environment, health, and safety effects and impacts

Chapter 10

Environment, Health, and SafetyEffects and Impacts

Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Auto Fuel Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237Motor Vehicle Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237Mining and Processing New Materials . 243Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Electric Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Resource Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247Occupational and Public Concerns . . . 247

Synthetic Fuels From Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . 248Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253Conventional Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . 261Transport and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

Oil Shale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Biomass Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268Obtaining the Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Appendix 10A. —Detailed Descriptionsof Waste Streams, Residuals ofConcern, and Proposed ControlSystems for Generic indirect andDirect Coal Liquefaction Systems . . . 271

TABLES

Table No. Page

71 . Material Substitutions for VehicleWeight Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

Emissions Characteristics ofPage

Alternative Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245Increase in U.S. Use of Key Materialsfor 20 Percent Electrification ofLight-Duty Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247Major Environmental Issues forCoal Synfuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249Fatality and Injury Occurrencefor Selected Industries, 1979 . . . . . . . 252Two Comparisons of theEnvironmental impacts of Coal-BasedSynfuels Production and Coal-FiredElectric Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257Potential Occupational Exposuresin Coal Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258Occupational Health Effects ofConstituents of indirect LiquefactionProcess Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259Reported Known Differences inChemical, Combustion, and HealthEffects Characteristics of SynfuelsProducts and Their PetroleumAnalogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

FIGURES

Figure No. Page

22.

23.

Passenger-Car Occupant Deathper 10,000 Registered Cars by CarSize and Crash Type; Cars 1 to 5Years Old in Calendar Year 1980 . . . 238Size Ranges of New Coal-FiredPowerplants With Hourly EmissionsEqual to 50,000 bbl/day SynfuelsPlants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Chapter 10

Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts

INTRODUCTION

There are major differences in the risks to pub-lic health and the environment associated withthe alternative approaches to reducing the de-pendence of the U.S. transportation sector on for-eign oil. Depending on the level of development,the production and use of synthetic fuels implymassive increases in mining (and agriculture andforestry for biomass), construction and operationof large conversion plants producing substantialquantities of waste products (some of which aretoxic), and fuel products that may be differentfrom the fuels now in commerce and that maythus represent different risks in handling and use.

Electrification of autos would require large in-creases in electric power production, which inturn imply major increases in powerplant fuel useand emissions. Also, the use of electric cars woulddecrease the use of conventional vehicles andthus yield reductions in vehicular emissions aswell as changes in vehicle materials and operatingcharacteristics.

Increased automotive fuel efficiency would in-volve changes in vehicle size, materials, operatingcharacteristics, and emissions. All the strategieswould reduce the use of petroleum that wouldotherwise have been imported, and adverse ef-fects associated with the strategies should be par-

tially offset by the resulting environmental benefitof reductions of oil spills and other hazards.

This section identifies potential effects on theenvironment and human health of these three al-ternative (or complementary) approaches to re-ducing or eliminating oil imports. Because of sig-nificant uncertainties in the precise characteristicsof the technologies to be deployed, their poten-tial emissions and the control levels possible, andfuture environmental regulations and other im-portant predictive factors, the approach of thisevaluation is relatively informal and qualitative.We attempt to put the alternatives into reason-able perspective by identifying both a range ofpotential effects and, given the availability of con-trols and incentives to use them, the most likelyenvironmental problems of deployment. The ma-jor emphasis in the discussion of synthetic fuelsis on coal-based technologies. OTA has recentlypublished reports on biomass energy1 and oilshale,2 both of which contain environmentalassessments.

‘Energy From Biological Processes, OTA-E-124 (Washington, D. C.:U.S, Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, July 1980).

2An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies, OTA-M- 118(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, June 1980).

AUTO FUEL CONSERVATION

Some measures taken to improve the fuel econ-omy of light-duty vehicles might have significanteffects on automobile safety and the environ-ment. Major potential effects include changes invehicle crashworthiness due to downsizing andweight reduction, environmental effects fromchanges in materials and consequent changes inmining and processing, and possible air-qualityeffects from the use of substitutes for the spark-ignition engine,

Motor Vehicle Safety

The shift to smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficientcars has led to heightened concern about a possi-ble increase in traffic injuries and fatalities. Partof this concern stems from evidence that occu-pants of smaller cars have been injured and killedat rates considerably higher than the rates asso-ciated with larger cars. The National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (N HTSA) has recent-

237

238 • Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Reducing Oil Imports

Iy estimated that a continuing shift to smallervehicles could result in an additional 10,000 traf-fic deaths per year (with total annual road fatal-ities of 70,000) by 1990 unless compensatingmeasures are taken.

In light of these concerns, OTA examined avail-able evidence on the relationship between vehi-cle size and occupant safety in today’s auto fleet,and reviewed some attempts—including theNHTSA estimate—to extrapolate this evidence toa future, downsized fleet.

Occupant Safety and VehicleSize in Today% Fleet

Much of the current concern about the safetyof small cars is based on statistical analysis of na-tional data from the Fatal Accident Reporting Sys-tem (FARS), which contains information on fatalmotor vehicle accidents occurring in the UnitedStates. For example, an analysis of FARS data onautomobile occupant deaths conducted by theInsurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) (fig.22) shows that deaths per registered vehicle in-crease substantially as vehicle size (measured bylength of wheelbase) decreases.4 Furthermore,this trend occurs for both single- and multiple-

3National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traft7c SafetyTrends and Forecasts, DOT-HS-805-998, October 1981.

Zlnsurance Institute for Highway Safety, Status Report, vol. 17,No. 1, Jan. 5, 1982.

Photo credit: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Crash tests sponsored by the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration are an important source of information for

understanding the mechanics of crashes andevaluating auto safety features

vehicle crashes. The trend is so strong that theannual occupant deaths per registered small sub-compact are more than twice as high as the ratefor full-size cars–3.5 per 10,000 cars comparedwith 1.6 per 10,000.

The relationships illustrated in figure 22 temptone to conclude that small cars are much less safethan large cars in virtually all situations. For a vari-ety of reasons, however, the information in thefigure must be interpreted with care. First, the re-cent crash tests sponsored by NHTSA5 (new carswere crashed head-on into a fixed barrier at 35miles per hour) seemed to indicate that the differ-

5The crash tests are described in several references. A useful, clearreference is “Which Cars Do Best in Crashes?” in the Apdl 1981issue of Consumer Reports. Also see M. Brownlee, et al., “implica-tions of the New Car Assessment Program for Small Car Safety, ”in proceedings of the Eighth International Technical Conferenceon Experimental Safety Vehicles, Wolfsburg, Germany, Oct. 21-24, 1980, NHTSA report.

Figure 22.—Passenger-Car Occupant Death per10,000 Registered Cars by Car Size and Crash Type:

Cars 1 to 5 Years Old in Calendar Year 1980-

2

1

0Subcompact Intermediate

Small Compact Full-sizesubcompact

SOURCE: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Ch. 10—Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts ● 239

ences in expected occupant injuries between ve-hicles in the same size class–i.e., differencescaused by factors other than size—can be greaterthan any differences between the size classes. im-portantly, the results imply that relatively minorchanges in engineering and design, such as inex-pensive improvements in the steering columnand changes in the seatbelt mechanisms, can pro-duce improvements in vehicle crashworthinessthat may overwhelm some of the differencescaused by size alone. The results of the tests canbe applied only to occupants wearing seatbelts(11 percent of total occupants), however, andonly to new cars in collisions with fixed objects.

Another reason to be cautious is that the IIHSanalysis may be overlooking the effect of variablesother than car size. For example, the age of driv-ers and occupants is a critical determinant of fatal-ity rates. Younger drivers tend to get into moreserious accidents,7 and younger occupants areless likely than older ones to be killed or seriouslyinjured in otherwise identical crashes.8 Becausethe average age of drivers and occupants is notuniform across car size classes—it is believed thatsmaller cars tend to have younger drivers andoccupants—the observed differences in fatalityrates may be functions not only of the physicalcharacteristics of the cars but also of differencesin the people in those cars.

Other variables that should be considered ininterpreting injury and fatality statistics includesafety belt usage (drivers of subcompact cars havebeen reported to use seatbelts at a significantlyhigher rate than drivers of intermediate and largecars9), the average number of occupants per car,and differences in maneuverability and brakingcapacity (i. e., crash avoidance capability) be-tween big and small cars. *

‘R. H. Stephenson and M. M. Finkelstein, “U.S. GovernmentStatus Report,” in proceedings of the Eighth International TechnicalConference on Experimental Safety Vehicles, op. cit.

7H. M. Bunch, “smaller Cars and Safety: The Effect of Downsiz-

ing on Crash Fatalities in 1995, ” HSRI Research Review (Universityof Michigan), vol. 9, No. 3, November-December 1978.

elbid.%tephenson and Finkelstein, op. cit.*The effect of improved crash avoidance capability and other

safety factors may be perverse. To the extent that drivers may takemore chances in reaction to their perception of increased safety,they can negate the effectiveness of safety improvements. The tend-ency of drivers of large cars to use seatbelts at a lower rate thandrivers of small cars may be an indicator of such a reaction.

Several analyses have tried to account for theeffect of some of these variables.10 However,these analyses use different data bases (e.g., Statedata such as that available from North Carolina,and other national data bases such as the Nation-al Accident Sampling System and the NationalCrash Severity Study), different measures of vehi-cle size (wheelbase, the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) interior volume, weight, etc.),different formulations of safety (e.g., deaths per100,000 registered vehicles, deaths per vehicle-mile driven, deaths per crash), and in additiontheir data reflect different time frames. Few anal-yses correct for the same variables. Consequently,it is extremely difficult to compare these analysesand draw general conclusions.

Also, credible data on total accident rates forall classes of cars, and more detailed data on ac-cident severity, are not widely available. This typeof data would allow researchers to distinguish be-tween the effects of differences in crashworthi-ness and differences in accident avoidance capa-bility in causing the variations in fatalities meas-ured in the FARS data base. For example, studiesof accident rates in North Carolina indicate thatsubcompacts are involved in many more acci-dents than large cars.11 Consequently, the rela-tionship between fatalities per registered vehicleand car size, and that between fatalities per crashand car size could be significantly different forthis data set, with the latter relationship indicatingless dependence between safety and vehicle sizethan appears to be the case in the former. Unfor-tunately, such data are available only in a fewjurisdictions and cannot be used to draw nation-wide conclusions.

Finally, the existing data base reflects only cur-rent experience with small cars. In particular, thedata reflect no experience with the class of ex-tremely small sub-subcompacts that currently aresold in Japan and Europe but not in the UnitedStates. it is conceivable that widespread introduc-tion of such cars into the U.S. fleet, triggered by

ICIA variety of these are described in j. R. Stewart and J. C. Stutts,

“A Categorical Analysis of the Relationship Between Vehicle Weightand Driver Injury in Automobile Accidents, ” NHTSA reportDOT-HS-4-O0897, May 1978.

llj. R. Stewart and C. L. Carroll, “Annual Mileage Comparisonsand Accident and Injury Rates by Make, Model, ” University ofNorth Carolina Highway Safety Research Center.

240 . Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Reducing Oil Imports

their lower sales prices or by renewed oil priceincreases, could have severe safety conse-quences. NHTSA engineers are concerned thatoccupants of sub-subcompacts might be endan-gered not only by the increased decelerationforces that are the inevitable danger to the smallervehicle in multicar crashes, but also by problemsof managing crash forces and maintaining passen-ger-compartment integrity that are encounteredin designing and building cars this small.12

Despite these problems, some conclusionsabout the relationship between vehicle size andsafety can be drawn. For example, the strong pos-itive relationship between vehicle size and safe-ty in a//accidents combined and in car-to-car col-lisions has been confirmed in virtually all analy-ses.13 However, the size/safety relationship doesnot appear to be as “robust” for single-car colli-sions, which accounted for about half of all pas-senger-car occupant fatalities in 1980. Althoughseveral studies conclude that there is a strong pos-itive relationship between car size and safety inthis class of accidents,14 l Q and the IIHS analysesshow a very strong relationship,15 some studieshave concluded that this positive relationship dis-appears among some size classes when the dataare corrected for driver age and other variables.16

However, even these studies show that subcom-pacts fare worse than all other size classes insingle-vehicle accidents. ”

Forecasting Future Trends in Auto Safety

Attempts to forecast the effects on traffic safe-ty of a smaller, more fuel-efficient fleet—a resultof further downsizing within each size class aswell as a continued market shift to smaller sizeclasses—are confronted with severe analytical dif-ficulties. First, if the forecast is to account for theeffects of important vehicle and driver-related

“J. Kanianthra, Integrated Vehicle Research Division, NHTSA,personal communication, March 1982.

llstewa~ and Stutts, OP. cit.IAFor example, several studies cited in Stewart and St@tS, op, cit.;

also, j. H. Engel, Chief, Math Analysis Division, NHTSA, “An investi-gation of Possible Incompatibility Between Highway and VehicleSafety Standards Using Accident Data,” staff report, April 1981; also,J. O’Day, University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute,personal communication, March 1982.

‘S IIHS, op. cit.lbstewart and Stutts, Op. cit.

17 bid.

variables, the forecasters must predict how thesevariables will change in the future—e.g., for eachsize class, forecasters must predict future valuesof average driver age, vehicle miles driven, occu-pancy rates, seatbelt usage, etc. And they musteither estimate future size dimensions in each carclass and the number of vehicles in each classin the fleet, or else postulate these values. Sec-ond, forecasters must construct a credible mod-el that describes the relationship between trafficsafety (e.g., injury and fatality rates) and key vehi-cle and driver-related variables in such a way thatthe model will remain valid over the time periodof the forecast.

The models used by NHTSA18 and others19 toproject future safety trends generally use simplestatistical representations of the relative risk of ac-cidents or injuries and fatalities. The traffic fatalityprojections examined by OTA all relied on acci-dent data that included older design automobileseven though few such vehicles are likely to re-main in the fleet when the date of the projectionarrives.

In particular, NHTSA’s widely disseminated es-timate of 10,000 additional annual traffic deathsby 199020 assumed that exposure to fatality riskis a function only of vehicle weight and the num-ber of registered vehicles in each weight class.No account is taken of the effect of recent vehi-cle design changes, age and behavior of drivers,differences in crash avoidance capabilities, differ-ences in annual vehicle-miles driven and vehi-cle occupancy rate between various automobilesize classes, and other variables. Similar short-comings exist in the other projections. The result-ing projections of future changes in traffic injuriesand fatalities should be considered as only rough,first-order estimates.

—ILWHEA, op. cit. The model briefly described in this report ap-

pears to be similar to the forecasting model used in j. N. Kanianthraand W. A. Boehly, “Safety Consequences of the Current Trendsin the U.S. Vehicle Population, ” in proceedings of the Eighth inter-national Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles,op.cit.

19W. Dreyer, et al., “Handling, Braking, and Crash Compatibil-ity Aspects of Small Front-Wheel Drive Vehicles, ” Society of Auto-motive Engineers Technical Paper Series 810792, ]une 1981. Also,Bunch, op. cit. Also, j. Hedlund, “Small Cars and Fatalities–Com-ments on Volkswagen’s SAE Paper, ” internal NHTSA memoran-dum, Feb. 4, 1982.

20 NHTSA, op. cit.

Ch. 10—Enviromnent, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts • 241

Because of the weaknesses in available quanti-tative projections of future fatality rates, OTA ex-amined current injury/fatality data and othersources for further evidence of whether or r-totdownsizing and a mix shift to smaller size classeswould have a significant effect on safety. In par-ticular, the following observations are importantto answering this question:

1.

2.

A safety differential between occupants ofsmall and large cars in multiple-car collisionsdoes not necessarily imply that reducing thesize of all cars will result in more deaths inthis class of accidents. Although availabledata clearly imply that reducing a vehicle’ssize will tend to increase the vulnerabilityof that vehicle’s occupants in a car-to-carcollision, the size reduction also will makethe vehicle less dangerous to the vehicle itcollides with. Under some formulations ofaccident exposure and fatality risk, these twofactors may cancel each other out. For ex-ample, Volkswagen has calculated the effectof increasing the proportion of subcompactsin today’s fleet. Using FARS data and fore-casting assumptions that are well within theplausible range, Volkswagen concluded thatan increase in subcompacts would actuallylead to a decrease in traffic fatalities in car-to-car collisions.21 Other models using differ-ent formulations and data bases might cometo different conclusions. For example, mod-els using traffic safety data from NorthCarolina probably would arrive at a differentresult. In this historical data set, subcompactscolliding with subcompacts have been foundto have a considerably greater probability ofcausing a fatality than collisions between twofull-size cars.22 Presumably, models usingthis data set would be likely to forecast thata trend toward more subcompacts wouldlead to an increase in car-to-car crash fatal-ities.If small cars are less safe than large cars insingle-car accidents, then a decrease in theaverage size of cars in the fleet with no com-

21 Dreyer, et al., Op. Cit.2*K. Digges, “Panel Member Statement,” Panel on ESV/RSV Pro-

gram, in proceedings of the Eighth International Technical Confer-ence on Experimental Safety Vehicles, op. cit.

pensatory improvements in crashworthinessclearly should imply an increase in injuriesand fatalities in this class of accidents. As justdiscussed, some studies suggest that a con-sistent relationship between size and safetydoes not exist for compact, midsize, and full-size cars in single-car accidents.23 On theother hand, subcompacts do fare worse thanthe other classes in these studies.24 Conse-quently, if these studies are correct, a generaldownsizing of the fleet might have only asmall effect on fatalities in single-car acci-dents, while a drastic shift to very small carscould cause a large increase in such fatalities.

The results of these studies may not bewidely applicable. Other studies observe adefinite size/safety relationship across all sizeclasses. 25 And some factors tend to favor thisalternative conclusion. For example, thehigher seatbelt usage in smaller cars shouldtend to make small cars appear safer in theraw injury data, and thus tend to hide orweaken a positive size/safety relationship.Taking differences in seatbelt usage into ac-count might expose or strengthen such a re-lationship.26 Also, analysis of FARS data thatincludes only vehicles up to 5 years old pro-duces a stronger size/safety relationship thananalysis of the whole fleet.27 Most studies usethe whole fleet, but the more limited dataset might prove to be better for a projectionof the future because it reflects only newer-design automobiles. Finally, as discussed inchapter 5, the larger crush space and passen-ger compartment volume available to thelarger cars should give them, at least theoret-ically, a strong advantage in the great major-ity of accidents. On the other hand, an op-posing factor favoring those studies show-ing less dependence between vehicle sizeand crashworthiness is the limited evidenceof increasing accident rates with decreasingcar sizes. 28 This offers a reason other than

ZJStewa~ and Stutts, op. cit.Wbid.25 Supra 14,ZGstephenSOn arid Finkelstein, Op. Clt,27 Based on a comparison of II HS’S analysis, op. cit., and Engel’s

analysis, op. cit.za’jtewa~ and Carroll, op. `cit.


3.

4.

(or in addition to) differences in crashworthi-ness for the differences in fatalities amongthe various auto size classes.Although most arguments about downsizingand traffic safety have focused on vehicle oc-cupants, the inclusion of pedestrian fatalitieswill affect the overall argument. About 8,000pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles in1980,29 and analysis of FARS data indicatesthat pedestrian fatalities per 100,000 regis-tered cars increase as car size increases30—i.e., reducing the average size of cars in thefleet might decrease pedestrian fatalities be-cause of the reduced “aggressiveness” ofsmaller cars towards pedestrians. If policyconcern is for total fatalities, this effectshould lessen any overall adverse safety ef-fect of downsizing the fleet.Much of the available data implies that traf-fic fatalities will rise if the number of colli-sions between vehicles of greatly differentweights increases. This points to three dan-gers from a downsized fleet. First, for a Iim-ited period of time, the number of collisionsof this sort might increase because of thelarge number of older, full-size cars left inthe fleet. This problem should disappearwithin a decade or two when the great ma-jority of these older cars will have beenscrapped. Second, a more permanent in-crease in fatalities could occur if large num-bers of very small sub-subcompacts–carsnot currently sold in the U.S. market—wereadded to the passenger vehicles fleet. Thepotential for successful large-scale sales ofsuch vehicles will depend on their prices—they may be significantly less expensive thancurrent subcompacts—as well as future oilprices and public perceptions of gasolineavailability. Third, car-truck collisions, whichtoday represent a significant fraction of occu-pant fatalities (car-to-other-vehicle accidentsaccount for about 25 percent of total occu-pant fatalities31), may cause more fatalitiesunless the truck fleet is downsized as well.Subcompacts fare particularly poorly in car-

29 NWSA, Fatal Accident Reporting System 1980.JoBased on an analysis of data presented in Engel, OP. cit.31 NHTSA, op. cit.

truck collisions, and a large increase in thenumber of vehicles in this size class couldcreate substantial problems.

The available statistical and physical evidenceon auto safety suggest that a marked decrease inthe average vehicle size in the automobile fleetmay have as a plausible outcome an increase invehicle-occupant fatalities of a few thousand peryear or more. This outcome seems especially like-ly during the period when many older, heaviervehicles are still on the road. Also, such an out-come seems more likely if the reduction in aver-age size comes mainly from a large increase inthe number of very small cars in the fleet, ratherthan from a more general downsizing across thevarious size categories in the fleet.

The evidence is sufficiently ambiguous,however, to leave open the possibility that onlya minor effect might occur. And, as discussed inthe next section, improvements in the safetydesign of new small vehicles (possibly excludingvery small sub-subcompacts) probably couldcompensate for some or all of the adverse safetyeffect associated with smaller size alone. Someautomobile analysts feel that significant safety im-provements are virtually inevitable, even withoutadditional Government pressures. For example,representatives of Japanese automobile com-panies have stated32 that the present poor recordof Japanese cars in comparison with Americansmall cars is unacceptable and will not be al-lowed to continue. Major improvements in Japa-nese auto safety would seem likely to force aresponse from the American companies. Also,General Motors has begun to advertise the safe-ty differentials between its cars and Japanesemodels, an indication that American manufac-turers may have decided that safety can sell. Onthe other hand, because of its severe financial dif-ficulties, the industry may be reluctant to pursuesafety improvements that involve considerablecapital expenditures.

Safer Design

Increases in traffic injuries and fatalities neednot occur as the vehicle fleet is made smaller in

JzRepOrted in the April 1981 Consumer Reporfs, OP. cit.

IJlbid., and IIHS, op. cit.

Ch. 10—Enviromnent, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts Ž 243

size. Numerous design opportunities exist to im-prove vehicle safety, and some relatively simplemeasures could go a long way towards compen-sating for adverse effects of downsizing and shiftsto smaller size classes.

Increased use of occupant restraint systemswould substantially reduce injuries and fatalities.NHTSA analysis indicates that the use of air bagsand automatic belts could reduce the risk of mod-erate and serious injuries and fatalities by about30 to 50 percent. 34

Simple design changes in vehicles may substan-tially improve occupant protection. As noted inevaluations of NHTSA crash tests, design changesthat are essentially cost-free (changing the loca-tion of restraint system attachment) or extreme-ly low cost (steering column improvements to fa-cilitate collapse, seatbelt retractor modificationsto prevent excessive forward movement) 35 appearto be capable of radically decreasing the crashforces on passenger-car occupants.

A variety of further design modifications to im-prove vehicle safety are available. As demon-strated in the NHTSA tests,36 there are substan-tial safety differences among existing cars of equalweight. One important feature of the safer cars,for example, is above-average length of exteriorstructure to provide crush space. Also, the Re-search Safety Vehicle Program sponsored by theDepartment of Transportation shows that smallvehicles with safety features such as air bags, spe-cial energy-absorbing structural members, anti lac-eration windshields, improved bumpers, doorsdesigned to stay shut in accidents, and other fea-tures can provide crash protection considerablysuperior to that provided by much larger cars.

Two forms of new automotive technology in-troduced for reasons of fuel economy could alsohave important effects on vehicle safety. First, theincorporation of new lightweight, high-strengthmaterials may offer the automobile designer newpossibilities for increasing the crashworthiness of

MR . ). Hitchcock and C. E. Nash, “Protection of Children andAdults in Crashes of Cars With Automatic Restraints, “ in Eighth inter-national Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles,op. cit.

jSBrownlee, et al., Op. cit.

3blbid.

the vehicle. Because some of the plastics andcomposite materials currently have problems re-sisting certain kinds of transient stresses, however,their use conceivably could degrade vehicle safe-ty unless safety remains a primary considerationin the design process. Second, the use of elec-tronic microprocessors and sensors, which is ex-pected to become universal by 1985 to 1990 tocontrol engine operation and related drivetrainfunctions, could eventually lead to safety devicesdesigned to avoid collisions or to augment driverperformance in hazardous situations.

Modifications to roadways can also play a sig-nificant role in improving the safety of smaller ve-hicles. For example, concrete barriers and road-way posts and lamps designed to protect largervehicles have proven to be hazards to subcom-pacts37 in single-vehicle crashes, and redesign andreplacement of this equipment could lower futureinjury and fatality rates.

Mining and Processing New Materials

Aside from the beneficial effects of downsizingon the environmental impacts of mining—by re-ducing the volume of material required–vehicledesigners will use new materials to reduce weightor to increase vehicle safety. Table 71 shows fourcandidates for increased structural use in automo-biles and the amount of weight saved for every100 lb of steel being replaced.

It appears unlikely that widespread use of thesematerials would lead to severe adverse impacts.Magnesium, for example, is obtained mostly fromseawater, and the process probably has fewerpollution problems than an equivalent amountof iron and steel processing, Most new aluminum

3711HS, op. cit.

Table 71 .—Material Substitutionsfor Vehicle Weight Reductions

Weight saved/100 lbStructural material steel replaced

Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Fiberglass-reinforced composites. . . 35-50Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-60High-strength low-alloy steel . . . . . . . 15-30

SOURCE: M. C. Flemming and G. B. Kenney, “Materials Substitution andDevelopment for the Light-Weight, Energy-Efficient Automobile,” OTAcontractor report, February 1980


probably would be obtained by importing bauxiteore or even processed aluminum, rather than ex-panding domestic production. if kaolin-type claysare used for domestic production, waste disposalproblems could be significant; however, the costof producing aluminum from this source currentlyis too high to make it economically worthwhile.

Use of high-strength low-alloy steel will likelylead to slightly lowered iron and steel produc-tion because of the higher strength of this materi-al, with a positive environmental benefit. Final-ly, the use of plastics and reinforced compositeswould substitute petrochemical-type processingfor iron and steel manufacture, with an uncer-tain environmental tradeoff.

Air Quality

Regulation of automobile emissions under theClean Air Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-614) andsubsequent amendments has sharply reduced theamount of pollutants from automobile exhaustin the atmosphere. Assuming that present stand-ards and proposed reductions in permissible lev-els of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide(CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOX are met, the ag-gregate of automobile emissions by 1985 will beroughly half of what they were in 1975 despitean increase of 25 percent in the number of carson the road and a corresponding rise in totalmiles of vehicle travel. * By 2000, if the 1985standards have been maintained and compliedwith, the aggregate of automobile emissions ofHC, CO, and NOX will be 33, 32, and 63 percentof today’s levels, respectively. Particulate emis-sions would be about one-half of today’s levels—and possibly much lower, depending on theprogress in control of particulate emissions fromdiesels.

The reductions expected by 1985 will havebeen brought about by a combination of two ba-sic forms of emission control technology—meth-ods of limiting the formation of pollutants throughcontrol of fuel-air mixture, spark timing, and other

*These projections, based on an earlier study by OTA38 have beenadjusted to account for more recent data on automobile use andthe lower projected growth rates used in this study.

38changeS in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile

Transpofiation System, OTA-T-83 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress,Office of Technology Assessment, February 1979).

conditions of combustion in the engine, and sys-tems to remove pollutants from the exhaust be-fore it is discharged into the atmosphere. The ef-fectiveness of both techniques has been greatlyenhanced by the advent of electronic engine con-trols in recent years.

By 1985, when electronic engine controls willbe virtually universal in passenger cars, the man-dated levels of 3.4 grams per mile (gpm) CO, 0.41gpm HC, and 1.0 gpm NOX can probably be metby spark-ignition engines with little or no penaltyin fuel economy beyond that associated with thelower engine compression ratios dictated by (low-octane) lead-free gasoline. * And although thisfuel penalty may be charged to the control of CO,HC, and NOX emissions because lead-free gaso-line is required to protect catalytic converters, thereduction in lead additives to gasoline may alsobe justified on the basis of its beneficial effect inreducing lead emissions and, consequently, thelevel of lead in human tissue. Assuming that re-ducing lead in gasoline is desirable even withoutthe catalytic converter requirement, the much-argued tradeoff between fuel economy and emis-sions that seemed so compelling in the 1970’s isunlikely to remain a major issue with the spark-ignition engine by the last half of the 1980’s.

A shift to still smaller vehicles and the introduc-tion of new engines (and substantial increases inthe use of current diesel technology) may affectthe tradeoff between air quality and control costs.Because lower vehicle weights and lesser perfor-mance requirements will allow substantiallysmaller engines, the grams per mile emissionstandards should be easier to meet for mostengine types. And, although manufacturers canbe expected to respond to this opportunity bycutting back on emission controls, there will bean enhanced potential for eventually loweringemissions still further. On the other hand, someof the engines—e.g., the gas turbines and diesels—may pose some control problems, with NOX

and particulate especially.

*Although high-octane lead-free gasoline can be, and is, manu-factured, the fuel savings it might allow from higher compressionengines may be counterbalanced by additional energy required forrefining. The exact energy required to produce higher octane lead-free gasoline will be very specific to the refinery, feedstock, andrefinery volumes.


Table 72 briefly describes some of the emissionscharacteristic of current and new engines forlight-duty vehicles. The potential emission prob-lem with diesels appears to be the major short-term problem facing auto manufacturers todayin meeting vehicle emission standards. There ap-pears to be substantial doubt that diesels cancomply with both NO X and particulates standardswithout some technological breakthrough, be-cause NO X control, already a problem in diesels,conflicts with particulate control. This problemis especially significant because diesel particulateare small enough to be inhaled into the lungs andcontain quantities of potentially harmful organiccompounds.

The effect on human health of a substantial in-crease in diesel particulate emissions is uncertain,because clear epidemiologic evidence of adverseeffects does not exist and because there is doubtabout the extent to which the harmful organicsin the emissions will become biologically avail-able—i.e., free to act on human tissue *—afterinhalation.39 However, a sharp increase in thenumber of diesel automobiles to perhaps 25 per-

*Initially, the organics adhere to particulate matter in the exhaust.In order for them to be harmful, they must first be freed from thismatter. In tissue tests outside the human body (“in vitro” tests),they were not freed, i.e., they did not become biologically active.This may be a poor indicator of their activity inside the body,however.

JgHealth Effects Panel of the Diesel Impacts Study Committee

(H. E. Griffin, et al.), National Research Council, /-/ea/th .Effects ofExposure to Diesel Exhaust, National Academy of Sciences, Wash-ington, D. C., 1980.

Table 72.—Emissions Characteristicsof Alternative Engines

Current spark ignition. — Meets currently defined 1983 stand-ards.

Current (indirect injection) diesel.—Can meet CO and HCstandards, but NO X remains a problem. NO X control con-flicts with HC and particulate control. Future particulatestandards could be a severe problem.

Direct-injection diesel. —Meets strictest standards proposedfor HC and CO. NO X limit 1 to 2 g/mile depending on vehi-cle and engine size. Possible future problems with particu-Iates, odor, and perhaps other currently unregulatedemissions.

Direct-injection stratified-charge.— Needs conventionalspark-ignition engine emission control technology to meetstrict HC/CO/NO x standards. Better NO X control thandiesel. In some versions particulate likely to be problem.

Gas turbine-free shaft.—Attainment of 0.4 g/mile NO X limita continuing problem, appears solvable, maybe withvariable geometry. Other emissions (HC, CO) no problem,

Sing/e shaft. —Same basic characteristics as comparable freeshaft. Better fuel economy may help lower NO X emissions.

Sing/e shaft (advanced). – N OX emissions aggravatedbecause of higher operating temperatures.

Stirling engine (first generation).—Early designs have hadsome NO X problems, but should meet tightest proposedstandards on gasoline, durability probably no problem,emissions when run on other fuels not known.

SOURCE: Adapted from: J. B. Heywood, “Alternative Automotive Engines andFuels: A Status Review and Discussion of R&D Issues,” contractorreport to OTA, November 1979.

cent of the market share, which appears possi-ble by the mid-1990’s, probably should be con-sidered to represent a significant risk of adversehealth effects unless improved particulate con-trols are incorporated or unless further researchprovides firmer evidence that diesel particulateproduce no special hazard to human health.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

The substitution of electric vehicles (EVs) fora high percentage of U.S. automobiles and lighttrucks may have a number of environmental ef-fects. The reduction in vehicle-miles traveled byconventional gasoline- and diesel-powered vehi-cles will reduce automotive air pollution, whereasthe additional requirements for electricity will in-crease emissions and other impacts of power gen-eration. Changes in materials use may have envi-ronmental consequences in both the extractiveand vehicle manufacturing industries. The use oflarge numbers of batteries containing toxic chem-icals may affect driver and public health and safe-

ty. The different noise characteristics of electricand internal combustion engines imply a reduc-tion in urban noise levels, while differences insize and performance may adversely affect driv-ing safety. Finally, there may be a variety of lessereffects, for example, safety hazards caused by in-stallation and use of large numbers of chargingoutlets.

Power Generation

As discussed in chapter S, utilities should haveadequate reserve capacitv to accommodate high

246 ● Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Reducing Oil /reports

levels of vehicle electrification without addingnew powerplants. For example, if the utilitiescould use load control and reduced offpeakprices to confine battery recharging to offpeakhours, half of all light-duty vehicular traffic couldbe electrified today without adding new capac-ity. Given the probable constraints on EVs, how-ever, a 20-percent share probably is a more rea-sonable target for analysis. *

The effects on emissions of a 20-percent electri-fication of vehicular travel are mixed but generallypositive. If present schedules for automotive pol-lution control are met and utilities successfullyrestrict most recharging to offpeak hours, this lev-el of electrification would, by the year 2010, leadto the following changes in emissions** com-pared with a future based on a conventional fossilfuel-powered transportation system:

less than a l-percent increase in sulfur diox-ides (SO2),about a 2-percent decrease in NOX,about a 2-percent decrease in HC,about a 6-percent decrease in CO, andlittle change in particulates.40

The positive effects on air quality may in real-ity be more important than these emission figuresimply. The addition of emissions due to electricityproduction occurs outside of urban areas, andthe pollution is widely dispersed, while the vehi-cle emissions that are eliminated occur at groundlevel and are quite likely to take place in denseurban areas. Thus, the reduction in vehicularemissions should have a considerably greater ef-fect on human exposure to pollution than thesmall increase in generation-related emissions.Also, any relaxation of auto emissions standardswill increase the emissions reductions and airquality benefits associated with “replacement”of the (more polluting) conventional autos. Onthe other hand, future improvements in automo-bile emission controls–certainly plausible given

*As noted elsewhere, however, this is still an extremely optimisticmarket share even for the long term, unless battery costs are sharplyreduced and longevity increased, or gasoline availability decreases.

**Assuming existing emission regulations for powerplants.40W. M. Carriere, et al., The Future Potentia/of E/ectric and Hybrid

Vehic/es, contractor report by General Research Corp. to OTA,forthcoming.

progress during the past decade–might decreasethe air quality benefits of electrification. *

Other effects of increased electricity demandmust also be considered. Most importantly, a 20-percent electrification of cars will lead to substan-tial increases in utility fuel use, especially for coal.Although the extent of increased coal use will de-pend on the distribution of EVs, if the vehicleswere distributed uniformly according to popula-tion, coal would supply about two-thirds of theadditional power necessary in 2010,41 requiringthe mining of about 38 million additional tons peryear. ** If the EVs replaced gasoline-powered carsgetting 55 mpg, the gasoline savings obtained bythe coal-fired electricity—about 36 billion gal/yr–could also have been obtained by turning thesame amount of coal into synthetic gasoline.***

Resource Requirements

EVs will use many of the same materials, in sim-ilar quantities, as conventionally powered vehi-cles, but there will be some differences whichmay create environmental effects. EVs, for exampie, will require more structural material thantheir conventional counterparts because of thesubstantial weight of the batteries (at least withexisting technology). More importantly, the bat-teries themselves will require some materials inquantities that may strain present supply. Table73 shows the increase in U.S. demand for bat-tery materials for 20-percent electrification oflight-duty vehicular travel by 2000.

The effect on the environment of increases inmaterials demand is difficult to project becausethe increased demand can be accommodated ina number of ways. In several cases, although U.S.

“It is equally reasonable to speculate about future improvementsin powerplant emission controls. For example, more stringent con-trols on new pIants as well as efforts to decrease SOZ emissions fromexisting plants in order to control acid rain damages could increasethe benefits of electrification.

41 Ibid.**Assumptions: 12,000 Btu/lb coal; vehicle energy required =

0.4 kWh/mile at the outlet; total 2010 vehicle miles = 1.55 trillionmiles, 20 percent electric; electrical distribution efficiency = 90percent; generation efficiency = 34 percent.

***Assuming a synfuels conversion efficiency of coal into gasolineof 50 percent.

Ch. 10—Enviroment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts . 247

Table 73.—increase in U.S. Use of Key Materialsfor 20 Percent Electrification of Light-Duty

Travel (year 2000)

PercentBattery type Material increase a

Lead-acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeadNickel-iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cobalt

LithiumNickel

Nickel-zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CobaltNickel

Zinc-chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GraphiteLithium metal sulfide . . . . . . . . . . . . Lithium

31.218.214.321.331.834.350.0

103.6aAssuming l(Jopercent of the batteries are of the category shown ... the parcent

increases thus are rrot additive for the same materials.

SOURCE: W. M. Carrier, et al,, The Future Potential of Electric and HybridVehicles, contractor report to OTA by General Research Corp., forth-coming.

and world identified reserves currently are insuf-ficient, increased demand probably will be metby identifying and exploiting new reserves. Theenvironmental effects would then be those of ex-panding mining and processing in the UnitedStates or abroad. In other cases, mining of sea-bed mineral nodules or exploitation of lowerquality or alternative ores (e.g., kaolin-type claysinstead of bauxite to produce aluminum) couldoccur. Supplies of some materials may be madeavailable for cars by substituting other materialsfor nonautomotive demands.

In general, the potential for finding additionalresources and the long-range potential for recy-cling indicate that major strains on resources—and, consequently, environmental impacts of un-usual concern—appear to be unlikely with levelsof electrification around 20 or 30 percent. Localareas subject to substantially increased mining ac-tivity could, however, experience significant im-pacts.

Noise

EVs are generally expected to be quieter thancombustion-engine vehicles, and electrificationshould lower urban noise. The effect may not,however, be large. Although automobiles ac-count for more than 90 percent of all urban traf-fic, they contribute only a little more than halfof total urban traffic noise and a lesser percent-age of total urban noise. A recent calculation ofthe effect on noise levels of 100-percent conver-sion of the automobile fleet to electric vehicles

predicts a reduction in total traffic noise of only13 to 17 percent.42

Safety

EVs will affect automotive safety because oftheir lower performance capabilities and differentstructural and material configuration. Lower ac-celeration and cruising speed, for example, couldpose a safety problem because it could increasethe average velocity differential among highwayvehicles and make merging more difficult. ManyEVs will be quite small and, as discussed in thesection on auto fuel conservation, this may de-grade safety. On the other hand, compensatingchanges in driver behavior or redesign of roadsin response to EVs could yield a net positiveeffect.

Similarly, the net effect of materials differencesis uncertain. The strong positive effect of remov-ing a gas tank containing highly flammable gaso-line or diesel fuel will be somewhat offset by theaddition of the battery packs, which containacids, chlorine, and other potentially hazardouschemicals. Collisions involving EVs may result inthe generation of toxic or explosive gases or thespillage of toxic liquids (e.g., release of nickel car-bonyl from nickel-based batteries). Finally, thenecessity to charge many of the vehicles in loca-tions that are exposed to the weather creates astrong concern about consumer safety from elec-trical shock.

Occupational and PublicHealth Concerns

In addition to the potential danger to drivers(and bystanders) from release of battery chemi-cals after collisions, there are some concernsabout the effects of routine manufacture, use, anddisposal of the batteries. Manufacture of nickel-based batteries, for example, may pose problemsfor women workers because several nickel com-pounds that may be encountered in the manufac-turing process are teratogens (producers of birthdefects). Also, because many potential batterymaterials (lead, nickel, zinc, antimony) are per-

4ZW M. Carriere, General Research Corp., perSOnal communica-tion, June 19, 1981.

98-281 0 - 82 - 17 : QL 3

248 . Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuel Alternatives for Reducing Oil Imports

sistent, cumulative environmental poisons, theprevention of significant discharges during manu-facture as well as proper disposal (preferably byrecycling) must be assured. Finally, routine vent-ing of gases during normal vehicle operationsmay cause air-quality problems in congestedareas.

These risks do not appear to pose difficult tech-nological problems (most have been rated as“low risk” in the Department of Energy’s (DOE)Environmental Readiness Document for EVS

43)

and existing regulations such as the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act provide an op-portunity for strict controls, but institutional prob-lems such as resistance to further Governmentcontrols on industry obviously could increase thelevel of risk. Recycling could pose a particularproblem unless regulations or scale incentives re-strict small-scale operations, which are often diffi-cult to monitor and regulate.

43u.s. Department Of Energy, Etw;mmnental Readiness fkKwment, Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, Commercialization Phase III

P/arming DOE/ERD-0004, September 1978.

SYNTHETIC FUELS FROM COAL

Development of a synthetic fuels industry willinevitably create the possibility of substantial ef-fects on human health and the environment froma variety of causes. A 2 million barrels per day(MMB/D) coal-based synthetic liquid fuels indus-try will consume roughly 400 million tons of coaleach year, * an amount equal to roughly half ofthe coal mined in the United States in 1980. Theseveral dozen liquefaction plants required to pro-duce this amount of fuel will operate like largechemical factories and refineries, handling multi-ple process and waste streams containing highlytoxic materials and requiring major inputs ofwater and other valuable materials and labor.Transportation and distribution of the manufac-tured fuels not only require major new infrastruc-ture but are complicated by possible new dangersin handling and using the fuels. Table 74 listssome of the major environmental concerns asso-ciated with coal-based synfuels. Note that theseverity of these concerns is sharp/y dependenton the level of environmental control and man-agement exerted by Government and industry.

*This corresponds to an average process efficiency of about 55percent and coal heat content of about 20 x 10 6 Btu/ton. The ac-tual tonnage depends on the energy content of the coals, the con-version processes used and the product mixes chosen. Process effi-ciencies will vary over a range of 45 to 65 percent (higher if largequantities of synthetic natural gas are acceptable in the productstream), and coal heat contents may vary from 12 million to 28million Btu/ton.

The health and environmental effects of thesynfuels fuel cycle can be better understood bydividing the impacts into two kinds. Some of theimpacts are essentially identical in kind (thoughnot in extent) to those associated with more con-ventional combustion-related fuel cycles such ascoal-fired electric power generation. These “con-ventional” impacts include the mining impacts,most of the conversion plant construction im-pacts, the effects associated with population in-creases, the water consumption, and any impactsassociated with the emissions of environmentalresiduals such as SO2 and NOX that are normal-ly associated with conventional combustion offossil fuels.

Another set of impacts more closely resemblessome of the impacts of chemical plants and oilrefineries. These include the effects of fugitive HCemissions and the large number of waste andprocess streams containing quantities of tracemetals, dangerous aromatic HCs, and other tox-ic compounds. These are referred to as “noncon-ventional” impacts in this section.

This distinction between “conventional” and“nonconventional" impacts is continuedthroughout this discussion. In particular, for theconventional impacts, synfuels plants are explicit-ly compared with coal-fired powerplants. A fur-ther understanding of the scale of coal-fired pow-erplants should allow this comparison to better


Table 74.—Major Environmental Issues for Coal Synfuels

Land use andwater quality Air quality Ecosystems Safety and health Other

MiningShort- and long-term Fugitive dust

land use changes, (especially in theerosion, and West)uncertainty ofreclamation in aridWest

Aquifer disturbanceand pollution

Nonpoint source waterpollution (acid minedrainage—East;sedimentation—West)

Subsidence

Llquefaction and refiningPotential surface and Emission of “criteria

ground water pollutants” (i.e.,pollution from NOX, SO 2,holding ponds particulate, etc.

Wastewater discharges Fugitive emission of(East) carcinogenic

Disposal of large substancesamounts of solid Possible release ofwastes trace elements

Local land use Releases duringchanges “upset” conditions

Construction on flood Possible localized odorplains problems

Product transport and end-useProduct spills from Changed automotive

trains, pipelines, and exhaust emissionsstorage (increase in some

pollutants, decreasein others)

Increased evaporativeemissions frommethanol fuels

Toxic productvaporization

Disruption of wildlifehabitat and changedproductivity of theland

Siltation of streamsHabitat fragmentation

from primary andsecondarypopulation growth

Air pollution damageto plants

Contributions to acidrain

Wildlife habitatfragmentation frompopulation increases

Contribution to the“greenhouse” effect

Acute and chronicdamages from spills

Mining accidents Increased water useOccupational diseases for reclamation

in underground Coal transportationmining (e.g., black impacts on roadlung) traffic and noise

Occupational safety Water availabilityand health risks issues (especially infrom accidents and the West)toxic chemicals

Carcinogens in directprocessintermediates andfuel products

Exposure to spills Potential change inUncertain effects of fuel economy

trace elements and Methanol corrosionHCs and reduction of

existing enginelongevity

SOURCE: M. A. Chartock, et al., Environmental Issues of Synthetic Transportation Fuels From Coal, OTA contractor report, forthcoming

serve the reader. A 1,000-MWe plant, for exam-ple, serves all the electrical needs (including re-quirements for industry) of about 400,000 peo-ple. A plant of this size would be large but notexcessively so for a new facility, because manycurrently planned coal-fired plants are larger than600 MWe, and the nationwide average capacityof planned units is 433 MWe.44 Existing plants are,on the whole, much smaller than these newplants, with an average capacity of only 57

AAR. W. Gilmer, et ai., “Rethinking the Scale of Coal-Fired Elec-tric Generation: Technological and Institutional Considerations, ”in Office of Technology Assessment, The Direct Use of Coal, Vo/-ume 11, Pa r t A , 1979.

MWe.45 Some existing plants, however, are verylarge: Arizona Public Service Co.’s Four Cornersplant in New Mexico, for example, has a capacityof 2,212 MWe.46

This comparison is intended to place the envi-ronmental and health impacts of a synfuels plantside by side with the impacts of a technology thatmay be more familiar to readers. We stress, how-ever, that this comparison is not relevant to acomparison of coal liquids and coal-based elec-tricity as competing alternatives.

451bid..% Federal Energy Regulatory commission, Steam-E/ectric P/ant Air

and Water Quality Control Data, Summary Report, October 1979.

250 ● Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Reducing Oil Imports

Such a comparison can be made only by care-fully considering the end uses for the competingenergy forms, which we have not done. For usein automobile travel, however, a synthetic fuelmay prove to be as efficient in its utilization ofcoal energy as a powerplant producing electricityfor EVs (see “Electric Vehicles, Power Genera-tion” in this chapter), In this case, to the extentthat a synfuels production facility produces fewer(or more) impacts than a powerplant processingthe same amount of coal, the impact of the en-ergy-production stage of the “synfuels to motorfuel” fuel cycle may be considered to be envi-ronmentally superior (or inferior) to the samestage of the “electric auto” fuel cycle.

It is also stressed that the “nonconventional”effects associated with the toxic waste streamsproduced by synfuels plants are essentially impos-sible to quantify at this time, because of signifi-cant uncertainties associated with the type andquantity of toxic chemicals produced, the rateat which these chemicals might escape, the effec-tiveness of control systems, the fate of any escap-ing chemicals in the environment, and finally, thehealth and ecological impacts of various expo-sures to the chemicals.

Because of these uncertainties, there may bea temptation to judge synfuels production main-ly on the basis of its “conventional,” and morequantifiable, impacts. In OTA’s opinion, this isa mistake, because the toxic wastes pose difficultenvironmental questions and also because themagnitudes of several of the more conventionalimpacts are themselves quite uncertain.

Mining

A large coal-based synfuels industry will con-sume a significant portion of U.S. coal output.Although actual coal-production growth duringthe remainder of this century is uncertain, severalsources agree that total production on the orderof 2 billion tons per year is possible by 2000.47

At this level a 2 MMB/D coal synfuels capacitywould require roughly 20 percent of total U.S.production in 2000.

dTThp Direct use of Coal: Prospects and Problems of Production

and Combustion, OTA-E-86 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Of-fice of Technology Assessment, April 1979). Also available fromBallinger Publishers in a March 1981 edition.

The impacts of a mine dedicated to synfuelsproduction should be essentially the same asthose from other large mines dedicated to powerproduction and other uses, and thus these im-pacts fit into the “conventional” category. Al-though the coal requirement for a unit plant witha 50,000 barrel per day (bbl/d) output capacity—at Ieast 5 million tons per year*—is high by to-day’s standards, mines are already tending to-wards this size range where it is feasible (e.g.,eight mines in the Powder River Basin producedmore than 5 million tons of coal each in 198048).On the other hand, it is not clear that the geo-graphic distribution (and thus the distribution ofimpacts) of synfuels coal production and produc-tion for other uses will be similar. Because it isdifficult to predict where a future synfuels industrywill be located, the nature of any differences be-tween mining for synfuels and mining for otheruses is uncertain.

As discussed in another OTA report,49 althoughmany of coal mining’s adverse impacts have beenmitigated under State and Federal laws, impor-tant environmental and health concerns remain.The major concerns are likely to be /and reclama-tion failure, acid mine drainage, subsidence ofthe land above underground mines, aquifer dis-rupt ion, and occupational disease and injury.

Mining for synfuels conversion will experienceall of these impacts, although not at all sites.

The folIowing discussion of mining impacts re-lies primarily on the OTA report:

Reclamation.– The use of new mining methodsthat integrate reclamation into the mining proc-ess and enforcement of the Surface Mine Con-trol and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) should reducethe importance of reclamation as a critical nation-al issue. However, concern remains that a combi-nation of development pressures and inadequateknowledge may lead to damage in particularly

*The potential range is about 5 million to 18 million tons per year.The 5-million-ton extreme represents a 65-percent efficient process(not truly a Iique faction process because half of its output is syngas;the upper limit of efficiency for processes producing primarily liq-uids is about 60 percent) using very-high-value (28 million Btu/ton)Appalachian coal. The 18-million-ton extreme represents a 45-per-cent efficient process using low-energy (12 million Btu/ton) lignite.

d8An Assessment of the Development Potential and Production

Prospects of Federa/ Coa/ Leases, OTA-M-1 50 (Washington, D. C.:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, December 1981).

@ T h e Direct Use of C’oa[ Op. cit.

Ch. 10—Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts • 251

vulnerable areas—arid lands and alluvial valleyfloors in the West, prime farmland in the Mid-west, and hardwood forests, steep slope areas,and flood-prone basins in Appalachia. Althoughmost of these areas are afforded special protec-tion under SMCRA, the extent of any damage willdepend on the adequacy of the regulations andthe stringency of their enforcement. Recent at-tempts in the Congress to change SMCRA andadministration actions to reduce the Office of Sur-face Mining’s field staff and to transfer enforce-ment responsibilities to State agencies have raisedconcerns about the future effectiveness of this leg-islation.

Acid Mine Drainage.Acid mine drainage, if notcontrolled, is a particularly severe byproduct ofmining in those regions—Appalachia and partsof the interior mining region (indiana, Illinois,Western Kentucky) —where the coal seams arerich in pyrite. The acid, and heavy metals leached

into the drainage water by the acid, are directlytoxic to aquatic life and can render water unfitfor domestic and industrial use. Zinc, nickel, andother metals found in the drainage can becomeconcentrated in the food chain and cause chronicdamage to higher animals. An additional impactin severe cases is the smothering of stream bot-tom-dwelling organisms by precipitated iron salts.

Acid drainage is likely to be a significant prob-lem only with underground mines, and only afterthese mines cease operating. Assuming strong en-forcement of SMCRA, acid drainage from activesurface and underground mines should be col-lected and neutralized with few problems. onlya very small percentage of inactive surface minesmay suffer from acid seepage. Undergroundmines, however, are extremely difficult to seal

off from air and water, the causal agents of aciddrainage. Some mining situations do not allowadequate permanent control once active mining


and water treatment cease. A significant percent-age of the mines that are active at present or thatwill be opened in this century will present aciddrainage problems on closure.

In a balancing of costs and benefits, it may notbe appropriate to assign to synfuels developmentthe full acid damage associated with synfuelsmines, even though these mines will have aciddrainage problems. This is because drainageproblems may taper off as shallower reserves areexhausted and new mines begin to exploit coalseams that are deeper than the water table. Manyof these later mines will be flooded, reducing theoxidation that creates the acid drainage. It ispossible that many or most acid drainage-pronemines dedicated to a synfuels plant would havebeen exploited with or without synfuels develop-ment.

Subsidence.–Another impact of undergroundmining that will not be fully controlled is subsi-dence of the land above the mine workings. Sub-sidence can severely damage roads, water andgas lines, and buildings; change natural drainagepatterns and river flows; and disrupt aquifers. Un-fortunately, there are no credible estimates ofpotential subsidence damage from future under-ground mining. However, a 2 MMB/D industrycould undermine about a hundred square milesof land area (about one-tenth the area of RhodeIsland) each year, * most of which would be apotential victim of eventual subsidence.

Subsidence, like acid drainage, is a long-termproblem. However, SMCRA does not hold devel-opers responsible for sufficient time periods toensure elimination of the problem, nor does itspecifically hold the developer responsible to thesurface owner for subsidence damage. The major“control” for subsidence is to leave a large partof the coal resources—up to 50 percent or more—in place to act as a roof support. There is obvi-ously a conflict between subsidence preventionand removal of the maximum amount of coal.Moreover, the supports can erode and the roofcollapse over a long period of time. The resultingintermittent subsidence can destroy the value ofthe land for development. An alternative mining

*Assuming half of the coal is produced by eastern and centralunderground mining, 18,000 acres undermined per 10 15 Btu of coal.

technique called Iongwall mining deals with someof these problems by actually promoting subsi-dence, but in a swifter and more uniform fashion.Longwall mining is widely practiced in Europebut is in limited use in the United States. It is notsuitable for all situations.

Aquifer Disruption.–Although all types ofmining have the potential to severely affectground water quantity and quality by physical dis-ruption of aquifers and by leaching or seepageinto them, this problem is imperfectly under-stood. The shift of production to the West, whereground water is a particularly critical resource,will focus increased attention on this impact. Aswith other sensitive areas, SMCRA affords specialprotection to ground water resources, but theadequacy of this protection is uncertain becauseof difficulties in monitoring damages and enforc-ing regulations and by gaps in the knowledge ofaquifer/mining interactions,

Occupational Hazards.–Occupational haz-ards associated with mining are a very visible con-cern of synfuels production, because coal work-ers are likely to continue to suffer from occupa-tional disease, injury, and death at a rate wellabove other occupations (see table 75), and thetotal magnitude of these impacts will grow alongwith the growth in coal production.

The mineworker health issue that has receivedthe most attention is black lung disease, the non-

Table 75.—Fatality and Injury Occurrencefor Selected Industries, 1979

Fatalities Nonfatal injuries

Number Rate a Number Rate a

Undergroundbituminous. . . . . . . 105 0.09 14,131 12.30

Surface bituminous . 15 0.02 2,333 3.47All bituminous coal c

(and lignite) . . . . . . . 137 0.064 16,464 10,20Other surface mining b

(metal, nonmetal,stone, etc.). . . . . . . . 97 0.07 8,121 5.82

Petroleum refining c . . 20 0.0011 8,799 5.30Chemical and allied

products c . . . . . . . . . 55 0.0025 78,700 7.20All industries . . . . . . . 4,950 0.0086 5,956,000 9.20aRate per 200,000 worker-howa (100 workef-yeara).bFor all companies.CFOr companies with 11 or more workers; fatallty data Include deaths due tojob-related accident and Illness.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statlstlcs, personal communication, 19S1; and Staff,Mine Safety end Health Administration, personal communlcatlon, 19S1.


clinical name for a variety of respiratory illnessesaffecting underground miners of which coalworkers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP) is the mostprominent. Ten percent or more of working coalminers today show X-ray evidence of CWP, andperhaps twice that number show other black lungillnesses—including bronchitis, emphysema, andother impairments. so

To prevent CWP from disabling miners in thefuture, Congress mandated a 2-mg/m3 standardfor respirable dust (the small particles that causepneumoconiosis). However, critics now questionthe inherent safeness of this standard and thesoundness of the research on which it is based.Furthermore, other coal mine dust constituents—the large dust particles (that affect the upper res-piratory tract) and trace elements–as well asfumes from diesel equipment also represent con-tinued potential hazards to miners.

Mine safety–as distinct from mine health–hasshown a mixed record of improvement since the1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Actestablishing the Mining Enforcement and SafetyAdministration was passed. The frequency ofmining fatalities has decreased for both surfaceand underground mines, but no consistent im-provement has been seen in the frequency of dis-abling injuries, Coal worker fatalities numbered139 in 1977, and disabling injuries approached15,000.51 Each disabling injury resulted in an aver-age of 2 months or more of lost time. The numberof disabling injuries has been increasing as moreworkers are drawn to mining and accident fre-quency remains constant.

As shown in table 75, surface mining is severaltimes safer than underground mining. But someunderground mines show safety records equal toor better than some surface mines. Generally,western surface mines are safer than eastern sur-face mines. As western surface-mine productionassumes increasing prominence, accident fre-quency industrywide is likely to decline when ex-

SONational I r-rstitute for Occupational Safety and Health, NationalStudy of Coa/ Workers’ F%eurnoconiosis, unpublished reports onsecond round of examinations, 1975. Cited in The Direct Use ofCoal op. cit.

StMine !jafety and Health Administration, “1 njury Experience atAll coal Mines in the United States, by General Work Location,1977, ” 1978. Cited in The Direct Use of Coa[ op. cit.

pressed as accidents per ton of output. But thisstatistical trend may conceal a lack of improve-ment in safety in deep mines.

Liquefaction

Coal liquefaction plants transform a solid fuel,high in polluting compounds and mineral mat-ter, into liquid fuels containing low levels of sul-fur, nitrogen, trace elements, and other pollut-ants. In these processes, large volumes of gas-eous, liquid, and solid process streams must becontinuously and reliably handled and separatedinto end-products and waste streams. Simultane-ously, large quantities of fuel must be burned toprovide necessary heat and steam to the process,and large amounts of water are consumed forcooling and, in direct liquefaction processes, asraw material for hydrogen production. Theseprocesses, coupled with the general physicalpresence of the plants and their use of a largeconstruction (up to 7,000 men at the peak for asingle 50,000 bbl/d plant) and operating force (upto 1,000 workers per plant), lead to a variety ofpotential pathways for environmental damage.

As noted previously, the following discussiondivides impacts into “conventional” and “non-conventional” according to the extent to whichthe effects resemble those of conventional com-bustion systems. The discussion does not consid-er the various waste streams in detail because oftheir complexity. Appendix 10-A lists the gaseous,liquid, and solid waste streams, the residuals ofconcern, and the proposed control systems forgeneric indirect and direct liquefaction systems.DOE’s Energy Technologies and the Environmenthandbook, 52 from which appendix 1O-A is de-rived, describes these streams in more detail.

Conventional Impacts

An examination of the expected “convention-al” impacts reveals that, with a few exceptions,they are significant mainly because the individualplants are very large and national synfuels devel-opment conceivably could grow very rapidly—

5ZU. S. Depafirnent of Energy, Energy Technologies and the Envi-ronment, Enviromnenta/ Information Handbook DOE/EV/74010-l,December 1980.


not because the impacts per unit of productionare particularly large.

Air Quality.– Emissions of criteria air pollut-ants* from synfuels generally are expected to belower than similar emissions from a new coal-fired powerplant processing the same amount ofcoal. 53 A 50,000 bbl/d synfuels plant processesabout as much coal as a 3,000 MWe power-plant,** but (as shown in fig. 23) emits SO2 andNOX in quantities similar to those of a plant of onlya few hundred megawatts or less. For particulate,synfuels plant emissions may range as high asthose from a 2,200-MWe plant, but emissions formost synfuels plants should be much lower.

In any case, particulate standards for new plantsare quite stringent, so even a 2,200-MWe plant(or a “worst case” synfuels plant) will not havehigh particulate emissions. CO emissions fromsynfuels plants are expected to be extremely low,and are likely to be overwhelmed by a varietyof other sources such as urban concentrations ofautomobiles. HC emissions, on the other hand,conceivably could create a problem if fugitiveemissions—from valves, gaskets, and sources oth-er than smokestacks—are not carefully con-trolled. Although the level of fugitive HC emis-sions is highly uncertain, emissions from a 50,000bbl/d SRC II plant could be as high as 14 tons/day–equivalent to the emissions from severallarge coal-fired plants–if the plant’s valves andother equipment leaked at the same rate asequipment in existing refineries.54

The broad emission ranges shown in figure 23reflect very substantial differences in emissionprojections from developers of the various proc-

*“Criteria air pollutants” are pollutants that are explicitly regulatedby National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act.Currently, there are seven criteria pollutants: SOl, CO, NO,, pho-tochemical oxidants measured as ozone (Oj), nonmethane HC, andlead.

53M. A. Chaflock, et al., Environment/ /sSues of Synthetic

Transportation Fue/s From Coa& Background Report, University ofOklahoma Science and Public Policy Program, report to OTA,forthcoming.

**The actual range is about 2,500 to 3,600 MW for synfuels proc-ess efficiencies of 45 to 65 percent, powerplant efficiency of 35 per-cent, synfuels load factor of 0.9, powerplant load factor of 0.7.

Sdoak Estimate of Fugitive Hydrocar-

bon Emissions for SRC II Demonstration P/ant, for U.S. Departmentof Energy, September 1980. Based on “unmitigated” fugitiveemissions.

Figure 23.-Size Ranges of New Coal-FiredPowerplants With Hourly Emissions Equal to

50,000 bbl/day Synfuels Plants

2200

2000

600

400 -

200 -

Sox NOX Particulate

SOURCE: M. A. Chartock, et al., “Environment Issues of Synthetic Tranporta-tlon Fuels From Coal,” contractor report to OTA, table revieed by OTA.

esses. OTA’s examination of the basis for theseprojections leads us to believe that the differencesare due less to any inherent differences amongthe technologies and more to differences in de-veloper control decisions, assumptions about theeffectiveness of controls, and coal characteristics.The current absence of definitive environmen-tal standards for synfuels plants will tend to aggra-vate these differences in emission projections,because developers have no emissions targets orapproved control devices to aim at. EPA has beenworking on a series of Pollution Control GuidanceDocuments (PCGDs) for the several synfuels tech-nologies in order to alleviate this problem. Theproposed PCGDs will describe the control sys-tems available for each waste stream and the level

Ch. 10—Enviroment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts ● 255

of control judged to be attainable. However, thePCGDs became embroiled in internal and in-teragency arguments and apparently may not becompleted and published in the foreseeablefuture.

The air quality effects of synfuels plants on theirsurrounding terrain vary because of differencesin local conditions—terrain and meteorology—as well as the considerable range of possible emis-sion rates. Some tentative generalizations can,however, be drawn from the variety of site-specif-ic analyses available in the literature. One impor-tant conclusion from these analyses is that indi-

vidual plants generally should be able to meetprevention of significant deterioration (PSD) ClassII limits* for particulate and SO2 with plannedemission controls, although in some cases (e.g.,the SRC II commercial-scale facility once plannedfor West Virginia) a major portion of the limitcould be used up.55 In addition, NOX and COemissions are unlikely to be a problem for indi-vidual pIants in most areas, while regulated HCemissions should remain within ambient air qual-ity guidelines if fugitive HC emissions are mini-mized. 56

Restrictions will exist, however, near PSD ClassI areas in the Rocky Mountain States and nonat-tainment areas in the eastern and interior coalregions. Several of the major coal-producingareas of Kentucky and Tennessee are currentlyin nonattainment status, and siting of synfuelsplants in those areas is virtually impossible with-out changes in current regulations or future airquality improvement.57 Finally, failure to controlfugitive HC emissions conceivably could lead toviolations of the Federal shot-t-term ambientstandards near the plant because, as noted above,the potential emission rate is quite high and

*PSD regulations limit the increases in pollution concentrationsallowed in areas whose air quality exceeds national ambient stand-ards. Class I areas, generally national parks and other areas wherepristine air quality is valued very highly, are allowed only minimalincreases. Class III areas are areas designated for industrial develop-ment and allowed substantial increases. Most parts of the countrypresently are designated Class II areas and allowed moderate in-creases in concentrations. PSD limits are under intense scrutiny byCongress and appear to be primary candidates for change underthe Clean Air Act reauthorization.

sscha~ock, et al., op. cit.

561 bid.571 bid.

because the emissions are released near groundlevel and will have a disproportionately large ef-fect on local air quality .58

Some potential restrictions on siting maybe ob-scured in current analyses by the failure to con-sider the short-term air quality effects of upsetsin the conversion processes. For example, underextreme upset conditions, the proposed (but nowcanceled) Morgantown SRC II plant would haveemitted as much S02 in 2 hours as it would haveemitted during 4 to 10 days of normal opera-tion.59 Unfortunately, most environmental analy-ses of synfuels development have tacitly assumedthat control devices always work properly andpIant operating conditions always are normal.These assumptions may be inappropriate, espe-cially for the first generation of plants and partic-ularly for the first few years of operating experi-ence.

On a wider geographic scale, most analysesshow that the emissions impact of a synfuels in-dustry will be moderate compared with totalemissions from all sources. For example, DOE hasestimated 1995 emissions from all major sourcesfor particulate, SO2, and NOX. Its calculationsshow that a 1.3 MM B/D synfuels industry (com-bining gasification, liquefaction, and oil shale)would represent less than 1 percent of nationalemissions for all three pollutants.60 A more inten-sive development—a 1 MM B/D liquefaction in-dustry concentrated in Wyoming, Montana, andNorth Dakota—would represent a 7.7 percent(particulate), 9.8 percent (SO2), 32 percent(Nox), and 1,7 percent (HC) increase over 1975emissions in a region where existing develop-ment—and thus the existing level of emissions—isquite Iow.61 These additional emissions are notinsignificant, and there has been speculation thathigh levels of development could cause someacid rain problems in the West, especially from

Sal. L. white, et al., Energy From the West, Impact Analysis ReportVolume /, /introduction arrd Summary, U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency report EPA-600/7-79-082a, March 1979.

59u .s, @partrnent of Energy, Drafi Appendix C of Fjna/ Environ-

mental Impact Statement: SRC-11 Demonstration Plant, Plant Designand Characterization of Effluents, 1980.

60U.S, Department of Energy, Synthetic Fuels and the Environ-

ment, An Envkonmentaland Regulatory Impacts Analysis, DOE/EV-0087, june 1980.

Glchafiock, et al., op. Cit.


NOX. * Nevertheless, if control systems work asplanned and facility siting is done intelligently,coal-based synfuels plants do not appear to repre-sent a severe threat to air quality.

Water Use. -Water consumption has also beensingled out as a significant impact of a large-scalesynfuels industry, especially in the arid West. Syn-fuels plants are, however, less intensive consum-ers of water than powerplants consuming similaramounts of coal. A 3,000-MWe plant—whichprocesses about as much coal annually as a50,000 bbl/d facility–will consume about 25,000acre-feet of water per year (AFY), whereas thesynfuels facility is unlikely to consume more than10,000 AFY and may consume considerably lessthan this if designed with water conservation inmind. According to current industry estimates,a standard 50,000 bbl/d facility will consumeabout as much water as a 640 to 1,300-MWeplant. Using stricter water conservation designs,the facility may consume as much water as a 400-to 700-MWe plant.62 Achieving an annual syn-fuels production of 2 MMB/D might require 0.3million AFY, or only about 0.2 percent of the pro-jected national freshwater consumptive use of151 million AFY in 2000.63

Environmental impacts associated with synfuelswater requirements are caused by the water con-sumption itself and by the wells, pipelines, dams,and other facilities required to divert, store, andtransport the necessary water.

The impacts associated with consumption de-pend on whether that consumption displaces oth-er offstream uses for the water (e.g., the devel-oper may buy a farmer’s water rights) or is addi-tive to existing uses. In the former case, the im-pact is caused by eliminating the offstream use;

*Current understanding of the transformation of NO X emissionsinto nitrates and into acid rain is not sufficient to allow a firm judg-ment to be made about the likelihood of encountering an acid rainproblem under these conditions.

6ZH. Gold, et al., Water Requirements for Stearn-~/ectriC powerGeneration and Synthetic Fuel Plants in the Western United States,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report EPA-600/7-77-037,April 1977. Assumes powerplant load factor of 70 percent, synfuelsload factor 90 percent. Synthoil is used as a baseline liquid fuelsplant.

63U, S. Water Resources Council, ~ond Nat;ona/ Water Assess-

ment, The Nation’s Water Resources 1975-2MXI, Volume 11,December 1978.

in displacing farming, for example, the impactmay be a reduction in soil salinization that wasbeing caused by irrigation as well as a reductionin water contamination caused by runoff of fertil-izers and pesticides. Any calculation of impactsis complicated, however, by the probability thatlarge reductions in economic activities (such asfarming) in one area will result in compensatingincreases elsewhere as the market reacts to de-creases in production.

if the water consumption is additive to existinguses, it will reduce downstream flows. In surfacestreams or tributary ground waters connected tothese streams, the consumption may have ad-verse effects on the ability of the stream to dilutewastes and to support recreation, fishing, andother instream uses downstream of the withdraw-al. Also, consumption of ground water, if exces-sive, may lead to land subsidence and saltwaterintrusion into aquifers.

The impacts associated with wells, dams, andother infrastructure may also be significant. im-properly drilled wells, for example, can lead tocontamination of drinking water aquifers. Damsand other storage facilities will increase evapora-tive and other losses (e.g., Lake Powell is under-laid with porous rock and “loses” large amountsof water to deep aquifers). In many cases, thelands submerged by reservoirs have been valu-able recreational or scenic areas. In addition, insome circumstances dams can have substantialimpacts, including drastic changes in the natureof the stream, destruction of fish species, etc. Onthe other hand, the ability of dams to regulatedownstream flow may help avoid both floodingand extreme low-flow conditions and thus im-prove instream uses such as recreation andfishing.

Although consumptive water use by synfuelswill be small on a national basis, local and evenregional effects may be significant. Prediction ofthese effects is made difficult, however, by a num-ber of factors, including substantial uncertaintiesin water availability assessments, levels of disag-gregation in many assessments that are insuffi-cient to allow a prediction of local and subregion-al effects, and the variety of alternative supply op-tions available to developers. Water availability


considerations for the five major river basinswhere synfuels development is most likely to oc-cur are discussed in chapter 11.

Work Force and Population Impacts.-Thesize of the synfuels work force will be large com-pared with power generation; for a 50,000 bbl/dplant, it is equivalent to the work force that wouldbe needed for powerplants totaling 4,000 to 8,000Mw (during peak construction) and to plants to-taling at least 2,500 MW (during operation)64 (seech. 8 for detailed discussion). These high workforce values are particularly important for westernlocations, because significant population in-creases caused by energy development placeconsiderable stress on semiarid ecosystemsthrough hunting and recreational pressures, in-adequate municipal wastewater treatment sys-tems, and limited land use planning.

W. L. white, @ al., Energy From the West, Energy Resource @ve/-

opment Systems Reporf, Vo/urne //: Coa/, U.S. EPA report EPA-600/7-79 -060b, March 1979. Used for powerplant work force only (fora 3,000-MWe plant, construction peak is 2,545, operating force is436),

Summary of Conventional Impact Parameters.–Table 76 provides a capsule comparison of theconventional environmental impacts of synfuelsplants and coal-fired plants.

Nonconventional Impacts

The remaining, “nonconventional” impacts ofsynthetic fuel plants represent substantially differ-ent environmental and health risks than do coal-fired plants and other combustion facilities. Theconversion of coal to liquid fuels differs from coalcombustion in several environmentally importantways. Most importantly, the chemistries of thetwo processes are considerably different. Lique-faction is accomplished in a reducing (oxygenpoor) environment, whereas combustion occursin an oxidizing environment. Furthermore, theliquefaction reactions generally occur at lowertemperatures and usually higher pressures thanconventional combustion.

One major result of these chemical and physi-cal differences is that the heavier HCs originally

Table 76.—Two Comparisons of the Environmental Impacts of Coal-BasedSynfuels Production and Coal-Fired Electric Generation e

A. Coal-fired generating capacity B. Side-by-side Comparison of

that would produce the same environmental impact parameters

impact as a 50,000 bbl/d 3,000 MWe 50,000 bbl/dType of impact coal-based synfuels plant, MWe generator synfuels Units

Annual coal use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500-3,600 b 6.4-15.0 5.3-17.9 million tons/yrAnnual solid waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,500-3,600)± c 0.9-2.0+ 0.6-1 .8+ million tons/yrAnnual water use: acre feet/yr

Current industry estimates. . . . . . . . . 640-1,300 25,000 5,400-10,800Conservation case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400-700 3,400-5,900

Annual emissions: tons/yrParticulate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120-2,800 2,700 100-2,500Sulfur oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90-500 27,000-108,000 1,600-9,900Nitrogen oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70-400 63,000 1,600-7,800

Hourly emissions: Ib/hrParticulate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90-2,200 30-800Sulfur oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70-40 8,800-35,200 500-3,200Nitrogen oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60-300 20,500 500-2,500

Peak labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,100-8,000 2,550 3,500-6,800 personsOperating labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500 440 360 personsaln ~xamPle-A, the ~werP~ant “~e~ the same coal as the Syntue}s plant, New source performance Standards (NSPS) apply, SOX emissions assumed to be 0.6 lb/10 9

Btu. In B, NSPS also apply but Sox emissions can range from 0.3 to 1.2 lbHOC Btu. In both cases, the sYnfuels Plant Parameters rePresent a ran9e of technologies,with a capacity factor of 90 percent and an efficiency range of 45 to 65 percent; the powerplant is a baseload plant, with a capacity factor of 70 percent, efficiencyof 35 percent.

b ln other words, the amount of coal—and thus the amount of mining—needed to fuel a 50,000 bbl/d synfuels plant is the same as that required fOr a 2,500 to 3,600

MWe powerplant.cA synfue[s plant will have about as much ash to dispose of as a coal-fired powerplant using the same amount of coal. It may have leSS scrubber slud9e, but it maY

have to dispose of spent catalyst material that has no analog in the powerplant . . . thus the +.

SOURCE: M. A. Chartock, et al., .5n4romrrerrtal Issues of Synthetic Transportation Fuels From Coal, Background Report, University of Oklahoma Science and PublicPolicy Program, contractor report to OTA, July 1981,


in the coal or formed during the reactions are notbroken down as effectively in the liquefactionprocess as in combustion processes, and thusthey appear in the process and waste streams.The direct processes (see ch. 6 for a brief descrip-tion of the various coal liquefaction processes)and those indirect processes using the lower tem-perature Lurgi gasifier are the major producersof these HCs; indirect processes using high-tem-perature gasifiers (e.g., Koppers-Totzek, Shell,Texaco) are relatively free of them.

The liquefaction conditions also favor the for-mation of metal carbonyls and hydrogen cyanide,which are hazardous and difficuIt to remove.Trace elements are less likely to totally volatilizeand may be more likely to combine with or dis-solve in the ash. The solids formed under theseconditions will have different mineralogical andchemical form than coal combustion ash, and thevolubility of the trace elements, which generallyis low in combustion ash, is likely to be different.Consequently, solid waste disposal is complicatedby the possibility that the wastes may be morehazardous than those associated with conven-tional combustion.

Finally, the high pressure of the processes, theirmultiplicity of valves and other vulnerable com-ponents, and, for the direct processes, their needto handle liquid streams containing large amountsof abrasive solids all increase the risk of accidentsand fugitive emissions.

The major concerns from the “nonconvention-al” waste streams are occupational hazards fromleaks of toxic materials, accidents, and handlingof process intermediates, and ground and surfacewater contamination (and subsequent health andecological damage) from inadequate solid wastedisposal, effluent discharges, and leaks and spills.

Occupational Hazards.–Coal synthetic fuelplants pose a range of occupational hazards fromboth normal operations and upset conditions.Aside from risks associated with most heavy in-dustry, including exposure to noise, dusts, andheat, and falls from elevated areas, synfuels work-ers will be exposed to gaseous and liquid fugitiveemissions of carcinogenic and other toxic materi-als. During upset conditions, contact with hot gasand liquid streams and exposure to fire and ex-

plosion is possible. Table 77 lists some of the po-tential exposures from coal gasification plantsdocumented by the National Institute for Occu-pational Safety and Health. Table 78 lists thepotential occupational health effects associatedwith the constituents of indirect liquefaction proc-ess streams. Similar exposure and health-effectpotentials would exist for any coal liquefactionprocess.

Although the precise design and operation ofthe individual plant is a critical factor in determin-ing occupational hazards, there are certain gener-ic differences in direct and indirect technologiesthat appear to give indirect technologies someadvantages in controlling health and safety risks.

The advantages of indirect technologies includethe need to separate only gases and liquids (thesolids are eliminated in the very first gasificationstep) in contrast with the gas/liquid/solid phaseseparation requirements of direct processes; few-er sites for fugitive emissions than the direct proc-esses; lower processing requirements for theprocess liquids produced (direct process liquidsrequire additional hydrogenation); the abrasive

Table 77.—Potential OccupationalExposures in Coal Gasification

Coal handling, feeding, and preparation.—Coal dust, noise,gaseous toxicants, asphyxia, and fire

Gasifier/reactor operation. —Coal dust, high-pressure hot gas,high-pressure oxygen, high-pressure steam and liquids, fire,and noise

Ash removal, —Heat stress, high-pressure steam, hot ash, anddust

Catalytic conversion. —High-pressure hot gases and liquids,fire, catalyst, and heat stress

Gas/liquids cooling. —High-pressure hot raw gas and liquidhot tar, hot tar oil, hot gas-liquor, fire, heat stress, and noise

Gas purification. —Sulfur-containing gases, methanol,naphtha, cryogenic temperature, high-pressure steam, andnoise

Methanol formation.—Catalyst dust, fire, and noiseSulfur removal — Hydrogen sulfide, molten sulfur, and sulfur

oxidesGas-liquor separation. —Tar oil, tar, gas-liquor with high con-

centrations of phenols, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide,hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, trace elements, and noise

Phenol and ammonia recovery. -Phenols, ammonia, acidgases, ammonia recovery solvent, and fire

Byproduct storage. —Tar, oils, phenols, ammonia, methanol,phenol recovery solvent and fire

SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, “Cri-teria for a Recommended Standard . . . Occupational Exposures In coalGaslficatlon Plants” (Clncinnatl: National Institute of OccupationalSafety and Health, Center for Disease Control, 19S43).

Ch. 10—Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts Ž 259

Table 78.—Occupational Health Effects of Constituents of Indirect Liquefaction Process Streams

Constituents Toxic effects Stream or area

InorganicAmmonia

Carbon disulfide

Carbon monoxide

Carbonyl sulfideHydrogen sulfide

Hydrogen cyanide

Mineral dust and ash

Nickel carbonyl

Trace elements: arsenic, beryllium,cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury,selenium, vanadium

Sulfur oxides

OrganicAliphatic hydrocarbons

Aromatic amines

Single-ring aromatics

Aromatic nitrogen heterocyclics

Phenols

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

Acute: respiratory edema, asphyxia,death

Chronic: no evidence of harm fromchronic subirritant levels

Acute: nausea, vomiting, convulsionsChronic: psychological disturbances,

mania with hallucinationsAcute: headache, dizziness, weakness,

vomiting, collapse, deathChronic: low-level chronic effects not

establishedLittle data on human toxicityAcute: collapse, coma, and death may

occur within a few seconds.Insidious, may not be detected bysmell

Chronic: possible cocarcinogenAcute: headache, vertigo, nausea,

paralysis, coma, convulsions, deathChronic: fatigue, weaknessChronic: possible vehicle for polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons andcocarcinogens

Acute: highly toxic, irritation, lungedema

Chronic: carcinogen to lungs andsinuses

(Complex)

Acute: intense irritation of respiratorytract

Chronic: possible cocarcinogen

Most not toxic. N-Dodecane potentatesskin tumors

Acute: cyanosis, methemoglobinemia,vertigo, headache, confusion

Chronic: anemia, skin lesions (aniline)Benzidine and beta-naphthylamine are

powerful carcinogensAcute: irritation, vomiting, convulsionsChronic: bone-marrow depression,

aplasiaAcute: skin and lung irritantsChronic: possible cocarcinogensChronic: possible carcinogens, skin

and lungsChronic: skin carcinogens, possible

respiratory carcinogens

Gas liquor

Concentrated acid gas

Coal-lockhopper vent gasRaw gas from gasifier

Concentrated acid gasCoal-lockhopper vent gasRaw gas from gasifierConcentrated acid gasCatalyst regeneration off-gas

Concentrated acid gasCoal-lockhopper vent gas

Ash or slag

Catalyst regeneration off-gas

Bottom ashFly ashGasifier ashSolid waste disposalCombustion flue gases

Evaporative emissions from productstorage

Coal-lockhopper vent gasGas liquor

Coal-lockhopper vent gasGas liquor

Gas liquorCoal-lockhopper vent gasGas liquor

Gas liquorCoal-lockhopper vent gasRaw gas

SOURCE: US. Department of Energy, Energy Technologies and the Environment. Environmental Information Handbook DOE/EV/74O1O-1, December 1980.

nature of the direct process stream (which con- streams. Lurgi gasifiers, however, produce atains entrained solids); and fewer dangerous aro- wider range of organic compounds than the high-matic compounds, including polynuclear aromat- er temperature gasifiers and as a result are moreics and aromatic amines, than in direct process comparable in health risk to direct processes.


In sum, however, the indirect processes appearto have a lower potential for occupational healthand safety problems than the direct processes.In actual practice other factors—such as differ-ences in the selection of control equipment andin plant design, maintenance procedures, andworker training—conceivably could outweighthese differences. In fact, developers of liquefac-tion processes appear to be aware of the poten-tial hazards and are taking preventive action suchas providing special clothing and providing fre-quent medical checkups. Nevertheless, the occu-pational health risk associated with synthetic fuelplants must be considered a major concern.

Ground and Surface Water Contamination.–A portion of the solid waste produced by liquefac-tion plants is ash-bottoms, fly ash, and scrubbersludge from the coal-fired boilers—materials thatare routinely handled in all coal-fired powerplantstoday. Much of the waste, however, is ash or slagfrom the gasifiers producing synthesis gas or hy-drogen and chars or “bottoms” from the directprocesses (although much of the latter materialis expected to be recycled to the gasifies), Asnoted previously, this material is produced in areducing atmosphere and thus contains organiccompounds as well as trace elements whose solu-bility may be different from that produced in theboiler.

Other solid wastes that may create disposalproblems more severe than those of powerplantwaste include spent catalysts and sludges fromwater treatment. Total solid wastes from a 50,000bbl/d plant range from 1,800 to 5,000 or moretons per day.65 At these rates, a 2 MM B/D industrywould have to dispose of between 26 million and72 million tons of wastes per year. The major con-cern from these materials is that water percolatingthrough landfill disposal areas may leach the toxicorganic compounds and trace elements out ofthe wastes and into the ground water. Current-ly, the extent of this risk is uncertain, althoughtests of EDS66 and SRC-II67liquefaction reactor

bscha~ock, et al., op. Cit.66R. C. Green, “Environmental Controls for the Exxon Donor SOl-

vent Liquefaction Process, ” Second DOE Environmental ControlSymposium, Reston, Va., Mar. 19, 1981.

b7Supra 59.

wastes and gasifier ash from several gasifiersbayielded Ieachates that would not have been ratedas “hazardous” under Resources Conservationand Recovery Act criteria. *

One major problem with permanent landfilldisposal, however, is that damage to ground wa-ter may occur at any future time when the land-fill liner may be breached–many of the toxic ma-terials in the wastes are either not degradable orwill degrade very slowly, and may last longer thanthe design life of the liner.

Liquid effluent streams from liquefaction plantsalso pose potential water pollution problems. Al-though there are a number of wastewater sourcesthat are essentially conventional in character—cooling tower and boiler blowdown, coal storagepile runoff, etc.—the major effluent streams, fromthe scrubbing of the gases from the gasifiers andfrom the water separation streams in the directprocesses, contain a variety of organics and tracemetals that will pose difficult removal problems.The direct processes are expected to have thedirtiest effluent streams, the indirect systemsbased on Lurgi gasifiers will also pose some prob-lems because of their high production of organics,and the systems based on high-temperature gasi-fiers should have only moderate treatment re-quirements. 69

Although total recycle of water is theoreticallypossible, in practice this is unlikely and “zero dis-charge” will only be achieved by using evapora-tion ponds. Aside from the obvious danger ofbreakdown of the pond liner and subsequentground water contamination (or overflows fromflooding), evaporation ponds may pose environ-mental problems through the formation of toxicgases or evaporation of volatile liquids. The com-plex mixture of active compounds in such a pondcreates a particular hazard of unforeseen reac-tions occurring.

ba/nside EPA, Sept. 26, 1980. As reported, researchers from TRWand Radian Corps. have tested ash from Lurgi, Wellman-Galusha,and Texaco gasifiers.

*Wastes are rated as “hazardous” and will require more secure

(and more expensive) disposal if concentrations of pollutants in theIeachates are greater than 100 times the drinking water standard.

‘9H. Gold, et al., “Fuel Conversion and Its Environmental Effects,”Chemical Engineering Progress, August 1979.


Although the use of ponds to achieve zero dis-charge is practical in the West because of the lowrainfall and rapid evaporation rates, zero dis-charge may be impractical at eastern sites with-out artificial evaporation, which is expensive andenergy-intensive. Consequently, it appears prob-able that continuous or intermittent effluentdischarges will occur at eastern plants, withadded risks from control system failures as oneresuIt.

Environmental Management

The likelihood of these very serious potentialenvironmental and health risks turning into actualimpacts depends on a variety of factors, and par-ticularly on the effectiveness and reliability of theproposed environmental controls for the plants,the effectiveness of environmental regulationsand scientists’ ability to detect damages and as-certain their cause.

In general, synfuels promoters appear to beconfident that the control systems proposed fortheir processes will work effectively and reliably.They tend to view synfuels processes as variationsof current chemical and refinery operations, al-beit variations that will require careful design andhandling. Consequently, the environmental con-trols planned for synthetic fuels plants are large-ly based on present engineering practices in thepetroleum refining, petrochemical, coal-tar proc-essing, and power generation industries.

There are reasons to be concerned about con-trol system effectiveness and reliability, however,especially for the first generation of commercialplants. First, few of the wastewater effluents fromeither direct or indirect processes have been sentthrough a complete environmental control sys-tem such as those designed for commercial units.Process waste streams from several U.S. pilotplants have been subjected only to laboratory andbench-scale cleanup tests or else have been com-bined with waste streams from neighboring refin-eries and treated, with a poorly understood levelof success, in the refinery control systems.

Second, scaling up from small-scale operationsis particuIarly difficult for the direct processes,because of the entrainment of solids in the liquidprocess streams. Engineering theory for the scale

up of solids and mixed solids/liquids processesis not well advanced. For the most part, the prob-lem of handling liquid streams containing largeamounts of entrained solids under high-tempera-ture and pressure conditions is outside of currentindustrial experience.

Third, currently available refinery and petro-chemical controls are not designed to capture thefull range of pollutants that will be present in syn-fuels process and waste streams. Several of thetrace elements as well as the polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs) are included in this group,although techniques such as hydrocracking areexpected to help eliminate PAHs when they ap-pear in process streams. (As noted previously,problems with the trace organics generally arefocused on the direct and on low-temperatureindirect processes, because high-temperature gas-ifiers should effectively destroy most of thesecompounds.)

Fourth, in some cases, compounds that gener-ally are readily controlled when separately en-countered appear in synfuels process and wastestreams in combinations that complicate control.For example, current processes for removing hy-drogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and combusti-bles tend to work against each other when thesecompounds appear in the same gas stream,70 asthey do in synfuels plants. Also, the high levelof toxics that appear in the waste streams maycreate reliability problems for the biological con-trol systems.

Fifth, as noted earlier, the high pressures, multi-plicity of valves and gaskets, and (for the directprocesses) the erosive process streams appear tocreate high risks of fugitive emissions. plans forcontrol of these emissions generally depend on“directed maintenance” programs that stress fre-quent monitoring and inspection of vulnerablecomponents. Although it appears reasonable toexpect that a directed maintenance program cansignificantly reduce fugitive emissions, rigorousspecifications for such a program have not beenpublished,71 and some doubts have been raised

Zocongressional ReSearCh Service, Synfue/s From COa/ and the

National Synfuels Production Program: Technical Environmentaland Economic Aspects, December 1980 (Committee Print 11-74No. 97-3, january 1981, U.S. Congress).

TI u .S. @panrnent of Energy, Fina/ Environrnenta/ /rnpaCt S~ate-

ment: Solvent Refined Coal-n Demonstration Project, Fort Martin,Monongalia County, W, Va., 2 VOIS., 1981.


about the adequacy of proposed monitoring forpioneer plants.

The significance of these technological con-cerns is uncertain. As noted previously, industryrepresentatives generally have dismissed the con-cerns as unimportant, at least with regard to theextent to which pollution control needs might becompromised. Government researchers at EPAand DOE72 have expressed some important reser-vations, however. On the one hand, they are con-fident that each of the synfuels waste streams isamenable to control, usually with approachesthat are not far different from existing approachesto control of refinery and chemical processwastes. On the other hand, they have reserva-tions about whether or not the industry’s con-trol program, as it is currently constituted, willachieve the high levels of control possible. Poten-tial problem areas (some of which are related)include wastewater treatment, ’J control systemreliability, and pollution control during processupsets.

Virtually all of the Government researchersOTA contacted were concerned that the industryprograms were not addressing currently unregu-lated pollutants but instead were focusing almostexclusively on meeting immediate regulatory re-quirements. Several expressed special concernabout the failure of some developers to exploitall available opportunities to test integrated con-trol systems; they expected these integrated sys-tems to behave differently from the way the indi-vidual devices behave in tests.

The above concerns, if well founded, imply thatenvironmental control problems could have seri-ous impacts on the operational schedules of thefirst generation of commercial plants. These im-pacts could range from extentions in the normalplant shakedown periods to extensive delays forredesign and retrofit of pollution controls.74 Be-

Zzpersonal Communications with headquarters and field person-

nel, EPA and DOE.zJThe draft of EPA’s Pollution Control Guidance Document on

indirect liquefaction also expressed strong concerns about waste-water treatment. /nside EPA, Sept. 12, 1980, “Indirect Liquids DraftSees Zero Wastewater Discharge, Laments Data Gap.”

z4Some of the architectural and engineering firms submitting syn-

fuels plant designs have incorporated certain control system flexibil-ities as well as extra physical space in their control systems designs.These features presumably would reduce schedule problems.Frederick Witmer, Department of Energy, Washington, D. C., per-sonal communication.

cause of the large capital costs of the plants, therewill likely be severe pressure on regulators tominimize delays and allow full-scale productionto proceed. The outcome of any future conflictsbetween regulatory requirements and plantschedules will depend strongly on the publicpressures exerted on the industry and Federal andState Governments.

There are reasons to believe that a great dealof public interest will be focused on the synfuelsindustry and its potential effects. For one, whenplant upsets do occur, the results can be visual-ly spectacular–for example, purging an SRC-llreactor vessel and flaring its contents can producea flame up to 100 ft wide and 600 ft Iong.75 It alsoseems likely that odor problems will accompanythese first plants, and in fact the sensitivity ofhuman smell may render it impossible to evercompletely eliminate this problem. Malodorouscompounds such as hydrogen sulfide, phenols,organic nitrogen compounds, mercaptans, andother substances that are present in the processand waste streams can be perceived at very lowconcentrations, sometimes below 1 part perbillion.76

In addition, the presence of highly carcinogenicmaterials in the process and waste streams ap-pears likely to sensitize the public to any prob-lems with these plants. This combination of po-tential hazards and perceptual problems, coupledwith the industry strategy of locating at least someof these plants quite close to populated areas(e.g., SRC-ll near Morgantown, W. Va., now can-celed, and the Tri-State Synthetic Fuels Projectnear Henderson, Ky.), appears likely to guaranteelively public interest.

The nature of the industry’s response to unex-pected environmental problems as well as its gen-eral environmental performance also will dependon the degree of regulatory surveillance and con-trol exerted by Federal and State environmentalagencies. Although the degree of surveillance andcontrol will in turn depend largely on the envi-ronmental philosophy of the Federal and StateGovernments at various stages in the lifetime ofthe industry-a factor that is unpredictable-it willalso depend on the legal framework of environ-

75 Supra 59.7%upra 58.


mental regulations, the scientific groundwork thatis now being laid by the environmental agencies,and the nature of the scientific problems facingthe regulatory system.

Existing Federal environmental legislation givesthe Occupational Safety and Health Administra-tion (OSHA) and EPA a powerful set of tools fordealing with the potential impacts of synfuels de-velopment. OSHA has the power to set occupa-tional exposure standards and define safety pro-cedures for all identified hazardous chemicals inthe workplace environment. EPA has a wide vari-ety of legal powers to deal with synfuels impacts,including:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

setting National Emission Standards for Haz-ardous Air Pollutants (N ES HAPS) under theClean Air Act;setting New Source Performance Standards,also under the Clean Air Act;setting effluent standards for toxic pollutants(which, when ingested, cause “death, dis-ease, cancer, genetic mutations, physiologi-cal malfunctions or physical deformations”)under the Clean Water Act;setting water quality standards, also underthe Clean Water Act;defining acceptable disposal methods forhazardous wastes under the Resource Con-servation and Recovery Act;defining underground injection guidelinesunder the Safe Drinking Water Act; anda variety of other powers under the men-tioned acts and several others.77

The regulatory machinery gives the Federal en-vironmental agencies a strong potential meansof controlling synfuels plants’ hazardous emis-sions and effluents. In general, however, the ma-chinery is immature. Because there are no operat-ing commercial-scale synthetic fuels plants in theUnited States, EPA has not had the opportunityto collect the data necessary to set any technol-ogy-specific emission and effluent limitations forsynfuels plants. Aside from this inevitable prob-

TTSee table 4.1, synthetic Fue/s and the Environment: An Environ-

ment/ and Regulatory /mpacts Ana/ysis, Office of Technology im-pacts, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV-0087, june 1980. Also,see ch. 5, The /rnpacts of Synthetic Fue/s Development, D. C.Masselli, and N. L. Dean, jr., National Wildlife Federation, Septem-ber 1981.

Iem, the environmental agencies have not fullyutilized some of their existing opportunities forenvironmental protection. For example, EPA hasallowed its authority to define standards for haz-ardous air pollutants to go virtually unused. Inaddition, in some areas, such as setting effluentguidelines and New Source Performance Stand-ards for air emissions, EPA has a substantial back-log of existing industries yet to be dealt with.

The environmental research programs con-ducted by various Federal agencies will lay thegroundwork for EPA’s and OSHA’s regulation ofthe synfuels industry. The key programs are thoseof EPA and OSHA themselves and those of DOE.DOE’s programs appear likely to be essentiallyeliminated if current plans to dismantle DOE aresuccessful. EPA and OSHA research budgets haveboth been reduced. In particular, EPA has essen-tially eliminated research activities aimed at de-veloping control systems for synfuels wastestreams, on the basis that such development isthe appropriate responsibility of industry. As men-tioned before, Federal researchers familiar withthe industry’s current environmental researchprograms perceive that the industry has little in-terest in developing control measures for poten-tial impacts that are not currently regulated, andthey believe that industry is unlikely to expandits programs to compensate for EPA’s reduc-tions.78

With or without budget cuts, EPA and OSHAface substantial scientific problems in setting ap-propriate standards for hazardous materials fromsynfuels technologies. Probably the worst of theseproblems is that current air pollution and occupa-tional exposure regulations focus on a relativelysmall number of compounds and treat each oneindividually or in well-defined groups, whereassynfuels plants may emit dozens or even hun-dreds of dangerous compounds with an extreme-ly wide range of toxicity (i.e., the threshhold ofharm may range from a few parts per billion toseveral parts per thousand or higher) and a varietyof effects.

The problem is further complicated by the ex-pected wide variations in the amounts and types

78 Supra 72,

2641 . Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Reducing Oil /reports

of pollutants produced. The synfuels wastestreams are dependent on the type of technology,the control systems used, the product mix chosenby the operator (which determines the operatingconditions), and the coal characteristics. The im-plication is that uniform emission and worker ex-posure standards, such as a “pounds per hour”emission limit on total fugitive HC emissions ora “milligrams per cubic meter” limit on HC ex-posures, are unlikely to be practical because theywould have to be extraordinarily stringent to pro-vide adequate protection against all componentsof the emission streams. Consequently, EPA andOSHA may not be able to avoid the extremelydifficult task of setting multiple separate standardsfor toxic substances.

The regulatory problem represented by the tox-ic discharges is compounded by difficulties in de-tecting damages and tracing their cause. Becauselow-level fugitive emissions from process streamsand discharges or leaks from waste disposal oper-ations probably are inevitable, regulatory require-ments on the stringency of mitigation measureswill depend on our knowledge of the effects oflow-level chronic exposures to the chemical com-ponents of these effluents. Aside from the prob-lems of monitoring for the actual presence of pol-lution, problems may arise both from the longlag times associated with some critical potentialdamages (e.g., 5 to 10 years for some skin can-cers, longer for many soft-tissue cancers) andfrom the complex mixture of pollutants thatwould be present in any emission.

Transport and Use

As synthetic liquids are distributed and usedthroughout the economy, careful control of expo-sure to hazardous constituents becomes less andless feasible. This is especially true for liquid fuelsbecause of the multitude of small users and thegeneral lack of careful handling that is endemicto the petroleum distribution system. Conse-quently, the toxicity of synfuels final productsmay be critical to the environmental acceptabilityof the entire synfuel “fuel cycle.”

The pathways of exposure to hazardous sub-stances associated with synfuels distribution anduse include accidental spills and fugitive emis-

sions from pipelines, trucks, and other transportmodes and storage tanks; skin contact and fumeinhalation by motorists and distributors; and pub-lic worker exposure to waste products associatedwith combustion (including direct emissions andcollected wastes from control systems).

Evaluation of the relative danger of these expo-sure pathways and comparisons of synfuels totheir petroleum analogs are extremely difficult atthis time. Most environmental and health effectsdata on synfuels apply to process intermediates–“syncrudes”- rather than finished fuels. Combus-tion tests have generally been limited to fuel oilsin boilers rather than gasolines in automobiles. ’gThe tests that have been conducted focus moreon general combustion characteristics than onemissions, and those emission characterizationsthat have been done measure mainly particulateand SOX and NOX rather than the more danger-ous organics.80 Adding to the difficulty of deter-mining the relative dangers of synfuels use is aseries of surprising gaps in health effects data onanalogous petroleum products. Apparently, manyof these widely distributed products are assumedto be benign, and monitoring of their effects hasbeen limited.81

Table 79 presents a summary of the known dif-ferences in chemical, combustion, and health ef-fects characteristics of various synfuels productsand their petroleum analogs. The major charac-teristics of coal-derived liquid fuels are:

● The major concern about synthetic fuelsproducts is their potential to cause cancer,mutations, or birth defects in exposed per-sons or wildlife. (Petroleum-based productsalso are hazardous, but usually to a lesserextent than their synfuels counterparts.)82 Ingeneral, the heavier (high boiling point) liq-uids—especially heavy fuel oils—are the mostdangerous, whereas most of the lighter prod-ucts are expected to be relatively free ofthese effects. This distribution of effects maybe considered fortunate because the lighter

T9M. Ghassemi and R. Iyer, Environmental Aspects of SYnfue/

Utilization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report EPA-600/7-81-025, March 1981.

~lbid.81 Ibid.

Szlbid.

Ch. IO—Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts • 265

Table 79.—Reported Known Differences in Chemical, Combustion, and Health EffectsCharacteristics of Synfuels Products and Their Petroleum Analogs

Product Chemical characteristics Combustion characteristics Health effects characteristics

Shale 011Crude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher aromatics, FBN, As, Higher emissions of NO x

particulate and (possibly)certain trace elements

Slightly higher NO X andsmoke emissions

Slightly higher NO x andsmoke emissions

More mutagenic, tumorigenic,cytotoxicHg, Mn

Higher aromatics

Higher aromatics

Higher aromatics

Higher aromatics

Higher aromaticsnitrogen

Higher aromaticsnitrogen

and

and

Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jet fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eye/skin irritation, skinsensitization same as forpetroleum fuel

Eye/skin irritation, skinsensitization same as forpetroleum fuel

—

Slightly higher NO x andsmoke emissions

DFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Residuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Direct IiquefactionSyncrude (H-Coal, SRC ll,

EDS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SRC II fuel oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher NO X emissions Middle distillates:nonmutagenic; cytotoxicitysimilar to but toxicitygreater than No. 2 dieselfuel; burns skin.

Heavy distillate: considerableskin carcinogenicity,cytotoxicity, mutagenicity,and cell transformation

Severely hydrotreated:nonmutagenic,nontumorigenic; lowcytotoxicity

—Nonmutagenic, extremely low

tumorigenicity cytotoxicityand fetotoxicity

Non mutagenic

H-Coal fuel oil . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher nitrogen content Higher NO X emissions

EDS fuel oil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SRC II naphtha. . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher NO X emissions—Higher nitrogen, aromatics

H-Coal naphtha. . . . . . . . . . . .EDS naphtha. . . . . . . . . . . . . .SRC II gasoline . . . . . . . . . . .H-Coal gasoline . . . . . . . . . . .EDS gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indirect liquefact/onFT gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FT byproduct chemical . . . . .Mobil-M gasoline. . . . . . . . . .

Higher nitrogen, aromaticsHigher nitrogen, aromaticsHigher aromaticsHigher aromaticsHigher aromatics

Lower aromatics; N and S nil—

(Gross characteristics similarto petroleum gasoline)

—

Noncarcinogenic—N/A

Methanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GasificationSNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher aldehyde emissions Affects optic nerve

Traces of metal carbonylsand higher CO

(Composition varies withcoal type and gasifier

design/operation)

Low/medium-Btu gas. . . . . . . (Emissions of a wide rangeof trace and minorelements and heterocyclicorganics)

—

Nonmutagenic, moderatelycytotoxic

Gasifier tars, oils, phenols . . (Composition varies withcoal and gasifier types;highly aromatic materials).

SOURCE: M. Ghasseml and R. Iyer, Environmental Aspects of Synfuel Utilization, EPA-600/7-81-025, March 1981.


●

●

products–such as gasoline–are more like-ly to be widely distributed.Products from direct liquefaction processesappear more likely to be cancer hazards thando indirect process products, because of thehigher levels of dangerous organic com-pounds produced in the direct processes.Coal-derived methanol fuel appears to besimilar to the methanol currently being us-ed, although there are potentials for con-tamination that must be carefully examined.Methanol is rated as a “moderate hazard”(“may involve both irreversible and revers-ible changes not severe enough to causedeath or permanent injury’’ )83 under chronic–long-term, low-level–exposure, althoughthe effects of multi-year exposures to verylow levels (as might occur to the public withwidespread use as a fuel) are not known.Methanol has been assigned a hazard ratingfor acute exposures similar to that forgasoline,84 but no comparison can be made

BJN. 1. sax, Dangerous properties of Industrial Materials, Fourth

Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1975.BJlbid,

●

for chronic exposures because data forgasoline exposure is inadequate.85 86 Inautomobiles, methanol use increases emis-sions of formaldehyde sufficiently to causeconcern, but lowers emissions of nitrogenoxides and polynuclear aromatics.87 De-pending on the potential health effects of lowlevels of formaldehyde, which are not nowsufficiently understood, and the emissioncontrols on automobiles, methanol use inautomobiles conceivably may provide a sig-nificant net pollution benefit to areas suffer-ing from auto-related air pollution problems.Many of the dangerous organics that are thesource of carcinogenic/mutagenic/teratogen-ic properties in synfuels should be control-lable by appropriate hydrotreating. Tradeoffsbetween environmental/health concerns andhydrotreating cost, energy consumption, andeffects on other product characteristics cur-rently are not known.

OIL SHALE

OaAn Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies, Op. Cit.

851 bid,

BsGhassemi and Iyer, Op. Cit.87Energy From Biological processes, OP. cit.

Production and use of synthetic oil from shaleraises many of the same concerns about limitedwater resources, toxic waste streams and massivepopulation impacts as coal-derived liquid fuels,but there are sufficient differences to demandseparate analysis and discussion, OTA has recent-ly published an extensive evaluation of oil shale;88

the discussion here primarily summarizes the keyenvironmental findings of that study.

U.S. deposits of high-quality oil shale (greaterthan 25 gal of oil yield per ton) generally are con-centrated in the Green River formation in north-western Colorado (Piceance Basin) and northeast-ern Utah (Uinta Basin), The geographic concen-tration of these economically viable reserves toan arid, sparsely populated area with complexterrain and relatively pristine air quality, and theimpossibility of transporting the shale (because

of its extremely low energy density) lead to apotential concentration of impacts that is (at leastin theory) easier to avoid with coal-derived syn-fuels. Thus, compliance with prevention of signifi-cant deterioration regulations for SO2 and particu-Iates may constrain total oil shale developmentto a million barrels per day or less unless currentstandards are changed or better control technol-ogies are developed.

Also, the lack of existing socioeconomic infra-structure implies that environmental impacts as-sociated with general development pressurescould be significant without massive mitigationprograms. Although coal development sharesthese concerns (especially in the West) and haswater and labor requirements as well as air emis-sions that are not dissimilar on a per-plant basis,it is unlikely to be necessary to concentrate coaldevelopment to the same extent as with oil shale.Thus, coal development should have fewer se-


vere physical limitations on its total level of devel-opment.

The geographic concentration of oil shale de-velopment should not automatically be inter-preted as environmentally inferior to a more dis-persed pattern of development, however. Al-though impacts will certainly be more severe inthe developed areas as a resuIt of this concentra-tion, these impacts must be balanced against thesmaller area affected, the resulting pressure onthe developers to improve environmental con-trols to allow higher levels of development, andthe possibility of being able to focus a major mon-itoring and enforcement effort on this develop-ment. Also, the major oil shale areas generallyare not near large population centers, whereasseveral proposed coal conversion plants are with-in a few miles of such centers and may conse-quently pose higher risks to the public.

The volume of the material processed and dis-carded by an oiI shale plant is a significant fac-tor in comparing oil shale with coal-derived fuels.A 50,000 bbl/d oil shale plant using abovegroundretorting (AGR) requires about 30 million tons peryear of raw shale* versus about 6 million to 18million tons of coal (the higher values apply onlyto low-quality Iignites converted in a relativelyinefficient process) for a similarly sized coal lique-faction plant. A modified in-situ (MIS) plant re-quires about the same tonnage of feedstock asdoes the coal plant, Consequently, although theunderground mining of shale thus far has had amuch better worker safety record than coal min-ing, underground mining of coal may be saferthan shale mining for an AGR plant on a “fueloutput” basis, especially when full-scale shalemining begins. Mining for an MIS plant, on theother hand, will be safer than that for the coalplant unless previous shale experience proves tobe misleading.

The very large amount of spent shale representsa difficult disposal problem. An AGR plant mustdispose of about 27 million tons/yr of spent shale,at least five times as much solid waste as that pro-duced by a similarly sized coal synfuels plant (MISplants may dispose of about 6 million tons/yr ofspent shale, one to three times the disposal re-

assuming 25 gal of oil per ton of shale.

quirements of a coal plant). At this rate, a 1MMB/D industry using AGRs will have to disposeof approximately 10 billion cubic feet of com-pacted shale each year.

This material cannot be fully returned to themines because it has expanded during process-ing, and it is a difficuIt material to stabilize andsecure from leaching dangerous compounds—cadmium, arsenic, and lead, as well as organicsfrom some retorts (for example TOSCO II andParajo Indirect)—into surface and ground waters.It also may cause a serious fugitive dust problem,especially with processes like TOSCO II that pro-duce a very fine waste. Even with secure disposal,it will fill scenic canyons and represents an esthet-ic and ecosystem loss. Current research on smallplots indicates that short-term (a few decades)stability of spent shale piles appears likely if suf-ficient topsoil is applied, but the long-term stabil-ity and the self-sustaining character of the vegeta-tion is unknown. For these reasons, solid wastedisposal may be oil shale’s major environmentalconcern.

As with coal liquefaction processes, the “reduc-ing environment” in the retorts produces bothreduced sulfur compounds and dangerous organ-ics that represent a potential occupational hazardfor workers from fugitive emissions and fuel han-dling. Crude shale oil appears to be more muta-genic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic than naturalcrude.

On the other hand, the refined products areless likely to be significantly different in effectfrom their counterparts produced from naturalcrude, and shale syncrude is less carcinogenicor mutagenic than syncrudes from direct coalliquefaction. Although comparisons of relativerisk must necessarily be tentative at this earlystage of development, it appears that the risksfrom these toxic substances–excluding problemswith spent shale—probably are somewhat com-parable to those of the cleanest coal-based lique-faction processes (indirect liquefaction with high-temperature gasifies).

Other oil shale environmental effects of partic-ular concern include:

● The mining of oil shale generates largeamounts of silica dust that is implicated invarious disabling lung diseases in miners.


● Aside from the reduced sulfur compoundsand organics, the crude shale oil contains rel-atively high levels of arsenic, and somewhathigher levels of fuel bound nitrogen thanmost natural crude does. These pollutantsas well as the organics can be reduced in therefining operation.

● In-situ production leaves large quantities ofspent shale underground and thus createsa substantial potential for leaching out tox-ic materials into valuable aquifers. Controlof such leaching has not been demonstrated.

● Although oil shale developers are proposingto use zero discharge of point-source watereffluents, it may be desirable in the futureto treat water and discharge it. The state ofwater pollution control in oil shale develop-ment is essentially the same as in coal-de-rived synfuels, however. Many of the con-trols proposed have not been tested with ac-tual oil shale wastewaters, and none havebeen tested in complete wastewater controlsystems.

BIOMASS

Production of liquid fuels from biomass willhave substantially different impacts from thoseof coal liquefaction and oil shale production.These are described in detail in OTA’s EnergyFrom Biological Processes 89 and summarizedbriefly here.

The liquid fuel that appears to have the mostpotential for large-scale production is methanolproduced from wood, perennial grasses and leg-umes, and crop residues. Ethanol from grains hasbeen vigorously promoted in the United States,but appears likely to be limited by problems offood/fuel competition to moderate productionlevels (a few billion gallons per year).

Obtaining the Resource

Environmental concerns associated with alco-hol fuel production focus on feedstock acquisi-tion to a greater extent than with coal liquefac-

agEnergy From Biological processes, OP. cit.

MIS production —whereby a moderateamount of mining is done to provide spacewith which to blast the shale into rubble andthen retort it underground—may present aspecial occupational hazard to workers fromexplosions, fire, and toxic gases as well asa potential danger to the public if toxic fumesescape from the mine to the surface.

To summarize, the environmental concerns ofoil shale production appear to be quite similarto those of coal-based synfuels production, butwith two important differences. First, the geo-graphic concentration of oil shale production willtend to concentrate and intensify its environmen-tal and socioeconomic impacts to a greater ex-tent than is likely to be experienced by coal de-velopment. Second, the problems of disposingof the huge quantities of spent shale associatedwith the AGR system appear to be substantiallygreater than those of coal wastes.

FUELS

tion. All of the credible alcohol fuel cycles requirevarious degrees of ecological alteration, replace-ment, or disruption on vast land areas. Takinginto account the expenditure of premium fuelsneeded to obtain and convert the biomass intousable fuels, replacing about 10 billion gal/yr ofgasoline with biomass substitutes would requireadding intensive cropping to a minimum of about25 million acres with a combination of sugar/starch crops (for ethanol) and grasses (for metha-nol).

If this savings were attempted strictly by the useof ethanol made from corn, the land requirementprobably would be at least 40 million acres. Ifmethanol from wood were the major source,much of the gasoline displacement theoreticallycould be obtained by collecting the logging resi-dues that are now left in the forest or burned.To replace 10 billion gal over and above theamount available from residues would involve in-creasing the scale and intensity of management(more acreage under intensive management,

Ch. 10—Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts . 269

shorter times between thinnings, more completeremoval of biomass, more conversion of low-quality stands) on upwards of so million acres ofcommercial forest. It might involve an increasedharvest of forestland with lower productive po-tential—so-called “marginal Iands’’—and it willalmost certainly mean that lands not now sub-ject to logging will be logged. Despite these diffi-culties, however, wood is the most likely sourceof large-scale biomass production.

If handled with care, a “wood-for-methanol”strategy could have a number of benefits. Theseinclude upgrading of poorly managed forests, bet-ter forest fire and pest control through slashremoval, and reduced pressure on the few re-maining unprotected stands of scenic, old-growthtimber because of the added yields of high-qualitytimber that are expected in the long run from in-creased management.

Nevertheless, there is substantial potential fordamage to the forests if they are mismanaged.High rates of biomass removal coupled with shortrotations could cause a depletion of nutrients andorganic matter from the more vulnerable forestsoils. The impacts of poor logging practices—ero-sion, degraded water quality, esthetic damage,and damage to valuable ecosystems—may be ag-gravated by the lessening of recovery time (be-cause of the shorter rotations) and any lingeringeffects of soil depletion on the forests’ ability torebound. The intensified management may fur-ther degrade ecological values if it incorporateswidespread use of mechanical and chemicalbrush controls, very large area clearcuts and elim-ination of “undesirable” tree species, and if itneglects to spare large pockets of forest to main-tain diversity.

Finally, the incentive to “mine” wood frommarginal lands with nutrient deficiencies, thinsoils, and poor climatic conditions risks the de-struction of forests that, although “poor” fromthe standpoint of commercial productivity, arerich in esthetic, recreational, and ecological val-ues. Because the economic and regulatory incen-tives for good management are powerful in somecircumstances but weak in others, a strong in-crease in wood energy use is likely to yield a verymixed pattern of benefits and damages unless theexisting incentives are strengthened.

The potential effects of obtaining other feed-stocks for methanol or ethanol production mayalso be significant. Obtaining crop residues, forexample, must be handled with extreme care toavoid removing those residues that are critical tosoil erosion protection. Large-scale productionof corn or other grains for ethanol is likely to oc-cur on land that is, on the average, 20 percentmore erosive than present cropland. Aside fromcreating substantial increases in erosion, cornproduction will require large amounts of agricul-tural chemicals, which along with sediment fromerosion can pollute the water, and will displacepresent ecosystems.

Equivalent production levels of perennialgrasses and legumes, on the other hand, couldbe relatively benign because of these crops’ resist-ance to erosion as well as their potential to beobtained by improving the productivity of pres-ent grasslands rather than displacing other ecosys-tems. Although large quantities of agriculturalchemicals would be used, the potential for dam-age will be reduced by the low levels of runofffrom grasslands.

Conversion

Production of alcohol fuels will pose a varietyof air and water pollution problems. Methanolsynthesis plants, for example, are small indirectliquefaction plants that may have problems simi-lar to those of coal plants discussed previously.The gasification process will generate a varietyof toxic compounds including hydrogen sulfideand cyanide, carbonyl sulfide, a multitude of oxy-genated organic compounds (organic acids, alde-hydes, ketones, etc.), phenols, and particulatematter. As with coal plants, raw gas leakage orimproper handling of tars and oils would posea significant hazard to plant personnel, and goodplant housekeeping will be essential. Because oflow levels of sulfur and other pollutants in bio-mass, however, these problems may be some-what less severe than in an equivalent-size coalplant.

Ethanol distilleries use substantial amounts offuel–and therefore can create air pollution prob-lems. An efficient 50-million-gal/yr distillery willconsume slightly more fuel than a 30-Mw power-


plant. There are no Federal emissions standardsfor these plants, and the prevailing local standardsmay be weak in some cases, especially for smallonfarm operations.

The plants also produce large amounts ofsludge wastes, called stillage, that are high in bio-logical and chemical oxygen demand and mustbe kept out of surface waters. Although the still-

age from grains is a valuable animal feed productand will presumably be recovered without theneed for any further incentives, the stillage fromsugar crops is less valuable and will require strictregulation to avoid damage to aquatic ecosys-tems, EPA has had a history of pollution controlproblems with rum and other distilleries, and eth-anol plants will be similar to these.

Ch. 10—Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts . 271

APPENDIX 10A.– DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF WASTE STREAMS,RESIDUALS OF CONCERN, AND PROPOSED CONTROL SYSTEMS

FOR GENERIC INDIRECT AND DIRECT COAL LIQUEFACTION SYSTEMS

Table 10A-1 .-Gaseous Emissions and Controls (indirect liquefaction)

Stream componentsGaseous stream Source of concern Controls Comments

Fugitive emissionsVent gases

Coal-lockhoppervent gas

Ash-lockhoppervent gas

Concentratedacid gas

Off-gases fromcatalystregeneration

Evaporativeemissionsfrom storedproducts

Auxillary plantFlue gases

Coal gasification Carbon monoxide,hydrogen sulfide, tars,oils, naphtha, cyanide,carbon disulfide

Coal gasification Particulate, trace elements

Gas purification Hydrogen sulfide, carbonylsulfide, carbon disulfide,hydrogen cyanide, carbonmonoxide, carbon dioxide,light hydrocarbons,mercaptans

Catalytic synthesis Nickel and other metalcarbonyls, carbonmonoxide, sulfurcompounds, organics

Product storage Aromatic hydrocarbons,C 5- C12 aliphatichydrocarbons, ammonia

emissions

Cooling-tower driftand evaporation

Treated wastegases

Power/steam Sulfur and nitrogen oxides,generation particulate trace

elements, coal fines

Power/steam Ammonia, sodium, calcium,generation, sulfides/sulfates,process cooling chlorine, phenols,

fluorine, trace elements,water treatmentchemicals

Gaseous emission Hydrogen sulfide, carbonylcontrols (e.g., sulfide, carbon disulfide,sulfur recovery hydrogen cyanide, carbon

monoxide, carbon dioxide,light hydrocarbons

Compression and recycleof pressurization gas,incineration of waste gas

Scrubber

Stretford or ADIP/Clausprocesses followed by asulfur recovery tail gasprocess, e.g., Beavon,and incineration of theBeavon off-gas in a boiler

Incineration in a flare,incinerator, or controlledcombustion

Vapor recovery systems,use of floating roofstorage tanks,conservation vents.Incinerate

Electrostatic precipitators,fabric filters, flue-gasdesulfurization systems,combustion modification

Proper design and sitingcan mitigate impacts

Essentially the same as forthe concentrated acid gas

The need for and the effectiveness ofincineration/particulate control havenot been defined

The acid gases will be concentrated bythe gas purification process. Thecontrol choice is dependent on thesulfur content of the gases; acombination of Stretford and ADIP/Claus may have the lowest overallcosts.

Other control technology requirementsnot established

Control technologies used in petroleumrefinery and other industries should beapplicable to Lurgi plants; standardspromulgated for the petroleum refiningindustry would probably be extendedto cover the synthetic fuel industry.

Controls applicable to utility andindustrial boilers would generally beapplicable. Established emissionsregulations would cover boilers atLurgi plants

Recycled process water is used forcooling-tower makeup. If cooling-towerdrift becomes a problem then therecycled water will receive additionaltreatment or makeup water will comefrom another source.

—

SOURCE’ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Technologies and the Environment, Environmenfa/ Information Handbook, DOEIEVI74O1O-1, December 1980

272 ● Increased Automobile Fuel Efficiency and Synthetic Fuels: Alternatives for Reducing Oil /reports

Table 10A-2.—Liquid Waste Stream Sources, Components, and Controls (indirect liquefaction)

Liquid waste Stream componentsstream Source of concern Controls CommentsAsh quench water Gasification Dissolved and suspended Gravity settling of solids: the See table 10A-3

Gas Iiquor

Boiler blowdown

Spent reagentsand sorbents

Acid wastewater

Leachates

Treated aqueouswastes

solids, trace elements, overflow from the settlingsulfides, thiocyanate, basin is recycled back toammonia, dissolved organics, the ash quenching operationphenols, cyanides

Gas purification Sulfides, thiocyanate, ammonia, Lurgi tar/oil separatorcyanides, mono- andpolycyclic organics, tracemetals, mercaptans

Phenosolvan process

Phosam W or Chemi-Linz

Power/steam Dissolved and suspendedgeneration solids

Gaseous emission Sulfides, sulfates, tracecontrols, wastewater elements, dissolved andtreatment suspended solids, ammonia,

phenols, tar oils, hydrogensulfide, carbon dioxide

Product separation Dissolved organics,and purification thiocyanate, trace elements

Gasifier ash, boiler Trace elements, organicsash, FGD sludge,biosludge, spentcatalysts

Wastewater treatment Dissolved and suspendedsolids, trace elements

Bio-oxidation and reverseosmosis

Use as cooling-tower makeupor as ash quench watermakeup

Recovery of reagents from airpollution control processes,addition to ash quenchslurry

Oxidation, use as cooling-toweror quench water makeupLandfill should have

impervious clay liner and aIeachate collection system.If buried in the mine, themine should be dry and ofimpervious rock or clay.

Streams, for final dispositionof ash solids. Capabilities oftechnology in terms ofclarified ash slurry water notknown

Capabilities of tar/oilseparation, Phenosolvan,and ammonia recovery wellestablished in terms ofremoval of major constituents.Capabilities for removal ofminor constituents notestablished. Limited costdata available on processes.

Removes dissolved phenolsfrom water

Removes dissolved ammonia,produces saleable anhydrousammonia.

Removes dissolved organicsand inorganic.

Impacts on the quench systemand subsequent treatmentof clarified water notestablished.

Applicable controls (e.g.,resource recovery disposalin lined pond, dissolvedsolids removal, etc. arewaste- and site-specific; costand performance data shouldbe developed on a case-by-case basis.

—

—

Forced or natural evaporation The effectiveness and costs ofvarious applicable controls(e.g., solar or forcedevaporation, physical-chemical treatment for waterreuse, etc.) not determined.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Technologies and the Environment, Emdronrnental Information Handbook, DCN2EVI7401O-1, December 1980.

Ch. IO—Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts . 273

Table 10A-3.—Solid Waste Stream Sources, Components, and Controls (Indirect liquefaction)

Stream componentsSolid waste stream Source of major concern Controls Comments

Ash or slag Gasification

Scrubber sludge Power/steamgeneration

Boiler ash Power/steamgeneration

Sludge Waste treatment

Spent catalysts Gas shiftconversion,catalytic

Trace elements, sulfides,thiocyanate, ammonia,organics, phenols,cyanides, minerals

Calcium sulfate, calciumsulfite, trace metals,limestone, alkali metalcarbonates/sulfates

Trace elements, minerals

Trace elements,polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons

Metalic compounds,organics, sulfurcompounds

synthesis, sulfurrecovery(gaseousemission centrol)

Tarry and oily sludges Product/byproduct Mono- and polycyclic

Combined with boilerash and flue gasdesulfurization sludgeand disposed of in alined landfill or pond,or buried in the mine

Disposed of with thegasifier ash

Disposed of with thegasifier ash

Combined with gasifierash, boiler ash andflue gas desulfurizationsludge and disposedof in a lined landfiii orburied in the mine.May also be incinerated

Process for materialrecovery, or fixation/encapsulation anddisposal in landiil ormine

injection into the gasifier,separation aromatic hydrocarbons, disposal in a secure

trace elements landfiil, return to themine for burial,incineration

Ash is more than 90percent of the solidwastes generated at aLurgi plant. The choiceand design of disposalsystem depend on theash content of coaland plant/mine sitecharacteristics.

—

Because of lack of dataon waste quantitiesand characteristics,optimum control(s)cannot be established.

The technical andeconomic feasibility ofresource recovery havenot been established

Because of lack of dataon waste quantitiesand characteristics,optimum control(s)cannot be established

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Technologies and the Env)ronrnent, Environmental Information Handbook, DOI3EVI74O1O1, December 19S0.


Table 10A-4.—Gaseous Streams, Components, and Controls (direct liquefaction)

Operation/auxiliary process Air emissions discharged Components of concern Control methods

Coal storage and pretreatment

Liquefaction

Separation:Gas separation

Solids/liquids separation

Purif ication and upgrading:Fract ionat ion

Hydrotreating

Water cooling

Steam and power generation

Hydrogen generation

Acid gas removal

Sulfur recovery

Hydrogen/hydrocarbon recoveryProduct/byproduct storage

Coal dust

Particulate-laden fluefrom coal dryers

Preheater flue gas

gas

Pressure letdown releases


Preheater flue gas

Particulate-laden vaporsfrom residue cooling(SRC-ll)


Preheater flue gas

Particulate-laden vaporsfrom product cooling(SRC-l)


Preheater flue gas


Drift and evaporation

Boiler flue gas

Preheater f lue gas


Flue gas

Low-sulfur effluent gas b

Pressure letdown releasesSRC dust (SRC-l)Sulfur dustHydrocarbon vapors

Respirable dust, particulate, trace Spray storage piles with water orelements

Respirable dust, particulate, tracemetals, sulfur and nitrogen oxides

Particulate, sulfur and nitrogenoxides

Hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide,hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, PAH,hydrogen, phenols, cresylics

Same as for liquefaction letdownreleases

Same as the liquefaction preheater

Particulate, hydrocarbons, traceelements


Same as for liquefaction preheater

Same as for SRCll residue cooling




Ammonia, sodium, calciumsulfides/sulfates, chlorine, phenols,fluorine, trace elements, watertreatment chemicals

Sulfur and nitrogen oxides,particulate


Hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide,carbon oxides, light hydrocarbons


Hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide,sulfur dioxide

Hydrogen, hydrocarbonsRespirable dust, particulateElemental sulfurPhenols, cresylics, hydrocarbons,

PAH

polymer. cyclones and baghousefilters for control of dust due tocoal sizing.

Cyclones and baghouse filters. Wetscrubbers such as venturi.

If other than clean gas, scrub forsulfur, nitrogen, and particulatecomponents.

Flaring a

Flaring a


Cyclone and baghouse filter. Wetscrubbers.

Flaring a


Cyclone and baghouse filter. Wetscrubbers

Flaring a

If other than clean gas, scrub forsulfur, nitrogen and particulatecomponents.

Flaringa

No controls available—good designof water management system canminimize losses.

Sulfur dioxide scrubbing, combustionmodifications.


Flaringa


Carbon absorption. Direct-flameincineration. Secondary sulfurrecovery (Beavon).

Direct-fired afterburnerSpray storage piles with water.Store in enclosed area.Spills/leaks prevention.

%ollection, recovery of useful products and incineration may be more appropriate.bA seconda~ sulfur recovev process may be necessary to meet specified air emission standards.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Technologies and the Environment, Environmental Information Handbook, DOE/EV174010-1, December 1980.

Ch. IO—Environment, Health, and Safety Effects and Impacts ● 275

Table 10A-5.—Liquid Stream Sources, Components, and Controls (direct liquefaction)

Operation/auxiliary process Wake effluents discharged Components of concern Control methods

Coal pretreatment Coal pile runoff Particulate, trace metals Route to sedimentation pond.Thickener underflow Same as above Route to sedimentation pond.

Water cooling Cooling tower blowdown Dissolved and suspended solids Sidestream treatment(electrodialysis, ion exchangeor reverse osmosis) permitsdischarge to receiving waters.

Hydrogen generation Process wastewater Sour and foul wastewater; Route to wastewater treatmentspent amine scrubbing facility.solution

Acid gas removal Process wastewater Dissolved hydrogen sulfides, Route to wastewater treatmenthydrogen cyanide, phenols, facility.cresylics

Ammonia recovery Process wastewater Dissolved ammonia Route to wastewater treatmentfacility.

Phenol recovery Process wastewater Dissolved phenols, cresylics Route to wastewater treatmentfacility.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Technologies and the Environment, Environmental Information Handbook, DOEiEV174010-1, December 1980.

Table 10A.6.—Soiid Waste Sources, Components, and Controls (direct liquefaction)

Operation/auxiliary process Solid waste discharged Components of concern Control methods

Coal pretreatment RefuseSolids/liquids separation Excess residue

or filter cake

Hydrotreating Spent catalyst

Steam and power generation AshHydrogen generation Ash or slag

Mineral matter, trace elements(SRC-ll) Mineral matter, trace elements,(SRC-l) absorbed heavy hydrocarbons

Metallic compounds, absorbedheavy organics, sulfurcompounds

Trace elements, mineral matterTrace elements, sulfides,

ammonia, organics, phenols,mineral matter

Landfill, minefillGasification to recover energy

content followed by disposal(landfill or minefill

Return to manufacturer forregeneration

Landfill, minefillLandfill, minefill

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Technologies and the Errvironment, Environmental Information Handbook, DOEIEVI74O1O-1, December 1980