developers has been the proposed classification of
Piceance Creek as a cold water fishery. This designa-
tion would impose extremely stringent limits on any
potential discharges.

Several other regulatory policy/procedure issues are
addressed in the EPA “Perspectives’’ document
which will be discussed later. These include (1) PSD
increment consumption, (2) NAAQS policies, (3) air
modelling responsibilities, (4) future Wilderness
areas, (5) PSD monitoring, (6) permit bases — BACT,
BMP, and costs, (7) permit lifetimes, (8) consolidated
hearings, (9) completed application requirements,
(10) permit enforcement procedures, (11) regulation
certainty, (12) stream classifications, (13) salinity,
(14) TSCA, and (15) program delegations.

Research Program

EPA's Office of Research and Development has been
reorganized and divided into the Office of Monitoring
and Technical Support, Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology, Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research, and the Office of
Health Research. All of these offices are actively
involved in oil shale research with a collective budget
of approximately $5 million in fiscal 1980.

Within EPA, several separate laboratories conduct or
contract for oil shale-related environmental studies.
The Office of Environmental Processes and Effects
acts as coordinator for the Interagency Program. The
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
(OEET) has contract work in the area of overall
assessments and control technology. The Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory in Cincinnati
(IERL-Ci) funds and manages research on overail
assessments, extraction and handling, processing
and management and control of all pollutants.
Research laboratories in Ada, Oklahoma; Athens,
Georgia; Duluth, Minnesota; Las Vegas, Nevada; and
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina conduct
research studies in the processes and effects area.
Shale oil product (end use) studies are managed and
funded by both the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park (IERL-
RTP) and Ann Arbor (Michigan) Emission Control
Technology Division (ECTD) of the Office of Air, Noise
and Radiation.

Specific objéctives of the EPA Oil Shale Program are
two-fold: first, the program is to support the regula-
tory goals of the Agency: second, the research is to be
directed towards ensuring that any oil shale industry
to be developed will be accomplished in the most
environmentally acceptable manner. To these ends,
EPA is continuing to assess the research needs and
environmental concerns expressed by the Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE) and the oil shale industry.

A budget breakdown and description of specific
individual research projects is present in “Program
Status Report - Oil Shale - 1980 Update” (EPA-600/
7-80-069). Therefore, a detailed discussion on
ongoing research activities will be omitted in this
paper.

The types of research projects include long-term
revegetation success of processed shale, raw and
processed shale leaching experiments, residuals
characterization at the Geokinetics project, charac-
terization and treatability studies of praduced mine
and retort water, characterization of the mineral
composition of in situ spent shale, assessment of
appropriately reduced sulfur controls, characteriza-
tion and treatability studies of retort offgas, visibility
studies, development of groundwater monitoring
strategies, development of appropriate surface water
chemical and biological methods, and development of
monitoring guidance.

Two key outputs of the research program involve the
publication of oil shale guidance documents.

In the Fall of 1978, the Office of Research and
Development of the Environmental Protection
Agency began efforts to provide reference documents
and guidance to EPA offices, federal and state
-agencies, industry and the public, or environmental
issues related to oil shale. These documents are
intended to assure that the development of a mature
oil shale industry is not delayed by uncertainties
while assuring that the industry develops in a manner
which is compatible with national environmental
goals.

The major thrust and accomplishments over the past
year have included: the development of the document
“Environmental Perspective on the Emerging Oil
Shale Industry” which presents general information
relevant to oil shale pollution problems and their
control as they are viewed today; and the initiation of
work on a pollution control technology guidance
document which will discuss the applicability, per-
formance and costs of pollution control alternatives
available for the oil shale industry.

The first document became available in draft form in
the Summer of 1979 under the title ‘Pollution
Control Guidance for Oil Shale Development -
Revised Draft Report.” Following extensive review by
EPA, other government agencies, the oil shale indus-
try, and the environmental community, numerous
changes were made including the title. This docu-
ment now entitled “Environmental Perspective on
the Emerging Oil Shale Industry” is undergoing final
review with public release expected in February 1981
(EPA-600/2-80-205a). This report, prepared by the
EPA Oil Shale Research Group, will convey EPA's

5


TABLE 5. EPA MODELLING RESULTS - 1980

Assumptions
@ Box Model - 40 km wide, variable height
400,000 BPD
® “Colony type” emissions
@ No chemical transformation or deposition
@ No dispersion out of box
@ Homogeneous mixing

Results, 24-hour concentrations

Meteorological Case

Mixing Height and TSP, SO2,
Wind Speed g/m? g/m?
2500 m, 6 m/sec 0.4 ug/m*> 0.5 wg/m?
1000 m, 5 m/sec 1.3 1.6

500 m, 5 m/sec 2.6 3.2

500 m, 3 m/sec 4.4 5.4

400 m, 4 m/sec 4.1 5.0

Notes

Mean annual meteorological conditions

a.m. mixing height 400 m
p.m. mixing height 2500 m
a.m. wind speed 4 m/sec
p.m. wind speed 6 m/sec

TABLE 6. PSD PERMIT EMISSION RATES

Pounds Per Barrel

of Oil
Pollutant Colony Union C-b C-a
SO2. 0.164 0.237 0.160 0.668
NOx 0.903 0.291 - _
HC 0.158 0.125 _ -
PM 0.134 0.102 _ _
co 0.036 0.172 = _>

shale developers considered rushing in to get their
share of the increment, this has not occurred. EPA
has recognized that a Regional Complex Terrain
Model applicable for oil shale country must be
developed. A ‘planning accuracy” model will be
developed by Summer 1980. Also, the design of a
two-year field data gathering effort followed by model
development or refinement has been initiated. The
goal is to have a useable Regional model for use in
permitting decisions by 1982. Joint funding between
government and industry is being sought.

The review of PSD permit applications is establishing
a better emissions data base than previously avail-
able. To date, PSD permits have been issued for five
oil shale projects. Table 6 shows permitted emissions
rates on a per barrel of oil produced for four of the
permits. The fifth permit was for a research-type
operation. Given the concern over consumption of the
PSD increments, the conclusion was that these
permitted limits should provide an upper benchmark
for future applications. In order to provide a compari-
son between a Synfuels facility and a conventional
fossil fuel plant, Table 7, compares the Colony
emissions rate to a conventional 1000 MWe coal-
fired power plant meeting New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS). These facilities are comparable on
an energy basis of coal input and oil output.

Underground injection control regulations were
promulgated May 19 and June 24, 1980. /n situ oil
shale facilities are treated as Class Ill wells. This
classification requires proper disposal and monitor-
ing requirements. Wells must be properly cased,
injection fluids characterized, and groundwater
quality monitored.

The salinity litigation involving EPA and EDF was
ruled in favor of EPA in Fall 1979. Thus, the Colorado
River Basin Forum plan and standards at three loca-
tions on the Colorado remain intact. Colorado is
reviewing all of their water quality standards and
stream classifications. Of special interest to oil shale

TABLE 7. OIL SHALE vs. POWER PLANT

COMPARISON
Tons per Year
50,000 BPD 1000 MWe
Pollutant Colony Power Plant
SO2 1239 13,790
PM 1008 1,062
NOx 6817 17,714



understanding and perspective of environmental
aspects of oil shale development by providing a sum-
mation of available information on oil shale
resources; a summary of major air, water, solid
waste, health, and other environmental impacts; an
analysis of potentially applicable pollution control
technology; a guide for the sampling, analysis, and
monitoring of emissions, effluents, and solid wastes
from oil shale processes; suggestions for environ-
mental goals, and a summary of major retorting
processes, emissions and effluents.

EPA is now preparing a second document, “Pollution
Control Guidance for Oil Shale,” with the first draft
expected by the end of calendar year 1980. This
document is being prepared by the EPA Oil Shale
Work Group under direction provided by the Office of
Environmental Engineering and Technology and the
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati.

This document will present a critical and detailed
analysis of pollution control alternatives for a
commercial oil shale industry. The document will
contain extensive information on the design, perfor-
mance and cost of a wide variety of available environ-
mental control technology options applicable to oil
shale processing. Control options will be considered
as they specifically apply to oil shale through the use
of six case studies as a data base and reference point.
The six case studies will cover the following active oil
shale development projects all of which are expected
to reach commercial operation by 1990:

e@ TOSCO/Colony Development
Creek

in Parachute

@ Union Oil Development in Parachute Creek

@ White River Project at Ua,Ub using the Paraho
Process

e@ Superior Oil Multimineral Development
@ Occidental Development of Tract C-b
e@ Rio Blanco Development at Tract C-a

Emphasis will also be placed on identifying important
areas of uncertainty, and on specifying the assump-
tions made in the analysis.

The EPA envisions this document as the second of a
series leading toward the eventual establishment of
regulatory standards for the oil shale industry. The
document is expected to serve several purposes.
First, a comprehensive, state-of-the-art understand-
ing of pollution control alternatives for oil shale using

6

current knowledge will be established, supported by
extensive data on design, performance and cost.
Second, a comprehensive understanding of
important areas of uncertainty in pollution control
will be developed. Third, the document will provide a
basis for a high level of communication between the
EPA, industry, and the public on pollution control for
oil shale. Finally, the document will serve as an
important and updatable reference on oil shale pollu-
tion control.

The reader should keep in mind that the present data
base used in the development of the Pollution Control
Guidance Document is incomplete, and only
preliminary decisions can be made in evaluating pol-
lution control options. The purpose is to provide a
first-cut, broad base of information which specifically
addresses the pollution control problems faced by the
oil shale industry; such a base should stimulate the
proper concern and cooperation to assure that the
industry develops in an environmentally acceptable
fashion and is not delayed by uncertainties regarding
environmental standards.

Extensive review by EPA's regulatory offices, Region
Ill, other government agencies, industry, and public
interest groups is planned prior to release of this
document. Public distribution is scheduled for the
Summer of 1981.

Alternate Fuels Group

On January 18, 1980, EPA established a manage-
ment structure designed to be responsive to the
President's Synthetic Fuels and Energy Mobilization
Board initiatives. Two policy groups, the Alternate
Fuels Group and the Permits Coordination Group, will
operate under the direction of the EMB Task Force.
The Alternate Fuels Group will develop the Agency's
regulatory and research strategy for synthetic fuels
industries. Working groups within the AFG have been
established for oil shale, direct coal liquefaction,
indirect coal liquefaction and coal gasification, and
ethanol from biomass. The AFG will coordinate
preparation of environmental guidance for these
emerging technologies for use by industry planners
and permitting officials. The AFG will also recom-
mend and oversee preparation and promulgation of
control technology based standards for synthetic
fuels facilities. The preparation of Pollution Control
Guidance Documents (PCGD) will provide the first
component of the basis for these standards. The first
draft of the oil shale PCGD is scheduled for late 1980.
Industry, government and the public will be asked to
review and provide comment on the draft PCGD. Final
publication is slated for Summer 1981. The second
policy group, Permits Coordination Group (PCG), will



Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268

United States
Environmental Protection

Agency
Research and Development

INDUSTRIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF

Status of EPA Regulatory and Research Acti
Affecting Oil Shale Development*

EPA-600/D-81-009 Feb. 1981

<7EPA

T. Thoem, E. Bates, C. Dial, E. Harris, and F. Princiotta

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency and the
respective State Departments of Health are involved
in a joint partnership with shared responsibilities for
protecting the environment during the development
of the oil shale resource. Legislation in the form of the
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and
the Toxic Substances Control Act provide the frame-
work for EPA’s regulatory responsibilities. The
current status of implementing regulations and
agency policies vis-a-vis these Acts is provided in this
paper. Also, important aspects of Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming environmental regulations are provided.

Key activities of EPA’s oil shale environmental
research program are discussed. Of special note is
the completion of a document entitled “Environ-
mental Perspective on the Emerging Oil Shale
Industry.’ This document is the first of a series which
will communicate EPA regulatory policies, state-of-
knowledge of oil shale environmental impacts, and
will provide EPA’s environmental control technology
expectations.

“Presented at the 13th Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines,
Golden, CO, April 16-18, 1980 This version contains several minor
revisions updating references to rule issuance dates

EPA’s efforts to plan, design, and implement a com-
prehensive synthetic fuels research and regulatory
strategy are also described. The policy level Alterna-
tive Fuels Group has been charged with the develop-
ment of this strategy for oil shale, coal gasification,
coal liquefaction and ethanol.

Introduction

EPA has legislative mandates to protect air and water
quality, to insure a safe drinking water supply, and to
provide for an environment conducive to the enjoy-
ment of man on this earth. In order to accomplish
these goals, EPA is involved in a partnership with
State and local environmental agencies in the
planning, implementation and enforcement of
legislation and regulations. EPA and the State
environmental agencies recognize that
environmental considerations play a role in the deter-
mination of answers to the question of oil shale —
how much? and when?

This paper will (1) highlight the EPA environmental
regulatory requirements for the oil shale industry, (2)
discuss EPA’s key oil shale research activities, (3)
describe EPA’s new organization strategy aimed at
the design and implementation of a comprehensive
regulatory and research strategy for synthetic fuels,
(4) pose environmental questions regarding oil shale
development which remain unanswered.

»> D>


provide national management of permitting mecha-
nisms in order to respond effectively to demands for
expediting permit decisions. The PCG will develop a
system for tracking permits, establish project
decision schedules for permit review, and assure that
potential environmental and permitting problems are
recognized early.

Unanswered Environmental Issues

Mining and conversion of oil shale will degrade air
quality, will consume precious water resources, may
degrade surface and/or groundwater quality, will
create solid and hazardous wastes to be disposed of
properly, and will create significant population
growth in a predominantly rural setting which trans-
lates into potential social and economic problems.
That these things will occur is a given...the question is
the magnitude and the significance of the
occurrence. Key questions such as the following
exists:

1. How much ground water will be intercepted
during mining?

2. What will the quality of potential discharge be?

3. Can groundwater quality be protected during
and after /n s/tu retorting?

4. Can processed shale be disposed of properly
without degrading ground or surface water
quality?

5. Will revegetation of processed shale be suc-
cessful over the long run?

6. What are the concentrations of various sulfur
species in retort offgas streams and what is the
best approach to control these compounds?

7. What will be the air quality and visibility impacts
on the Flat Tops Wilderness Area (nearest Class
| area)?

8. What are the expected trace element concen-
trations in air, water, and solid waste residual
streams?

9. Is conventional pollution control technology
directly applicable to oil shale residuals? Is it
effective?

10. What is the expected population growth associ-

ated with the development of an oil shale
industry?

US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1901 -757-064/0228

These questions may look familiar. They should, since
they are the same ones posed in our EPA presentation
at the 12th Annual Oil Shale Symposium. The fact
that they remain unanswered points out to us that the
environment is not much closer to being ready for oil
shale than it was a year ago.

Answers to the above questions (and perhaps other
questions not yet posed) will in part determine the
ability of individual plants and of an oil shale industry
to be compatible with the desired environment for oil
shale country.

Answers to some of the questions may be partially
answered by theoretical research work and limited
scope field investigations in the absence of any oil
shale facilities. Answers to the remaining questions
will necessarily be developed through rigorous
testing programs and data analyses performed on
facilities representative of commercial size. Reliable
answers will be obtained only through a cooperative
coordinated effort among government and industry.

Conclusions

Development of oil shale appears to be closer to
reality than ever before. EPA has for years advocated
that some small-scale development occur so that
some of the unanswered environmental questions
could be resolved. This remains EPA’s philosophy
toward the development of oil shale. EPA Region VIII
has provided specific guidance on its posture toward
oil shale development in its Energy Policy Statement,
issued as a draft in Fall of 1979 and finalized in April
1980. Items addressed in the Statement which relate
directly to oil shale development include (1) expedited
permit processing, (2) grandfathering, (3) rate of
development, (4) “Better than BACT” controls, (5)
EPA input to DOI on additional leasing, (6) planning
and implementing a coordinated research effort, and
(7) information and communication efforts.

If oil shale development proves to be economically
attractive and technologically feasible, EPA
advocates that development occur in an orderly
phased manner. Development up to some
undetermined size of industry can and must occur ina
manner compatible with environmental standards
and objectives.


Regulatory Activities

EPA is responsible for various regulatory activities
which affect the construction and operation of oil
shale facilities. Enabling legislation and implement-
ing regulations in the form of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 (PL 95-95), the Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1977 (PL 95-217), and Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976 (PL 94-580), the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) of 1976 (PL 94-469), and toa lesser extent the
Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574) establish the
regulatory framework through which EPA operates.
Of course, the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (PL 91-190) is also a significant environmental
legislative authority (Table 1).

on May 19, 1980. These performance standards will
be based upon a concept of Best Engineering Judg-
ment (BEJ), as defined by the permit writer ona case-
by-case basis. The BEJ concept is consistent with
Best Available Control Technology (BACT), ded
capability and potential for accomplishments greater
than those possible by support of individual projects
alone.

TSCA requirements have been an issue and concern
to oil shale interests in the past. In June of 1979, EPA
published its inventory of existing chemicals. Shale
oils are included in the inventory. A review of the
appropriateness of including shale oil in this
inventory is presently underway. If shale oil remains
on the list, developers are exempt from the testing
requirements of pre-market notification. The action
would not exempt developers from future EPA
enforcement actions. If the manufacture and use of a

TABLE 1. EPA LEGISLATIVE MANDATES chemical are found to cause substantial endanger-
ment to human health, options available to EPA
+ include ban of manufacture, restrictions on transport
Clean Air Act PL 95-95 and/or use, and precautionary labeling. The Act also
Amendments of 1977 provides a backup for other EPA legislation for the
| of toxie issions and effluents.
Clean Water Act PL 95-217 control of toxic emissions and effluents.
Amendments of 1977 The Alabama Power vs. EPA decision changes some
oe of EPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Safe Drinking Water PL 93-523 Quality (PSD) regulations. Proposed regulations to
Act of 1974 satisfy the initial court ruling were published on
; September 5, 1979 and were promulgated by August
Resource Conservation and — PL 94-580 7, 1980. Changes will include (1) the need for a BACT
Recovery Act of 1976 assessment for all pollutants regulated under the Act
Table 2 t where controlled emissions will be
Toxic Substances PL 94-469 (Table 2) except wher
Control Act of 1976
TABLE 2. POLLUTANTS REGULATED UNDER THE
Noise Control PL 92-574 CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF
Act of 1972 1977
Papers presented by EPA at the 11th and 12th Oil 7
Shale Symposiums have described in some detail the NAAQS NON-NAAQS
requirements of these Acts and their implementing .
regulations. No major revisions to our basic legisla- Particulate Matter Be
tion have occurred in the past year. This paper will So. H
discuss changes to regulations over the past year. 2 9
Lawsuits, litigation, and court decisions have played a
major role in reshaping some of EPA’s regulatory NOx Asbestos
Programs. co Vinyl Chloride
Perhaps of most interest at the present time to the oil
shale industry is the EPA promulgation of RCRA regu- NMHC F
lations. Partial fulfillment of a court order occurred .
with the promulgation of regulations satisfying Parts © H2S0s Mist
3002, 3003, and 3010 on February 26, 1980. Criteria
for defining a hazardous waste (3001) and general Pb Total Reduced Sulfur
performance standards for the treatment, storage, Benzene’
and disposal of a hazardous waste were promulgated
2
— _— oe So a A A TST oe



TABLE 3. POLLUTANT DE MINIMIS LEVELS

(CONTROLLED)
Guideline Guideline for
for BACT Detailed Impact
Pollutant ton/year Analysis.
co 100 500 g/m? - 8 hr
NOz 10 1 yg/m? - Ann
TSP 10 5 ug/m? - 24 hr
SO2 10 5 g/m? - 24 hr
Os (VOC) 10 —
Pb 1 0.03 pg/m? - 3 mo
Hg 0.2 0.1 pg/m? - 24 hr
Be 0.004 0.005 ug/m*® -24hr
Asbestos 1 Tyg/m? - 1 hr
F 0.02 0.01 yig/m® - 24 hr
H2SO4 1 1 g/m? - 24 hr
Vinyl chloride 1 1 pg/m? - Max
TRS
H2S 1 1 pg/m? - 1 hr
methyl
mercaptan 1 0.5 ug/m? - 1 hr
dimethyl
sulfide 1 0.5 ug/m?® - 1 hr
dimethyl
disulfide 1 2 yg/m* - 1 hr
CSs 10 200 yg/m° - 1 hr
COs 10 200 ug/m? - 1 hr

September 5, 1979 Federal Register 40 CFR 51 and 52

below de minimis levels (Table 3), (2) the require-
ment for an analyses of baseline air quality concen-
trations for all pollutants regulated under the Act, and
(3) guidance on modelling, phased construction, and
stack heights. The analyses for baseline pollutant
concentrations may include one year of continuous
monitoring. Alternatives would include either a
showing that existing data (for NAAQS pollutants)
collected at other locations were representative or
modelling existing emissions (for non-NAAQS pollu-
tants) in the area to estimate concentrations. Model-
ling guidance contained the opinion that air quality
models are on the frontier of science but must be

used. It should be noted that the opinion was
rendered that if a PSD increment was initially judged
not to be violated but was later found to be violated,
either through monitoring data or improvements in
modelling techniques, the State Implementation Plan
could/should be revised to require additional control.

EPA is involved in litigation regarding visibility regu-
lations. Regulations were to have been promulgated
by August 1979. Since they were not, FOE and EDF
sought court relief. We were under court order to
propose regulations by May 15, 1980 and to
promulgate by November 18, 1980. Based upon
limited visibility analyses performed via PSD reviews
on oil shale projects to date, visibility protection could
provide additional constraints, beyond the Class! PSD
increments, to the size of an industry.

The size of an oil shale industry appears to be limited
by air quality Class | increments at the Flat Tops
Wilderness Area. This concept has caused significant
activity in the past year by both industry and govern-
ment. Preliminary analyses indicate that develop-
ment of 200,000 to 400,000 BPD could consume the
increment (Tables 4 and 5). While initially, several oil

TABLE 4. EPA MODELLING RESULTS 24-HOUR
CONCENTRATIONS, 47g/m?

Prototype Lease Evaluations - 1976

200,000 BPD
TSP SO2
Dinosaur National
Monument ~18 5
Colorado National
Monument <3 <1
White River National
Forest ~8 <2
Ashley National Forest ~5 ~1
PSD Permits - 1979
@ Impacts on Flat Tops - 62,000 BPD
C-a TSP SOz
C-a <0.1 0.3
C-b -0.5 <0.1
Colony/Union 1.4 11
Total ~2.0 15

30 x 62,000 BPD = 207,000 BPD

3