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 ------- |