<>EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
of
SYNTHETIC FUELS
INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH
LABORATORIES
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
VOL. 3 NO. 3
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK,
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY NC 27711
WASHINGTON, DC 20460 SEPTEMBER 1980
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Review ol Synthetic Fuels is pub-
lished by the Environmental Protection Agency's Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory in Research Triangle
Park, NC (EPA/IERL-RTP). Previous issues of the Review have
focused on aboveground coal gasification and coal lique-
faction technologies; this and future issues will include
information on four additional synthetic fuels technologies:
in-situ gasification, oil shale, oil (tar) sands, and alcohol
fuels. RD&D efforts in these four areas are directed by the
Energy Pollution Control Division of EPA's Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory In Cincinnati, OH (EPA/IERL-Ci).
The addition of these technologies will provide readers
with a more in-depth, comprehensive range of information on
synthetic fuels. The Review will describe synthetic fuels
production processes, report environmental and health
effects associated with multimedia discharge streams, and
identify pollution control technology needs.
This issue of the Environmental Review of Synthetic
Fuels summarizes recent activities in EPA's synthetic fuels
programs. The contractors involved in these programs, their
EPA Project Officers, and the duration of each effort are
tabulated on pages 8-9. Highlights of technology and
commercial developments, major symposia, a calendar of up-
coming events, and a list of publications provide up-to-date
information on domestic and international developments in
synthetic fuels technologies.
Comments or suggestions which will improve the
content or format of the Review are welcome. Such
comments should be directed to the EPA or Radian person-
nel identified on page 16 of this issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ACQUISITION
Laboratory-scale Gasification Tests Underway—The
Research Triangle Institute (RTI) has reported the results of
38 laboratory-scale coal gasification tests. (EPA-600/7-79-200,
see "Recent Major Papers and Publications.") These coal
gasification screening tests were conducted as part of RTI's
S-year program, "Pollutants from Synthetic Fuels." A semi-
batch fixed-bed gasifier was used to test the following coals:
Montana Rosebud, Wyoming subbituminous, North Dakota
Zap lignite, Pittsburgh No. 8, Illinois No. 6, Western Ken-
tucky No. 9, and FMC char. North Carolina humus peat was
also gasified.
Samples of the coals, particulate residues, tars, aqueous
condensates, primary gas products, and volatile organic
constituents were chemically analyzed. Compounds in
gasifier effluents were selected for study if (1) they were sus-
pected to possess moderately toxic to severe health hazard
potentials, and (2) if their concentration in the effluents
exceeded 5 mg/m1. Analyses Indicated that sulfur species
(HiS, carbonyl sulfide) and phenolic compounds (phenol,
cresols) were the predominant pollutants produced by the
gasification process. Additionally, ammonia, benzene,
toluene, naphthalene, anthracene, and phenanthrene were
produced in substantial quantities. Table 1 shows selected
results from gasifying five different coals, expressed as unit
mass of compound produced per unit rriass of carbon con-
verted.
The total quantity (mass in grams) of tar produced per
unit mass of carbon converted was greatest for two bitumi-
nous coals, Western Kentucky No. 9 and Illinois No. 6; North
Dakota Zap lignite yielded the least amount of tar. Tar
production In Wyoming subbituminous and Montana
Rosebud coals was Intermediate. The weight percents of the
Individual fractions composing the tar mass were obtained
using crude tar partitioning. The polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbon (PNA) fraction was the predominant individual
fraction in each case. North Dakota Zap lignite gasification
yielded the least PNAs and organic base materials in the tar
fraction; the greatest quantity of PNAs was produced by
gasifying Western Kentucky No. 9 coal.
Analyses of bottom ash samples indicated that substan-
tial carbon conversion (89 to 99.7 percent) was aoMcvsd In
the screening tests. Higher rank coals had lower carbon
conversion percentages, Indicating lower reactivity. Sulfur
conversion exceeded 80 percent In the gasification t»*t».
Wyoming and Montana subbituminous coals and North
Dakota Zap lignite had lower sulfur conversion ptfc*ntag*s
than the bituminous coals.
Results from earlier test runs of the RTI gastftw are
reported In the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels.
Vol. 3, No. 2.
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
S.pt.mber 1980
TABLE 1. SELECTED POLLUTANT PRODUCTION IN A LABORATORY
COAL GASIFICATION SYSTEM (pg compound producedlg carbon converted)a
Montana
Illinois No. 6 Rosebud Wyoming
Compound Bituminous Subbituminous Subbituminous
North Dakota
Zap Lignite
Western Kentucky No. 9
Bituminous
Hydrogen sulfide 3.8E3 4.6E3
3.4E3
4.9E2
40E4
Carbonyl sulfide 4 • 0 b 1.5E2
2.0E2
3.7E2
8.5E2
Thiophene 1.8E3 5.2E1
1.6E1
11E3
4.0E2
Methy lthiophene 3.2E2 1IE1
1.8E2
2.9E1
4.9E2
Hydrogen cyanide NAC 1.2E2
NA
1.4E2
NA
Ammonia NA 8.7E3
NA
6.0E3
NA
Phenol 4.3E2 1.3E0
NA
1.4E3
t2E3
Cresols 7.2E2 8.3E2
2.7E3
1.0E3
1.3E3
Xylenols NA 1.0E3
8.9E2
1.1E3
2.9E2
Benzene 5.0E3 1.9E2
3.1E3
1.1E4
1.9E4
Toluene 3.5E4 1.0E3
3.3E3
3.1E3
30E3
Xylenes 8.9E1 8.9E2
8.1E2
8.3E2
4.1E2
Naphthaiene 1.2E3 5.9E2
6.3E2
5.2E2
3.5E3
Anthracene 7.1E.2 2.0E2
1.5E2
2.1E2
1.0E3
Phenanthrene 2.2E2 5.9E2
7.2E1
1 .3E2
9.8E2
Results are expressed as “aEb” which should be interpreted as a x
blnclu sulfur dioxide.
CNA = Not available.
Ft. Sn.lIlng SOurce Tout and Evaluation Report
Camplutad—Radlan Corporation has conducted a Source
Test and Evaluation (STE) Program at the Wellinan-Galusha
low-Btu gasification facility at the U.S. Bureau of Mines Twin
Cities Metallurgy Research Center, Ft Snelling, MN, site.
Low-Btu gas produced at the Ft. Snelling facility Is used as
fuel In an iron-ore pelletizing operation. The STE report (EPA.
600 17-80.097, see “Recent Major Papers and Publications”)
presents results obtained from samples collected during a
test run firing North Dakota (Indlanhead) lignite.
EPA’s Source Analysis Model IA (SAM/IA) and bioassay
methods were used to characterize and evaluate samples
from nine multimedia process and waste streams. Figures 1
and 2 summarIze results from SAM/IA evaluation and bio-
assay analyses of selected process and waste streams.
Product gas samples contained benzopyrene and carbon
monoxide, which are major contributors to overall health dis-
charge severity. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PNA)
concentrations exceeded 3500 ,4scm In the product gas
samples analyzed. Arsenic and chromium were identified in
samples of test burner flue gas.
Samples from two wastewater streams, gasifier ash
sluice water and cyclone dust quench water, were compared
to National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards and
Proposed National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
(Federal RegIster, 3/31/77). Gasifler ash sluice water exceed-
ed national drinking water standards for selenium, iron,
sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS); cyclone dust
quench water exceeded national drinking water standards for
fluoride, arsenic, lead, and Iron.
Two solid waste streams, gasifier ash and cyclone dust,
were sampled and analyzed for trace element composition.
Leachates of gasifier ash and cyclone dust qualified for non-
hazardous classification under Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (12118178) guidelines for trace elements.
2
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
Bioassay results indicated low potential for adverse
health and ecologic effects for all streams sampled except
the product gas composite. The product gas composite ex-
hibited moderate toxicity in the in vitro cytotoxicity test,
rabbit alveolar macrophage (RAM). Ames mutagenicity tests
were negative, but test cells exposed to product gas com-
posite samples exhibited marked effects of toxicity. In vivo
rodent acute toxicity (RAT) tests were negative for all
streams tested. The product gas and gasifier ash sluice
water exhibited moderate in vitro cytotoxicity for WI-38
human lung fibroblast cells.
The SAM/IA methodology and bioassay analyses used in
STE programs are described and referenced in the Environ-
mental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol 3, No. 1. !n that issue,
a report summary presents results from the STE report for
Wellman-Galusha low-Btu gasification at the Glen-Gery Brick
Co. in York, PA.
ECOLOGICAL
TEST PRODUCT PRODUCT
BURNER GAS GAS
PARTICUtATE MODULE
ASH*
SLUICE
WATER
DUST-
QUENCH
WATER
FIGURE 1 TOTAL STREAM DISCHARGE SEVERITIES F0« THE FT. SHELLING
WELLMAN-GALUSHA PROCESS AND WASTE STREAMS SAMPLED
I
I
TEST PRODUCT ASH ASH* DUST DUST*
BURNER SAS SLUICE QUENCH
COMPOSITE WATER WATER
Totsl Bamplfl ors*fl*c fottijng cxoretsed « sfngte maximum worst c*se compound.
FIGURE 2. BIOASSAYTEST RESULTS FOR THE FT. SNELLING
WELLMAN-GALUSHA PROCESS AND WASTE STREAMS SAMPLED
Kosovo Program Continued—An international environ-
mental data acquisition program is continuing in the Kosovo
Region of Yugoslavia. The Lurgi high-pressure, medium-Btu
gasification system at Kosovo is being studied as a
commercial-scale example of Lurgi-type technology. Radian
Corporation, under EPA contract, is providing technical
support to the Rudarski Institute of Yugoslavia and Kosovo
Kombine, the operators of the gasifier. This cooperative
agreement represents a unique opportunity to obtain
environmental data on a technology proposed for commer-
cialization in the U.S.
Phase I and II Objectives Met
Objectives of the first two phases of the Kosovo test
program were: (1) to measure the emission levels of specific
major and minor pollutants emitted from the plant, and (2) to
characterize the emissions of minor and trace pollutants
from the plant. Significant discharge streams were sampled.
SAM/IA methodology was used to relate pollutants to health
and ecologic effects. A Source Test and Evaluation Report
(EPA-600/7-79-190, NTIS PB 80-183098) describing the Phase I
environmental assessment was recently published. Specific
results of Phase I and I! testing were also discussed in the
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Voi. 2, Nos. 1 and
3.
Phase III Results Reported
Phase III testing involved ambient air sampling and
analysis of atmospheric emissions from the plant. Finger-
printing techniques were used to link sources with pollu-
tants.
Tests characterized pollutants in key discharge streams
and determined levels of these pollutants in ambient air.
Mass emission rates computed from analytical data indicate
that significant quantities of CO, sulfur and nitrogen
species, and phenols are discharged directly into the
atmosphere from the plant.
Gas chromatographs equipped with flame ionization,
Hail sulfur-mode, and Hall nitrogen-mode detectors were
used to compare samples of ambient air with by-products of
Lurgi gasification. The chemical profile obtained for by-
product middle oil was very similar to that obtained for
samples of organic matter collected from ambient air. Com-
pound distributions ranged from benzene through poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs) such as
benzo(a)pyrene.
Testing also considered the impacts of specific
emissions on downwind ambient air quality. Sampling and
analytical techniques were applied downwind of the facility
to measure: total particles for organic analysts; tots! and fine
particles for gravimetric, inorganic, and elemental analysis;
size-fractionated particles for elemental analysis; and organic
vapors.
Most of the increase in total mass downwind of the
plant is due to the coarse particle fraction (>2 j»m), indi-
cating that fugitive dusts from coal handling processes may
be a major source of pollution. A complex mixture of poten-
tially hazardous organic compounds was detected in the
ambient aerosol downwind from the plant. Compounds tenta-
tively identified by GC/MS analysis include alkylated benzene
and PNAs, linear and heterocyclic hydrocarbons, phenols,
ketones, quinones, alkylated thiophenes, and dibenzofuran.
Naphthalene was also identified at high ambient concen-
trations in the Kosovo aerosol.
A comprehensive summary of the Phase III study was
presented in August 1980 at the 180th National Meeting of
the American Chemical Society in San Francisco, CA.
Phase IV Sampling Completed
Radian and Yugoslavian engineers have completed the
last of four phases of sampling scheduled at the Kosovo
gasification facility. The objective of Phase IV testing was to
characterize process fugitive emissions.
Process fugitive emissions were defined as inadvertent
emissions from valves, flanges, pumps, compressors, drains,
and relief valves. Sampling included the gasifiers, quench
and cooling sections, Rectisol units, tar separation units,
and Phenosolvan sections. The Kosovo gasification plant
was estimated to have up to 5000 valves and 20,000 flanges.
For this reason, a stratified random subset of the total
population was sampled.
Two stages of testing were used to characterize fugitive
emissions. First, leak detection or screening was conducted
at each selected source point. A portable hydrocarbon
detector was used to find leaks and to indicate the magni-
tude of hydrocarbon leakage. In the second stage of testing,
enclosure sampling was applied to measure leakage rates
from selected point sources. Samples were analyzed to
measure emissions of hydrocarbons, CO, HjS, SOi, mer-
captans, cyanides, and ammonia. Draeger selective
adsorbent indicator tubes were used to screen and sample
non-hydrocarbon emissions.
Analysis of the Phase IV samples will be completed in
Fall 1980. Results will be published in subsequent issues of
the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels.
-------
Easelil Review of Synthetic Fusis
S ber igso
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
EPA’S Alternate Fuefs Group—The June 1980 issue of
the Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels announced the
formation by EPA of the Alternate Fuels Group (AFG). This
Group Is co-chaired by Frank Princiotta, Director of the
Energy Processes Division of the Office of Research and
Development, and David Tundermann, Director of the Policy
Planning Division of the Office of Planning and Management
The Group meets every 4 to 6 weeks. its members include
representation from the regulatory offices, regional offices,
Office of Enforcement, arid General Counsel. Its ob ecbves
are to develop EPA’s regulatory strategy and the resource
program to support this strategy for the developing synthetic
and alternate fuels Industry. The Agency’s overall purpose in
this area is to ensure that the designs for these new energy
technologies embody acceptable environmental safeguards
so that they can be commercialized in a timely fashion.
To carry out its mandate, the AFG has established five
Working Groups, one for each major technology area. These
groups are chaired by senior staff from EPA’s 1ERL-RTP,
IERL.-Ci, the Effluent Guidelines Division, and the Energy
Processes Division. They are currently preparing Pollution
Control Guidance Documents (PCGDs-see the previous issue
of the Environmental Revievv of Synthetic Fuels) for the pro-
cesses in Table 2.
TABLE 2. EPA WORKING GROUPS PREPARING PCGDs
Draft for
Weu Ia. Group Process Public Review Chairman
Ossification &
Indirect Liquefaction
LOW-BtU Gasification
(fixed bed, single.stage, atmospheric)
—Wellmsn-Galusha
-Wilputte Chapman
-Riley Morgan
Indirect Liquefaction
-Gasifiers
—Lurgi
—Koppers-Totzek
—Texaco
—Synthesis
—Flscher-Tropsch
—Coal to Methanoi
—Mobil. U (gaaoitne
Medlum -Btu GasIfication
High -Btu Gasification
T. K. Janes
IERL-RTP (MD-61)
(919) 541-2852
Shale Oil Surface Retort
—Paraho
—Superior
-TOSCO ii
-Union
Modified In-situ
-Occidental
-Rio Blanco
3/81 I. A. Jef coat
IERL-Ci
(513)684-4417
Dirct Liquefaction
Exxon Donor Solvent
H-Coal
SRC-i and -Ii
D. A. Denny
IERL-RTP (MD-61)
(919) 541-2825
Alcohol Fuel
From Blomass
Gasohol
- .Commerciai plants
-On-farm production
W. Telilard
Effluent Guidelines Division
(WH-552)
(202) 426-4617
Geothermal
Geothermal
-Dry steam
-Wet steam
Geopressured Methane
D. Berg
Energy Processes
Division (RD-681)
(202) 755-0205
1/81
2181
8 / 82
4
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
The PCGDs are a major output of the AFG and its
Working Groups, and are intendea to provide interim
guidance, until technology-based standards are promulgated,
on EPA’s assessment of the best multimedia controls avail-
able for these processes to protect the environment ade-
quately and at reasonable cost. This guidance is directed at
both developers and permit writers in EPA’s regional offices
and state or local agencies. EPA believes that it can help
developers protect the environment most cost-effectively by
identifying environmental requirements early enough to
permit their consideration in the process design. In addition,
the Agency expects that it can contribute to speedier
reviews of permit applications by providing guidance to
permit reviewers.
The PCGD5 will be published in three volumes:
Volume I -The Guidance. Control recommendations and
summary of processes, pollutants, control
technologies, and cost/energy!environmental
impacts of controls.
Volume ii -Processes, Environmental Problems, and
ControllContainmenf Options. Detailed de-
scriptions of processes, pollutant selection,
and control system performance/cost energy
consumption/secondary residuals (including
advantages/disadvantages, applicability, and
limitations of each control); discussion of
approach to recommending selected control
strate9ies; and instructions/guidelines on the
use of PCGD5.
Volume Ill-Appendices. Background data (test reports)
mass and energy balances, detailed cost
calculations, input data, etc.
Preliminary drafts of Vols. II and Ill of the indirect lique-
faction PCGD were made available for technical review in
May, and comments received are being considered during
the preparation of Vol. I. The data that form the bases for the
oil shale PCGD were also made available for technical review
in May, culminating in an internal EPA workshop held June
24-27 to determine the guidance that could be developed
from the data and to coordinate multimedia control
approaches with the affected Program Offices. A preliminary
draft Vol. I for low-Btu gasification was also reviewed in-
ternally and is being revised simultaneously with the prepare-
tion of Vols. II and Ill.
The AFG is also preparing a comprehensive 5-year
RD&D plan that will identify all federally funded research to
collect process, emissions, and effects data and to demon-
strate control technology needed to support the develop-
ment of environmental standards for these emerging tech-
nologies, Individual plans are being prepared by each
working group for submission to the AFG. The AFG staff will
then synthesize these inputs into an overall 5-year RD&D
plan for synthetic and related alternative fuels.
TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
New Law to Stimulate Production of Synthetic Fuels—
President Carter has signed a $20 billion synthetic fuels bill
designed to stimulate synfuels production of 0.92 m 3 /s
(500,000 bbtld) by 1987 and 3.68 m’ls (2 million bblld) by 1992.
Other measures included in the bill are (1) authorization of a
$1.45 billion alcohol fuel production program, (2) establish-
ment of a solar energy bank, and (3) a requirement to resume
filling the strategic petroleum reserve on October 1, 1980.
The bill establishes a seven-member US. Synthetic
Fuels Corp. which will stimulate private investment through
purchase guarantees, direct loans, and loan guarantees. The
corporation is empowered to spend $20 billion in the fiscal
year starting October 1, 1980, and can allocate up to $68
billion more in future years. As further incentive for private
investment, the corporation is authorized to construct three
plants that would be owned by the government and operated
by contractors.
Since the new corporation may take years to become
established, the legislation includes an interim program to
encourage synthetic fuel production for defense needs. Up
to $3 billion can be spent in purchase agreements, loans,
and loan guarantees.
The alcohol fuel production program authorizes DOE to
lend 75 percent of the costs of building alcohol-from-garbage
plants. It also requires that gasohol be used as fuel for
federal vehicles, to the extent possible.
Petrochemical Feedstocks from Coal—Tests performed
by Chevron Research Company indicate that at least two
liquefaction methods can be used to produce high quality
liquid chemical feedstocks from coal. Manufacturers of
aromatic hydrocarbons are especially interested in coal as a
primary raw material because of the high costs and limited
supplies of petroleum.
The Chevron study, sponsored by DOE, tested liquids
produced by Gulf Oil Company’s Solvent Refined Coal-il
(SAC-Il) process and Hydrocarbon Research Inc.’s H-Coal
process. Both methods produce a feedstock with high
concentrations of aromatics and aromatic precursors. In
addition, the liquefied coal feedstock can be readily refined
with conventional technology.
Developers of the SAC-Il process claim that up to 80
percent more benzene, toluene, and 08 aromatics can be
made from SRC-lI naphtha, as compared to typical petroleum
naphtha. The cost of SRC-ll-derived BTX (benzene, toluene,
and xylene) is $229/rn 3 ($0.87/gal.), substantially cheaper than
the estimated $321/rn 3 ($1.22/gal.) required to produce BTX
from petroleum naphtha.
Gulf is now planning an SRC-ll demonstration plant to
be built in Morgantown, WV. The Morgantown plant is
scheduled for startup in 1981 and will process 63 kg/s (6,000
ton/d) of coal. Long range plans call for several commercial-
scale SAC-Il plants with individual capacities of 315 kg/s
(30,000 ton/d).
The H-Coal process yields liquid products quite similar
to those of SRC-ll, but it should reach commercialization
sooner. Ashland Oil Synthetic Fuels, Inc. presently operates
an H-Coal pilot plant at Catlettsburg, KY. A $1.5 billion
commercial-scale plant, scheduled for startup in 1986, is
planned by Ashland, Airco, Inc., and DOE. The output of this
plant will include significant amounts of naphtha and LPG
suitable for aromatic hydrocarbon feedstock.
Additional information on the SRC-ll Morgantown plant
and the H-Coal Catlettsburg project is available in the
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol. 3, No. 1. For
more timely information on the Morgantown and Catletts-
burg projects, see the related summaries below.
Water Problems Beset Morgant own Liquefaction
Plant—Water supplies in Morgantown, WV, may not be
adequate to support the commercial-scale SAC-Il plant
planned by Gulf Oil Company. According to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Monongahela River can supply
enough water for Gulf’s 63 kgls (6,000 ton/d) SAC-Il demon-
stration plant, but not enough for the 315 kg/s (30,000 ton/d)
plant scheduled for startup in 1989.
The Corps of Engineers is planning to construct a darn
which would create sufficient water supplies for the larger
SRC-Il plant. However, the dam is being contested by land-
owners who would lose substantial acreage if it were built.
H-Coal Process Receives West German Suppo,’t—Hydro-
carbon Research, Inc. (HRI), Ruhrkohle AG, and the German
5
-------
Environmsntal Review of Synthetic Fuels
S._ 19
state of North Rhine-Westphalia have agreed to collaborate
in the commercial development and application of HRI’s
H-Coal process. The agreement includes $5 million from
Ruhrkohle and North Rhine-Westphalia for the H-Coal pilot
plant In Catlettsburg, KY. In return, Ruhrkohie, West
Germany’s largest coal company, will participate in the
Catlettsburg project and share the coal liquefaction data
The H-Coal pilot plant, now undergoing commissioning
tests, is operated by Ashland Synthetic Fuels, Inc. with engi-
neeting support from HRI. The pilot plant is jointly funded by
DOE and a consortium of Ashland, the Electric Power
Research Institute, Standard Oil Company (Indiana), Conoco,
lnc , Mobil Oil Corporation, and the state of Kentucky.
A $1 million option under a separate agreement would
allow Ruhrkohle to buy exclusive rights to H-Coal process
technology for use and licensing In continental Europe and
the U.S.SR The option would be exercisable during 1980
and would require Initial payment of $8.5 million plus addi-
tional sums as each H-Coal plant Is licensed. At this time,
however, the process cannot be licensed in the U.S.S.R.
because of U.S. suspension of high technology exports to
that country.
Relfrd Syufueis Plants May B• Roncth’ated to Test New
Procaine—DOE Is examining the feasibility of reactivating
several retired U.S. synfuels plants. New processes could be
tasted In the old plants, eliminating the substantial time (at
least 2 years) required to buIld new test plants.
DOE I interested In reactivating a 0.26 kg/s (25 tonld)
test plant for operation as a coal liquefaction pilot plant or
as a coal-fired commercial-scale plant for producing ethanol.
Located near Rapid CIty, SD, the plant origInally used the
CO acceptor process to gasify lignite and subbituminous
coal. It was sponsored by DOE and the American Gas
Association and operated from 1972 until completion of the
test program In 1977. Most of the original equipment is still
there, Including the coal feed systems, conversion reactors,
and the boiler
A second candidate is a retired 0.13 kg/s (12 ton/cl) lique-
faction plant at Cresap, WV. The plant was operated in 1977
and 1978 by Fiuor Engineers and Constructors. It was initial-
ly a coal-to-gasoline unit but was later converted to a multi-
purpoes test plant.
Several other retired plants are also eligible for reactiva-
tion, according to DOE. These Include a synthane prototype
pilot plant operated by the Lummus Company In South Park
Township, PA; the Institute of Gas Technology’s hydrogen-
1mm-coal process unit In Chicago, II, that operated from
1976 to 1978; and Batteile’s 0.26 kg/s (25 todd) unit in
Columbus, OH, that produced gas by agglomerating
Rosebud coal wIth 90 percent ash capture.
DOE Eacaursge . Two New OH SbaI Methods—Two
new methods for recovering oil from shale have received
DOE funding. One involves radio-frequency, In-situ recovery;
the other uses a hydrogen retorting process to Increase
hydrocarbon yield. The Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) has
received $2.6 million to study the application of its Hytort
hydrogen retorting process. in the Hytort process, retorting
occurs In a hydrogen atmosphere which Increases the yield
of hydrocarbons from shale carbon. When applied to a low-
grade Kentucky shale, the Hytort process produced up to
250 percent more oH than that recovered without the
hydrogen addition.
The second DOE award was $1.6 million to the lIT
Research Institute (1ITRI) to examine radio-frequency in-situ
recovery. IITRI has applied this method to tar sands. Re-
searchers hope that it may be used successfully to treat
shale and eliminate the need for crushing the shale.
Exxon Plans PRof Tsts of Catalytic GasIfication
Process—Exxon Research and Engineering’s catalytic coal
gasification process will be evaluated at a LOS kg/s (100
ton/cl) pilot plant scheduled f or startup at Rotterdam
Europort in mid-1985. The Exxon process uses a potassium
catalyst and a single reactor to produce pipeline quality
methane from a variety of coal feedstocks. Ground coal is
sprayed with the catalyst solution, dried, and then injected
into the gasifler where it is mixed with steam at relatively
low temperatures. Exxon claims several advantages for this
catalytic process, including the ability to operate efficiently
at lower temperatures and the flexibility to handle several
varieties of coal feedstocks. This latter capability will be
tested by using a wide range of internationaily traded coals
in the Dutch pilot study.
The pilot plant will be built by Exxon’s Dutch subsidiary,
Esso Nederland. it is planned as part of an 8-year, $500
million project designed to provide the data necessary for
construction of a commercial-scale plant Exxon is already
testing the catalytic gasification process at a 10.5 g/s (1
ton/cl) development plant In Baytown, TX (see the Environ-
mental Review of Synthetic Fuels, Vol 3, No. 2).
SuN May Delay Great Plains GasIfIcatIon
Project—Opponents have challenged the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) approval of the Great
Plains gasification project. Ohio Consumers Council, General
Motors, New York Public Service Authority, and the state of
Michigan have all filed suit in federal court. The opponents
claim that all taxpayers (not just the project consortium’s
customers) should pay for the plant, since the $12 billion,
commercial-scale plant will benefit the entire country.
AmerIcan Natural Resources Company, leader of the
project consortium, says that the suit could delay the project
by 1 year and add more than $100 million to project costs.
DOE Deputy General Counsel Eric J. Fygi has stated
that If the FERC decision Is reversed by the courts, DOE may
issue loan guarantees for construction costs. In the mean-
time, DOE Is providing financial assistance so American
Natural Resources can proceed with project design.
The hlgh-Btu gasification plant will be located in Mercer
County near Beulah, ND. It will use Lurgi processing in
conjunction with a methanation step to gasify lignite strip-
mined at an adjacent site. Design capacity is 39.1 Nm 3 /s (125
x 10’ scf/d) of pipeline quality synthetic gas with a
minimum heating value of 38 MJ/Nm 3 (970 Btu/scf).
More Information on the Great Plains gasification
project Is available in the Environmental Review of Synthetic
Fuels, Vol. 3, Nos. 1 and 2.
Cellulose Pyrolysls Shows Promise for 8 10mm
Conversion—Recent efforts by several investigators indicate
that cellulose pyrolysis may be a promising process for near-
term, commercial-scale blomass conversion. SRI Inter-
national, Battelle Northwest Laboratories, and the University
of Pennsylvania are developing methods of cellulose
pyrotysis that yield a variety of products, including methanol,
oil, ammonia, and synthesis gas.
SRI International has developed four conceptual
cellulose pyrolysis processes based on available technology.
One SRI process. produces oil and char from dried wood and
has an estimated thermal efficIency of 74 percent. Total
capital investment for the process is about $9.92/kg
($9,000/ton) of daily plant capacity. Operating costs would be
approximately $2.84 per GJ ($3.00 per 10’ Blu) of oil and
char. Wood feed represents the largest single cost item.
Other conceptual SRI processes produce methanol, oil
by catalytic liquefaction, and ammonia. Estimated plant
costs for these three SRI processes are about 50 percent
more than for similar coal-based plants. The increased costs
arise from the substantial pretreatment required for the raw
wood, as well as the limited availability of feedstock over the
life of the plant.
S
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
Both primary and secondary catalysts are used in
Battelle Northwest Laboratories’ steam pyrolysis process.
Battelle operates a pilot plant designed to gasify wood
particles. An alkali carbonate primary catalyst is used in the
pyrolysis reaction to increase the yields of gas and char. Gas
yields are further enhanced by secondary silica-alumina and
ntckel catalysts which crack and reform liquids from the
pyrolysis step.
The University of Pennsylvania is studying low tempera-
ture, (ow pressure pyrolysis in an attempt to reduce the
capital costs and energy requirements of biomass conver-
sion processes. Several catalysts and additives have been
studied, including ‘y-alumina and caustic solutions. To date,
the yield of the desired liquid product has been too low
(around 2 percent) to demonstrate commercial feasibility for
the reactions. However, around 40 percent of the cellulose is
converted to gases in all the reactions studied. The percent-
age of conversion shows promise for this approach to bio-
mass conversion.
Methanol Slurry Process May Alleviate Water Storage
Problems—A new process that combines coal conversion
and coal transport could benefit western applications where
water supplies are limited. The process, known as metha-
coai, is being developed by W. ft Grace and Company and
Energy Transition Company. Methacoal involves two basic
steps: (1) production of methanol and C02 from coal, and (2)
pipeline transport of a coal/CO 2 lmethanol slurry to a power
plant.
Because coal-derived methanol is used instead of water
to transport coal, the methacoal process nas minimal water
requirements. Some, if not all, of the water needs can be
supplied by the coal, depending on its moisture content.
Water is recovered when the coal is dried by process heat
from methanol production.
The methanol and CO2 are produced during Koppers-
Totzek gasification, with subsequent Vulcan synthesis. The
two products are then combined with coal for pipeline trans-
port. Slurry components are separated at the power plant
and used in various ways: the coal to fire steam generators
and the methanol to drive a gas turbine generator. The CO 2
can be sold and used in recovering heavy oil reserves.
ETCO and Grace have undertaken a $1 million study of
the methacoal concept. Grace is interested in the process as
a method to develop its northwest Colorado coal reserves.
Production Underway at SASOL li—The South African
Coal Oil and Gas Corp. (SASOL) has announced startup of its
SASOL II plant in Secunda, South Africa The $3.05 billion
plant is now producing unrefined oil from coal. Other
products (including gasoline, diesel fuel, and chemicals) will
soon be available. Production capacity is estimated at 0.092
m 2 /s (50,000 bbl/d) of coal-derived liquids.
SASOL II and SASOL Ill, a sibling plant scheduled for
completion in 1982, will eventually handle 787.5 kg/s (75,000
tons/d) of South African coal. The joint complex will consist
of 72 Lurgi gasifiers and 14 liquefaction reactors. The re-
actors will convert the synthetic gas into 27 fuel and chemi-
cal products.
SASOL technology is now being marketed in the U.S.
through an agreement by SASOL Ltd. and Fluor Engineers
and Constructors, Inc., the managing contractor for the
South African SASOL plants. SASOL and Fluor claim that a
U.S. plant similar to SASOL II could be built at an approxi-
mate cost of $3.6 billion. Such a plant would produce 0.107
m’/s (58,000 bbl/d) of coal-derived liquids.
Memphis, Grace to Receive DOE Funding—DOE has
decided to assist two gasification projects that have been
competing for Department funding since 1977. Memphis
Light, Gas, and Water Division will receive a t least half of the
construction costs for its $700 million industrial fuel gas
plant. In the second DOE allocation, up to $16 million will go
to W. R. Grace and Company for initial design of its
commercial-scale coal-to-gasoline plant in Baskett, KY.
The Memphis project will use the U-Gas process to
convert 32.6 kg/s (3100 tonsld) of Kentucky coal to 4.36
million m 3 (154 million sd) of medium-Btu industrial fuel gas.
The U-Gas process was developed by the Institute of Gas
Technology to eliminate caking problems with eastern coal.
It uses a fluidized-bed gasifier to react coal with oxygen and
steam.
A Texaco gasitier will be used at the Grace plant to
convert 304.5 kg/s (29,000 tonsld) of caking, high-sulfur coal
to synthesis gas. The synthesis gas will be in turn converted
to methanol and then to 0.092 m’Is (50,000 bbl/d) of high-
octane gasoline. Total costs of the proposed plant are esti-
mated at over $3 billion.
Exxon Starts Up Pilot Liquefaction Pleat—Exxon Is now
operating its new $116 million coal liquefaction pilot plant in
Baytown, TX. The 2.63 kg/s (250 tonid) plant uses the Exxon
Donor Solvent process to produce distilled low-sulfur
petroleum from coal. Ash, sulfur, and ammonia are also gen-
erated by the conversion reaction.
The pilot plant, started in 1976, is being funded by
several organizations, including DOE, Exxon, and the Electric
Power Research Institute. Other participants are Japan Coal
Liquefaction Development Company, Ltd., Phillips Petroleum,
Atlantic Richfield, and Ruhrkohle.
Testing is scheduled to continue until 1984. Among the
feedstock coals to be studied are Illinois No. 6, Wyoming
subbituminous, and Wyoming (or Texas) lignite.
Westfield Slagglng Lurgi Gasitksr Shows Promise For
Utility Application—The slagging Lurgi/British Gas Corp.
gasifier has excellent potential for combined cycle, utility
application, according to the Electric Power Research Insti-
tute (EPRI). EPRI and the British Gas Corp. have just com-
pleted a $2.6 million research program at Westfield Develop-
ment Centre in Scotland. The Westfield plant has a capacity
of 3.68 kg/s (350 ton/d), making it the world’s largest slagging
Lurgi gasifier.
The goal of the test program was to characterize certain
process capabilities essential for utility operation. These
include (1) the ability of a unit to maintain efficiency at
reduced output (load turn down), and (2) the rate at which a
unit can progress from fractional to full capacity (load follow-
ing). Such capabilities are important because utilities must
constantly vary their output to meet changing demand.
During the testing, the Westfield unit maintained accept-
able load following and efficiency at outputs as low as 30
percent of capacity. These results wore obtained with two
different coals: a high-sulfur, highly caking Pennsylvania
coal, and a British coal, Rossington, similar to some Illinois
coals.
The slagging Lurgi process uses a high temperature
Lurgi gasifier in which the ash melts and is run off as liquid
slag. It was developed during the 1950’s to overcome some
of the problems with the original Lurgi technology. These
included low throughput rates, the inability to handle caking
coals, and the need for excess steam to keep combustion
temperature below the ash fusion (or slagging) point. The
Westfield slagging Lurgi gasifier yields gas at higher rates
(four or five times greater) than achieved in a conventional
Lurgi unit.
7
-------
En*onmental Review of Synthetic Fus4s
S._ 19
PROJECT TITLES, CONTRACTORS, AND EPA PROJECT OFFICERS
IN EPA’S SYNTHETIC FUEL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Project Title
Environmental Assessment
of Low-Btu
Gasification
(March 1979-March 1983)
Environmental Assessment
of HlghBtu GasificatIon
(April llThMarch 1981)
Environmental Evaluation
of Coal liquefaction
(July 1979-July 1962)
Acid Gas Cisarring
Bench Scale Unit
(October 1976-September 1981)
(Grsnfl
Water Treatment Bench
Scale Unit
(Mcaen*ar lg73October 1981)
Polkstant identification
Front a Bench Scale Unit
% .emba 1879-October 1981)
Gaoundwater end SubaidsnCe
Effects of Under csjnd Coal
Glflcatlon at Hoe Credi, WY
(January 1975-Jarurary 1181)
(Interagency Agre.nwnfl
Laboratory Leaching Study of R
Mined Oil Shale
(October 1879-August 19
Fluid Leaching Study of. Mined
Oil Sl e
(April 1160-Apnt 1993)
Water Ouellty Hydrology Affected
by Oil Shale Devs&wd
(Jun. 1975-Jun. 19 1 1*
Development of Monitoring Methodology
for Modified In-Situ Oil
Shale Development
(May 1979-August 1981)
Contractor
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78766
(512)454-4797
(Gordon C. Page)
TRW, Inc.
I Space Park
Redondo Beech, CA 90278
(213)536-4105
(Chuck Murray)
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, MD 21043
(301)730-7800
(Jack Overman)
North Carolina Stale Univ.
Department of Chemical Engineering
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919)737.2324
(James Farrell)
Univ. of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919)986-1023
(Pt tiilp Singer)
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 21709
(919)541-6080
(Foreat Nixon)
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Waatlngtcn, DC 20545
(301)353-5516
(Charles Grue)
Lawrence l ivermore Laboratory
Uvannora, CA 94560
(415$22.6463
(S. W. Need)
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Washington, DC 90645
(301)353-5516
(Chadus Gw$
Lawrence livermore Laboratory
Uvennora, CA 94550
(415)422-6463
(S. W. Need)
Colorado Stat. University
Fort Collins, CO 80623
8385
(WIlliam Bergl
EPA Project Officer
James D. Kiigroe
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-2864
William J. Rhodes
IERL.RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Reseafth Triangle Park, NC 21711
(919)541-2853
0. Bruce Honachel
IERL.RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-4112
N. Dean Smith
IERL.RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27111
(919)541-2708
N. Dean Smith
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 21711
(919)641.2708
N. Dean Smith
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)641.2708
Edward R. Bates
IERL.Ci
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)684-4363
Edward R. Bates
IERL-Cl
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)684-4363
Edward R. Bates
IERL-Ci
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)684.4363
Edward R. Bates
IERL-Ci
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513 ) 984-4363
Eugene F. Harris
IERL.Ci
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)684-4363
Leslie C. McMillion I Edward R. Bates
EMSL-LV IERL.Ci
Environmental Protection Agencyf Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, NV 89114 Cincinnati, OH 45268
(702)796-2258 ! (513)684.4363
Geofecltnicel instrumsntatlor t for
In-Sm Coal Gasification
(July 19 Septsmber 1919)
ø. ci Av..
Ve 9 ufetlve Siabiuzation of Slient
OIl Shale
( Se l.. ,bs 1916-July 1981)
( C .ih.. Av..,ara..J
Edward R. Bates
!ERL-Cl
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)984-4363
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(303)4918398
(David McWhorter)
Colorado State UnIversity
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(303)49183 6 8
(David McWhortar )
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(303)4918368
(David McWhorter)
General Electric Center for
Advanced Studies
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
(905)965-0551
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
Environmental Perspective on the EPA Oil Shale Research Group Edward A. Bates I Terry L. Thoem
Emerging Oil Shale Industry Office of Research and IERL-Ci ! Region VIII
(August 1978-September 1980) Development Environmental Protection Agency! Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268 f Denver, CO 80295
(513)684-4363 j (303)837-5914
Trace Elements in Naval Reserve Laramie Energy Technology Center Edward A. Bates
Oil Shale Cores Laramie, WY 82071 IERL-Ci
(June 1978-June 1980) (307)721-2011 Environmental Protection Agency
(Interagency Agreement) (Richard Poulson) Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)684-4363
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of California
Bldg. 70, Room 143
Berkeley, CA 94720
(415)451.6698
(Phyllis Fox)
Assessment of 5th and Hydrocarbon Laramie Energy Technology Center Edward R. Bates
EmIssions from Old In-Situ Laramie, WY 82071 IERL-Ci
Oil Shale Sites (307)721-2011 EnvIronmental Protection Agency
(November 1978-November 1960) (Richard Pouls*n) Cincinnati, OH 45268
(Interagency Agreement) (513)684-4363
Pollution Control Guidance Document Denver Research Institute Edward A. Bates
for Oil Shale Denver, CO 80208 IERL-Ci
(November 1979-September 1961) (303)753-2912 Environmental Protection Agency
(Cooperative Agreement) (Andrew Jovanovich) Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)684-4363
Laboratory Study on Spent Shale Laramle Energy Technology Center Edward R. Bates
from the Geoklnetlca Process Laramle, WY 82071 IERL-CI
(AprIl 1980-April 1982) (307)721-2011 EnvIronmental Protection Agency
(Interagency Agreement) (G. F. Dana) Cincinnati. OH 45268
(513)684.4363
Assessment of Oil Shale Retort Monsanto Research Corporation Walter Liberick
Wastewater Treatment and Control P0. Box 8, StatIon B IERL-CI
Technology Dayton, OH 45401 Environmental Protection Agency
(May 1979-May 1962) (513)288-3411 CIncinnati, OH 45268
(Gary Rawllnga) (513)684-4363
Environmental Characterization of Monsanto Research Corporation Tom Powers
Geokinetics In-Situ Oil Shale P.O. Box 8, Station B IERL-Ci
Retorting Technology Dayton, OH 45401 Environmental Protection Agency
(January 1979-June 1980) (513)268-3411 CIncinnati, OH 45268
(Bill Hedley) (513)684.4363
Air Pollution Investigations from Monsanto Research Corporation Robert Thurnau
Oil Shale Retorting: In-Situ and P.O. Box 8, StatIon B IERL-Ci
Dayton, OH 45407 EnvIronmental Protection Agency
(April 1979-April 1982) (513)268-3411 CincinnatI, OH 45268
(Gaiy RawIlngs) (513)684-4417
Overview of the Environmental Denver Research Institute Robert Thumsu
Problems for Oil Shale Development 2390 So. York Street IERL-Ci
(May 1979-December 1980) University of Denver Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, CO 80210 CincinnatI, OH 45268
(303)753-2911 (513)684-4417
(Andrew Jovsnovich)
Multimedia Sampling and Radian Corporation John Lum Robert Mournighan
Analysis of Commercial Suite 600, Lancaster Bldg. Effluent Guidelines Division LERL-Ci
Alcohol Fuel Production 7927 Jones Branch Drive Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency
Facilities McLean, VA 22102 Washington, DC 20460 Cincinnati, OH 45268
(June 1919-September 1980) (703)734-2600 (202)426-4617 (513)684-4334
(Gilbert Ogle)
Environmental Assessment of Acurex Corporation Robert Mournighan
On-Farm Alcohol Fuel Producllon 485 Clyde Ave. IERL-Ci
Facilities Mountain View, CA 94042 Environmental Protection Agency
(December 1979-September 1980) (415)964-3200 x 3909 Cincinnati, OH 45288
(William Kuby) (513)684-4334
Environmental Operations Midwest Research Institute Robert Mournighan
Manual for On-Farm Alcohol 425 Volker Drive IERL-Ci
Production Units Kansas City, MO 64110 Environmental Protection Agency
(January 1980-September 1980) (816)753-7600 Cincinnati, OH 45268
(Gary KelsO) (513)684-4334
Analytical Methods Manual for Denver Research institute Robert Thurnau
Oil Shale Effluents University of Denver IERL-Ci
(April 1979-April 1982) Denver, CO 80210 Environmental Protection Agency
(303)753-2911 Cincinnati, OH 45268
(Andrew Jovanovich) (513)684-4417
Distribution of Trace Elements Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Robert Thurnau
During Simulated In-Situ Oil University of California IERL-Ci
Shale Retorting Berkeley, CA 94720 Environmental Protection Agency
(October 1978-September 1981) (415)451-6698 Cincinnati, OH 45268
(Phyllis Fox) (513)684-4417
9
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1080
REPORT SUMMARY
Technological Overview Reports
for Eight Shale Oil Recovery
Processes
(EPA-600!7 . .79-075)
(NTIS PB 295665)
by
C. C. Shih and J. E. Cotter
TRW Environmental Engineering Division
and
C. H. Prien and T. D. Nevens
Denver Research Institute
Although several hundred different processes for retort-
ing oil shale have-been proposed over the past 75 years, only
a few are considered commercially vIable. This report
presents basic descriptions of eight major shale oil recovery
processes with potential for commercial development. It
Includes overviews of six surface retorting processes: (1)
Union Oil Retort B, (2) Parsho, (3) TOSCO I I, (4) Lurgi-
Ruhrgas, 5) Superior Oil, and (6) USBM Gas Combustion. In
addition, it summarizes two iri situ retorting processes: (1)
the Occidental Modified in-situ retort, and (2) true in-situ
development programs of Lararnie Energy Technoiogy Center
(DOE).
These technology overviews were prepared as part of
EPA’s protect, Assessment of Environmental Impacts from
Oil Shale Development. Thcy are intended to aid in evalu-
ating environmental impacts and pollution control tech-
nologies. Each overview includes general process descrip-
tion, shale preparation requirements, equipment types,
operating conditions, and characteristics of products and by-
products. Also summarized are energy and water require-
ments, process stream characteristics, disposal require-
ments for retorted shale, and site-specific aspects, where
eppl lcab le.
The eight retorting processes were included in the study
on the basis of several criteria:
• The process had been tested at sufficient pilot scale
(1.1 x 10 to 5.5 x 10- m 3 ls or 0.6 to 3 bbllday) to
permit an evaluation of its operating characteristics
and yields.
• The process was considered technically Sound and
suitable for further scale-up.
• Previous process operations had indicated no inherent
adverse environmental emissions or effluents
Incapable of eventual control.
• The process had operated successfully on U.S. oil
shales, especially those of the Western Green River
Formation.
• Preliminary economics were sufficiently promising to
warrant continued process development.
• Construction of a commercial module (0.0110 m’/s or
6000 bbUday) would likely be underway before 1985.
• Process developers would cooperate ifl providing un-
published information, descriptions of new process
changes, and other data.
The following paragraphs summarize some of the retorting
processes included in the technology overview report. These
technOlogy descriptIons represent state-of-the-art knowledge
of shale oil process development at the time of report publi-
cation. It is anticipated that future resoawh and commercial-
ization efforts will result in some modification of these
process technologies.
Union Oil Retort B
Union Oil Company’s Retort B process involves moving
crushed shale upward through a vertical kiln where it is con-
tacted by a countercurrent stream of hot recycle gas. As the
rising shale bed is heated by the recycle gas, shale oil vapor
and make gas are produced. The mixture of shale oil vapor
and make gas is forced downward by the recycle gas, and
cooled by the cold incoming shale in the lower section of
the retort cone.
The make gas is removed and routed to a venturi
scrubber. One portion of the scrubbed make gas is then
recycled to the retort; another portion is further processed
and used as onsite plant fuel.
The rundown oil from the retort is treated sequentially
for solids, arsenic, and light ends removal. The resulting par-
tially upgraded shale oil can then be marketed as a low
sulfur burner fuel or used as feedstock in refineries.
Principal pollution control devices include the Stretford
process for removing hydrogen sulfide trom the retort make
gas. Other control mechanisms are oil/water separation and
sour water stripping for wastewater treatment. Treated
wastewater is used to cool and moisten retorted shale prior
to disposal, thereby providing dust control and proper com-
paction.
The retorted shale is transported to a disposal area,
where it is compacted in windrows proceeding up an
embankment. The embankment has a leachate collection
ditch, from which runoff is routed to the plant water supply
pond.
Union Oil is studying revegetation for the retorted shale
plots, including mulching, seeding, irrigation, and fertili-
zation.
Paraho
The Paraho Oil Shale Process of Development Engineer-
ing, Inc. (DEl), uses a vertical kiln, operated In either a direct
10
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
or indirect mode. In both modes the crushed shale is fed by
a rotary mechanism into the top of the Paraho retort and
moves down by gravity through four zones: (1) a mist forma-
tion and preheating zone, (2) a retorting zone, (3) a combus-
tion zone (direct mode) or heating zone (Indirect mode), and
(4) a residue cooking and gas preheating zone. The retorted
shale Is then discharged through a hydraulically operated
grate which controls the desired downward velocity and
maintains even flow through the retort This grate, the rotary
feed mechanism, ‘ nd the multi-levels of heat Input are
among the uniqu i features of Paraho technology.
The shale vapors produced in the retorting zone are
cooled o a stable mist by the incoming shale (which is
thereby preheated). The mist is cleaned and condensed, and
the resulting shale oil is transported for storage. The oil can
be converted to syncrude or low sulfur distillate oil using
such processes as delayed coking, gas treating, and hydro-
genation of naphtha and gas oil fractions. By-products of
these conversion processes Include ammonia, sulfur, and
coke.
In the direct mode, heat for the Paraho process is
supplied within the kiln: the carbonaceous residue on the
retorted shale is burned In the combustion zone to provide
the principal fi. el. Low-Btu recycle gases are used to (1) cool
the retorted shale in the residue cooling and gas preheating
zone, and (2) dilute the air entering the retort for combustion.
In the Indirect mode, heat for retorting is supplied by re-
cycled retort gases heated In an outside furnace. t ’Jo residual
carbon on the retorted shale is burned In the kiln. Thus, the
off gases have a higher heating value because they are not
diluted by combustion products.
Because the Paraho process is still under development,
pollution control needs have not been fully determined.
Several steps of the process can have adverse environmental
effects requiring control.
A major environmental concern is disposal of the
retorted shale. Disposal areas must be compacted, con-
toured, and revegetated.
TOSCO II, developed by The Oil Shale Corporation
(TOSCO), is a retorting process based on solid-to-solid heat
transfer between hot ceramic pellets and crushed oil shale.
Crushed shale is preheated and fed to a horizontal rotating
retort, together with roughly 15 times its weight in hot
ceramic balls. The ceramic balls raise the shale to pyrolysis
temperature and convert its contained organic matter to
shale oil vapor. The shale vapors are withdrawn and fed to a
fractionator for hydrocarbon recovery. The mixture of balls
and spent shale is discharged and separated. The ceramic
balls are cleaned, heated, and recirculated to the pyrolysis
drum. The hot processed shale is cooled, moisturized, and
transported to the disposal site.
The shale oil hydrocarbon vapors are routed to a frac-
tionator where they are separated into water, gas, naphtha,
gas oil, and bottom oil. The water Is sent to a foul water
stripper, and the other fractions are upgraded to synthetic
crude oil and LPG. Upgrading also yields ammonia, sulfur,
and coke as by-products. In addition, a treated fuel gas, a
methane stream, fuel oil, and diesel oil are obtained for
internal plant use.
Pollution control systems are used throughout the
TOSCO II process. Wet scrubbers control gaseous and
particulate emissions. Solid wastes include mainly pro-
cessed shale (97 percent), dust, spent catalyst materials,
sludges, and arsenic-laden solids. The wastes are trans-
ported to the disposal area and compacted. Contained salts
are leached out of the surface layer prior to revegetation.
Lurg l-Ruhrgas
The Lurgi-Ruhrgas process was developed by Lurgi in
collaboration with Ruhrgas AG In the 1950’s to produce pipe-
line quality gas from the devolatilization of coal fines. Since
then the process has been commercially applied for (1) the
devolatilizatlon of lignite fInes, (2) the production of char
fines from subbltuminous coal for hot briquetting, and (3) the
cracking of naphtha and crude oil to produce olef ins. Lurgi
has also proposed commercial application of the process for
distillation of oil shale, based on several pilot studies.
In the Lurgi-Ruhrgas process, the crushed oil shale is
fed to a double screw mixer where it mixes with six to eight
times its volume of hot circulating shale residue. The fresh
shale feed is heated rapidly, and gas, shale oil vapor, and
water vapor are evolved. The circulating heat canler and the
partially retorted and fresh shale are then routed to a surge
hopper where residual oil components are distilled off.
The mixture of heat carrier and retorted shale residue Is
passed to the lower section of a lift pipe where combustion
air is introduced. The hot air raises the mixture pneumati-
cally to a collecting bin and simultaneously burns residue
carbon contained in the retorted shale.
The heat carrier Is separated from the flue gases in a
collecting bin; the combustion air supply to the lift pipe Is
preheated by countercurrent heat exchange with the flue gas
stream. The flue gas is cleaned and cooled before discharge
to the atmosphere.
The volatile gas product from oil shale retorting Is
cleaned in cyclones, scrubbed, and cooled. Heavy oil, gas
naphtha, middle oil, and distillation gas (naphtha-free) are
recovered.
The major atmospheric emission stream from the Lurgl-
Ruhrgas process is the flue gas from the combustion of the
shale residue. The flue gas contains a significant level of
particulates and must be cleaned in a cyclone and electro-
static precipitator.
The major liquid waste stream is the gas liquor pro-
duced during distillation of the oil shale. The liquor contains
minor amounts of ammonia, oil, and phenols, and Is used to
cool and moisten the spent shale. During this step, the
minor contaminants are absorbed by the shale.
The heavy oil dust and the retorted shaie represent the
major solid waste streams from the Lurgi-Ruhrgas process.
These streams can be combined, moistened, and disposed of
together.
Superior Oil
The Superior Oil Shale Process is characterized by (1) its
use of a circular grate retort, and (2) its ability to recover
saline minerals from the shale. Superior Oil’s shale holdings
in Colorado’s Piceance Creek Basin contain substantial
quantities of the saline materials nahcolite (NaHCO3) and
dawsonite (NaAl(OH)2CO3). These materials, together with the
shale, are recovered, processed, and sold.
Most of the nahcolite is recovered during primary and
secondary crushing of the raw shale. The remainder goes
Petroleum from oil shale. Photo compliments of U.S. Department at Energy
TOSCO II
11
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
Se_ 1 O
through the retorting process where it is calcined to sodium
carbonate (Na2CO 3 ) and recovered in subsequent leaching
operations.
The Superior Oil retort is doughnut-shaped and has five
zones: loading, retorting, residual carbon recovery, cooling,
and unloading. The raw shale is fed to a travelling circular
grate and passes into the retorting zone, where it is con-
tacted by a stream of hot gases. The gases pass down
through the bed and heat the shale to retorting temperature.
An oil-vapor-laden gas mixture leaves the bed and passes to
a separator-condenser system where the product shale oil is
removed. The oil-denuded and cooled recycle gases then
pass through the cooling zone of the retort where they cool
the shale. The recycle gases are then directed to the residual
carbon recovery (or combustion) zone.
The retorted shale travels from the retorting zone to the
combustion zone where it is contacted by steam, air, and
recycled gases. The carbon residue is recovered, and a
producer gas forms. The producer gas is used as on-site
fuel. The retorted shale is cooled and unloaded.
During oil shale retorting, the dawsonite present is con-
verted to alumina (AlaCO ) and aodium carbonate. These
materials are recovered by alkaline leaching of the spent
shale.
After leaching, the spent shale is washed and returned
to the mine for disposal. Over 40 percent of the originally
mined volume of shale Is consumed to produce shale oil,
alumina, sodium carbonate, and nahcolite. Because of this
reduction In volume, all of the remaining processed shale
can be returned underground. This eliminates surface dis-
turbance and revegetation requirements.
Gaseous emissions from the Superior Oil process
consist primatily of fugitive oust generated by handling the
shale. Bag filters must be used to control these streams. The
retort itself is gas-tight by virtj4e of water seals; as a result,
no gases are released into the atmosphere.
Most of the water consumed by the process is recycled
and eventually mixed with the spent shale for underground
disposal.
Occidental Petroleum
Occidental Petroleum Company’s modified in-situ pro-
cess for shale oil recovery is being developed on its oil shale
lease property in Piceance Creek, Colorado. The process in-
volves vertical retorting of a column of broken shale which
has formed by expansion into a previously mined, void
volume.
In preparation for retorting, about 20 to 25 percent of
the oil shale deposit is mined at the upper and/or lower level
of the shale layer. Vertical Iongholes are drilled from the
mined-out room into the shale layer. The longholes are load-
ed with an explosive which is detonated. After blasting, the
broken (rubbllzed) shale fills both the volume of the room
and the volume of the shale column.
Retorting is initiated by heating the top of the rubblized
shale column with a flame formed from compressed air and
an external heat source. After several hours, the external
heat source is removed, and the compressed air flow is
maintained. At this point carbonaceous residue in the retort-
ed fuel sustains air combustion. Hot gases from the combus-
tion zone move down to pyrolyze the kerogen In the shale
below. The pyrolysis yields gases, water vapor, and shale oil
mist which condense in trenches at the bottom of the rub-
blized column. Oil production precedes the advancing com-
bustion front by 9 to 12 m (30 to 40 ft). The crude shale oil
and by-product water are pumped to storage. Part of the off-
gas is recycled to control (1) the oxygen level in the pressur-
ized incoming air, and (2) the retorting temperature. The rest
of the offgas is routed to a Stretford unit for H 2 S removal
and then used for on-site power.
The crude shale oil product must be treated to remove
by-product water and to stabilize the oil. The process also
yields sulfur and substantial quantities of mined rock.
Several waste streams from the Occidental process are
of environmental concern. These include the retort offgas,
which must be treated in a Stretford unit to remove H2S. The
contaminated retort water may also require treatment. An-
other water problem is the potential contamination of
naturally occurring groundwater in the oil shale zone. Proper
disposal of the mined rock must also be considered.
LETCIDOE Research Program
DOE’s Laramie Energy Technology Center (LETC/DOE) is
conducting an intensive in-situ oil shale research program at
several Wyoming sites. As part of this effort, LETC/DOE has
undertaken several studies of the environmental changes
associated with in-situ oil shale processing. Underground
fluids are being examined before, during, and after in-situ
shale processing to identify any pollution. Water and brine
samples from wells and coreholes are analyzed for signifi-
cant organic and inorganic constituents. Another environ-
mental study concerns the proper management of oil shale
retort water. Potentially toxic constituents are identified,
including any biological degradation mechanisms. Trace ele-
ments are also characterized.
In addition to the environmental studies, LETCIDOE is
investigating various shale fracturing techniques and differ-
ent methods for in-situ Oil recovery. The Center is spon-
soring several vertical and horizontal retorting projects, In-
situ processing variables being studied include:
• Effects of shale size, richness, and temperature on oil
recovery yields.
• Gasification of oil shale with varied amounts of COz,
N02, N2, and steam.
• Effects of retorting pressure on oil recovery yield.
• Pyrolysis of oil shale in the presence of CO and H 2 0.
In addition to its LETC R&D program, DOE is also conduct-
ing oil shale research at its Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
and Sandia Laboratories.
RECENT MAJOR MEETINGS
Seventh Energy Technology Conference
“Expanding Energy Supplies” was the theme of the
Seventh Energy Technology Conference (ET7), March 24-26,
1980, in Washington, D.C. More than 6,000 attendees heard
250 speakers address a broad range of energy-related topics,
most of which centered around synthetic fuels and synfuels
technology.
Many Efl attendees were optimistic about the status of
U.S. synfuels projects. Two malor oil companies are consid-
ering shale oil plants. A large chemical manufacturer is con-
structing an acetic anhydride plant which will use coal-
derived synthesis gas as feedstock. Private groups, in col-
laboration with DOE, are considering two solvent-refined coal
12
-------
EnvIronmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
demonstration plants. DOE itself expects to spend more
than $4 billion this fiscal year in developing fossil, nuclear,
and renewable resources.
Paul Rudolph, director of coal technology for Lurgi
Kohle und Mineraloeltechnik, told conference attendees that
the Lurgi gasifier is ready for use in large plants. In describ-
ing the gasifier’s performance at the SASOL plant in South
Africa, he indicated that the Lurgi gasifier performs well on a
number of coals. Rudolph noted that demonstration of the
British GaslLurgi slagging gasifler has been so successful
that it, too, may be ready for commercialization. The gasifier,
which operates with llquid.slag removal, is ideal for treating
coals with low ash melting points and low reactivity.
According to A. L Kohl, program manager in Rockwell
International’s Energy Systems Group, the Rockwell slagging
gasifler has been successfully demonstrated. The Rockwell
gasifier employs a sodium sulfide catalyst formed in a re-
action between sulfur in the coal and molten sodium car-
bonate added to the melt. The resulting low temperature
(982C or 1800F) process produces small quantities of
ammonia, nitrogen oxides, heavy hydrocarbons, and tar.
The Texaco gasification process, an oxygen-blown,
slurry-ted, entrained-bed process, also results in low tar
formation, according to Thomas O’Shea of the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI). O’Shea, project manager of
a 10.2 kgls (1,000 ton/day) Texaco gasifier being Installed at
Southern California Edison’s (SCE’s) Cool Water generating
station, told conference attendees that the SCE gasifier’s
efficiency, capital, and operating costs will be competitive
with a direct-fired coal power plant equipped with flue gas
desulfurization.
Copies of ET7’s proceedings. are available from: Govern-
ment Institutes, Inc., P. 0. Box 5918, Washington, D.C. 20014,
(301) 656-1090.
Waste-TO-Energy Technology Update
1980
The EPA-sponsored conference, Waste-to Energy Tech-
nology Update 1980, was held in Cincinnati, OH, April 15-16,
1980. Papers were presented on the potential of waste feed-
stocks to provide energy alternatives. Feedstocks discussed
included municipal solid waste, refuse-derived fuel,
industrial/sewage sludge, scrap tires, and biomass such as
agricultural wastes and waste cellulose. These feedstocks
may be pyrolyzed, hydrolyzed, combusted, and/or co.fired
with coal for use as alternative fuels. Products of waste-to-
energy technologies described include low-Stu gas, residual
oil, ethanol, and gasoline.
Presentations described fuel production, fuel conver-
sion, emission assessment, and control device applications.
Results were reported from bench-scale studies, pilot plant
operations, and industrial-scale applications of waste-to-
energy technologies.
Abstracts of the presentations and more information on
the EPA conference may be obtained by contacting Ruth
Ann Gibson, Batteile Columbus Laboratories, 505 King
Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43201, (614) 424-5532.
Sixth Underground Coal Conversion
Symposium
Sixty-three papers describing underground coal gaslf I.
cation technology, environmental effects, and economics
were presented at the Sixth Underground Coal Conversion
Symposium. The meeting, held July 13-17, 1980, in Afton, OK,
was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and
cohosted by the Laramie Energy Technology Center (LETC)
and Williams Brothers Engineering Company.
Topics discussed at the Symposium included:
• Reports on DOE field testing at four underground coal
gasification (UCG) sites: Pricetown 1, Hoe Creek 3,
Hanna IV, and Rawllns Steeply Dipping Bed.
• Status of private sector development of UCG.
• Comparison of the economics of UCG and surface
coal gasification processes.
• Results of European linking studies.
• Methods and results of environmental monitoring.
One day’s session was devoted to special topics. In this
session, speakers discussed drilling holes in coal with water
jets, selection of gasification processes, water treatment at
UCG sites, UCG site characterization, and interpretation of
environmental data from UCG test runs.
Proceedings of the Symposium will be published. Infor-
mation regarding the proceedings may be obtained from:
R. A. Mason, Williams Brothers Engineering Company, Re-
source Sciences Center, 6600 S. Yale Avenue, Tulsa, OK
74177, (918) 496-5020.
MEETING CALENDAR
1st SERI International Workshop on BIotechnology for the
Production of Chemicals and Fuels from Biom.ss, Oct. 1.3,
1980, Vail, CO. Contact: Donna Post, Solar Energy Research
Institute (SERI), 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401; tele-
phone (303) 231-1861.
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.
5th Annual Conference on Materials for Coal Conversion and
UtilIzation, Oct. 7-9, 1980, Gaithersburg, MD. Contact: S. J.
Schneider or S. J. Dapkunas, NBS, Materials Bldg. B-348,
Washington, DC 30234; telephone (301) 921-2893.
24th ORNL Conference on Analytlcai 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.
Synthetic Fuels: Status and DIr.ctions, Oct. 13-16, 1980, San
Francisco, CA. Contact: Kathy Davis or S. B. Aipert, Electric
Power Research Institute, P. 0. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA
94303; telephone (415) 855-2512.
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) 477-
5083.
1st International Energy Symposlum.World’s Fair Energy
Expo 82, Oct. 14-17, 1980, Knoxville, TN. Contact: Sheila
McCullough, Energy Opportunities Consortium, P. 0. Box
2229, Knoxville, TN 37901; telephone (615) 637-4554.
International Symposium on Environmental Pollution, Oct.
16-17, 1980, Sheraton Biltmore, Atlanta, GA. Contact: V. M.
Bhatnagar, Alena Enterprises of Canada, P. 0. Box 1779,
Cornwall, ONT. K6H 5V7, Canada.
13
-------
En*onmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
Energy Conservation Expo 1980, Oct. 17-19, 1980, El Cajon
(San Diego), CA. Contact: Harold Tucker, Energy Conserva-
tion Assoc. of S.D., p. 0. Box 1241, La Mesa, CA 92041; tele-
phone (714) 464-4509.
DOE/EPA Conference on European Waste to Energy
Systems, Oct. 29-31, 1980, Washington, DC. Contact:
Caroline Brooks, ANL, EES, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne,
11 60439; telephone (312) 972-3720.
Synfuels Industry Development, Nov. 6-7, 1980, Washington,
DC. Contact Martin Heavner, Gov. Inst., P. o. Box 5918,
Washington, DC 20014; telephone (301) 656-1090.
1980 Annual Meeting of American Petroleum Institute, Nov.
10-11, 1980, San Francisco, CA. Contact: American Petroleum
Institute, 2101 L Street N.W., Washington, DC 20037.
AIChE 73rd Annual Meeting, Nov. 16.20, 1980, Palmer House,
Chicago, IL Contact American Institute of chemical Engi-
neers, 345 E. 47th Street, New York, NY 10017.
ENERGI 80, Dec. 2-5, 1980, Copenhagen, Denmark. Contact:
Boersen’s Exhibition Service, A/S Foriaget Boersen, Monter-
gade 19, DK-1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark; telephone (451)
15-72-50.
National Conference on Renewable Energy Technologies,
Dec. 8.11, 1980, Honolulu, HI. Contact: Donni S. Hopkins,
Hawaii Natural Energy lnst t tute, University of Hawaii at
Manoa, 1540 Dole Street, Holmes Hall 246, Honolulu, HI
96822; telephone (808) 948-6379.
3rd MiamI International Conference on Alternative Energy
Sources, Dec. 15-18, 1980, Miami Beach, FL Contact: T.
Nejat Vezirogiu, Dir., Clean Energy Research Inst., Univ. of
Miami, P. 0. Box 248294, Coral Gables, FL 33124; telephone
(305) 284-4666.
European Conference on Environmental Pollution, Dec. 18-19,
1980, Frankfurt Plaza Hotel, Frankfurt, West Germany.
Contact: V. M. Bhatnagar, Alena Enterprises of Canada, P. 0.
Box 1779, Cornwall, ONT. K6H 5V7, Canada.
Energy-Sources Technology Conference and ExhIbition, Jan.
18-21, 1981, Houston, TX. Contact: Frank D. Demarest, ETCE,
P. 0. Box 59489, Dallas, TX 75229; telephone (214) 247-1747.
8th Energy Technology Conference and Exposition (ETa),
March 9-11, 1981, Washington, DC. Contact: Martin Heavner,
Gov. Inst., P. 0. Box 5918, Washington, DC 20014; telephone
(301)656-1090.
1981 Symposium on Instrumentation and Control for Fossil.
Energy Processes, June 8-10, 1981, San Francisco, CA.
Contact: Miriam L Holden, ANL, Bldg. 233, 9700 S. Cass
Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439; telephone (312) 972-5585.
2nd International Energy SymposIum-World’s Fair Energy
Expo 82, June 16 -19, 1981, Knoxville, TN. Contact: Sheila
McCullough, Energy Opportunities Consortium, P. 0. Box
2229, Knoxville, TN 37901; telephone (615) 637-4554.
RECENT MAJOR PAPERS AND PUBLICATIONS
Coal Gasification and Indirect Liquefaction
Anstasi, J. L, SASOL- South Africa’s Oil From Coal Story:
Background for Environmental Assessment EPA-600/8-80-002
(NTIS PB 80-148752). Redondo Beach, CA, TRW, Inc., January
1990.
B&fcur W. D_ et aL, ColleCtiOn and Characterization of
Ambient Aerosols Downwind from a Commercial Lurgi Cool
GasificatIon Facility. Presented at the American Chemical
Society Meeting, Division of Environmental Chemistry, San
Francisco, CA, August 24-29, 1980.
Bombaugh, K. J., et aL, Characterization of Emissions from a
Lergi Coal Gasification System at Kosovo. Presented at the
American Chemical Society Meeting, Division of Environ-
mental Chemistry, San Francisco, CA, August 24-29, 1980.
Clelend, J. G., et eL, Pollutants From Synthetic Fuels
Productlom Cool Gasification Screening Test Results. EPA-
60017-79-200 (NTIS PB 80-182769). Research Triangle Park,
NC, Research Triangle Institute. August 1979.
F.rreU, J. K., et at., Cool Gasification/Gas Cleanup Test
Facility, Volume I: Description and Operation. EPA-600/7-80-
048a (NTIS PB 80.188378). Raleigh, NC, North Carolina State
University, March 1980.
Griest, W. H., et aI., Characterization of Ambient Vapor and
Particulate Phase Organics Collected Near the Kosovo Coal
Gasiher. Presented at the American Chemical Society
Meeting, Division of Environmental Chemistry, San Fran-
cisco, CA, August 24-29, 1980.
Huntzicker, J. .1., R. L Johnson, and J. J. Shah. Carbon .-
ceous Aerosol In the Vicinity of a Lurgl Gaslfler. Presented
at the American Chemical Society Meeting, Division of En-
vironmental Chemistry, San Francisco, CA. August 24.29,
1980.
Kapar, S., B. Januzi, and D. Petkovic, GC-MS Data from Air
Sampling Tests of the Coal Gasification Complex at Kosovo,
Yugoslavia. Presented at the American Chemical Society
Meeting, Division of Environmental Chemistry, San Fran-
cisco, CA, August 24-29, 1980.
Kilpatrick, M. P., R. A. Mcgee, and T. E. Emmel, Environ.
mental Assessment Source Test and Evaluation Report
WeIlman -Galusha (Ft Snelling) Low-Btu Gasification. EPA-
60017-80-097. Austin, TX, Radian Corporation, May 1980.
Lee, K. W., et al., A Comparison of the Organics Collected
from the Ambient Air with the By-Products of a Lurgi Coal
Gasification Plant Presented at the American Chemical
Society Meeting, Division of Environmental Chemistry, San
Francisco, CA, August 24-29, 1980.
Murin, P., T. Sipes, and G. C. Page, Environmental Assess-
ment Report Wellman-Galusha Low-Btu Gasification
Systems. EPA-600/7-80-093 (NTIS PB 80-190796). Austin, TX,
Radian Corporation, May 1980.
Thumau, R. C. and E. R. Bates, EPA Researcft In Situ Coal
Gasification Results to Date. Preseflted at the Sixth Under-
ground Coal Conversion Symposium, At ton, OK, July 13-17,
1980.
14
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
Williams, C. H., Jr., et aL, GC-MS Characterization of Trace
Organic Compounds in the Ambient Aerosol Associated with
the Coal Gasification Plant at Kosovo. Presented at the
American Chemical Society Meeting, Division of Environ-
mental Chemistry, San Francisco, CA, August 24-29, 1980.
Wolff, 1., at al., Latent Mutagenicity and Cytotoxicity in a
Complex Mixture: Bioassay of Coal Gasifier Crude Tars.
Presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Environmental
Mutagen Society, Nashville, TN, March 1980.
Zweidinger, R. A., and J. McDaniets, Evaluation of the Per-
formance of the Sorbents, Tenax GC and Amberlite XAD-2,
for Sampling and Analysis of Coal Gasification Process
Streams. Presented at the Pittsburgh Conference on
Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy, March 1980.
Liquefaction
Carson, T. C., et al., Two-Step Coal Liquefaction is a Hydro-
gen Efficient Route to Distillate Fuels. CONF-790961-1.
Tulsa, OK, Cities Service Co., 1979.
Chllllngworth, R. S., at aL, LC-Fining of SRC: A Logical
Second Stage in Two-Step Coal Liquefaction. CON F-790822-
13. Tulsa, OK, Cities Service Co., August 1979.
Epperty, W. R., EDS Coal Liquefaction Process Develop-
ment Phase IV. FE-2893-42. Florham Park, NJ, Exxon Re-
search and Engineering Co., April 1979.
Skowlonski, R. P., and L. A. Heredy, Molten Alkali Metal
Hydroxide Catalyzed Coal Liquefaction. Quarterly Technical
Progress Report, Jan-Mar 1979. FE-3048-2. Canoga Park,
CA, Rockwell International Corp., April 1979.
Wiser, W. H., Applied Research and Evaluation of Process
Concepts for Liquefaction and Gasification of Western
Coals. FE-2006-14. Salt Lake City, UT, Utah Univ., March
1979.
Oil Shale
Barkley, W, D. Warshawsky, and M. Radike, Toxicology and
Carcinogenicity of Oil Shale Products. In: Proceedings of the
Symposium on Assessing the Industrial Hygiene Monitoring
Needs for the Coal Conversion and Oil Shale Industries.
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, Nov. 6-7, 1978.
pp. 79-95.
Chappell, W. R., Trace Element Release and Transport Asso-
ciated with Shale Oil Production. In: Oil Shale Symposium
Proceedings. Golden, CO, April 18-20, 1979. pp. 156-165.
Cotter, J. E., and D. J. Powell, Fugitive Dust at the Paraho Oil
Shale Demonstration Retort and Mine. EPA.60017-79-208
(NTIS PB 80-122591). Redondo Beach, CA, TRW, Inc., October
1979.
Fox, J. P., K. K. Mason, and J. J. Duvall, Partitioning of Major,
Minor, and Trace Elements During Simulated In Situ Oil
Shale Retorting in a Controlled-Retort In: Oil Shale Sym-
posium Proceedings. Golden, CO, April 18-20, 1979. pp. 58-71.
Franklin, A. E., Environmental Impacts of Oil Shale Technolo-
gies. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Technical Meeting
of the Institute of Environmental Sciences. Seattle, WA, April
30-May 2, 1979. pp. 294-297.
Hepler, D. I., at al., Toxicological Evaluation of an In Situ Oil
Shale Process Water. In: Oil Shale Symposium Proceedings.
Golden, CO, April 18-20, 1979. pp. 139-148.
Kuo, M.C.T., et al., Inorganic Leaching of Spent Shale from
Modified In Situ Processing. In: Oil Shale Symposium
Proceedings. Golden, CO, April 18-20, 1979. pp. 81-93.
Skinner, 0. D., at al., Phototoxicity and Plant Responses to
Aqueous Effluents Derived from an In Situ Oil Shale Process
Water. In: Oil Shale Symposium Proceedings. Golden, CO,
April 18-20, 1979. pp. 122-138.
Thoem, T., et al., Status of EPA Regulatory and Research
Activities Affecting Oil Shale Development Presented at the
13th Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines,
Golden, CO, August 16-18, 1980.
Alcohol Fuels
Environmental Evaluation of Gasohol Production and
Health Effects: Seminar Proceedings, EPA-907 19-79-005
(NTIS PB 80-146756). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VII, Kansas City, MO, June 27, 1979.
Harper, J. P., A. A. Antonopoules, and A. A. Sobek, En-
vironmental and Economic Evaluations of Energy Recovery
from Agricultural and Forestry Residues. ANLJEES-TM-58.
Argonne, IL, Argonne National Lab., August 1979.
NEUS, Inc., Biosciences Digest- A Journal on Biomass
Utilization. VOL 1, No. 1 and No. 4. (NTIS PB 80-140973 and
PB 80-140981). Santa Monica, CA, January 1979 and Oc-
tober 1979.
“Processes Promising for Cellulose Pyrolysis,” Chem. &
Eng. News, 58(9): 26-28, 1980.
Sitton, 0. C., et al., “Ethanol From Agricultural Residues,”
Chem. Eng. Prog., 75(12):52-57, 1979.
Other
Burchfleld, T. E., and L. G. Hepler, ‘Some Chemical and
Physical Properties of Produced Water from an In Situ Oil
Sands Plant,” In Situ Oil Coal Shale Miner, 3(4):383-390,
1979.
Frick, W. G., Environmental Restrictions on Syn fuels
Development Presented at Synfuels Industry Development
Seminar, Washington, D.C., 1980.
Harmsworth, R. V., and C. G. Musgrove, Environmental
Issues. Presented at Syntuels Industry Development
Seminar, Washington, D.C., 1980.
Kersman, L. E., and D. A. Klein, “Retorted Oil Shale Effects
on Soil Microbiological Characteristics,” J. Env. Quality,
8(4):520-524, 1979.
Supple, M. A., and K. Rashid, “Reduction of Flue Gas Par-
ticulates in a Tar Sand Plant,” Energy Process Can.,
72(1):62-68, 1979.
Surles, T., at al., Environmental Constraints to Increased
Coal Use: A National Assessment Presented at the
American Chemical Society Meeting, Division of Environ-
mental Chemistry, San Francisco, CA, August 24-29, 1980.
Watson, T., The Fast-Track Legislation. Presented at
Synfuels Industry Development Seminar, Washington, D.C.,
1980.
15
-------
Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels
September 1980
The Environmental Review of Synthetic Fuels is prepared by Radian Corporation under EPA contract 68-02-31 37. Contractors list-
ed in the table of contractors on pages 8-9 contributed to this issue. The EPA/IERL-RTP Project Officer is William J. Rhodes, (919) 541-
2853, the EPAIIERL-Ci contact is Eugene F. Harris, (513) 684-4363. The Radian Program Manager is Gordon C. Page, the Project Direc-
tor for preparation of this issue is Pamela K. Beekley, (512)454-4797. Comment 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
Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use by EPA.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
IndustrIal Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
(Attn: W. J. Rhodes, Mail Drop 61)
PEGION V L1SRAR
S. DEARBORN 14T F
CHICAGM
S YN
IL 6060
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 34041
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
2O2-56 O556
Postage And Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA — 335
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Penalty For Private Use $300
An Equal Opportunity Employer
L
EPA
230
------- |