PROJECT SUMMARY:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
OF SYNFUEL UTILIZATION
December 1980
by
M. Ghassemi and R. Iyer
TRW
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3174
Work Assignment No. 018
EPA Program Element No. CCZN1A
Project Officer: J. McSorley
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PROJECT SUMMARY:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
OF SYNFUEL UTILIZATION
December 1980
by
M. Ghassemi and R. Iyer
TRW
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3174
Work Assignment No. 018
EPA Propam Element No. CCZN1A
Project Officer: J. McSorley
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PROJECT SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF SYNFUEL UTILIZATION
M. GHASSEMI AND R. IYER
This study reviews the environmental concerns relating to the
distribution, handling, and end use of synfuel products likely to enter the
marketplace by the year 2000, and assigns priority rankings to these
products based on environmental concerns to aid EPA in focusing its
regulatory and research activities. Major products and by-products from
oil shale, coal liquefaction, and coal gasification technologies are
considered.
Based on current developmental activities, three likely scenarios for
shale and coal-based synfuel plant buildup are projected. The type and
quantity of synfuel products and by-products likely to enter the market are
identified and their regional market penetration is estimated. The
environmental analysis consists of a review of the available data on the
physical, chemical, and health effects characteristics of synfuel products
and environmental significance of the characteristics; an analysis of the
potential environmental impacts and regional implications associated with
the production and use scenarios considered; and a ranking of the products
from the standpoint of environmental concerns and mitigation requirements.
The results indicate that: (a) significant quantities of synfuel
products are expected to enter the marketplace during the next 20 years;
(b) large-scale transportation, distribution, and end use of certain
synfuel products can present significant threats to the environment and
the public health; (c) based on gross characteristics, synfuel products
appear to be similar to petroleum products, but detailed characterization
data are not available with which to judge their relative safety; and (d)
synfuel test and evaluation programs currently under way or planned provide
excellent opportunities for collecting some of the required environmental
data.
This is a summary of the complete project report, which can be
purchased from the National Technical Information Service.
INTRODUCTION
To date, most synfuel-related environmental assessment programs have
focused on the technologies for synfuel production and on emissions from
production facilities. The present study constitutes the first major
effort by EPA to examine environmental concerns that would be associated
-1-
-------
with the projected widespread utilization of synfuel products. A related
EPA program, currently under way, extends the effort to an analysis of the
trade-offs of various product slates for minimizing end use environmental
impacts.
The present study consists of: (1) a projection of synfuel production
and product utilization over the next twenty years, and (2) a ranking of
products from the standpoint of environmental concerns. The data base used
consists of information obtained from major process developers, potential
product users, and published literature.
CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES AMD PRODUCTS
Synfuel technologies likely to be used in commercial plants over the
next 20 years are oil shale, coal gasification (low-/medium-Btu and SNG)
and coal liquefaction (direct and indirect). Brief descriptions of these
technologies and their development status are presented in Table 1. Major
products and by-products of these technologies and their anticipated
general uses are indicated in Figure 1; their specific likely end uses are
listed in Table 2.
SYNFUEL INDUSTRY BUILDUP SCENARIOS
The development of a synfuel industry in the U.S. within the next 20
years will be influenced by a large number of factors, the most important
of which are:
Availability of capital for financing the massive construction
costs
Willingness of process developers, the private investment sector
and government to accept the technological risks involved in the
construction of the "first-of-a-kind" integrated coal and shale
facilities
U. S. Government energy policies and prices of domestic and
imported natural gas and oil
Availability of skilled manpower, raw material, and equipment for
plant construction and operation
Timely development of the supporting infrastructure necessary for
energy product manufacture, distribution, and use
Environmental regulatory requirements, and the time and effort
required to acquire technical data to support permit applications
and obtain approval
Effort and time required to attain full commercial status for
technologies/processes currently under development.
-2-
-------
TABLE 1. CANDIDATE SYNFUEL TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT
Technology
DESCRIPTION
DEVELOPMENT STATUS
Oil Shale
* Heating oil shale to about 480°C to extract shale oil
Keating accomplished via surface retorting, in situ retorting
or modified in situ retorting
« Crude shale oil can be upgraded to produce syncrude for
jse as refinery feedstocks or boiler fuel
Closest to commercial 1 ration of all synfuel technologies
for production of large volumes of liquid fuels
Surface retorting more advanced than in-situ retorting
All technologies demonstrated at pilot scale or larger
Several production facilities planned for operation in 1980's
Direct Coal
Liquefaction
t Coal, hydrogen and a coal-derived liquid mixed at high
temperature and pressure to produce additional coal-derived
oil, which is separated and refined to liquid fuels
t Three major processes under development SRC II, H-coal
and Exxor Donor Solvent (EDS) Processes differ in the way
hydrogen is made to react with coal
SRC II Pilot plant under operation, 6700-ton/day of coal
demonstration unit under design and scheduled for operation
in 1984-85
H-Coal 600-ton/day of coal pilot plant under construction,
testing to begin soon
t EDS 250-ton/day of coal pilot unit under construction,
testing to begin soon
indirect Coal
Liquefaction
Coal reacted mth oxygen and steam in a gasifier to produce
a synthesis gas, after removal of CO2 and other impurities,
CO and H2 in the gas reacted catalytically to produce several
products ranging from lightweight gases to heavy fuel oil
(Fischer-Tropsch process) or to methanol which is then con-
verted to gasoline (ftobil-H process)
t Fischer-Tropsch 8000-ton'day of coal plant (SASOL I) produc-
ing over 10,000 bbl/day of liquids in commercial operation
since 1956 in South Africa, a 40,000-ton/day of coal unit
(SASOL-II) will begin operation soon
Mobil-M Commercial plant to produce 12,500 bbl/day of gasoline
from reformed natural gas planned for New Zealand iri 19B4-35
Coal Gasification
Reacting coal, steam arid air/oxygen to produce low-Btu (80-150
Btu/scf) or medium-Btu(300-500 Btu/scf) gas, medium-Btu gas
purified and upgraded to SNG (1.IOOO Btu/scf)
Gasifiers differ in design and operation, depending on type
of coal used and products desired
I
Low-Btu gas Extensive commercial experience in U S with
gasifiers operating near atmospheric pressure, applications are
small-scale operations producing gas for captive use in
industrial and process heating
Medium-Btu gas extensive commercial experience exists for
Lurgi fixed-bed process, several projects using the Texaco
process for captive applications (chemical feedstocks and
on-site power generation) in planning and design stages
High-Btu gas plans for SNG production using Lurgi technology
announced by pipeline and gas utility companies
-------
I
I
NOTE Penetration of Shale 011 Into the Utilities and Commercial
and Residential sector Is expected to be minimal and
therefore not highlighted
FIGURE 1. SYNFUEL UTILIZATION DURING 1985-2000
-------
Table 2. MAJOR END USE APPLICATIONS OF SYNFUEL PRODUCTS
Major Synfuel Products
High- and medium-Btu gas
Low-Btu gas
LPG
Gasoline
Naphtha
Middle distillates
(kerosene, diesel,
light fuel oil)
Residues
Likely Major
End Use Applications
Food, textile, pulp and paper,
chemicals, iron and steel industries;
residential/commercial heating
Small boilers, kilns, pel 1etizing
glass, electronics, chemical industries;
domestic cooking and heating; automotive
Transportation
Petrochemical industry; solvents;
varnish; turpentines
Transportation, gas turbines,
residential and coimiercial heating
Industrial, utility and marine fuel;
metallurgical oils; roof coatings; wood
preservatives, lubricants
Based on different assumed levels of impacts exerted by these factors,
three scenarios or forecasts for synfuel industry buildup to the year 2000
were developed. These scenarios are:
National goal scenario driven by federal incentives (Scenario I;
medium buildup rate)
Nominal production scenario (Scenario II; low buildup rate)
Accelerated production scenario representing an upper bound for
industry buildup (Scenario III; high buildup rate).
The scenarios, shown in Figure 2, project the total quantities of
shale oil, low-/medium-Btu gas, high-Btu gas and liquids from coal that
would be expected to enter the market under the assumed sets of conditions.
Based on discussions with major synfuel suppliers and users and Industry
and government planners, Scenario II was selected as the more realistic of
the three scenarios and was used for analysis of regional Impacts and
environmental issues. This scenario is consistent with the general
consensus among technical experts and potential major suppliers that shale
oil is more nearly cost competitive and closer to commercialization than
-5-
-------
3.0
20 -
1.0 -
SHALE OILPLANTS
LOW/MEDIUM BTU GAS PLANTS
high btu gas plants
COAL LIQUIOS PLANTS
YEAR 1934 1986 198B 1990 1992 1994
SCENARIO I NATIONAL GOAL
1996
1998
2000
YEAR 1984
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
SCENARIO II NOMINAL PRODUCTION
1998
2000
YEAR 1984
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
SCENARIO III ACCELERATED PRODUCTION
1996
2000
FIGURE 2. FORECASTS FOR SYNFUEL INDUSTRY BUILD-UP
-6-
-------
high-Btu gasification or coal liquefaction, and that commercial coal
liquefaction facilities will not probably come on-line before the early
1990's. Synfuel industry buildup and product utilization patterns are
analyzed for three time frames: 1980-1987, 1988-1992, and 1993-2000. Table
3 presents the product-by-product estimates of synfuel utilization in the
U.S. For comparison, the estimated quantities are also expressed as
percentages of the total amount of products (synfuel and non-synfuel) used.
It should be noted that, even though on a national scale, the
projected synfuel utilization would account for small fractions of the
total product usage, in some regions a very high fraction of the currently
used products are expected to be replaced by synfuel products. As noted in
Table 4, by the year 2000 it is expected that 36 percent of all refinery
feed and 48 percent of all middle distillate used in EPA Region VIII would
originate from shale oil.
TABLE 4. PROJECTED UTILIZATION OF SHALE OIL PRODUCTS IN EPA
REGION VIII (REGION OF MAXIMUM PRODUCT USE) AS
PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL PRODUCT QUANTITIES USED
PRODUCT
1980-1987
1988-1992
&
1993-2000
Crude (fuel)
1.3
-
Refinery Feed
13.3
35.6
Middle Distillate
37.6
48.3
Gasoline
4.8
2.3
Residuals
15.6
6.6
SYNFUEL PRODUCT UTILIZATION AND EPA REGIONS OF MAXIMUM IMPACT
EPA regions where synfuel products would most likely be utilized are
identified in Figure 3. Table 5 summarizes the projections of synfuel
product utilization patterns in the EPA regions impacted. As noted in the
table, except for oil shale in the 1988-1992 and 1993-2000 time frames and
for direct coal liquefaction in the 1993-2000 time period, the
transportation, distribution, and use of products are expected to be
confined to the regions where each synfuel is produced. Consequently,
environmental impacts associated with product utilization are expected to
be confined primarily to the production regions, except for impacts
associated with the natural transporation of pollutants across regional
boundaries (for example, transportation of air pollutants emitted from
combustion sources). The projections indicate that up to the year 2000
-7-
-------
TABLE 3. ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF SYNFUEL PRODUCTS USED IN THE U.S. UNDER SCENARIO II
Product
1980-
1987
00
CO
-1992
1
1993
O
o
o
Cm
i
Amount
(MMBPD)
% of total
in U. S.
Amount %
(MMBPD)
of total
in U. S.
Amount %
(MMBPD}
of total
in U. S.
Crude shale oil (fuel)
0.0008
0.05
0
0
0
0
Shale oil refinery feed
0.07
0.45
0.41
0.24
0.43
2.4
Shale jet fuel
0.015
1.2
0.09
6.5
0.09
6.8
Shale diesel fuel
0.042
1.2
0.23
6.5
0.23
6.8
Shale residuals
0.007
0.2
0.04
1.3
0.04
1.3
Shale gasoline
0.13
0.2
0.07
0.9
0
0
Medium-8tu gas (coal)
0.09
0.9
0.27
2.8
0.45
4.7
SNG (coal)
0.042
0.4
0.17
1.8
0.25
2.6
Gasifier tars, oils
0.004
0.04
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1
Gasifier phenol
0.004
0.04
0.01
0.1
0.02
0.2
F-T LPG
0
0
0
0
0
0
F-T medium Btu gas
0
0
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.1
F-T SNG
0
0
0.03
0.33
0.07
0.7
F-T heavy fuel oil
0
0
0.001
0.02
0.001
0.03
F-T gasoline
0
0
0.02
0.2
0.03
0.4
Mobi1-gasoline
0
0
0.05
0.66
0.1
1.3
F-T diesel fuel
0
0
0.002
0.04
0.01
0.1
Fuel methanol
0
0
0.14
1.8
0.23
3.0
SRC 11 fuel oil
0
0
0.03
0.3
0.09
1.3
SRC II naphtha
0
0
0.02
0.2
0.05
0.8
SRC II LPG
0
0
0.006
0.4
0.02
1.6
EDS fuel oil
0
0
0
0
0.06
1.0
EDS naphtha
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.6
EDS LPG
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.9
H-coal fuel oil
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.4
H-coal naphtha
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.2
H-coal LPG
0
1
0
0
0
0.01
0.1
-------
i
KO
I
"Egjo/v
\
IX
Figure 3. EPA Regions of Synfuel Products
Utilization (1990's)
-------
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED UTILIZATION PATTERNS FOR SYNFUEL
PRODUCTS IN EPA REGIONS IMPACTED*
Synfuel
Time Frame
Production
Refining
Uti 11 zation/Products
Shale Oil
Low-/medium-
Btu Coal
-------
under Scenario II, the environmental impacts of synfuel product utilization
would be expected to be largely limited to EPA Regions V and VIII for oil
shale; to EPA Regions IV, VI, and VIII for medium-Btu gas; to EPA Regions
III, IV, and VIII for indirect coal liquefaction products, and to EPA
Regions III, IV, and V for direct liquefaction products.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERISTICS OF SYNFUEL PRODUCTS
The environmental and health effects data currently available on
synfuel products are very limited and pertain mainly to certain primary
products (for example, crude shale oil or coal liquefaction syncrudes).
Very little data are available on many of the secondary synfuel products
(for example, methanol and gasoline derived from coal) or on emissions
associated with end uses. Several combustion tests conducted with synfuel
products (primarily shale oil fuels) have been aimed primarily at the
evaluation of handling and performance characteristics. In general, the
product/emissions characterization has been in terms of gross properties
(for example, ultimate analysis, composition by chemical class, and
emissions of smoke and particulates during combustion), which by themselves
do not provide an adequate basis for assessing environmental significance.
The current product characterization data base is a collection of results
of sampling and analysis and performance testing that have been conducted
by different investigators using samples/batches of products obtained from
pilot plants operated under varying conditions. Accordingly, significant
inconsistencies exist in the reported results, which further hamper
assessment of the environmental safety of synfuel product utilization.
This assessment is also hindered by a lack of data on analogous petroleum
and natural gas products that the synfuel products will replace and that,
because of their large-scale and widespread utilization, have generally
come to be viewed by the public as environmentally innocuous. To
illustrate the type of data available on synfuel products, the reported
data on the physical and chemical characteristics of direct coal
liquefaction products and the combustion and health effects characteristics
of SRC II fuel oils are summarized in Tables 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
Table 9 identifies the differences in chemical, combustion, and health
effects characteristics of synfuel products and their petroleum analogs,
based on the reported characterization data. As noted in the table, for
the majority of products for which data are reported, these differences
primarily relate to the higher content of aromatics and fuel bound nitrogen
(FBN) and greater emissions of NOx during combustion. Although no test
data for synfuel products are available, high concentrations of aromatics
in fuels have been shown to enhance production of PNA's during combustion.
No actual data have been reported on the specific substances that comprise
the aromatic or FBN fractions in various synfuel products (or their
petroleum counterparts). In the case of fuels, high aromaticity has been
generally implicated in an increase in smoke production; the limited
combustion data which are currently available, however, do not indicate
that all aromatic synfuels have hiqher smoke levels. Hiqh FBN content can
raise the level of NO emissions; the excess N0x emissions of synfuels are
believed to be correctable by combustion modifications. The nitrogen
-11-
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA PERTAINING TO PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF DIRECT COAL LIQUEFACTION PRODUCTS
Syncrudes have lower viscosities and pour points than petroleum crudes. Kinematic viscosity at 100 F values
ot l 2 and 1.1 to 1 6 est for SRC II whole process oil and H-Coal syncrude, respectively (vs. 6.14 and 18 9
est for an Arabian light and an Arabian heavy crude, respectively). A pour point value of -80°F for SRC II
whole process oil (vs -30°F for the two Arabian crudes) The lower viscosities and pour points for syncrudes
indicate better handling and transfer characteristics
Syncrudes have a high nitrogen content (0 17 wt % for H-Coal using low sulfur coal to 0 85 wt % for SRC II
whole process oil, vs. 0 1 wt % for crude oil). The nitrogen reduced to about 50 ppm by moderate hydrotreat-
mg and to less than 1 ppm by severe hydrotreating
The sulfur content of raw syncrudes (0 04 to 0.49 wt.$) would classify them as low sulfur feed The sulfur
content is reduced to about 20 ppm or less by hydrotreating
SRC II whole process oil has an aromatic content of 55 volume % Included in that value is almost 9% phenols.
The aromatic content is reduced to 49% by "intermediate severity" hydrotreating and to 4% by "severity hydro-
treating"
Naphtha from SRC II, H-Coal and EDS contain 16 2, 18.2, 18 6 and 25.3 vol % aromatics and 3 2, 3 1 and 7 4
vol % phenols, respectively Hydrotreatment appears to increase aromatic content and eliminate phenols.
The hydrotreated naphtha from the three processes contain 19 to 21 vol % aromatics
Direct liquefaction naphthas have low octane numbers (40 to 70) and hence are not suitable for direct use as
gasoline Hydrotreating/platforming or hydrocracking/platforming produces qasoline stocks with octane
numbers ranging from 91.5 to 99 8
Gasoline or naphtha from direct liquefaction processes are less volatile than petroleum-derived leaded or
unleaded gasoline The distillation end point for petroleum-derived gasoline is 340-345°F vs. 382-411 °F and
365-459°F for liquefaction naphtha and gasoline, respectively
Coal liquefaction naphtha can be processed to gasoline, having gross compositions (3, aromatics, olefins,
saturates, etc ) similar to petroleum-derived gasoline.
The oil distillates from EDS process are very low in nitrogen and sulfur (0 2-0.6 ppm and 2-139 ppm,
respectively) Except for a lower gravity (2 5-27 9 vs. 30°)and higher flash point (136 vs 100°F), the
distillates meet the specifications for No. 2 fuel oil.
SRC II fuel oil (5 75 1 middle to heavy distillate ratio) is very similar to No. 6 fuel oil in character-
istics, except for lower gravity (llc vs 25° API), heating value (17,081 vs 19,200 Btu/lb ), pour point
(-30°F vs. 95°F) and flash point (150 vs. 200°Fjand higher nitrogen content (1.02 vs 0.23 wt %).
Jet and diesel fuels obtained from H-coal and SRC II syncrudes meet the specifications for these products.
-------
TABLE 7. COMBUSTION TEST RESULTS FOR SRC II FUEL OILS
Investigators
SRC II Fuels Tested
Equipment/test
Results
Singh, et al
(ASI1E Publication
80-GT-67, March, 1900)
Bauserman, et al
(Paper presented at
Gas Turbine Conference,
New Orleans, LA ,
March 10-13, 1930)
Babcock and Wilcox Co
(EPRI Report No FP-1028,
June 1979)
KVB, Inc
(EPRI Report No
I,ay 1979)
FP-1029,
MD, HD, MD/HD blend,
3 1 No 2/SRC II blend,
1 1 Ho 2/SRC II blend
5-1 MD/HU
5 75 1 MD/HD
2 1 MD/HD
Sub-seale
gas-turbine like
combustor
Full-scale combustor
used in Westinghouse
30-to 90-MIJ engines,
lf!7-h enrrnsinn t°st
using various alloys
and SRC II solvent
wash
Package boiler
Ambient mom tori ng
44-MW field boiler
All fuels burned well
no significant handling problem
max excess N0X
increase in smoke levels with decreasing hydrogen content &
increasing aromaticity of fuels
decrease in 5! emissions of fuel-bound nitrogen (FBN) with
increase in fuel FBN and outlet temperature
N0X emission for blend containing 9 63% FBN 30 to 120 ppm
higher than No. 2 distillates
decrease in smoke value with increase in exhaust temperature
corrosion/deposition problems similar to petroleum-derived
products
easy pumping/handling during test proqram (replaced hydrocarbon
seals with teflon/viton seals as precaution)
no benzene/phenol emitted, based on ambient monitoring data
N0X emissions for blend higher than for No.2 and No 5
No tendency to smoke despite higher aromaticity
lower particulate emission in comparison with No 5 oil
ash composition for blend similar to that for No 5 oil except
for Fe, Ca, Mg, Cr, Mn and Sn which were higher
t no major operation (burner optimization, boiler deposits,etc )
problems in comparison with No 6 fuel oil
NO* emissions about 70% higher than for No 6 fuel oil
lower particulate emissions compared to No 6 fuel oil, emissions
less than proposed NSS of 0 03 lb/M Btu
PNA emissions for both blend and No 6 less than 6 u/M3 (6xl0"6
lb/M Btu)
tendency for incomplete combustion comparable to No 6 fuel oil
(CO levels below 50 ppm)
SRC II fuels MD = middle distillate
HD
heavy disti1 late
-------
TABLE 8, SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR SRC II PRODUCTS AND (WHERE AVAILABLE)
FOR PETROLEUM ANALOGS
Test
Naphtha
Light fuel Oil
Heavy Disti1lates
Ames Mutagenicity
No mutagenic activity for
SRC II (revertants/vjg< 0 01)
or petroleum naphtha
No measurable mutagenic activity
(revertants/gg <0 01) .mutagenic
activity demonstrated for certain
petroleum distillates
Host mutagenic of the three SRC 11
products (a 40 ? 23 revertants/pg)
Cytotoxicity (on cultured
mammal 1 an eel Is)
180 Vg'ml dose required to
produce a 50? reduction in
relative plating efficiency
(RPE), no comparative data
for petroleum analog
(RPEcn for crude petroleum
190-350 ug/ml)
RPEjg 200 (jg/ml (vs 250 ug/ml for
Diesel oil No 2 and 0 3 vg/ml for
cadmium chloride)
with an RPEjg of 30 ^g/ml,
most cytoxic of all synfuel pro-
ducts tested, very active in
effecting cell transforation
Skin-painting
As with petroleum naphtha
extrems low tumorigenic activity,
tumor incidence 1/46 at 20 mg/
application after 456 days
(vs 41/46 at 0 005 mg/applica-
tion for benzo(a}pyrene,
a known carcinogen)
highly potent*. 12"> and 100"
tumor incidents after 456 days
at 0 23 and 2 3 mg/application,
respectively, 35% of tumors
malignant
Acute ant) subchronic
toxicity
Moderately toxic Acute gavage
rat LDcq 2 3 g/Kg, Subchronic
(5 days) gavage lat LD50
0 96 g/Kg
More toxic than diesel oil (acute
rat LD5q=3 75 q/Kg vs 11 8 g/Kg),
sub acute gavage rat LD5g=1 48 g/Kg
LDgn about the same as for
napntha and light fuel oil
Maternal and fetal
toxicity (rats)
No significant enhanced
toxicity to embryo or the
fetus (risk only slightly
higher than for the mother)
Same as for naphtha
Same as for naphtha
Toxicity via skin
absorption
Unlike petroleum naphtha, shows
some acute effect at a high
dose levels (1 6 g/Kg)
Unlike the petroleum products,
can cause skin burns
*No comparable data available for petroleum analog, but industrial fuels oils have been shown to present considerable skin carcinogenicity hazard.
-------
TA&LE 9. REPORTED KNOWN DIFFERENCES IN CHEMICAL, COMBUSTION AND HEALTH
EFFECTS CHARACTERISTICS OF SYNFUELS PRODUCTS AND THEIR PETROLEUM ANALOGS
Product
Shale oil
crude
Gasoline
Jet fuels
DFH
Residuals
Direct Liquefaction
Syncrude (H-Coal,
SRC II, EDS)
SRC II fuel oil
H-Coal fuel oil
EDS fuel oil
SRC II naphtha
H-Coal naphtha
EDS naphtha
SRC II gasoline
"-Coal gasoline
EDS gasolIne
Indirect Liquefaction
FT gasol1ne
FT by-product
chemical
Mobile-M gasolIne
Methanpl
Gasification
SNG
Low/med1um-Btu gas
Gaslfler tars, oils
phenols
Chemical Characteristics
Higher aromatlcs, FBN, As.Hg, Mn
Higher aromatlcs
Higher aromatlcs
Higher aromatlcs
Higher aromatlcs
Higher aromatlcs and nitrogen
Higher aromatlcs and nitrogen
Higher nitrogen content
Higher nitrogen, aromatlcs
Higher nitrogen, arooatlcs
Higher nitrogen, aromatlcs
Higher aronatlcs
Higher aromatlcs
Higher aromatlcs
Lower aromatlcs-, N and S nil
(Gross characteristics similar
to petroleum gasoline)
Traces of metal cartoonyls
and higher CO
(Composition varies with coal
type and gaslfler design/
operation)
(Composition varies with coal
and gaslfler types, highly
aromatic materials)
Combustion Characteristics
Higher emissions of NOx. particulate and
(possibly) certain trace elements
Slightly higher N0X and smoke emissions
Slightly higher N0X and smoke emissions
Slightly higher NO, and smoke emissions
Higher NO emissions
Higher MO^ emissions
Higher NO emissions
N/A
Higher aldehyde emissions
(Emissions of a wide range of trace and
minor elements and heterocyclic organics)
Health Effects Characteristics
More mutagenic, tumorigenlc, cytotoxic
Eye/sk1n irritation, skin sensitization
same as for petroleum fuel
Eye/skin Irritation, skin sensitization
same as for petroleum fuel
Middle distillates non-mutagenlc, cytotoxi-
city similar to but toxicity greater than
No 2 diesel fuel, burns skin
Heavy distillate Considerable skin carcin-
ogenicity, cytotoxicity, mutagenicity and
cell transformation
Severely hydrotreated non-mutagen1c, non-
tumorlgenic, low cytotoxicity
Non-mutagenlc, extremely low tumor1gen1city
cytotoxicity and fetotoxicity
Non-mutagen1c
Non-carcinogenic
Affects optic nerve
Non-mutagenic, moderately cytotoxic
-------
content of the synfuels (and the high arsenic content of the crude shale
oil) can also be lowered to meet appropriate fuel specifications by the use
of certain refining processes (for example, hydrotreating to reduce FBN).
Another example of controlling undesirable product characteristies through
process control (or m-plant treatment) is the elimination of traces of
carbon monoxide and nickel carbonyl in SNG by proper operation of the
methanator.
The data in Table 9 identify two products as highly hazardous because
of mutagenic, tumorigenic, and cytotoxic properties. These are crude shale
oil and fuel oils from coal liquefaction processes. These hazardous
properties, which are characteristic of high boiling and tarry coal and
petroleum materials, are caused by the presence of substances or classes of
substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, hetero- and
carbonyl-polycyclic compounds, aromatic amines and certain inorganics (for
example, arsenic in crude shale oil).
In general, synfuel product characteristies that cause environmental
concern in any wide-scale utilization scenario relate to the known or
potential presence of toxic substances (including carcinogenic compounds
associated with crude shale oil and heavy distillates from coal
liquefaction and hazardous aromatics), fuel-bound nitrogen, volatile
components, and minor and trace elements. Potential environmental concerns
relating to anticipated product uses generally fall into three categories:
occupational exposure, public exposure, and general environmental
pollution. The occupational hazards affect workers manufacturing and using
the products and personnel involved in facility maintenance and product
distribution services. Public exposure primarily relates to air pollution
resulting from product uses such as the use of gasoline in automobiles
(affecting motorists at service stations), and hazardous fugitive emissions
from storage tanks, product transfer points, leaks/spills, and product uses
(for example, products produced from petrochemicals). In the general
category of environmental pollution, major contributors would include
accidental spills, sludges from product storage tanks and spill cleanups,
and solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes associated with combustion and
combustion-related air pollution control.
BASIS FOR PRIORITY RANKING OF SYNFUEL PRODUCTS
As noted previously, the objective of the study is to provide input to
the EPA effort for: (1) assessing the environmental implications of a
mature synfuel industry and of large-scale utilization of synfuel products;
and (2) planning and prioritizing regulatory and research and development
programs. Accordingly, a system was developed and used to rank the synfuel
products from the standpoint of environmental concerns and to identify
those products and areas of concern that should receive more immediate and
greater regulatory and R&D attention. The ranking is based on the data
presented previously and is subject to the limitations of the existing
product characterization data and the assumptions used in developing the
productions and use scenarios; the product rankings will most likely change
as more data become available, especially for those products for which
-16-
-------
little or no data are currently available. It should also be noted that
the specific approach used represents only one of many approaches that
could be used to rank synfuel products from the standpoint of environmental
concerns.
The product ranking system is based on:
Reported or estimated environmentally significant characteristics
of synfuel products relative to those of their petroleum analogs,
based on considerations of exposure potential, combustive and
evaporative emissions, toxic hazards, cost of control, and the
extent of regulatory protections under key existing environmental
legislations. Products for which the environmental risks and
control needs are greater and for which less protections can be
anticipated under existing regulations have been given a higher
ranking.
The estimated quantity of products used, both in absolute terms
and as percentages of the total (synfuel and petroleum) used
nationwide (Table 3)and regionally. The greater the amount of
the product used and the percentage of usage, the greater the
potential for presenting environmental hazards, and hence a
higher positive ranking.
0 Considerable scientific and engineering judgement. Because of
the lack of a solid data base, heavy reliance had to be placed on
the professional judgement of experts most familiar with the
domestic energy supply and demand picture, synfuel production/
refining technologies, expected environmental characteristics of
synfuel products, applicable controls, and regulatory needs.
Two approaches were examined for ranking the synfuel products, based
on: (1) the limited product characterization data currently available
(Table 9) supplemented by engineering judgement where appropriate; and (2)
the premise that in the absence of detailed characterization data, and
unless the available data indicate otherwise, it would be reasonable to
assume that a synfuel product would be more hazardous than its petroleum
analog. The first approach was selected and used to develop product
rankings.
Under the first approach, a synfuel product would not necessarily be
considered more hazardous because of the mere lack of detailed
characterization data. Instead, assignment of a more positive ranking to a
product is supported by actual data or is based on strong indications of
greater potential hazards. Under the first scenario, prioritization of
regulatory and R&D activities does not have to await collection of
additional data, which should proceed concurrently as a separate effort.
The second approach operates on the premise that if there is any room
for error in ranking synfuel products, it would be more advisable to err on
the safe side. This scenario asserts that, in the absence of detailed
-17-
-------
characterization data and strong evidence to the contrary, synfuel products
by their very nature (new chemicals from a more "exotic" source) should be
considered more hazardous. Under this scenario nearly all synfuel products
would be given a positive ranking, thereby reducing a ranking system's
usefulness as a guide in prioritizing regulatory and R&D activities.
Acquiring detailed characterization data and not necessarily concentrating
on products that are known to present greater environmental concern would
be emphasized under the second scenario.
ATTRIBUTE RATING PROCEDURE
Table 10 presents the assessment of the environmental concerns for
various synfuel products relative to their petroleum analogs on a "barrel-
per-barrel" basis. As indicated by the headings in the table, the relative
ranking considers potential for exposure, emission, toxic hazard, cost of
control, and adequacy of existing regulations. A (+) ranking is assigned
to a product for an environmental attribute if the product is judged to
present greater environmental concern than the petroleum analog; a ranking
of (0) indicates that the environmental concern would be similar
to or less than that of the petroleum product. Factors considered
in assigning ratings to each product for each environmental attribute
along with some examples of product ratings are presented in Table 11.
PRODUCTS RANKING
Table 12 presents the results of synfuel products ranking. The
products are ranked into three groups: those eliciting the most concern,
ranked as "1"; those indicating "modest" concern, ranked as "2"; and those
generating a "low" level of concern at the present time, ranked as "3". As
noted in the table, in the near term (1980-1987 period), synfuel products
of concern are primarily the shale oil products and medium-Btu gas and SNG
from coal gasification. Shale oil refinery feed elicits the most
regulatory attention; other shale oil products and medium-Btu gas elicit
modest concern, and SNG requires a low level of attention.
For the 1988-1992 period, when products from SRC II and the F-T
processes will also be marketed, the products eliciting the most concern
would be shale oil refinery feed, fuel methanol, SRC II fuel oil, and
gasifier tars and oils. F-T products and LPG from SRC II are ranked as
low priority products during 1988-1992. During the 1993-2000 time frame,
shale oil refinery feed, medium-Btu gas, gasifier tars and oil, and fuel
oils from the three liquefaction processes are given "1" rankings; F-T
products are assessed as "3", and all other products are given a "2"
ranking.
The rankings generally indicate the greatest level of environmental
concern and regulatory requirements for shale oil refinery feed and coal
liquids. These liquids have been demonstrated to be more hazardous than
petroleum crude and fuel oils (a major factor in assigning a "1" ranking).
This and the fact that shale oil products will be the synfuels that are
-18-
-------
TABLE 10. RELATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH SYNFUELS PRODUCTS AND PETROLEUM ANALOGS
PRODUCT
EXPOSURE
EMISSION
FACTOR
TOXIC
HAZARD
Cost of
Control
ADEQUACY OF
EXISTING REGULATIONS
T ransport
&
Storaqe
End Use
Transport
&
Storaqe
End Use
T ransport
&
Storaqe
End Use
CAA
CWA
i
1
RCRA 1 TSCA
Crude shale oil (fuel)
+
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
Snale oil refinery feed
+
0
0
0
+
+
0
0
+
+
0
Shale jet fuel
0
0
0
+
0
+
+
+
0
+
0
Shale diesel fuel
0
0
0
+
0
+
+
+
0
+
0
Snale residuals
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
Sha1e gasoline
0
0
0
+
0
+
+
+
0
+ 0
Low-/Mediuni-Btu gas (coal)
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
+ i 0
SIIG (coal)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ¦ 0
Gasifier tars and oils
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ 0
Gasifier phenol
0
0
0
+
+
+
0
0 0
0 0
F-T LPG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1 0
0 i 0
F-T medium Btu gas
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1 0
0 1 0
F-T SNG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F-T heavy fuel oil
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
+
0
F-T gasoline
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
M-gasol1ne
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
F-T diesel fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
Fuel methanol
+
0
0
+
0
0
0
+
0
+
0
SRC 11 fuel oil
+
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
SRC II naphtha
0
0
0
0
+
+
0
0
+
+
0
SRC II LPG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EDS fuel oil
+
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
EDS naphtha
0
0
0
0
+
+
0
0
+
+
0
CDS LPG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H-coal fuel oil
+
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
H-coal naphtha
0
0
0
0
+
+
0
0
+
+
0
H-coal LPG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TAbLE 11. FACTORS CONSIDERED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTE RANKING (SYNFUEL PRODUCTS
RELATIVE TO PETROLEUM/NATURAL GAS ANALOGS)
Attribute
Factors Considered
Example
i
ro
0
1
Exposure/Transport and Storage
Exposure/End Use
Emission Factor/Transport
and Storage
Emission Factor/End Use
Toxic Hazard/Transport and
Storage
Toxic hazard/End Use
Cost of Control
Adequacy of Existing Regulations
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Resource Conversation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA)
i
Potential for environmental contamination and public exposure
from releases due to accidents, spills and fugitive emissions
Potential for exposure due to end uses (e g , occupational
exposure or exposure to combustion products)
Amount of material released as a result of transport and
storage activities (without regard to pollutant mobility and
number of people potentially exposed)
Amount of pollutants released as combustive and evaporative
emissions
Potential for human and ecological toxicity in connection
with transport/storage activities
Toxicity of combustive and evaporative emissions
Added control costs for regulated pollutants (especially
H0X)
Potential emissions of hazardous substances other than
pollutants covered by existing standards
Estimated adequacy of available control technologies for
wastewaters containing synfuel products
Estimated hazards posed by synfuel wastes
Mandate of the act to regulate new products, new uses,
or products produced using different processes presenting
unreasonable risks
(+) ranking for crude shale oil and direct liquefaction
fuel oils because of higher content of water soluble
compounds
(0) ranking for all products, products will be used
in the same manner as petroleum products
(0) ranking for all products, no higher volatility or
greater potential for accidental spills indicated
(+) ranking for low-/medium-Btu gas due to higher emis-
sions of trace elements and heterocyclics
(+) ranking for crude shale oil because of greater
mutagenici ty
( + ) ranking for crude shale oil due to greater amounts
of carcinogenic substances and higher emissions of
N0X when used as fuel
(+) ranking for shale oil gasoline due to possibly
more rapid deactivation of catalytic converter
(eg , by arsenic and PNA's)
(+) ranking for fuel methanol due to emission of
aldehydes
(+) ranking for direct liquefaction fuel oils due
to estimated lower biodegradabi1ity
(+) ranking for low-/medium-Btu gas due to estimatec
more hazardous nature of sludges produced from air
pollution control (when used as fuel)
(0) ranking for all products, assuming adherence to
the mandate of the Act
-------
TABLE 12. PRIORITY RANKING OF SYNFUEL PRODUCTS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS*
Product
1980-1987
1988-1992
1993-2000
Crude shale oil (fuel)
2
_
_
Shale oil refinery feed
1
1
1
Shale jet fuel
2
2
2
Shale diesel fuel
2
2
2
Shale residuals
2
2
2
Shale gasoline
2
2
2
Medium Btu gas (coal)
2
2
1
SNG (coal)
3
3
3
Gasifier tars & oils
-
1
1
Gasifier phenol
2
2
2
F-T LPG
-
3
3
F-T medium-Btu gas
-
3
3
F-T SNG
-
3
3
F-T heavy fuel oil
-
3
3
F-T gasoline
-
3
3
Mobil-M gasoline
-
3
3
F-T diesel fuel
-
3
3
Fuel methanol
-
1
1
SRC II fuel oil
-
1
1
SRC II naphtha
-
2
2
SRC II LPG
-
3
2
EDS fuel oil
-
-
1
EDS naphtha
-
-
2
EDS LPG
-
-
3
H-coal fuel oil
-
-
1
H-coal naphtha
-
-
2
H-coal LPG
3
*Degree of concern: most=l, modest=2, and low=3; - indicates product not
produced or not used as indicated
-------
expected to first enter the market on a large scale, are the major factors
that flag near-term environmental concerns for shale oil products in
general and shale oil fuel and refinery feed in particular.
DATA LIMITATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS
As noted previously, there are a number of major gaps in the existing
data base that preclude accurate analysis of the environmental concerns
associated with a future large-scale utilization of synfuel products in the
U.S. These gaps relate to: (a) present uncertainties regarding the size
of the industry, specific synfuel technologies that will be used and
product slates that will be produced, locations of production facilities
and product distribution systems, and the specific areas of synfuel use;
and (b) lack of adequate characterization data on synfuel products and on
the analogous petroleum products that they will partially or totally
replace. The first category of data limitations impacts the regional
environmental implications and synfuel production scenarios and market
analyses that were developed; whereas the second category of limitations
introduces uncertainties in the estimated characteristics of synfuel
products and the analysis of environmental concerns. Both types of data
limitations impact the regional environmental implications and the ranking
of the synfuel products.
At present, the first category of data gaps can only be partially
filled (for example, through an engineering analysis to determine optimum
product slates). Many of the gaps in the second category, however, can and
should be filled through testing and evaluation of synfuel products
obtained from existing U.S. pilot plants and commercial facilities abroad.
A number of chemical and biological/ecological testing programs are
currently under way that are expected to substantially improve the quality
of the existing data base on synfuel products. These programs are
conducted and sponsored largely by DOE and EPA. In addition, a number of
product performance testing efforts are under way or are planned that
provide excellent opportunities for cost-effective collection of end use
environmental data. These programs include testing shale-derived jet fuels
in commercial and military aircraft engines (U.S. Air Force, Wright-
Patterson AFB; U.S. Navy); standing diesel engine tests with SRC II and
shale oil diesel fuels (DOE Bartlesville Energy Research Center); testing a
spectrum of synfuel gasoline and jet fuels in ground and air transportation
vehicles (U.S. Department of Transportation); and evaluation of the use of
synthetic fuels in utility boilers (Electric Power Research Institute).
EPA is currently exploring the possibility of joining these programs to
simultaneously acquire environmental end use data.
CONCLUSIONS
In the next 20 years significant quantities of synfuel products
are expected to enter the marketplace and in certain regions a
very high percent of the currently used products will be replaced
by their synfuel-derived analogs.
-22-
-------
Based on gross characteristics, synfuel products appear to be
similar to petroleum products, but detailed characterization data
are not available for many of the synfuel and petroleum products
with which to assess and compare their safety.
Large-scale transportation, distribution, and end use of certain
synfuel products (for example, heavy distillates derived from
coal liquids and shale oil) can present significant threats to
the environment and the public health.
Essentially all synfuel-related environmental projects that are
planned or currently under way relate to the design and operation
of synfuel plants and not to the subsequent distribution and
utilization of products. The present study constitutes the first
attempt to focus attention on the potentially broad and
far-reaching environmental implications of large-scale marketing
and utilization of synfuel products.
t A number of major test and evaluation programs are planned or
currently under way to assess the combustion characteristics and
general performance of synfuels relative to those of petroleum
products. These programs provide excellent opportunities for
collecting the environmental data needed for assessing the
relative safety of synfuel products, determining the adequacy of
the existing control technologies, and identifying regulatory
needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results and conclusions of the study, the following
recommendations are offered:
More systematic approach to product characterization and testing.
Much of the currently available synfuel product characterization
and testing data are fragmentary and cannot be correlated. The
results generally do not cover all parameters of environmental
interest and have been obtained in "isolated" studies using
samples from different batches of products. Better coordination
among various on-going and planned studies (perhaps through
establishing a "test tracking" system that would promote
exchanges of information among various studies) is recommended to
avoid duplication of effort and to ensure generation of
appropriate environmental data in a most cost-effective manner.
Collection of environmental data in conjunction with planned
performance testing programs. Several synfuel product
performance testing efforts are being planned by various
governmental agencies; it is most appropriate and timely to
review these programs and take full advantage of opportunities
for simultaneous collection of environmental data. Collection of
environmental data, which can be correlated with product
-23-
-------
performance, in conjunction with a systematic product
characterization effort (recommended above) can provide valuable,
timely inputs to the evolution of the synfuel industry and would
ensure that: (1) environmental considerations are included in
the selection of processes, equipment, and product slates for
commercial facilities; and (2) the drafting of specifications for
synfuel products and new source performance standards for synfuel
plants and emissions standards for facilities using synfuel
products are based on the best available technical and
engineering data.
Consideration of end use environmental implications in the
selection of the product slates and in the development of the
synfuel industry, Synfuel processes and the subsequent refining
operations can produce a range of products for a spectrum of
end use applications. By proper selection of the refining steps
(and the operating mode for seme synfuel processes), the product
slate can be altered to favor the production of those products
that present fewer and more controllable end use environmental
impacts. Studies should be undertaken to define the engineering
and economics of selecting environmentally acceptable product
slate possibilities for various synfuel technologies. In this
connection, better coordination and exchange of technical data
should be promoted among process developers, regulatory agencies
and potential users and planners to ensure that process
"specialization" from a product slate viewpoint is taken into
account in synfuel commercialization programs.
Compilation of characterization/performance data on analogous
petroleum products^ Because of the large-scale and widespread
utilization of petroleum products, these products have generally
come to be viewed by the public as environmentally innocuous.
Accordingly, the specifications for petroleum products have
primarily emphasized performance with little attention to
environmental consideration. Very little data are available (or
if available, have not been published) on potential pollutants
and toxicological and ecological properties of many of the
petroleum products to provide a baseline for assessing the safety
of synfuel products. It is recommended that the potential
sources of data on petroleum products be contacted in an effort
to compile all available data and identify data gaps. It is also
recommended that the synfuel product testing and characterization
efforts recommended above include parallel testing of petroleum-
derived analogs.
-24-
------- |