&EFA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
of
SYNTHETIC FUELS
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORIES
VOL. 3 NO. 1
MARCH 1980
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels is pre-
pared as part of the Environmental Protection Agency's pro-
gram to evaluate the environmental impacts of synthetic fuel
processes. EPA's program was initiated In response to the
shift in U.S. energy supply priorities from natural gas and oil
to coal. It is directed by the Fuel Process Branch of EPA's
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park, NC (IERL-RTP).
The major objectives of the EPA Synthetic Fuels Envi-
ronmental Assessment/Control Technology Development
Program are 1) to define the environmental and health ef-
fects of multimedia discharge streams, and 2) to define
control technology needs for an environmentally sound syn-
thetic fuels Industry. The synthetic fuels from coal technolo-
gies being studied in this program include low/medium-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 environmen-
tal background, environmental objectives development,
control technology assessment, and impact analysis. The
contractors involved in the program, their EPA Project Of-
ficers, and the duration of each effort are tabulated on Page
6.
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 sec-
tions on current process technology background and envi-
ronmental data acquisition. Highlights of technology and
commercial developments, 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 Cor-
poration personnel Identified on page 15 of this Review.
CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
BACKGROUND
General Topics
Technology Assessment Report for Synthetic Fuels—
Radian Corporation has completed a technology assessment
report on the use of synthetic fuels produced from coal as
precombustion emission controls for new industrial boilers.
The report (EPA-600/7-79-178d, see "Recent Major Papers
and Publications") is one in a series of technology
assessment reports designed to aid EPA in determining the
technological basis for developing New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for Industrial boilers.
The synthetic fuels technologies considered in the re-
port were coal gasification (low-, medium-, and hlgh-Btu) and
liquefaction. Major emphasis was placed on examining the
reduction of SOX, NOX, and participate emissions in the
industrial boiler flue gases.
Based on detailed analyses of costs, energy, and en-
vironmental Impacts, low-Btu coal gasification was selected
as the "best synthetic fuels from coal" .emission control
technique for industrial boilers. Two low-Btu gasification
systems, the Wellman-Galusha gasif ier with either the
Stretford (W-Q/S) or monoethanolamlne (W-Q/MEA) acid gas
removal process, were selected for the detailed analyses.
Two coal feedstocks (low-sulfur western and high-sulfur
eastern) and five boiler capacities (8.8, 22, 44, 58.6, and 117
MW heat input) were also considered In performing the
detailed analyses.
All of the low-Btu gasification systems examined were
capable of meeting the most stringent target NOX and
participate emissions control levels considered (86 ng NOX/J
and 4 ng partlculates/J heat input to the boiler). With respect
to SOi emissions, the W-G/S systems using a low-sulfur coal
feed could achieve a stringent target emission control level
of 43 ng SOi/J heat Input. Using a high-sulfur coal feed, the
W-G/S systems could achieve a moderate target control level
of 150 ng SOa/J heat Input. The W-G/MEA systems were only
considered for the high-sulfur coal cases and could be
designed to achieve either the moderate or stringent target
SOi control level.
Cost analyses indicated that the annualized costs of the
gasifIcatlon/low-Btu gas-fired boiler systems were ap-
proximately 20 to 170 percent greater than the annualized
costs of an equivalent capacity (on a boiler heat Input basis)
direct coal-fired boiler without pollution controls. The per-
centage increase In Incremental costs of pollution control
varied indirectly with boiler capacity. For a given boiler
capacity, the W-G/S system using low-sulfur coal had the
lowest incremental costs, while the W-G/MEA system using
high-sulfur coal had the highest incremental costs. All of the
low-Btu gasification/boiler systems consume more energy
(4045%) than equivalent capacity uncontrolled coal-fired
boilers. The low-Btu gasification systems are also sources of
gaseous, liquid, and solid discharges. However, there appear
to be no uncontrollable adverse environmental impacts.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
Liquefaction
Revision of Environmental Assessment Data Base Re-
port—Hittman Associates, Inc., is updating a 1978 report, En-
vironmental Assessment Data Base for Coal Liquefaction
Technology. Volume I of this document (EPA-600/7-78-184a)
includes process descriptions, efficiencies, and state-of-the-
art summaries for 14 liquefaction processes. Volume II
(EPA—60017-78-184b) is an environmental characterization re-
port which focuses on the H—Coal, Exxon Donor Solvent
(EDS), and Synthoil processes. Detailed estimates are given
for the raw waste streams, treatment/control processes,
treated waste stream discharges, and associated environ-
mental effects.
The revised report will examine the 14 original proc-
esses, with particular emphasis on the most advanced direct
liquefaction processes, for example, SRC—l, SRC-ll, H—Coal,
and EDS. The revised Volume I will discuss:
• Overall technology status.
• Coal liquefaction process operations (coal pretreat-
ment, coal liquefaction, separation, and product purifi-
cation and upgrading).
• Pollution control modules.
• Technology assessment summary.
In-depth evaluations of the system operations and pollution
control modules will be presented in the revised Volume II.
The revised report will be accompanied by an overview
document summarizing the information on costs, efficien-
cies, commercialization potential, environmental impacts,
and discharge streams.
The data base revision will be completed in the summer
of 1980. For more information on the original report, see the
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 1, No. 3 and
Vol. 2, No. 2.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
Gasification
Source Test and Evaluation Programs—Source Test and
Evaluation (STE) programs comprise a major portion of an
environmental assessment of synthetic fuels technologies.
The major goal of each STE program is to gather the data
required for evaluating (1) the environmental and health
effects of the multimedia waste streams at specific facilities
and (2) the associated control technology.
Radian Corporation has completed two STE programs,
and the final reports are now available. The first STE report
(EPA-600/7-79-185) concerns a facility which uses a Well-
man-Galusha gasifier, and the second (EPA-600/7-78-202)
deals with Chapman low .Btu gasification. (Some major
conclusions from the first report are presented in the
“Report Summary” section of this issue.)
Radian is conducting additional STE programs at four
other facilities. Three of these are U.S. sites incorporating
Weilman-Galusha, Riley Morgan, and Foster Wheeler/Stoic
gasifiers, respectively. The fourth is a Lurgi gasification facil-
ity (Kosovo Kombine) at Obilic, Yugoslavia. Results from
these efforts will be summarized in subsequent issues of the
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels as the final reports
become available. (For more information on the Kosovo
program, see the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels,
Vol. 2, No. 3. Also, Hittman Associates, Inc.’s STE’s of a SRC
II pilot plant are described in Vol. 2, No. 4).
Test Run Results Compared to Model Predictions for
Fluidized Bed Gasifier—Preliminary test run results from the
coal gasification and gas cleaning facility at North Carolina
State University (NCSU) compare favorably with those pre-
dicted by a kinetic model.
The NCSU facility is providing environmental
assessment data concerning both the gasification and gas
clean-up processes, It incorporates a pressurized (0.8 MPa
1100 psig)) fluidized bed reactor capable of gasifying a 6.3-g/s
(50-lblhr) coal feed stream. The raw product gas passes
through a particulates, condensables, and solubles removal
(PCS) system, which consists of a cyclone separator
followed by a venturi scrubber. Acid gas removal occurs
downstream from the venturi scrubber in two packed towers
(an absorber and a stripper) separated by a rich solvent flash
vessel.
Table 1 shows results from one of the gasifier test runs,
along with the model predictions for a fluidized bed gasifier.
This particular test run involved steam-oxygen gasification of
pretreated Western Kentucky #11 bituminous coal (10 x 80
mesh size). Only the gasifier and PCS system were used,
without integration of the acid gas removal system. Coal was
fed at an average rate of 3.2 g/s (25.6 lb/hr); the average bed
temperature and pressure were 971 C (1780 F) and 0.8 MPa
(100 psig), respectively.
The comparison shown in Table 1 demonstrates a
strong correlation between experimental results and model
predictions. Both the actual carbon conversion in the reactor
and the product gas flow rate were lower than predicted, and
this may be attributable to imperfect mixing in the reactor
and uncertainties in kinetic parameters. In addition, since
the model is for an ideal adiabatic reactor, it predicted less
02 than was actually required.
For more information on the NCSU facility, see the Environ-
mental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, No. 4.
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF TEST RUN
RESULTS WITH FLUIDIZED BED
MODEL PREDICTIONS 5
Parameter
Model
Prediction
Experimental
Results
Carbon Conversion, %
45
42
02 Required, Nm 3 /s
0.63 (1.40 scfm)
0.74 (1.65 scfm)
Product Gas Rate
Nm 3 /s, N 2 free
3.82 (8.5 scfm)
3.42 (7.6 scfm)
Product Gas Composition
% N 2 free basis
H2
CO
C02
CH 4
H 2 0
29
20
15
1
35
26
18
16
0.5
39
a Department of Energy, Coal Conversion Systems Data
Book, Report HCP-12286-01, Washington, D.C., 1978.
2
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
TABLE 2. PNA HYDROCARBONS IN COAL GASIFICATIONb TAR
Test Run
Production Factor
( g/gC)
illinois
Montana
Wyoming
Western Kentucky
North Dakota
Compound
No. 6
Rosebud
Smith-Roland
No. 9
Zap Lignite
Naphthalene
570
440
160
930
37
Benzothiophene
120
30
12
48
5
C i & Ci—naphthaienes
410
550
550
370
140
Biphenyl
Acenaphthylene d
72
360
51
320
43
49
60
200
15
22
Acenaphthened
89
73
93
13
Fluorened
180
220
84
180
28
Phenanthrene d
470
250
95
470
27
Anthracened
160
97
35
170
11
Fluoranthene°
260
130
32
160
9.4
Pyrened
Benzo(a)anthracene d
190
92
110
120
26.0
5.2
110
78
3.8
0.72
Chrysened
Benzo(b)fiuoranthoned
Benzo(k)fluoranthened
80
59
30
3
44
21
7.4
1.6
1.2
93
33
21
0.71
0.22
0.14
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrened
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ’
39
66
2.1
34
48
30
0.87
1.4
<0.29
27
39
9
0.072
0.12
<0.14
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene’
52
60
<0.29
12
<0.14
Benzo(g,h,i)perylened
36
48
<0.29
6
<0.14
Crude Tar
33000
18000
29000
30000
7300
a Determinations from gas chromatography-flame ionization detector.
bFixorj bed gasification of 8 x 16 mesh coal at 1.4 MPa (200 psia).
g product compoundlg coal loaded.
EPA priority pollutant.
Pollutants from Synthetic Fuels Production—Research
Triangle institute (RTI) is conducting a project to measure
the wide spectrum of pollutants generated by coal
gasification under a variety of experimental conditions. Over
60 laboratory gasifier runs have been completed using nine
different fuels, including peat, lignite, subbituminous coal,
bituminous coat, and anthracite. Experimental variables
include coat type, pretreatment condition, mesh size, reactor
pressure, and temperature. Several gasifier effluent streams
such as reactor residue, tar and water condensates, and prod.
uct gas have been analyzed to determine the nature and
concentrations of various species. Ames bioassay studies on
the tars and their fractions have shown active mutagenicity,
which is attributed largely to the presence of polynuclear
aromatics (PNAs).
The experimental procedure involves removing tar and
aqueous condensates from the gasifier and separating them
by filtration. The tar is then fractionated, and the various
fractions are analyzed by gas chromatography and mass
spectrometry.
Table 2 presents typical values for PNA hydrocarbons in
coal gasification tar and aqueous condensates. These results
were obtained under similar gasification conditions for five
U.S. coals, ranging from lignite to bituminous. Except for C 1 —
and C 2 -naphthalenes (which have been grouped), the
compounds are presented in order of increasing boiling
point. All 16 of the EPA Consent Decree List PNAs were
found in the tar.
As shown in Table 2, large variations occur in the yield
of PNA compounds from the various coats tested. The
largest PNA yields are associated with the higher rank bitu.
minous coals. The Montana Rosebud coal gave rise to
relatively high levels of 5- and higher-ring PNAs.
Future studies will identify and quantify the specific
chemical species in gasifier tar which contain nitrogen, sul-
fur, and oxygen. Studies will examine the toxic and mutagen-
Ic properties of both the specific compounds and the
fractions in which those compounds occur. For instance, the
tar base fraction is known to exert a strong influence similar
to that associated with PNAs. The specific compounds
responsible for this effect will be explored by chemical
analysis and bioassay testing of the tar base fraction.
Results from RTI’s ongoing research will be reported in
subsequent issues of the Environmental Review of Synthetic
Fuels. (For information on earlier studies, see Vol. 1, Nos. 1,
2, and 3; and Vol. 2, Nos. 2, 3, and 4. See also the three final
reports which are now available and are listed in “Recent
Major Papers arid Publications” in this issue.)
Sampling Completed at Koppers-Totzek Facility—TRW,
mc., has completed a sampling program at the commercial
Koppers-Totzek facility at Modderfontein, South Africa. The
sampling program, conducted jointly with Krupp-Koppers of
West Germany, represents a major internationally coordi-
nated effort to obtain and analyze environmental data on the
Koppers-Totzek gasification system. Results should aid
greatly in determining the impact of similar commercial facil-
ities in the U.S.
Multimedia samples are being analyzed in South Africa
at both the Modderfontein plant laboratory and the nearby
MacLachlan and Lazar analytical laboratories. In addition,
portions of the water samples were preserved and air-
shipped to TRW for detailed Level 2 analyses.
Results from these efforts will be published when availa-
ble in subsequent issues of the Environmental Review of
Synthetic Fuels.
3
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
SAC Production Costs May Double—The costs of two
solvent refined coal (SRC) projects may be twice the
amount estimated prior to preliminary design. One of the
demonstration plants is to be built in Morgantown, WV,
and involves an agreement between the United States, the
Federal Republic of Germany, and Japan to share responsi-
bility for financing the project. The Morgantown plant has
been designed to produce liquid synthetic fuels roughly
equivalent to 3180 m (2 x 10 bbls) per day. A similar fa-
cility, planned for Newman, KY, will demonstrate coal con-
version to solid fuels.
The price for each of the two SRC plants, originally
set at $700 million, Is now expected to exceed $1 billion.
This means product cost may approach $220lm ($35/bbl).
At first, DOE officials attributed the cost increases to Infla-
tion, construction expenses, and extension of plant lifetime
from 2 years to 5. Low coal reactivity, mountainous terrain,
and plans for increased coal stockpiling are cited in a
more recent DOE disclosure concerning additional costs at the
Morgantown facility.
Despite Increased costs, DOE and Congress have de-
cided to continue their support of the two demonstration
projects. The West German government has reinforced
their commitment, and negotiations are reportedly un-
derway to broaden support to Include research and com-
mercialIzation costs. Japan Is expected to follow suit. The
goal of the projects is to provide technical, economic, and
environmental information to private Industry to aid in the
development of a comprehensive synthetic fuels program.
(For additional Information on the Morgantown project, see
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, No. 2.)
Callettsburg ProI.ct Recilvos More Funding—A desire
to speed commercialization of a coal liquefaction process
has prompted the Senate Appropriations Committee to
Increase DOE’s 1980 H-Coal project budget by $7.5 million.
The money would finance a 2-year commercialization
study of the Catlettsburg, KY, H-Coal pilot plant operated
by Ashland Oil. It is possible that plans for a demon-
stration-sized facility would then be bypassed, and funding
directed toward construction of a commercial-sized
complex. If accelerated, the program could result in the
operation of a facilIty capable of producing 3180 m (2 x
10 bbls) of synthetic fuel daily by 1985. (For additional in-
formation on the Catlettsburg project, see Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 1, No. 2, and Vol. 2, No. 1.)
New Technique T.sted for in-Sftu Gasification— Hoe
Creek, WY, was the test site for a new technique Involving
in-situ coal gasification. Engineers from Lawrence Liver-
more Laboratory linked vertical wells with a horizontal
channel in a successful effort to control the direction of
coal combustion. The new technique avoids problems
incurred when gasification is attempted utilizing natural
channels which may become blocked or may burn in unde-
sired directions. Oxygen-enriched air was used to promote
combustion and stabilize burn rates, thereby providing
more consistent gas flows.
Gas produced by the Hoe Creek project could be
utilized for heating or may serve as raw material for the
production of ammonia, methanol, or gasoline. It was esti-
mated that over 4.5 Gg (5000 tons) of coal have been gasi-
tied.
First Eastern Coal Gasified Underground—For the first
time, eastern coal has been successfully gasified in situ
during a DOE test near Princeton, WV. Reverse combustion
was accomplished via a technique involving ignition at the
base of one borehole and the introduction of pressurized
air into another borehole to direct the combustion path-
way. Previous attempts to gasify eastern coal had been
hampered by the tendency of the coal to swell and elimi-
nate air pathways needed for continued combustion. The
Princeton project was expected to convert about 907 Mg
(1000 tons) of bituminous coal, and was reported to pro-
duce over 28,000 m 3 (1 x 10 ft 3 ) of synthetic gas per day.
The heating value of the gas synthesized was estimated to
be 20 percent that of natural gas.
IGY Promotes Synthetic Fuel Development—Institute of
Gas Technology (IGT) president, Bernard S. Lee, recom-
mends extensive proliferation of synthetic fuels production
facilities. This suggestion was based on an IGT study indi-
cating that synthetic fuels produced from domestic coal and
mineral supplies are more economical than foreign oil sub-
ject to inflation, U.S. currency devaluation, and supply incon-
sistency. The proposed $90 billion expenditure would allow
construction of plants capable of supplying the 400,000 m 3
(2.5 x 100 bbls) per day production goal set by President
Carter for 1990.
Economics of Alternative Fuels Discussed—At present,
synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification and
liquefaction are more expensive than natural oil and gas.
This was the general consensus of attendants at the World
Petroleum Congress held In Bucharest. Presentations and
discussions focused on the costs, technology, and prac-
ticality of synthetic fuel production. It was agreed that
technology is available to produce synthetic fuels, but
reductions in initial investment costs are needed to improve
the competitive status of coal conversion. Another problem
faced by the synthetic fuels industry is the low thermal
efficiency of its primary products. The cost of refining coal
is proportional to the quality of the product, so that gasoline
from coal is very expensive. It is possible that cost inequi-
ties may be overcome if oil and gas prices escalate more
rapidly than the costs entailed by plant construction and
synthetic fuels production.
A few examples of alternative fuel sources which are ec-
onomically attractive were cited. The SASOL plant in South
Africa gasifies coal to obtain feedstocks for ammonia syn-
thesis. Oil sands and oil shale deposits may also provide
cost efficient alternative fuel sources. Great Canadian Oil
Sands, a subsidiary of Syncrude Canada Ltd., produced
2,600,000 m 3 (16.4 x 10’ bbls) of synthetic crude oil in 1977
and 1978 at an average cost of $53.871m 3 ($8.S4Jbbl). Con-
tinually increasing oil and gas prices justify further
development of these resources.
Response to DOE Low/Medium Btu Coal Gasification
Program Continues—DOE is considering five new proposals
received in response to announcement of its LowlMedium
Btu Coal Gasification Program. Coal conversion technology
and industrial utilization of low and medium Btu gas will be
the subjects of DOE funded study. Eight contracts valued at
over $1.8 million have already been granted since the
program was initiated in March. Utilities and industries
located in New Jersey, Mississippi, West Virginia, Missouri,
and Illinois have submitted the five proposals, valued at
$500,000, which are now receiving consideration. Further
selection of a third set of proposals is expected to occur
this year. (For additional information on the DOE program,
see the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, No.
4.)
TECHNOLOGY AND
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
4
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
New Gasification Processes Increase Capacity— Krupp-
Koppers GmbH (Essen, W. Germany) is testing a modifica-
tion of the Koppers-Totzek process which allows coal gasif i-
cation to proceed at twice original capacity by doubling the
number of feed injectors on the gasifier unit. The modified
Koppers-Totzek design replaces the standard two-headed
gasifier with a four-headed system. Advantages attributed to
the new unts include investment savings, lower specific
heat losses, and a reduction in the amount of space needed
for operation. Two 95 kg/s (900 ton/d) fertilizer plants in India
will serve as sites for the initial commercialization of the
system. A Brazilian company, Petrobas, also plans to operate
a pair of four-headed gasifiers to supply synthesis gas for a
6.3 Kg/s (600 ton/d) ammonia plant.
In addition, Shell Oil Company has assisted Krupp-
Koppers in designing a high pressure gasification process
which may increase operation capacity to 12 times the origi-
nal Koppers-Totzek process. The standard Koppers-Totzek
system is operated at atmospheric pressure, whereas the
Shell Koppers process would be run at 3 MPa (30 atm),
reducing the amount of compression synthesis gas must
undergo prior to usage. A Shell Koppers demonstration plant
in Germany is reported to synthesize gas which is 10 percent
cheaper than raw gas obtained via the original process.
BGC Lurgi Slagging Gasifier and Texaco Unit Team
Up—The advantages of a SNG production process using two
synergistic slagging gasifiers may promote its rapid commer-
cialization. The Fluor combination coal gasification process
utilizes a British Gas Company Lurgi slagging gasifier in
conjunction with a Texaco gasification unit. Dual gasification
equipment installed at the SNG plant chosen for study
resulted in increased productivity and lowered costs in
comparison to conventional Lurgi coal gasification facilities.
Operation of the combined system is dependent on waste
heat steam generation, eliminating the need for coal-fired
boilers. Phenolic liquors produced in Lurgi gasification
processes balance liquid requirements for Texaco slurry
preparation. Costly treatment of process water to remove
ammonia and phenols is unnecessary, and phenolic liquors
no longer constitutue a disposal problem because they are
gasified. The process also results in primary methane which
can be used in methanation of the SNG product. One study
presented cost comparisons between the combined gasifier
system and a conventional Lurgi plant and indicated that
$300 million in total plant capital could be saved by the
combination system in the production of a given amount of
SNG from a given amount of coal.
Water Issue Provokes Controversy—Water availability
may prove to be a major Issue in the future of a synthetic
fuels program. The director of the U.S. Water Resources
Council, Leo Eiset, claims that no comprehensive program
exists to supply the needs of plants which must be built to
meet President Carter’s synthetic fuels production goals.
The economics of coal gasification and liquefaction are
improved if plants are located near coal deposits. Northern
plains states, which represent a significant proportion of
coal-bearing areas in the United States, are concerned that
water allocations for future synthetic fuels plants may
threaten existing water users.
Estimates of the volume of water to be consumed by
commercial coal conversion facilities vary considerably.
Anywhere from 15,000 to 235,000 m 3 (4 to 62 x 10’ gal) of
water could be used daily by a commercial scale liquefaction
plant. More information from demonstration-sized facilities is
necessary to assess fully the influence that the water
controversy may have on synthetic fuels industries.
Nickel Catalyst Enhances Gasification and Liquefaction
Processes—Researchers at Battelle Memorial Institute have
developed a new solution that catalyzes coal conversion pro-
cesses. The solution, which contains hydrogen and a
dissolved transition metal catalyst, reacts more efficiently
with coal than does molecular hydrogen alone. The nickel
Ziegler catalyst is prepared by reacting nickel carboxylate
with an aluminum alkyl in an organic solution. Hydrogen is
then added to the product to form the catalytic solution.
EPRI Spokesmen Testify Before Con g,ess—At recent
congressional hearings EPRI division directors, Balzhiser and
Spencer, nominated the electric utility industry as a primary
market for synthetic fuels, and called for cooperation be.
tween government and industry to develop, demonstrate, and
commercialize a synthetic fuels program. Balzhiser con-
tended that the requirements of utility plants are flexible
enough to allow them to serve as the initial market for a
synthetic fuel industry. The possibility of this stable market
represents a mutual advantage to synthetic fuel development
in that capital investment risks are lessened. Spencer cites
the 1978 power plant and utility Fuel Use Act (FUA) which
should compel the electric utility industry to increase syn-
thetic fuel utilization, and pointed out EPRI studies which
indicate the economic attractiveness of coal gasification
combined cycle power generation.
SASOL Technology May Serve U.S. Needs—South
African technological expertise in synthetic fuels
manufacture is being marketed in the U.S. through an
agreement between SASOL, Ltd. (Johannesburg, South
Africa) and Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc. SASOL
and Fluor are presently conducting a feasibility study for
Texas Eastern Corp. Texas Eastern is considering an Ohio
River Valley plant which would combine Lurgi gasification
and Fischer Tropsch processes. SASOL uses similar indirect
liquefaction processes to produce oil from coal and con-
tends that direct liquefaction process technology may not be
feasible in the near future. Fluor maintains that a SASOL-
type plant completed in 1985 could result in synthetic fuel
which would be competitive in price with fuels produced by
conventional refineries using $300/rn 3 ($48/bbl) crude oil. (For
more information on SASOL plants, see Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 1, No. 3.)
SASOL II Nears Completion—The Secunda, South
Africa, SASOL II project is nearing construction completion
and is ready to begin testing its Lurgi gasification equip-
ment. The SASOL II plant will produce gasoline, fuel oil, and
a variety of chemical feedstocks via a series of gasification,
liquefaction, and refining techniques. It is expected that
annual product yield will exceed 1.5 Tg (1.5 x 10’ metric
tons). If all goes as planned, full production should be
possible by the end of 1980.
The SASOL II project will differ somewhat from a sibling
project in Sasolburg, South Africa. Tailgas from the new
plant will be recycled to optimize liquid fuel production
rather than utilized for towngas production. This will result in
a thermal efficiency rating which is lower (40 percent) than
that of the older plant (60 percent).
Federal Support Would Speed Commercialization of
Over 30 GasifIcation Facilities—Continued governmental
support of the synthetic fuels industry could result in com-
mercialization of over 30 high Btu coal gasification facilities
capable of producing 85 km 3 (3 x 10’ ft 3 ) of gas by the turn
of the century. This was the opinion voiced by American
Natural Resources Vice President, William T. McCormick, Jr.,
at the annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Gas Association.
McCormick reviewed seven coal gasification projects which
are in the design stage, emphasizing the Mercer County, ND,
project which is closest to construction. The ND plant would
utilize Lurgi gasification with methanation, as would the
majority of the projects McCormick discussed. Federal
support of these projects will increase the probability of
commercial operation by the mid-1980’s.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
PROJECT TITLES, CONTRACTORS, AND EPA PROJECT OFFICERS
IN EPA’S IERL-RTP SYNTHETIC FUEL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Project Title Contractor EPA Project Officer
Environmental Assessment
of Low Btu
Gasification
(March 1979-March 1982)
James D. Kilgroe
IERL-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, NC2771 1
(919)541-2851
Environmental Evaluation
of Coal Liquefaction
(July 1979-July 1982)
Hlttman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, MD 21043
(301) 730-7800
(Jack Overman)
D. Bruce Henschel
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2825
Acid Gas Cleaning
Bench Scale Unit
(October 1976-September 1981)
(Grant)
North Carolina State Univ.
Department of Chemical Engineering
Raleigh, NC 27807
(919) 737-2324
(James Ferrell)
Robert A. McAllister
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2708
Water Treatment Bench
Scale Unit
(November 1976-October 1961)
(Grant)
Univ. of North Carolina
Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
School of Public Health
Chapel Hilt, NC 27514
(919) 966-1023
(Philip Singer)
Robert A. McAllister
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)5416000
(Forest Mixon)
N. Dean Smith
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2708
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78766
(512) 454-4797
(Gordon C. Page)
6
-------
REPORT SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment: Source
Test and Evaluation Report —
Weliman-Galusha (Glen-Gery)
Low-Btu Gasification
(EPA-60017-79-1 85)
by
W. C. Thomas, K. N. Trede, and G. C. Page
Radian Corporation
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
The Wellman-Galusha gasification system is one of the
few types of coal gasifiers applied commercially in the U.S.
at this time. At the York, PA, plant of the Glen-Gery Brick
Co., a Weliman-Galusha gasification system is used to
convert anthracite coal into a low-Btu gas which is then
used as a fuel for a brick kiln.
This facility was selected for study in a Source Test
and Evaluation (STE) program recently completed by Radi-
an Corporation. The major goal of this STE program was to
perform an environmental assessment of the waste
streams from the gasification system.
The Glen-Gery facility was selected for the STE
program for several reasons. For one, it uses a com-
mercially operating gasifier typical of those currently in
service in the U.S. The Glen-Gery facility also affords an
opportunity for significant contribution to the low-Btu
gasification technology data base for systems using an-
thracite. Such installations yield a raw product gas that is
essentially tar- and oil-free. This feature simplifies the task
of obtaining representative process and waste stream
samples for environmental characterization. In addition,
because this facility is part of the U.S. Department of
Energy’s (DOE’s) Gasifiers in Industry Program, it includes
special instrumentation that facilitates the collection of
both process and environmental data.
A complete environmental assessment of a process
requires thorough examination of both the compositions
and the flow rates of multimedia process and waste
streams. Samples of 12 process and waste streams were
obtained, as well as flow rate data and data for several
operating parameters. The major results from these efforts
are summarized below.
Waste Stream Characterization
The seven multimedia waste streams sampled at Glen-
Gery were characterized through bioassay testing and
SAM/lA (Source Analysis Model) evaluation. The SAM/IA
evaluation, based on chemical analyses, provides a rapid
screening technique for evaluating the pollution potential
of multimedia waste streams. It is applied as part of EPA’s
standardized methodology for interpreting results from
environmental assessment test programs. Two evaluation
indices are used in performing a SAM/IA evaluation:
Discharge Severity (DS), and Weighted Discharge Severity
(WDS). The individual DS values for components of a
discharge stream may be summed to give the Total
Discharge Severity (TDS) for that stream. (These terms are
explained more fully in the Environmental Review c f Syn-
thetic Fuels, Vol. 2, No. 4.)
Bioassay analysis involved testing both health and
ecological effects, as described in the EPA Level 1 Envi-
ronmental Assessment Manual (EPA-600/2-76-160a). Figures
1 and 2 summarize the SAMIIA evaluation and bioassay
test results for the seven multimedia waste streams
sampled. As shown, all seven waste steams have a poten-
tial for hazardous effects according to the SAM/IA evalu-
ation. However, the TDS values reported for the Glen-Gery
facility were, in general, lower by two orders of magnitude
when compared to TDS values reported for a bituminous
coal gasifier in a previous study (EPA-60017-78-202).
Results of the bioassay screening tests also support the
relatively low potential for harmful effects associated with
the Glen-Gery waste streams. In addition, the harmful
effects of the gaseous waste streams are reduced because
of their low flow rates.
Table 3 presents major conclusions and recom-
mendations of the STE, based on SAMIIA and bioassay
test results. Also shown are priorities, based on the
SAM/IA evaluation, for future chemical analyses for each
waste stream. Specific compounds should be identified
where the worst case unidentified organics are the main
contributors to the DS.
•For a description of the current EPA methodology, see EPA-6OO/2-78 201.
Ash
Sluice
Gasitier
Ash
Gasifier
Ash
Cyclone
Dust
Cyclone
Dust
Water
Leachate
Leachate
Ash more toxic than cyclone dust in the soil microcosm test
H: High Effects
M: Moderate Effects
L/ND: Low or Nondetectable Effects
FIGURE 2. BIOASSAY TEST RESULTS FOR THE GLEN-GERY
WELLMAN-GALUSHA WASTE STREAMS
• HEALTH ECOLOGICAL
H-
M-
L/ND-
Poke Coal Ash Gasitier Gasif:er Cyclone Cyclone Raw
Hole Hopper Sluice Ash Ash Dust Dust Product
Gas Vent Water Leachate Leachale Gas
FIGURE 1. TOTAL STREAM DISCHARGE SEVERITIES FOR THE
GLEN-GERY WELLMAN-GALUSHA WASTE STREAMS
7
-------
Ei*smsntal ol Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE STREAMS
FROM THE GLEN-GERY FACILITY
Priority for Quantitative Chemical Analysis
High Me&um Low
Waste Stream (Tos, 102 +) (TDS, 10.10’) (lOS, 1-10) Conclusions Recommendations
Pokehole Gas CO. NH As, COT, H S CH 4 , NHs, HCN, • potentially hazardous • better seals
LI, Ni, SO according to SAMIIA
evaluation • better maintenance
low flow • ventilation
injection of inert gas
during poking
operation
Coal Hopper Gas CO. Fe(CO). 142 5 Cli ., C02 • potentially hazardous • collect and recycle to
according toSAMIIA inlet air or vent
evaluation to atmosphere
• low flow • keep workers out
of area
Ash Sluice Water Fused Polycyclic Fe, Ti Phthalate • potentially hazardous • collect and reuse
Hydrocarbons, Esters, Ba, Cd, according to SAMIIA as ash sluice water
Alkenes, Cyclic Cr, Cu, CN, Fe, evaluation
Alkenes, Dienes, La, LI, Ni, V
and Nitrophenols • low potential for
hazard according to
bioassay tests
• W.. and EC.. were above
maximum dosages admini-
stered
• TDS, BOD, POI , and CN
exceed the most stringent
water effluent standards
Ash Ba, Cr, Fe, Fused Poly. Alkenes, Cyclic • potentially hazardous • landfill is a possible
U, Mn, Ni cyclic Hydro. Alkenes and according to SAMIIA drsposal technique
carbons, Be, Dienes, Aromatic e” uation
Co, Cu, Fe, Amines and
Pb, Ni, Se, Diamines, Ring • bioassay tests indicate • further analyses for
Th, V, Zr Substituted a low potential for unidentified organ ics
Aromatics, Nitro- hazard and bioassay tests for
phenols*, Phtha- ecological effects
late Esters, Al, • W.. and ECs. were above
As, Ba, Bi, Cd, maximum dosages admin-
Ca, Cr, Hf, Pb, istered
Li, Mg, Mn, Si,
Ag, Sr, Ti, V, V
8
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTE STREAMS
FROM THE GLEN-GERY FACILITY (CONTINUED)
Priority
High
for Quantitative C
Medium
hemical Analysis
Low
Waste Stream (IDS, 102
4-)
ifos, io-io
(TDS, 1-10) Conclusions Recommendations
Ash Leachate Fused Poly- Phthalate Cd, Ag • potentially hazardous • further analyses for
cyclic Hydro- Esters, Zn according to SAMIIA unidentified organics
carbons, evaluations and bioassay tests for
Allcenes, ecological effects
Cyclic Alkenes, • bioassay tests indicate
Dienes, Aroma- low potential
tic Amines
and Diamines, • LD 3 , and EC o were above
and Nitro- maximum dosages
phenols administered
• RCRA standards are not
exceeded for trace
elements
Cyclone Dust Fused Poly- Alkenes, Cy- Phthalate • potentially hazardous • landfill may not
cyclic Hydro- clic Alkenes, Esters, Al, according to SAM/IA be acceptable
carbons, and Dienes, Sb, As, Ba, evaluation
As, Ba, Cr, Aromatic Ca, Cr, Co, • incineration
Fe, Pb, Li, Amines and Cu, F, Ga, • small flow rate
Mn, Ni, Se Diamines, Ring- Hf, Li, Mg,
Substituted Hg, Se, Si, • bioassay tests indicate
Aromatics, Sr, TI, Ti, low potential for hazard
Nitrophenols, V, Y, Zr
Be, Cd, Fe, • LD5O and EC . were
Pb, Mn, Ni, above maximum dosage
Ag, Th, V, Zn administered
Cyclone Dust Mn, Zn, Mn, Pb, Al, Cd, Co, • potentially hazardous • quantitative analysis
Leachate Fused Poly- Alkenes, Cu, Fe, Pb, according to SAM/IA for Pb to determine
cyclic Cyclic Alkenes, Li evaluation if Its concentration
Hydro- Dienes, and actually exceeds
carbons Nitrophenols • bioassay tests indicate RCRA guidelines
low potential
for hazard
• F exceeds most strin-
gent water effluent
standards
• Pb exceeds RCRA
standards
•These categories of organic compounds contain the worst case compounds which provide the largest potential discharge severity for
the unidentified organics of each waste stream. The categories and their corresponding worst case compounds are listed below:
Category Compound
Fused Polycyclic Hydrocarbons 7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Alkenes, Cyclic Alkenes and Dienes Dicyclopentadiene
Aromatic Amines and Diamines Amlnonaphthalenes
Ring-Substituted Aromatics Dibromobenzene
Nitrophenols Dinitrophenols
9
-------
Environmental Review 01 Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
MEETING CALENDAR
2nd Annual Symposium on Industrial Energy Conservation
Technology and Exhibition, April 13-16, 1980, Houston, TX.
Contact: Milt Williams, 6203 B Shadow Valley Drive, Austin,
TX 78731; telephone (512) 345-8052.
2nd Annual Symposium on industrial Coal Utilization, April
17-18, 1980, Charleston, SC. Contact: Dan Bienstock, PETC,
4800 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
88th AIChE National Meeting and 2nd Chemical Plant
Equipment ExposItion, June 8-12, 1980, Philadelphia, PA.
Contact: Harold S. Kemp, DuPont Co., Engineering Dept.
L—1257, Wilmington, DE 19898.
1980 Symposium on Instrumentation and Control for Fossil
Energy Processes, June 9-11, 1980, Virginia Beach, VA.
Contact: Richard Doering, Argonne National Lab, 9700 S.
Cass Ave. Bldg. 316, Argonne, IL 60437; telephone (312) 972.
6086.
19th ASME-AIChE National Heat Transfer Conference—Heat
Transfer in Coal Conversion, July 27-30, 1980, Orlando, FL.
Contact: Professor Lawrence A. Kennedy, Dept. of Mechani-
cal Engineering, 607 Furnas Hall, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst,
NY 14260; telephone (716) 636-2729.
AIChE 72nd Annual Meeting
RECENT MAJOR MEETINGS
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
held their 72nd annual meeting in San Francisco, CA, on
November 25-29, 1979. Panel discussions, symposia, and
poster sessions covered a broad range of topics, including
recent research and development in the field of coal con-
version, gasification, and liquefaction.
Several symposia included presentations on fluidization
and fluid-particle systems. The results of research on bubble
dynamics, magnetic stabilization, and particle deposition
were reported. Papers dealing with physical properties of
fluidization such as density, electrostatics, pressure fluctua-
tions, heat transfer, and component velocities were also
included. More specific presentations described fluidization
and fluid particle systems in coal processing. Processes
Such as elutriation and recycling of coal fines, ash agglomer-
ation, and two-stage combustion appeared to result in
emission reductions and greater combustion efficiency in
experimental studies.
In related sessions, papers focused on design and
modeling of gas fluidized bed systems. Development of
models has allowed study of the effects of coal feed
velocity, jetting emulsion mass, attrition rates, and heat
interchange on coal conversion. Experimental techniques for
fluidized bed combustion (FBC) of coal char, high sulfur
coal, and agglomerating bituminous coals were discussed.
Several models were presented which may facilitate industri-
al application of FBC experimental designs to generate
steam and electrical power.
Progress in the use of western coal to supply the needs
of coal gasification, combined cycle power generation
facilities was described in one symposium. Potential control
technology costs and environmental assessment reports for
low Btu gasification facilities and SRC-ll liquefaction
operations were presented in two sessions on solid fossil
fuel processes. One series of lectures on underground (In
Situ) coal gasification included presentations on field results,
computerized cost estimation, and commercialization possi-
bilities.
Several symposia on coal liquefaction techniques dealt
with potential catalysts, free radical kinetics, and
desulfurization compounds. One paper discussed the effect
of aging on hydrotreating catalysts used in coal liquefaction.
New data on rubidium- and iron-containing catalysts utilized
in Fischer Tropsch s ñthesis reactions were presented.
Further elucidation of free radical kinetics in the liquid phase
reactions of coal conversion is possible via estimation meth-
odology described by one author. Iron-containing com-
pounds, including coal ash, were cited for their selectivity
for hydrodesulfurization over hydrogenation, a characteristic
which may prove valuable in development of future
liquefaction processes.
Multiphase reactors such as the H-Coal reactor and the
Fischer Tropsch slurry reactor served as the topic for one
session. Data obtained on phase dynamics and physical
properties have allowed researchers to present models
available for scaling up purposes.
Several papers focused on thermodynamic analysis of
synthetic fuel processing. The methodology of first law
(thermal) and second law (availability) analyses was reviewed
in one presentation. COED, HYGAS, and SYNTHANE pro-
cesses were thermodynamically analyzed in this symposium,
as well as a developmental direct liquefaction technique.
A symposium was held on new computer applications in
design and analysis. Several presentations were related to
coal conversion applicability. One paper described
synergistic cascade refrigeration and liquefaction systems.
Another presented a mathematical model for the expected
performance of a HYGAS gasifier.
A two-part symposium on the status of synthetic fuels
projects focused on current gasification and liquefaction
plants and process development. The proposed Memphis
U-Gas demonstration plant and pilot coal gasification plants
operated by North Carolina State University and Combustion
Engineering were the topics of three papers. HYGAS and
GEGAS gas production, catalytic coal gasification, and a
Brazilian ammonia production plant served as subjects for
other presentations. Process development in coal liquefac-
tion was described in papers on flash hydropyrolysis, the
Exxon donor solvent process, and SAC-I. One company
reported on a project which produces gasoline from coal in a
single step process involving molten zinc chloride hydro-
cracking.
Research and development, major projects, and fort h-
coming programs in international synthetic fuels technology
served as the emphasis for another symposium. West
German, South African, and Australian progress reports were
presented. Shell Koppers summarized pilot plant gasification
attempts. The United Kingdom’s National Coal Board and the
British Gas Corporation also reported on the status of pro-
cesses which they are developing for commercialization.
More information on the 72nd Annual Meeting of the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers can be obtained
from the AIChE Continuing Education Department. Copies of
the papers presented may be requested by contacting the
Engineering Societies Library, United Engineering Center,
345 East 47th Street, New York, NY, 10017.
10
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
RELEVANT 1979 EPAIFUEL PROCESS BRANCH PUBLICATIONS
Agreda, V. H., R. M. Folder, and J. K. Ferrell, Devolatilization
Kinetics and Elemental Release In the PyrOlysis of Pulverized
Coal, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, Report
EPA-60017-79-241, November 1979.
Bostwlck, L. E., M. R. Smith, 0.0. Moore, and D. K. Webber,
Coal Conversion Control Technology Volume I. En-
vironmental Regulations; Liquid Effluents, Pullman Kellogg,
Houston, TX, Report EPA-60017-79-228a, October 1979.
Bostwlck, L. E., M. R. Smith, 0.0. Moore, and 0. K. Webber,
Coal Conversion Control Technology Volume I I. Gaseous
Emissions; Solid Wastes, Pullman Kellogg, Houston, TX,
Report EPA-600 17-79-228b, October 1979.
Buddea K. G., and S. P. Subhash, Air Emissions From
Combustion of Solvent Refined Coal, i-iittman Associates,
Inc., Columbia, MD, Report EPA-600/7-79-004, (NTIS PB
290946), January 1979.
Chsn, C., C. Korelalç and 1. Breltatein, Control Technologies
for Particulate and Tar Emissions from Coal Converters,
Dynalectron/Applied Research Division, Bethesda, MD,
Report EPA-60017.79-170, (NTIS PB 80-108392), July 1979.
Ferrell, J. R., R. W. Rousseau, and 0. G. Bass, The Solublllty
of Acid Gases In Methanol, North Carolina State University,
Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Raleigh, NC, Report
EPA-600/7-79.097, (NTIS PB 296707), April 1979.
Gangwal, S. K., P. M. Grohse, D. E. Wagoner, 0. J. Mlnick,
C. M. Sparacino, and R. A. Zweidinger, Pollutants from
Synthetic Fuels Production: Sampling and Analysis Methods
for Coal Gasification, Research Triangle institute, Research
Triangle Park, NC, Report EPA-600 17-79-201, (NTIS PB 80-
104656), August 1979.
Ghass.ml, N., K. Crawford, and S. Oulnhlvan, Environmental
Assessment Report Lurgi Coal Gasification Systems for
SNG, TRW Environmental Engineering Division, Redondo
Beach, CA, Report EPA-600 17-79-120, (NTIS PB 298109), May
1979.
Greenwood, 0. H., G. 1. Kingsbury, and J. G. Cleland, A
Handbook of Key Federal Regulations and Criteria for
MultImedia Environmental Control, Research Triangle In-
stitute, Research Triangle Park, NC, Report EPA-600/7-79-
175, (NTIS PB 80-107998), August 1979.
Hicks, R. E., 0. J. Goldstein, F. B. Seufert, 1. W. Wel, Waste-
water Treatment in Coal Conversion, Water Purification
Associates, Cambridge, MA, Report EPA-60017-79-133, (NTIS
PB 297587), June 1979.
Hoffert, F. 0., W. V. Soung, S. E. Stover, Summary of Gas
Stream Control Technology for Major Pollutants in Raw in-
dustrial Fuel Gas, Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., Lawrence
Township, NJ, Report EPA-600/7-79-171, (NTIS PB 80-108251),
July 1979.
Hossain, S. N., P. F. CIllone, A. B. Cherry, and W. J.
Wasylenko, Jr., Applicability of Coke Plant Control Technolo-
gies to Coal Conversion, Catalytic, Inc., Philadelphia, PA,
Report EPA-600/7-79-184, (NTIS PB 80-108954), August 1979.
Kingsbury, G. L., R. C. Sims, and J. B. White, Multimedia En
vironmental Goals for Environmental Assessment; Volume Ill.
MEG Charts and Background Information Summaries (Cat-
egories 1-12), Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle
Park, NC, Report EPA- 600/7-79-176a, August 1979.
Kingsbury, G. L., R. C. Sims, and J. B. White, Multimedia En-
vironmental Goals for Environmental Assessment, Volume
IV. MEG Charts and Background in formation Summaries
(Categories 13.26), Research Triangle Institute, Research
Triangle Park, NC, Report EPA-60017-79-176b, August 1979.
Onursal, A. B., Hot Gas Cleanup Process, Dynalectron Corpo-
rationlApplied Research Division, Bethesda, MD, Report
EPA—60017-79-169, (NTIS PB 80-108467), July 1979.
Sama, K. R., and D. T. O’Leary, Engineering Evaluation of
Control Technology for the H-Coal and Exxon Donor Solvent
Processes, Dynalectron Corporation/Applied Research
Division, Bethesda, MD, Report EPA-600!7-79-168, (NTIS PB
80-108566), July 1979.
ShIelds, K. J., H. T. Hopkins, E. E. Weir, and C. Thompson,
Environmental Assessment Report Solvent Refined Coal
(SAC) Systems, Hittman Associates, Inc., Columbia, MD, Re-
port EPA-600/7-79-146, (NTIS PB 300383), June 1979.
Thomas, W. C., Technology Assessment Report for industrial
Boiler Applications: Synthetic Fuels, Radian Corporation,
Austin, TX, Report EPA-600/7-79-178d, November 1979.
Thomas, W. C., K. N. Trede, and G. C. Page, Environmental
Assessment: Source Test and Evaluation Report—Wellman
Galusha (Gien-Gery) Low Btu Gasification, Radian Corpora-
tion, Austin, TX, Report EPA—60017-79-185, (NTIS PB 80.
102551), August 1979.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Symposium
Proceedings: Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion
Technology, IV, April 1979, Hollywood, FL, Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, Report EPA-600!7-79-
217, September 1979.
Webber, D. K. and 0. E. Whlttaker, Environmental Standards
I or Coal Conversion Processes: Volume I. Most Stringent,
Federa4 and Selected State Regulations, Pullman Kellogg,
Houston, TX, Report EPA-60017-79-231a, October 1979.
Webber, D. K. and D. E. Whittaker, Environmental Standards
for Coal Conversion Processes: Volume II. Selected State,
Mexican, and Canadian Regulations, Pullman Ke llogg,
Houston, TX, Report EPA-60017-79-231b, October 1979.
11
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
RECENT MAJOR PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS
GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
Badger Plants, Inc., Conceptual Design of a Coal to Methanol
Commercial Plant. Quarterly Technical Progress Report.,
October 25, 1976 - January 28, 1977. Report FE-2416-8, Con-
tract No. EX-76-C-01-2416. Cambridge, MA, 18 March 1977.
Badger Plants, Inc., Conceptual Design of a Coal to Methanol
Commercial Plant. Annual Report, July 16, 1976- July 29, 1977.
Report FE-2416-16, Contract No. EX-76-C-01-2416. Cambridge,
MA, 30 September1977.
Badger Plants, Inc., Conceptual Design of a Coal to Methanol
Commercial Plant. Executive Summary. Interim Final Report.,
July 16, 1976 - February 15, 1978. Report FE-2416-24, Contract
No. EX-76-C-O1-2416. Cambridge, MA, February 1978.
Badger Plants, Inc., Conceptual Design of a Coal to Methanol
Commercial Plant. Volume I. Technical. Interim Final Report.,
July 16, 1976 - February 15, 1978. Report FE-2416-24 (Vol. 1),
Contract No. EX-76-C-01-2416. Cambridge, MA, February 1978.
Badger Plants, Inc., Conceptual Design of a Coal to Methanol
Commercial Plant. Volume II. Commerical Plant Economic
Analysis. Interim Final Report., July 16, 1976- February 15, 1978.
Report FE-2416-24 (Vol. 2), Contract No. EX-76-C-O1-2416. Cam-
bridge, MA, February 1978.
Badger Plants, Inc., Conceptual Design of a Coal to Methanol
Commercial Plant. Volume IVB. Interim Final Report., July 16,
1976- February 15, 1978. Report FE.2416-24 (Vol. 4B), Contract
No. EX-76-C-01-2416. Cambridge, MA, February 1978.
Bamhart, J. S., P. E. George, H. G. Huang, and N. M. Laurendeau,
Gasification in Pulverized Coal Flames. Semi-Annual Progress
Report, April 1978- December 1978. Report FE-2029-8, Contract
No. EX-76-C-O1-2029. Lafayette, IN, Purdue University, School
of Mechanicat Engineering, 1978.
Battelle Columbus Labs, Agglomerating Burner Gasification
Process: Design, Installation, and Operation of a 25-ton-a-day
Process Development Unit. Volume II. Report FE-1513-T-4,
Contract No. EX-75-C-O1 -1513. Columbus, OH, May 1978.
Bechtel Corp., Analysis of Coal Hydrogasiticat ion Processes.
Quarterly Technical Progress Report., December 1, 1977 -
February 28, 1978. Report FE-2565-13, Contract No. EF.77-A-01-
2565. San Francisco, CA. April 1978.
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., Gas Generator Research and
Development: Bi-Gas Process. 85th Monthly Progress Report,
September 1978. Report FE-1207-52, Contract No. EX-76-C-01-
1207. Monroevitle, PA, October 1978.
Brandt, H., Triaxial Tests of Coal Gasification Samples. Report
UCRL--13968, Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48. Davis, CA, Univer-
sity of California-Davis, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 1978.
Brennan, J. A., Development Studies on Selected Conversion
of Synthesis Gas from Coal to High Octane Gasoline. Quarterly
Report, October - December 1977. Report FE-2276--18, Contract
No. EX-76-C-01-2276. Paulsboro, NJ, Mobil Research and
Development Corp., January 1978.
Brown, Richard, and Alice Witter, Health and Environmental
Effects of Coal Gasification and Liquefaction Technologies:
AWorkshop &jthmir, and Panel Reports. Report MTR-79W00137.
NTIS PB-297 618, DOEIHEW/EPA-03. Contract No. DE-ACO1-
79EV10018. McLean, VA. Mitre Corp., METREK Div.. May 1979.
Cameron Engineers, Inc., Coal Gasification. Quarterly Report
October- December 1977. Report DOEIET-002414, Contract No.
EX-76-C-01 -2297. Denver, CO, May 1978.
Cavagnaro, D. M., Coal Gasification and Liquefaction Tech-
nology. Volume 3. June 1976 - April 1978 (A Bibliography with
Abstracts). Springfield, VA, National Technical Information
Service, April 1978.
Chem Systems, Inc., Liquid Phase Methanation Pilot Plant
Operation and Laboratory Support Work. Quarterly Report,
January 1, 1978 - March 31, 1978. Report FE-2036-26, Contract
No. EX-76-C-01 -2036. New York, NY, June 1978.
Clark, F. R., C. M. Packer, and R. A. Perkins, Development of
Coatings for Corrosion Erosion Protection of Internal Corn po-
nents of Coal Gasification Vessels. Quarterly Report, April 1,
1978- June 30, 1978. Report FE-2592-9, Contract No. EF-77-C-01-
2592. Palo Alto, CA, Lockheed Palo Alto Research Labs., 1978.
Combs, L. P., and M. I. Greene, Hydrogasifier Development for
the Hydrane Process. Fifth Quarter Report, March - May 1978.
Report FE-2518-21, Contract No. EF-77-C-01-2518. Canoga Park,
CA, Rockwell International Corp., Rocketdyne Div., July 1978.
Conoco Coal Development Co., CO 2 Acceptor Process Gasif i-
cation Pilot Plant: Run Reports. Final Report, Volume 8: Books
1-6, Runs 1-47, January 1972 - October 1977. Report FE-I 734-
41. Contract No. EX-76-C-01 -I 734. Library, PA, 1973.
Conoco Coal Development Co., CO 2 Acceptor Process Gasif i-
cation Pilot Plant: Support Studies by South Dakota School of
Mines and Technology. Final Report, Volume 9: Book I of 2,
Reports, February 1971 - January 1978. Report FE-i 734-42(V.9)
(Bk.1), Contract No. EX-76-C-01-1 734. Library, PA, 1978.
Conoco Coal Development Co., CO 2 Acceptor Process Gasif i-
cation Pilot Plant: Commercial Plant Conceptual Design and
Cost Estimate. Final Report, Volume 10: Book 1 of 3, North
Dakota Lignite Gasification, Economics and Description,
August 1976 - December 1977. Report FE-1734-43(V.10)(Bk.1),
Contract No. EX-76-C.01-1 734. Library, PA, 1977.
Conoco Coal Development Co., CO 2 Acceptor Process Gasif i-
cation Pilot Plant: Commercial Plant Conceptual Design and
Cost Estimate. Final Report, Volume 10: Book 3 of 3, Texas Lig-
nite Gasification, August 1976- December 1977. Report FE-1734-
43(V.10)(Bk.3), Contract No. EX-76-C-01 -1 734. Library, PA. 1977.
Conoco Coal Development Co., CO 2 Acceptor Process Gasili
cation Pilot Plant: Executive Summary Commercial Plant Con-
ceptual Design and Cost Estimate. Final Report, Volume 13,
August 1976 - December 1977. Report FE-1734-46(V.13), Con-
tract No. EX-76-C-01 -1734. Library, PA, 1977.
Curran, G. P., C. E. Fink, D. C. McCoy, I. L. Zuber, and J. D.
Ryan, CO 2 Acceptor Process Gasification Pilot Plant: Opera-
tions. Final Report. Volume 6: Book 1 of 2, January 1972 - June
1973. Report FE-1734.39(Vol.6)(Bk.1), Contract No. EX.76-C-01-
1734. Library, PA. 1973.
Curran, G. P., C. E. Fink, D. C. McCoy, I. L. Zuber, and J. D.
Ryan, CO 2 Acceptor Process Gasification Pilot Plant: Opera-
tions. Final Report, Volume 6: Book 2 of 2, Appendices,
January 1972 - June 1973. Report FE-1734-39(V.6)(Bk.2), Con-
tract no. EX-76-C-01-1734. Library, PA, 1973.
12
-------
Environmental Review ot Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
Curtiss.Wright Corp., High Temperature Turbine Technology
Program Phase II. Technology Test and Support Studies. Tech-
nical Progress Report, January 1, 1978- March 31, 1978. Report
FE-2291-29, Contract No. EX-76-C-01-2291. Woodridge, NJ,
May 1978.
Danyluk, S., and G. M. Dragel, Taphole Cooling Coil Failure:
Grand Forks Energy Technology Center Fixed-Bed S/a gging
Gasifier Pilot Plant. Failure Analysis Report. Report ANLIMSDI
FE-78-9, Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38. Argonne. IL, Argonne
National Lab., June 1978.
Elrick and Lavidge, Inc., Commercialization Focus Group In-
terview: Medium- and Low-Btu Coal Gasification. Report DOE!
TIC -10029, Contract No. EV-78-C-01-6457. San Francisco, CA,
August 1978.
Elrick and Lavidge, Inc., High-Btu Coal Gasification. Report
DOEITIC-10034, Contract No. EV-78-C-O1-6457. San Francisco,
CA, August 1978.
Foh, S. E., and J. S. Gahimer, Evaluation of Integrated Water-
Splitting/Coal Gasification Processes. Report CON F-771 203.
In: Proceedings of the Miami International Conference on
Alternative Energy Sources, Miami Beach, FL, December 5,
1977. pp.147-149.
Gangwal, S. K., P. M. Grohse, D. E. Wagoner, D. J. Minick,
C. M. Sparacino, and R. A. Zweidinger, Pollutants from Synthe-
tic Fuels Production: Sampling and Analysis Methods for Coal
Gasification. Report EPA-60017-79-201, NTIS PB 80-104656,
Grant No. R804979. Research Triangle Park, NC, Research Tri-
angle Institute, August 1979.
Graft, R. A., J. Yerushalmi, and A. Lacava, Improved Techniques
for Gasifying Coal. Seventh Quarterly Report, January 1, 1978-
March 31, 1978. Report FE-2340-7, Contract No. EX-76-S-01 -2340.
New York, NY, City College, April 1978.
Hill, R. W., Hoe Creek No. 3 Pre Operational Report. UCID-
18013, Contract No. W-7405-ENG-48. Livermore. CA, University
of California, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, December 29,
1978.
Institute of Gas Technology, Pipeline Gas from Coal Hydroge-
nation (!GT Hydrogasification Process). Project 9000 Quarterly
Report No. 6, October 1, 1977- December 31, 1977. Report FE-
2434-25, Contract No. EX-76-C-O1 -2434. Chicago, IL, August 1978.
Institute of Gas Technology, Pipeline Gas from Coal- Hydroge-
nation (!GT Hydrogasificat ion Process). Project 9000 Quarterly
Report No. 7, January 1, 1978- March 31, 1978. Report FE-2434-
29, Contract No. EX-76-C-01-2434. Chicago, IL, August 1978.
Kam, A. Y., and W. Lee, Fluid Bed Process Studies on Selec-
five Conversion of Methanol to High Octane Gasoline. Report
FE-2490-15, Contract No. EX-76-C-01-2490. Paulsboro, NJ, Mobil
Research and Development Corp., April 1978.
Kennedy, C. R., P. Swaroop, D. J. Jones, R. J. Fousek, A. B.
Poeppel, and D. Stahl. Evaluation of Ceramic Refractories for
Siagging Gasitiers: Summary of Progress to Date. Report ANL-
78.61. Contract No. W-31 109-ENG-38. Argonne. IL. Argonne
National Lab.. September 1978.
i .ocn, B. J., Phase I: The Pipeline Gas Demonstration Plant.
Market Study for Sale of the Coal Fines By-Product from a
Coal Gasification Plant. Report FE-2542.8, Contract No. EF.77-
C.01-2542. Stamford, CT, Continental Oil Co., 1977.
Koppenaal, D. W., Trace Element Studies on Coal Gasification
Process Streams. Report TID-290-22, Contract No. EY-76-C-05-
0033. Columbia, MO, University of Missouri, September 1978.
Leaman, G. J., Jr., Editor, Phase I. The Pipeline Gas Demon-
stration Plant. Site Selection Report. Report FE-2542-3, Con-
tract No. EF-77-C-01-2542. Stamford, CT. Continental Oil Co.,
1977.
Lewandowskj, G. A., Safety Analysis and Hazards Evaluation
for Ii. S. Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities, Minnesota, Wellman-
Galusha Coal Gasifier. Report FE-3193-1. Contract No. ET-78-
C-01-3193. Springfield, NJ, Vector Engineering Inc., November
10.1978.
Lewandowski, G. A., University of Minnesota, Duluth Campus,
Stoic Coal Gasifier Safety Analysis and Hazards Evaluation.
Report FE-3014-T1, Contract No. ET-78-C-01-3014. Springfield,
NJ, Vector Engineering, Inc., 1978.
Luthy, R. G., Design of Treatability Studies on Hygas Coal
Gasification Pilot Plant Wastewaters. Report FE-2496-13, Con-
tract No. EX-76-S-01-2496. Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity, Dept. of Civil Engineering, July 1978.
Luthy, P. G., Manual of Methods: Preservation and Analysis of
Coal Gasification Wastewaters. Report FE-2496-16, Contract
No. EX-76-S-01-2496. Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie-Mellon Univer-
sity, Environmental Studies Inst., July 1978.
Massey, M. J., P. G. Luthy, and R. W. Dunlap, Status of C-MU
Environmental Activities at the Hygas Pilot Plant. Second
Quarterly Report. Report FE-2496-8, Contract No. EX-76-S-01-
2496. Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie-Mellon University, Environmen-
tal Studies Inst., January 1977.
Staege. Hermann, “Entrained-Bed Coal Gasifiers Handle
Double Throughput,” Chemical Eng. 86(191:106-107,1979.
Thomas, W. C., Technology Assessment Report for Industrial
Boiler Applications: Synthetic Fuels. Report EPA-600i7.79-178d.
Contract No. 68-02-2608, Task No. 49. Austin, TX. Radian
Corporation, November 1979.
Thomas, W. C., K. N. Trede, and G. C. Page, Environmental
Assessment: Source Test and Evaluation Report-- Weilman-
Galusha (Glen Gery) Low-Btu Gasification. Report EPA-60017-
79-185, NTIS PB 80-102551. Contract No. 68-02-2147, Exhibit A.
Austin, TX, Radian Corp., August 1979.
Thorsness, C. B., and R. J. Cena, In Situ Coal Gasification
Modeling, Report UCRL--82269, CON F--790405 3, Contract No.
W-7405-ENG-48. Livermore, CA, University of California, Law-
rence Livermore Lab.. February 2. 1979.
Zahl, R. K., and J. C. Nigro, “The Use of Low-Btu Gas for Iron
Oxide Pellet Induration, An Interim Report,” In: Symposium
Proceedings: Environmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion
Technology, IV (April 1979. Hollywood, FL). Report EPA-600/7-
79-217. Research Triangle Park. NC. Research Triangle Institute,
September 1979.
13
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
Liquefaction Technology
Cochran, H. D., Jr., Hydrocarbonizaf ion, Report CONF--790211-
1, Contract No. W-7405-ENG-26. Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge
National Lab., 1979.
Harris, L. A., and C. S. Yust, “SEM and EMA Studies of a
Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant Carbonaceous Plug’ Scan-
ning Electron Microsc. 1l(1):537-42, 1978
Heylin, Mike, ‘South Africa Commits to Oil-from-Coal Process,”
Chem. Eng. News 57(38):13-16, 1979.
Schreiner, Max, Research Guidance Studies to Assess Gaso-
line from Coal by Met hanoi-to-Gasoline and Sasol-Type Fischer-
Tropsch Technologies. Report FE-2447-13, Contract No. EF.77.
C-01-2447. Princeton, NJ. Mobil Research and Development
Corp., August 1978.
Shields, K. J., H. 1. Hopkins, E. E. Weir, and C. Thompson,
Environmental Assessment Report: Solvent Refined Coal (SRC)
Systems. Final Report, May 1978 - May 1979. Report EPA-600/
7.79.146, NTIS P8-300 383. Columbia, MD, Hittman Associates,
Inc., June 1979.
U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Integrative Analysis,
Midterm Analysis Dlv., Analysis Report- Energy Supply and
Demand in the Midterm: 1985, 1990, and 1995. Report ARIIAI79-
24, DOE/EIA-0102/52. Washington, DC, Energy Information
Admin., Asst. Admin. for Applied Analysis, April 1979.
Other
Bruner, Fabrizio, Arnaldo Liberti, Massimiliano Possanzini,
and Ivo Allegrini, “Improved Gas Chromatographic Method for
the Determination of Sulfur Compounds at the PPB Level in
Air, “Analytical Chem. 44(1 2):2070-2074, 1972.
Calzonetti, F. J., Impacts of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act on the Siting of Coal Conversion Energy
Facilities in the United States. Report ORNUOEPA-12 1R1, Con-
tract No. W-7405-ENG-26. Morgantown, WV, West Virginia Univ.,
Dept. of Geology and Geography, February 1979.
CombIned.Cycle Using Gas from Coal Holds Promise for
Electric Generation, Power 123(6):99-102, 1979.
Costle, Douglas M. ANew Source Performance Standards for
Coal-Fired Power Plants,” J. Air Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 29(7):690-
692, 1979.
Deadmore, D. 1., and C. E. Lowell, Airfoil Cooling Hole Plugging
by Combustion Gas Impurities of the Type Found in Coal De-
rived Fuels. Report DOEINASAI2593-79l1, Contract No. EF-77-
A-01-2593. Cleveland, OH, National Aeronautics and Space
Admin., Lewis Research Center. February 1979.
Duvel, William A., Jr., “Solid-Waste Disposal: Landfilling,”
Chemical Eng. 86(14): 77-86. 1979.
Ellingson, W. A., Materials Technology for Coal-Conversion
Processes. Fifteenth Quarterly Report, July - September 1978.
Report ANL-79-2, Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38. Argonne, IL,
Argonne National Lab., 1978.
Elliott, G.R.B., and N. E. Vanderborgh, Laboratory Studies
of Coal Drying, Pyrolysis, and Combustion for UCC. Report
LA-UR-78-1 935, Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36. Los Alamos, NM,
Los Alamos Scientific Lab., 1978.
Ewing, R. A., B. W. Cornaby, P. V. Voris, J. C. Zuck, G. E.
Raines, and S. Mm. Criteria for Assessment of Environmental
Pollutants from Coal Cleaning Processes. Report EPA-600/7-
79-1 40. NTIS PB 80-102791, Contract No. 68-02-2163, Task 242.
Columbus, OH, Battelle Columbus Labs.. June 1979.
Folsom, B. A., T. L. Corley, M. H. Lobell, C. J. Kau, M. P. Heap,
and T. J. Tyson, Evaluation of Combustor Design Concepts for
Advanced Energy Conversion Systems. In: Proceedings of the
Second Stationary Source Combustion Symposium. New
Orleans, LA, August 29, 1977, Volume V. Report EPA-600/7-77-
073e, NTIS PB 274897, CONF-770885-P5. Research Triangle
Park, NC, Industrial Environmental Research Lab., EPA, July
1977.
Kingsbury, G. L., R. C. Sims, and J. B. White, Multimedia Envi-
ronmental Goals for Environmental Assessment: Volume IV.
MEG Charts and Background In formation Summaries (Cate-
gories 13-26). Report EPA-600l7-79-176b, NTIS PB 80-115116,
Contract No. 68-02-2612 (W.A. 72) and 68-02-3132. Research
Triangle Park, NC, Research Triangle Inst., August 1979.
Lemmon, A. W., G. L. Robinson, V. 0. Hale, and G. E. Raines,
Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: First
Annual Report; Volume I. Executive Summary. Report EPA-600/
7.79-073b NTIS PB-300 671. Columbus OH, Battelle Columbus
Labs.. Ju ne 1979.
Lemmon. A. W., G. L. Robinson, V. 0. Hale, and G. E. Raines,
Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes: First
Annual Report; Volume II. Detailed Report. Report EPA-600/
7-79-073c, NTIS PB-300 672. Columbus, OH, Battelle Columbus
Labs, June 1979.
Lentzen, D. E., D. E. Wagoner, E. D. Estes, and W. F. Gutknecht,
IERL-RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assess-
ment (Second Edition). Report EPA-600/7-78-201, NTIS PB
293795. Research Triangle Park, NC, Research Triangle Insti-
tute, January 1979.
Lesage, L. G., Instrumentation and Process Control for Coal
Conversion. Report ANLJFE-49622-18, Contract No. W-31-109-
ENG-38. Argonne, IL, Argonne National Lab., April 1978.
Luthy, R. G., and S. G. Bruce, Analysis of GFERC Wastewater
Samples, Run RA-16. Report FE-2496-15, Contract No. EX-76-
S-01-2496. Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie-Mellon University, Environ-
mental Studies Inst., June 1977.
Martin, G. Blair, and W. S. Lanier, “Combustion of Liquid
Synfuels,” In: Symposium Proceedings: Environmental Aspects
of Fuel Conversion Technology. IV (April 1979, Hollywood, FL).
Report EPA-600 17-79-217. Research Triangle Park, NC, Research
Triangle Institute, September 1979.
Morris, S. C., “Coal Conversion Technologies: Some Health
and Environmental Effects.” Science 206(441 9):654-662, 1979.
O’Hara, J. B., Preliminary Design Services. Research and De-
veloprnent Report No. 114. Report FE-1775-21, Contract No.
EX-76-C-01-1 775. Pasadena, CA, Ralph M. Parsons Co., Novem-
ber 1978.
14
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
March 1979
O’Hara, J. B., and B. I. Loran, Environmental Factors for Oil- “Short-term Carcinogenicity Tests: Promising but not Without
Gas Coal Conversion Technology. Prepared for the 69th AIChE Problems,” Chemical Week 124(24):31-32, 1979.
Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, November 28. 1976. Preprint No.
64D.
Svarovsky, Ladislaw, “Advances in Solid Liquid Separation-I:
Page, G. C., Environmental Assessment: Source Test and Filtration and Allied Operations,’ Chemical Eng. 86(14):62.76.
Evaluation Report--Chapman Low-Btu Gasification. Report 1979.
EPA-600/7-78-202, Contract No. 68-02-2147. Austin, TX, Radian
Corporation, October 1978.
U. S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology
Pojasek, Robert B., “Solid-Waste Disposal: Solidification.” Center, Clean Energy From Coal. Report PETC-1000. Pittsburgh.
Chemical Eng. 86(17):141-145, 1979. PA, January 1979.
Ross, Richard D., “The Burning Issue: Incineration of Hazardous Wojciechowski, B. W., “The Economics of Carbon Processing,”
Wastes,” Pollution Eng. 11(8):25-28, 1979. Hydrocarbon Process. 58(7):105-110, 1979.
fhe 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 6 contributed to this issue. The EPAJIERL-RTP Project Officer is William J. Rhodes, (919)
541-2851. The Radian Program Manager is Gordon C. Page, the Project Director is Elizabeth D. Gibson, and the Task Leader for preparation
of this issue is Pamela K. Beekley, (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 Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use by EPA.
------- |