WSP10774

• File Number: 8271.200
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Development and History - UCRB 13a Assessment
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1979
• Title: Costs of Wastewater Disposal in Coal Gasification and Oil Shale Processing
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

'"""
en
o
cr)

TABLE 1-2 SmlHARY DF WASTEWATER STREAMS AND TREATMENT CDSTS
FOR SURFACE RETORTI~G Dr OIL SHALE

Flow Rate Quality Before
Waste Stream (li/vr) Treatment Disposal OPtions
Runoff very variab Ie in plant area, 1) removal of 011 and reuse
good with in cooling system
possibly oily
contamination;
In processed 2) moisturize spent shale
shale area,
poor
Boiler 2-90 2.0 to 2,5% 1) moisturize spent shale.
feedwater (Paraho) dissolved 2) lined evaporation pond
preparation 120-220 inorganic
waste (TDSCD II) solids 3) vapor comoression-lined
evaporation pond
Retorting & 430 high in I) sequential treatmenr for
upgrading (TDSCO II) amlllonla, H2S. use in cooling tower.*
wastewaters 565-710 C02. and organic a) ammonia stripping and
(Paraho) matter; low in recovery
phenols b) biological oxidation
Cooling 420-1,240 better than I) moisturize shale.
tower that in coal
blowdown gasification****
100-300..... 1) lined evaporation pond
2) vapor compression
lined evaporation pond

Sour water
stripper

420

COD"" 500-1,500
mg/l; phenols
-aD-ISO mg/l

1) dust control

Domestic..
wastes
at plant

24

low TDS, BOD -
200- 25 0 mg/ I

1) sec.ondary treatment and
low-quality in-plant use
or revejitetation.

Approximate Cost
(c/million Btu)

not estimated

negligible

negligible
e 0.1 (Paraho)
0,3-0.5 (TOSCO II)
e 0.3 (Paraho)
0.4-1.1 (TOSCD II)

not estimated***
O. g-3.1

negligible

0.2-0.6

0.3-1.5

< 0.2

0.01

*This is the most probable means of disposal for the TOSCa II process. Thus, the other
disposal options would likely be employed only for a Paraho type process.

**It is assumed that these waste streams are treated only enough to render them suitable
for u3e as make-up to a cooling tower. It 1s further assumed that no more than about 15
percent of ~he cooling tower make-up comes from this source.

***10 most plants, the cost of treatment would be offset by the value of the ammonia
recovered.

**:Ir:*By way of comparison, see table 1-1. The reason for the improved quality is that the
phenol content of retorting and ~pgrading waste streams is much lower than that for foul
process condensate from coal gasification. Furthermore, the dilution of retorting and
upgrading streams in the cooling tawer make-up is much greater.

....*If not spent fOL shale molsturization, the volume of blowdown would be decreased by
increasing the cycles of concentration in the cooling tower.

21:>