ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
of
SYNTHETIC FUELS
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORIES
VOL. 3 NO. 2
JUNE 1980
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
REVIEW TO INCLUDE
ADDITIONAL SYNTHETIC FUELS TECHNOLOGIES
The Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels is
prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency's In-
dustrial Environmental Research Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (EPA/IERL-RTP). In accordance
with its goal of providing the most relevant and timely In-
formation possible, EPA is increasing the scope of this
publication to Include four additional synthetic fuels
technologies: in-sltu gasification, shale oil, tar sands, and
biomass-to-fuel. EPA's RD&D efforts in these areas are
directed by its Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
in Cincinnati, Ohio (EPA/IERL-Cinn).
The addition of these topics, together with the above-
ground gasification and liquefaction technologies presently
considered in the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels,
will provide readers with a more In-depth, comprehensive
range of information. Summaries of the activities sponsored
by lERL-Cinn will be presented in the next issue (Volume 3,
Number 3).
This Issue of the Environmental Review of Synthetic
Fuels describes recent developments in lERL-RTP's program
to evaluate the environmental Impacts of coal gasification
and liquefaction technology. Activities of EPA contractors
are covered in sections on current process technology and
environmental data acquisition. (These contractors, their EPA
Project Officers, and the name and duration of each effort
are tabulated on page 8.) Highlights of technology and
commercial developments, major symposia, a calendar of
upcoming events, and a list of publications provide up-to-
date Information on domestic and international develop-
ments in synthetic fuels technologies.
Comments or suggestions which will improve the
content or format of the Review are welcome. Such com-
ments should be directed to the EPA or Radian personnel
Identified on page 15 of this Review.
EPA'S RESPONSE TO SYNTHETIC AND ALTERNATE
FUELS GROWTH INCENTIVES
The U.S. EPA has established an Energy Policy Committee
(EPC) to draft the Agency's regulatory, permitting, and
research strategy for developing synthetic and alternate fuels.
EPC activities will be coordinated with the Energy Mobilization
Board (EMB) established by the President and by Congress to
speed permitting of major synthetic fuels production facilities.
These measures are part of an overall effort to decrease U.S.
dependence on Imported oil.
The EPC will ensure that environmentally sound energy
technologies are developed and will provide guidance on
pollution control technology. Emerging fuels and technologies
will be assessed In environmental guidance documents
prepared for Industry planners antf permitting officials.
The EPC Includes an Alternate Fuels Group comprised of
several Energy Technology Working Groups: Indirect
Liquefaction and Gasification, Direct Liquefaction, Oil Shale,
and Blomass (Gasohol). The Working Groups, staffed by EPA
personnel from the Program Offices, Regional Offices, and
Office of Research and Development, are preparing Pollution
Control Guidance Documents (PCGD's). These documents will
discuss and recommend control technologies for treating
harmful or potentially harmful compounds in multimedia
waste streams from synthetic fuels processes. (For more on
PCGD's, see "Control Technoloav Assessment" on page 4 of
this Issue.)
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June1980
CURRENT PROCESS TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
Engfronm.nfaI AsSessment R.portj to, SAC
Syst.nss—Hlttman Associates, Inc., has prepared an en-
vironmental assessment report (EPA.600 17-79-146) which
examines multimedia waste streams, controlldisposal op-
tions, environmental effects, and regulatory requirements for
a hypothetical Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) plant to syn-
thesize 009 m 3 ls (50,000 bbUd) of liquefied coal products.
Coal conversion Is accomplished via noncatalytic direct
hydrogenation, and SRC systems may be varied to produce a
solid product (SRC-l) oi a liquid fuel oil and naphtha (SRC-ll).
Additional processing of by-product light ends can yield
substitute natural gas (SNG) and liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG). Sulfur, ammonia, and phenols can also be produced
as by-products. Pilot plants in Ft. Lewis, WA, and Wilson-
yule, AL, have tested SRC technology. Demonstration-scale
plants with daily coal feed capacities of 5.5 Gg (6,000 tons)
are planned in Morgantown, WV, and Newman, KY.
SAC systems entail four basic operations: coal
pretreatment, liquefaction, phase separations, and product
purification and upgrading. Auxiliary processes supply and
cool water, generate steam and power, and supply hydrogen
and oxygen to the systems. Other environmentally important
auxiliary processes include acid gas removal and recovery of
by-products such as hydrogen, sulfur, ammonia, hydrocar-
bons, and phenol.
Solid wastes produced by SAC systems and SAC
wastewater treatment facilities are considered the greatest
source of current environmental concern, based on Source
Analysis Model (SAM) analysis of the existing data. Materials
from American Petroleum Institute separator bottoms and
biosludge contain compounds at concentrations which
exceed their Discharge Multimedia Environmental Goal (OMEG)
values. (For a definition of DMEG values, see “Terminology
for Environmental Impact Analyses,” Environmental Review
of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, No. 4.) SRC processing results in
filter cakes (SAC-I) and mineral residues (SRC-ll) which also
represent solid wastes of concern. One recommended
control option is to gasify excess mineral residue to reduce
slag toxicity and provide additional energy. Other solid
wastes and sludge can be dewatered prior to disposal at
landf Ill .sites. Estimates of after-treatment discharge levels
which were subjected to SAM analyses indicate that solid
wastes from SAC processing have greater potential for
environmental damage than gaseous or liquid waste streams.
Airborne particulates and gaseous emissions which rank
as pollutants of concern are primarily related to auxiliary
processes such as coal storage, sulfur recovery, flare
combustion, and steam and power generation. The majority
of these emissions are not unique to SRC processes, and
control options are available. Existing data Indicate that
water or polymer sprays and combined cyclone and
baghouse filters effectively reduce dust and particulates
from the storage of coal, solid SAC, and sulfur to levels
below the health-related DMEG values. The Stretford unit
recommended for treat ent of H,S Is estimated to be 99.5
percent efficient In H 2 S recovery; further treatment via
carbon adsorption, direct-flame incineration, or secondary
sulfur recovery processes may be required at more
stringently regulated plant sites. SO 2 scrubbers are
suggested for control of particulates and SO in boiler flue
gas from coal-fired power generation.
Water effluents of concern (such as leachates from coal
storage areas and SAC process wastewaters) are routed to
tailings ponds or to the main wastewater treatment facility.
Recommended control methods include aerated biological
treatment followed by filtration or settling of solids. These
techniques are similar to those used by the petroleum in-
dustry.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
Laboratory GasItlor Studies Continue—The Research
Triangle Institute (Rn) continues to operate its laboratory-
scale gasifier as part of the 5-year program, “Pollutants from
Synthetic Fuels.” Pollutant production has been recently
compared for a variety of coal types and gasifler operating
conditions, including fixed-bed, fluidized-bed, continuous
coal feed, and batch coal feed. Samples collected for
analysis are (I) discreta product gas samples taken at In-
tervals throughout a test run, (2) Integrated gas samples
taken after the product gas has passed through sorbent
polymer modules and an acid solution Implnger, and (3)
aqueous condensates and tar collected in a water-jacketed
vessal.
Results from recent test runs conducted under different
operating condItions have shown that:
• Operation in the fluldized-bed mode yields less tar
than in the fixed-bed mode.
• Continuous coal feed, when compared to semi-batch
feed, results in lighter volatiles, increased carryover
of particulates, and pronounced reduction of
phenols, cresols, and xylenols in gaslfier quench
water.
2
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
Table 1 shows some specific results from gasifying four
different fuels. Ranges are shown for test results obtained
under varied operating conditions; thus the effects of
process variations on pollutant production can be con-
trasted with the effects due to coal type. Gas phase data
were obtained either by analyzing integrated samples
(polymer sorbents and acid impinger solutions) or by flow-
averaging concentrations of discrete samples. The aqueous
condensate was composited throughout each test run.
For summaries of results from earlier fixed-bed test
runs, see previous issues of the Environmental Review of
Synthetic Fuels.
TABLE 1. SELECTED POLLUTANT PRODUCTION IN A LABORATORY COAL
GASIFICATION SYSTEM—SEMICONTINUOUS TESTS fog produced/g coal fed)a
Gaseous Phase:
Hydrogen Sulfide
Carbonyl Sulfide
Thiophene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Phenol
Cresols
Naphthalene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Aqueous Phase:
Phenol
Cresols
Ammonia
Sulfides
Chloride
Cyanide
Illinois No. 6
Bituminous
1.6E4 to 4.4E4
1.3E2 to 2.9E3b
1.4E2 to 1.7E3
3.7E3 to 1.1E4
9.5E2 to 3.8E3
2.8E2 to 3.8E3
1.4E1 to 1.3E2
<1.2E1 to 7.2E1
7.3E1 to 1.5E3
3.0E-4 to 4.1 EO
2.0E-4 to 9.5EO
1.0E2 to 1.2E3
2.3E2 to 7.6E2
3.1 E3 to 8.8E3
3.9E1 to 1.0E3
2.7E3 to 4.8E3
3.0E-1 to 7.7EO
Western Kentucky No. 9
Bituminous
2.0E4
1.1 E3
1.7E2
9.4E3
1.6E3
2.1 E2
3.2E2
2.1 E2
1.9E3
6.0EO
MAC
4.2E2
1.2E3
NA
NA
NA
NA
Wyoming
Subbituminous
1.9E3 to 3.2E3
1.1 E2 to2.1E2
9.0EO to 3.6E1
2.0E3 to 4.6E3
1.4E3 to 2.2E3
4.5E2 to 8.1 E2
2.8E2 to 1.2E3
2.7E2 to 3.2E2
8.5E1 to 2.5E2
1.2EO to 3.4EO
<7.4E-2 to 7.4E-2
1.3E2 to 6.7E2
1.4E2 I04.1E2
2.7E3
1.2EO
1.4E2
3.8E-1
North Dakota
Lignite
1.7E3 to 2.6E3
1.7E2 to 2.9E2
3.8EO to 5.7E2
2.0E3 to 5.3E3
1.1 E3 to 2.1 E3
2.4E2 to 7.6E2
2.0E1 to 4.2E2
8.7E1 to 1.7E2
5.3E1 to 2.8E2
9.2E-1 to 4.2EO
1.5E-3 to 3.5EO
4.9E2 to 1.4E3
2.6E2 to 7.0E2
1.5E3 to 1.6E3
2.4E1 to 4.6E1
8.7E1 to 4.2E2
1.1 E-1 to 1.4E-1
a Ranges indicate multiple tests with the same coal type using varied operating conditions. Results are expressed as "aEb"
which should be interpreted as a x 10'.
b Includes sulfur dioxide.
c NA = Not Available.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June1980
Phase 1 Report Completed—Radian Corporation has
completed the Source Test and Evaluation Report (STER)
describing Phase 1 of the environmental assessment
program underway at a commercial-scale, medium-Btu, Lurgi
gasification facility in Kosovo, Yugoslavia. The Phase 1 study
(EPA.600(7-79-190) emphasized characterization of major
gaseous components, although some of the plant’s liquid
and solid waste streams and its by-products were also
analyzed. Minor and trace gaseous species, such as PNA’s,
were not characterized in Phase 1. However, Phase 2
analyses will include characterization of these species.
EPA’s Source Analysis ModelllA (SAM/IA) method was
used to identify wastestreams with potential for en-
vironmental effects. These analyses indicated that the
ambient pollutants with the most significant potential for
adverse health effects are benzene and methyl and ethyl
mercaptans. CO, HIS, and NH, were also identif led as major
gaseous pollutants of concern. Samples from the major
aqueous wastestream from the Kosovo plant (Phenosolvan
effluent) had a high concentration of organics, but a
relatively low phenol concentration (170-210 mgII). Analysis
of by-product streams indicated that the sulfur concentration
of light by-products (e.g., gasoline) was significantly higher
than that of the heavior by-product streams (e.g., tat).
Overall program oblectives include acquisition of en-
vironmental data, identification of potentially harmful
wastestreams, and priorltlzation of control technology needs
associated with Lurgi gasification of lignite coal. The next
phase of this test program will emphasize detailed
characterization of trace os ganics and trace elements in the
plant’s multimedia wastestreams.
For more information on the Kosovo test program, see
the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, Nos. 1
and 3. (See also “Recent Major Papers and Publications” in
this issue for the full citation for the Phase 1 STER.)
Was tewaters from Koppers-Totzek Facility
Analyzed—TRW, Inc., has released preliminary results from
an environmental assessment sampling program conducted
at a Koppers-Totzek facility in Modderfontein, South Africa.
Initial analyses indicated that plant wastewaters have low
organic contents, and that phenols comprise less than 1 mg/I
of the wastewater samples.
Samples of condensates from the raw gas compression
units and Rectisol units contained metals (Pb, P, As, Se, Mn,
Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd) at concentrations exceeding their OMEG
values. (For a definition of DMEG values, see “Terminology
for Environmental Impact Analyses,” Environmental Review
of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, No. 4.) The coal gasified at the
Moddertontein Koppers-Totzek facility had a high ash
content (19 percent by weight), and it was postulated that
inorganic material entrained in the raw product gas was
condensed and removed by the compression units and
ended up in the process wastewaters.
The sampling program was a joint venture of TRW, Inc.,
and Krupp-Koppers of West Germany. Krupp-Koppers per-
formed on-site wastewater and gas analyses and also
provided engineering expertise for defining plant operation
during the testing effort. TRW was responsible for Level 1
analyses not provided by Krupp-Koppers, Level 2 analyses,
and priority pollutant screening of aqueous process streams.
(Level 1 and 2 analyses are described in EPA-600 17-78-201,
“IERL.RTP Procedures Manual: Level 1 Environmental
Assessment (Second Edition)”.)
The fInal report on this environmental assessment
program will be completed in the summer. Results will be
published when available in subsequent issues of the En-
vironmental Review of Synthetic Fuels.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Po tIo Coet,ot Gui nc Documents for Energy
T.chao aqies—Poftution Control Guidance Documents
(PCGD’s) for synthetic fuels production technologies are
being prepared as part of EPA-IERL’s environmental
assessment activities. At present, PCGD topics include low-
and hlgh-Btu coal gasification, direct and indirect coal
liquefaction, and oil shale technology. Radian Corporation
and TRW, Inc., are responsible for preparing the PCGD’s for
low- and high-Btu gasification, respectively, and both con-
tractors will prepare the indirect coal liquefaction guidance
document. Denver Research Institute is responsible for the
development of the oil shale PCGD. Preparation of the direct
liquefaction PCGD has not yet been Initiated. Other PCGD’s
may be written in the future for medium-Btu coal
gasification, gasohol production, and combined cycle power
generation
PCGD’s will be used to recommend control technologies
for treating harmful or potentially harmful compounds in
gaseous, liquid, and solid waste streams from processes
producing synthetic fuels. They will also address en-
vironmental effects of residuals from control technologies
and provide source monitoring guidance for potentially
harmful pollutants in those residuals. PCGD’s should prove
useful to all parties involved in the permitting and com-
mercialization of synthetic fuel technologies. This audience
includes suppliers and customers of synthetic fuels plants,
state permitting agencies, DOE, the Energy Mobilization
Board, the Energy Security Council, EPA Regional and
Program Offices, and the EPA Office of Research and
Development.
Wastewater Treatment Systems To Be Studied—Radian
Corporation is studying the characteristics of coal con-
version wastewaters to establish he similarities between
wastewaters from Lurgi and Chapman gasifiers and a coke
oven by-product recovery plant. Samples were collected at a
Lurgi gasification plant in Kosovo, Yugoslavia, a Chapman
low-Btu gasification facility, and a coke oven by-product
recovery plant. Chemical analyses will determine water
quality parameters, elemental composition, and organic
compounds present in the wastewaters.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
North Dakota Coal Gasification Project Receives FERC
Approval—The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) has approved the sale of gas produced from coal at a
project sponsored by Great Plains Gasification Associates, a
consortium of five large interstate pipeline companies. FERC
changed the rate terms proposed by the sponsors by
reducing the permissible rate of return on equity in the
project from 15 percent to 13 percent. The Great Plains
project also qualified for treatment as a research and
development facility, and will not be required to use standard
financing and tariff procedures.
The commercial-scale. high-Btu gasification plant will be
located in Mercer County near Beulah, ND. It has been
designed to produce 39.1 Nrn 3 is 1125 x 10° scf/d) of pipeline
quality synthetic gas with a minimum heating value of 3
MJINm 3 (970 Btulscf). Lurgi processing in conjunction with a
methanation step will be used to gasify lignite strip-mined at
a site adjacent to the gasification facility. Great Lakes Gas
Transmission Co. will be responsible for product transporta-
tion and distribution.
The Commission’s decision reversed the recom-
mendation of a FERC administrative law judge that cer-
tification for construction and gas sale be denied. Con-
troversy revolved around financing for the plant, which will
cost $1.5 billion. The sponsors of the project proposed that
the plant be financed through rate increases which would be
imposed on all customers, whether they purchased coal gas
or natural gas. The debt portion of project financing would
be guaranteed by the customers of the five sponsors. These
customers represent one-third of the United States’ gas
consumers. It was the judges contention that such financ-
ing was not equitable, and that federal financing would be
more reasonable, since the entire Nation would benefit from
the manufacturing and marketing experience obtained in the
venture. The sponsors of the project agreed that a federal
loan guarantee would eliminate the need for the ratepayers’
guarantee.
DOE has proposed $25 million in loans for the coal
gasification project, money which would allow engineering
and preconstruction work to continue. The Great Plains
Gasification Associates in turn will provide DOE with en-
vironmental, economic, and technical information, as well as
reimbursement of funding upon successful financing of the
project.
The active sponsors of the project, American Natural
Resources Co. and Peoples Gas Co., have spent $40 million
on initial design and construction permits. The other three
sponsors are affiliates of Columbia Gas System, Tenneco,
and Transcontinental Gas Pipeline. The gas produced at the
North Dakota facility will be divided equally among the five
partners. (For more information on the North Dakota project,
see Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 1, No. 3;
Vol. 2, No. 4; and Vol. 3, No 1.)
Coal-Derived Fuel for Residential Heating—The
developer of a coal-derived synthetic fuel claims that it can
be used in home furnaces and burns without soot or odors.
United International Research has named its product
Thermohol. It is produced via catalytic combination of No. 2
heating oil and methyl alcohol from coal. An industrial-scale
furnace is planned for testing Thermohol.
Coal/Garbage Gasification Process Reported—A
Columbia University chemical engineer has developed a fuel
gas production process that can use briquettes made from
the combination of garbage and municipal sludge with
pulverized coal. Caking coals, which tend to obstruct other
gasification processes, can be used in the Simplex process.
The cost of the resulting fuel is said to be approximately 60
percent that of fuel derived from imported petroleum or
other coal gasification processes.
The garbage/coal briquettes are converted to coke in a
modified blast furnace. Steam and oxygen are mixed with the
coke at temperatures near 1650°C (3000°F) to produce
carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases. The fuel gas results
when these gases are combined with other gases formed
during Simplex processing.
it was estimated that daily production for a Simplex
plant could approach 190 TJ (180 x 10° Btu) of energy. This
would require 450 Mg (500 tons) of sewage sludge, 5 Gg
(5500 tons) of garbage, and 6 Gg (7000 tons) of bituminous
coal per day. The inventor of the process has planned
demonstration-scale testing to begin later in 1980.
South Central Utah Site Chosen for GasificaLn
Plant—Utah has granted state siting approval to Mountain
uel Supply Company (MFSC) for construction of a coal
gasification plant in Emory County. The Lurgi process was
selected for initial plant design, but a MFSC-developed dry
feed, entrained bed process and a slagging Lurgi process are
also being considered. The MFSC process is similar to that
developed by the Bureau of Mines in Morgantown, WV. Coal,
oxygen, and steam are allowed to react at high temperature
(1593°C [ 2900°F]) to produce gas which should exceed 11.5
MJlNm (300 Btu/scf). The Utah plant is expected to produce
78.2 Nm 3 /s (250 x 106 scf/d) gas which may be upgraded or
used for industrial fuel. MFSC chose the Emory County
location because of its proximity to low-sulfur coal reserves.
West Germany Testing Two Coal Gasification
Systems—Pilot-scale testing of two coal gasification
processes has been initiated at two West German plants.
One plant, located at Dorsten in the Ruhr region, utilizes a
high pressure, modified-Lurgi gasification process. It has the
capacity to gasify 3.1 kg/s (270 metric tonsld) of coal. The
other gasification facility in Harburg, West Germany, is
testing the Shell-Koppers process. Throughput for this plant
is 1.6 kg/s (150 ton/d) of coal.
Gasification at the Dorsten pilot plant occurs at 10 MPa
(1450 psi) pressure, which is higher than previous Lurgi tests
at 2.5 MPa (360 psi). Objectives of the new method are to
increase the methane content of the gas product, maximize
reactor capacity without increasing reactor volume, and
lower investment costs.
The Harburg facility is being tested to obtain data for
design of a commercial-scale operation which could handle
over 21 kg/s (2000 ton/d) of coal. Approximately 907 Mg (1000
tons) of bituminous coal have been gasified during the initial
phase of pilot operation. Shell’s future plans include a
demonstration-sized facility capable of gasifying 10.5 kg/s
(1000 ton/d) of coal.
5
-------
Environmental Revlewof Synthetic Fuels
Juiw 1980
Caterpillar Starts Up Pennsylvania Gasification
Unit—Caterpillar Tractor Company has announced com-
mercial operation of a two-stage, fixed. bed coal gasification
facility built to supply gas for its York, PA, tractor plant.
Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc., of Houston, TX, was responsible
for design and manufacture of the 1.4-kg/s (130-tonld)
Wellman Incandescent gasification unit. The 2.5 TJ (2.4 x
10’ Btu) gas produced daily should meet the energy needs of
the tractor facility until 1985.
Environmental control systems such as electrostatic
precipitators, cooling sprays, and flotation tanks will aid in
the removal of tar, oil, sulfur, and dust from process and
effluent streams. The tar and oil may be used In the syn-
thesis of products such as asphalt and heating fuel. (For
more information on the York, PA, facility, see Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 1, No. 1.)
H-Coal Refining Costs Studied—A DOE study performed
by UOP, Inc., indicates that processing H-Coal synthetic
crude in a coal liquids refinery would be about $0.32/rn 3
($2lbbl) cheaper than refining Arabian high-sulfur crude in a
new petroleum refinery. Refinery facilities for H-Coal
processing are less complex and therefore less expensive
than those required for high-sulfur petroleum refining.
However, hydrotreatment to forestall storage instability
would raise the costs of the H-Coal product.
The study also found that H-Coal crude contains about
10 times less residual oil by weight as compared to Arabian
crude. Residual oil, which is very difficult to process, is
recycled or used to produce hydrogen in H-Coal refining.
DOE Promotes Catalysts, Methanol Piant—DOE has
approved plans for a LaPorte, TX, pilot methanol plant which
will test indirect coal liquefaction technology. Mobil and
Union Carbide catalyst improvement projects have also
received DOE endorsement.
Chern Systems and Air Products & Chemicals will
sponsor construction of the 6500-cm 3 ls (35-bblld) pilot
methanol plant. The $10 million project will test a liquid
phase reactor in which hydrogen and carbon monoxide from
coal are combined to form methanol. Heat from the syn-
thesis reaction is absorbed by the reactor liquid and can be
used to produce steam for coal gasification. However, no
gasification is planned at the Texas plant because pipeline
hydrogen and carbon monoxide are readily available.
Mobil plans to develop a new catalyst for use in Fischer-
Tropsch liquefaction processes. The catalyst should result in
decreased hydrogen consumption, lowering the costs of the
indirect liquefaction method. Union Carbide will work to
improve a zeolite catalyst used in direct conversion of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen to gasoline.
Commercial Synthetic Gas Project To Be Studied—A
proposal to study a Northern Indiana coal gasification
project has been selected for DOE contract negotiation. The
$900,000 study will examine the financial and commercial
feasibility of the project and the usability of the low/medium-
Btu gas product. Plant design, economics, and organization
will also be considered. The proposed project would enable a
commercial supplier, Northern Indiana Public Service
Company, to provide synthetic gas to an Industrial complex
comprised of five steel companies and one chemical firm.
Texas Lignite Gasified In-Situ—A spokesman for Air
Products and Chemicals (AP&C) has reported successful in-
situ gasification of Texas lignite. Joseph Santangelo,
director of AP&C’s Long Range Development Department,
stated that field tests at Tennessee Colony, TX, have
demonstrated the practicable use of oxygen injection for in.
situ lignite gasification. The product gas averaged 8.6-
MJ/Nm’ (230-Btu/scf) heat value. CO 2 removal could double
the heating value of the gas, which has a CO 2 content of 51
percent. Basic Resources supplied the lignite burned in the
tests.
Synthetic Fuels Difficult to Store—A DOE research team
has reported that coal-derived crude oil and distillates tend
to be more unstable than petroleum-based liquids under
storage conditions. Handling and storage problems may limit
the use of these synthetic fuels in internal combustion
engines. The viscosity of the synthetic crude oil Increases
when exposed to oxygen, and the distillates tend to gum in
the presence of metal or oxygen. These characteristics may
necessitate the addition of inhibitors or costly upgrading
before the coal-based liquids can be used as transportation
fuels.
Britain Moves Toward Commercial Coal Refining—A site
in North Wales has been chosen for two pilot coal
liquefaction facilities proposed by Britain’s National Coal
Board (NCB). Cost estimates for the project are not yet
available, but the European Economic Community has
pledged its financial support. NCB has demonstrated
laboratory-scale production of 1.3 g/s (250 lb/cl) of coal-
derived crude oil which can be refined by traditional
methods.
Demonstration- and commercial-sized plants will be built
when pilot testing is completed. NCB has set a production
goal of 0.06 m 3 /s (35,000 bbl/d) of fuel by 1990. It has been
estimated that Britain’s extensive coal reserves include 40.8
Pg (4.5 x 10” tons) of recoverable coal, which could be used
to supply future commercial coal refineries. (For more in-
formation on NCB’s liquefaction projects, see Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, Nos. 3 and 4.)
Australia Plans Coal and Oil Shale Develop-
ment—Australia has proposed projects to increase oil
production from coal and shale in an effort to reduce the
Continent’s dependence on petroleum imports. Funding for
the development of these resources will come from
Australian and Japanese private industry.
A $4 million study has been funded to examine the
feasibility of two 0.18-m 3 Is (100,000-bblld) coal liquefaction
plants. Each plant would cost approximately $2.2 billion, and
would produce liquid fuels estimated to cost $208/rn 3
($33Ibbl).
Central Pacific Minerals and Southern Pacific Petroleum
will sponsor a $3 billion oil shale project in Queensland.
Processes developed by Superior Oil of the U.S. and Lurgi
Ruhrgas will be utilized for above-ground shale particle
retorting. A demonstration facility with a capacity of 0.04
m 3 ls (20,000 bbl/d) is proposed, and the 1990 production goal
is 0.46 m 3 ls (250,000 bbl/d) of oil.
6
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
Liquefaction of Solid Product from Solvent Refined
Coal—A partnership of Southern Co. Services, Air Products
& Chemicals, and Wheelabrator-Frye has plans to expand
their solvent refined coal (SRC) processing to include
liquefaction of the solid SAC. The program will use
technology developed 20 years ago to upgrade tar sands and
process oil refinery residue. DOE-funded pilot plant studies
of the process indicate a reduced hydrogen requirement and
the production of a low nitrogen, low-sulfur naphtha and
distillate. The product liquid is claimed to be cleaner than
liquid solvent refined coal (SAC-Il).
The project participants anticipate that facilities to
liquefy solid SRC will be included at the 63.5 kg/s (6000
ton/d) demonstration plant proposed for Newman, KY. DOE
is considering funding the liquefaction project.
New Process Developed to Reduce Japanese Depen-
dence on Imported Oil—Hitachi Ltd. of Japan has disclosed
development of a new gasification system. According to a
spokesman for Hitachi Research Laboratory, the process can
utilize any type of coal feed and has about 70-percent
gasification efficiency. In the Hitachi process, a gasification
furnace is used for cracking a mixture of powderized coal
and an asphalt-like residue from oil refining.
Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry
(MITI) funded the research leading to the new gasification
process. The study was conducted as part of MITI’s Sun-
shine Project to develop energy sources to reduce Japan’s
dependence on imported oil.
Trial of the new gasification system will occur at a pilot
plant to be built and operated by Japan Electric Power
Development Co. MITI will finance construction of the
facility at a site in Iwaki City, Fukushima Prefecture.
Coal to Serve as Chemical Feedstock—A plant which
will use coal in the synthesis of acetic anhydride is to be
built by Tennessee Eastman, a subsidiary of Eastman Kodak
Corporation. Acetic anhydride is a feedstock for cellulose
acetate, which is used to manufacture a variety of sub-
stances such as rayon and photographic films. Tennessee
Eastman intends to use a Texaco process for coal
gasification. In this process, coal is slurried prior to
oxidation to carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
Exxon’s Baytown Gasifie, Tested—Exxon has concluded
first stage testing at its 10 g!s (1 ton/d) catalytic gasification
unit in Baytown, TX. Pipeline quality methane was produced
from a variety of coal feedstocks via a high-Btu process
which does not require oxygen or shift and methanation
steps. The decreased heat requirements of the system
resulted in enhanced thermal efficiency. A potassium
hydroxide catalyst was used to prevent caking of the ground
coal feed. During the first stage of testing, carbon-to-
methane conversion efficiency was reported to be 80 to 90
percent. Operation of the reactor, removal of solids, and coal
feed mechanisms were examined in these initial tests.
The second stage of testing will investigate catalyst and
carbon monoxide/hydrogen recycling. Start-up of the fully
integrated methane production system is expected to follow
these studies. An acid gas removal system will be used to
clean hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from the product
gas.
Coal-Cleaning and Liquefaction Plants Planned—Carbo
Chem of Pennsylvania has announced plans to build coal-
cleaning and liquefaction plants in Everett, PA, and Hopkins
County, KY. The plants will use a depolymerization process
to produce clean-burning coal pellets, and will also convert
liquid coal products to oil and related products. It has been
estimated that each $300 million plant will annually produce
954,000 m 3 (6 x 10’ bbl) of fuel oil, gas, and coke.
The sponsor of the project claims that the 52.5-kg/s
(5000-tld) coal cleaning plant in Hopkins County will operate
at ambient temperature and pressure to produce coal pellets
with an energy value of 33.7 MJ/kg (14,500 Btu/lb) at a cost
near $1.90 per GJ ($2 per 108 Btu). Raw coal with 25.6-MJ/kg
(11,000 Btu/lb) heat value is presently marketed by a partner
of Carbo Chem for $0.62 per GJ ($0.65 per 106 Btu). Coal
cleanup may enable electrical utilities to burn the coal
pellets without costly scrubber systems.
Carbo Chem does not presently have DOE funding.
Southern Co., which does have DOE support for development
of solid solvent refined coal (SRC-l), calculates that their
product will cost approximately $1.28 per GJ ($1.35 per 106
Btu). Helifuel, a pelletized coal formed using the McDowell-
Weilman process, will sell for about $t41 per GJ ($1.49 per
106 Btu).
Brazil to Build Three Gasification Plants—Brazilian coal
gasification efforts are expanding, as evidenced by govern-
ment plans to build three $1 billion facilities to gasify
Brazilian coal. The three plants will be located in Rio de
Janeiro, Sao Paulo, and Porto Alegre. Combined daily
capacity will exceed 8 million Nm ’ of gas. The coal
resources to supply the plants are in the Brazilian States of
Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. (For more information
on Brazil’s coal gasification efforts, see Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 2, No. 3.)
Gulf Tests In-Situ Gasification Technique—DOE is
sponsoring a $13.5 million, 5-year study of an underground
coal gasification technique developed by Gulf Science and
Technology Co. The initial 21-day test burn has been com-
pleted at a site near Rawlins, WY. The coal seam tested was
steeply pitched, and the coal would have been difficult to
recover by conventional mining methods, Ignition was
started 122 m (400 ft) underground at the junction of two
slant wells. Gasification was facilitated by a chimney effect
in which gravitational forces supplied fresh coal to the
combustion zone as the burn proceeded. The gas produced
had a heating value about 20 percent that of pipeline quality
natural gas,
The director of the project, Alan Singleton, estimated
that 90.7 Pg (1 x 10” tons) of U,S, coal would become ac-
cessible if an economical method for in-situ gasification of
steeply dipping coal seams was developed, The goals of the
DOE project include production of approximately 1.5 m 3 /s
(4.5 x 106 ft’/d) of gas, comparison of air and oxygen in-
jection, detailed observation of the combustion process, and
assessment of environmental impacts associated with in-situ
gasification. Additional tests are scheduled this year. The
information obtained will be used to design a pilot-scale
facility which will include gas processing equipment. (For
more information on the Gulf Study, see Environmental
Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 1, No. 2.)
7
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June1910
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)
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78766
(512) 454-4797
(Gordon C. Page)
James D. Kilgroe
I ERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle. Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2851
Environmental Assessment
of Hlgh-Btu Gasification
(April 1977-April 1980)
TRW, Inc.
1 Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(213) 536-4105
(Chuck Murray)
William J. Rhodes
1ERL-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)
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 27607
(919) 737-2324
(James Ferreli)
Robert A. McAllister
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2160
Water Treatment Bench
Scale Unit
(November 1976-October 1981)
(Grant)
Univ. of North Carolina
Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
School of Public Health
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 966-1023
(Philip Singer)
Robert A. McAllister
I ERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2160
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
I ERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-2708
8
-------
REPORT SUMMARY
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
Environmental Assessment Report:
Weliman-Galusha Low -Btu
Gasification Systems
(EPA-60017.80-093)
by
Pat Murin, Theresa Sipes, and G. C. Page
Radian Corporation
Weilman-Galusha gasifiers are used in the commercial
production of low-Btu (—59 MJ/Nm’ or 150 Btulscf) gas from
a variety of coal feedstocks. In the U.S., Weliman-Galusha
gasifiers are operating at 11 facilities located primarily in the
industrialized Northeast. At these installations, anthracite or
low-sulfur bituminous coals are converted to fuel gas for on-
site furnaces, heaters, kilns, and small boilers.
Wellman-Galusha low-Btu gasification systems in-
corporate three basic operations: coal pretreatment, coal
gasification, and gas purification. Four gasification systems
are considered in this environmental assessment report.
These systems differ as to the process modules and control
technologies applied in the gasification of various coal
feedstocks to produce “clean” fuel gas able to comply with
current and proposed New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for the combustion of coal.
Typical costs for the Weliman-Galusha product gas
range from $1.90 to $6.10 per GJ ($2.00 to $6.40 per 10 Btu),
depending on coal feedstock, product gas specifications
(tar/sulfur content), and plant size. Of these factors, the coal
feedstock is the most significant and can represent from
approximately 25 percent to 70 percent of the product gas
costs.
Wellman-Galusha low-Btu gasification systems are
sources of gaseous, liquid, and solid waste streams. Also
associated with these systems are process and by.product
streams that may contain toxic substances. Table 2 sum-
marizes recommended control alternatives for gaseous
emissions, liquid effluents, solid wastes, and toxic sub-
stances produced by Wellmari-Galusha gasifiers.
The criteria used to identify the most effective control
alternatives are: applicability to treating waste streams from
low-Btu gasification systems, control effectiveness,
development status, and secondary waste streams.
Gaseous emissions from Wellman-Galusha systems
contain significant levels of compounds which may have
harmful health or ecological effects. Gaseous pollutants (CO,
H 2 S, HCN, NH,, and light hydrocarbons) are emitted from the
coal feeder and gasilier pokeholes. Start-up vent gases and
vent gases from the by-product tar recovery process will
contain potentially harmful compounds (particulates,
gaseous species, organics, and inorganics) which need to be
controlled.
The gaseous emissions from a Wellman-Galusha
gasification facility which applies recommended control
technology should not significantly impact air quality. The
major source of GO, H 1 S, NH,, HCN, and COS emissions is
the separator vent. It is estimated that recycling the
separator vent gas to the product gas will give an 85 to 98
percent reduction in the ground-level concentrations of these
pollutants. These gaseous emissions can also be flared or
incinerated. The Claus tail gas incinerator is the major
source of SO, emissions. Recommended incorporation of a
Claus tail gas cleanup process will reduce these emissions
by approximately 90 percent.
Wellman-Galusha systems produce liquid effluents in
the form of blowdown streams, ash sluice water, process
condensates, and coal pile runoff. Of these effluents, the
blowdown streams will contain significant quantities of
potentially harmful constituents. Containment and treatment
of these effluents at a hazardous waste facility is recom-
mended. Ash sluice water and coal pile runoff will contain
compounds leached from the ash and coal which may affect
health and the environment.
Solid waste streams from Wellman-Galusha systems will
consist of ash, collected particulates, sulfur, and blowdown
from the MEA sulfur removal process. Ash and sulfur may
contain leachable constituents that may be potentially
harmful. MEA blowdown sludge contains potentially harmful
constituents and needs to be treated before disposal.
Control alternatives for solid wastes include combustion,
landfill disposal, or treatment at a hazardous waste facility.
The by-product tar and quench liquor represent process
streams that contain potentially harmful organic and
inorganic compounds. Worker exposure and accidental
release of these streams must be avoided, It is recom-
mended that tars and oils be combusted in a boiler or fur.
nace for additional energy.
The chemical characteristics and potential biological
effects of waste streams are highly dependent upon the coal
feedstock and processes used in gasification. For example,
the amounts and types of organic compounds found in the
process condensate will vary with coal feedstock. High
levels of organics will be present when bituminous and
lignite coals are gasified, whereas anthracite coals will result
in very low levels of organics in the process condensate.
The report summarizes the costs of “best available”
candidate control methods. Most of the control alternatives
have negligible costs when compared to the costs of the
low-Btu gas. The most costly control processes are those
required for treatment of the MEA acid gas vent stream and
process condensate. The most costly control methods also
have the largest energy consumption. Conversely, tars and
oils represent an energy credit of up to 0.25 J per J of
product gas produced, depending on coal feedstock.
Increased commercialization of low-Btu gasification
systems like the Weilman-Galusha will depend on the
demonstration of cost effectiveness and environmental
acceptability of the gasification systems. Although com-
mercially available controls seem to be adequate, some of
the controls (such as treatment of process condensate
blowdown) have not been adequately demonstrated on coal
gasification systems.
9
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF MOST EFFECTIVE EMISSION, EFFLUENT,
SOLID WASTE, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Waste Stream
Most Effective Control Technology
Air Emissions
• Fugitive dust from coal storage
• Fugitive dust from coal handling
• Coal feeding system vent gas
• Ash removal system vent gas
• Start-up emissions
• Fugitive emissions and pokehole gases from gasifier
• Fugitive emissions from hot cyclone
• Separator gas
• MEA acid gas
• Stretford oxidizer vent gas
• Stratford evaporator vent gas
Liquid Effluents
• Water runoff
• Ash sluice water
• Process condensate
• Stretford blowdown
Solid Wastes
‘Ash
• Cyclone dust
• Recovered sulfur
• MEA blowdown
Toxic Substances
•Tars and oils
• Covered bins for coal storage
• Asphalt and polymer coatings
• Enclosed equipment, gas collection and recycling to gasifier inlet
air, or treatment with baghouse filter
• Gas collection and recycling to gasifier inlet air or combustion
with product gas
• No control necessary in a properly designed system
• Combustion incinerator
• Good operating and maintenance procedures
• Same as for gasifier, above
• Combination with product gas
• Stretford H S removal unit
‘Claus incinerator with tail gas cleanup
• None required with existing applications
• Same as for oxidizer vent gas, above
‘Covered bins for coal storage
• Containment, collection, and recycling for process needs
‘Collection and recycling to ash sluice system
• Containment and treatment at hazardous waste facility
• Containment and treatment at hazardous waste facility
• Reductive incineration at high temperature
• Disposal in secured landfill
• Combustion in incinerator or coal-fired boiler
• Purification for sale or disposal
•Containment and treatment at hazardous waste facility
‘Combustion in boiler or furnace
-------
REPORT SUMMARY
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
Treatability and Assessment of
Coal Conversion Wastewaters: Phase I
(EPA.60017 .79-248)
by
P. C. Singer, J. C. Lamb Ill,
F. K. Pfaender, and R. Goodman
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill
The University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill
has completed the first phase of a 5-year EPA-sponsored
study to assess the treatability of coal conversion
wastewaters. Studies to date have been conducted with
synthetic wastewater formulated to simulate actual coal
conversion process water. Primary emphasis during Phase I
has been on aerobic biological treatment in bench-scale
activated sludge reactors. Other Phase I studies have in-
cluded (1) additional methods of treating real wastewater and
(2) bioassay testing with biologically treated synthetic
wastewater.
Biological Treatment of Coal Conversion
Wastewaters
The results of Phase I studies indicate that the syn-
thetic coal conversion wastewater is biologically treatable at
25 percent of full strength. The total organic carbon (TOG),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), and biological oxygen
demand (BOD) levels measured in effluents from the ac-
tivated-sludge reactors were significantly lower than those of
the raw synthetic wastewaters. Reactor residence time of 20
days yielded TOC, COD, and BOO reductions of 85 to 97
percent, 86 to 96 percent, and 99.8 percent, respectively.
Reduction of TOC, COD, and BOO appeared to improve with
increased sludge age or residence time in the reactors.
Volatility tests determined that no significant loss in TOC
could be attributed to aeration conditions paralleling those
encountered during biological treatment.
Organic analysis of the treated reactor effluents com-
pared to the raw synthetic wastewater revealed that the
removal of nonpolar compounds and phenolics became
greater as reactor retention was increased. Phenol, re-
sorcinol, and catechol were essentially nondetectable with a
sludge age of 5 days. Cresols and xylenols required 7.5 to 10
days and 20 days, respectively, for reduction to levels below
1 mg/I. (See Table 3.)
In a more specific b odegradabiIity study, manometric
techniques were used to compare oxidative degradation
rates for three groups of molecules: phenol, cresol, and
xylenol. Results were similar to those obtained in the ac-
tivated sludge reactor studies. Phenol was degraded most
extensively and at the highest rate; the group comprised of
three isomers of cresol was intermediate; and the five isomers
of xylenol were least biodegradable.
Endogenous respiration rates were measured for the
biological treatment systems before and after addition of
synthetic wastewater. These tests showed that wastewater
constituents did not exert any toxic or inhibitory effects on
the microbial oxidative degradation systems, even at con-
centrations twice as high as those of the synthetic for-
mulation.
TABLE 3. CONCENTRATIONS OF MAJOR PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS IN REACTOR EFFLUENTS
Phenolic
Compound
Raw
Feed
5-day
5-day
Reactor R
7.5-day
esldence Time
10-day
20-day
20-day
40-day
Catechol (mg/I)
250
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.2
<0.1
<0.02
Resorcinol (mg/I)
250
<0.5
<0.5
<0.2
<0.5
<0.2
<0.1
<0.02
Phenol(mgJI)
500
0.9
0.6
<0.2
<0.4
<0.2
<0.1
<0.13
Cresols (mg/I)
o-Creso l
p-Cresol
100
62.5
22.2
30.2
0.2
0.8
<0.005
<0.02
0.036
Xylenols (mg/I)
3,5-Xylenol
2,3-Xy lenol
3,5-Xyleno l
62.5
62.5
10
33.6
31.4
1.0
2.5
1.4
<0.01
0.007
2,3,5-Trimethyl-
phenol (mg/I)
12.5
9.0
7.0
0.6
1.3
<0.08
<0.02
<0.004
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
Additional Methods of Wastewater Treatment
Other Phase I studies examined additional wastewater
treatment methods, including acidification, coagulation, and
activated carbon adsorption. Acidification and coagulation
were applied to remove tar and oil from the real wastewaters
before biological treatment. Acidification to a pH of 5.0
resulted in a 94-percent reduction in wastewater tar content,
and a corresponding 16-percent reduction in COD and 22-
percent reduction in TOC.
Three coagulants were tested: alum, DEAE-Dextron, and
Dow C-31 Purifloc. Of these, only alum was not an effective
pretreatment chemical, even in large doses. This may have
been due to the presence of ligands and anions of organic
acids which interfered with the hydrolysis of aluminum. High
doses of the two cationic polyelectrolytes, DEAE-Dextron
and Dow C-31 Purifloc, did result in coagulation, facilitating
removal of tar and TOG from the wastewater.
Activated carbon adsorption studies were performed
with wastewaters before and after biological treatment.
Alkyl-substituted phenols were more readily adsorbed than
phenol. The extent of this adsorption increased as the
number of alkyl substituents and the length of the alkyl
chain became greater. The position of the alkyl group ap-
parently had no effect on the extent of adsorption.
The ability of the residual organic carbon to be adsorbed
by activated carbon after biological treatment appeared to
decrease with increasing reactor residence time. This may
have been caused by the high aqueous solubility of the
residual organic compounds which comprise the effluent
TOG.
Bioassay Tests
Dose-response curves constructed from aquatic
bioassay data indicated that biological treatment reduces the
toxicity of the synthetic wastewater. The extent of toxicity
reduction appeared to be directiy proportional to the
residence time at the activated sludge reactors. Phase I
bioassay experiments exposed fathead minnows, Pimephales
promelas, and Daphnia pulex to the raw and treated
wastewater. Preliminary algal toxicity tests were hindered by
fu ngal and bacterial contamination.
Health effects studies included a clonal toxicity assay
which measured the colony-forming ability of the Chinese
hamster V-79 cell line after exposure to raw and treated
wastewater. Wastewater cytotoxicity decreased with in-
creased residence time at the biological treatment reactors.
The 5-day reactor treatment resulted in a 3-fold reduction in
cytotoxicity over raw wastewater, and the 10- and 20-day
reactors resulted in 23-fold and 80-fold cytotoxicity reduc-
tions, respectively.
Future Study
Plans for future study include an extension of biological
treatability tests to include synthetic wastewater at higher
constituent concentrations as well as samples of actual coal
conversion wastewaters. The next report in this series will
present more data from kinetic and organic analyses.
Studies of endogenous respiration as an indication of
wastewater toxicity will be extended to evaluate effects of
other constituents not presently included in the synthetic
mixture, such as cyanide, thiocyanate, and selected priority
pollutants.
The objectives of future bioassay studies are (1) a
detailed characterization of the toxicity associated with raw
and treated synthetic wastewater, and (2) a definitive
assessment of toxicity reductions resulting from biological
treatment. The results of Ames tests (rnutagenicity potential)
and further, more comprehensive health effects assays will
also be presented in future reports.
Work on the 5-year prolect is continuing, and data from
these studies will be used to estabiish criteria to be used in
designing biological treatment systems for coal conversion
wastewaters. The conclusions reached using synthetic
wastewater will ultimately be tested with real coal con-
version process water. (For more information on the UNC-CH
study, see Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 1,
Nos. 2 and 3; and Vol. 2, Nos. 2 and 3.)
MEETING CALENDAR
Coal Gasification, Liquefaction, and Conversion to Energy
Annual Conference, Aug. 5-7, 1980, Pittsburgh, PA. Contact:
University of Pittsburgh, School of Engineering, Pittsburgh,
PA 15261.
89th National Meeting of American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, Aug. 17-20, 1980, Port land, OR. Contact: American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, 345 East 47th Street. New
York, NY 10017; telephone (212) 644-7526.
15th lntersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Con-
ference, Aug. 18-22, 1980, Seattle, WA. Contact: American
Chemical Society, 1155 Sixteenth Street NW. Washington,
DC 20036.
Coal-Chem 2000 International Conference, Sep. 7-11. 1980,
Sheffield, U.K. Contact: E. Rothwell, Dept. of Chemical
Engineering and Fuel Technology, Sheffield University.
Mappin Street, Sheffield, SI 3JD, U.K.
11th World Energy Conference, Sep. 8-12. 1980. Munich.
West Germany. Contact: Robert J. Raudedaugh. 1620 Eye
Street, Suite 008, Washington, DC 20006; telephone (202)
331-0415.
5th Environmental Protection Agency Symposium on En-
vironmental Aspects of Fuel Conversion Technology, Sep.
16-19, 1980, St. Louis, MO. Contact: Franklin A. Ayer,
Research Triangle Institute, P.O. Box 12194, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone (919) 541-6260.
Coal Gasification, Sep. 23-24, 1980, Pittsburgh, PA. Contact:
American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH 44073.
4th International Symposium on Alcohols (and other biomass
fuels), Oct. 5-8, 1980, Guaruja. Sao Paulo, Brazil. Contact:
N. E. DeEston, Caixa Postal 7141, 0100. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
24th ORNL Conference on Analytical Chemistry in Energy
Technology, Oct. 7-9, 1980, Riverside Motor Lodge. Gatlin-
burg, TN. Contact: A. L. Harrod. Analytical Chemistry
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. TN
37830.
3rd World Energy Engineering Congress, Oct. 13-16, 1980,
Atlanta, GA. Contact: Albert Thumann, AEE, 4025 Pleasant-
dale Road, Suite 340, Atlanta, GA 30340; telephone (404) 447.
5083.
International Symposium on Environmental Pollution, Oct.
16-17, 1980, Sheraton Biltmore, Atlanta, GA. Contact: V. M.
Bhatnagar. Alena Enterprises of Canada, P.O. Box 1779,
Cornwall, Ontario, K6H 5V7, Canada.
1980 Annual Meeting of American Petroleum Institute, Nov.
10-11, 1980, San Francisco. CA. Contact: American Petroleum
Institute. 2101 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.
AIChE 73rd Annual Meeting, Nov. 16-20, 1980, Palmer House.
Chicago, IL. Contact: American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, 345 E. 47th Street, New York, NY 10017.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF FUEL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY
The Fifth Symposium on “Environmental Aspects of Fuel
Conversion Technology” will be held September 16-19, 1980, at
the Chase-Park Plaza Hotel, St. Louis, Missouri. The purpose
of the symposium, sponsored by IERL-RTP, is to discuss
environmentally -related information on coal gasification and
liquefaction. More than 300 participants, including process
developers, process users, environmental groups, and
research scientists, are expected to attend the 4-day
symposium. General Chairman of the meeting will be IERL-
RTP’s William J. Rhodes, Synfuel Technical Coordinator.
Recent source and ambient multimedia test results from
pilot- through commercial-scale coal gasification and
liquefaction facilities will be emphasized as well as
evaluations of environmental control technologies, results of
laboratory research studies, and methodologies for
environmental assessment The status of the Agency’s
Pollution Control Guidance Documents in coal indirect
liquefaction, direct liquefaction, and low-Btu gasification will
be discussed.
Invitations and program announcements will be sent to all
addressees who are receiving the Environmental Review of
Synthetic Fuels. There will be a registration fee of $50 ($20
optional) for the Symposium on “Environmental Aspects of
Fuel Conversion Technology.” The registration fee includes
administrative costs, a copy of preprints of symposium
papers, a copy of the proceedings when published,
refreshment breaks, and a get-acquainted mixer. Franklin A.
Ayer, Research Triangle Institute, P.O. Box 12194, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-6260, will again serve as
Symposium Coordinator.
RECENT MEETING
Second Conference on Air Quality Management in the Electric Power Industry
The Second Conference on Air Quality Management in
the Electric Power Industry was held January 22-25, 1980, at
the University of Texas at Austin. Sponsors of the meeting
were the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Radian Cor-
poration, the Southwest Section of the Air Pollution Control
Association, and the Texas Air Control Board. A broad range
of topics were covered in the 16 conference sessions, 2 of
which dealt specifically with coal gasification and
liquefaction.
Several presentations in the coal gasification session
focused on environmental and air quality assessment. One
paper presented the results of a detailed environmental
assessment study conducted at a Chapman low.Btu
gasification facility. Another presentation summarized
methods of sampling and organic analysis used to determine
ambient air quality at a Lurgi gasification plant in Kosovo,
Yugoslavia. Air quality impacts associated with underground
gasification of Texas lignite was the topic of an additional
report, which included discussions of site-specific problems
such as land subsidence and pollution of aquifers.
A DOE representative reported on the status of current
gasification efforts and plans for future development of
United States coal reserves. Advantages and disadvantages
of available gasification technology were discussed in an
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) update on coal
gasification for electric power generation. EPRI announced
plans for future studies, such as a proposed demonstration
facility utilizing Texaco gasifiers for gasification/combined-
cycle power generation.
The session on coal liquefaction included papers on the
status of H-Coal commercialization and the South African
synthetic fuels program. The use of a modified cobalt-
molybdate catalyst in H.Coal processing was reported to
increase distillate yield, and reduce residual oil, sulfur, and
nitrogen in the end product. Pilot tests are complete, and
Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., plans a commercial-scale
demonstration of their process at a Catlettsburg, KY, plant.
The presentation on South African experience in indirect
coal liquefaction focused on scale-up methodology and th€
potential for SASOL technology to serve U.S. needs.
Liquefaction presentations included an overview of DOE
programs for synthetic fuels development and an EPRI report
on the future use of coal-derived liquids as fuel for electric
power generating equipment. The DOE overview stressed
that private industries will have to build and finance syn-
thetic fuels plants, although government/industry
cooperation is important. The paper on electric power
generation from coal-based liquid fuels suggested that these
fuels would provide a viable option for peak load service, but
concluded that coal-derived liquids are too costly to provide
economical base load power generation.
More information on the Second Conference on Air
Quality Management in the Electric Power Industry may be
obtained by contacting the Department of Continuing
Engineering Studies, Ernest Cockrell Hall 2.102, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, (512) 471-3396.
Coal Gasification
RECENT MAJOR PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS
Baker, N. R., C. F. Blazek, and R. R. Tison, Low- and Medium-
Btu Coal Gasification Processes. Report AN LICESITE-79-1.
Chicago, IL, Institute of Gas Technology, January 1979.
Blazek, C. F., N. R. Baker, and R. R. Tison, High .Btu Coal
Gasification Processes. Report ANL /CES/TE-79-2. Chicago,
IL, Institute of Gas Technology, January 1979.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June1980
Bombaugh, K. J., W. E. Corbett, and M. D. Matson. En-
vironmental Assessment.’ Source Test and Evaluation
Report —Lurgi (Kosovo) Medium-Btu Gasification, Phase 1.
Report EPA-600/7-79-190. Austin, TX, Radian Corp., August
1979.
Davis, D. T., R. J. Lytle, and E. F. Lame, “Use of High-
Frequency Electromagnetic Waves for Mapping an In Situ
Coal Gasification Burn Front,” In Situ Oil Coal Shale Miner,
3(2):95-119, 1979.
Donat, Georges, “Studies Begun in France on the Deep
Subterranean Gasification of Coal,” Gaz Aujourd’hui,
1 03(5):21 7-222, 1979.
Fisher, S. 1., “Induction Heating: A New Approach to In Situ
Coal Gasification,” World Coal, 5(4):23-26, 1979.
Fisher, S. T., “A New Approach to Underground Coal
Gasification,” Energy Process/Canada, 71(6):41-44, 1979.
Forrester, R. C., III, and P. R. Westmoreland, ‘Two-
Dimensional Pyrolysis Effects During In Situ Coal
Gasification: Preliminary Results,” Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 31(5):571-573, 1979.
Gregg, David W., Relative Merits of Alternate Linking
Techniques for Underground Coal Gasification and Their
System Design Imp lications. Livermore, CA, University of
California, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, January 1979.
Hamey, Brian M., and 6. A. MWs, “Coal to Gasoline Via
Syngas,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 59(2):67-71, 1980.
Hill, R. W., Permeability Enhancement Methods for Preparing
a Coal Bed for In Situ Coal Gasification. Report UCID-18096.
Livermore, CA, University of California, Lawrence Livermore
Lab, April 1979.
Ida, Toni, Masakatsu Nomura, Yohiji Nakatsuji, and Shoichi
Klkkawa, “Hydrogenation of Japanese Coals Catalyzed by
Metal Halides,” Fuel, 58(5):361-365, 1979.
Kealms, 0. L, Design of Ref ractorles for Coal Gasification
and Combustion Systems, Final Report. EPRI Report AF-
1151. Pittsburgh, PA, Westinghouse Electric Corp. July 1979.
Kiemetson, Stanley L, and N. D. Scharbow, “Filtration of
Phenolic Compounds in Coal Gasification Wastewater,” J.
Water Poll. Contr. Fed., 51(1 1):2752-2763, 1979.
Lupa, Alan J., and H. Carl Kllesch, Simulation eta Texaco
Gasltler, Volume 1: A Steady-State Model, Final Report. EPRI
Report No. AF-1179. Houston, TX, Texaco, Inc., September
1979.
Meyer, J. P., J. W. Wells, J. R. Ca; J. P. Belk, and G. C.
Frazier, Mathematical Model of the HYGAS Pilot Plant
Reactor. CONF-790405-11. Houston, TX, April 1979.
MITRE Carp., Assessment of Long-Term Research Needs for
Coal-Gasification Technologies. NTIS No. PB 297853.
McLean, VA, April 1979.
Nlshiyama, Yoshlyuki, and Yasukatsu Tamai, “Gasification of
Coals Treated With Non-Aqueous Solvents. Reactivity of
Coals Treated with Liquid Ammonia,” Fuel, 58(5):366-370,
1979.
Northam, Donna B., and Charles W. von Rosenberg, Jr.,
“Coal Gasification in Steam at Very High Temperatures,”
Fuel, 58(4):264-268, 1979.
Sadler, Leon Y., III, Nancy S. Raymon, Kenneth H. Ivey, and
Hendrik Heystek, “An Evaluation of Refractory Liner
Materials for Use in Non-Slagging, High-Btu Coal Gasifier
Reactors,” Amer. Ceram. Soc. Bull., 58(7):705.709, 1979.
Smith, Wallace B., et al., ‘A Five-Stage Cyclone System for
In Situ Sampling,” Environ. Sd. Technology, 13(11):1387,
1979.
Sopcisak, Carl I., and Paul Rudolph, “Coal, Carbonization and
Gasification (Lurgi),” Encyci. Chem. Process. Des., 79(9):41-
67, 1979.
Spencer, D. F., et at., “Liquefaction and Gasification: A
Promising Outlook,” Coal Mm. Process., 16(8):44-49, 1979.
Stillman, R., “Simulation of a Moving Bed Gasifier for
Western Coal,” IBM Journal, 23(3):240-252, 1979.
Tucci, E. R., and W. J. Thomson, “Monolith Catalyst Favored
for Methanation,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 58(2):1 23.126,1979.
Ulrich, W. C., M. S. Edwards, and R. Salmon, Evaluation of an
in Situ Coal Gasification Facility for Producing M-Gasoline
Via Methanol. Report ORNL-5439. Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, December 1979.
UIrIch, W. C., M. S. Edwards, and R. Salmon, Process
Designs and Economic Evaluations for the Linked Vertical
Well In Situ Coal Gasification Process. Report ORNL.5341.
Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, August 1979.
United Technologies Corp., Coal Gasification System
Analysis. EPRI Report AF 992. South Windsor, CT, February
1979.
Yang, Ralph 1., “Mechanochemical Effects in Coal Con-
version—i. Coat Hydrogenation in Gaseous Hydrogen Aided
by Mechanical Energy,” Fuel, 58(4):242-246, 1979.
Yoon, Heeyoung, James Wel, and Morton M. Denn, “Tran-
sient Behavior of Moving-Bed Coal Gasification Reactors,”
AIChE Journal, 25(3):429-439, 1979.
Liquefaction
Amoco Oil Co., Catalyst Development for Coal Liquefaction.
EPRI Report AF 1084. Napervitle, IL, June 1979.
Cronauer, Donald C., et aI., “Isomerization and Adduction of
Hydrogen Donor Solvents Under Conditions of Coal
Liquefaction,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 18(4):368, 1979.
Filth, J. F. S., S. Vlswanathan, and Avinash Gupta, Solvent-
Ref med Coal Process: Data Correlation and Analysis, Final
Report. EPRI Report AF 1157. Bloomfield, NJ, The Lummus
Company, August 1979.
Kamiya, Yoshio, “Coal Liquefaction and Gasification
Techniques and Catalysts,” JITA Nyusu, 111:4-14, 1979.
Kronseder, John G., and Marcel J. P. Bogart, “Coal
Liquefaction, South Africa’s Sasol II,” EncycLChem. Process.
9:299-328, 1979.
14
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
June 1980
Linares-Solano, Angel, 0. P. Mahajan, and Philip 1. Walker,
Jr., “Reactivity of Heat-Treated Coals in Steam,” Fuel,
58(5):327-332, 1979.
McNeese, L. E., R. Salmon, and H. D. Cockran, Jr., Recent
Developments In Coal Liquefaction in the United States.
Report CONF-790213-5. Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, February 1979.
Sama, K. R., and D. T. O’Leary, Engineering Evaluation of
Control Technology for the H.Coal and Exxon Donor Solvent
Processes. Report EPA-600/7-79-168, NTIS No. PB 80-108566.
Bethesda, MD, Dynalectron Corporation, July 1979.
Wh ltehurst, D. D., Exploratory Studies in Catalytic Coal
Liquefaction, Final Report June 1978 through March 1979.
EPRI Report AF-1184. Mobil Research & Development Cor-
poration, September 1979.
Others
Bostwick, L. E., M. R. Smith, D. 0. Moore, and D. K. Webber,
Coal Conversion Control Technology, Volume II: Gaseous
Emissions, Solid Wastes. Report EPA-600/7-79-228b, NTIS
No. PB 80-126477. Houston, TX, Pullman Kellogg, October
1979.
Chen, C., C. Koralek, and L. Breitstein, Control Technologies
for Particulate and Tar Emissions From Coal Converters.
Report EPA-600/7-79-170, NTIS No. PB 80-108392. Bethesda,
MD, Dynalectron Corporation, July 1979.
Fischer, Peter, Juergen W. Stadelhofer, and Maximilian
Zander, “A Carbon-13 NMR Study of Low-volatile By-products
of Coal Gasification,” Fuel, 58(2):151-153, 1979.
Greminger, D. C., and C. J. King, Extraction of Phenols From
Coal Conversion Process Condensate Waters. Report LBL-
9177. Berkeley, CA, University of California, Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, June 1979.
Shale Oil
Juentgen, Harald, “Utilization of Coal-Derived Gas and Fuel,”
Glueckauf, 115(8):329-338, 1979.
Fox, J. P., Water Quality Effects of Leachates From an In
Situ Oil Shale Industry. Report LBL-8997. Berkeley, CA,
University of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, April
1979.
Jovanovich, A. P., N. L. Stone, and G. C. Taylor, Predicted
Costs of Environmental Controls for a Commercial Oil Shale
Industry, Volume II: A Subjective Self.Assessment of Un.
certainty in the Predicted Costs. Report C00-5107-2. Denver,
GO, Denver Research Institute, July 1979.
Biomass-ToFuel
Andrews, Graham F., and Chi Tien, “The Expansion of a
Fluidized Bed Containing Biomass,” AIChE Journal,
25(4):720, 1979.
Copeland, R. J., Rough Cost Estimates of Solar Thermal/Coal
or Blomass-Derived Fuels. Report SERI/TP-35-279. Golden,
CO, Solar Energy Research Institute, June 1979.
Gorham International, Inc., Assessment of the Technical and
Economic Feasibility of Converting Wood Residues to Liquid
and Gaseous Fuel Products Using State-of.the-Art and Ad.
vanced Coal Conversion Technology, Second Quarterly
Report September 1978 through November 1978. Report COO-
4862.2. Gorham, ME, Gorham International, Inc., January
1979.
Koubsky, Petr, “Gasification of Fuels and Cracking of
Hydrocarbons, Thermodynamic Equilibrium,” Plyn, 59(1):12-
17, 1979.
Mahajan, Om P., Richard Yarzab, and Philip L. Walker, Jr.,
“Unification of Coal-Char Gasification Reaction
Mechanisms,” Fuel, 57(10):643-646, 1979.
Robin, A. M., Gasification of Residual Materials From Coal
Liquefaction, Evaluation of SRC Il Vacuum Flash Drum
Bottoms From Powha tan Coal as a Feedstock for the Texaco
Gasification Processes. Report FE-2247-21. South El Monte,
CA, Texaco, Inc., Montebello Research Laboratory, March
1979.
Seufert, Frederick B., R. Edwin Hicks, Irvine W. Wei, and
David J. Goldstein, Conceptual Designs for Water Treatment
in Demonstration Plants, Volume 1: Plant Designs, and
Volume 2: Appendix—Design Procedures. Report FE-2635-T1,
T2. Cambridge, MA, Water Purification Associates, March
1979.
Van Heek, H. H., and W. Wanzl, “Materials, Problems and
Research in German Coal Conversion Projects,” Erdoel
Kohle Erdgas Petrochem. Ver Brennst Chem., 32(3):1 16-120,
1979.
Verhoff, F. H., and M. K. Choi, Sour Water Stripping of Coal
Gasification Waste Water. Report M ETC/C R/-79/23.
Morgantown, WV, University of West Virginia, Department of
Chemical Engineering, May 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 8 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 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
subscriptions 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 En.
vlronmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use by EPA.
15
------- |