Sulfur Pelletlzed Coal Developed for Gasification
— Low-Btu gas has been successfully produced using a
pelletized fuel made from a high sulfur coal feedstock. The
coal pelletizing process, which removes sulfur, ash, and
other coal contaminants, includes such operations as mixing
with limestone and thermal fixation. The “Hefifuel” pellets
are produced in a proprietary process by McDowell-Wellman,
a subsidiary of Helix Technology Corp. Commercial-scale
gasification tests employing about 90.7 Mg (100 tons) of the
coal-based feedstock showed that continuous gas
production could be maintained with no equipment
modifications. The Ohio Department of Energy is providing
part of the funding for further development which includes a
feasibility study for a 2.9-kg/s (275-ton/day) plant.
7
-------
EnvIronmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
West Germans Develop High Temperature Winkle,
Process for Reactive, High Ash Coals — The Winkler
process, developed in the 1920’s, gasifies fine-grained coal
in a fluldized bed. Subsidiaries of Aheinische Braunkohien-
werke AG of Cologne, West Germany, have considerable
operating experience with the conventional Winkler
gasification process, and the company has started a major
development program to define economic requirements for
large scale gasifiers using the high temperature Winkler
(HTW) process.
An HTW pilot plant has been designed and corn-
missioned by the Uhde GmbH of Dartmund, the con-
struction and engineering member of the Hoechst Group.
This version of the process operates below the ash fusion
temperature using less oxygen than other processes and
produces a clean gas with no liquid by-products. Pilot
plant operations at Wachtberg, West Germany, using lignite
and other reactive and high ash coals have been con-
ducted since mid-1978. The plant capacity is about 028
kgls (26.5 tons/day).
FERC R.comm.n4s Denial of Certification of First Corn-
nw,clal Coal Gasltlcatian Plant — Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Administrative I..aw Judge Raymond U. Zimmet
has recommended denial of a certificate of construction or
sale of high-Stu gas from a prototype commercial hlgh.Btu
gasification plant proposed for Mercer County, North Dakota.
The plant would produce 409 m 3 Is (125 millIon tt 3 lday) of gas
with a minimum heating value of 38 MJINm’ (970 Btulscf)
using the Lurgi process and North Dakota lignite. Effective
integration of a relatively new methanatlon step with the well
established Lurgi process is a major goal of the project.
Judge Zimmet’s recommendation, whIch is subject to
voluntary review by the tuft Commission, would become final
after 40 days if no exceptions are filed. Denial of the permit
came as a result of Zimmet’s disapproval of the financing
plan proposed by the sponsor, Great Plains Gasification As-
sociates, a general partnership of five corporations which are
all affiliates of major interstate pipelines. The $1.5 billion
plant would be built and operated by American Natural Gas
Coal Gasification Co. The financing mechanism under
contention is the sponsor’s request that Its rate payers
absorb the debt portion of the financing In the event the
project fails. Zimmet’s opinion is that the cost of the product
gas, from $0.20 to $029/rn 3 ($556 to $8.29/thousand U 3 ),
should not be borne solely by the sponsor’s customers who
represent only a third of the Nation’s rate payers. Since the
country as a whole would benefit from learning whether it is
practical to manufacture and marke’ coal gas, Zimmet
recommended that the President and Congress consider
federal ftnancln
As this edition goes to press, It is understood that
the FERC is In the process of reversing this decision.
DOE Cost Estimates of Energy Alternatives Favor
9Ied -Btv Coal Gas, Enhanced Oil, and Enhanced Gas Re-
covsvp’ — According to DOE estimates, modlum-Btu coal gas
Is fast becoming cost competitive with Alaskan natural gas
and may already be competitive with Alaskan offshore oil.
DOE also indicated that the commercial viability of shale oil
production is also closer to reality than that of high-Btu coal
gas and synthetic gas from naphtha. But shale oil production
still cannot compete with medium-Btu coal gasification,
enhanced oil, and enhanced gas recovery. DOE submitted its
cost estimates to the interior Department as a part of
production goal estimates for offshore oil and gas leasing. A
methodology was developed by DOE to compare each
technology on a per million Btu basis and on its potential
contribution to the overall energy supply.
Soviet Coal Complex Under Construction — After suc-
cessful pilot scale tests of processes that convert coal
into products ranging from briquettes to fuel oil, the Soviet
Union is proceeding with construction of its first coalcom.
Both the acronym and the idea are borrowed from the
South African coal, coke, oil, and megawatts complex that
produces both fuel products and electric power at one
installation. The Soviet plant is being built in Krasnoyarsk
to process some 0.04 Mg/s (151 tons/hr) of coal from the
Siberian Kansk-Achinsk field.
Processing technology will follow the principles of
several coal pyrolysis processes (FMC COED, Lurgi
Ruhrgas, Toscoal, and Garrets) which produce coal liquids
that can be upgraded to liquid fuels The potential product
slate includes low sulfur coal for metallurgical use, coke
briquetted from low ash char and pitch, medium ash char
for fluidized bed boiler fuel, and fuel liquids from pyrolysis
of low- and medium-ash coal fractions.
Coal Liquids for Turbine Fuel — According to a paper
by Westinghouse Electric Corp., recent tests sponsored by
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) prove that large
combustion turbines can run on liquids made from coal.
Uttle or no modifIcation Is needed for the switch from
petroleum fuels. The tests apparently offer new hope for the
use of coal liquids for combined-cycle power plants.
Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) Demonstration Plant Design
Subcontract Awarded — Pittsburgh and Midway (P&M) Coal
Mining Company, a Gulf Oil Corporation subsidiary, is plan-
ning construction of a SRC demonstration plant under a
contract with DOE. P&M has awarded a subcontract to
Scientific Design Company for conceptual design and cost
estimate support.
Under the agreement between P&M and DOE, two
designs are called for, one for a demonstration plant
processing 63 kgls (6000 tons/day) of coal and producing
0.04 m 3 !s (20,000 bblslday) of oil equivalent products. Plans
for expansion to a commercial-sized facility are also called
for. In addition, the DOE contract includes a conceptual
design for a commercial facility five times larger than the
demonstration plant. Operation of the commercial scale
facility is planned for the 1990’s, with a product slate in-
cluding fuel oils, naphtha, high octane gasoline, ethane-
propane, and pipeline gas.
DOE’s LowAledlum-Btu Coal Gasification Program Re-
ceiving “Excellent” Response — DOE’s resource manager
for low/medlum-Btu coal gasification, Russell Bardos, says
he has received eight proposals, been advised that 20 to 30
more proposals are in preparation, and has received over 200
Inquiries about DOE’s lowlmedium-Btu gasification program
since It was announced on March 15. The program has ac-
complished its goals of stirring interest in coal gas and stim-
ulating potential users to study the technology. Most of the
responses received so far consider some type of combined-
cycle operation, and, according to Bardos, many are using a
gasifier developed by Texaco.
The program is currently limited to sharing the Cost of
sessing lowlmedium-Btu coal gasification technology with
interested utilities and industries. DOE hopes to use about
$4 million in partially funding 15 to 20 utility and industry
studies. Although no funding is provided for construction of
coal gasification plants, there may be some “incentives for
construction” in the form of tax relief.
8
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 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 LowlMedium-Btu
Gasification
(March 1979-March 1982)
Radian Corporation
3500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78766
(512) 454-4797
(Gordon C. Page)
WilliamJ. Rhodes
I ERL.RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Environmental Assessment
of High-Btu Gasification
(April 1977-April 1980)
TRW, Inc.
1 Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(213) 536-4105
(Chuck Murray)
William J. Rhodes
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541.2851
Environmental Evaluation
of Coal Liquefaction
(July 1979-July 1982)
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, MD 21043
(301) 730-7800
(Jack Overman)
William J. Rhodes
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Acid Gas Cleaning
Bench Scale Unit
(October 1976-September 1981)
(Grant)
North Carolina State Univ.
Department of Chemical Engineering
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 737-2324
(James Ferrell)
N. Dean Smith
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2708
Waterlreatment Bench
Scale Unit
(November 1976-October 1981)
(Grant)
Univ. of North Carolina
Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
School of Public Health
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919)986-1023
(Philip Singer)
N. Dean Smith
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2708
Pollutant Identification
From a Bench Scale Unit
(November 1976-October 1981)
(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) 541-2708
9
-------
Enviroamental R*VISW D l Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
REPORT SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment Report
Lurgi Coal Gasification Systems for SNG
by
M. Ghasseml, K. Crawford, and S. Quinlivan
TRW, Inc.
The Lurgi “dry ash” hlgh-Btu gasification process Is
sepeclally suitable for substitute natural gas (SNG) produc-
tion because the raw product gas has high levels of methane
and hydrogen and requires less upgrading compared to many
other commercial coal gasification processes. Although no
commercial Lurgi SNG plants exist to date, several have
been propoeed for construction In the U.S. Cost estimates
for commercial Lurgi SNO plants Indicate that an 81 Nm ’Is
(250 x 10’ scUd) facility will require a capital Investment of
wound $2 billion (1978 dollars), and an annual operating cost
of about $300 million.
The four basic operations of Lurgi SNG systems are
cost preparation, coal gasification, gas purification, and gas
upgrading. Associated auxiliary processes Involve pollution
control and utilities. These include the Lurgi-licensed
pollution control processes. gas lkluor treatment for tar and
oil separation, Phenoeolvan process for phenol recovery, and
the Unz-Lurgi process for removing dissolved gases. Other
environmentally significant auxiliary processes include sulfur
mcoveryltall gas treatment and on-site steam and power gen-
Table 3 lists the key proces. and waste streams as well
the associated constituents of environmental concern.
Since only a few commercial Lurgi non.SNG plants are In
operation (and none in the U.S.), many of these streams have
not been well characterized from the standpoint of toxicity
and trace constituents. Thus the nat ire and extent of their
potential ha lu we unknown.
Two gaseous waste streams of major environmental
concern we the concentrated acid gases from the Rectisol
process and flue gases from on-site combustion of coal or
by-products for steam and power generation. The volumes of
these stremna em about 1.4 times and 3 tImes the volume of
the Product SNG, respectively. Essentially, all the sulfur 0 .1g.
Inally present In the coal fed to the gasifler appears In the
concentrated acid ee , these gases also contain hydrogen
cyanide end hydrocerbons. The flue gases from on-site coal
ccn*3ustion it an 81 Nrn Is (250 x 10’ scfld) plant are
equtvelsnt In volume to those produced by a 250-MW coal-
fired power
- wtewsters from U.S. commercial Lurgi SNG plants
will be contained In ponds and either disposed of by solar
evaporation or reclaimed far process use. The major en-
*aflmefltal concerns In this case are (1) to provide suitable
methods for containing and treating wastewater and (2) to
dispose of the residues produced by such treatment.
Significant solid waste streams produced by a Lurgi
SNG plant we wet ash from the gasifier and boiler ash
quench systems, spent catalysts, and sludges from flue 1 gas
desulfurizatlon (FGD) systems. The wet ash Is produced In
greatest quantity; an 81 Pim ’Is (250 x 10’ scfld) Lurgi SNG
plant using 15 percent ash coal and on-site coal combustion
for steam and power generation Is estimated to produce an
estImated 57 kgls (5400 ton!day) of wet ash (20 percent mois-
ture content). As with the utility industry, the disposal of
such a voluminous quantity of waste can create a solid
waste management problem.
There Is generally more than one control technology po-
tentially applicable to a specific waste stream, as shown in
Table 3. However, because of the lack of detailed in-
formation on waste characteristics and control technology
capabilities, It Is not possible at this time to Identity and
compare all the options for air, water, and solid waste
management In a commercial Lurgi SNG plant Preliminary
studies of selected sulfur controls for concentrated acid
gases and flue gases, the two most significant gaseous
waste streams In an Integrated plant, indicate that:
• The greatest reduction In overall sulfur emissions
can be achIeved (1) by using the Stretford process to
treat concentrated acid gases and (2) by using
desulturized fuel gas for steam and power
generation; however, these options are not the most
cost-aft ectlvs.
• The most economic control methods are (1) the Claus
process with tail gas treatment for sulfur recovery
from HIS-rich acid gases, (2) the Stretford process for
sulfur recovery from H,S-iean acid gases, and (3) FGD
systems for flue gases from coal fired boilers;
however these options do not achieve the greatest
reduction In overall sulfur emissions.
• Incineration of concentrated acid gases in the utility
boilers and application of FGD systems to the
combined flue gases do not appear to be competitive
with other options both In terms of costs and sulfur
emissions levels.
At present there are no specific EPA standards for
Lurgi Sf46 plants, although, as shown in Table 4, several
acts mandate that EPA promulgate regulations that will
10
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
TABLE 3. MAJOR POLLUTANTS/PARAMETERS OF CONCERN IN KEY PROCESS AND WASTE STREAMS
AND APPLICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Product,
Censlituents/
Applicable
By-Product
Parameters of
Control
r Waste Stream Source
Major Concern
Technology
SNG
Tars, oils, and phenols
Naphtha
Ammonia
Final product
Raw gas liquor treatment
Rectisol process
Gas liquor treatment
CO,Ni(CO) 4
Aromatic hydrocarbons. polycyclic organics.
phenols, trace elements, toxic properties
Aromatic hydrocarbons and potycyclic
organics, toxic properties
Ammonia, trace Contaminants
In-plant process control
Prevention of leaks/spills, use of worker
protection measures, combustion for steam/power
generation, injection into gasitier
Prevention of leaks/spills, use of worker
protection measures, combustion for steam/
power generation
Prevention of teaks/spills, use worker
protection measures
Bosoms Wu Sfrmme
Lxkhopper and
transient waste gases
Concentrated acid gases
Sulfur recovery tail gas
Catalyst decommlsslonlng/
regeneration oft-gases
Combustion flue gases
Gasifler
Rectisol process
Sulfur recovery plant
Deccmm lssloning/
regeneration of shift
and mettianatlon catalysts
Onsite steam and power
generation
Sulfur and nitrogen compounds, CO. organics,
particulates, trace elements, toxic properties
H 2 S, COS, CS , HCN, CO. hydrocarbons,
mercaptans
Same as for concentrated acid gases
Metal carbonyls, CO. sulfur compounds,
organics, toxic properties
SO 2 , NOx, particulates. trace elements
Incineration and particulate control,
proper operating procedures
Sulfur recovery, incinerationlFGD
Catalytic reduction and H 2 S recycle,
incineration, incineration/FGD
Incineration and particulate control
Electrostatic procipitators, fabric filters,
FGD systems, and combustion modification
— WaW seames
Ash quench slurry
Clean gas liquor
Waste sorbents and
reagents
Combined plant effluent
Quenching of gasitler
ash
Ammonia recovery
Pollution control units
Ash quench, FGD, and
raw water treatment
Dissolved and suspended solids, alkalinity.
trace elements, components of the clean gas
liquor used for quenching (see below)
Sulfide. thiocyanate. ammonia, dissolved
organics, BOO. COD, pH, biotreatability
Sulfur compounds, trace elements, dissolved
and suspended solids, and other constituents
(depending on specific source)
Dissolved and suspended solids, COD. SOD.
alkalinity, trace constituents, toxic properties
Gravity separation, dissolved solids removal,
disposal of solids in containment pondsf
landfills
Biooxidation, use as cooling tower or
quench water makeup
Resource recovery, oxidation, dissolved solids
removal, use as ash quench
Forced or solar evaporation
Said WasW:
Gaslfler and belier ash
Spent catalysts
Tarry/oily and blo-
sludges
Inorganic solids and
sludges
Ash quench systems
Shift and methanatlon
By-product storage and
wastewater treatment -
FGO systems, miscella-
neous sources
Leachabitity. compactability, leachate
characteristics (including trace elements and
organic contents and touc properties)
Metallic compounds, accumulated trace elements/
organics, teachability and leachate
characteristics
Aromatic and polycyclic hydrocarbons.
trace elements, toxic properties
Same as for gasiher and belier ash
Disposal in lined landfills and ponds,
return to mines
Resource recovery, encapsulation. disposal
in lined landfills, return to mines
Energy recovery, disposal in lined
landfills, return to mines
Same as for gasifier ash
11
-------
Environmental RevIew of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
affect these sources in the future. However, many data gaps
must be filled to provide a comprehensive technical basis for
developing standards and defining control technology R&D
needs. For example, data are, almost totally lacking con-
cerning the types and concentrations of organics and trace
elements in all major waste streams listed In Table 3. These
data are required to identify those streams and constituents
to be regulated under the provisions of the laws presented in
Table 4. In addition, few of the potentially applicable control
technologies have actually been used on Lurgi gasification
wastes. Data from other applications cannot generally be
extrapolated to Lurgi SNG production because of differences
in process design and waste stream characteristics.
EPA is conducting and planning several programs to fill
these data gaps; the most important is the EPA-sponsored
multimedia environmental sampling and analysis effort
underway at the Kosovo Lurgi plant in Yugoslavia. Radian
Corporation Is conducting this program, which is the first
multimedia environmental sampling and analysis effort to be
undertaken at a commercial Lurgi synthetic fuels plant.
As the data gaps are filled, this EAR will be expanded,
refined, and updated. These efforts will aid the EPA Program
Offices in developing standards and defining control
technology R&D needs.
TABLE 4. STATUS OF EPA REGULATiONS UNDER EXISTING LAWS
WHICH WOULD AFFECT LURGI SNG PLANTS
Law Key Pertinent Regulatory Features Status of Regulations
The Clean Air Act Amendments
(P1 91.604)
• Develop New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for industrial source
categories.
• Preconstruction review of major
emission sources to prevent significant
deterioration of ambient air quality
(“PSD”) regulations:
• Establish emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants from
stationary sources.
• No NSPS have been developed for Lur-
gi plants.
• Emissions guidelines have been devel-
oped for Lurgi SNG to assist states and
EPA Regional Offices in setting plant-
specific standards.
• “PSO” requirements for S02 and
particulates and regional air quality
classification have been completed.
• Hazardous emissions standards have
been set for asbestos, mercury, beryl-
lium, and vinyl chloride.
Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments (PL 92-500);
Clean Water Act Amendments
(Pt. 95-217)
• Establish effluent limitations and
guidelines covering conventional, toxic
and nonconventional pollutants for new
industrial sources discharging into
navigable waters.
• No effluent guidelines have been
developed for Lurgi plants.
• A list of 129 toxic substances/classes
of toxic substances has been
developed.
• A list of industrial categories requiring
standards has been developed. The list
does not currently include Lurgi SNG
plants.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) (PL 94-580)
• Develop criteria for identification of
hazardous wastes.
• Develop regulations for handling,
transportation, storage, treatment, and
disposal of hazardous wastes.
• Identification criteria and hazardous
waste handling, storage, treatment, and
disposal regulations have been pro-
posed.
• Proposal has been made to classify
coal ash and FGD sludges as “special
wastes” and not as “hazardous
wastes.”
Toxic Substances Control Act
(P1 94-489)
• Promulgate regulations for the
manufacture, processing arid distribu-
tion in commerce, and use or disposal of
substances or mixtures of substances
presenting unreasonable risk to health
and environment.
• Issue regulations on testing, premarket
notification, and reportinglretention of
information.
• A priority listing of chemicals for toxic-
ity testing has been developed.
• No substance-specific regulations have
yet been developed.
12
-------
MEETING CALENDAR
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Energy Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Feb-
ruary 3-7, 1980, New Orleans, LA. Contact: Paul Drummond,
ASME, 345 E 47th Street, New York, NY 10017; telephone
(212) 644-8074.
IUPAC 3rd InternatIonal Congress on Industrial Wastewater
and Wastes. February 6-8, 1980, Stockholm, Sweden. Con-
tact: 3rd International Congress on Industrial Wastewater
and Wastes, Box 21060, 5-100 31, Stockholm, Sweden.
2nd Symposium on Process Measurements for En.
vironmental Assessment, February 25-27, 1980, Atlanta, GA.
Contact: Dr. Phillip Levins, Arthur D. Little, Inc., 15 Acorn
Park, Cambridge, MA 02140.
179th ACS Meeting, March 23-28, 1980, Houston, TX. Con-
tact: A. T. Winstead, ACS, 1155 16th St, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20036; telephone (202) 872-4397.
7th Energy Technology Conference and Exposition, March
24-26, 1980, Washington, D.C. Contact: Lauren Unzelman,
Energy Technology Conference, Inc., 4733 Bethesda Ave.,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20014; telephone (301) 656-1090.
RECENT MAJOR MEETINGS
5th Underground Coal Conversion
Symposium
In situ coal gasification and liquefaction were the topics
of a recent DOE-sponsored meeting, the Fifth Annual Under-
ground Coal Conversion Symposium. Over fifty papers were
presented during the 4-day symposium, held June 18-21 in
Alexandria, Virginia. The symposium consisted of nine ses-
sions:
Minisymposium.
• DOE Field Programs.
• Industry Activity.
• Economics.
• Instrumentation and Control.
• Environmental Studies.
• Mathematical Modeling.
• General Topics.
Laboratory Studies.
The Minisymposium included summaries of the National
Underground Coal Conversion (UCC) Program, field imple-
mentation of UCC research, private sector involvement, and
the role of UCC in the future. The session concluded with a
panel discussion.
Field studies and data acquisition were the topics of the
next two sessions. DOE-sponsored activities were described
in Session II, while Session III concerned efforts of private
industry.
Papers presented during the Economics Session
examined UCC from several perspectives, including the
chemical industry standpoint and alternative methods of
drilling and linking.
The Instrumentation and Control Session dealt with con-
ceptual and proven techniques. Several papers described field
experience and the resulting data.
Environmental aspects of UCC were featured in Session
VI, which focused on regulatory implications for UCC, related
DOE activities, and results of environmental assessment
studies performed at several sites.
The application of mathematical modeling to UCC was
the topic of another session; papers summarized a variety of
models which can be used to model such phenomena as
water intrusion, combustion front instabilities, transport
processes, reverse combustion linking, and structural and
fracture mechanics.
The final sessions of the symposium covered general
UCC topics and laboratory studies. General topics included
R&D potential in the U.S., foreign UCC research, and com-
mercial applications. Presentations of laboratory studies
discussed investigations of coal properties and reaction
kinetics as well as a review of supporting research at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
The Symposium Proceedings (Conf. No. 790630, May
1979) are available from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS). Each printed copy is $15.00; microfiche
copies are $3.00 apiece. Payment must accompany order.
The address is:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Rd.
Springfield, VA. 22161
For a complete listing of the symposium papers, see
“Recent Major Papers and Publications” in this issue.
Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium
The Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium concerned devel-
opments in the technology and use of low rank fossil fuels.
Since 1961, these meetings have been cosponsored by the
13
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Grand Forks Energy Technology Center of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE) and the University of North Dakota
This tenth symposium, held May 30-31 at the University of
North Dakota in Grand Forks, was an opportunity to review
developments in combustion, gasification, liquefaction, min-
ing, environmental control, and future use.
The extensive domestic reserves of low-rank fossil fuels
provide a major energy resource. Properties of these fuels
differ considerably from those of higher rank and require
different techniques for mining, utilization, and conversion
processes. Generally, low-rank coals have low sulfur content,
can be surface mined at relatively low cost, and are suitable
raw material for liquefactionand gasification as well as
electrical generation. Significant progress in the develop-
ment of these fuels has been made; however, many
technical, social, economic, and environmental problems
remain to be solved.
The symposium addressed many of these problems and
covered activities in the major lignite-producing areas of the
U.S. Also featured were presentations from Australia and
West Germany, two major lignite-producing nations. Several
solid fossil fuels were considered, ranging from peat to sub-
bituminous coal. Specific topics included gasification, lique-
faction, combustion, power generation, stack gas clean-up,
mIning, and plans for utilization.
Preliminary plans have been made to include expanded
international low-rank coal coverage at the Eleventh Lignite
Symposium In the Spring of 1981. ThIs meeting, to be held in
Texas, will be cosponsored by DOE and the Texas Energy
Advisory Council.
For a complete listing of the papers presented at the
Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, see “Recent Major
Papers and Publications” in this issue. The Proceedings of
the Symposium are available by contacting:
U.S. Department of Energy
Technical Information Center
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
RECENT MAJOR PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS
Gasification Technology
Advant, S.H., arid F.D. Omeindl, “Structural and Fracture Me-
chanics Simulations Associated with In-Situ Gasification of
Bituminous Coals,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground
Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria,
VA, May 1979.
“Air Replaces Oxygen in New Coal Gasifier,” Chemical
Week, 124(12):37, 1979.
Applsmsn, Jack M., “Regulatory and Incentive Factors for
Low and Medium Stu Market Growth,” Presented at the
Goffiam International, Inc., intensive Conference on Low and
Medium Btu Gas: Markets and Applications, Dundee, IL,
June 24-26, 19 .
Bardos, Russell, “DOE Assessment of Low and Medium Btu
Gas Markets,” Presented at the Gorham International, Inc.,
Intensive Conference on Low and Medium Btu Gas: Markets
and Applications, Dundee, IL June 24-26, 1979.
Badel, Lew Is C., ed., instrumentation and Process Control
Development for In-Situ Coal Gasification, Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Quarterly Reports: March 1978 through August
1978. Report 5AN078-2311. Albuquerque, NM, Sandia
Laboratories, Thermal Processes Division, December 1978.
Baflsl, LC., “Site Selection and Characterization for an Un-
derground Coal Gasification Process,” Proceedings of the
Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No.
790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Bombaugh, Karl J,, and William E Cerbett, “Kosovo
Gasification Test Program Results — Part II: Data Analysis
and Interpretation,” Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium
on Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology,
Report EPA -600 17-79-217, September 1979.
Boysen, J.E., and R.D. Gunn, “A Preliminary Economic Com-
parison of Directional Drilling and Reverse Combustion Link-
ing Methods,” Presented at the Fifth Underground Coal Con-
version Symposium, Alexandria, VA, June 18-21, 1979.
Brandenburg, C.F., “Field Implementation of UCC Research,”
Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Sym-
posium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Chaiken, R.F., J.M. Singer, and C.K. Lee, “Studies of In-Situ
Combustion in a Surface Trench Facility,” Proceedings of
the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf.
No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
“Coal Gasification for Electric Utilities,” EPRI Journal, 4(3):6,
1979.
Colaluca, M.S., MA. Paisley, and K. Mahajan, “The Tn-Gas
Gasification Process,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 75(6):33, 1979.
Cooper, George R., “Market Forecast for Industrial Gasifier
Applications, Session V,” Presented at the Gorham In-
ternational, Inc., Intensive Conference on Low and Medium
Btu Gas: Markets and Applications, Dundee, IL, June 24-26,
1979.
Cornelisse, C.L.E., H.J. Madsack, and E. Supp, “Gasify -
Residuum for Plant Utilities,” Hydrocarbon Processing,
58(7):126, 1979.
Davis, B.E., P.F. Ahner, ME. DoMe, J.E. MIranda, and R.W.
Genser, “Test Plan and Status for the Gasification of Steeply
Dipping Coal Beds,” Presented at the Fifth Underground
Coal Conversion Symposium, Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Draffin, C.W., “National Underground Coal Conversion Pro-
gram Overview,” Proceedings of the Filth Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA,
June 18-21, 1979.
14
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Edgar, T.F., ftB.H. Cooper, W.R. Kaiser, and M.J. Humanich,
“Technical, Economic and Environmental Factors for In-Situ
Gasification of Gulf Coast Lignite,” Presented at the Tenth
Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31,
1979.
Edwards, M.S.. W.C. Wrich, and R. Salmon, “Economics of
Producing Gasoline From Underground Coal Gasification
Synthesis Gas,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA,
May 1979.
Eliman, Robert C L.eland E. Paulson, D.R. Hajicek, and T.G.
Towers, “Slagging Fixed-Bed Gasification: Project Status at
the Grand Forks Energy Technology Center,” Presented at
the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND,
May 30-31, 1979.
Enviro Control, Inc., Tripartite Meeting to Review Control
Technology Assessment for Coal Gasification and
Liquefaction Processes, NIOSH Contract No. 210-78-0084.
Rockville, MD, January 1979.
Fodor, Ronald J., “Overview of the Great Plains Gasification
Associates Coal Gasification Project,” Presented at the
Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-
31, 1979.
Follidi, J.H., D. Varisco, R. Schraufnagei, and N. Day,
“Results of Atlantic Richfield’s Rocky Hill No. 1 Field Test,”
Presented at the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Sym-
posium, Alexandria, VA, June 18-21, 1979.
Foster-Pegg, R.W., and R.V. GarIa d, Screening Evaluation of
Novel Power Cycles Integrated with Gasification Plants, EPRI
Report AF-1002, Research Project 990-3. Eddystone, PA,
Westinghouse Electric Corp., February 1979.
Franke, Friedrich-Hejmann, and Ernst Pattas, “First Exper-
imental Results on the Operation of the High Temperature
Winkler Process In a Semi-Technical Plant,” Presented at the
Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-
31, 1979.
Ganow, H.C., and D.W. Carpenter, “Post-Burn Drilling Results
from Hoe Creek Experiment II,” Presented at the Fifth Under-
ground Coal Conversion Symposium, Alexandria, VA, June
18-21, 1979.
‘Gaseous Fuel from Coal,” EPRI Journal, 4 3), 1979.
Ghasseml, N. K. Crawford, and S. Quinilvan, Environmental
Assessment Report: Lurgi Coal Gasification Systems for
SNG, Report EPA-600 17-79-120 (NTIS No. PB 298 109).
Redondo Beach, CA, TRW, May 1979.
Goblirsch, Gerald N.., and Everett A. Sondreal, “Low-Rank
Coal Atmospheric Fluidized-Bed Combustion Technology,”
Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand
Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Graham, RH., “Underground Coal Gasification — From Re-
search to Commerce,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground
Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria,
VA, May 1979.
Grant, JF,, and JM. Fernbacher, “Tennessee Colony Steam-
Oxygen In-Situ Lignite Gasification Test,” Proceedings of the
Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No.
790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Grupping, A.W., “Lubac Gasification Process May Hike In-
Situ Output,” Oil and Gas J., 77(24):76, 78, 80, 81, 1979.
Haddeland, G.E., “Carbon Monoxide Chemicals from U.C.G.,”
Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Sym-
posium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Hagen, A.A., L.L. Meyer, and L.M. lipton, “Implications of
RCRA, SMCRA, and TSCA on Underground Coal
Gasification,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA,
May 1979.
Hand, JW.. “An Overview of In-Situ Lignite Gasification,”
Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Sym-
posium, Cont. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Haney, S.E., “Tennessee Colony In-Situ Gasification Project
— A Review,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA,
May 1979.
Hansen, J.S., J.E. Kelfey, and FW. Wood, Erosion Testing of
Potential Valve Materials for Coal Gasification Systems,
NTIS No. PB 293 308. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of In-
vestigations 8335. Albany, OR, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Albany Metallurgy Research Center, 1979.
Hill, R.W., DR. Stephens, D.S. Thompson, W.R. Alman, R.J.
Céna, CB. Thorsness, H.C. Ganow, R. Stone, J.E. Clarkson,
L. Bartel, and G. Davidson, “LLL 1979 Field Program,” Pro-
ceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Sympo-
sium, Cont. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Horton, W.S., Algorithm and Basic Computer Program for
Calculating Simple Coal Gasification Equilibria, Report
NBSIR-78-1509. National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
DC, August 1978.
Hommert, P.J., and G.S. Davidson, “Instrumentation and
Analysis Techniques for Future UCG Applications,” Proceed-
ings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium,
Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Jennings, J.W., and J. Russell, “Underground Conversion of
Texas Lignite,” Presented at the Fifth Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium, Alexandria, VA, June 18-21, 1979.
Johnson, John E., “Medium Btu Gas: Near-Term Constraints
to Petrochemical Feedstock Application,” Presented at the
Gorham International, Inc., Intensive Conference on Low and
Medium Btu Gas: Markets and Applications, Dundee, IL,
June 24-26, 1979.
Kashiwa, BA,, R.C. Corlett, P.E. Trujillo, G.RB. Elliott, and
N.E. Vanderborgh, “Kinetics of Subbituminous Coal Drying,”
Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Sym-
posium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Kirk, K.G., H.W. Rauch, and D.W. Gilimore, “Geophysical Sur-
vey Characterization of Underground Coal Gasification Sites
Near Pricetown, WV,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground
Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria,
VA, May 1979.
Krantz, W.B.. “Combustion Front Instabilities in Underground
Coal Conversion,” Presented at the Fifth Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium, Alexandria, VA, June 18-21, 1979.
Laglnskl, N.P., Gamma Radiography of Refractory-Lined Ves-
sels and Components, Argonne National Lab, Argonne, IL,
August 1978.
15
-------
EnvIronmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Ledent, p., and Chr. P. Beckervordersandforth, “Joint
Belgian-German UC.G. — Field Test in Deep-Lying Coal
Deposits,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA,
May 1979.
Mason, R.Z., and P. Hegarty, “The Chemical Industry Can
Benefit from Underground Coal Gasification,” Proceedings
of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf.
No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Massey, Michael J., and John P. Pub, “Status Report: Engi-
neering Contributions to Coal Gasification Environmental
Analysis,” Presented at the Tenth Synthetic Pipeline Gas
Symposium in Chicago, IL, November 30-December 1, 1978.
Mattox, C.F., and M.J. Humenick, “Organic Groundwater
Contaminants from UCG,” Proceedings of the Fifth Un-
derground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630.
Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
McClelland, RH., “LowlMedlum Btu Coal Gasification: Per-
spective of the Gas Industry,” Presented at the Gorham In-
ternational, Inc., Intensive Conference on Low and Medium
Btu Gas: Markets and Applications, Dundee, IL, June 24-26,
1979.
McGud, Gilbert V., Lowell C. MiHer, Edward kleIn, and Arvid
Strom, “Gasifiers in industry Experiences During Design
and Operation,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Sym-
posIum, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Mead, S.W., F.T. Wang, H.C. Ganow, and D.H. Stuermer, “En-
vironmental Studies of LLL’s Hoe Creek II Underground Coal
Gasification Experiments,” Presented at the Fifth Under-
ground Coal Conversion Symposium, Alexandria, VA, June
18-21, 1979.
M nls, F.P., V.J. Bartusica, and G.E. Maclet, “Applications of
Cross Polarization Magic-Angle Spinning Carbon-13 NMR to
In-Situ Coal Gasification,” Proceedings of the Fifth Un-
derground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630.
Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Molten, A., M.D. Mckinley, and G.W. Douglas, “ReactIon of
Coke Particles with Aic Effect of Diffusion on Reaction
Rate,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Con-
version Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May
1979.
Mohtmdi, M., d. tmlzer, F.H. Franke, and Chr. Beckervorder-
sandforth, “Hydrogasification of Bituminous Coal,” Proceed-
ings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium,
Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Mania, Joe P., and Dale L Kealrns, “Coal Devolatilizatlon
StudIes In Support of the Westinghouse Fluidized-Bed Coal
Gasification Process,” Fuel, 58(6):465, 1979.
Nakiss, D.V., R.W. Walters, and M.J. Massey, “Charac-
terization of Effluents from the BI.Gas Pilot Plant,” DOE
Contract No. EX-76-S-01-2496, Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie-
Mellon Univ.
Naks.., D.V., D. F. Hunter, and M.J. Massey, Test P’an for the
cnvironmental Characterization of the Bi-Gas Pilot Plant, DOE
Con .‘act No. EX-76-S-01-2496, Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie-Mellon
iiv., July 1978.
NutteD, H.E., A.E. Walters, and T.M. Niemczyk,, “Hydrologic
and Environmental Findings: San Juan UCC Site,” Proceed-
ings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium,
Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Parkison, W.E., “Field Experience with Texas Lignite In-Situ
Gasification Tests,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground
Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria,
VA, May 1979.
Raptis, A.C., S.H. Sheen, P.D. Roach, and J.F. Mach,
Acoustic Noise Background and Sound Transmission Tests
in a Slurry Line at the Hygas Pilot Plant, Report ANL.FE-
49622-TM-04, Report DOE ANL 189a-49622. Argonne, IL,
Components Technology Division, Argonne National
Laboratory, January 1979.
Riggs, J.8 T.F. Edgar, and CM. Johnson, “Development of a
Three-Dimensional Simulator for Cavity Growth During Un-
derground Coal Gasification,” Proceedings of the Fifth Un-
derground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630.
Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Salvador, LA., and S. Lemezis, “Low and Medium Btu
Gas: Economics and State of the Art of Technology,” Pre-
sented at the Gorham International, Inc., Intensive Confer-
ence on Low and Medium Btu Gas: Markets and Ap-
plications, Dundee, IL, June 24-26, 1979.
Sashihara, IF., 1.0. canby, R.S. Quinn, TA. Sensing, S.W.
Strungis, and S.G. Wellborn, “Low and Medium Btu Gasif ice-
tion — A Chemical Industry Perspective,” Proceedings of the
Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No.
790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Schwartz, S.H., “A Preliminary Model for Predicting Water In-
trusion Into a Cavity Formed During the UCG Process,” Pro-
ceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Sympo-
sium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
SlkrI, A.P., “Economic Evaluation of Underground Coal Gas-
ification,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Con-
versIon Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May
1979.
Spaulding, R.A., “Low Btu Gas From Coal,” Presented at the
Gorham International, Inc., Intensive Conference on Low and
Medium Btu Gas: Markets and Applications, Dundee, IL,
June 24-26, 1979.
Stephens, D.R., “Costs of Drilling, Completing and Linking
Process Wells for Underground Coal Gasification as a
Function of Linking Method, Coal Bed Thickness, and
Depth,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal Con-
version Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May
1979.
Stephens, D.R., “The Private Sector Involvement in Un-
derground Coal Gasification,” Proceedings of the Fifth
Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630.
Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Stewart, I., “In-Situ Gasification Research in Australia Bench
Trials of a Parallel Borehole System,” Proceedings of the
Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No.
790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Strickland, LD., J.W. Martin, &J. Liberatore, R.E. Zielinski,
and P.W. Seabaugh, “Initial Results from a Linked Vertical
Well Field Test in Bituminous Coal,” Proceedings of the
Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Cont. No.
790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Theis, Karl A., “Experimental Results on Operation of the Hy-
drogasification of Lignite in a Semi-Technical Plant,” Pre-
sented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand
Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
16
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Wayland, KG., “Resource and Development Potential Maps
of Federal Coal,” Proceedings of the Fifth Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alexandria, VA,
May 1979.
Welsh, John E., “Coal Gasification,” Presented at the Gui-
ham International, Inc., Intensive Conference on Low and
Medium Btu Gas: Markets and Applications, Dundee, IL,
June 24-26, 1979.
Westmoreland, P.R., and IS. DIckerson, “A Review of Sup-
porting Research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for Un-
derground Coal Conversion,” Proceedings of the Fifth Under-
ground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630. Alex-
andria, VA, May 1979.
Wieber, P.R., “The Role of Underground Coal Conversion in
the United States Energy Future,” Proceedings of the Fifth
Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No. 790630.
Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Wojdac, LF., and T.C. Bartke, “Hanna IV Operational Difficul-
ties — An Evaluation,” Presented at the Fifth Underground
Coal Conversion Symposium, Alexandria, VA, June 18-21,
1979.
Young, J.E., S.H. Wong, and J.E. Johnson, “Reaction
Kinetics for In-Situ Gasification of Western Subbituminous
Coal,” Presented at the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion
Symposium, Alexandria, VA, June 18-21, 1979.
Zukor, S.H., and E.L Burwell, “Department of Energy’s 1979
Underground Coal Conversion Program,” Proceedings of the
Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No.
790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Liquefaction Technology
DeRosset, Armand J., Gim Tan, and Lee Hllf man, “Upgrade
Coal Derived Distillates,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 58(5):152,
1979.
Glass, E.C., Andrew L Freeman, and T.O. Wentworth, “Meth-
anol Derivation from North Dakota Lignite and Use as a
Fuel,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium,
Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Kim, E.T., H.R. Moore, and R.l. Kermode, “The Cost of Hydro-
gen from Coal,” Energy Research, 3(2):143-155, 1979.
Maddocks, R.R., J. Gibson, and D.F. Williams, “Supercritical
Extraction of Coal,” Chem. Eng. Progress, 75(6):49, 1979.
Mitchell, Neal, S. Zaczeplnskl, and Ken Trazhte, “Per-
formance of Low-Rank Coals in the Exxon Donor Solvent
Process,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Sym-
posium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Schall, J., Compilation and Assessment of SAC Experience:
Data Book, Final Report, Report EPRI AF-1019, EPRI Re-
search Project (RP) 987-1. San Francisco, CA, Bechtel
National, Inc., March 1979.
Steinberg, M., and P. Fallon, “Flash Hydropyrolysis of Coal,”
Chem. Eng. Progress, 75(6):63, 1979.
Wilson, WG., C.L. Knudson, G.G. Baker, D.E. Severson, and
T.C. Owens, “Application of Liquefaction Processes to Low-
Rank Coals,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Sympo-
sium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Other
Abner, P.F., and R.W. Genser, “Helium Tracer Studies to
Characterize Underground Flow Paths,” Proceedings of the
Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf. No.
790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Andrawes, Fikry F., “Simultaneous Determination of Trace
Amounts of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Monoxide,
Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Ethane, Ethylene, and Acetylene
by Two Gas Chromatographic Columns in Parallel and One
Detector,” Analytical Chemistry, 51(3):462, 1979.
Bonne, UIrIch, “Combustion and Control Properties of Low
and Medium Btu Gases vs. Conventional Fuels,” Presented
at the Gorham International, Inc., Intensive Conference on
Low and Medium Btu Gas: Markets and Applications,
Dundee, IL, June 24-26, 1979.
Bonner, Billie H., “Particulate Control Technology and Oper-
ating Experience with Texas Lignite,” Presented at the Tenth
Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31,
1979.
Buividas, U., “Cut Energy Costs in NH3 Plants,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, 58(5):257, 1979.
Bush, J.R., P.1. Feldman, and M. Robinson, “High Tem-
perature, High Pressure Electrostatic Precipitation,” APCA
J., 29(4):365, 1979.
Christianson, Gene, “Energy Effects on Air Quality,” Present-
ed at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks,
ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Cushing, K.M., J.D. McCain, and W.8. Smith, Experimental
Determination of Sizing Parameters and Wall Losses of Five
Source-Test Cascade Impactors,” Environ. Sd Technol.,
13(6):726, 1979.
Daisey, J.M.. and M.A. Leyko, “Thin.Layer Gas Chromato-
graphic Method for the Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic
and Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Airborne Particulate Matter,”
Analytical Chem., 51(1):24, 1979.
Davis, Ron, and Bob Battenhouse, “The Unique Features of
the Antelope Valley Station,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial
Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Farwell, G.O., and S.J. Gluck, “Determination of Sulfur-Con-
taining Gases by a Deactivated Cryogenic Enrichment and
Capillary Gas Chromatographic System,” Analytical Chem,
51(6):609, 1979.
Ferrell, J.K,, RW. Rousseau, and D.G. Bass, The Solubility of
Acid Gases in Methanol, Final Report. Report EPA-600/7-79-
097. (NTIS No. PB 296 707). Raleigh, NC, North Carolina
State Univ., Dept. of Chemical Engineering, April 1979.
17
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Fisher, William 1., “Lignite and Coal in the U.S. Energy Fu-
ture,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium,
Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Fitch, William L., and Dennis H. Smith, “Analysis of Ad-
sorption Properties and Adsorbed Species on Commercial
Polymeric Carbons,” Environ. Sd. Technol., 1 3(3):431, 1979.
Ganapathy, V., “Two Charts Ease Heat-Exchanger
Calculation,” Oil and Gas J., 77(8):104, 1979.
Gas Generation Associates, “Fuel for the Future .. Now,”
Presented at the Gorham International, Inc., Intensive Con-
ference on Low and Medium Btu Gas: Markets and Ap-
plications, Dundee, IL, June 24-26, 1979.
Goldie, H.J., P.T. Mccullough, and MM. Papic, “Outlook for
Hat Creek Coal Utilization,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial
Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Hamersma, J.W., D.G. Ackerman, MM. Yamada, C.A. Zee,
CV. Ung, K.T. McGregor, .LF. Clausen, M.L, Kraf I, J.S.
Shipiro, and EL. Moon, Emissions Assessment of Con-
ventional Statio ary Combustion Systems: Methods and
Procedures Manual for Sampling and Analysis, Report EPA-
600l7.79-029a. Redondo Beach, CA, TRW Systems Group,
January 1979.
Hattman, Elizabeth A., William E. McKlnstry, and Hyman
Schultz, “Solid and Gaseous Fuels,” Analytical Chemistry,
51(5):135, 1979.
Heffington, W.M., “Use the Right Heating Value,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, 48(6):141, 1979.
HIcks, R.E., D.J. Goldstein, F.B. Seufert, and l.W. Wei, Waste-
water Treatment in Coal Conversion, Final Report. Report
EPA-600!7-79-133. (NTIS No. PB 297 587). Cambridge, MA,
Water Purification Associates, June 1979.
Higgins, R.S., and K.N. Sutherland, “Brown Coal Utilization in
Australia: The 2000 MW Loy Yang Project,” Presented at the
Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-
31, 1979.
Hines, Anthony L, Role of Spent Shale in Oil Shale
Processing and the Management of Environmental Residues,
Final Technical Report, September 1976-December 1977.
Report TID-28716, DOE Contract No. EX-76-S-04-3780. Golden,
GO, Colorado School of Mines, Dept. of Chemical &
Petroleum Refining Engineering, April 1, 1978.
Hitchcock, David A., “Solid-Waste Disposal: Incineration,”
Chemical Engineering, 86(1 1):185, 1979.
Homsy, R.V., “Two-Dimensional Transient Dispersion and Ad-
sorption in Porous Media,” Proceedings of the Fifth Under-
ground Coal Conversion Symposium, Coot. No. 790630. AIex
andria, VA, May 1979.
Kabadi, Vlnayak N,, and Ronald P. Danner, “Nomograph
Solves for Solubilities of Hydrocarbons in Water,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, 58(5):245, 1979.
Kentucky, University of, Institute of Mining and Minerals Re-
search, A Kentucky Energy Resource Utilization Program,
January 1-June 30, 1978, Semiannual Report. Report IMMR43-
PR7-78, NTIS No. PB 292 949, Lexington, KY, ORES
Publications, College of Engineering, December 1978.
Knowlton, H.E., and J.E. Rucker, “Landfarming Shows
Promise for Refinery Waste Disposal,” Oil and Gas J.,
77(20):108, 1979.
Kong, P., M. Lee, and S. Hathaway, Fuels: State-of-the-Art in
Industrial Utilization. Report AD-A063 239, CERL-TR-E-135,
MIPR-N00025-4-1041. Champaign, IL, Construction
Engineering Research Laboratory, November 1978.
Kraus, Milton N., “Baghouses: Selecting, Specifying and
Testing industrial Dust Collectors,” Chem. Eng., 8(4):133,
1979.
Lacy, Julia C., and David M. White, “Future of Texas
Lignite,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium,
Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Lee, RJ., E.J. Fasiska, P. Janocko, D. McFarland, and S.
Penkala, “Electron-Beam Particulate Analysis,” Industrial
Research and Development, 21(6):105, 1979.
Lyczkowski, R.W., R.J. Cena, and CJ. Thorsness, “Modeling
of Transport Processes in a Horizontally Bored Coal
Channel,” Presented at the Fifth Underground Coal Con-
version Symposium, Alexandria, VA, June 18-21, 1979.
MacFarland, H.N., “Alternate Fuels Can Damage Health,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, 58(5):150, 1979.
McClure, G.P., and D.C. Morrow, “MALAPROP Process Re-
moves COS,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 58(5):231, 1979.
Meyers, R.A., “System Optimizes Coal Desulfurization,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, 48(6):123, 1979.
Millard, Rodney E., “Processing Coat Slurry for Utility Use,”
Power, 123(1):76-78, 1979.
Murray, Ralbern H., “Industrial Fuel Gas Marketing: A Gas
Company’s Perspective,” Presented at the Gorham interna-
tional, Inc., Intensive Conference on Low and Medium Btu
Gas: Markets and Applications, Dundee, IL, June 24-26, 1979.
Ness, Harvey M., Stanley J. Selle, and Oscar E. Manz, “Power
Plant Flue Gas Desulfurization for Low-Rank Western Coals,”
Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand
Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Parker, Richard, and Seymour Calvert, Alternatives for High-
Temperature/High-Pressure Particulate Control, Final Report.
EPA-60017-79-019. (NTIS No. PB 292 687). San Diego, CA, Air
Pollution Technology, Inc., January 1979.
Petrie, T.W., W.J. Rhodes, and G.C. Page, “Environmental Im-
pact of Synthetic Fuels Development,” Chem. Eng. Progress,
75(6):73, 1979.
Punpeng, Twisuk, John 0. Frohliger, and Nurtan A. Esmen,
“Improved Gas Chromatographic Method for Field
Measurements of Nitrous Oxide in Air,” Analytical Chem.,
51(1):159, 1979.
Rader, A.M., “Synthetic Natural Gas from Peat,” Presented at
the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND,
May 30-31, 1979.
Russell, James E., “Surface Mining Technology, Practices
and Plans for Gulf Coast Lignite,” Presented at the Tenth
Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31,
1979.
18
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
December 1979
Sinor, JE. , “Reconsider Coal Conversion Processing,” Hy-
drocarbon Processing, 58(7):159, 1979.
Smith, Richard D., James A. Campbell, and K.K. Nielson,
“Characterization and Formation of Submicron Particles in
Coal-Fired Plants,” Atmospheric Environ., 13(5):607, 1979.
Stroup, Robert L., “Change — Mercer County, North
Dakota,” Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium,
Grand Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
Su, F.Y,, and VS. Engleman, “Reverse Combustion Link Phe-
nomena In Bituminous Coal at High Pressure,” Proceedings
of the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Conf.
No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May, 1979.
Svaronky, Ladlsiav, “Sedimentation, Centrifugation and Flo-
tatIon,” Chem. Eng, 58(26):93, 1979.
US. Dept. of Energy, Fossil Energy Research, Materials &
Components in Fossil Energy Applications (A DOE Newslet-
tel . Report DOEIET-0053121, DOE Contract No. EX-77-C-01-
2716. Washington, DC, April 1, 1979 (Number 21).
U.S. Dept. of the interior, Bureau of Mines, Noise Control,
Proceedings: Bureau of Mines Technology Transfer Seminar,
Pittsburgh, PA, 22 January 1975. U.S. Bur. Mines Inform. Cir.
8686. Pittsburgh, PA, 1975.
Wang, F.T., “The Sorptive Property of Coal,” Proceedings of
the Fifth Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Cont.
No. 790630. Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Zielinskl, RE, P.W. Seabaugh, A.K. Agarwal, J.W. Martin,
&J. Llberatore, and LD. Strickland, “Pricetown I — instru-
mentation and Preliminary Data,” Proceedings of the Fifth
Underground Coal Conversion Symposium, Cont. No. 790630.
Alexandria, VA, May 1979.
Ziesing, Gordon, K. Forgaard, J. LeFever, B. Rhodes, and V.
Griffiths, “Drying of Low-Rank Coals for MHD Applications,”
Presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand
Forks, ND, May 30-31, 1979.
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 9 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 thorn.
The views expressed in the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use by EPA.
19
------- |