EPA-600/R-00-092
October 2000
-------
EPA-600/R-00-092
October 2000
Evaluation of a Process to Convert
Biomass to Methanol Fuel
by
Joseph M. Norbeck
Kent Johnson
University of California, Riverside
College of Engineering
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
Mail Code 022
Riverside, CA 92521-0434
Cooperative Agreement CR824308-01-0
EPA Project Officer
Robert H. Borgwardt
Atmospheric Protection Branch
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Reserach Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health find the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Cppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial produrfs does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
Acknowledgments
Major funding for this program, concurrent with and subsequent to the EPA's support, came from the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, and CE-
CERT discretionary research funding. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Meyer Steinberg of
Brookhaven National Laboratory and Yuanji Dong of Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, coinventors of the Hynol
Process; and Robert Borgwardt of the U.S. EPA. All provided valuable consultation, advice, and assistance
in reviewing preliminary data and design changes. George Hidy served as Principal Investigator on this proj-
ect until leaving the University of California, and as a consultant for a period thereafter. John Wright and
Junior Castillo of the CE-CERT staff provided important support in facilities management and operation.
UCR students Mark Abushabky, Ethan Aitman, Mark Betty, Harjas "Bobby" Brar, Kimberly Holden,
Zulakha Khan, Sean McClure, Scott Payne, Rovel Quintos, Paul Shepherd, and Marisa Wilson assisted in
the operation of the pilot-scale facility and modification of its procedures. Mitch Boretz of the CE-CERT
staff assisted with contract administration and reporting.
ii
-------
Contents
Acknowledgments ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
Glossary vi
Metric Conversions vi
Abstract vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Theoretical Approach 1
1.2 Design and Performance Issues 3
2. Methodology 6
3. Facility Construction 8
4. Design Modifications 13
4.1 HPR Reactor 13
4.2 Biomass Feed System 17
4.3 Process Gas Supply 23
4.4 Hot Gas Filter 23
4.5 Controls 24
4.6 Cooling System .26
4.7 Solenoid Valves 26
4.8 Exit Flare Stack 26
4.9 Sample System 27
5. Preliminary Results 30
5.1 Test 1: Air Gasification 30
5.2 Test 2: Air Gasification 35
5.3 Test 3: Biomass Gasification 38
6. Discussion 43
6.1 Hynol Gasification Tests 43
6.2 Facility Design and Construction 47
6.3 Data Quality 47
7. Conclusions and Recommendations 48
7.1 Conclusions 48
7.2 Recommendations 49
References and Bibliography 51
Appendices
I. Environmental Impact Report I-i
II. Soils Investigation H-i
III. Hynol Facility Control Panel IH-i
IV. Quality Assurance Program Plan and Sampling Plan IV-i
V. Calibration Curves and Tables V-i
VI. Standard Operating Procedures VT-i
VII. Diagrams and Locations of Sensors VH-i
iii
-------
Figures
Fig. No. I'itie Page No.
1-1 Hynol Process flows 1
3-1 Hynol facility schedule 8
3-2 Hynol facility layout at CE-CERT 9
3.3 Hynol site develompent work 9
3-4 Vessel fabrication at Bay City Boilers 10
3-5 Structure design concept drawing with all the vessels 10
3-6 Structure erection 11
3-7 Twisting problem with one of the main I beam supports 11
3-8 Vessel installation at CE-CERT's Hynol test facility 12
4-1 Refractory repair on the burner, reactor, and heater sections 14
4-2 Igniter systems 15
4-3 Removal of the burner spool piece refractory and internal refractory damage to the
burner section 16
4-4 Crack investigation 16
4-5 Magnetic flux inspection on another 10% of the welds 17
4-6 Modified overflow chutes for the biomass feed system 17
4-7 Support legs for large storage bin 18
4-8 Vibrator and electric filter pulse clean heater controls and vibrator controls;
steam and cooling water controls 19
4-9 Motor drive support; motor drives and feed valve electronics; level sensor installed
in the meter bin; and bucket elevator to move biomass from bottom to top of reactor 19
4-10 Bridging problem locations 20
4-11 Bridging problems in the hopper screw; bridging with feed screw exposed;
bridging with feed screw empty 20
4-12 Modification made to solve overflow chute bridging 21
4-13 Everlasting valve cutaway showing where bridging problems were found 21
4-14 Meter bin screw feeder gear modifications; load cells located under each leg
of the hopper bin 22
4-15 Feed system flow rate calibration with 6.4 mm white oak saw shavings 22
4-16 Everlasting feed valve drive and assembly 23
4-17 Heater pulse cleaning system for the hot gas filter 25
4-18 Feed system final version logic for the lock hopper high pressure design 27
4-19 Effluent gas heat exchangers 28
4-20 Flare stack, extension, and guide-wire support; electrical controls and valves 28
4-21 Heat exchanger HX-205 leak rate test setup; 11X-205 redesign 29
4-22 High-pressure sample system 29
5-1 Automated operation of the feed system during gasification test la 31
5-2 Gasification product concentrations for test lb 32
5-3 Agglomeration results after air gasification tests 33
5-4 Bed temperature profile from the gasification area for test 1 34
iv
-------
Figures (cont.)
Fig. No. Title Page No.
5-5 Installation of new elements and supports 34
5-6 Gasification attempts, March-April 1999 35
5-7 Gas temperatures, March-ApriM 999 37
5-8 Pressure drop, March-April 1999 37
5-9 The damaged heater elements based on the original design from Arcadis 38
5-10 Installation of new elements and supports 38
5-11 Hynol temperature profile before, during, and after the hydrogasification test
on May 5, 1999 39
5-12 Hynol hydrogasification test for May 5, 1999, reactor temperature profile 40
5-13 Hynol hydrogasification test for May 5, 1999, reactor pressure and pressure drop profile ... .41
5-14 Agglomeration pieces after removal of the bottom burner spool section; refractory
damage in the burner spool piece and top view of gas distributor; refractory crack in
the main reactor 42
6-1 Temperature profile for test 3 46
6-2 Reactor sections 46
Tables
Table No. Title Page No.
4-1 Calibration summary and the actual uncertainty for each orifice plate .24
6-1 Elemental analysis 43
6-2 Investo Cast 50 size distribution from lone Minerals 44
6-3 Fuel ultimate analysis comparison 44
6-4 Fuel ash elemental analysis comparison 44
6-5 Test data for May 5, 1999, hydrogasification test 45
6-6 Composition data from hydrogasification test conducted by EPA 45
6-7 Heat loss as a function of length based on test 3 with the Hynol reactor 47
7-1 Test conditions to be used for the CE-CERT Hynol test facility 50
v
-------
Glossary
ASME
atm
BMS
FV
HPR
HX
MSR
P&ID
PID
psia
psig
scf
scfm
SPR
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
atmospheres
burner management system
Solenoid flow valve
hydropyrolyzer
Heat exchanger
methanol synthesis reactor
process and instrumentation diagram
proportional, integral and derivative
pounds per square inch, absolute
pounds per square inch, gauge
standard cubic feet
standard cubic feet per minute
steam pyrolysis reactor
Metric Conversions
Metric unit
English equivalent
degrees C
kilogram (kg)
kilopascal (kPa)
liters per minute (L/min)
meter (m)
millimeter (mm)
megapascal (MPa)
Normal cubic meters per hour (Nm3/hr)
(degrees F x 9/5) 32
pound x 2.2
psi x 20.88
cubic feet per minute x 0.035
foot x 3.28
inch x 0.039
psi x 20885
scfm x 0.0283 x 60
VI
-------
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the University of California entered into Cooperative
Agreement 824308-010 to develop and demonstrate the Hynol Process, a high-temperature, high-pressure
method for converting biomass to methanol fuel. The period of performance was June 1995 to June 2000.
At the bench scale, the Hynol Process has demonstrated about 75% carbon conversion efficiency with indi-
cations of low tar formation. A model developed during the bench scale testing predicts an increased carbon
conversion efficiency from 75% to 88% for an increase in residence time from 1 to 7 hours. The Hynol reac-
tor was designed to have a 7-hour residence time. The high efficiency and the potential for low tar forma-
tion hold promise for a cost effective technique for renewable fuel production.
The specific requirements of the Cooperative Agreement were for the UC Riverside College of Engineering-
Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) to develop a pilot-scale (23 kg of feed-
stock/hr) Hynol facility and to operate it using woody biomass and natural gas as cofeedstocks. Cofunding
was provided by the California Energy Commission, and the Riverside County Waste Resources
Management District. CE-CERT contributed substantial additional funding.
The research focuses on producing methanol for use in a vehicle; however, the process can be modified to
yield hydrogen, methane, or other fuels suitable for use in electricity generation. It also will contribute to
environmental goals by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, by providing a clean fuel, and by mitigat-
ing problems associated with disposal of carbonaceous waste. The key objective was to demonstrate the bio-
mass gasification step of the Hynol Process and its reactions to produce a synthesis gas. The processes
involved in converting this gas to fuel are demonstrated commercial technology, and those systems can be
added later.
Design and construction, based on equipment specifications developed by Acurex (EPA Report No. 600/R-
96-006, Hynol Process Engineering: Process Configuration, Site Plan, and Equipment Design, February
1996), were originally expected to be completed by June 1998. Because of errors in the report and problems
with the facility, the actual completion date has been pushed back. This report describes numerous design
considerations that were reviewed; design modifications made; and preliminary results from operating the
facility.
vii
-------
1. Introduction
1.1 Background and Theoretical
Approach
Producing methanol from biomass offers significant
environmental, energy, and economic advantages over
other liquid fiiel resources. Methanol is cleaner-burning
than gasoline, so its widespread use can contribute to air
quality improvements in urban areas. The fuel also can
be produced from domestic, renewable resources, which
brings advantages in emissions of greenhouse gases,
energy security, and local jobs.
Process simulation studies indicate that the Hynol
process should result in improved efficiencies in
methanol production through increased yields over con-
ventional processes. The advantages of the Hynol
Process to the EPA are its potential to (1) produce liquid
transportation fuel at a cost competitive with conven-
tional fuels when used in fuel cell vehicles; (2) increase
the quantity of biomass that could be produced as ener-
gy crops at a price acceptable for conversion to trans-
portation fuel, thus increasing farm income; (3) displace
more petroleum fuel than any other process based on
biomass as a source of energy; and (4) achieve greater
overall net reduction of greenhouse gase emissions from
the U.S. vehicle fleet than any other biofuel option.
The Hynol Process originated at Brookhaven National
Laboratory as a method for increasing the yield of fuel
from conversion of biomass (Steinberg and Dong,
1994a). Originally conceived to operate with a coal
feedstock, the process has been applied to co-processing
biomass with fossil fuels, coal, oil, and gas at high tem-
perature and high pressure. The process produces
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Biomass
Heat Input
CH4-rich synthesis gas
H, i CO
H2-rich recycle gas
Methanol
Hydrogasifier (HPR)
Steam Pyrolyzer (SPR)
Methanol Synthesis
Methanol Separation
Figure 1-1. Hynol Process flows.
1
-------
methanol, a liquid fuel that can be used for transporta-
tion, industrial processes, electrical power generation,
and military needs. Alternatively, the process can be
modified to produce hydrogen or other chemicals for
industrial uses.
The process involves three phases (Figure 1-1).
1. Reaction of biomass in a hydrogasifier, also referred
to as a hydropyrolizer (HPR).
2. Steam pyrolization of the resulting gas, which pro-
duces a synthesis gas.
3. Methanol synthesis, which leaves a recycle gas that
can be returned to the HPR and waste heat that can be
returned to the steam pyrolizer (SPR).
The basic Hynol Process consists of two reactions:
1. Hydrogenation (or hydropyrolysis) of the carbona-
ceous feedstock to produce methane,
2. Endothermic reaction of methane with steam to pro-
duce hydrogen and carbon monoxide (steam pyroly-
sis).
For methanol production, the carbon monoxide formed
in the steam pyrolysis step is catalytically combined
with the hydrogen in a third phase to produce methanol.
Excess hydrogen is recycled as a feed gas for hydropy-
rolysis. Biomass is fed into a fluidized-bed 11PR and
reacted with recycled Hrrich process gas at 30 atm
pressure and 800 °C (Steinberg and Dong, 1994b).
Steam at a rate of 0.2 kg per kg of biomass is simulta-
neously fed into the HPR. The independent reactions
taking place in the HPR can be expressed as:
C+2H2 -±CH4 (1)
c+h2o-+co+h2 (2)
co2+h2-+co+h2o
Hie process gas produced in the HPR contains 13 mole
% CO, 38 mole % H2, and 20 mole % €H4. Nitrogen
that comes from the feedstock forms inert N2 in the
process gas and is taken into account in the calculation
of equilibrium gas composition. The objective is to
demonstrate conversion of the carbon in biomass feed-
stock in the HPR to be over 87%. The unconverted car-
bon is withdrawn from the reactor with ash in the form
of char. The char either can be used as fuel for the SPR
(if separated from the sand, limestone, and/or kaolinite)
or sequestered.
Reactions (2) and (3) are endothermic and require addi-
tional energy input to the gasifter. This is why conven-
tional gasification processes need oxygen or air to
supply combustion heat by burning some carbon in the
feedstock within the gasifier. In the Hynol Process,
however, thermal energy from recycled gas combined
with reactions in the HPR allows for an energy-neutral
gasifier without the need for an internal or external heat
supply. The hydrogasification reaction (1) between the
carbon in feedstocks and the hydrogen in the recycled
process gas is exothermic and in theory provides suffi-
cient heat for reactions (2) and (3) when preheated by
heat exchange with the SPR effluent stream.
Before entering the SPR, process gas from the HPR of
the Hynol Process usually needs to be cleaned up to
remove particulate matter and impurities that may con-
taminate catalysts in the subsequent reaction steps.
Conventional hot gas cleanup methods can be used for
this purpose. Natural gas feed can be added prior to the
HPR filter to cool the gas stream and maintain a more
filter-friendly operating environment.
The process gas is then introduced to the steam reformer
(alternatively called the SPR) where HPR outlet gas and
natural gasx co-feedstock react with steam to form CO
and H2. The steam reforming can be described by two
independent reactions:
Cf/4 + H20-> CO + 3 fl2 4)
CO2 + H, -> CO + II20
The SPR is a steam reformer using a conventional nick-
el catalyst but operating at higher temperature (900-950
°C and higher pressure (30 atm). The mol ratio of steam
to carbon entering the SPR is 2.5. A catalyst-packed
tubular externally-fired furnace reactor similar to a con-
ventional natural gas reformer furnace reactor is used
for the SPR. Steam teed ratio is 1.2 kg per kg of bio-
mass. Methane feed into the SPR is at a rate of 0.5 kg
per kg of biomass. The II2 and CO concentrations in the
exit gas of the SPR are increased to 60% and 21%,
respectively. The process gas is then passed through a
gas heat exchanger, where it is cooled. The recovered
heat is used to heat the recycled gas. The process gas is
cooled for the methanol synthesis reactor (MSR) feed.
The steam produced in this way is about 1.52 times bio-
mass feed rate in weight, which makes steam self-suffi-
cient within the Systran.
-------
The cooled process gas then enters the MSR to produce
methanol. The reactions taking place in the MSR are:
CO + 2H2 -+CH,OFf (6)
CO, + 3H2 -> CH3OH + H20 (7)
The methanol synthesis is performed at 30 atm and 260
°C. l"he MSR reactions are highly exothermic, so the
released process heat can be extracted from the MSR
and used to dry the biomass feedstock. Methanol and
water are separated from the MSR effluent gases by a
condenser and fractionated by distillation to obtain a
pure methanol product. To increase the conversion of
CO in the MSR, the imcondensed gas from the con-
denser is partially returned to the MSR. Using this
approach, the recycle ratio of the internal loop is 4
moles per 1 mole of input process gas from the SPR.
The net result is a 90% conversion of CO to methanol in
the MSR. Unlike conventional processes where CO con-
version in the MSR is a most critical parameter affect-
ing the efficiency losses of the process, the Hynol
Process reprocesses the unconverted material by recy-
cling the gas to the HPR and thus prevents losses of
process gas constituents. For this reason, the Hynol
Process obtains a high thermal efficiency, even though
the CO conversion through the MSR may be lower than
that of conventional processes.
The condenser operates at 50 °C. l"he gas exiting the
MSR system is introduced to the gas heat exchanger,
after a small amount of gas (3.7% of the recycled gas) is
purged, eliminating the accumulation of inert nitrogen
in the system and keeping the nitrogen concentration in
the system below 2.5 mole %. We are designing the sys-
tem to accommodate a range of steam and natural gas
feeds. The entry points of the steam and natural gas
prior to the HPR or SPR can also be adjusted as indicat-
ed by revised process modeling assessments.
1.2 Design and Performance Issues
The technical challenges of the Hynol gasifier are to
optimize carbon conversion, minimize tar formation,
control alkali agglomeration, maintain gasification bed
temperatures, achieve steady-state operation, and
demonstrate particulate control. In addition, reliable
operation of the bed height estimation, biomass feed
system, ash removal process, cyclone efficiency, alkali
sampling system, and tar sampling system must be
demonstrated.
The Hynol facility at Riverside was designed around
optimizing carbon conversion of biomass in the gasifier.
Carbon conversion is strongly dependent on the resi-
dence time inside the reactor (Dong and Cole, 1996;
Dong, 1998). There is a tradeoff with too long a resi-
dence time because higher residence times reduce bio-
mass throughput. A three-parameter kinetic model was
developed and used for quantitatively investigating bio-
mass conversion and reaction rate phenomena (Dong et
al., 1996, 1998) as part of a project sponsored by the
EPA. "Hie effects of particle size, gas velocity, system
pressure, reaction temperature, and gas composition on
biomass hydrogasification behavior were investigated.
The conclusions from this study were the basis for the
operation of the Hynol reactor located at UC Riverside.
Below, the conclusions are summarized, and their sig-
nificance in the design of the reactor is discussed.
1. The carbon conversion takes place in two stages.
There is first a period of rapid reaction of biomass
thermal decomposition (seconds), followed by a
slow reaction of the residual char (hours). The
twofold residence time was used to design the reac-
tor bed height, the expanded zone, the cyclone, the
fluidization velocity, and the bed media particle size.
The bulk of the biomass is converted in first few sec-
onds while the residual char is left in the fluidized
bed until the particle size is small enough to pass
through the cyclone. The cyclone was designed to
return 95% of the particle fines to the reactor. The
reactor zone (3 m height, 150 mm diam) was
designed for the rapid reaction of biomass. The
expanded zone (1.5 m height, 300 mm diam) was
designed for the slow residual char conversion. The
expected velocities in both sections are 0.3 m/s and
0.08 m/s, respectively.
2. The developed model can be used to predict biomass
conversion as a function of reaction time assuming
similar conditions for the tests. The model is used to
estimate expected carbon conversion efficiencies for
each test based on expected residence time from the
operating conditions.
3. The gas film mass transfer is negligible at gas flow
rates greater than 0.1 m/s. This information supports
the decision to operate the fluidized bed at a veloci-
ty of 0.3 m/s.
4. Biomass particle sizes less than 3.2 mm do not have
a strong impact on the rapid reaction rate. Although
particle sizes below 3.2 mm are recommended, CE-
CERT is using white oak from the waste stream of a
hardwood door manufacturer. The particle size is
3
-------
distributed with particles ranging from 6.4 mm to
less than 3.2 mm. The larger 6.4 mm particles are
expected to have a small effect on conversion effi-
ciency because the designed residence time is greater
for the pilot scale tests than the bench scale tests.
5. Nearly all the hydrogen and oxygen can be convert-
ed into gas products in 20 minutes using 3.2 mm
wood particles. The Hynol reactor was designed to
have a residence time of approximately 7 hours
assuming the internal cyclone is 95% efficient.
6. At 30 atm and 800 °C, about 87% of poplar wood
(which was used in earlier bench-scale research) or
75% of its carbon content can be converted in 60
minutes. Extending the reaction time and increasing
particle attrition in the reaction zone can achieve
higher conversions. The model predicts that an
increase in carbon conversion efficiency from 75%
to 88% can be achieved with a residence time of
approximately 7 hours. CF-CF.RT expects an 85%
carbon conversion efficiency for the tests performed
under this testing program.
7. Increases in reactor pressure from 10 atm to 60 atm
only slightly increase biomass conversion. The reac-
tor was designed for operation at 30 atm to reduce
capital costs. Future designs should be based on
desired throughput and reactor cost for optimized
pressure rating. The 30 atm design base is a good
starting point for evaluating the process. Once the
process is confirmed, economics can be investigated.
8. Biomass conversion is greatly increased when reac-
tion temperatures are raised from 800 °C to 950 °C.
Although higher temperatures are desirable, alkali
formation also increases with higher temperature.
Therefore, it is desirable to operate at 800 C,C + 50
°C. Alkali formation was not investigated in the reac-
tion rale experiments by Dong and Cole (1996).
9. The biomass conversion is proportional to the hydro-
gen partial pressure in the recycle feed gas. During
operation one way to improve biomass conversion is
to increase the hydrogen partial pressure. This will
be useful when integrating phases 2 and 3.
10. The biomass conversion is proportional to steam
partial pressure in the recycle feed gas. Increasing
the steam partial pressure may increase the biomass
conversion, but it reduces reactor temperatures.
Again, this is a tradeoff between high conversion
and maintaining bed temperatures.
11. When the methane co-feeding in the recycle is less
than 15%, it effects are negligible to the biomass
conversion. No methane co-feeding will be per-
formed during phase 1 of the Hynol project, but it
will be investigated for phases 2 and 3.
12. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concentra-
tions have no significant effect on the gasification
behavior. This information was used to eliminate
those variables that could affect the conversion effi-
ciencies during operation.
13. The bench scale hydrogasification experiments
with poplar have shown the potential for low tar
formation. The Hynol reactor sample system was
designed to evaluate tar formation during gasifica-
tion tests.
Optimum gasification may not be ideal for steady-state
operation. Alkali formation was not studied in the ther-
mo balance reactor, and alkali agglomeration is very
common in coal and biomass gasifiers (Miles et al.,
1998; Unnasch, 1996). One solution to die problem of
alkali formation is to use an adsorbent or chemical alka-
li getter. Kaolinite was found to be the most efficient in
alkali control, but this is based on equilibrium models
and has not been tested in gasification (Unnasch, 1996).
Once steady-state hydrogasification is achieved, the
alkali problem will be investigated.
Another problem with optimum carbon conversion is
that the high bed temperatures increase the alkali for-
mation concentration, and thus require the use of more
alkali getter. Unnasch (1996) found that alkali formation
starts at temperatures greater than 750 °C and peaks at
850 to 900 °C. Therefore, gasification temperatures
need to be optimized for carbon conversion, but not at a
high cost to alkali formation. There is a balance where
too much getter is needed to offset the gains in carbon
conversion. This operating point will be a function of
the biomass and alkali getter used.
The design of the internal cyclone needs to be evaluated
for its effectiveness and performance. This can be
accomplished by operating at steady state and sampling
the ash removed at the bottom of the filter compared
4
-------
with the ash removed from the bottom of the gasifier.
The cyclone was designed to remove 90-95% of the
large particles and the filter is designed to remove
99.99% of the fines including particles as small as 0.5
Hm. CE-CERT has installed a high-pressure sample sys-
tem to evaluate the filter and cyclone performance. The
sampling system also was designed to sample for tars
and alkalis. However, due to design limitations, the
sampling of tars and alkalis needs improvement to accu-
rately follow ASTM standards.
-------
2. Methodology
The basis for the approach to this project was provided
by Unnasch (1996). The HPR system will initially be
operated independently, decoupled from the SPR and
MSR. For this reason, two elements of the Hynol system
will not be available for decoupled HPR operation and
will need to be simulated (i.e., recycle gas from the
MSR and its heat source, the exit gas from the SPR).
The recycle gas will be simulated by mixing gases from
tube trailers with natural gas, steam, and vaporized liq-
uid C02. Since the SPR will not be operating, the inter-
reactor heat exchanger (preheating the recycle stream)
will not operate at a high enough temperature, and
approach temperatures will be too low to provide for the
required HPR inlet temperature. An electric heater will
provide the additional heat energy to the recycle gas that
normally would be recovered from the SPR effluent
stream. A flowsheet for the decoupled HPR system
needs to consider the source and temperature of the
simulated recycle gas since these gases will not be pro-
duced from system recycle but rather from bottled
gases.
The hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen are fed
from truck tube trailers and mixed to simulate the recy-
cle gas in the fully integrated system. The inlet gases at
ambient temperature are heated in the heat exchanger by
the HPR outlet gas. An exhaust gas heat exchanger con-
verts water to steam, which is injected after the heat
exchanger. The mixture passes through an electrical
heater before entering the burner where methane is
injected.
The hydrogasifier is fed with a mixture of solids, prima-
rily chipped wood (white oak, -6.4 mm chips) and an
alkali absorbing (gettering) agent. The green waste and
getter are mixed together and fed into a day bin and
lockhopper; the sand and getter can be fed separately
directly into the lockhopper or mixed with the biomass
feed. A screw-feeder meters the solids into the reactor
vessel where they are fluidized.
Unreacted solids and ash are removed from the reactor
in two ways. The solids are removed directly from the
bottom of the reactor using a lockhopper system.
Lighter ash is removed from the top of the bed from an
overflow passage, on the side of the vessel, which emp-
ties into a lockhopper system.
An internally mounted cyclone separates the majority of
particles from the exiting gas. The outlet gas passes
through a filter which is pulse-cleaned with nitrogen.
The hot outlet gas is heat-exchanged with the cold inlet
gas.
Some elements of the integrated Hynol system were
incorporated into the design of the HPR system. The
SPR uses an air compressor and natural gas compressor,
and it should use a steam jacket. All of these systems are
common with the HPR system and were incorporated
into the HPR system design. The demand for methane
and air vary with the different Hynol cases, so the feed
requirements were incorporated into the HPR system.
The HPR system process flow diagram includes the fol-
lowing features that are of interest or differ between the
theoretical integrated system and the actual decoupled
system:
1. H2, CO, C02, and N2 are added from bottled gases,
heated with a heat exchanger, and thai heated further
with an electric heater. These gases simulate some of
the recycled HPR feed.
2. Steam from a heat exchanger is added upstream of
the electric heater. This flow simulates both water
vapor that is in the recycle stream and steam that is
added to the HPR system. The electric heater raises
the temperature to 1000 °C. Higher temperatures are
difficult to achieve with an electric heater.
3. Provisions are also made to add natural gas down-
stream of the HPR. This stream represents the
6
-------
methane feed to the SPR in the full (complete) sys-
tem. About 10 percent of this stream is split off and
used to purge the cyclone in the HPR. The balance of
the natural gas is added after the HPR. For decoupled
HPR operation, most of the methane need not be
added to the system.
4. Methanol is present in small percentages in the recy-
cle gas. However, the methanol would dissociate in a
heat exchanger with an 888 °C outlet temperature.
Therefore, for the decoupled HPR system, methanol
should be added in the form of its constituent CO and
H2. The mass-flow (associated with methanol vapor)
entering the HPR is held constant between the
decoupled and integrated systems.
5. Some lockhopper pressurization gas carries over into
the HPR, since the biomass voidage volume in the
lockhopper is pressurized with nitrogen.
Consequently, nitrogen gas enters the HPR. The
mass and enthalpy of the nitrogen should be consid-
ered in the energy balance for the process. They are
included on the flow sheet for the decoupled HPR.
6. Air and natural gas are combusted to warm up the
HPR before startup. The corresponding flow rates
are shown in the process flow diagram. Nitrogen that
is heated with the electric heater will also be used
during start-up operations. Nitrogen can flow
through the electric heater, which will prevent the
heater wires from overheating before simulated recy-
cle gas is added to the system. Air may also need to
be added upstream of the electric heater to allow for
periodic oxidation of the heater wires.
7
-------
3. Facility Construction
Construction began in February 19% and was complet-
ed by March 1998. Modifications were made from June
1997 through December 1998. Thee first gasification
test was completed in December 1998. Since December
1998, CE-CERT has completed three more gasification
tests. F.ach test has shown some successes but revealed
other design/operation problems. CE-CERT continues
to perforin gasification tests and process design shake-
down evaluation.
There were a variety of delays with the construction,
installation, and process evaluation that resulted in the
schedule shown in Figure 3-1. The delivery delays were
due to construction of a forged burner tee, repair to the
refractory, and fabrication of a high-temperature incon-
nel distributor and cyclone. The design modification
delays were due to curing the refractory on site, repair-
ing a large crack on the main burner spool piece, and
installing the high-pressure feed system. The final
process delays were due to process modifications that
included repairing the feed system valves, biomass
bridging, heater elements, ash removal valves, process
controls, flow meter calibrations, and the burner man-
agement system.
CE-CERT has successfully demonstrated the automated
high-pressure biomass feed system, maintained bed
temperatures, achieved reliable burner operation,
achieved reliable electric heater operation, and per-
formed consistent ash removal. The main design chal-
lenges remaining are to overcome an agglomerating
problem in the Hynol reactor and to perform steady state
gasification.
Arcadis designed the vessels, refractory, and process
flow, and CE-CERT designed the layout of the Hynol
gasification test facility. CE-CERT also is responsible
for operating and evaluating the Hynol process. The
Arcadis design details can be found in Hynol Process
Engineering: Process Configuration, Site Plan, and
Equipment Design (EFA-600/R-96-006, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC)
(Unnasch, 1996). The facility layout houses a 59.4
Nm3/hr air compressor, a 24.8 MPa, 6.8 Nm3/hr natural
gas compressor with 84,950 liter storage, a 1.7 NmVhr
C02 booster pump, a 300kVA electrical distribution
panel, a biomass bulk storage area, a tube trailer bulk
storage area, and a control room (Figure 3-2). As part of
the project, the facility layout was designed to accom-
modate future phases 2 and 3 of the Hynol Process
development.
The site development started in February 1996 and was
finished by May 1996. Part of the site development was
Description
I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4
Site Development
Vessel Design/Construction
Structure/Vessel Installation
Inconel Distributor and Cyclone
Design Modifications
Electrical/Controls/Acquisition
Process Modifications
Gasification Testing
Operational Design Modifications
lllllllllilll
llllll[III
Him
llllll i I I
llllll i
Figure 3-1. Hynol facility schedule.
8
-------
n
SWING GATE
uONljROL
ROQ
CONCRETE
CfcMPRFSSOR
t=& PUMf
AIR
COMPRESSOR
~
C02 BOOSTER
&ELECTRICAO
PANEL
50 ft Scale
STORAGE
CONTAINERS
ASPHAL
BtOMASS
STORAGE
Stairway
GASImCATi
REACTOR
Oft .'IV jy
POWtR
SUPPLES
HOPPER BIN
FLARE
STACK
30' ROLL GATE
ASPHALT
t^G
Figure 3-2. Hynd facility layout at CE-CERT, 1200 Columbia Avenue, Riverside, CA.
a b c
Figure 3-3. Hynol site development work (a,b) ground preparation (c), asphalt and concrete completion.
a geological study and an environmental impact report;
see Appendices I and II for copies of these studies.
Figure 3-3a,b,c show the progress of work from earth
moving to the completed foundation.
The vessel construction was contracted through Bay
City Boilers, and the refractory was contracted through
Dee Engineering. The vessels were constructed out of
schedule 80 pipe except for the large burner spool
pieces. ASME codes required the tee section to be
forged. The forging delayed the delivery date and
increased the vessel cost. The vessels were finished and
delivered by March 1997 (Figure 3-4).
The steel structure, foundation and lighting were con-
tracted through Martec International. Figure 3-5 shows
a model layout of the structure and vessels. Once the
vessels arrived at CB-CERT, the structure was erected in
about two weeks (Figure 3-6). CE-CERT found a struc-
ture problem that could have been serious if it had gone
9
-------
Figure 3-4. Vessel fabrication at Bay City Boilers. Main reactor piece 24 inch schedule 80 pipe with class 181.4 kg flanges
(a); forged burner tee (b).
Figure 3-5. Structure design concept drawing with all the vessels.
10
-------
a b c
Figure 3-6. Structure erection: (a) vertical uprights with cross member, (b) floor support, and (c) grating.
d e
Figure 3-7. Twisting problem with one of the main I beam supports: (a) safety officer pointing at a twisting main support I
beam, (b) side view front, (c) side view back measure, (d) front view measure, and (e) back view measure.
unnoticed: One of the main four I-beam supports was
twisted due to eccentric loading legs (Figure 3-7). The
problem was repaired during vessel installation.
HP Construction was responsible for installing the ves-
sels and completing the pressure leak test (Figure 3-8).
JTie vessel installation was delayed due to problems
with the inconnel pieces, refractory curing, installing
heat exchanger insulation, and repairing the burner
refractory. The vessel installation was completed March
1998 by successfully maintaining 5.2 MPa for 24 hours
with a loss of no more than 10%.
Before the reactor could be operated, the control, instru-
mentation, and process equipment had to be installed.
The extension of the schedule from June 1998 to
December 1998 accounts for the time necessary to mod-
ify the process before operation of the facility could
begin.
11
-------
-------
4. Design Modifications
Hie vessels, refractory, process flow, and other mechan-
ical systems were originally designed under a separate
EPA project. The design details can be found in Unnasch
(1996). This section describes the modifications to the
original design. There were no as-built drawings pro-
vided by Arcadis or CE-CERT; the following subsec-
tions describe the as-built system. The design modifica-
tions are in chronological order.
4.1 HPR Reactor
Refractory
The refractory arrived damaged and brittle. In some sec-
tions the refractory would flake off when touched. CE-
CERT hired a local refractory installer to repair the dam-
aged areas using VSL 50 to provide a 51mm-thick hot
face to the lightweight GreenCast 19L. The VSL 50 has
a maximum temperature rating of 1371 °C, while
GreenCast 19L has a maximum temperature rating of
1038 °C. The new material serves two purposes. First, it
allows the hard surface for the high gas flows and ash to
pass without damage to the refractory surface. Second,
it protects the under layer refractory from overheating.
Figure 4-1 shows some of the damage to the refractory
and its repair.
Curing Process
There were two options for curing the refractory: One
was to have it done at Dee Engineering when the refrac-
tory was poured, and the other was to have the refracto-
ry cured at CE-CERT using the natural gas burner.
When the vessels arrived at CE-CERT they were not
cured, thus CE-CERT was given the task to use the
burner system to cure the refractory. There were many
problems with trying to cure the refractory that delayed
progress by three to four weeks. The burner was unreli-
able, and the heat rate was too quick in the burner sec-
tion and slow at the far end near the filter. Wet refracto-
ry should be heated no faster than 10 °C/hr according to
the refractory manufacturer. Ideally, the process should
have taken only four to five days, not three to four
weeks. Also, the curing process was a 24-hour opera-
tion, thus making small problems larger due to time
required to reheat cooled sections.
Burner Management System
While trying to cure the refractory, CE-CERT had to
first modify the burner design to heat die vessels. The
burner was designed to preheat the reactor, filter, and
heat exchanger sections on start-up. The burner opera-
tion was controlled by a Honeywell Burner
Management system (BMS). The purpose of the BMS
was to control the flame based on a signal from a flame
sensor. If the flame signal was below 1 volt, the gas
valves were turned off. llie BMS works as follows: The
BMS starts the pilot and the igniter (similar to a spark
plug on a vehicle). The BMS senses whether a flame is
present by using a flame indicating rod. If no flame is
sensed, the BMS turns off the pilot valves and stops the
igniter after 30 seconds and waits to be restarted. If a
flame signal is sensed, the BMS opens the main gas
valves, closes the pilot valves and stops the igniter. The
BMS continues to check the flame signal. If the signal
gets weak (below 1 volt) the BMS turns off the main gas
valves and waits to be restarted. The BMS function is
common to a typical modern home furnace and gas
laundry dryer, they operate as long as a good flame sig-
nal is present. The main difference was that our system
operates in an enclosed environment at 689 kPa over
ambient pressure. A high-pressure burner pilot/main
system can be purchased, but they are typically custom-
designed and expensive.
To start the burner, CE-CERTs responsibility was to set
the pilot and main mixture valves for a lean burn. This
was done using flow meters on the pilot and main gas
valves. The air-to-fuel ratio was 9.5 to 1 (by volume),
which was equivalent to a burner mixture of lambda =
1.1 (lean of stoichiometric). Once the gases were set at
a proper mixture, CE-CERT had to choose an appropri-
13
-------
a
b
c
d e f
Figure 4-1. Refractory repair on the burner, reactor, and heater sections: Heater to burner section (a,b); repair to the burn-
er tee and bottom R101 piece; loose refractory at the cyclone (d,e); and repair to the cyclone area (f).
ate flow velocity that would not blow out the flame. CE-
CERT found it hard to prevent the pilot and main flames
from self-extinguishing at the desired flow velocities.
The high velocities were needed to preheat all the ves-
sels. CE-CERT finally found a good pilot and main flow
velocities that gave reliable flames. A good flame was
confirmed using two thermocouples installed at the pilot
and at the main flame areas.
Once a good pilot and main flame were achieved, the
BMS was ready to be turned on. The BMS failed to
work for two reasons:
1. The igniter was arcing on the flame rod, and the flame
rod was not always in the flame. Ilie high-voltage
arcing between the flame rod and the igniter would
send a high-voltage spike to the BMS, which would
turn off the BMS instantly. To start the pilot, the BMS
turns on the igniter and waits for the flame signal, but
the igniter was arcing when the flame sensor sent an
incorrect signal to the BMS. The flame rod could not
be moved away from the igniter because it needed to
be in the flame near the pilot and the pilot needed to
be next to the igniter. CE-CERT then looked at home
furnace pilot designs to understand the problem.
Home furnace designs have a metal plate separating
the igniter from the flame rod, while directing the
flame to die flame rod.
2. The second problem was related to the function of the
BMS when the main flame turns on. The problem is
in the flame rod location. The sensing tip of the rod
was in the pilot flame, not in the main flame. When
the pilot flame is off, the flame rod needs to be in the
main flame as well. The flame rod was too close to
the base of die main flame, thus generating a low
flame signal. This caused the BMS to turned off the
main gas valves seconds after they are turned on.
Moving the flame rod to a spot in the main flame
would solve the problem when the main was on, but
would not allow the pilot to sense a flame signal. CE-
CERT chose to bypass the BMS system and to control
the flame manually using flame temperature as the
control signal.
Secondary Air
To reach the high volume (59.4 Nm3/hr air and 3.4
Nm3/hr natural gas) of heat needed to preheat all the
vessels, the system had to be pressurized to 241 kPa, and
secondaiy air was required to reduce flame temperatures
and to move the heat throughout the vessels. The sec-
ondary air was designed to be at a 90-degree angle to the
mid-point of the main flame. Secondary air at this loca-
tion would carve a hole in the refractory wall, because
the Green Cast 19L was too light to handle the high
velocities. Replacement to the refractory in the burner
section was not possible unless it was completely
replaced. Instead, CE-CERT tried putting the secondary
14
-------
air at the base of the flame, where the high-density
refractory could handle the high velocities. At this loca-
tion, the secondary air blew out the flame. The second-
aiy air was then moved to the bottom of R101 (where
the Mogas valves mount). This location delivered the
heat to all the vessels as required. To keep the secondary
air on the bottom of R101, CE-CERT will modify the
start-up program to allow the Mogas valves to be open
during the preheating process. Future designs should
allow for secondary air to be added in the direction of
the flame near the middle or aid. A higher-density burn-
er refractoiy is also recommended.
Low-Pressure Igniter
After operating the burner it was discovered that the
flame and igniter rods were leaking at the electrical con-
nections. CE-CERT found that the flame and igniter
rods were low-pressure units and needed to be replaced
with sealed high-pressure units. Because the BMS is not
going to be used, CE-CERT has replaced the igniter unit
with a high-pressure equivalent. Figure 4-2 is a photo of
the old flame sparker and the new high-pressure unit
fabricated by CE-CERT. During gasification test la, the
modified spark system turned out to be unreliable, so a
third design was necessary. This is described in Section
5 of this report.
Refractory Damage (#2)
Burner temperatures exceeded 1093 °C in order to heat
up the entire reactor as necessary according to the cure
SOP and to preheat the reactor for gasification tests. Hie
refractoiy in the burner section was only rated for 1037
°C and foiled during operation at temperatures above
1037 °C.
When the refractory was repaired the first time, a sec-
tion in the burner was not repairable because of its loca-
tion. Unfortunately, this section failed while the vessels
were being cured. CE-CERT hired the same engineering
firm that repaired the other refractoiy surfaces to repair
the burner casting. The repair required removing the
vessel from the structure, shipping it to B&B
Engineering, and removing the old casting (Figure 4-3).
The new refractory used GreenKleen 60 for the hot face
and GreenCast 19L for the secondary lining. The hot
face was 76 mm and the secondary lining was 89 mm.
Before delivery to CE-CERT, the refractory was cured
in an oven.
The new burner casting was rated to 1649 °C and has the
rigidity of concrete. The burner skin temperature was
expected to be no higher than 165 °C with a gas tem-
perature of 1204 °C. The new casting should be able to
withstand high gas velocities, which means the second-
ary air can be located back to the designed location near
the burner flame. During gasification tests this refracto-
ry also foiled during operation, as discussed in Section
5.
Burner Vessel Crack On Lower 18-inch Flange
CE-CERT found a surface crack on the lower 18-inch
flange weld (Figure 4-4). Secondary inspection was
required to determine the depth and details of the crack.
Bay City Boilers hired an ultrasonic ASME inspector to
X-ray die crack. The inspector found the crack penetrat-
ed a depth of 13 mm and almost 270 degrees around the
flange. Because of the depth and length of the crack, the
a b c
Figure 4-2. Igniter systems: (a) the old spark system; (b) modified spark system using a high-pressure electrical pass-
through; and (c) pressure vessel for location of ground pilot system.
15
-------
a b c
Figure 4-3. Removal of the burner spool piece refractory and internal refractory damage to the burner section.
flange was cut off and replaced. The vessel was
removed and sent to Bay City Boilers (which warranted
the repair for CE-CERT). After the crack was repaired
and recertified, CE-CERT sent the vessel to a refractory
shop to replace the refractory as mentioned earlier.
After finding one crack, CE-CERT hired an ASME
inspector to test another 10% of the welds. If any seri-
ous cracks were found, CE-CERT would then test
another 10% of the welds. No serious cracks were
found, but two minor cracks on the heat exchanger ves-
sel were identified (Figure 4-5). Both cracks were weld-
ICrack
I penetration
Crack
d e f
Figure 4-4. Crack investigation: (a) crack location CAD drawing; (b) crack inspection; (c) crack detail location and pene
tration; (d) crack close-up after grinding surface away; (e,f) burner piece removal.
16
-------
Figure 4-5. Magnetic flux inspection on another 10% of the welds: (a) heat exchanger inspection; (b) process tubing con-
nection showing crack and hole from poor penetration; (c, d) same process tubing repaired.
ed over using a certified welder, and the inspection
grindings were brought up to full penetration. During
the repair a pin hole in the connecting tubing was found
and repaired.
4.2 Biomass Feed System
The feed system was designed to automatically feed
biomass into the high-pressure reactor from a feed stor-
age hopper. Interference problems and design opera-
tional problems had to be solved before the system was
operational. In addition, the electrical work and control
logic were not included with the design. CE-CERT took
the responsibility to modify the mechanical interfer-
ences and to program and wire the system to the point of
automation.
Feed System Overflow Chutes
The feed system overflow chute alignment was not
designed properly and interfered with the feed valves
and bucket elevator. The overflow chute was cut, rotat-
ed and re-welded to allow for proper feed system oper-
ation (Figure 4-6). The figures show the type of modifi-
cations and interferences that prevented the feed system
from being installed. To make the feed overflow chute
fit from the top of the valves to the storage bin, the angle
needed to be decreased from 55° to 45°. The change in
angle caused a bridging problem, which is discussed
below.
Figure 4-6. Modified overflow chutes for the biomass feed system: (a) interference with the feed valves; (b) modified
angle to get overflow chute to mate with feed hopper; (c) connection to feed hopper; (d) orientation at the precharge hop-
per before entering the feed valves.
17
-------
Feed System Storage
The biomass storage bin required extra mounts not cov-
ered in the preliminary site development. CF-CERT
designed and installed new supports for the storage bin
(Figure 4-7). A second problem was getting biomass
into the storage bin. A truckload of white oak biomass
was delivered to CE-CERT and conveyed into the stor-
age bin using a rotary blower. It takes about one day to
load enough biomass for a two-day gasification test. In
the future, CE-CERT expects to rent a skip loader,
which should do the same work in less than three hours.
The biomass is stored in the hopper and on the ground
under nylon tarps. Moisture analyses were conduced
throughout the year. The moisture content averages
about 13% on the ground pile and 6% in the storage bin
pile +2%. The average moisture value on the ground
piles at a depth of 1.5 m was 6%, and there was no mois-
ture difference for the piles in the storage bin.
Electrical Controls
The final assembly of the feed system required
installing the vibrators, electrical controls, motor vari-
able frequency drives, and bucket elevator. Additionally,
the entire feed system needed to be programmed by CE-
CERT before operation could be achieved. The vibrators
were mounted on the grating and connected to variable
resistors to set the vibration control point (Figure 4-8).
Each vibrator, one for sand and one for aluminum oxide,
was calibrated for a specific mass flow and programmed
into the control software.
Appendix VII shows the locations of key components
and sensors. The electrical controls for the hopper screw
(SC-801), meter screw (SF-805), and feed screw (SF-
806) were installed on the back side of the feed valves
for easy access and close proximity to the drive motors
(Figure 4-9a,b). Ladder logic drawings that show the
wiring detail were drawn by CE-CERT and are included
in Appendix III.
The level sensor, installed in the meter bin, is a capaci-
tive type sensor (Figure 4-9c). When biomass fills the
meter bin the capacitance increases with height. During
preliminary runs the level signal was too weak to meas-
ure. To fix the problem, the surface area of the capaci-
tive sensor was increased. Also, when installing the
sensor it was discovered the bend angle was incorrect
CE-CERT modified the bend angle to get it to fit into the
meter bin. The capacitive level sensor has been a reli-
able measure of biomass level.
The bucket elevator shown in Figure 4-9d is used to
convey biomass from the ground floor to the top floor, a
distance of 7.3 m. Once the prechargc hopper is full,
biomass overflows back into the hopper bin. The buck-
et elevator was assembled at CE-CERT and required
minimal troubleshooting. The bucket elevator is a reli-
able method for conveying biomass from the ground
floor to the top floor.
CE-CERT tried feeding biomass into the reactor once
the feed system was mechanically and electrically func-
tional. Feeding biomass into the reactor was possible
because the burner spool piece (B-037) was removed for
repair. Biomass could exit the reactor through the 152
mm opening between the burner and the reactor. Hie
plan was to operate the feed system at different speeds
and calibrate the mass flow. Unfortunately, the calibra-
tion was delayed because bridging problems were dis-
covered in eight locations (Figure 4-10). The problems
were located at:
1. Hopper bin.
2. Bucket elevator neck.
3. Return overflow chute connection.
Figure 4-7. Support legs for large storage bin (a). Biomass delivery system (b) and biomass transport into the hopper (c)
also are shown.
18
-------
Figure 4-8. Vibrator and electric filter pulse clean heater controls and vibrator controls (left); steam and cooling water
controls (right).
a be d
Figure 4-9. (a) Motor drive support; (b) motor drives and feed valve electronics; (c) level sensor installed in the meter bin;
and (d) bucket elevator to move biomass from bottom to top of reactor.
4. Precharge hopper.
5. Feed valve.
6. Loekhopper reduction tank.
7. Feed valve.
8. Meter bin.
Each problem required some type of mechanical or elec-
trical design change to get continuous flow through the
feed system.
Location 1 was a bridging problem in the hopper storage
bin (Figure 4-11). The biomass easily supported an edge
and prevented flow into the screw below. If the problem
went unnoticed for about one hour, the hopper screw
would not have any biomass and the system would run
dry. This problem was solved by manually leveling the
pile hourly. For commercial autonomous-level opera-
tion, large eccentric rotating vibrators would be recom-
mended.
Location 2 was a bridging problem caused by operating
the hopper screw at too high a speed. Too much mass
was flowing, and it would jam in the small neck at the
connection from the bucket elevator and the top of the
precharge hopper. To fix the problem the hopper screw
rate was reduced as needed.
Location 3 was a bridging problem in the overflow neck
on top of the prechai^e hopper. This problem was fixed
by a cleanout air pulse five times at the beginning of a
feed cycle. For commercial applications, this modifica-
tion may not be necessary because of the larger size of
the opening.
Location 4 was a bridging problem in the overflow
chute connecting the precharge hopper to the hopper
bin. The solution was to provide a steady air stream
down the chute controlled with the operation of the
bucket elevator (Figure 4-12). The air jet was on when-
ever the bucket elevator was operating. For commercial
installations, die bin could be located such that the angle
19
-------
OFvY
?A-)i) Ilr:
t
- — ©
//< y/i'
o:'3
8
Figure 4-10. Bridging problem locations.
a be
Figure 4-11. Bridging problems in the (a) hopper screw; (b) bridging with feed screw exposed; (c) bridging with feed
screw empty thus not feeding biomass.
20
-------
:rr
n.ir-
-Xt lrf*\r
.•UPfC^
\f;v /s.NGi.r.-ic
??
Eir.Mn-,5 BUDGING
CUT MAIL T0
CLE^P V»i.V;S
a b
Figure 4-12. Modification made to solve overflow chute bridging: (a) solution for bridging at the neck; (b) solution for
bridging in the overflow chute.
from the overfill point to the bin is >55 degrees. A steep
angle tends to prevent bridging problems.
Locations 5 and 7 were similar bridging problems that
occurred in feed valves FV-839 and FV-840. The large
Everlasting valves require a purge gas during closing to
prevent any materials from getting caught behind the
valve as it swings closed (Figure 4-13). The solution
was to incorporate a high-pressure pulse prior to closing
both the top and lower feed valves. Location 6 was a
problem with a mechanical liner designed to help bio-
mass flow through the valves. The relief angle on the
liner made the final hole too small for biomass to pass
through. CE-CERT replaced the liner with a straight
section, which solved the problem. For commercial
applications, problems 5 and 7 will still exist, but prob-
lem 6 most likely will not.
The last bridging problem was in the meter bin,
Location 8. Location 8 was the hardest to solve because
Bridging
Clean-out
Figure 4-13. Everlasting valve cutaway showing where bridging problems were found.
2!
-------
the problem was not consistent. The problem occurred
when the level in the meter bin got too high. The bio
mass would compact and bridge over the meter screw.
I'he solution was to limit the biomass level to a safe
height. In commercial applications, this may or may not
be an issue because of the increased cross-sectional
area.
The feed screw mass flow rate was calibrated after the
bridging problems were solved and the control program
was finalized. Hie mass flow rate was too high at the
lowest motor controller setting. There were two solu-
tions: One was to replace the gear box, and the other
was to replace the chain and gear drive. The gear drive
was the easier and less costly approach. CE-CERT
replaced the original 22-tooth gear with a larger 72-
tooth gear (Figure 4-14a). Hie feed was reduced from
40.8 kg/hr. to 19.5 kg./hr. at a command signal of 20 Hz.
The feed calibration was performed after solving all of
these feed system problems. CE-CERT calibrated the
feed system using a 2-minute sample time because the
theoretical residence time (Dong and Cole, 1996) is two
minutes (Figure 4-15). The average mass flow over the
sample population was 21.8 kg/hr., with a standard devi-
ation of 1.7 kg/hr. The two-minute mass flow uncertain-
ty was estimated to be 3.3 kg/hr., or 15%. I'he mass flow
is dependent on the bulk density and the packing in the
screw flutes, both of which could change without warn-
ing. In addition, calibrating the screw feed before and
after a test requires labor to remove the bottom reactor
piece from the tower. To satisfy the measurement plan
for biomass feed rate, load cells were installed under
each leg of the hopper bin (Figure 4-14). The change in
weight before and after a test will be used as the meas-
ure of carbon fed into the system. Unfortunately, the
load cells are accurate only for tests greater than 24 hrs.
Appendix IV contains details of the sample plan.
The screw feed also was calibrated at different sample
time intervals and at different meter bin levels. During
1-minute and 60-minute samples, the uncertainty was
estimated to be 30% and 10% respectively. Sample
times greater than 60 minutes did not reduce the uncer-
a b
Figure 4-14. (a) Meter bin screw feed gear modifications; (b) load cells located under each leg of the hopper bin. They are
used to measure biomass feed Into the reactor over a 12-hour period.
70 0 r
80.0 -f
50.0 i
40.0
300
20.0
10.0
0.0
Designed Feed Rate
6 8 10
Sample #
12
14
16
Figure 4-15. Feed system flow rate calibration with 6.4 mm white oak saw shavings (Feed = 25 Hz, Meter = 20Hz, 2-minute
collection period and 72-tooth gear).
22
-------
tainty any further. One-minute flow samples were taken
at high, medium, and low meter bin levels (LS-849).
The effect due to meter bin level was not significant
enough to affect the mass flow into the reactor.
CE-CERT noticed the bottom feed valve was binding on
the drive arm after operating the feed system for over
100 cycles. The valve was removed and broken down to
investigate the problem. Rust damage was found on the
journal bearing, which caused the drive to seize (Figure
4-16). CE-CERT purchased a new drive system and
installed it There have been no more problems with the
feed valve since. The manufacturer recommended oper-
ating the valves on a routine basis to prevent rust
buildup. CE-CERT implemented a preventive mainte-
nance cycle to operate all large pneumatic valves during
down times.
4.3 Process Gas Supply
Gas Flow Rate Measurement
Six gas flow rates must be measured accurately as
described in the sample plan (Appendix IV). The origi-
nal design was to use the manufacturer's specification
sheet for flow calculations. CE-CERT determined that
the manufacturer's estimation had an uncertainty of
50% minimally. CE-CERT performed a 5-point calibra-
tion of the orifice plate and flange tap systems over the
range of expected flow conditions using a dry gas meter
suitable for each flow following ASME standards as
listed in the Sample Plan (see Appendix V for calibra-
tion curves and tables). Each calibration was completed
with nitrogen at pressure and temperature. A summary
of the measured uncertainties is listed in Table 4-1.
According to the ASME standard, the gas flow calcula-
tions assume temperature, pressure, and differential
pressure are being recorded at each orifice plate. The
original design did not specify individual temperatures
or pressures, but assumed a common temperature and
pressure for all the gases. CE-CERT made the modifica-
tion by adding 5 temperatures and 5 pressure measure-
ments for CH4, H2, C02, CO, and the effluent
The orifice flanges were made of plain carbon steel
without any protective coatings. Steel rusts quickly and
could damage the orifice plates in a short period. To pre-
vent the rust contamination, the flanges were plated with
a 0.0005 in. (12.7 |im) gold erudite plating.
Steam Flow Metering
An orifice type flowmeter was specified by the design
for measurement of steam flow. This is not a recom-
mended sensor type for measuring steam flow because
the density can significantly change across an orifice
when water condenses due to pressure drop. The solu-
tion was to use a 500 mL burette at the inlet to the steam
pump and to spot-check the flow of the steam pump dur-
ing testing. The steam pump is a constant flow pump
and should not vary from check to check. Actual system
uncertainties will be estimated once more experience is
gained with reactor operation. Preliminary flow tests
show this method is reliable. During preliminary testing
CE-CERT noticed a problem maintaining flow with a
back pressure. More investigation is required.
4.4 Hot Gas Filter
Nitrogen Pulse Heater
Preheated nitrogen is used to pulse-clean the high-tem-
perature ceramic filter. The filter element normally
operates at 538 °C under steady-state gasification.
During gasification the filter elements need to be pulse-
cleaned hourly with a high-pressure pulse of nitrogen.
The preheated nitrogen is necessary to prevent filter ele-
ment damage due to thermal shock when pulse-cleaned.
Originally, the nitrogen was to be preheated using waste
gas from the effluent heat exchanger (I DC-107). This
a be
Figure 4-16. Everlasting feed valve drive and assembly: (a) damaged drive torque arm; (b) valve assembly showing seals
and valve seat; (c) valve mechanism after reassembly.
23
-------
was modified when the steam heat exchangers were
found to be undersized. The steam is preheated in both
IIX-107 and 11X-108. The solution was a 2 kW band
heater controlled by the Cyrano program. The vessel
was designed to be 4 feet long by 4 inches in diameter
and holds a total of 20 scf when pressurized to 800 psi
(Figure 4-17). The pulse heater does operate as expect-
ed, but there are problems with the pulsing valves as
explained in the subsection below on Solenoid Valves.
4.5 Controls
The controls were started by Arcadis and finalized by
CE-CERT. This section covers the changes made to the
controlling program by CE-CERT.
Bed Height Calculation
Knowing the bed height is necessary to help estimate
optimum residence time and understand how the gasifi-
er is performing (Dong and Cole, 1996). Arcadis ran a
cold flow model simulating the Hynol facility to deter-
mine the expected bed height at different flows and bed
material. Analysis by Arcadis concluded that the bed
height does not follow this simulation, but rather fol-
lows a more theoretical approach (Dong, 1998, person-
al communication). CE-CERT implemented both
methods in the control program, allowing the operator to
choose based on operational experience.
Flow Calculation
Flow calculations for CH4, CO, C02, N2, and H2 are
programmed into Cyrano following the methods out-
lined in ASMF. P.C. 19.5 (see Sample Plan, Appendix
IV). The controller samples gauge pressure, gas temper-
ature and differential pressure at the orifice plates for
each of the gases. After each signal is measured the con-
troller converts the units to absolute for flow calcula-
tion. The controller then calculates a flow rate based on
the square root of the pressure, temperature, differential
pressure and molecular weight. The mass based flow
rate (normal cubic meters per hour) is then calculated
using the orifice calibration constant at a standard con-
dition of 15.5 °C) and 1 atm. The gas flow rate is logged
once a minute and updated every five seconds on the
computer screen for start up, steady state and shut down
operations.
Equations were programmed into Cyrano for the calcu-
lation of gas flow for CH4, C02, CO, N2, and H2. The
program samples the differential pressure, temperature,
and pressure at the orifice and calculates the normal dif-
ferential pressure based on actual temperatures and
pressures. The following equations show the calcula-
tions for the hydrogen orifice:
Ql =12.892A/f4M1
(8)
where
Q = Normalized calibration flow at 3.2 MPa and
519.67 °R).
AP
" = Actual pressure differential across the orifice
plate.
And the final flow is calculated by correcting for the
local temperature, pressure, and specific gravity:
Table 4-1. Calibration summary and the actual uncertainty for each orifice plate*. Also included is the expected pressure
drop across each orifice plate.
Designed Row
Flow SI
Flow ENGL
Standard Error Uncertainty Measured
Expected DelP
Entering
(kmol/hr)
(NmA3/hr)
(scfm)
(scfm)
%
in H20
CO
0.1612
3.61
2.12
0.00622
1.00%
1.042
C02
00983
2.2
1.29
0.0115
1.00%
1.533
CH4
0.0449
1.01
0.592
0.0066
1.50%
0.45
H2
1.771
39.7
23.4
0.462
2.00%
4.00
N2
0.1711
3.83
2.25
0.0057
1.00%
4.67
H20
0.2859
11.5
6.77
n/a
in progress
n/a
Exiting
effluent
3.056
68.45
40.3
0.240
1.00%
n/a
* Flow calibrations are based on a STP pressure =14.696 psi (1 atm) and temperature =60 "F (15.55°C).
24
-------
a b
Figure 4-17. Heater pulse cleaning system for the hot gas filter.
Qa=Qc,
\TcPaSGa
1PXSGC
(9)
where
a
^ Actual flow rate in (sefm) corrected for pres-
sure, temperature, and specific gravity.
z
c - Normalized calibration temperature (519.67
°R).
P
" = Actual pressure at the orifice flange tap in psi
units.
SG
"= Actual specific gravity of the gas flowing
through the orifice.
P
' = Normalized calibration pressure (3.2 MPa).
T
a = Actual temperature of the gas upstream of the
flange tap °F units.
SG
<= Specific gravity of calibration gas (Hydrogen
was used for H2 flow and nitrogen was used for
CO, C02, N2, and CH4 flows).
Burner System
Since the BMS was not functional, all the controls for
this portion were removed from the control program and
the program was modified to reflect the new safety
interlock and process requirements to start, monitor, and
stop the burner. The program prevents operation of the
burner if an alarm is activated. Also, the controller cal-
culates the air-to-fuel ratio of the gas going through the
burner.
Water and Steam Pump
No remote starting systems were designed for the steam
pump and water pump. They are necessary to start the
steam pump at a desired process temperature. Easy start-
ing of the steam pump and cooling water pumps is nec-
essary for the safe operation of the facility. The starting
of these pumps is remotely controlled in the control
room by either manual or automatic modes.
Nitrogen Pulse Heater
The nitrogen pulse preheater controls include manual
and automatic controls. The start, stop and desired set
point are controlled by the computer or manually at the
heating element. A proportional, integral and derivative
(PID) controller was programmed in Cyrano, which
ramps up the temperature to the desired set point.
Feed System
The feed system automation was programmed in OPTO
22. There were many revisions to control logic due to
the problems mentioned earlier. The final flow block
diagram is shown in Figure 4-18. First, the feed system
is manually started and the feed system checks the level
meter (LS-498). If the level is greater than 6 mA, the
feed cycle is initiated; otherwise, the program waits for
the level to drop below 6 mA. Once the cycle starts, the
25
-------
nitrogen purge flow is checked. If the flow is too low
(less than 2 inH20) the operator is instructed to open
FCV-404 before the cycle will continue. The nitrogen
flow is used to keep positive pressure in the meter bin,
which prevents heat from flowing into the bin. When the
lower feed valves open, there is a brief inrush of gas into
lockhopper LH-801. Without nitrogen flow, hot gases
from R101 would be drawn into the meter bin, eventu-
ally causing mechanical and process damage.
Once the N2 flow is set >2 inH20, the additives are com-
bined with the biomass in the precharge hopper. The
program then checks to make sure the bottom valve FV-
840 is closed before depressurizing. If the valve is not
closed, the controller closes the valve. Each time l'V-
840 or FV-839 is opened or closed, the time out and stop
and alarm blocks are activated. If the valve does not do
what it was supposed to, an alarm is sounded, the oper-
ator sees an error message, and the plant is put in stand-
by mode.
After successful indication that FV-840 is closed, the
lockhopper LH-801 is deprcssurized. Once the pressure
in LH-801 is less than 34.5 kPa, the top feed valve (FV-
839) is opened. Biomass drops into LH-801 while a
pulse air blast cleans out the neck area #2 (see Figure 4-
10). The valve (FV-839) is closed and pressurized
through FV-839 cleanout port connection. Once the
pressure is > reactor pressure (PT-804), the bottom
valve is opened. Biomass drops into the meter bin. The
feed level should increase by at least 0.5 mA. If the level
remains unchanged, the operator receives an error mes-
sage, and the feed system is terminated until reset.
After biomass drops into the meter bin, a second nitro-
gen blast cleans out the bottom valve (FV-840). The
valve closes and the cycle checks the level. If the level
is greater than 13 mA (high level), the cycle is ended.
Otherwise the level is still less than the high level mark,
and the cycle repeats itself after timer KS-840 expires
(90 seconds).
Each feed cycle takes approximately 90 seconds from
start to stop. Between each feed cycle there is a 90-sec-
ond wait time to fill the precharge hopper. During steady
state testing, it was estimated the feed cycle takes 15
minutes to fill the meter bin with a 5- to 10-minute wait
between ended cycles.
4.6 Cooling System
The cooling system includes a cooling tower, cooling
pump, and an effluent gas heat exchanger. CE-CERT
provided a drip type naturally aspirated water cooling
tower. It is well overdesigned for the process and is
expected to be adequate during steady-state gasification
testing. The water pump provided for the project was
only '/< hp (186 W) and undersized for the flow needs of
the process. CE-CERT installed an available 4 hp (3
kW) cooling pump that has been woricing error-free.
The cooling system also has an 24.4 m heat exchanger
that extends from the top of the tower to the flare stack.
It was designed to bring the final effluent temperature
down to 93.3 °C and to preheat the steam before it enters
the main heat exchanger vessel. (Figure 4-20).
4.7 Solenoid Valves
The original design specified solenoid operated gate
valves designed and manufactured by Atkomatic.
During shakedown, five of the fifteen valves have been
troublesome. Two have been replaced and currently the
other three are being bypassed. CE-CERT recommends
replacing the valves with pneumatic valves because of
reliability and longevity.
4.8 Exit Flare Stack
The flare stack came with a 2.1 m extension and no
mounting hardware. According to local code, the flare
had to be 4.6 m above the working surface. CE-CERT
modified the system with a 2.5 m extension and guide-
wire support anchored to the concrete pad (Figure 4-21).
The electrical controls were installed by CE-CERT. The
flare starts manually, but has an automatic shutdown and
external alarm to the operator for safety. The flare stack
has been successfully operated.
Main Heat Exchanger HX-205
The purpose of the main heat exchanger is to preheat
inlet gases before they enter R101. The heat exchange
takes place between the hot effluent exit gas and the
cool simulated recycle inlet gas. The original heat
exchanger was made by Arcadis from porous ceramic
block. Ceramic was chosen due to expected 760 °C
effluent gas temperatures.
The problem was that the ceramic heat exchanger would
allow gas to transfer from the cool side (higher pressure)
to the hot side (lower pressure). The pressure difference
is the drop in pressure in the system. The pressure drop
is determined from the resistance to flow through the
heater, burner, distributor plate, three meters of biomass,
a cyclone, and the high pressure filter before it becomes
26
-------
Start Feed Seq
High
Level
Low
Level
Commentl
Initialize Timer
Stop &
Alarm
Time
Out
FV-340
Closed
N2
Flow
Time
Out
FV-840
Closed
PT-84*
>PT-SC
Stop &
Alarm
Time
Out
Time
Out
TV-f
Opei
Comment;
Stop &
Alarm
Comment4
Open FV-839
Comment2
Start Additives
Pressurize
Close FV-839
FV-848
Close FV-840
& FV-406a
Figure 4-18. Feed system final version logic for the lock hopper high pressure design.
the hot effluent gas. The pressure drop is expected to be
around 34.5 kPa. A test rig was set up (Figure 4-21) to
evaluate the heat exchanger performance. The goal was
to measure how quickly the gas would leak into the
process side with one end of the heai exchanger plugged
and the other side pressurized to 34.5 kPa. The leak rate
was less than 'A second thus requiring HX-205 to be
redesigned and installed. The new design is 55 fit of 12.7
mm x 0.889 mm Haynes Alloy 630 tubing coiled with a
radius 127 mm and a gap of of 1.59 mm between each
pair of coils. The heat exchanger will be evaluated once
steady state gasification is achieved.
4.9 Sample System
The sample system is shown in Figure 4-22 and
described in detail in Appendix IV. The goal of the sam-
ple system is to measure in real time CO, C02, CH», and
ii2 while collecting deposits on four filter assemblies
and removing water through a 689.5 kPa. 1.67 °C cool-
ing system. The expected moisture of the analyses is
2000 ppm. From the composition and flow data, it will
be possible to characterize when the plant reaches
steady state and to calculate approximate carbon con-
version efficiency, thermal efficiency and mass balance.
27
-------
Figure 4-19. Effluent gas heat exchangers (HX-109,110a, and 110b), a tube within a tube.
-¦ Control
a b
Figure 4-20. (a) Flare stack, extension, and guide-wire support; (b) electrical controls and valves.
28
-------
a b
Figure 4-21. (a) Heat exchanger HX-205 leak rate test setup; (b) HX-205 redesign.
a b c
Figure 4-22. High-pressure sample system: (a) high-pressure impingers submersed in ice/salt mixture (-20.6 °C) during test-
ing; (b) array of pressure regulators prior to going into dry gas meters and after impingers; and (c) calibration gases for
continuous analyzer.
29
-------
5. Preliminary Results
5.1 Test 1: Air Gasification
Test Goals: The goals of tests la and l b were to demon-
strate reliable operation of the burner, feed system,
heater, and bed height pressure drop. Secondly CE-
CERT also hoped to achieve 1472 °F (800 °C) bed tem-
peratures to demonstrate optimum biomass gasification.
The locations of thermocouples and valves listed below
are shown in the Diagrams provided in Appendix VII of
this report.
Result Summary 1a
The burner was unreliable at first, but once burner tem-
perature TE-020 was > 1500 °F (816 nC) the burner was
easy to stop and start. The feed system ran reliably
except for a bridging problem in FV-840. The bridging
problem caused a gas leak through FV-840 and FV-839.
The leak caused heat to flow into the feed system meter
bin, thus overheating feed screw TE-808. At the same
time the process filter (F-104) clogged; this was indicat-
ed by a large (>50 psi, 344 kPa) pressure differential
between inlet and exit pressures (PT-030 - PT-823). As
a result of these problems, the ideal bed temperatures
and bed height pressure drops were not achieved and
gasification was not performed.
Test Setup and Operation
12/7 Primed R101 bed with 26 liters of sand (static
bed height of 1.3 m). Tried to preheat the reac-
tor with the electric heater (H-036) to 204 °C
as necessary to prevent water condensing dur-
ing burner operation. I"he heater capacity was
not sufficient to preheat the reactor to 204 °C;
thus, the burner was started even though water
condensation would occur inside R101. The
burner would not start because of a problem
with the spark rod igniter. Shutting down until
burner operational.
12/10 Same static bed height. Tried starting burner,
but modified spark rod igniter failed again. The
method being used is not reliable. A new
design is necessary. While fixing the spark sys-
tem, CE-CERT modified the air and natural gas
plumbing to make start-up safer and quicker.
12/16 Designed new spark system that worked reli-
ably on the bench and in the reactor. Operated
burner until TE-809 was 427 °C.
12/17 Cycled the feed system valves as a safety
check prior to starting the feed system while
waiting for the temperature at TE-809 to
increase.
12/18 Operated feed system after TE-809 reached
427 °C. The feed system ran reliably except for
a bridge problem in tank T-805. The bridging
problem caused a gas leak through FV-840 and
FV-839. The leak caused heat to flow into the
feed bin, thus overheating the feed screw TE-
808. At the same time the process filter (F-l 04)
clogged, as indicated by a large (>50 psi) pres-
sure differential between inlet and exit pres-
sures (PT-030 - PT-823). As a result of these
problems, the ideal bed temperatures and bed
height pressure drops were not achieved. Shut
down system and started purging with nitro-
gen.
12/19 Purged reactor with nitrogen.
End of Gasification Test 1a
The automation of the feed system was the main success
from test la. Figure 5-1 shows a typical automation pro-
file for the high-pressure feed system, as per the design
modification. Once the level signal (LSL-849) goes
below 6 mA, the feed cycle is started. First the lockhop-
per LH-801 is pressurized from ambient to reactor pres-
30
-------
60
PT-804
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Time (sec)
Figure 5-1. Automated operation of the feed system during gasification test 1a.
sure (PT-804) + 34.5 kPa. The excess pressure is used to
help push the biomass into the meter bin (T-805). if the
pressure is in excess of 68.9 kPa, the extra pressure will
prematurely open the bottom valve (FV-840) and pre-
vent the cycle from completing. Once the pressure (PT-
847) in the lock hopper (LH-801) is 34.5 kPa greater
than the reactor pressure (PT-840), the bottom valve
opens after a determined delay and the biomass drops
into the meter bin. The added biomass to the meter bin
can be seen by the rise in LSL-849. The completion of a
cycle is noted by PT-847 going from reactor pressure
(PT-804) down to ambient pressures. Also note the con-
stant drop in LSL-849 between cycles as biomass is
constantly fed into the reactor (R101). The delay
between cycles is necessary to fill LH-801 with bio-
mass, kaolinite and sand.
Unfortunately, a bridging problem occurred at the bio-
mass feed valves. The bridging was due to a human
error, not a process control error. FV-427 was not
opened as listed in the preliminary startup procedures.
As a result of not opening FV-427, biomass collected on
the back side of the lower feed valve (FV-840), prevent-
ing the valve from fully closing. Because the valve was
not fully closed, gas leaked past the valve seat during
each feed cycle. The gas leak through the valves caused
a rapid overheating of the feed screw TE-808. Once the
feed screw temperature exceeded 204 °C, the plant was
shut down and the problem was investigated.
The filter also clogged during test la. According to the
filter designer, after gasifying/combusting biomass the
filters need to be purged with hot air to burn off any
residual carbon. Purging with hot air would be possible
by operating the burner for 2 to 3 hours after gasifica-
tion. Because of the rapid increase in TE-808, the reac-
tor was shut off and not brought down slowly with the
burner. CF.-CERT believes shutting off the reactor with-
out purging the filters with hot air is what caused the fil-
ters to clog. To fix the problem, the manufacturer
suggested burning off the residual carbon with air at 315
°C. CE-CERT rented an industrial propane heater and
burned off the residual carbon from the filters. The
heater was installed at the base of the filter with access
through tank T-104. CE-CERT confirmed the filters
were cleared by successfully running a simple pressure
test A filter cleaning SOP has been established for the
future.
One of the more time-consuming tasks was to get a reli-
able spark at the center of an 457 mm pipe through a 6.4
mm hole inside a vessel at 7 atm. The original design as
described in the Burner Management section solved ihe
problems initially, but after extended use that modifica-
tion became unreliable. During operation the spark rod
and ground moved from thermal expansion and gas
velocities. If the gap were more than 3.2 mm, the spark-
er would not work. In addition, adjustments to the gap
were made 61 cm into a dark 25.4 mm hole, which made
it difficult to set the correct gap size. The modified
31
-------
design had the spark rod and ground in the same hous-
ing. This design would have worked, but the high-volt-
age spark found an easier path through the insulating
seal of the high-pressure pass-through. The next design
took advantage of the same concept of providing the
spark and the ground in the same unit, but with a better
pressure seal. The high-pressure pass-through manufac-
turer had a special seal material available, but the cost
was in excess of $5,000 each with a minimum order of
10. Instead, CE-CERT modified an off-the-shelf spark
plug to serve as the burner spark system. It proved to be
very reliable and simple to fabricate.
Result Summary 1b
The burner operated reliably every time. Ideal bed tem-
peratures were achieved and air gasification was
noticed, but with low CO and CH4 concentrations. The
electric heater was damaged again and the feed system
was jamming consistently. After removing the burner
spool piece, large agglomerations were found surround-
ing the feed system inlet to R101.
Test Setup and Operation
1/5/99 The bed is still primed with 26 liters of sand
minus any losses. Turned on electric heater to
20%, 40% then 60%. Started burner after TE-
020 was >400 °F (200 °C).
1/6/99 Turned feed system on once TE-809 reached
427 °C. Feed system set at 22/7 kg/hr., 1.13
kg/hr. kaolinite, 1.13 kg/hr. sand and an air
flow set at 22.1 Nm3/hr (sub-stoichiometric
combustion by 1/3). The burner and nitrogen
flows were also turned off. The reactor temper-
atures were very unstable. The feed system was
jamming every 10 minutes. Tried adjusting the
air flow to keep temperature stable. The feed
system was toggled on and off every 5 to 15
minutes to clear jamming problem.
1/7/99 Because the natural gas storage capacity was
below the needed supply pressure for the natu-
ral gas burner heating, the reactor was tem-
porarily shut down to recharge the compressed
cylinders to 24.8 MPa. Turned burner back on
to attempt gasification again. Waiting for TE-
809 to reach 427 °C.
1/8/99 Temperature of 427 °C was reached. Before
starting up feed system, added sand to increase
the bed height. Added an additional 20 liters of
sand at 06:00. Now the static bed height is 2.5
m minus any losses.
1/9/99 All attempts to gasify were well below ideal.
Shutting down reactor to investigate problems
with the feed system and the reactor gasifica-
tion area.
— CO % — C02 % —CH4 % —TE 809
TE-809
c
o>
o
c
o
O 10
600 800 1000 1200
Minutes From Midniqht
Figure 5-2. Gasification product concentrations for test 1b, January 8,1999.
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
fit
1000
O)
0
00
800
600
400
200
0
1400
32
-------
End of Gasification Test 1b
Even though ideal gasification was not achieved, there
were some signs of gasification. Ideal gasification
should yield CO and CH4 percentages around 10 to
15%. The best results from test #lb were 2% CO, 0.5%
CH4> and 9% C02 (Figure 5-2). The low CO and CH4
concentrations and the high C02 concentration indicate
more combustion than gasification was occurring. One
reason for the poor gasification could be the problem
with agglomeration. The agglomeration plugged the
entire reaction area, thus preventing proper fluidization.
The feed system operated with no bridging problems,
but there was an operational problem to consider for
future designs. The biomass that remains in the
precharge has a tendency to get wet during idle months.
Future designs need to accommodate weather protec-
tion, and operational designs need to purge out the bio-
mass prior to shutdown. Our SOPs (Appendix VI)
include five feed system cycles during shutdown and a
pretest check for all chutes to be clean and free of any
obstructions.
A second problem was noticed with the feed system.
After about an hour of gasification, the main feed screw
SF-806 motor would overload and stop. CE-CERT ini-
tially thought the problem was due to a mechanical
interference with die feed screw and shaft housing. After
removing the bottom vessel to inspect the feed area,
large stonelike agglomerations were found (Figure 5-3).
In Figure 5-3a, notice the blockage filling the entire
reaction area of R101 just above the feed system. Figure
5-3b shows the agglomeration pieces that dropped out
of R101, coming to rest on the burner B-037. Figure 5-
3c and d show R101 and B-037 after being cleaned and
ready for reassembly.
Operating bed temperatures were achieved during test
1 b (Figure 5-4). Unfortunately, the problem in achieving
steady-state gasification prevented stable uniform bed
temperatures. Notice the reactor temperature (TE-809)
on January 6 between 1:00 and 9:00 varied by approxi-
mately 315 °C. The sudden increases in temperature
were noticed after toggling the feed system back on
after it jammed. It is believed the agglomeration prob-
lem was a result of the fluctuating temperatures and/or a
poor choice of bed materials. Local hot spots could have
gotten hot enough to fuse the sand.
During maintenance checks CE-CERT found all the
heating elements damaged. The damage was due to poor
support for the heater elements. According to the manu-
facturer, the elements need to be loosely supported from
horizontal movement every 304 mm. The type of sup-
port installed was rigid and in contact with the elements.
The modified design (Figure 5-5) used advanced pow-
der metal (maximum temperature 1482 °C) for a support
rod and 10 ceramic disks with a 6.4 mm gap for the
loose support. This system also failed, as discussed in
test #2 results below.
Figure 5-3. Agglomeration results after air gasification tests at 5 atm and 13 scfm air with 50lb./hr. biomass. Bed tempera-
tures reached 982 °C, but were not consistent
33
-------
TE 809-i-TE 810 -r-TE 811 -|-TE 813
2000
1400 i
1200 i
otobbobuocjbuibc^bwbcooloo
ooooooooooooooooooo
Time (hr:min)
Figure 5-4. Bed temperature profile from the gasification area for test 1 on January 6,1999.
Figure 5-5. Installation of new elements and supports: (a) heater element assembly; (b,c) element Installation Into heater
vessel (H-036); and (d) final assembly with loose packing to prevent shorting.
34
-------
The agglomeration problem is thought to be due to
either melting the bed material or an alkali formation
with the sand fluidizing media and potassium and sodi-
um in the biomass. Alkali formation is a common prob-
lem with coal and biomass gasifiers. If the problem is
from alkali formation, one solution is to use an alkali
getter such as aluminum oxide. Unnasch (1996) recom-
mended using kaolinite for the Hynol process at 5% by
weight with the feed system as designed into the con-
trols. If the problem is due to a poor choice of bed mate-
rials, other sands could be investigated.
5.2 Test 2: Air Gasification
Test Goals: Hie goals of this test were to demonstrate
reliable burner operation, heater operation, and to
achieve operating bed temperatures. Once bed tempera-
tures were achieved, CE-CERT would attempt to flu-
idize the bed and demonstrate hot ash removal cycles
with a sand/kaolin mix. After successful ash removal
cycles were completed, CE-CERT would then attempt
biomass gasification, with the bed primed with 2.5L
sand and 0.5L kaolinite.
Results Summary
Reliable burner and heater operation were demonstrat-
ed. There was no damage to the heater elements. Bed
temperatures of800 °C were achieved. The ash removal
cycles were successful at operating temperatures. The
agglomeration problem still exists, but the severity was
much less than in test la and lb.
Test Setup and Operation
3/30/99
08:30 Started electric heater.
10:25 Started burner easily and operated until the
reactor bed TE-809 reached 427 nC.
3/31/99
02:50 TE-809 at 427 °C. Completed 20 successful
ash removal cycles. For each test, 2 liters of
sand and 0.5 liters of kaolinite were added, but
only 2 liters of mixture was removed from the
ash cycles. Each ash cycle removed an average
of 0.3 liters of mixture.
08:00 Shut down system to prime bed with 2.5 liters
of sand and 0.5 liters of kaolinite, which repre-
sents a 152 mm static bed height. Slowly pres-
surized the system to 25 psig (172 kPa) and set
the air flow to 0.3 Nm-Vhr. Successfully
demonstrated an ash removal cycle before
starting the feed system. Ran the feed system
lor 30 seconds to add approximately 0.23 kg of
biomass (Figure 5-6).
— AIRflow
C02 {%)
CO {%)
CH4(%)
i
§^9
-------
08:15 One aspect critical for gasification facilities is
ash removal. The facility was designed with an
upper and lower ash removal system. The sys-
tem was designed to operate once per hour,
removing 1.4 kg/hr char and 0.3 kg/hr sand.
Completed 5 successful ash removal cycles.
12:20 Primed bed with 2 liters sand and 0.5 liters
kaolinite. Slowly pressurized the system to 25
psig (172 kPa) and set the air flow to 0.3
Nm3/hr. Successfully demonstrated an ash
removal cycle before starting the feed system.
Ran the feed system for 1 minute to add
approximately 0.45 kg of biomass (Figure 5-6).
12:45 Completed 5 successful ash removal cycles.
13:45 Purged process filter and primed natural gas
and nitrogen storage tanks for a longer gasifi-
cation run.
20:30 Primed bed with 2 liters sand and 0.5 liters
kaolinite. Slowly pressurized the system to 25
psig (172 kPa) and set air flow to 0.3 Nm3/hr.
Successfully demonstrated an ash removal
cycle before starting the feed system. Ran the
feed system for 20 minutes to add approxi-
mately 17 lb (7.6 kg) of biomass (Figure 5-6).
21:00 Noticed large pressure differential (>50 psig;
345 kPa ) across the process filter. Pulse-
cleaned filters and turned burner back on to
provide hot air to clean out process filters.
22:30 Process filters pressure drop cleared.
4/1/99
02:13 Started burner to bring TE-809 back up to 427
°C.
02:35 TE-809 >427 °C. Slowly pressurized the sys-
tem to 25 psig (172 kPa) and set the air flow to
13 scfin (22.1 Nm3/hr). Successfully demon-
strated an ash removal cycle before starting the
feed system. Ran the feed system for 10 min-
utes to add approximately 4.5 kg of biomass
(Figure 5-6).
03:00 Temperature TE-809 flared up to 699 CC. Tried
to perform an ash removal cycle, but it was not
successful. The process filter also seemed to be
clogged because of the large pressure differen-
tial across the filter.
05:00 The process filter was cleaned, but the ash
removal system is still clogged. Shutting down
to fix the problem.
14:00 Removed bottom valves to inspect ash removal
passage. Small agglomerations were found
inside the ash removal passage. Cleaned out
passage and visually confirmed reaction cham-
ber was free of large agglomerations.
End of Gasification Test 2
Test #2 confirmed the stable operation of the feed sys-
tem, burner, and the electric heater, fn addition, two new
cycles were successfully demonstrated: the ash removal
cycle and filter pulse-clean cycle. The burner was easi-
ly started after preheating with the electric heater. Once
TE-809 was > 427 °C, over 20 successful ash removal
cycles were performed. An ash removal cycle removes
ash, sand and kaolinite from the bottom of the reaction
zone through a 25.4 mm tube. The reactor was primed
with 2.5 liters of sand and 0.5 liters kaolinite to give a
static bed height of 152 mm. It would usually take eight
cycles to remove all the sand and kaolinite, which is an
average of 0.3 liters removed per cycle. One thing
noticed about the ash removal cycles was 3 liters of mix
was added, but only 2.5 liters of mix was removed.
Because the kaolinite is so light in comparison with the
biomass, it may be elutriating out of the biomass and
coating the reactor walls. This doesn't cause any opera-
tion problems, but it does prevent the kaolinite from
absorbing alkali from the biomass during gasification.
The next test, test #3, will be performed with limestone
as the alkali getter.
Gasification was attempted at 08:00, 12:20, 20:30 and
02:20 on March 31 and April 1, 1999, as shown in
Figure 5-6. The corresponding bed temperature and
pressure drop profiles are shown in Figures 5-7 and 5-8.
During the gasification runs, the feed system was set at
22.7 kg/hr. and air was added at a flow rate of 22.1
NmVhr to attempt sub-stoichiometric combustioa Hie
30-second and 1-minutc tests at 08:00 and 12:30
showed no sign of temperature increase, but there was a
significant increase in CO and C02. The 10-minute and
20-minute runs at 20:30 March 31 and 02:20 April 1
showed an increase in bed temperatures, and CO, CH4
and C02 concentration. The CO, CH4 and C02 concen-
trations were 15%, 4.8%, and 15% respectively at the
peak performance. These results are better than previous
tests, but still not high enough for achieving the expect-
ed results.
36
-------
3
£
Pressure Drop (inH20)
11:34
11:58
12:22
12:46
13:10
19:19
X 19:43
20:07
5 20:31
20:55
21:19
21:43
Pressure (psi)
7:00
7:25
7:50
8:15
8:40
9:05
11:40
12:05
12:30
12:55
H
13:20
a
®
19:30
3
19:55
n
3
20:20
3
20:45
21:10
21:35
1:35
2:00
2:25
2:50
3:15
3:40
4:05
-------
The ash removal process was successful before gasifi-
cation, but there were problems after gasification.
During the 20-minute and 10-minute gasification test,
the ash removal passage was clogged and needed man-
ual cleaning to break up the blockage. The blockage was
removed and looked like small agglomerations similar
to those in test #1. In addition, there was a sharp rise in
pressure drop across the process filter that indicated
clogging during these tests. The agglomeration problem
may be solved by using a different alkali getter as per-
formed in test #3, or using a different bed material.
During maintenance checks, CE-CERT found all the
heating elements damaged except for one set. The cen-
ter rod support failed due to excessive temperatures
(Figure 5-9). The support rod was designed to operate in
temperatures as high as 1204 °C, but to melt like it did
the temperatures would have been in excess of 1482 °C
(1480 °C). According to the manufacturer, the low den-
sity gases must not carry away the heat very well, leav-
ing the support rod in a high-temperature zone not
measured by the thermocouples. A third design (Figure
5-10) uses silicon carbide for the main support and sim-
ilar ceramic spacers. The new silicon carbide support
rod is designed to operate in temperatures as high as
1649 °C. To prevent future damage to heater elements,
more conservative start-up and shut-down procedures
are put in place. Direct element temperature is being
monitored.
5.3 Test 3: Biomass Gasification
Test Goals: The goal of this test was to gasify biomass
with hydrogen (hydrogasification) in a bed primed with
3 liters of limestone used as an alkali getter. The expect-
ed results were to eliminate the agglomeration problem.
The agglomeration problem has been identified by an
excess pressure differential across the process filter,
causing solid blockage in the reaction zone. An addi-
tional goal was to maintain bed temperatures of 760 to
871 °C while hydrogasifying biomass.
Figure 5-9. The damaged heater elements based on the original design from Arcadis.
a b c
Figure 5-10. Installation of new elements and supports.
38
-------
Results Summary
The agglomeration problem still exists, but there is evi-
dence that it may not be due to hydrogasification. There
is a problem with maintaining the 760 to 871 °C bed
temperatures, but this may be a result of the possible flu-
idization problems when the refractory failed in the
burner spool piece.
Test Setup and Operation
May 4
12:00 Started burner and electric heater. The electric
heater alone could not heat the bed up to 760
°C, so the burner was used in parallel.
May 5
3:00 Operated burner with excess air for 5 hours
until TE-814 and TE-809 were >760 °C
(Figure 5-11).
8:30 Turned burner off (burner temp TE-020, Figure
5-11) and started adding N2 to purge air.
Purging air is a necessary precaution before
adding hydrogen to the reactor.
9:00 Primed the bed with 3 liters of limestone.
9:30 Pressured with nitrogen until a pressure of 30
psi was achieved.
10:20 Started adding hydrogen into the reactor. TE-
809 has dropped to ~649 °C.
10:28 Set hydrogen flow to 23 scfm (1.8 kmol/hr);
see PDIT-003 in Figure 5-11. Figure 5-12 is a
detail from 10:20 to 11:05.
10:35 Turned on feed system after the hydrogen flow
stabilized and set biomass flow to 22.7 kg/hr.
Notice in Figure 5-12 the steady decline in TE
809.
10:28 Hydrogasified for 30 minutes until TE 809
dropped below 480 °C. Once the temperature
dropped below 480 °C, the feed system was
turned off. One positive result from this test is
there didn't seem to be a increase in pressure
differential across the process filter. Figure 5-8
shows the pressure profile. Notice the pressure
differential (PDR101) stayed below 34 kPa
during the hydrogasification testing. During air
gasification PD R101 can rise as high as 345
kPa.
11:05 Started adding air (Air Flow) to burn off the
remaining biomass in the reactor. Minutes after
adding air an increase in pressure differential
-TE 020 TE 814 -«-TE 809 -~-PDIT 003
3000
Burner Temps
8*2000
Reactor Bed
0)
3 1500
5
6
E 1000
©
Time (hr:min)
Figure 5-11. Hynol temperature profile before, during, and after the hydrogasification test on May 5,1999.
39
-------
TE_814
¦PDIT 003
¦TE_809
•CO
-TE_810
-C02
—TE_811
CH4
¦TE 812
Reactor Bed Temps
~
C 1200
a>
P. 1000
Hydrogen
5 800
Feed System
g. 600
Feed System
k
k
o
o
o
to
hi
o
m
o
CO
cn
o
o
o
CJI
o -»¦
cn
o
cn
cn
o
o
Time (hr:min)
Figure 5-12. Hynol hydrogasifl cation Test for May S, 1999, reactor temperature profile.
o
cn
across the filter was indicated by a rise in
PDRlOl (Figure 5-13). This is believed to be
when agglomeration started. More testing is
necessary to confirm this theory. Ihe increase
in pressure differential could also be explained
by the increase in air flow. The pressure rise
also may be due to the increased gas flow from
air gasification.
11:28 Shut off the hydrogen flow (PDIT_003) and
increased air flow (Air Flow) from ll.9
NntVhr to 25.5 Nm3/hr to prevent TE-809 from
dropping any further (high temperatures are
necessary to completely burn off the biomass).
Notice in Figure 5-11 the rise in TE-809 with
the addition of more air. After about 15 minutes
TE-809 starts to drop off, indicating the bio-
mass has been consumed.
12:45 Turned burner on to cool down reactor slowly
and to prevent tar buildup on process filters
(recommendation by filter manufacturer).
Startup of the burner can be seen by the rise in
TE-020 (Figure 5-11) and the increase in the
Air Flow (Figure 5-13).
12:50 Pulse-cleaned high-pressure filter (no pressure
differential change).
13:25 Pulse-cleaned high-pressure filter (small pres-
sure differential change).
13:30 Shut down burner and continued purging the
reactor with air and nitrogen.
14:25 Pulse-cleaned high-pressure filter (small pres-
sure differential change).
15:05 Pulse-cleaned high-pressure filter (small pres-
sure differential change).
15:45 Shut off air flow and nitrogen.
End of Hydrogasiflcation Test
On May 13, 1999, the burner spool piece was removed
to clear some hard blockage material found in the ash
removal tube. After removing the burner spool piece,
the refractory was discovered to be cracked and dam-
aged. There were many agglomeration pieces on top of
the distributor (Figure 5-14). Some pieces looked like
damaged refractory and others looked like sand agglom-
eration. The limestone did not agglomerate, but leftover
sand from previous tests could have accounted for the
majority of the agglomeration.
A crack developed in the spool lining opposite the burn-
er inlet area near TE-020. The steel shell around the port
40
-------
-PT 030
AIR Flow
PDIT 003
-PD R101
O —
on O* S5
30 x Q
% 80
Reactor
b
b
to
o
to
o
o
to
o
b
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Time (hr:min)
Figure 5-13. Hynol hydrogasification Test for May 5,1999, reactor pressure and pressure drop profile.
was around 37i °C. After removing the piece, it was
noted that the backup insulation was damaged and in
some places missing from the top of the spool piece.
The inner hot face refractory lining was not badly dam-
aged but did have some minor cracking. 1he secondary
lining (AP Green 19L) melted during operation thus
intermediate temperatures must have exceeded 1038 °C
(max rating for the 19L).
One of the reasons for the excessive heat damage to the
secondary lining is a result of the locations of sensor
ports. The sensor ports are holes drilled through the light
weight secondary layer and hot face layer. The holes are
necessary lo measure internal temperatures and pres-
sures. The ports are located in line with the air flow from
the heater and from the secondary air. The problem with
this location is heat follows the air flow path. The air
flow is directly onto TE-020, PT-030 and TF.-814. To
achieve the 760 °C bed temperatures (TE-809), high gas
flows were necessary. The high flow created a large
pressure differential around the distributor plate causing
a back pressure in the burner. The high back pressure
could have allowed the heat flow to find an easier route
around the distributor. Since air was directed at two sen-
sor ports, the flow of heat melted the light secondary lin-
ing around the sensor. As the refractory melted more air
started to flow through the new passage, until the flow
made a direct passage around the distributor. Assuming
the gas flow made a secondary route around the distrib-
utor this would reduce bed fluidization a key factor in
gasification. The possible lack of gasification would
explain the lack of gasification with hydrogen. More
tests are necessary once the burner is repaired to con-
firm hydrogasification bed temperatures problems.
To fix the problem CE-CERT was more conservative
with the choice of burner refractory materials. The hot
face was changed from Green Clean 60 to Ultra
GreenSR. The Ultra GreenSR has better thermal shock
resistance and a maximum hot face temperature of 1871
°C. The secondary lining, GrccncastI9L (max temp
1038 °C) was replaced with Greeneast45T. (maximum
temperature 1371 °C). These changes increased the
safety margin for the insulating material, but it also dou-
bles the heat loss through the burner spool piece. The
increased heat loss will still allow the burner to preheat
the reactor to operating temperatures as designed. Also,
a secondary precaution was incorporated to prevent heat
from seeping around sensors by using the same high
temperature hot face material around all burner port fit-
tings. This will locally raise the wall temperatures and
heat losses, but the areas are small, making the overall
heat loss negligible.
In addition to the damaged spool piece, a second crack
was noticed on the bottom section of R101 near the feed
system (Figure 5-14c). To prevent this crack from prop-
agating, CE-CERT patched the refractory with high-
temperature patch materials (maximum temperature of
1371 °C). This repair was completed on-site with out
dismantling the vessels.
41
-------
Figure 5-14. Agglomeration pieces (a) after removal of the bottom burner spool section; (b) refractory damage In the burn-
er spool piece and top ylew of gas distributor; (c) refractory crack in the main reactor.
The inconel distributor was also damaged during the last
gasification test. The center rod deformed under the
excessive temperatures and blocked ash from passing
through the exit tube. To improve the design, CE-CERT
added extra stiffness to the tubular straight section and
introduced secondaty air through the Mogas valves (F V-
858) to prevent overheating.
42
-------
6. Discussion
6.1 Hynol Gasification Tests
One of the main problems of operating the Hynol reac-
tor has been sand agglomerations plugging the reactor
bed. Table 6-1 lists the elemental analysis from test #la,
#lb, and #3 deposits. The deposits were collected at the
entry point of the feed system into the reactor (RIOl),
and the filter ash was sampled at the base of the filter
clean out (F104). Also included is an elemental analysis
of the biomass ash and sand used for bed materia! (note
that biomass is 1.2 % ash by dry weight). The significant
alkali metals are potassium oxide (K20) and sodium
oxide (Na20). From the analysis of the original sand
material, a combined 6% of the sand mass is alkali.
Another interesting feet is 16.8% of the sand mass was
unaccounted for. The analysis of the two deposits is sim-
ilar to the analysis of the sand.
Alkali problems typically are a result of six months of
continuous operation, not a few hours. From simple
mass balance calculations it is obvious the agglomera-
tion mass was too large to have come from the biomass.
During test #3 only 9.1 kg of biomass was added. This
amounts to 100 g of ash, and only 6% of the ash is alka-
li. The agglomeration in test 3 was about 680 g.
The fact that the agglomeration is similar to the compo-
sition of the sand and the fact that the formation
occurred within minutes of beginning operation suggest
the sand is being fused. The glass making industry uses
high alkali sand because the melting point is reduced,
thus lowering operating costs. This suggests the
agglomerations are a result of the high temperatures in
the reactor and use of a sand with a low melting tem-
perature. It could be possible that there are hot spots in
the reactor that are not measured by the temperature
probes. Additional temperature sensors would be useful
in determining whether this is the case.
In test #1 the bed material was sand, but in test #3 the
bed material was limestone. Figure 5-14a shows the
analyzed agglomeration sitting on a pile of limestone.
The explanation for the same deposit analysis in test #1
as in test 3 is that there was some sand in the reactor
prior to adding the limestone. The sand was probably
left over from test 2. The reactor was cleaned of all sand
while the burner spool piece was being repaired.
One solution to prevent fusing the sand in the reactor is
to change to a high silica (Si02), high alumina (Al203)
Table 6-1 Elemental analysis for biomass ash, sand, kaolin, and the formed deposits from tests 1a, 1b, and 3.
Elemental Analysis*
Sample ID
Si02
aj2o3
Ti02 i Fe-iOj
CaO
MgO i Na20
k2o
SO,
P2O5
CI CO;
Total
Other
Fuel Wht Oak
36.6
9.98
1.15 : 4.32
20.3
5.81 4.43
8.07
3.61
1.43
0.07 0.019
95.8
4.2
Kaolin
41.5
37.8
2.17 ! 1.02
0.03
0.06 ' 0.21
0.17
0.06
0.18
0.02 0.02
83.2
16.X
Sand
69.9
10.1
0.38 | 0.67
1.56
0.09 1 2.31
3.48
0.12
0.05
0.01 j 0.03
88.7
11.3
Deposit 1/99
71.3
18.3
0.77 | 1.35
2.67
0.29
2.73
3.61
0.07
0.18
0.01; 0.14
101.4
-1.4
Deposit 5/99
70.0
17.7
0.73 j 4.88
3.02
0.29
2.36
3.64
0.08
0.15
0 : 0.02
102.9
-2.9
Filter 1/99
29.2
21.0
0.87 | 2.06
1.63
0.82
0.46
0.87
0.41
2.4
0.06! 2.98
62.8
37.2
Filter 5/99
38.4
24,1
1.17 j 4.07
1.16
0.35
0.6
0.86
0.59
1.48
0.05 I 0.05
72.8
27.2
Investo Cast**
52.1
42.2
2.09 i 0.35
0.02
0.02 | 0.10
0.10
n/d
n/d
n/d | n/d
97.0
3.0
* Performed by Hazen Research, Inc. using ASTM D2795.
** Investo Cast 50 specification from lone Minerals MSDS.
43
-------
and char would become the fluidized media. Tests will
be performed to show that this theory is correct.
The analysis on the white oak biomass agrees with
other analyses. Table 6-3 lists several biomass Ultimate
analyses. Notice the carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen per-
centages all agree within a few percent. The low ash
content of the white oak fuel is an advantage for our
process. The white oak fuel should perform well once
operation is successful. The ash elemental analysis of
the biomass is also similar to other fuel types (Table 6-
4).
The hydrogasification test did show signs of hydrogasi-
fication during the 20-minute test before bed tempera-
tures started to drop below 482 °C (Figure 5-12). Based
on the peak value of effluent concentration, the carbon
conversion efficiency can be estimated (Table 6-5). The
calculation requires a knowledge of the total mass flow
at the effluent. Unfortunately, the effluent flow is based
on volume, not mass. Volumetric flows depend on gas
density, which is a function of composition. In addition,
the condensate trap before the flow meter was not oper-
ating correctly, so water condensate was flowing
through the flow meter. This would affect the overall
effluent flow result. Taking all these errors into consid-
eration, it is possible to bound the mass flow in the efflu-
ent and calculate the carbon conversion efficiency.
Table 6-3. Fuel ultimate analysis comparison*.
Dry basis
Sample ID
Water
Carbon j Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulfur! Ash
Fuel Wht Oak
Furniture Wst
7.2
49.7 1 5.46
43.32
0.37
0.03 ! 1.12
12
49.87 : 5.91
40.29
0.29
0.03
3.61
Urban Wood
37
51.44 i 5.67
38013
0.41
0.03
4.32
Alder Fir
52
51.02 ! 5.8
38.54
0.46
0.05
4.13
* White Oak is reported by Hazen Labs following ASTM D3172 the other fuels are from Miles et al. (1998) alkali deposit survey.
Table 6-4. Fuel ash elemental analysis comparison.
Ash Elemental Analysis
Sample ID
Si02
AI2O3 Ti02
Fe203
CaO i MgO
Na20
K,0 j SO,
P2O5
CI
co2
Total 1 Other
Fuel Wht Oak
36.64
9.98 j 1.15
4.32
20.3 : 5.81
4.43
8.071 3.61
1.43
0.07
0.019
95.8 : 4.2
Furniture Wst
57.62
12.23 1 0.5
5.63
13.89 3.28
2.36
3.771 I
0.5
n/a
0
100.8! -0.8
Urban Wood
39.%
12.03 ' 0.87
7.43
19.23 4.3
1.53
5.36 | 1.74
1.5
n/a
6.05
100.0 0.0
Alder Fir
35.36
11.54 | 0.92
7.62
24.9 3.81
1.17
5.75 | 0.78
1.9
n/a
1.85
95.6 4.4
* White Oak is reported by Hazen Labs following ASTM D3172 the other fuels are from Miles et al. (1998) alkali deposit survey.
and low alkali concentration sand, lnvesto Cast 50 is an
excellent fluidizing bed material (Table 6-1). lnvesto
Cast 50 is made up of 94% silica and alumina. Only
0.2% is from the alkali family. lnvesto Cast comes in
five sizes ranging from 0.2 mm to 1.5 mm. InvestoCast
50 has a mean particle diameter of 0.34 mm, which is
small enough to fluidize al the designed gasification
velocities (0.3 m/s) and large enough to prevent elutria-
tion (Table 6-2). This new bed material will be used in
test 4, planned for December 1999.
Table 6-2. lnvesto Cast 50 size distribution from lone
Minerals.
Size (mm)
Weighted %
0.59
0.0265
0.42
0.1638
0.3
0.1065
0.22
0.0385
0.15
0.0053
Mean
0.3406 mm
" lnvesto Cast 50 specification from lone Minerals MSDS.
Although InvestoCast 50 would add to the gasification
operating cost, it is expected that fiuidizalion can be
maintained without the sand bed material. CE-CERT is
using the bed material to help start the gasification
process. Once gasification has been achieved, the ash
44
-------
Table 6-5. Test data for May 5,1999, hydrogasiflcatlon test
CO
C02
CIL,
II2
Effluent
Effluent
(%)
(%)
(%)
Flow
Flow*
Flow*
(scfm)
High (scfm)
Low (scfm)
Average
3.36
2.10
1.83
23.15
36.84
11.05
Max
4.74
3.12
2.67
24.74
45.14
13.54
Min
2.45
0.97
0.96
19.47
21.74
6.52
Stdev
0.65
0.61
0.48
00.95
05.33
1.60
'Effluent flow is unknown because process gas molecular weight ranges from high to low, but the bounds are known and listed as
High and Low. (High assumes effluent is mostly hydrogen and very little water and Low assumes mostly nitrogen and water with a
small amount of hydrogen.)
Table 6-6. Composition data from hydrogasiflcatlon test conducted by EPA using designed input flows and the test con-
ducted at the Hynol facility located at UC Riverside.
Component
Input Flow*
Product*
Input Flow**
Product**
(kmol/hr)
(mole %)
(kmol/hr)
(mole %)
Biomass
22.7kg/hr
0
22.7kg/hr
0
CO
0.161
11.05
0
4.7
COz
0.098
05.86
0
3.1
CR,
0.044
17.87
0
2.8
h2o
0.285
19.69
0
Not measured
h2
1.771
40.08
1.8
Not measured
n2
0.171
05.31
0
Not measured
Effluent
N/A
40.3 scfm
N/A
45/14 scfm
'Values from laboratory and theoretical analysis by EPA and Arcadis (30 atm).
"•Preliminary test conducted at UC Riverside Hynol Facility (2 atm).
The range of expected effluent flows is indicated in
Table 6-6.
Because the input flow is only hydrogen, the majority of
the gas minus that identified by the NDIR analyzers
should be hydrogen. Assuming all the unknown gas is
hydrogen, a carbon conversion efficiency of 33% is the
result. If there was more nitrogen than hydrogen (high-
ly unlikely), the carbon conversion efficiency would
only be 13%. In either case only the process conversion
efficiency is lower than the expected 87%. One reason
for the poor conversion is a result of low gasification
temperatures. Dong and Cole (1996) recommend tem-
peratures >800 °C, but CE-CERT operated at 600 °C.
Future tests will be performed after the bed reaches 800
°C. CE-CERT also recommends replacing the effluent
volumetric flow sensor with a true mass flow meter.
A thermal evaluation of the refractory material in R101
was performed based on the results of test 3. The
evaluation was necessary to understand whether there
were any unexpected heat losses during operation
(Figure 6-1).
An unexpected heat loss would be evident by large tem-
perature drops from one sensor to the next. The measure
used is temperature per length between sensors. There
are three physical sections to the reactor (Figure 6-2).
The refractory is only insulated on the inside of the
structural piping. External insulation was not possible
due to temperature limitations of 204 °C on the steel
surface. It is expected that section I should have a high-
est value, section 2 should be low and section 3 should
be medium. Section 1 should be much higher than sec-
tions 2 and 3 because of its high-density refractory.
Figure 6-2 identifies the seven locations of temperature
sensors within the three sections. The heat loss between
locations 2 and 3 is 3.4 times the heat loss between loca-
tions 3 and 4. The low 0.26 °C/in. (0.01 °C/mm) heat
45
-------
Temperature Profile
-TE 020 —TE 814 —TE 809 — TE 810 —TE 811 —TE 812 —TE 813
3200 T
3000 t-
2800
2600 -
2400
1800 i
© O) ro oo
o o o o
o
o
-A to
0> K)
o o
ro -vi-JOococDO
N>Q04^O0>hJCD-UO
ooooooooo
Time (minutes)
Figure 6-1. Temperature profile for test 3, from start up to shut down of the Hynol reactor.
Section 3
Section 2
J®" Section 1
Figure 8-2. Reactor section 1 is the burner; section 2 is the main gasification reaction zone; and section 3 is the reduced
velocity free board zone. The circled numbers are temperature sensor locations.
46
-------
loss in locations 5 and 6 (Tabic 6-7) is a result of not
inserting the temperature sensor into the gas stream.
Overall, the heat into the reactor equates with the heat
loss by the reactor and flowing gases. Approximately
43kW of heat (burner + electric heater) was going in and
an accounted 40 kW was going into heating the reactor
gas volume, refractory losses, and the burner gases.
Table 6-7. Heat loss as a function of length based on test 3
with the Hynol reactor.
Section
Length
Temp/length
#
In
°C/in
6-7
34
1.97
5-6
35
0.259
4-5
28
1.57
3-4
37
1.61
2-3
58
5.51
1-2
12
18.1
6.2 Facility Design and Construction
The major difficulties confronting this project were a
result of the Hynol pilot-scale facility design. Improved
design and improved peer-review of the design could
have prevented many flaws that caused significant set-
backs and delays later. Additionally, CE-CERT should
have insisted on demonstration of successful operation
before accepting certain components and subsystems.
There have been many successes in this project. The
feed system has been made to operate automatically
without bridging or overheating. The modified electric
heater has operated without too much attention, and the
burner is able to preheat the reactor area up to operating
temperatures as needed.
6.3 Data Quality
Since steady state hydrogasification was not achieved,
overall material balance cannot be used as a general
quality indicator of the test data. The quality indicator in
this study relies on the precision of each of the individ-
ual measurements involved in the testing.
The measurements in the Hynol reactor tests include
system pressure, reaction temperature, the flow rates of
hydrogen, methane, air, and nitrogen, the biomass feed
rate, and the composition of the biomass samples. All of
these measurements were conducted in accordance with
the data quality goals listed in the sample plan and QA
plan (Appendix IV).
The ASTM standard methods were used for composi-
tion analysis of the biomass, fluidized bed material,
char, and deposit formations from the Hynol facility.
Multiple samples were analyzed. The results of the
analysis met the data quality indicators listed in the QA
plan.
Each of the orifice plate flow systems was calibrated
with a DGM before and after testing. The performance
of the orifice plate was stable over time and met the
quality indicators of the QA plan.
The desired system pressure was maintained with a
back-pressure regulator. The system pressure variation
exceeded the target of the QA plan, due to the inability
to reach steady state gasification and a flow capacity
problem with the back pressure regulator. The flow
capacity problem has been resolved. Future tests should
meet the system pressure target of the QA plan assum-
ing steady state gasification is achieved.
A graduated glass tube was installed for the steam flow
metering. Unfortunately, due to unstable gasification,
steam addition was not performed and therefore no indi-
cation of the quality of the data was recorded or meas-
ured.
Type K thermocouples were used to measure heater,
burner, and reaction zone gas temperatures. All thermo-
couples were calibrated before installation into the reac-
tor following ASTM methods listed in the sample plan.
All reaction zone temperature probes were installed into
the process by 25.4 mm. All other TCs were installed
-10 mm into the process. Depths of all TCs were con-
firmed during vessel assembly and repair by visual
inspection.
The desired quality indicators for the Hynol facility arc
from steady state operation. Because steady state opera-
tion was not achieved, meaningful carbon conversions
efficiency and mass balances were not determined and
further testing is needed to evaluate hydrogasification of
biomass materials.
47
-------
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
1. Biomass feeding is automated and delivers
22.7 kg/hr to the high-pressure hydrogasifica-
tion reactor at 10 atm and has been operated
without material automatically at 30 atm.
2. Electric heater support version 3 is reliable and
capable of preheating ambient inlet gases to
649 °C. Design version 3 uses silicon carbide
as the support rod for 5 ceramic disk supports.
3. The reactor is capable of withstanding 5.2 MPa
with a leak rate less than 10% over 24 hours.
4. The flow measuring orifice plates are calibrat-
ed to within ±2% of the actual flow conditions
for each gas. Calibrations were completed at
operating pressures using nitrogen and a cali-
brated dry gas meter. Because hydrogen is such
a light gas its calibration was done at operating
pressures using hydrogen gas and a dry gas
meter.
5. During operation designed skin temperatures
are below the maximum rated skin temperature
of the pressure vessels.
6. Manual and automatic control of all valves and
motors is possible using OPTO 22 software
and hardware.
7. Data logging is successful using die OPTO 22
process control software and hardware pack-
age.
8. Burner spark system is reliable and has sur-
vived more than 100 hours of service. The final
igniter design is a modified automotive spark
plug as shown in Figure 4-2.
9. The burner is controlled by monitoring a ther-
mocouple located in the flame area.
10. Sample system temperatures are below that
necessary to capture high temperature alkali
gases and tars. These compounds will be ana-
lyzed from the sample tube. Future designs
should allow proper sampling to collect for
alkali and tar formations.
11. Sample conditioning is accomplished through
a series of high-pressure, high-temperature
impingers. Successful operation of the sample
system has been demonstrated.
12. Analyzer delay times from the reactor sam-
pling to the analyzer are dependent on the sam-
ple pressure, sample length, and analyzer
response. The delay due to pressure is the most
significant. At 10 atm, the delay time from
sample probe to sample path is about 10 min-
utes. The delay from the sample path to the
analyzer is 15 seconds. The analyzer response
time is about 0.5 seconds. The overall sampling
delay is 10 minutes at 10 atm.
13. Air gasification has been performed with suc-
cess, but have not been optimized.
14. Final refractory materials for B-037 are a two
piece lining with a hot face Ultra GreenSR and
a secondary lining using GreenCast 47. These
materials are designed for maximum peak tem-
peratures of 1871 °C and maximum operating
temperatures of 1427 °C.
15. Agglomerations occured due to high alkali
concentrations in the fluidized bed material
with bed temperatures of 700 °C or greater.
Care needs to be used when selecting fluidized
reactor bed materials.
48
-------
16. Ash removal cycles are successful at ambient
and high temperature. Agglomeration forma-
tion will block the ash removal passage.
17. Bed temperatures of 800 °C were easy to
obtain with air gasification.
18. Bed expansion and pressure drop across the
bed were indicated, but not optimized for gasi-
fication.
19. Optimum carbon conversion efficiency has not
been realizable due to agglomeration problems
during gasification and low bed temperature.
20. No efficiency data are available for the internal
cyclone.
7.2 Recommendations
The hydrogasification reactor has the potential to be a
viable way to convert biomass into a liquid fuel. The
high carbon conversion efficiency with hydrogasifica-
tion shows the Hynol process could be an economical
and low-C02 producing method for methanol produc-
tion. Future testing can succeed if problems with
agglomeration and the feed system are solved. Table 7-
1 presents recommended test parameters for future tests.
Also the process should be analyzed for the actual exit
gas quality to predict other design problems for phase 2
and 3 of the methanol production process.
49
-------
Table 7-1. Test conditions to be used for CE-CERT Hynol test facility.
Hynol UC Riverside
Mvnol
Test 4 Nov 10.1999
Arcadis/EPA
Expected / Operational
Simulations
Temperature
800°C (1472°F)
800°C (1472°F) *
Pressure
8 atm (103 psig)
30 atm (442 psia) *
Solids Fast Residence Time (average)
n/a
15 sec *
Solids Slow Residence Time (average)
n/a
7.86 hr *
Gas Residence Time
9 sec **
8 sec
Superficial Velocity
0.27 m/s **
n/a
Gaseous Input Flow Rate
1.26 kmol/hr (4.2kg/hr)**
2.53 kmol/hr **
H2
95% **
69.9 %**
CH4
0% **
1.80%**
CO
0% **
8.95 %**
C02
0% **
3.90 %**
1120
0% **
0.0%**
N2
5% **
7.0 %**
Biomass Input Flow Rate
18.5 kg/hr (41 lb/hr)
22.7 kg/hr (50 lb/hr) ***
C
49.7 %wt
51.5 %wt *
H
5.5 %wt
6.20 %wt *
O
43.3 %wt
41.4 %wt *
N
0.4 %wt
0.42 %wt *
H20
18.7 %wt
10.0 %wt *
Ash
1.12 %wt
0.47 %wt *
Ash Exit Flow Rate
1.14 kg/hr
1.4 kg/hr*
Sand Exit Flow Rate
0.3 L/hr
0.3 kg/hr *
Kaolinite Exit Flow Rate
n/a
0.2 L/hr *
H/C biomass Ratio (by mass)
0.432
0.459
Hydrogasification Products
1.99 kmol/hr (21 kg/hr) **
3.056 kmol/hr (45 kg/hr)**
CH4
10.5% **
19.1%**
C02
2.76% **
6.3 % **
CO
14.0% **
12.1%**
H2
85.8% **
37.1%**
N2
3.27% **
5.9 % **
H20
10.6%**
18.0%**
Temperature Profile/Distribution
Reaction Dependent
Electric Heater Control
TE-809b
800
800*
TE-809
770
800*
TE-810
730
800*
TE-811
700
90
O
o
#
Pressure Differential Expected (Distrib only)
-15 inl 120
n/a
Pressure Differential Expected (w/out Distrib)
-15 inH20
n/a
Bed Material
InvestoCast 50
Sand *
Particle Diameter
0.34 mm (0.013in)
n/a
Volume Added
15 L
n/a
Composition
52% Si02,42%A1203
n/a
Static Bed Height @ Start-up
45.3 cm (18 in)
n/a
* Evaluation of Biomass Reactivity in Hydrogasificalion for the Hynol Process by Yuanji Dong and Edward Cole, EPA-
600/R-96-071
** Calculated with Stanjen at operating pressure and temperature using the above inputs to the reactor (Constant T and P).
Hynol Process Evaluation by Borgwarc* EPA-6Q0/R-97-153
*"* Laboratory Analysis of White Oak Biomass Hazen Labs dry basis except for 11.35 kg/hr biomass and 18.7% moisture.
50
-------
References and Bibliography
Birnbaum, R. (1998). National Air Quality and
Emissions Trends Report, 1997. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-454/R-98-016. December.
Borgwardt, R.H. (1997a) Hynol Process Evaluation.
National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/R-97-153
(NTTS PB98-127319). December.
Borgwardt, RJ1. (1997b). Biomass and Natural Gas as
Co-Feedstocks for Production of Fuel for Fuel-Cell
Vehicles. Biomass and Bioenergy 12:5, pp. 333-345.
California Air Resources Board (1998). Amendments to
California Exhaust, Evaporative and Refueling
Emission Standards and Test Procedures for
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-
Duty Vehicles "LEV 11." Draft Staff Report, June 19.
El Monte, CA.
California Energy Commission (1997). Transportation
Technology Status Report. Sacramento, CA.
December. P500-97-013.
CE-CERT (19%). Evaluation of a Process to Convert
Biomass to Methanol Fuel: Measurement Plan for
Hydrogasifier Performance Testing. Submitted to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Cooperative Agreement CR-824-308-1010. CE-
CERT document 96:RE:001 :M.
Dong, Y. (1998) Biomass Reactivity in Gasification by
the Hynol Process. Energy & Fuels 12:3, pp. 479-484.
Dong, Y., and Cole, E. (1996). Evaluation of Biomass
Reactivity in Hydrogasification for the Hynol
Process. Acurex Environmental Corp. (now Arcadis
Geraghty & Miller), Mountain View, CA. June.
Miles, T.R., Baxter, L.R., Bryers, R.W., Jenkins, B.M.,
and Oden, L.L. (1998) Alkali Deposits Found in
Biomass Power Plants. A Preliminary Investigation of
their Extent and Nature. Summary Report, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
National Research Council (1998). Review of the
Research Program of the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles, Fourth Report. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Norbeck, J.M., HefTel, J.W., Durbin, T.D., Tabbara, B.,
Bowden, J.M., and Montano, M.C. (1996). Hydrogen
Fuel for Surface Transportation. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 548 pp.
Rudell, B., Ledin, M.C., Hammarstrom, U., Sternberg,
N. et al. (1996). Effects on Symptoms and Lung
Function in Humans Experimentally Exposed to
Diesel Exhaust. Occupational and Environmental
Medicine 53(10):658-662.
Scott, K., Taama, W.M., and Argyropoulos, P. (1998)
Material Aspects of the Liquid Feed Direct Methanol
Fuel Cell. J. Appl. Electrochemistry 28(N12):1389-
1397.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (1997).
1997 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar,
CA.
Steenland, K., Deddens, J., and Stayner, L. (1998).
Diesel Exhaust and Lung Cancer in the Trucking
Industry: Exposure-Response Analyses and Risk
Assessment. American Journal of Industrial Medicine
34(3):220-228.
Steinberg, M., and Dong, Y. (1994a) Process and
Apparatus for the Production of Methanol from
Condensed Carbonaceous material. U.S. Patent
5,344,848.
Steinberg, M., and Dong, Y. (1994b) An Economical
Process for Methanol Production from Biomass and
51
-------
Natural Gas with Reduced CO, Emissions.
Proceedings, 10th World Hydrogen Energy
Conference. Pergamon, New York, NY, Vol. 1, pp.
495-504.
Unnasch, S. (1996). Hynol Process Engineering:
Process Configuration, Site Plan, and Equipment
Design. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/R-96-006
(NTIS PB96-167549). February.
U.S. Department of Energy (1998). Annual Energy
Review 1997. Energy Information Administration
DOE/EIA 0384 (97). Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997a).
Transportation Fuel from Biomass: Long-Term
Environmental Advantages of Methanol. National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/F-97-022.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997b).
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone
and Particulate Matter. 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 53,
and 58.
52
-------
Appendix I
Environmental Impact Report
University of California, Riverside
Methanol Production Facility
UCR Project No. 958985-1
University of California, Riverside
July 19%
Contacts:
University of California, Riverside
Office of Planning, Design, and Construction
3615-A Canyon Crest Drive, Suite D102
Riverside. CA 92521
Tricia D. Thrasher, ASLA
Senior Educational Facility Planner
(909) 787-4201, extension 618
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Kathleen Dale
Principal Environmental Specialist
(909) 686-1070
This statement is prepared in
compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act
I-i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE (i_ )
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1
Project Title 1
Project Location 1
Project Site and Environmental Setting 1
Project Description 1
Site Selection 11
Summary of Impacts 12
Determination 13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 14
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 22
Land Use and Planning 22
Population and Housing 23
Geologic Problems 23
Water 23
Air Quality 24
Transportation/Circulation 25
Biological Resources 26
Energy/Mineral Resources 26
Hazards 26
Noise 27
Public Services 27
Utilities/Service Systems 28
Aesthetics 28
Cultural Resources 29
Recreation 29
Mandatory Findings of Significance 29
LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION 30
REFERENCES 31
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location 2
Figure 2: Project Setting 3
Figure 3: Boums Plant and Project Site 4
Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan 7
Figure 5: Reactor System Typical Design 8
I-ii
96-05lS.rpt
-------
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This initial study has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposal
by the University of California, Riverside to establish a prototype facility for generation of
methanol from wood chips at an off-campus location within an established industrial park in the
City of Riverside. This study has been completed in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the University's procedural handbook for implementation of
CEQA.
Project Title
Methanol Production Facility, UCR Project Number 958985-1
Project Location
The proposed project is located on the site of the Bourns, Incorporated manufacturing plant, at
1200 Columbia Avenue, near the intersection of Columbia and Iowa Avenues in the City of
Riverside (Figures 1 and 2). The site is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the main campus.
Project Site and Environmental Setting
The project site is part of an approximately 25 acre site occupied by manufacturing facilities of
Bourns, Incorporated, which is, in turn, located within the approximately 1,200 acre Hunter
Business Park industrial area in the northeast quadrant of the City of Riverside. The Bourns site is
developed with an electronics manufacturing facility. The proposed site for the methanol
production test facility consists of unused lands along the east boundary of the Bourns site. Figure
3 presents a recent aerial photograph of the Bourns plant site and the proposed methanol
production facility location.
As the founding benefactor of the UCR College of Engineering, Bourns provides space at its
Riverside plant to house the College's Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-
CERT). The college presently occupies about 36,000 square feet of office and research space
which houses about 75 scientists and students conducting various research efforts related to air
pollution and renewable energy.
The Bourns plant consists of a total building area of approximately 200,000 square feet and houses
facilities for the manufacture of electronic circuit components. Operations are primarily conducted
indoors; however, there are outdoor storage and receiving areas adjacent to the proposed site for
the methanol production facility.
Rail lines operated by the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe company are located on a slightly elevated
alignment along the east boundary of the project site.
Project Description
Due to the technical nature of the physical and operational aspects of the proposed facility, the
project description is presented in several sections to provide the reader an understanding of: 1) the
overall project purpose, 2) the nature of the process product, 3) the mechanical aspects of the
process, 4) relevant details of facility operation, 5) the proposed physical improvements, and 6) the
regulatory aspects of project establishment and operation.
I-1
96-05IS.rpt
-------
ML Rubidoux/'*'
Oo
Sinu am kivcf
ttpon*l Pl/t
*>v«
w.o. 96-05 Figure 1
A«e 1996 Regional Location
ALBERT
WT7 RB AX Initial Study for
~ ~ J^PP |Ng !_2 University of California Riverside
enoineerinq consultants Methanol Production Facility
-------
mm
Z-T >'
Columbia Ave i
.55»5,P«uS»T3'-iiv« v Av•:
^8^
i*
.;• Project Site
Bourns.. .
-•wfe
Hunter Park
*•«*
irx. ^,s\.' . • 3Li
1 inch equals 800 feet fci
S3£3«ra3S&
* 4 ^ .£' ^ -S45**
<*•> Ufir*. .
Source: Riverside. CA. 1995
W.O. 96-05
June 1996
A L 9 £ R ' A
WEBB
ASSOC 'ATES
S-ijiNtfaA; :OnSuiT*nts
\Nf
1-3
Figure 2
Project Setting
Initial Study for
University of California Riverside
Methanol Production Facility
-------
r
i
rteV^
*V^V*v>,,'"V,V1 i«>« n\>*—*••« '."'"Vii ¦»,»?» Ap«S'' > ,<>.-vo\»*-v ..»-!, :J - ? »v 1'1' ;'*'¦• ' ¦ .* •• V"!''' '
•, \\ \v VV\?-v «' :-¦<¦:-¦ '•'•:•,- -.
WJ-Rs.* 1
Columbia Ave
Ir-'A ¦ ¦ i
j '-iWift t-'a
- >
U'tfc -ft5. A- rAw*tf wivVArtofi :.-<-2'. i-.v--'W>-l
5 Bourns lurking l-"t •*£•
3f»
*Z
' '¦wfcmi *imvi v*&.
Bourns Buildings
'vr-xtift
W.O. 96-05
^ [SJ ^ June 1996
ALBERT A
WEBB
ASSOCIATRS
i NGIN{. J HINCi CONSUI I A N I S
Figure 3
Bourns Plant & Project Site
Initial Study for
University of California Riverside
Methanol Production Facility
-------
Project Purpose and Objectives
The proposed project will construct a small-scale plant ("bench scale") to demonstrate the
feasibility of an advanced technology for production of liquid methanol from biomass. The
primary goal of this project is development of a process that will provide a less-polluting alternative
to petroleum-based fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources. This
demonstration project is in support of national security goals to develop fuel sources derived from
indigenous resources, as well as federal, state and local goals to develop cleaner-burning fuels for
motor vehicle use.
Methanol as a Fuel
Methanol is a colorless, tasteless liquid with a very faint odor. Methanol is favored as an
alternative to gasoline or diesel fuel for passenger cars, light trucks, heavy duty trucks and busses
because it produces reduced emissions of reactive hydrocarbons, particulates and nitrogen dioxide.
Methanol is less flammable than gasoline and burns more slowly and with less heat. Due to its
outstanding performance and fire safety characteristics, methanol is the fuel of choice for
Indianapolis-style race cars.
Methanol Production Process
Overview. The central component of the proposed methanol production facility is a series of three
reactors called the hydropyrolysis reactor (HPR), steam pyrolysis reactor (SPR) and methanol
synthesis reactor (MSR). Wood chips are fed into the HPR in the presence of natural gas and
hydrogen under high pressure (440 pounds per square inch) and high temperature (1450 degrees
Fahrenheit) to produce methane. Methane drawn from the HPR is fed into the SPR, where steam
is added, and under conditions of high pressure (440 pounds per square inch) and high
temperature (1600 degrees Fahrenheit), hydrogen and carbon monoxide are produced. The
hydrogen and carbon monoxide are cooled and then reheated in the MSR (500 degrees Fahrenheit,
440 to 600 pounds per square inch) in the presence of a catalyst to produce methanol. Hydrogen
and methane gas, which are by-products of the methanol synthesis process, are recycled to the
HPR. Heat recovered from SPR product gases and heat generated by the MSR process provide
process heat for biomass drying and steam production. A feed of compressed air, natural gas,
hydrogen, and nitrogen is used during start-up.
Phasing. Initial improvements will involve only the hydropyrolysis portion of the reactor system.
During this initial phase, process gases from the second (SPR) and third (MSR) stages of the
integrated process must be synthesized. This synthesis will be effected from gases stored in
mobile tanks and standard laboratory bottles. During HPR-only operation, no methanol will be
produced and all product gases will be burned in a flare. The results of the HPR-only phase are
intended to determine optimum operating conditions and to identify any necessary modifications to
the design or operation of the integrated system. The HPR-only system will be tested over an
approximately eight month period, following an approximately four month construction period. A
second research phase will add the SPR unit. During operation of the HPR-SPR configuration, no
methanol is produced and process gasses will continue to be burned in a flare. A final phase
involving the integrated HPR-SPR-MSR system will then be tested. The timing and duration of
the HPR-SPR and integrated system test phases will be dependent upon results of each prior test
phase; however, all work will be completed within the three and one-half year estimated project
life. The test facility will be dismantled and removed following the demonstration project, in
compliance with the lease agreement between the College of Engineering and Bourns.
Raw Materials. One of the primary raw materials is wood chips. Sand and kaolonite, a silica clay,
are also fed into the HPR with the wood chips. Sand helps maintain heat and accelerates the
reaction by abrading the wood chips, and kaolonite absorbs alkali metals to eliminate formation of
1-5
96-05IS.rpt
-------
sand balls that could plug the system. The mixed solids will be fed by hand into a staged vessel
called a lockhopper, which uses compressed nitrogen gas to progressively raise the pressure of the
biomass to that of the HPR reactor vessel.
Pressurized gases are required for both the initial HPR-only configuration and the integrated
system. Nitrogen is used to pressurize the mixed solids feed, to operate the emergency shut-off
valves, and to fill the reactor vessels when not in use. Hydrogen, natural gas, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide and nitrogen will be mixed in HPR-only tests to simulate the recycled process gases
in an integrated system. Once the integrated system is completed only natural gas and nitrogen will
be required.
Waste Products. The waste stream from the process includes ash from the HPR reactor, vent
gases resulting from reactor shutdown, and purged materials from emissions control filter media.
Considering the nature of the raw materials, solid waste generated by the methanol production
process is not expected to require special handling. In accordance with established campus
programs, waste will be tested to determine the need for special handling. If special handling is
required, it can be incorporated into the existing campus materials management program.
Facility Operation
As a demonstration facility, the plant will operate in a series of tests, typically involving a five-day,
24-hour per day period once each month.
Researchers for this demonstration project are currently employees at CE-CERT and Acurex
Environmental Corporation. A limited number of additional temporary laborers will be hired
during the periodic test runs to assist with manual tasks related to raw material loading and waste
removal.
Deliveries and removals are expected to involve 40 or fewer trips per month and will largely be
spread over a three week time-frame corresponding to the week before a run, the week of a run,
and the week after a run.
Proposed Improvements
The proposed plant layout is illustrated in Figure 4 and a conceptual design for the reactor structure
is presented as Figure 5.
The following describes relevant components of the plant physical design:
• Reactor Structure - The biomass feed, HPR, and SPR components are all contained within
an open, metal frame structure with approximate dimensions of 20 feet by 20 feet and a
height of about 30 feet. An external stairway and walkways provide access to various
controls associated with the mechanical components. The MSR unit is contained in a
separate structure of similar design.
• Flare Stack - All vent gases from the reactor vessels are directed to a flare. The flare will be
located within the fenced facility site. The flare will consist of a low-profile control box
housing a pilot light supply valve and a multiple-pipe assembly consisting of three small-
diameter (1/2 to 8 inches) standpipes and a top-mounted enclosure that contains the flame.
The entire assembly is approximately 12 feet in height.
1-6
96-05IS.rpt
-------
Exirtia* Electric Gale -A
4VKA1T
: - •¦ *>,•* *< : V
^ — t y^r* v i
¦j r* ^'•,Sr t?Bk<1T*
t to b» reloc«t«l»
f*V'>;>;v
\ v f _ <¦ ' *
I
_R
0T
i
Q.-:
Existing
Paved Areas
HSWjllBB Existing
Structures
w.o. 95-05 Figure 4
«***» 1996 Proposed Site Plan
L B E R T
\X/ |fj Initial Study for
~ ~ J1/.AJJL# u JsJ J University of California Riverside
ASSOCIATES V W ¦ i r> •••*.
^ ewoineeriwo consultants Methanol Production Facility
1-7
-------
f
A
Biomass Feed
Sulfur Removal
Steam Drum
Cooling Water
MSRj
-------
• Emissions Control - The exhaust stream from the HPR vessel is passed through a barrier
filter to capture particulates, which could include carbon particles (wood waste) and sand,
and through a second adsorber filter for sulfur removal. These filtering processes are
essential to the proper operation of subsequent reactor processes. The vent of the biomass
feed unit also includes a filter to capture particulate emissions.
• Insulation - Insulating layers on pipes and reactor vessels reduce surface temperatures;
however, exterior wall temperatures may range up to 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Gas Storage - Hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon monoxide will be stored in pressurized tanks
(approximately 5,500 gallons, water capacity). These larger tanks will only be required
during the initial, approximately 8 month HPR-only phase. Additional nitrogen will be
stored in smaller pressurized bottles (14 inches long by 6 inches in diameter, about 50
total).
The large tanks of hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon monoxide will be mobile and will only
be located on the site during the approximately 5-day duration of each test run. The gas
supplier will deliver the tanks prior to each run and remove them after each run.
Recharging of the tanks is expected to be required once during each test.
• Compressors - Three compressors will be utilized in the HPR-only system - one to
compress carbon dioxide gas, one to compress natural gas, and the other to compress air.
In the integrated system, a small blower and a process gas compressor are also required for
the SPR.
• Safety Features - Facility operation presents two categories of potential safety hazards:
Fire and Explosion: The nature of compressed gases and wood chips which are raw
materials, the production process which utilizes high temperature and pressure, and the
nature of the methanol product, all present potential fire and explosion hazards.
Multiple design features and standard management practices will be in place to ensure
safe operation. These include: 1) reactor vessels designed (vessel wall construction,
sensors, valves, and pressure regulators) to withstand temperatures and pressures at a
margin of safety above that associated with normal operation, 2) incorporation of
National Fire Protection Association recommended separations between flammable and
explosive materials and possible sources of explosion/fire hazard, 3) contracting with
major laboratory gas suppliers to ensure tanks and recharge operations comply with
applicable safety standards, 4) computer monitoring and control of alarms and
shutdown procedures, 4 and 5) manual shutdown overrides for situations where the
computerized system could be compromised.
Upset: Aside from safety features noted above, facility design incorporates several
features to eliminate risk of hazardous conditions resulting from operator error or
unauthorized access. These include fencing, guard-attended gates, steel bollards to
protect facilities from inadvertent vehicular damage, and provision of adequate
maneuvering areas.
• Solids Storage - Wood chips will be delivered to the site and stored in a covered bin with
approximate dimensions of 4 feet by 8 feet by 14 feet. Sand and kaolonite will be stored in
the bags in which they are shipped, with about 20, 100-pound bags typically on-site.
Catalysts (copper oxide, zinc oxide, manganese oxide and nickel oxide) will be stored on-
site in 55-gallon drums (9 total).
1-9
96-05IS.rpt
-------
• Water Tank - The steam component of the synthesized recycle gas feed will be generated
from purified water. A 500 gallon tank will be placed on-site to receive deliveries by truck.
• Methanol Storage - A 1,000 gallon storage tank will be provided to store methanol
produced in the on-site plant and to accept deliveries from outside sources as necessary to
support fueling for CE-CERT vehicles. The proposed tank is a self-contained, above-
ground structure with integrated fueling and emission control fixtures. The tank will be
placed upon a pre-cast concrete pad that provides for containment in the event of a spill.
Similar equipment is in use in the region and meets South Coast Air Quality Management
District and Regional Water Quality Control Board permitting requirements. Once the fully
integrated test system is operational, approximately 800 gallons of methanol would be
generated by each test run.
• Waste Storage - Ash from the process vessels and solids from emission control filters will
be stored on-site in standard 55-gallon drums until sufficient material is generated for off-
hauling. About 15 drums of waste material could be removed each month.
• Fencing - The entire site will be enclosed by existing or proposed fencing, with access
controlled through secured entry gates.
• Lighting - Portable lighting will be utilized for night-time operations during each test phase.
• Control Room - A small control room (about 300 square feet) will provide desk space for
facility operators.
• Surface Treatments - Ground surfaces will consist of asphalt in parking and access areas
and concrete in reactor pad and process areas. Berms and covers will be installed as
necessary to minimize potential contaminants in stormwater discharges. This would
include methanol handling areas (storage tank and pipe runs) and the compressor pad.
Permitting
Facility construction and operation will be subject to several permitting and regulatory programs.
Based upon existing information, the following would apply:
South Coast Air Quality Management District - The methanol storage tank and
combustion units may require permits from SCAQMD. The proposed storage tank is a
prefabricated unit meeting SCAQMD requirements. The tank will be inspected prior to
initial utilization and on an ongoing basis in accordance with SCAQMD permitting
requirements. Combustion operations could be subject to several SCAQMD rules;
burner emissions tests are presently being conducted to determine applicability.
Regional Water Quality Control Board - Site improvements will expose structures and
materials handling areas to precipitation and alter the existing runoff patterns. An
amendment to the existing stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Bourns site will
be prepared and an amended notice of intent will be filed with the Regional Board.
Building Permits - Campus facilities are constructed under the review of campus
planning and environmental health and safety officials. Plans will be reviewed for
structural integrity and compliance with fire codes, and facility construction will be
inspected by qualified campus officials.
Environmental Health and Safety - Facility design and operation is subject to more than
20 health and safety-related codes and standards including those promulgated by the
I-10
96-05IS.rpt
-------
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (pressure vessel
certifications, boiler permits, process safety management plan). Uniform Fire Code and
related National Fire Protection Association standards (flammable and combustible
liquids, automotive and marine service stations, purged and pressurized electrical
equipment enclosures, electrical installations in chemical process areas), Uniform
Plumbing Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, American
National Standards Institute code for pressure piping, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers code for boiler and pressure vessels, federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration regulations dealing with worker safety, federal Department of
Transportation rules governing transport of compressed gases, and federal
Environmental Protection Agency regulations governing hazardous material handling.
City of Riverside - Although the University is exempt from local planning and building
authority, the campus will seek informal reviews by the City Planning and Fire
departments.
Bourns, Inc. - Campus agreements with Bourns, Inc. require review and approval of
facility utilization and development plans. Bourns review includes evaluation of
improvement plans for compliance with Bourns' established health and safety
programs. The emergency response and safety manuals for the methanol production
facility will be incorporated into the plans for the overall Bourns site.
Funding
The proposed improvements will be funded through several sources including the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, California Energy Commission and South Coast Air Quality
Management District. Total cost for the proposed improvements and operation is approximately
$5.5 million.
Site Selection
Early planning efforts for the proposed facility included evaluation of a number of alternative
locations. The following identifies these other sites and the reasons for their elimination in the site
selection process.
Main UCR Campus - Two sites on the main campus were identified, one in the corporation
yard and the other near the student housing area. These sites are both located in the
northeast portion of the campus and were eliminated from further consideration due to: 1)
conflicts with other campus facility needs, 2) incompatibility with existing and planned
uses on campus and in adjacent off-campus areas, and 3) higher site improvement costs.
UCR Technology Center - An approximately 300 acre area east of the Bourns site is
planned as a technology park that would support knowledge-intensive and high-tech
industries, including industries arising from research conducted at the UCR campus.
Lands within the technology park are currently undeveloped. The associated increased site
improvement costs make a site within the technology park less favorable when compared to
the proposed site.
Alternate Locations within the Bourns Site - Several locations within the Bourns site were
considered prior to arriving at the proposed site. Accommodation of existing
improvements, equipment maneuvering areas, recommended equipment separations,
delivery access, and proximity to chemical storage and employee use areas at the Bourns
plant, were all factors in selection of the proposed site.
I-11
96-05IS.rpt
-------
Summary of Impacts
The environmental review and analysis contained herein indicates that the proposed project
presents a potential for environmental impacts related to farmlands, geology, air quality and
hazards. These impacts are summarized as follows:
• Farmlands
The project site is designated as prime farmland. The magnitude of impact in this regard is
considered insignificant due to the limited size of the site, ownership status as part of the Bourns
property, fallow condition since the early 1960's, and existing and planned surrounding industrial
use.
• Geology
The reactor equipment is very heavy and can be subject to differential settlement or
subsidence. Project-specific soils investigations (UCR 1996) have been conducted and specific
recommendations for site preparation and foundation design have been incorporated as part of the
proposed project. Established campus procedures ensure incorporation of recommended design
features in site construction.
• Air Quality
The proposed facility presents a limited number of potential sources of air emissions related
to on-site material storage and process exhaust. Biomass and other solid materials represent a
potential source of particulate emissions. Reactor system vents and exhaust represent potential
sources of particulate and gaseous emissions. The proposed project includes storage enclosures, a
closed reactor system design, and emission control equipment. Methanol storage will be in an
SCAQMD-approved, prefabricated tank with integrated dispensing and emissions control features.
The nature of raw materials utilized in the process ("white" wood chips1, sand, clay, natural gas,
and pure laboratory gases) eliminates the potential for toxic emissions.
Established campus planning programs ensure that necessary permits will be obtained from
the South Coast Air Quality Management District prior to facility operation. It is possible that the
facility will be exempt from SCAQMD permitting for combustion sources under provisions for
research projects or small units.
Finally, it is noted that the primary goal of this project is development of a process that will
provide a less-polluting alternate to petroleum-based fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from mobile sources.
• Hazards
Reactor design incorporates numerous safeguards to prevent explosions. The lack of
existing or proposed residential development in the vicinity of the project site eliminates the hazard
risk to adjacent residents. The lack of parks, schools and similar areas of congregation eliminates
the hazard risk to the general public.
Federal and state worker safety regulations govern the siting of flammable and explosive
materials relative to structures and workers at the Bourns site and in the surrounding industrial
area. Proposed facility design and operation will comply with applicable standards of practice.
' White wood chips are from virgin sources that are not contaminated by preservatives or other chemicals (hat
would potentially be found in recycled wood products.
1-12
96-05IS.rpt
-------
Established campus procedures will require campus Fire Marshall approval of plans and inspection
of finished facilities. The agreement between Bourns and the College of Engineering requires
review and approval of facility design and operation protocols by Bourns' environmental safety
officer.
The adjacent rail lines handle freight traffic of limited volume (three to five trains per week,
typically 25 or fewer cars per train) on a straight, level alignment. The compound effect of limited
potential for explosion or fire and the limited use of the rail lines, results in a minimal potential for
safety hazards related to rail operations.
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation, it is determined that although the proposed project could
potentially have significant effects on the environment, features included in the proposed project
would avoid the impacts or reduce the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would
occur. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
96-05IS.rpt
1-13
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title:
Methanol Production Facility, UCR Project Number 958985-1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
University of California, Riverside
Office of Planning, Design and Construction
3615-A Canyon Crest Drive
Riverside CA 92507
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Tricia D. Thrasher, Senior Educational Facility Planner
(909) 787-4201, extension 618
4. Project Location: 1200 Columbia Avenue, Riverside
5. General Plan Designation: The project site is located within the boundaries of the
Hunter Business Park Specific Plan. The plan designates the site for Industrial Park uses
and describes a number of use and development standards that are discussed further in the
response to checklist item 1, Land Use and Planning.
6. Zoning: The site is zoned MP-Manufacturing Park. See discussion of Item 1, Land Use
and Planning.
B . ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
~
Land Use and Planning
~
Biological Resources
~
Aesthetics
~
Population and Housing
~
Energy /Mineral Resources
~
Cultural Resources
~
Geologic Problems
~
Hazards
~
Recreation
~
Waler
~
Noise
~
Mandatory Findings of Significance
~
Air Quality
~
Public Services
¦
None of the Above
~
Transportation/Circulation
~
Utilities/Service Systems
1-14
96-051S.rpt
-------
c. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1 ) A BRIEF EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED FOR Ail ANSWERS EXCEPT "NO IMPACT* ANSWERS THAT ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY
THE INFORMATION SOURCES A LEAD AGENCY CITES IN THE PARENTHESES FOLLOWING EACH QUESTION. A 'No IMPACT"
ANSWER IS ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED F THE REFERENCED INFORMATION SOURCES SHCW THAT THE IMPACT SIMPLY DOES NOT
APPLY TO PROJECTS LIKE THE ONE INVOLVED (E.G., THE PROJECT FALLS OUTSIDE A FAULT RUPTURE ZONE}. A "NO IMPACT*
ANSWER SHOULD BE EXPLAINED WHERE IT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS AS WELL AS GENERAL STANDARDS (E.G.,
THE PROJECT WILL NOT EXPOSE SENSmVE RECEPTORS TO POLLUTANTS, BASED ON A PROJECT-SPECIFIC SCREENING ANALYSIS).
2) All ANSWERS MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE WHOLE ACTION INVOLVED, INCLUDING OFF-SITE AS WELL AS ON-SITE,
CUMULATIVE AS WELL AS PROJECT-LEVEU INDIRECT AS WELL AS DIRECT, AND CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS OPERATIONAL
IMPACTS.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact* is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If
THERE ARE one OR MORE "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT* ENTRIES WHEN THE DETERMINATION IS MADE, AN EIR IS
REQUIRED.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated' applies where the incorporation of mitigation
MEASURES HAS REDUCED AN EFFECT FROM "POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT* TO A "LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, AND BRIEFLY EXPUUN HOW THEY REDUCE THE EFFECTTO A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL (MITIGATION MEASURES FROM SECTION 17, "EARLIER ANALYSES," MAY BE CROSS-REFERENCED).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has BEEN ADEQUATELY ANALYZED IN AN EARLIER EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. REFERENCE: CEQA GUIDEUNIES
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) LEAD AGENCIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO INCOF1PCRATE INTO THE CHECKLIST FiEFERENCES TO f4FORMATION SOURCES FOR
POTENTIAL IMPACTS (E.G., GENERAL PLANS, ZONING ORDINANCES). REFERENCE TO A PREVIOUSLY PREPARED OR OUTSIDE
DOCUMENT SHOULD, WHERE APPROPRIATE, NCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE PAGE OR PAGES WHERE THE STATEMENT IS
SUBSTANTIATED. SEE THE SAMPLE QUESTION BELOW. A SOURCE LIST SHOULD BE ATTACHED, AND OTHER SOURCES USED OR
INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED SHOULD BE CITED IN THE DISCUSSION.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or ~ ~ « ~ ¦
zoning? (Source: RIVC1TY 1988, 1994 and
1994a)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or O Q ~ ¦
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source: RIVCITY1988 and
1994)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the O Q Q ¦
vicinity?
I-15
96-05lS.rpt
-------
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source: RIVCITY 1994,
CDMG 1994)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source: RIVCITY
1994, CDMG 1994)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source: RIVCITY 1994, UCR 1996)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source:
Figure 2, CDMG 1994)
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Source: UCR 1996)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source: UCR 1996)
h) Expansive soils? (Source: UCR 1996)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
~ ~ ¦
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
No
Impact
~
~
~
1-16
96-05IS.rpt
-------
Issues {and Supporting Information Sources):
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source:
UCR 1996)
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source: FEMA
1983)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements?
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (Source:
UCR 1996)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source: UCR 1996)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source:
UCR 1996)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source: SCAQMD 1993)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
No
Impact
~
~
~
1-17
96-05lS.rpt
-------
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
d) Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source: Figures 2 and 3)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source: Figures 2 and 3)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source: Figures 2 and 3)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (Source:
RIVCITY 1994, Figure 2)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Source:
Figure 2)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)? (Source: RIVCITY 1994)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source:
RIVCITY 1994)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source: Figure 2)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(Source: Figure 2)
1-18
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
~ ~ ~ ¦
~ ~ ¦ ~
~ ~ ~ ¦
Q ~ ~ ¦
~ ~ ~ ¦
~ Q ~ ¦
~ ~ ~ ¦
Q Q ¦ Q
Q ~ ~ ¦
~ ~ ~ ¦
~ ~ ~ ¦
~ ~ ~ ¦
Q ~ ~ ¦
96-05IS.rpt
-------
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ~ ~ ~ ¦
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ~ ~ ~ ¦
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known Q ~ ~ ¦
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the state?
(Source: RIVCITY 1994)
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of Q ~ ¦ Q
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency Q O Q ¦
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential O Q ¦ ~
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of Q ~ ~ ¦
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ~ ~ ~ ¦
brush, grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? Q Q ¦ Q
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ~ ~ ~ ¦
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? Q Q ¦ ~
b) Police protection? ~ ~ ~ ¦
1-19 •
96-05IS.rpt
-------
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
e) Other governmental services?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
1-20
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
~ ~ ' ~ ¦
~ ~ ~ ¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
¦
~
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
~
~
~
¦
96-051S.rpt
-------
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within Q ~ Q ¦
the potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ~ ~ ~ ¦
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ~ ~ ~ ¦
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade Q Q ~ ¦
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ~ ~ ~ ¦
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are ~ ~ ~ ¦
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects ~ ~ ~ ¦
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
1-21
96-051S.rpt
-------
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This section provides an explanation for the impact level category indicated for each issue area in
the preceding checklist. Where applicable, this section also describes features incorporated into the
proposed project, established review and permitting programs, and/or specific mitigation measures
proposed to lessen potential impacts of the proposed project.
1. Land Use and Planning
a, c. Potential Land Use Conflict. The Hunter Business Park Specific Plan provides the
guiding land use criteria for development of the project site. The project site is within an
area designated for Industrial Park uses. Uses related to scientific research, including
fabrication and testing of prototypes, are among the intended uses for the Industrial Park
district. The proposed location meets all of the parcel size, setback and building height
criteria stipulated for the Industrial Park district.
The immediately surrounding area is characterized by the Bourns plant to the west, vacant
land and citrus groves to the south, a rail line and vacant land to the east, and citrus groves
and industrial park uses to the north. The larger surrounding setting is characterized by
existing and developing industrial park uses within Hunter Business Park. The nearest
residential development is located approximately one mile to the southeast along the base of
Sugarloaf Mountain The proposed location does not create any new conditions that raise a
potential for compatibility conflicts with existing or proposed land uses.
See related discussions under items 6, Transportation/Circulation, 9, Hazards and 13,
Aesthetics.
b. Conflict with Environmental Plans/Policies. There are no land-based environmental
resources that will be directly impacted by proposed construction. Facility operation will
be subject to established permitting procedures of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District relative to potential air emissions, and will also be subject to review by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board relative to stormwater discharges.
Emission control equipment included as part of the project provides for compliance with
SCAQMD requirements and enclosures, covers, and surface treatments (grading, berms,
impervious surfaces) provide for compliance with stormwater regulations.
See related discussions of items 4, Water, and 5, Air.
d. Agricultural Lands. The City of Riverside General Plan recognizes the soils on the
project site as Prime Farmlands, based upon mapping administered by the California
Department of Conservation. The site is part of an established industrial operation and is
an approximately 0.4 acre portion of an approximately 4 acre undeveloped area between the
existing Bourns factory buildings and the AT&SF railroad lines.
This small site has been fallow since removal of the citrus groves with construction of the
Bourns facility in the 1960's. Considering its size, ownership, and surrounding
development, the site does not represent a viable commercial agricultural opportunity. As
noted above, the proposed use is consistent with the industrial land use designation under
the City General Plan.
e. Community Disruption. The proposed improvements and activities will take place at a
site within the interior of an established industrial site, within a larger established industrial
1-22
96-05IS.rpt
-------
district. The potential for impacts to the physical arrangement of the surrounding
community does not exist.
2. Population and Housing
The proposed improvements and activities involve a research project that will largely rely
upon existing staff resources. The project will not result in any direct increase in
population, housing or employment.
3. Geologic Problems
a,b,c,d- Seismic. There are no known faults on the project site. The site is located within
a seismically active region in which severe groundshaking can be expected. Established
design criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code require that facility construction
incorporate features to minimize damage in the event of a seismic event. Established
campus procedures for facility design and construction ensure incorporation of standard
seismic safety features.
Soils testing in support of facility design included borings to depth of 30 feet, in which no
groundwater was encountered. The absence of near surface groundwater eliminates the
potential for liquefaction. Similarly, the site is not exposed to water bodies that would
present the potential for seiche or tsunami hazards, nor are there any known volcanic
resources in the immediate area.
e. Landslides. The level topography characterizing the project site and surrounding area
does not present the potential for landslides or mudflows.
f. Erosion. Preparation of the project site for structure foundations and new surfaces will
require grading. During the grading phase, site soils will be subject to wind and water
erosion. The limited size of the building site, gentle topography, and finished site
conditions limit the potential for significant erosion impacts.
g.h,i. Stability/Unique Features. The proposed reactor facilities are heavy and require
enhanced foundations to eliminate the potential for subsidence or uneven settling. A site-
specific soils investigation has been completed and recommendations for foundation design
have been provided to the design engineer. Established campus design and construction
procedures ensure incorporation of such recommendations.
The lack of groundwater at the project site eliminates the risk of subsidence impacts to the
larger surrounding area.
The site-specific soils investigation concluded that site soils are not expansive in nature.
There are no unique geologic or physical features at the project site.
4. Water
a. Drainage. The proposed improvements will create an additional impervious surface area
of approximately 0.4 acres. This will result in a minor increase in the rate of runoff from
the newly improved area and a minor increase in the amount of surface water generated at
the Bourns site. Site improvements will maintain existing drainage patterns. Runoff will
continue to be directed into the existing flow line along the south boundary of the Bourns
site and existing catch basins in the adjacent Boums site outdoor work areas.
1-23
96-051S.rpt
-------
b. Flooding. The project site is not in an area which is subject to flood hazard and the
proposed improvements do not contain any components that present a potential flood
hazard to surrounding properties.
c,d,e. Surface Waters. Runoff from the project site enters the City storm drain system and
eventually is discharged to the Santa Ana River. The types of activities to be conducted at
the site present the potential for discharge of particulates (raw materials, ash, dust from
structures), grease and oil (vehicles, compressors and other mechanical equipment), and
methanol (storage tank and pipelines) in site runoff. Best management practices identified
in industry-wide general stormwater permits include: 1) exposure minimization practices
such as covers, berms and dikes, 2) detention/filtration facilities, and 3) good
housekeeping, including material storage and handling procedures, inspections, spill
prevention, and spill response. Considering the size of the project site, the nature and
volume of materials potentially exposed, campus Environmental Health and Safety
requirements for procedure manuals, and proposed site improvements (storage containers,
covers, and berms), the potential for discharge of contaminants in site runoff is minimal.
An amendment to the existing stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Bourns facility
and a revised notice of intent for coverage under the State General NPDES permit for
industrial stormwater discharges will be prepared.
f,g,h,i. Groundwater. No groundwater was encountered in the project-specific
geotechnical investigations.
5. Air Quality
a,b. Emissions. The proposed facility presents a limited number of potential sources of air
emissions related to on-site material storage and process exhaust. Biomass and other solid
materials represent a potential source of particulate emissions. Storage enclosures for solid
materials are incorporated into project design. The biomass feed system vent is also
equipped with filters to capture particulates.
Reactor system vents and exhaust represent potential sources of particulate and gaseous
emissions. The nature of the proposed process and internal controls required for
successful methanol production serve to control these potential emission sources. The
integrated system is an closed loop with exhaust limited to those gases vented from the
system when the reactor is shut down. Particulate and sulfur control is an integral
component of the system; product gas from the HPR is screened for particulates and sulfur
(a minor component of the natural gas feed that initiates the reaction), providing for clean
process gas for the reactions that take place in the SPR and MSR reactors. All vents and
exhaust streams are piped to the flare unit, where exhaust gas is burned to produce carbon
dioxide, water and trace amounts of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. Operation of
the flare is similar to the operation of the burner in a residential gas water heater.
Considering the size and nature of the proposed operation, potential emissions will be
considerably below the SCAQMD's thresholds of 55 pounds per day of reactive organic
compounds, 55 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen, 550 pounds per day of carbon
monoxide, 150 pounds per day of particulates, and 150 pounds per day of oxides of
sulfur.
The nature of the raw materials utilized in the process (wood chips, sand, clay, natural gas,
and pure laboratory gases) eliminates the potential for toxic emissions. It is also noted that
the SCAQMD procedure for evaluation of toxic hazards utilizes a radius of one-fourth mile
from a potential source for identification of potential sensitive receptors. Even if toxic
emissions was a potential issue, there are no potential sensitive receptors within one-fourth
mile of the project site.
1-24 '
96-05IS.rpl
-------
The proposed methanol storage tank is a prefabricated unit with integral vapor recovery
controls on the tank and pumps.
Necessary permits will be obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District
prior to facility operation. It is possible that the reactor unit will be exempt from SCAQMD
permitting under provisions for research projects or small combustion units.
Finally, it is noted that the primary goal of this project is development of a process that will
provide a less-polluting alternative to petroleum-based fuels to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from mobile sources, by means of a process which itself is less-polluting than
current technologies for methanol production.
c. Climate. During operation phases, elevated temperatures will be experienced in the
immediate vicinity of the reactor vessels and the flare. However, the limited scale and
periodic occurrence of facility operation result in a magnitude and duration that would not
affect climatic conditions.
d. Odors. Sulfur is a minor component of natural gas, which is one of the raw materials
used in the proposed process. The presence of sulfur creates the potential for formation of
hydrogen sulfide gas, which creates a characteristic smell of rotten eggs. However, as
noted above, the removal of sulfur by adsorption in the closed reactor system is an integral
component of the process. The project does not present the potential for exposure of the
public to objectionable odors.
6. Transportation/Circulation
a. Capacity/Access. Facility operation will involve a limited number of truck trips
associated with delivery of materials and removal of wastes. The estimated maximum 40
trips per month is an insignificant increment to the existing road network serving this
developed industrial site.
b,c,e. Hazards. The site is served by an existing street network and access points on the
Bourns site. The site is not affected by any design features or incompatible uses that
present potential traffic movement conflicts. Facility layout has taken into account
maneuvering areas required for material delivery and phased installation of equipment, as
well as protection of equipment from accidental damage by vehicles and protection of
delivery and emergency access routes for Bourns' operations. Improvements will not
affect areas associated with pedestrian or bicycle use.
d. Parking. More than sufficient parking is available in the existing Boums lot.
f- Alternate Transportation. The proposed improvements do not affect any existing
alternative transportation improvements, nor would they preclude, any planned
improvements or programs related to alternative transportation.
g. Rail. Waterborne. and Air Traffic. A rail line runs along the east boundary of the
Bourns site, approximately 100 feet east of the proposed site of the methanol production
facility. The proposed improvements will not directly impact the existing rail lines or
associated right-of-way.
The rail line at this location is a straight, level alignment on a rail bed that is elevated
approximately 5 to 10 feet above the elevation of the proposed improvements. The
proposed tank storage area and methanol synthesis reactor facility are located approximately
1-25 "
96-05IS.rpt
-------
125 feet from the rail lines. The gasification reactor (HPR and SPR units) is located
approximately 250 feet from the rail lines. This distance, combined with the slow speed
and minor volume of traffic on this particular rail line, does not represent a significant
exposure to damage from, or to, the rail lines.
See item 9a for discussion of potential impacts related to storage of flammable and
explosive materials.
7. Biological Resources
The project site is an undeveloped portion of an established industrial site, within a larger
surrounding area characterized by industrial development and citrus groves. Site vegetation
consists of a sparse cover of non-native grasses and herbaceous plants. The site does not
provide potential habitat for any endangered, threatened, rare, or locally designated species.
8. Energy/Mineral Resources
a. Energy Conservation. The proposed project does not consume inordinate quantities of
energy (see item 12). In fact, the proposed project is in support of national energy goals to
develop liquid fuels utilizing native, renewable resources to replace petroleum-based fuels.
b. Non-renewable Resources. Construction and operation of the proposed facility will
require building materials and process materials derived from non-renewable resources.
However, the type and quantities of materials required and the scale of the proposed
operation do not require resources in amounts that would substantially affect available
supply.
c. Mineral Resources. The project site is not within a designated mineral resource zone.
9. Hazards
a. Explosion/Hazardous Substance Release. Reactor design incorporates numerous
safeguards to prevent explosions. Pressure regulators and relief valves are installed on
inlet gas lines and the reactor vessels. Temperature sensors and regulators automatically
shut down operations if temperatures get too high. Nitrogen gas fills the vented reactor
vessels and vented gases are burned in a flare.
Process materials include pressurized gases. Of the gases to be stored on-site, only
hydrogen is characterized as a hazardous gas. National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) guidelines identify acceptable separation distances for protection of residential
areas and areas of anticipated human congregation, such as paries. For pressurized gases,
separation distances are determined for both fire and explosion hazards. For the proposed
project, the hydrogen gas would be stored in a container with a volume of approximately
5,500 gallons (water capacity). For this size of container, the NFPA guidelines
recommend a separation of 390 feet for explosive hazard, 110 feet for protection of
buildings from heat due to a fire, and 560 feet for protection of persons from heat due to a
fire. The NFPA criteria are specifically directed at protecting residential wood frame
structures and public congregation areas from fire and explosive hazards presented by
encroaching industrial development. The lack of existing or proposed residential
development in the vicinity of the project site eliminates the hazard risk to adjacent
residents. The lack of parks, schools and similar areas of congregation eliminates the
hazard risk to the general public.
1-26
,rpt
-------
Methanol will be stored on-site in a 1,000 gallon above-ground tank. Methanol is a
flammable liquid. Because it is not stored under pressure, the exposure risk is limited to
fire. NFPA guidelines recommend a separation of 70 feet for structures and 360 feet for
people. As with pressurized gas storage, the lack of existing or proposed residential
development and the lack of parks, schools and similar areas of congregation eliminates the
hazard risk to residents and the general public.
Federal and state worker safety regulations govern the siting of flammable and explosive
materials relative to structures and workers at the Bourns site. The separation provided by
the proposed tank parking site and the orientation of the tanks on an alignment parallel to
the building have been reviewed and determined appropriate by both campus and Bourns'
safety personnel.
The adjacent rail lines handle freight traffic of limited volume (three to five trains per week,
typically 25 or fewer cars per train). The compound effect of limited potential for
explosion or fire and the limited use of the rail lines, present a minimal potential for safety
hazards related to proximity to rail facilities.
b. Emergency Response. The proposed improvements will not affect any existing
emergency response or evacuation routes.
c,d. Health Hazard. Methanol is toxic if ingested orally and prolonged or high
concentration exposure to vapors can cause irritation of the eyes, skin and respiratory tract.
Occupational exposure is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Security measures, storage and dispensing equipment features, standard operating
practices, and the isolated location of the proposed facility minimize the potential risk of
exposure to the general public.
e. Fire Hazard. There are no open grasslands, shrublands or forests in the potentially-
affected surrounding area.
10. Noise
Facility operation will involve the use of compressors and mechanical components that will
result in perceptible increases in noise levels in the immediate area. Established safety
regulations will provide for protection of facility workers; the lack of nearby sensitive
receptors (residential uses, schools, open space/recreational uses) eliminates noise impacts
as a potential issue for the surrounding area.
11. Public Services
a. Fire Protection. The project site is served by an existing City of Riverside fire station in
the vicinity of Linden and Iowa Avenues, approximately 1-1/2 miles to the southwest, and
an existing Riverside County fire station in the vicinity of Center Street and Iowa Avenue,
approximately one mile to the north.
Facility design incorporates reactor vessels and pipelines designed in accordance with
NFPA, ANSI and ASME standards. Shut-off valves are provided to interrupt process
flows (either in automated or manual mocks) at critical points if needed in an emergency.
Code requirements establish a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute. Standard
campus review procedures will ensure establishment of sufficient fire flow at the proposed
plant. Water can be provided from the existing service to the Bourns site or existing mains
in Columbia and Iowa Avenues.
1-27
96-05IS.rpt
-------
b,c,e. Other Public Services. Addition of the proposed improvements at the existing
Bourns site will not generate additional demand for police services. The project does not
involve substantial new employment that would affect local schools nor does the project
present the potential for significant impacts to any other governmental services.
d. Public Facility Maintenance. The proposed project does not include any new public
improvements. The operational characteristics of the proposed facility will not result in
substantial additional demand upon existing public facilities.
12. Utilities/Service Systems
a. Power/Natural Gas. Service is available at the project site. The proposed facility will
consume approximately 10,500 kilowatts of electricity and 120,000 cubic feet of natural
gas in each test run. This is equivalent to the amount of energy consumed by 20 average
single-family residences and does not represent a substantial demand that would require
system improvements or supply development.
b. Communications Systems. Service is available at the project site.
c.g. Water. Purified water will be delivered by truck and stored in a 500 gallon tank.
Purified water will be used for generation of steam that makes up part of the synthesis gas
stream. Additional water from the City system will also be required for cooling. A total of
approximately 1,325 gallons of water is required for each test run. Over a one-year period,
total water consumption would be equivalent to that used by one single-family residence in
approximately 80 days. This amount does not represent a substantial demand that would
require system improvements or supply development.
Water can be provided from the existing service lines to the Bourns site or an extension
from the existing mains in Iowa and Columbia Avenues. Either of these options would
involve comparatively minor trenching through disturbed areas.
d. Sewer. The project does not involve any new discharges to the City sewer system.
Sanitary facilities are available at the existing CE-CERT offices.
e. Storm Drains. The approximately 0.4 acres of additional impervious surface area that
will be created as part of the proposed project represents an insignificant increment to flows
already directed to the existing storm drains in Iowa and Columbia Avenues.
e. Solid Waste Disposal. Solid waste generated by the proposed facility will consist of ash
and bed material removed from the HPR reactor, filter residues and spent catalyst. Reactor
bed and filter residue will generate approximately 15, 55-gallon drums of waste each
month. Depending upon the results of toxicity testing, these wastes will either be disposed
of at the local sanitary landfill, or disposed of under contract by a licensed hazardous
material handler. The limited quantities do not represent a significant demand upon
available landfill space.
13. Aesthetics
a,b. Visual Effects. The project site is not visible from any scenic highway or scenic vista.
The site is largely shielded from public view by the existing building and landscaping at the
Bourns site. Although the site is visible from Columbia Avenue immediately north of the
site, this is not a designated scenic corridor and the appearance of the proposed
1-28 "
96-05IS.rpt
-------
improvements is not inconsistent with existing accessory improvements at the Bourns site
and other industrial plants in the larger Hunter Business park area.
c. Light and Glare. Portable lights will be used during night operations for the duration of
each test run. Considering the lack of sensitive receptors in the surrounding area, this is
not a significant issue.
14. Cultural Resources
The project site is located within an established industrial park in an area that had been in
citrus production prior to industrial use. There is no visible evidence of historic structures
on the site. Historic disturbance in the area results in limited potential for subsurface
artifacts. The local geologic formation is not known to be fossil-bearing. There are no
known resources of ethnic or religious significance within the project impact area.
15. Recreation
The project site is within an existing industrial plant. The proposed project will not directly
impact any existing recreational opportunities.
The facility will be staffed primarily by existing CE-CERT researchers. The proposed
project will not increase the demand for recreational facilities.
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Environmental Degradation. Sensitive Species. Cultural Resources. The proposed
project, by its nature, scale and location, does not present the potential for significant
environmental degradation. The project will not affect any known biological or cultural
resources.
b. Short-term versus Long-term. The project does not present the potential for significant
short-term impacts and is in furtherance of long-term environmental goals to reduce
emissions resulting from reliance upon petroleum-based fuels.
c. Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts have been identified. Individual potential
impacts identified in the preceding evaluation with respect to farmlands, subsidence, air
emissions and safety hazards are all addressed by established regulatory programs or
aspects of the project design and setting.
d. Adverse Human Effects. Limited potential for air emissions and explosion hazards
have been identified in the preceding analysis. However, the lack of residential
development, recreational uses or similar areas for human congregation eliminates the
potential for substantial adverse effects on human beings.
96-05IS.rpt
1-29
-------
LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if
the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project
Signature
ttuiv&ejsrrY of Caufozjoia
Date
Printed Name
1-30
96-051S.rpt
-------
REFERENCES
The following documents were consulted in preparation of this initial study. The location where
each document can be obtained for review is indicated in each entry. The notes at the bottom of
this section provide the address of each individual location.
Acurex 1994
Acurex 1995
Acurex 1995a
CDMC 1994
FEMA 1983
RIVCITY 1988
RIVC1TY 1994
RIVCITY 1994a
RIVCO 1991
SCAQMD 1993
UCR 1991
UCR 1996
Methanol Production from the Hynol Process Using Biomass Feedstock -
Facility, Safety, Permitting, and Materials Management Requirements,
Acurex Environmental Corporation, dated November 25, 1994. Available
at CE-CERT.
Evaluation of a Process to Convert Biomass to Methanol Fuel - Work Plan,
Bourns College of Engineering and Acurex Environmental Corporation,
dated August 1995. Available at CE-CERT.
Hynol Process Engineering - Process Configuration, Site Plan and
Equipment Design, Acurex Environmental Corporation, dated
April 27, 1995. Available at CE-CERT.
Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Department
of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, dated 1994. Available at
Webb.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps Panel No. 060260 005 A, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, dated January 6,1983. Available at City.
Hunter Business Park Specific Plan, City of Riverside Planning
Department, dated August 1988 as amended through 1990. Available at
City.
City of Riverside General Plan, City of Riverside Planning Department,
dated September 13, 1994. Available at City.
Title .19 - Zoning Code of the City of Riverside, City of Riverside Planning
Department, dated November 1994. Available at City.
Gateway Center Specific Plan and EIR Technical Appendices, County of
Riverside, dated October 1991. Available at County.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook for
Preparation of Environmental Impact Reports, Revised November 1993.
Available at SCAQMD.
Procedural Handbook and Model Approach for Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act, University of California, dated May, 1991.
Available at Campus Planning.
Preliminary Soils Investigation, UCR CE-CERT Biomass to Methanol Fuel
Plant (Project No. 20742.1), LOR Geotechnical, dated February 1996.
Available at CE-CERT.
1-31
96-051S.rpt
-------
USEPA 1994 Chemical Summary for Methanol, prepared by Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (EPA 749-F-94-013a), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, dated August 1994. Available at Webb.
USEPA 1994a Fact Sheet OMS-7, Methanol Basics (EPA'400-F-92-009), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, dated August 1994. Available at Webb.
USEPA 1994b Fact Sheet OMS-8, Methanol Fuels and Fire Safety (EPA 400-F-92-010),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated August 1994. Available at
Webb.
USEPA 1994c OPPT Chemical Fact Sheet, Chemicals in the Environment: Methanol (EPA
749-F-94-013), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, dated August 1994. Available at Webb.
USHUD Siting of HUD-Assisted Projects Near Hazardous Facilities - A Guidebook,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, undated. Available
at Webb.
Location: Address:
Campus Planning University of California, Riverside Office of Planning, Design and
Construction, 3615 A Canyon Crest Drive, Suite D-102, Riverside.
CE-CERT University of California, Riverside Center for Environmental Research and
Technology, 1200 Columbia Avenue, Riverside.
City City of Riverside Planning Department, 3900 Main Street, Riverside.
County County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
Webb Albert A. Webb Associates, 3788 McCray Street, Riverside.
96-051S.rpl
1-32
-------
Appendix I!
Preliminary Soils Investigation
UCR, CF.-CF.RT, Biornass to Methanol Fuel Plant
Bourns, Inc., Facility
1200 Columbia Avenue
Riverside, California
Project No.; 20742,!
February 12, 1996
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
6121 Quail Valley Court
Riverside, CA 92507
(909)653-1760
Fax (909) 653-1741
Prepared for:
Dagostino Engineering
329 West State Street, Suite A-2
Redlands, CA 92373
Attention: Mr. Keith Dagostino
U4
-------
¥ f||3 GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
B Vr Soil Engineering a Geology a Environmental
February 1 2, 1996
Dagostino Engineering
329 West State Street, Suite A-2
Redlands, California 92373
Attention: Mr. Keith Dagostino
Gentlemen:
Transmitted with this letter is our report entitled Preliminary Soils Investigation, UCR,
CE-CERT Biomass to Methanol Fuel Plant, Bourns Inc. Facility, 1200 Columbia Avenue,
Riverside, California prepared for Dagostino Engineering, Project No. 20742.1.
This report was based upon a scope of services generally outlined in our Proposal
Letter dated November 21,1995 and in other written and verbal communications with
your office.
It has been our pleasure assisting you on this project. If you have any questions or
comments concerning the information in this report, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
JoHn P. Leuer, GE
JVesident
JLG:sju
Distribution: Addressee (6)
Il-ii
6121 Quail Valley Court a Riverside, California 92507 a (909) 653-1760 a Fax (909) 653-1741
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
(II- )
INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS 1
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 2
FIELD INVESTIGATION 2
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
CONCLUSIONS 3
RECOMMENDATIONS 4
General Site Grading 4
Preparation of Fill Areas 5
Preparation of Foundation Areas 5
Engineered Compacted Fill 5
Short Term Excavations 6
Soil Expansiveness 6
Foundation Design 7
Settlement 8
Slabs-On-Grade 8
Wall Pressures 8
Construction Monitoring 9
LIMITATIONS 10
CLOSURE 11
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - INDEX MAP AND PLAT 12
APPENDIX B - FIELD INVESTIGATION PROGRAM AND BORING LOGS ... 15
APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TESTING 2 3
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
INTRODUCTION
During February of 1996, LOR Geotechnical Group Inc. conducted a Preliminary Soils
Investigation for the proposed UCR, CE-CERT Biomass to Methanol Fuel Plant located
at 1200 Columbia Avenue, Riverside, California. The purpose of this investigation was
to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions encountered in our exploratory borings, and
based on that evaluation, provide geotechnical design recommendations for the
proposed development from a soil engineering point of view. The scope of our
services included: 1) A subsurface field investigation; 2) Laboratory testing of selected
soil samples obtained during the field investigation; 3) Development of geotechnical
recommendations for site grading and foundation design; and 4) Preparation of this
report.
To orient our investigation at the site, a 20-scale Site Plan was furnished for our use.
The proposed building and equipment locations were indicated on this plan.
The findings of our investigation, as well as our conclusions and recommendations, are
presented in the following sections of this report.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
The approximate location of the site is shown on the attached Index Map, Enclosure
A-1 within Appendix A.
Information furnished this firm indicates the proposed project is a biomass to methanol
fuel plant which will consist of a gasification reactor, a control room, as well as
assorted storage tanks, compressors and related equipment. The assorted structures
are anticipated to be constructed of steel, concrete and masonry type materials
supported by spread foundations. Light to moderate foundation loads are anticipated
with such structures.
No grading plan was available for our use during this investigation. However,
observation of the site topography and adjacent properties indicates site development
will entail minimal cuts and fills.
II-1
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed plant is to be located in the southeast corner of the Bourns Inc. facility
on the southeast comer of Columbia Avenue and Iowa Avenue in the city of Riverside.
The site topography generally consisted of two levels, with the southwest corner
raised approximately three feet higher and a slight overall slope to the north. The site
was generally vacant except for a storage container, a steel tank and assorted piles of
fencing materials and metal scrap. The west half of the site is enclosed by a chain link
fence, and had evidence of recently placed, uncompacted, fill placed across the
majority of the parcel. The vegetation on the site consisted of a light growth of
weeds, with the easterly, unfenced portion of the site being recently disced. Adjacent
to the site to the west and northwest are various structures associated with the
Bourns Inc. facility and UCR Methonal Research Operations. To the south, east and
northeast of the site is vacant property and a set of railroad tracks.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field exploration program was conducted on February 1, 1996 and and consisted
of drilling five exploratory borings with a truck-mounted CME 55 drill rig equipped with
8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from
23.5-feet to 30.0-feet. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are
presented on the attached Plat, Enclosure A-2 within Appendix A.
Logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were
maintained by a geologist from this firm. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples
were obtained at a maximum depth interval of 5-feet and returned to the laboratory
in sealed containers for further testing and evaluation. A detailed description of the
field exploration program and the boring logs are presented in Appendix B.
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation were subjected to
laboratory testing to evaluate their physical and engineering properties. Laboratory
testing included moisture content, dry density, compaction characteristics, and direct
II-2
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
shear tests. A detailed description of the laboratory testing program and the test
results are presented in Appendix C.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Data from our exploratory borings indicate that the subsurface soil profile at the site
generally consists of surficial silty sands underlain by well graded sands and additional
silty sands. A strata of silty sand with clay was encountered within Boring No. 2. up
to 2-feet of unengineered fill materials were present within Boring No. 2. Groundwater
or bedrock was not encountered in any of our exploratory borings.
The subsurface conditions encountered in our exploratory borings are only indicative
of the locations explored, and are not to be construed as representing the same
conditions throughout the site. If conditions are encountered during the construction
of the project which differ significantly from those presented in this report, this firm
should be notified immediately so we may assess the impact to the recommendations
provided.
A more detailed description of the subsurface soil conditions, as encountered within
our exploratory borings, is presented on the Boring Logs within Appendix B.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field investigation and testing program, it is the opinion of LOR
Geotechnical Group, Inc. that the proposed development is feasible from a soil
engineering standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are
incorporated into design and implemented during grading and construction.
Based upon the field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that the upper native
soils will not, in their present condition, provide uniform support for the proposed
structures. Our Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and in-place density data indicated
variable in-situ conditions of the upper native soils, ranging from medium dense to
dense states. This condition may cause unacceptable differential and/or overall
settlements upon application of the anticipated foundation loads.
11-3
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
To provide adequate support for the proposed structures, we recommend a compacted
fill mat be constructed beneath the foundations. This compacted fill mat will provide
a dense, high-strength soil layer to uniformly distribute the anticipated foundation loads
over the underlying soils. In addition, the construction of this compacted fill mat will
allow for the removal of any old fill material, and recompaction of existing upper
disturbed soils within structural pad areas. Conventional spread foundations will
provide adequate support for the anticipated downward and lateral loads when utilized
in conjunction with the recommended fill mat.
The following recommendations are provided for your assistance in establishing proper
design, grading and construction criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS
General Site Grading
It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the
presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer. Prior to all grading related operations
an on-site, pre-job meeting with UCR's representatives, the project engineer, the
contractor and geotechnical engineer should occur. Operations undertaken at the site
without the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusion of affected areas
from the final compaction report for the project.
Grading of the subject site should be performed in accordance with the following
recommendations as well as applicable portions of Appendix Chapter 33 of the 1994
Uniform Building Code, and/or applicable local ordinances.
All areas to be graded should be stripped of significant vegetation and other deleterious
materials.
All uncontrolled fills encountered during site preparation should be completely
removed, cleaned of significant deleterious materials, and may be reused as compacted
fill.
11-4
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
Cavities created by removal of subsurface obstructions should be thoroughly cleaned
of loose soil, organic matter and other deleterious materials, shaped to provide access
for construction equipment, and backfilled as recommended in the following
Compacted Fills section of this report.
Preparation of Fill Areas
Prior to placing fill, the surfaces of all areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth
of at least 12-inches. The scarified soil should be brought to near optimum moisture
content and recompacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D
1557).
Preparation of Foundation Areas
All footings and spread foundations should rest upon at least 12-inches of properly
compacted fill material. In areas where the required thickness is not accomplished by
site rough grading, the footing areas should be further subexcavated to a depth of at
least 12-inches below the proposed foundation base grade, with the subexcavation
extending at least 5-feet beyond the footing lines. The bottom of this excavation
should then be scarified to a depth of at least 6-inches, brought to near optimum
moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM
D 1557) prior to refilling the excavation to grade as properly compacted fill.
Engineered Compacted Fill
The on-site soils should provide adequate quality fill material, provided they are free
from organic matter and other deleterious materials. Unless approved by the
geotechnical engineer, rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension
greater than 6-inches should not be buried or placed in fills.
Import fill should be inorganic, non-expansive granular soils free from rocks or lumps
greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension. Sources for import fill should be
approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use.
11-5
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
Fill should be spread in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, each lift brought to near optimum
moisture content, and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent in
accordance with ASTM D 1557.
Based upon the average in-situ dry density of the near surface soils determined during
this investigation and the relative compaction anticipated for compacted fill soil, we
estimate a compaction shrinkage factor of approximately five to ten percent.
Therefore, 1.05 cubic yard to 1.10 cubic yards of in-place material would yield 1.0
cubic yard of engineered compacted fill. We would anticipate subsidence to be
negligible. These values are for estimating purposes only, and are exclusive of losses
due to stripping or the removal of subsurface obstructions. These values may vary due
to differing conditions within the project boundaries and the limitations of this
investigation. Shrinkage or bulking should be monitored during construction. If
percentages vary, provisions should be made to revise final grades or adjust quantities
of borrow or export.
Short Term Excavations
Following the California Occupational and Safety Health Act (CALOSHA) requirements,
excavations deeper than 5-feet should be sloped or shored. All excavations and
shoring should conform to CAL-OSHA requirements. Short term excavations greater
that 5-feet deep shall conform to Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations,
Construction Safety Orders, Section 1504 and 1539 through 1547. Based on our
exploratory borings it appears that type C soils are the predominant type of soil on the
project and all short term excavations should be based on this type of soil. Deviation
from the standard short term slopes are permitted using Option 4, Design by a
Registered Professional Engineer (Section 1541.1). Short term slope construction and
maintenance are the responsibility of the contractor, and should be a consideration of
his methods of operation and the actual soil conditions encountered.
Soil Expansiveness
The upper materials encountered during this investigation were granular and
considered to have a very low expansion potential. Therefore, specialized construction
procedures to specifically resist expansive soil activity are not anticipated at this time.
II-6
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostirio Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
In order to verify this, additional evaluation of on-site and imported soils for their
expansion potential should be conducted following completion of the grading
operation.
Foundation Design
If the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may be safely founded
on conventional spread foundations, bearing on a minimum of 12-inches of engineered
compacted fill. All foundations should be a minimum of 12-inches wide and be
established a minimum of 12-inches below lowest adjacent grade.
For the minimum width and depth, footings may be designed using a maximum soil
bearing pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. This
bearing pressure may be increased by 500 psf for each foot of additional width, and
by 500 psf for each additional foot of depth, up to a maximum of 6000 psf. For
example, a footing 2-feet wide and embedded 2-feet will have an allowable bearing
pressure of 3500 psf.
The values apply to the maximum edge pressure for foundations subjected to eccentric
loads or overturning. The recommended pressures apply for the total of dead plus
frequently applied live loads, and incorporate a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The
allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for temporary wind or
seismic loading. The resultant of the combined vertical and lateral seismic loads
should act within the middle one-third of the footing width. The maximum calculated
edge pressure under the toe of foundations subjected to eccentric loads or overturning
should not exceed the increased allowable pressure.
Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction.
For footings bearing against compacted fill, passive earth pressure may be considered
to be developed at a rate of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Base
friction may be computed at 0.40 times the normal load. Base friction and passive
earth pressure may be combined without reduction. These values are for dead load
plus live load and may be increased by 113 for wind or seismic.
II-7
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
Settlement
Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the width of the
foundation and the actual load supported. Maximum settlement of shallow foundations
designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations are
estimated to be on the order of 0.5 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent
footings should be about one-half of the total settlement. Settlement of all
foundations is expected to occur rapidly, primarily as a result of elastic compression
of supporting soils as the loads are applied, and should be essentially completed
shortly after initial application of the loads.
Slabs-On-Grade
To provide adequate support, concrete slabs-on-grade should bear on a minimum of
12-inches of compacted soil. The final pad surfaces should be rolled to provide
smooth, dense surfaces upon which to place the concrete.
Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor
barrier. This barrier may consist of an impermeable membrane. Two inches of sand
over the membrane will reduce punctures and aid in obtaining a satisfactory concrete
cure. The sand should be moistened just prior to placing of concrete.
The slabs should be protected from rapid and excessive moisture loss which could
result in slab curling. Careful attention should be given to slab curing procedures, as
the site area is subject to large temperature extremes, humidity, and strong winds.
Wall Pressures
The design of footings for walls below grade (basement or pit walls, etc.) and retaining
structures should be performed in accordance with the recommendations described
earlier under Preparation of Foundation Areas and Foundation Design. For design of
retaining wall footings, the resultant of the applied loads should act in the middle one-
third of the footing, and the maximum edge pressure should not exceed the basic
allowable value without increase.
II-8
GEOTECHNICAL GROUP. INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
For design of retaining walls unrestrained against movement at the top, we
recommend an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used.
This assumes level backfill consisting of recompacted native soils placed against the
structures and with the backcut slope extending upward from the base of the stem at
30 degrees from the vertical or flatter.
To avoid overstressing or excessive tilting during placement of backfill behind walls,
heavy compaction equipment should not be allowed within the zone delineated by a
45 degree line extending from the base of the wall to the fill surface. The backfill
directly behind the walls should be compacted using light equipment such as hand
operated vibrating plates and rollers. No material larger than three inches in diameter
should be placed in direct contact with the wall.
Wall pressures should be verified prior to construction, when the actual backfill
materials and conditions have been determined. Recommended pressures are
applicable only to level, properly drained backfill (with no additional surcharge
loadings). If inclined backfills are proposed, this firm should be contacted to develop
appropriate active earth pressure parameters. Toe bearing pressure for non-structural
walls on soils, not prepared as described earlier under Preparation of Foundation Areas,
should not exceed Uniform Building Code values, (UBC Table 18-1-A).
Construction Monitoring
Post investigative services are an important and necessary continuation of this
investigation. Project plans and specifications should be reviewed prior to construction
to confirm that the intent of the recommendations presented herein have been
incorporated into the design.
During construction, sufficient and timely geotechnical observation and testing should
be provided to correlate the findings of this investigation with the actual subsurface
conditions exposed during construction. Items requiring observation and testing
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
11-9
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
1. Site preparation-stripping and removals.
2. Excavations, including approval of the bottom of excavation prior to backfilling.
3. Scarifying and recompacting prior to fill placement.
4. Subgrade preparation for pavements and slabs-on-grade.
5. Placement of engineered compacted fill and backfill, including approval of fill
materials and the performance of sufficient density tests to evaluate the degree
of compaction being achieved.
LIMITATIONS
This report contains conclusions and recommendations of the subsurface soil
conditions at the site developed solely for use by the owner, and their design
consultants, for the purposes described earlier. It may not contain sufficient
information for other uses or the purposes of other parties. This report did not address
the geological conditions at the site nor their impact, if any, to the proposed
development. The contents of this report should not be extrapolated to other areas
or used for other facilities without consulting LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
The recommendations are based on interpretations of the subsurface conditions
concluded from information gained from subsurface explorations, and a surficial site
reconnaissance. The interpretations may differ from actual subsurface conditions,
which can vary horizontally and vertically across the site. Due to possible subsurface
variations, all aspects of field construction addressed in this report should be observed
and tested by the project geotechnical consultant.
If parties other than LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. provide construction monitoring
services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume responsibility for
the geotechnical phase of the project being completed by concurring with the
recommendations provided in this report or by providing alternative recommendations.
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
11-10
-------
Dagostino Engineering
February 12, 1996
Project No. 20742.1
The report was prepared using generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices
under the direction of a state licensed geotechnical engineer. No warranty, express
or implied, is made as to conclusions and professional advice included in this report.
Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such
independent investigations as deemed necessary to satisfy themselves as to the
surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used
in the performance of work on this project.
Should conditions be encountered during construction that appear to be different than
indicated by this report, please contact this office immediately in order that we might
evaluate their effect. It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. We look
forward to being of further assistance to you as construction begins.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. The following
are attached and complete this report:
Respectfully submitted,
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
CLOSURE
M/Kevin Osmun, PE
Vice President
Wfe No. 2030
[g( EXPIRATION^ |S
Jokin P. Leuer, GE 2030
President
JLG:JPL:sju
II-11
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
-------
APPENDIX A
Index Map and Plat
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
11-12
-------
SAN BKRNARDINO south, calif.
* »t/i **¦* MF^fttOtNO t» 9UAO*«*«l£
*J«00 WI1J15/7S
*hOTO*6v*5€0 »S90
DMA JMJ :ir Sf-*E*ICS v»»j
nd?
-r^jGoll ind Country c8fc^_ •'.
l h
CITRUS
Sprmgbrook
com*
umer . ,g
J.o* ¦ (Wt, GJ^ei^rv°!ir! Hunter /"4f —
£' ' jj, , £ ! Park V I
iiod
S^NPUO
• H UICI
Rese voire
North
o Hl*h Sch]"« iv
t I u^* , .
3 ~ • /*i* \
' r; v~»
ftVs.r._2)L.v J
F!,f
1./NO
i
ewer
SiTY
XRIVERSIDE EAST. CALIF
J
*335? S—Wt 1715/7.5
9*)
INDEX MAP
PROJECT: UCR, CE-CERT BIOMASS TO METHANOL FUEL PLANT
PROJECT NO.: 20742.1
CLIENT: DAGOSTINO ENGINEERING
ENCLOSURE: A-1
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
11-13
DATE: FEBRUARY 12. 1996
SCALE: AS SHOWN
-------
ev*o«*«c
O
OOlAt WW
7. 3
ACCIVS RAM*
1*
B-1
B-4
"D
>
B-2
CesH
-------
APPENDIX B
Field Investigation Program and Boring Logs
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
II-15
-------
APPENDIX B
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Subsurface Exploration
The site was investigated on February 1, 1996 and consisted of advancing five
exploratory borings to depths between 23.5- and 30.0-feet below the existing ground
surface. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Enclosure A-2, within
Appendix A.
The exploration was conducted using a CME-55 drill rig equipped with an 8-inch
diameter hollow stem auger. The soils were continuously logged by our geologist who
inspected the site, maintained detailed logs of the borings, obtained undisturbed, as
well as disturbed, soil samples for evaluation and testing, and classified the soils by
visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.
Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsoils were obtained at selected intervals in
the borings by driving a steel split-barrel sampler using a 140 pound automatic trip
hammer dropping 30-inches. The maximum depth between the samples obtained was
5-feet. The soil samples were retained in brass sample rings of 2.41-inches in
diameter and 1.00-inch in height, and placed in sealed plastic containers. Disturbed
soil samples were obtained at selected levels within the borings and placed in sealed
plastic bags for transport to the laboratory.
All samples obtained were taken to our laboratory for storage and testing. Detailed
logs of the borings are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs, Enclosures B-1 through
B-5. A Sampling Key is presented on Enclosure B.
11-16
-------
CONSISTENCY OF SOILS
SANDS
SPT BLOWS CONSISTENCY
0-4
Very loose
4 - 10
Loose
10-30
Medium dense
30-50
Dense
Over 50
Very dense
COHESIVE SOILS
SPT BLOWS
CONSISTENCY
0-2
Very soft
2 - 4
Soft
4 - 8
Medium
8 - 15
Stiff
15-30
Very stiff
30-60
Hard
Over 60
Very Hard
MAJOR DIVISIONS
UTHO-
LOGY
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN SO*
Of MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN
200 SIEVE StZE
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
MORE THAN SO* OF
COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON
NO 4 SIEVE
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50* Of
COARSE FRACTION
PASSING NO. 4
SIEVE
CLEAN GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO
FINES)
GW
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
GC
CLEAN SAND
(LITTLE OR NO
FINES)
~- -r sw
SP
SM
SANDS WITH FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT Of FINES)
sc
TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS.
GRAVEL SANO MIXTURES.
LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GARVEL-SAND MIXTURES.
LITTLE OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-
SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS. GRAVEL-
SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR
no fines
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SANOS. LITTLE OR
NO FINES
SILTY SAND. SAND-SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS. SAND-CLAY
MIXTURES
O
ffi
2
>
u>
I
I
X
ML
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANOS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SUGHT PLASTICITY
SAMPLING KEY
DESCRIPTION
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
UCHJIO LlUfT
LESS THAN SO
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS,
LEAN CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
FOR BORINGS -
INCHOATES RELATIVELY UNOtSTURBED
SOIL SAMIE RETAINED IN BRASS
SAMPLE RINGS OF 2.41 INCHES
DIAMETER AND 1.00 INCH IN HEIGHT.
FOR TRENCHES -
INDICATES SANO CONE OR NUCLEAR
OENSITY TEST
INDICATES BAG SOH. SAMPLE
INDICATES BULK SOIL SAMPLE
MH
INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS
OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND
OR SILTY SOILS
MORE Than SOH
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
Liomo limit
GREATER THAN 50
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF RICH
PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
m oh
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM
TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC
SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT, HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS
WITH HIGH ORGANIC
CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS.
PARTICLE
SIZE
LIMITS
BOULDERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
COARSE
FINE
COARSE
MEDIUM
FINE
12" 3" %'• No. 4 No. 10 No. 40 200
(U S STANDARD SIEVE SIZE)
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
PROJECT:
UCR, CE-CERT FUEL PLANT
PROJECT NO.:
20742.1
CLIENT:
DAGOSTINO ENGINEERING
DATE:
FEBRUARY, 1996
LOR
GEOTECHNICAL GROUP,
CLOSURE NO.:
B
11-17
-------
TEST DATA
VI
H
Z
1_>
o _
O o
* I
o <
3
fc
CO
H
Z
w
H
Z
o
w '
OS
fe
O
2
>•
H
Z C
tu O
Q 5-
>-
OS
a
LL
Cl,
>•
H
UJ
•J
Cu
2
<
on
>*
O
O
>-1
o
a:
H
Z3
5/5
d
vi
D
LOG OF BORING 1
DESCRIPTION
10
15
20
25
30
58
70
66
78
83
5.1
13.6
116
9.0
m
11.3
123
7.2
129
6.0
121
5
I
I
SM
OI.nF.R Al.I.HVIinvi: SILTY SAND; approximately 60% fine
sand; 10% medium sand; 30% silty Tines of low plasticity,
strong brown (7.5YR 5/8), damp.
Formation of pod-like soil structure with caliche cemented
stringers, very dense.
Several small clasts of almost completely weathered granitic
gravel.
Gradual decrease in silt content.
Grades to approximately 60% fine grained sand; 20% medium
grained sand; 5% coarse grained sand; 15% silty fines;
yellowish red (5YR 5/8), damp.
End of Boring
No Fill
No Caving
No Groundwater
No Bedrock
PROJECT: UCR, CE-CERT Fuel Plant
PROJECT NUMBER:
20742.1
CLIENT: Dagostino Engineering
ELEVATION:
936.5
DATE DRILLED:
February 1,1996
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROl
EQUIPMENT:
CME 55 Drill Rig
40LEDIA.: 8"
ENCLOSURE: B-l
11-18
-------
TEST DATA
u.
2
a
fc
u
Q
2
P
O _
u o
o *
J
CQ
&
C/5
H
2
W
f-
z
o
Si
OS
D
O
s
H
55 _
2 R
ta U
Q a,
>-
o5
a
u
a.
>•
f-
w
J
EL.
2
<
t/3
J
o
H
13
V3
q
D
LOG OF BORING 2
DESCRIPTION
42-6"
4.3
3.3
112
IT
I
75
10.8
126
I
10
42-6"
7.8
114
15
68
13.2
123
I
i
I
20-
SM
SM
sw
SM
: SILTY SAND; approximately 70% fine
grained sand; 5% medium grained sand; 25% silty fines of low
plasticity; brownish yellow (10YR 6/8), dry.
Grades to approximately 80% fine grained sand; 20% silty fines;
light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), dry, dense with caliche pods and
stringers
SILTY SAND/CLAYEY SAND: approximately 60% fine grained
sand; 40% silty fines of medium plasticity; yellowish red (SYR
4/6) damp, dense/hard with caliche stringers.
WELL GRADED SAND: with SILT; approximately 50% medium
grained sand; 30% fine grained sand; 10% coarse sand, 10%
sOty Ones, strong brown (7.5YR 5/8), damp.
SILTY SAND: approximately 70% fine grained sand; 5% medium
sand; 25% silty fines; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), damp.
25
30
77
38
8.5
9.7
129
124
I
1
Less SILTY, approximately 50% fine grained sand; 35% medium
sand; 15% silty fines, strong brown (7.5YR 4/6), damp.
END OF BORING
No fill
No caving
No groundwater
No bedrock
PROJECT: UCR, CE-CERT Fuel Plant
PROJECT NUMBER:
20742.1
CLIENT: Dagostino Engineering
ELEVATION:
935.S
DATE DRILLED:
February 1,1996
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROl
"3UIPMENT:
CME 55 Drill Rig
OLE DIA.: 8"
ENCLOSURE: B-2
11-19
-------
D
O
u S
£ |
o 21
J
cn
fc
V3
TEST DATA
H
7.
W
f-
Z
o
u,
ta ¦
o:
te
o
2
z i.
gj O
C i
>¦
£*
Q
in
a.
>¦
H
W
-J
CL,
>•
O
o
o
X
fc
v,
cj
V5
LOG OF BORING 3
DESCRIPTION
10
15
20
25
30
39-6"
51
71
63
73
45
6.2
5.3
7.7
6.5
10.3
10.0
9.5
121
T2
-------
X
£
UJ
Q
TJEST I^ATA
CO
t-m
Z
O _
U Q>
£ §
O <
CQ
fc
H
Z
UU
0
Si
01
D
H
1/3
o
s
>~
fc
LO _
Z C
tu
G Si
>-
bJ
Q
W
ft,
>*
H
U1
¦J
a.
T~
~j
o
x
H
3
u
vi
3
LOG OF BORING 4
DESCRIPTION
20
28
10
76
IS
78
20-
88
25
11.5
7.3
126
3.2
118
7.4
122
I
I
12.9
119
I
9.4
126
I
SM
FILL: SILTY SAND; approximately 70% fine grained sand; 30%
silty fines, brown (7.5YR 4/3), moist.
OLDER ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND; approximately
grained sand; 5% medium sand; 30% silty fines; s
(7.5YR 4/6), moist.
65% fine
strong brown
SW
WELL GRADED SAND; with SILT; approximately 60% fine
grained sand; 20% medium grained sand; 10% coarse sand;
10% silty fines; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8), damp.
SM
Difficult drilling, water added to facilitate drilling effort.
SILTY SAND: approximately 60% fine grained sand; 10%
medium sand; 30% silty fines; yellowish brown (10YR 5/8),
damp.
END OF BORING
Fill 0-1.0'
No caving
No groundwater
No bedrock
30
PROJECT: UCR, CE-CERT Fuel Plant
PROJECT NUMBER:
20742.1
CLIENT: Dagostino Engineering
ELEVATION:
936.0
DATE DRILLED:
February 1,1996
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP ]
UIPMENT:
CMIi 55 Drill Rig
LE DIA.: 8"
ENCLOSURE: B-4
11-21
-------
10
15
20
25
30
z
ZD
8 5
>
6%
k
WD
41
67
76
49
37
TEST DATA
H
Z
UJ
t-
z
o
Si
q;
3
fc
O
2
5.8
2.1
"iTMT
9.9
4.3
7.8
>
V)
z
U1 O
Q 5t
>-
a£
Q
108
126
125
116
125
o.
>*
H
w
_i
a.
s
<
CO
I
I
I
I
I
>-
8
o
a
fc
CO
U
CO
3
SM
sw
SM
LOG OF BORING 5
DESCRIPTION
OLDER ALU JVHJM: SILTY SAND; approximately 70% fine
grained sand; 10% medium; 20% silty fines; dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6), damp.
SILTY SAND; with lenses of coarse grained granitic sand, some
caliche stringers, dense.
Fewer lenses of coarse sand.
Difficult to drill, water added to facilitate drilling effort.
WELL GRADED SAND: approximately 30% fine grained sand;
40% medium sand; 30% coarse sand; brownish yellow (10YR
6/6), damp.
SILTY SAND: percentages vary, approximately 60% fine sand;
10% medium sand; 30% silty fines; dark reddish brown (5YR
3/4), damp.
END OF BORING
No fill
No caving
No groundater
No bedrock
PROJECT: UCR, CE-CERT Fuel Plant
PROJECT NUMBER:
20742.1
CLIENT: Dagostino Engineering
ELEVATION:
936.0
DATE DRILLED:
February 1,1996
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP
UIPMENT:
CME 55 Drill Rig
LEDIA.: 8"
ENCLOSURE: B-5
11-22
-------
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing
LOR GEOTECHN1CAL GROUP, INC.
11-23
-------
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
General
Selected soil samples obtained from the borings were tested in our laboratory to
evaluate the physical properties of the soils affecting foundation design and
construction procedures. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction
with our investigation included moisture content, dry density, compaction
characteristics, and direct shear tests. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are
presented in the following paragraphs.
Moisture-Density Tests
The moisture content and dry density information provides an indirect measure of soil
consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils on this
site. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected
undisturbed samples, and the results are shown on the boring logs, Enclosures B-1
through B-5, for convenient correlation with the soil profile.
Direct Shear Test
Shear tests are performed with a direct shear machine at a constant rate-of-strain
(usually 0.05 inches/minute). The machine is designed to test a sample partially
extruded from a sample ring in single shear. The sample was tested at varying normal
loads in order to evaluate the shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and
cohesion. The sample was tested in undisturbed condition at field moisture content
or soaked, according to conditions existing in the field.
The results of the shear test is presented in the following table.
Shear Test Results
Boring
No.
Sample
Depth
(feet)
Soil Description
Angle of
Internal
Friction
(degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
2
2.0
Silty Sand
38
100
11-24
-------
Compaction Characteristics
Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine compaction
characteristics using the ASTM D 1 557 compaction test method. The results are
presented in the following table:
LABORATORY COMPACTION
Boring
Number
Sample
Depth
(feet)
Soil Description
Maximum
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content
(percent)
1
6.0
Silty Sand
123.5
11.5
4
10.0
Sand
133.5
7.5
11-25
-------
Appendix III
Hynol Facility Control Panel
III-i
-------
8
7
6
~
!
2
3
4
5
t
7
B
»
10
u
I?
13
14
13
K
17 £_
11
cc «cvi vim.*;*
r « ht*i »
I7M.I VNMI9 *S r«l COMtCKI
*1 fw* ctHCsn* "atwt ra* ca>^a
unci PIMI ITU vetf MOICSTO*
°H1-Oi0 f
ft-- --©•
¦ H*tfia i
f- [f-^ c, p
¦i=5BBPs
t» «t
Hh
-0-
—cnz>:
19
dO
e\
8?
24
»
»
e?
»
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
TO Lf*C 36
$
e
4] QMTRQL ITSTCN PQVtR (* INDICES*
luM2 OuKt!T CAS h!-hJ TEHPCIlAnftt c9.3?32>
OCKCXi HITBOGE* PflKSURC JKir.
E*«ODCY «e *1 M7WCR CJUTLCT tOV P«Ct <»2^
PPOCtSS GAS SCUJCE - NI PQCSUAC
SfSTCW OJTLtr tc TLAftC • hj «tssvcc U8J2>
atJCIQR 101 UVU? N!-Hi le«»ATJC 391 *»g* W43-C102)
stifd* ixTcmoc* ii m.mm sensor
1YSTCM tMTCP-.X* 1) *.*JH IWDEC^TCF
TO LINE 36 oo
/ 4
B
CE-CERT AS-BUILT REVISION
KCJ
18-15-97
8663-E001
ElCCTPICAI SINGLE LINC DIAWAW
A
RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
BD
04-20-97
8663-E10?
ac contactor combo. schematic t w:
LFR
INSCRIPTION
APPD
BATE
NUMBCR
title
REVISIONS
R
EFERENCE DRAWINC
8
7
6
]
cn
->
1IM
-------
TO LJ*C »
TO UJ< » OO
t _A_r,£__.
6-^Sg5a-__-S_
.ja-ny m>Tt »c«jLfiw
A 01 cot.
i-4^H
£^^3-
-£&-
QS0-
--13.=
cs m c* **t cum c*«* e* nt
HH-HHrHhHKHK-
8 — -i=EE3- *
-B-
wurr
¦rVy
. rv-4» .
-e f^V0^- -
I fv-"? ,
Lggjg———
MR CDffTCSSGR OuTlCT - iQv ^SStlS! (3?.V>
WtOCCSS *2 SWCC - Ml «*S&*C <«0.35>
MKXTSS * S3/KX - LCTW P*CSSl*C C*3.W>
NITBQtfM TO rtLTCft PfiDCAtCS CWlflDL SIGNAL
li**CR srSTC* IHfcSLt
BUR*C9 y>A«
*_ PILOT £N SCtat
M9CR MAM
WIN ON SCMSW
»o u* 7i
-------
8
7
6
5
at or
71 —H h
7i
n
7*
n
76
77
79
79
80
81
8?
0)
•4
«
K
67
68
89
*0
91
«
94
95
tt
37
*
too
101
10?
ICQ
1H
109
TO LPC I9t (CF5
222
2£2
ttt^a
2i2
*0 70
SL
fV-TM « Li-±J »
-3#-
<©-
±j -i
~®r
' rv^OflC
h-o^/O— "TV3fi -
L -
t®:
525
5ff
S5E
1- -=2C-°- - - - -
I ^-1
process
NATO?*.
OAS
3PtH
TOCESS
NAT J)AL
GAS
CLOSED
PROCESS
*ATl>*AL
CAS
VALVE
PROCESS
MAflffN.
CAS
OPEN WBIC4TQR
mocess
NATtPAi.
OAS
CLOSED INDICATOR
i
i
TD
LEVELS
OPCN
KTDOGCN
TO V*9
LEVELS
CLOSED
NITROGEN
to mi
LtVtLS
<
I
<
MTSOCCN
TO tn
LEVEL5
CFEN INDICATOR
HtTfiOGE*
TO »fR
UCVtLS
CLOSES IN01CATQR
M&XSl OAS AND NiTtJOSCH OKU
reacts* njtpqgc* closed
PftOCESS CM VALVES
PROCESS US AMD NlTSgttN OPEN INDICATOR
PROCESS GAS AMD M1TQQCCM ClQSSD INDICATOR
LOW
PRtSSU*
#e
STSTCn
PXPGC
OPCN
LOW
PRESSURE
MP
STS7CW
PtfWC
closed
LOW
ppcisux
N2
SrSTCH
PURGE
OPEN
LOW
PfiCS&JK
H2
SrjTt*
KjRGC
QPtN JNDlCAfUR
LOW
PRESSXBC
N2
SYSTEM
rL«x
closed indicator
TO ItfC 106
B
CE-CERT AS-BUILT REVISION
KCJ
12-15-97
8663-E0Q1
ELECTRICAL SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM
A
RELEASED TOR CONSTRUCTION
BD
9-20-97
8663-EI0?
AC CONTACTOR CONTROL SCHEMATIC 1
LTR
DESCRIPTION
APPD
Date
NUMBER
t|TLf
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DRAVI
8
7
6
5 1
1II-3
-------
to ox <&>
t» «3t
Hh
*0 lK ICS
---
m
-ESE
-QeIlE]—f- -<^v<-
s \17 "wV"0
SS3
-£^53
rx„^fe-e
1 «V°~ \~/~
I
\~/
¦-J&—
*****
« «#M «WH»
-E^&-
STCJW tNTO S^STCH 0Pt»i
itEA« WTD STITCH CtOtCD
UCA* INTQ SYSTCN VALVT5
ST cm IfTTO S'STCH OPCM mUlCAIC*
STCAM MTD SYSTEM Q.C1SED thDICAYCR
EWBGCMCr
riAfit
OPtN
CKflG£*CV
runs
aoseo
OCRGPC*
r\.APc
V*.Vt
OCTCNC?
TtARE
acntD IN8ICAT9
tNCBGCMC^
a ace
CP1H iHDICATDB
NitROCCH *0 PlfiCC C*a»C VALVt
CMCRCCMQT NITSOCCN V*.vt
AMOCIAT9 U&T
AMAMCIArtB KMN
ai«h aoocvuok
TO UOC 141 (CP)
10 U»C HI OO
dvn b. DOSS
I?-31-93
Acurex Environmental
CHK
ZNO
PRDXCT
H Y N- ~ L
APPD
HPR CONTROL PANEL CP-1
SCHEMATIC AND WIRING DIAGRAM
PfcGXCT NO. 8663
WIPING DIAGRAM
scale NQNE
ORIGINATING orricc
CAGE NO.
SI2C DVG. NC. SHEET rcv
B 8663-E101 sof4 B
¦
UC fiivtrsid*
:ngs
^ 4 3 2 1
m-4
-------
>4]
HP
1«3
1<4
MS
1«6
M7
MS
M»
194
13)
at
1*3
t54
m
>96
197
ISA
139
:to
!U
\6S
143
164
IW
166
167
168
149
170
1*1
17?
173
l'4
179
TO lM 176 tCf»>
?~ t<0 <*>
SCACTCR MSC ash RCnOvAi. sCXCmCE (Nil
jwtw
a-
Ktcrzff ra» ASH ROCVAt SCOUCMCC P*IT
LM/HCACTOft air P«s COUAI. SCNStR
rv-*u/«»»
jg- — —O-A^-O — (3 lOTTW ASH BCNOVAL V'«i.Vt
rv unit svno* cn vacvt: hot closed)
TOP ASH «*JVAt VACVt
rv-539 LIMIT SVJTCX
mhoouh mgiuikm rat ash *€«val
LOCKKJPPtfi NJTHOGCX TO FCAffE
LOOOCPftB &ISCHA*GE VAlVt
L0C»CPf*R LIMIT SWITCH <(FCN VtCft BlSCHWKiWQ
ttHOr
^ ** _ **
e—
-tfr
-e
a-
-e
s-
-s-
¦&
rv->
V»5IE GM MINER M.KM
ID II* I7t On
CE-CCRT AS-BUILT REVISION
KCJ
12-15-97
8663-E 001
ELECTRICAL SINGU UNC DIAGRAM
RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
BD
9-20-97
8663-E102
»C CONTACTOR control SChCmaTIC t wi:
LTR
DCSCRIPT10H
APPD
DATE
I17LE
REVISIONS
REFERENCE
DRAVINC.
I
IIT-5
-------
1Q UlHC 1^5
fv«tco
-sfe
¦rfafa-
** .
wty»
TO IPC 1*3 «>
rvKt |
_Q oA^O 0 TKTCR PULSE O.CMJNG - VALVt 0«
tv-w. J
_|g —g riLUB pu.sc clcaning - valve mi
ItMWL JW t|
-s-
c
-e—
-&¦
*rt**cr
~6i«f«bL*
SUM. §5
a*M£" *3
£3
IV CR
~iT»" vie*
»w«"
*«v«c „ -
.. 5 i
' 58
*«viC
qx>*cnn
"ranw
-awf-ii
wni ou* »»
C»*iiU
HM»«wt>C rc iwr
Pt rv. **
«lcc* cuxw a
cai S?MT m
!*•**. V I
-H0-
*«
:'V«
4
i-
|
7
a -as
a,
i
t
k
0
i
H
•ctdi mm
4
Wb
t
s
J
*
A-cm
1
t
1
6
3
M
systch ovt:sp«ssue€ acticr vm.vz
RTtCTC COiTCOL QT XATCC KHPCfiATlfif
AMPCB TO CHABLt VAC
OCtCTC CGXtfflL tT XATEft POWER
MfttvtNC TC LDttT
if ® «fc i®
bmxi m m --- --
BU»CR OUTCAS - M3-H1 W
aCACICR 101 ItVtl g TC'tPARKS
ID I. PC 211 fO»>
TO U«C 211 on
B DOSS
12-31-95
CHX
APPD
PROJECT NO.
8663
SCALE
!IGlHftTINC orricc
UC fevyrsktc
NONE
—CACE NO."
Acurex Environmental
PROJECT
H Y N ~ .L
HPR CDNTRDL PANEL CP-1
SCHEMATIC AND WIRING DIAGRAM
SIZE
8663-001
SHEET
3of 4
"1
REV
III-6
-------
211
21?
2ij
2l<
215
m
218
ai
m
m
22?
ee«
m
2*4
RT
208
?W
2X
est
m
m
234
235
2*
237
2*
239
240
241
2*8
245
246
24?
--E^S3 sr
seme
SV
SE3-
fASUV* VMDSPCXt IXVT
1 »# 4NV*C 9 MM3C *«; j n*s Mote*
t Hi »*» I««*4 M tta W«WI
>v»rt <•# ¦* % >»Mt
1
^1 - f ~~
~i
J
L-riBSa-
-*¦*—m£&N4-
^rM^
*TtB XC*CV Sf-806 *>/ST0f» OUTPUT
tTvTSLOAfi ALASVt BtSf T VCSt ST-906 I Sf-BQS
OVERLOAD ALARM TW ST-806 (PCS *15
3VC»VQAP Ai.AM FSW ST-906 (Ct»*O0
RLW/STOP iVlTOt C£4 VDC PU-L UP LOCiO
ovtfi^OAD atsct
SPCCP CWTBOL SlC-006 (SIC G«3WS>
SFCCD CON'HO. S1C-806 4-2feA
JCCTC* NN SCBCV ST-6C5 PlW/$TflP OJfPgT
ovcotOAO At*** raw sr-«R cpds kp
OVCRtDAD ALARM ro®* ST-803 (CEMOfl
RlM/SlQP SWIYOI t?« VOC FULL tf> LQG7CJ
OVtRLOAC R£S£T
s*ed cwtaa stc-*o
MJPST CLCVATEP SWiTCW 5C-M2 HAMCArr/AUlO
BUQCFT CLEV4T0P ««TE COHlRflL SC-&Q?
VIBRATOR SAND SWITCH V*-W3 YVHQ/QFf/AtJJQ
Vl|BATtF SAND K«T£ CWTWJL VM-903
VfKATQR KAO-1M SVITO* VM-004 HAW0/0FT/AdTQ
VHRATQR KA0LM a*Tft£L VH-QW
TO CMC 24| t&>
TD LINE 240 OC
8663-E001
ClECTRICAL single line diagram
B
CC-CERT AS-BUILT REVISION
KCJ
12-15-97
8663-E102
AC CONTACTOR CONTHtlL SCHEMATIC 1. V!
LIR
DESCRIPTION
APPD
DATE
NUMBER
TITLE
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DRAW INI
8
7
6
5 t
ni-7
-------
ro wPC 247
'0 Ll»C 24 7 (H>
241
?«
?M
Mi
252
293
n*
e»
es?
n>
2»9
260
261
262
?63
264
263
266
«.?
26«
269
270
271
IT?
in
27«
275
2'6
HI
in
279
290
Ml
282
to lpc future
M
S5
KlIC" > pkas K'm
•rut OVfAJM KIT
OliTHjT MBIQft OAH.OM fMAI
NtMK. SI Wit WITH ffMI
r -
•ifc
»Ti
U_
~
MS
::3
iV;—l-^'h
• —oA/®-
" A
«!¦
rv; 1-^TUh
*** ^ ss?p SWJ1CM P-^ll KANS/OFF /*>I0
MICH Pf£SSl*£ S1CAM PU»* RE*Jlt C{*TROL P-511
UPPtP FEED VALVE FV *39
TV 839 QPCM OMIT SVHCM
rv 839 CLOSED LtMII WlfCH
LOVER FEED VALVE FV #40
rv *40 OPEN ItXlT SVITCH
rv S40 CLOSED LIMIT SWITCH
VESSEL **E UP (TAM( TT3 LN-M3)
VESSEL MM(£ UP (SlfPlV TO lAHK)
rtED LH-95! VENT C^CLE VALVE
io Lite future
•RING DIAGRAM
DVN
K JOHNSON
18-12-97
CHK
ENG
APPC
PB OjCCT NO.
8663
SCALE
ORIGINATING OFF ICC
UC Rivers^
NONE
C SGT TOT
CE-CERT
PROJECT
H Y N ~ L
SIZE
HPR CONTROL PANEL CP-]
SCHEMATIC AND WIRING DIAGRAM
dugTwi [' sheet
8663-E101
2 -
4of4
1
REV
III-8
-------
appendix IV
EVALUATION OF A PROCESS TO CONVERT
BIOMASS TO METHANOL FUEL
PHASE I
Project Category HI
Quality Assurance Project Plan
December 1995
Prepared for
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Energy Engineering Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-824-308-1010
by
The Bourns College of Engineering
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
and
Acurex Environmental Corporation
555 Clyde Ave.
P.O. Box 7044
Mountain View, CA 94039
George Hidy
CE-CERT Principal Tnvesti
Libby Beach
Stefan Unnasch
Acurex Environmental Project Manager
fthn Collins
tE-CERT QA Reviewer
2- /-
Acurex Environmental QA Reviewer
Robert Borgwardt
EPA Project Officer
i a
ate
1/
4
A
V
-
X,,. ,A
'1 (c.
Richard Shores
EPA QA Manager
Date
IV-i
-------
EVALUATION OF A PROCESS TO CONVERT
BIOMASS TO METHANOL FUEL
PHASE I
Project Category in
Quality Assurance Project Plan
December 1995
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air & Energy Engineering Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-824-308-1010
by
The Bourns College of Engineering
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
and
Acurex Environmental Corporation
555 Clyde Ave.
P.O. Box 7044
Mountain View, CA 94039
95:RE:081O
TV-ii
-------
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CONTENTS
Pages Revision
CONTENTS 2 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND 4 1
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND 2 1
RESPONSIBILITIES
DATA QUALITY INDICATOR 1 1
GOALS FOR CRITICAL HPR
MEASUREMENTS
SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR 14 1
THE HPR
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 3 1
FOR THE HPR
HPR DATA REDUCTION, 7 1
VALIDATION, AND, REPORTING
ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE HPR 6 1
PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM 1 1
AUDITS
CORRECTIVE ACTION 1 1
IV-iii
-------
Section 0
Revision 1
September 1995
Page 2 of 2
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Name Section
1-1 Hynol process block diagram 1
1-2 Schedule 1
2-1 Project staffing 2
4-1 HPR process and instrumentation diagram 4
6-1 Comparison of HPR exit gas compositions 6
6-2 Carbon balance calculations 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table Name Section
1-1 Gasifier configuration and operating conditions 1
4-1 HPR test conditions 4
4-2 Target properties for biomass feedstocks 4
4-3 Feed gas parameters 4
4-4 Data collection requirements for the HPR system 4
4-5 Example design composition of HPR effluent gas 4
5-1 Standard measurement and calibration methods for the 5
HPR
6-1
Data reduction objectives for the HPR
6
6-2
Continuous data collection parameters
6
6-3
Flow rate calculation procedures
6
6-4
Evaluation of carbon conversion
6
7-1
Error propagation for carbon conversion efficiency
7
7-2
Measurements and calculations for carbon conversion
7
efficiency
Page
1 of 4
4 of 4
2 of 2
11 of 14
5 of 7
6 of 7
Page
3 of 4
2 of 14
2 of 14
4 of 14
5 of 14
7 of 14
3 of 3
2 of 7
3 of 7
4 of 7
7 of 7
3 of 6
4 of 6
IV-iv
-------
Section 1
Revision 1
December 1995
Page I of 4
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPI ION AND DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
1.1 OVERALL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The overall objective of this project is to demonstrate the technical feasibility of producing methanol
from biomass using the Hynol process. The objective of the first component of the project is to
build, install, and test the biomass hydrogasification system to be used in the Hynol process. A pilot
plant has been designed to convert 50 lb/hr of biomass to methanol. The biomass may consist of
wood and/or greenwaste, with natural gas as a co-feedstock. Sewage sludge and digester gas or
landfill gas may also be used as secondary feedstocks. If its performance is verified, the process
offers advantages in carbon conversion and energy efficiency as well as environmental protection.
Compared with other methanol production processes, direct emissions of CO2 can be substantially
reduced using the Hynol process.
There are three steps to methanol production using the Hynol process:
1. Biomass and methane are introduced into a hydrogen pyrolysis reactor (HPR) in the
presence of hydrogen. The HPR produces primarily methane, hydrogen, and water.
2. The methane gas mixture is then converted with steam and added natural gas to hydrogen
and carbon monoxide in the steam pyrolysis reactor (SPR).
3. The output from the SPR is then cooled and introduced to the methanol synthesis reactor
(MSR), which produces the methanol. The unreacted hydrogen and methane are
recirculated from the MSR back into the HPR.
Figure 1-1 illustrates the three principal reactors in the Hynol process.
BIOMASS HEAT INPUT (H2, CH4, CHjOH)
1 (CH4, H2.H20) 1 (H2.CH4.CO)
HYDROGASIFlliR
(HPR)
STEAM
PYROLYZER
(SPR)
METHANOL
SYNTHESIS
STEAM >
METHANE
RECYCLE GAS (H2, CH4)
METHANOL
Figure 1-1. Hynol process block diagram
IV-1
-------
Section 1
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 2 of 4
This component of the demonstration will provide for HPR construction, process, and operating data
for use in the construction of a large-scale plant.
The project has been divided into three phases:
• Phase I—Fabrication, installation, and initial testing of the HPR
• Phase II—Design, construction, installation and testing of the SPR and MSR
• Phase III—Integration of the system to test and demonstrate the Hynol process
This plan concerns only the HPR testing in Phase I.
In preparation for Phase I, the initial conceptual design of the HPR and the methanol facility has been
accomplished to achieve a cost estimate, and to complete detailed design specifications of the HPR
unit. The design parameters have been evaluated to accommodate the specific biomass feedstocks
available for the pilot plant.
The conceptual design has included a specification of all of the process flows for each of the units
specific to the biomass feedstock. The design includes a detailed process and instrumentation
diagram (P&ID) for the principal components of the process. At this point, basic design efforts for
the hardware are complete, including detailed design drawings for the HPR system. The detailed
design includes site-specific drawings for the installation of the equipment, revised design drawings,
and vendor quotes on all equipment.
Phase I now involves construction, assembly, and checkout of the hydrogasifier design. In this phase,
construction specifications will be prepared. The equipment from the design will be procured,
including the HPR, the biomass feed system, the lock hopper, and the gas compressors. The facility
will be assembled at the pilot-plant site in Riverside, California. It is expected that the HPR unit will
be constructed on a skid and mounted on a concrete pad at the site. Preliminary operating data will
be gathered so that the SPR and MSR designs can be completed later. Data on HPR performance will
include carbon conversion efficiency, energy utilization reactor bottoms, and gas compositions as a
function of feedstock type, feed rates, temperature and pressure. Table 1-1 shows the type of data to
be collected during HPR operation.
This report addresses the quality assurance (QA) plans for the HPR operation based on an EPA
Category III QA Protocol.
1.2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR PHASE I: HPR
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of hydropyrolyzing biomass feedstocks at
high pressure and temperature in the presence of varying simulated recycle gases. The study will
determine an optimal initial feedstock that minimizes potential problems associated with feedstock
impurities and maximizes conversion to methane, H2, and H2O. The overall goal of the project is to
achieve at least 80-percent carbon conversion efficiency at a feed flow rate of 50 lb/hr. The study
will also determine the optimal ranges of feedstock flow rate, fluidized bed height, and operatin
parameters such as pressure drop, temperature, and heat loss in the prototype HPR.
IV-2
-------
Section 1
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 3 of 4
To meet these objectives, a comprehensive sampling and analysis matrix will be developed specifying
the flow rates of the reactor inlet gases and the solids feed rates for varying feedstock compositions.
The bench-scale HPR will be constructed, installed, and tested using various combinations of
feedstock compositions and flow rates in a range of pressure and temperature. The data quality must
be ensured so that a range of operating parameters can be determined that yields a carbon conversion
within an acceptable range of the goal of 80 percent or greater.
1.2.1 Critical and Noncritical Parameters
Critical parameters that will be measured during study of the HPR performance include the following:
feedstock composition and flow rate; pressure differentials with varying heights in the reactor, across
the cyclone, and across the hot gas filter; reactor temperature; reactor gas outlet composition,
temperature, and pressure; and composition of the bottom ash and filter ash. Noncritical
measurements will include pressure of the inlet gases, overall system pressure, and miscellaneous data
such as time, date, and ambient temperature.
1.2.2 Project Operation Dates
Pending completion of construction of the pilot HPR on schedule, testing will be conducted
beginning in September 1996 and ending in March 1997.
Table 1-1. Candidate gasifier configuration and operating conditions
Feed system
Feed stock
Gasifier
conditions
Alkali
getters
Filter type
Filter
operation3
Test
variable
Metering bin.
screw feed, lock
hopper system
Clean wood chips
• Military waste
• Landscape/tree
trimming waste
• Energy crops
- Poplar
- Switch grass
- Eucalyptus
• Recycle gas
representing two
process models
• Recycle gas plus
steam and natural
gas
• Mixtures of:
Emathalite
Kaolinite
Sand
• Alternate bed
materials
• Pall ceramic
candle
• Pall sintered
metal candle
• Water scrubber
• Other filter
* Pl.Ti, Si,2
• P2, Ti, S| 2
Activities
and data
collection
Lock hopper
and feeder
performance.
Pressure-gas
requirements
Feedstock analysis,
physical properties,
particle size,
chemical
composition
Feed gas
composition,
thermodynamic
state, output
composition,
carbon conversion,
reaction kinetics
Refractory
chemivStry,
fate of alkali
Filter mechanics
and chemistry,
filter
performance
Filter
performance,
output gas
loading
aP= Reservoir pressure, T= Reservoir temperature, S= Pulse cleaning schedule (duration and timing)
IV-3
-------
Section 1
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 4 of 4
Figure 1-2. Schedule
1996
PROJECT TASKS
1.0 HPR DESIGN AND
SchedukK^Stert
Pro/erted/ActuaTstart
Scheduled Finish
1.1 Design Details
1.2 Equipment/Control
Projected Actual Finish
Percent Complete
1.3 Design Review
1.4 Procure and Fabricate Equipment
1.5 Assemble HPR
1.6 Site Selection & Development
1.6.1 Review Site Options
t.6 2 Site Recommendations
1.6.3 Select Site
1.6.4 Site Planning
1.6.5 Review Plans
1.6.6 Develop Site
1.7 HPR installation
1.7.1 On-Site Assembling
1.7.2 Installation
1.7.3 Utilities
1.7.4 Analytical
1.7.5 Testing
1.7.6 Demonstration
2.0 TEST PROGRAM
2.1 Test Plan
2.2 Supplies
2-3Test
2.4 Analysis
2.5 Review
3.0 MANAGING AND REPORTING
3.1 Work Plan
3.2 QA Plan
3.3 Oversight
3.4 Audits/Reports
3.5 Audit Response
d i 7
3.6 Quarterly Reports
3.7 Project Reviews
3.8 Final Report (Draft/Final)
M J
IV-4
-------
Section 2
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 1 of 2
SECTION 2
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
CE-CERT and the Acurex Environmental Corporation have assembled a project team that provides
the process technology and pilot plant design, construction, and operation experience and support to
ensure the success of this project. The team is staffed with personnel selected based on their specific
related experience.
The project organization chart is shown in Figure 2-1. Dr. George Hidy is the Project Principal
Investigator. Dr. Hidy is responsible for all data generated in the project, for all corrective action, for
the technical quality of the project work, for review of the laboratory data, and for integration of the
data into the final report. Mr. Stefan Unnasch is the Acurex Project Manager, and is responsible for
the construction and operation of the HPR in Phase I. Mr. Kent Johnson is the Project Engineer for
CE-CERT, and is responsible for coordinating the site construction by working with the UC Riverside
campus, Acurex, and associated contractors. He will also coordinate the sampling and analysis
efforts. Mr. Hans Dehne is the Acurex Engineering and Design Reviewer for this project. The
Quality Assurance (QA) Reviewer for CE-CRRT is Mr. John Collins, who is supported by Libby
Beach, Quality Assurance Reviewer for Acurex.
IV-5
-------
Section 2
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 2 of 2
- ELECTRICAL
— MECHANICAL
— PLUMBING
SITE DEVELOPMENT
- NG COMPRESSOR
- STEAM GENERATOR
- A1K COMPRESSOR
- STRUCTURES
HEAT EXCHANGERS
GASIFIER
REVIEW PANEL
T.R. MILES
CONSULTING
DESIGN ENGINEERS
CEC
CONTRACTORS
MARTECH
INTERNATIONAL
U.C. RIVERSIDE
CE-CERT
G. HIDY
HYNOL
CORPORATION
M. STEINBERG
EPA
R. BORGWARDT
SCAQMD
PALL ADVANCED
SEPARATION
SYSTEMS
ACUREX
ENVIRONMENTAL
S. UNNASCH
Figure 2-1. Project Organization
IV-6
-------
Section 3
Revision 1
December 1995
Page I of 1
SECTION 3
DATA QUALITY INDICATOR GOALS FOR CRITICAL HPR MEASUREMENTS
The main objectives of Phase I are:
• To demonstrate the performance of a high pressure fluidized bed hydrogasifier as a
practical means of providing methane rich product gas to a steam reformer process
• To demonstrate a maximum carbon conversion under simulated optimum recycle gas
conditions of a steam/carbon ratio estimated to be between 2.5 and 3.5 in the SPR
• To demonstrate the HPR system capability to operate without external energy sources
other than feed stream enthalpy
• To feed and gasify biomass material in the HPR without agglomeration problems
• To generate data for scale up of an HPR as a 10 tons/day facility
• To develop a biomass feed system and test its durability in the HPR environment
• To demonstrate alkali metal adsorbing materials that successfully mitigate gasifier
problems
• To successfully test a hot gas clean up system suitable for the HPR system, including
removal of particulates and H2S
To meet these objectives, the accuracy and precision of the critical measurements (i.e., flow rate,
absolute pressure, pressure differentials, temperature, and gas and solid compositions) must be
ensured to an appropriate degree. The detailed sampling and analysis plan will be prepared for
review and acceptance after the HPR system is assembled and commissioned. The plan for initial
testing will depend on available funding resources.
Qualitatively, the accuracy of the data can be judged by the degree of closure of the overall mass
balance for the HPR. Accuracy and precision will also be evaluated quantitatively, as discussed in
Section 7.
IV-7
-------
Section 4
Revision 1
December 1995
Page I of 14
SECTION 4
SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR THE HPR
4.1 HPR Operating Conditions
The HPR will be operated over a range of conditions to provide data to meet the objectives discussed
in Section 3. Gas compositions will be varied to evaluate different Hynol process configurations.
Varying steam and natural gas feed levels to the HPR and recycle gas temperature will also simulate
different process configurations. Solids feed will be varied to evaluate the effect of different
thermochemical properties which are affected by wood type and moisture content; alkali, sulfur, and
contaminants which are affected by feed type; and physical properties which are affected by particle
size and shape.
Table 4-1 shows candidate test conditions for HPR testing. Initial testing will consist of the most
favorable operating conditions for the HPR. It is anticipated that two feedstock specifications and two
gas compositions will be tested. These conditions include using clean white wood as a feedstock, no
natural gas feed prior to the HPR, and moderate steam feed to the HPR. Table 4-1 shows the solids
and gaseous feeds to the HPR. Feeding steam prior to the HPR (and prior to the inter-heat changer)
has the advantage of reducing the potential for soot formation and also allows for a greater level of
heat recovery. The disadvantage is that adding steam reduces the maximum achievable temperature
for the recycle stream. The final test matrix will depend on the level of funding for HPR operation.
The biomass feed is indicated by the feedstock code in Table 4-1 which corresponds to the target
feedstock properties in Table 4-2. Actual feedstock properties will be based on the availability of
wood and the performance of the feed processing system. Preliminary estimates of bed materials are
also shown in Table 4-1. Bed material and make-up rates will be adjusted with HPR operating
experience.
The specifications for feed gas flow rates are also shown in Table 4-1. The composition, flow rate,
and temperature of the recycle stream can be adjusted to reflect different Hynol process
configurations. Inlet steam and natural gas feed rates can also be adjusted to reflect different
configurations. The gas feed conditions will be based on process simulation models performed by
EPA or Acurex Environmental. Process simulations indicate the gas properties for the integrated
Hynol system. For the independently operated HPR system, these properties will be simulated by
mixing tube trailer gases, natural gas, and steam.
The HPR will be operated over a series of one-week periods with around the clock operation for 5
days. The first day will be for facility startup. Depending on achievement of steady state operation,
three to four days should be available for data collection. It is expected that data will be generated
for 10 to 16 4-hour data collection periods over a 4-day test period. Gas compositions that represent
other process models can be readily tested if the HPR operates over a 4-day period as planned.
Steam and natural gas input as well as HPR recycle gas temperature, composition, and flow rate can
be varied while the HPR is operating to simulate different operating conditions. It is expected th;"
1V-8
-------
Section 4
Revision I
December 1995
Page 2 of 14
biomass properties will be held constant for the one-week operation period; however, the biomass
moisture content or particle size could also be varied within the week of operation. Current plans call
for testing waste materials such as tree trimmings after experience is gained on clean wood (CW).
Table 4-1. IIPR test conditions
Test condition
CW1
CW2
CW3
CW4
CW5
Solids feed
Feedstock
B1
B2
B1
B2
G1
Feed rate (kg/h)
25.8
25.8
25.8
25.8
25.8
Make up sand (g/h)
300
TBD1
TBD
TBD
TBD
Initial sand (kg)
2
TBD
TBD
TBD
TOD
Gas feed, HPR iniet
Process simulation
1
2
1
2
1
Recycle gas
R1
R2
R1
R2
R1
Recycle flow rate (kmol/h)
5
TOD
5
TBD
5
Temperature (°C)
800
TBD
800
TBD
800
Steam flow rate (kmol/h)
0.7
TBD
0.7
TBD
0.7
Natural gas flow (kmol/h)
0.3
TBD
0.3
TBD
0.3
Total flow (kmol/h)
6
TBD
6
TBD
6
Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Enthalpy (kJ/h)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TOD
Total feed
(biomass & feed gas)
Enthalpy (kJ/h)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Carbon feed (kg/h)
12
TBD
12
TBD
TBD
Minimum run time (h)
4
4
4
4
4
Repeats
2
1
1
1
2
*TBD = to be determined
Table 4-2. Target properties for biomass feedstocks
Biomass feed
B1
B2
G1
Material
Fir
Fir
Tree chips
Typical chip size
Min (mm)
2
3
3
Max (mm)
10
15
15
Moisture (wt%)
12
TBD
TBD
Ash (wt%)
TBD
TBD
TBD
Carbon (dry wt%)
TBD
TBD
TBD
Carbon (kg/total kg)
TBD
TBD
TBD
Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
TBD
TBD
TBD
IV-9
-------
Section 4
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 3 of 14
Table 4-3 shows the feed gas parameters for the integrated Hynol process simulation model and the
HPR system. The gas flow rates and temperatures for the HPR system are based on the following
principles:
• Steam added to the HPR simulates both water vapor in the recycle stream and steam feed.
• H2, CO, CO2, N2 and steam are heated in an electrical heater.
• Natural gas added after the heater simulates both methane in the recycle stream and natural gas
feed.
• H2 and CO simulate methanol in the recycle stream as the methanol would dissociate in the heat
exchanger prior to feeding into the HPR.
• The net enthalpy of feed gases entering the HPR is adjusted by varying the exit temperature of
the gas heater.
• Feed gas enthalpy can be increased to take into account heat losses from the bench scale system.
For each feed gas configuration, the HPR system flow rates will be calculated from the simulation
model conditions as indicated in Table 4-3. The temperature of the gas heater can be adjusted to
take into account heat losses from the bench-scale system that exceed those from a commercial
system.
The enthalpy for the biomass feed will be calculated from the measurements of heating value,
composition, and moisture content. Total enthalpy and carbon feed will be calculated from feedstock
analyses.
4.2 Sampling and Analysis Procedures
Characterizing the performance of the HPR will require a variety of measurements to characterize the
operating conditions, the physical and chemical properties of feedstocks, waste ash, effluent gases and
particles, and the mechanical performance of the high temperature filter. Measurement methods for
each of these categories are discussed briefly below. In some cases, especially where gas or aerosol
sampling at high temperature and pressure is involved, standard methods available may not be
adequate for the system testing. Non-standard specialized methods will be needed. These have not
been specified at this time, and will be determined prior to initiating the test program. The system
components to be tested, the quantities to be measured, and the measurement methods to be used are
summarized in Table 4-4. The procedures used to calibrate the identified methods and the accuracy
and precision of the methods are summarized in Table 5-1. The number of samples to be taken and
analyzed has not been determined. The frequencies identified below are estimates, to be revised
based on operating conditions and initial test results.
Measurements of parameters for continuous measurements will be taken at locations specified in the
P&ID for the HPR shown in Figure 4-1. The location and designation of thermocouples and
pressure transmitters are indicated in the Figure. Table 4-5 shows the instrumentation for collecting
continuous flow data from the HPR system. Each flow rate includes a measurement of temperature,
pressure drop (dP) across an orifice, and inlet gas pressure. Flow rate calculations are discussed in
Section 6.
IV-10
-------
Section 4
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 4 of 14
Tabic 4-3. Feed gas parameters
Modeled integrated Hynol system
-- HPR Inputs
Simulation No.
I
SPR H?0/CHd
= 2.0
RBA1094
Recycle Temp (°C)
760
Enthalpy
MW
Recvcle (vol %)
(kmol/h)
(kg/h)
(kJ/h)
(kJ/kmol)
(g/moi)
H2 62.5%
2.65
4.66
57.5
21.7
2.02
CO 9.7%
0.41
10.08
-35.9
-87.6
28.01
C02 5.8%
0.25
9.24
-89.5
-358
44.01
CH4 7.3%
0.31
4.33
-10.48
-33.8
16.04
H20 12.3%
0.52
8.29
-111.8
-215
18.02
N2 1.4%
0.06
1.46
1.36
22.6
28.01
CH3OH 1.0%
0.04
1.18
-6.0
-150
32.04
Total 100.0%
4.24
39.24
-194.8
-45.8
10.63
Steam Temp (°C)
235
Steam
0
0
0
-236
18.02
CH4 Temp (°C)
25
CH4
0
0
0
-74.9
16.04
Total flow
4.24
39.24
-194.8
-45.8
10.63
H
7.752
7.83
1.01
C
1.013
12.17
(kJ/kg)
12.01
N
0.120
1.68
-4.99
14.01
O
1.473
23.57
16.00
Total
10.358
45.25
-
HPR system, Gaseous inputs
Stream 68a Temp (°C)
820
Enthalpy
MW
Stream 68a (vol %)
(kmol/h)
(kg/h)
(kJ/h)
(kJ/mol)
(g/mol)
H2 68.12%
2.74
5.52
64.58
23.57
2.02
CO 11.19%
0.45
12.6
-38.52
-85.61
28.01
C02 6.2%
0.25
11.0
-88.75
-355
44.01
H20 12.9%
0.52
9.37
-110.33
-212.17
18.02
N2 1.49%
0.06
, 1.68
1.48
24.64
28.01
Total 100.0%
4.02
40.17
-171.5
-42.54
9.98
Nat. gas Temp (°C)
25
Natural gas
0.31
4.97
-23.26
-75
16.04
Bench scale system heat losses
0
Total
4.33
45.14
-194.76
44.9
10.4
H
6.51
6.58
1.01
C
0.70
8.40
(kJ/kg)
12.01
N
0.12
1.68
-5.42
14.01
O
1.47
23.52
16.00
Total
40.18
-
Bold values are input, others are calculated. Enthalpy values need to be based on formulae.
IV-11
-------
Section 4
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 5 of 14
Table 4-4. Data collection requirements for the HPR system
Data Type
Measurement
Procedure
Continuous flow data
H2, CO, CO2, H2O, N2, Natural gas,
make up N2. HPR effluent flow rate
Temperature
Pressure
Orifice plate with dP3 transducer,
P transducer, type K thermocouple
Type K thermocouple
Pressure transducer
Continuous operating data
HPR bed pressure drop
HPR bed temperature profile
Filter pressure drop
Cyclone pressure drop
Solids feed rate
dP transducer
dP transducer
dP transducer
dP transducer
Metering screw controller
Gas samples
HPR effluent composition
(CO, C02, CH4, CXHy,)
(H2, n2, O2)
(H2S)
Sample collection into canisters
based on EPA Method 5 and/or
CARB Methods 15 AND 16
GC/F1D SCAQMD 25.1
GC/TCD
NIOSH Tubes
Process Particulates
Mass
Metals
Sample extraction based on EPA
Method 5 followed by gravimetric
analysis
AA
Ash Samples
Tar content
Carbon content
Morphology
Particle size
Alkali content
To be determined
To be determined
Microscopy
Coulter Counter
AA
Feedstock composition
Ultimate analysis
Proximate analysis
Metals Content
Refer to Section 5
Refer to Section 5
AA
Feedstock properties
Heating Value
Density
Bulk density
Refer to section 5
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
Materials analysis
Surface analysis
Ceramic candle strength
Sintered metal candle porosity
Scanning electron microscope
C-ring compression, tension
Porosity bubble test
" dP = differential pressure
IV-12
-------
Section 4
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 6 of 14
Appropriate chain of custody procedures will be employed to ensure the proper disposition and
analytical procedures for grab samples. Chain of custody forms and procedures will be discussed in
a QA plan revision to be prepared early in the second year of the project.
Input Gases
Input gases are pure streams of H2, CH4, CO2, CO, N2, and H2O as steam. The compositions of the
input gases will not be tested prior to injection into the system. The specifications provided by the
gas suppliers will be used for composition data.
Input gas flow rates will be measured using orifice meters permanently installed in the inlet lines.
Permanently installed thermocouples and pressure transducers will be used to monitor gas
temperature, gas pressure, and orifice pressure drop. These quantities will be monitored continuously
during each test using a data logger.
Solid Feedstocks
Biomass feedstocks for initial testing will be produced on-site by controlled chipping of a single
batch of lumber adequate to supply feedstocks for a two week test period. Therefore, sampling and
analysis of the feedstock will only be conducted on a per test basis. Three or more 100 cm3 samples
will be selected from various locations within the feedstock storage pile and sent to commercial
laboratories to determine basic physical and chemical properties, and provide a measure of feedstock
variability. The physical properties include density and heating value. Proximate chemical
properties include percent moisture, percent volatiles, percent ash, and percent fixed carbon. Ultimate
chemical properties include percent by weight of various elements, including,; C, H, O, N, S, Na, K,
Mg, and Ca. The critical measurements needed for assessing carbon conversion efficiency are the
feedstock density and the percent carbon by weight. The imprecision in feedstock composition due
to feedstock non-uniformity and analytical uncertainties will be estimated by analyzing the results for
the multiple samples. The accuracy of feedstock composition determinations will be assessed by
reviewing laboratory results for their in-house analysis of standard materials.
Feedstock flow rate will be controlled by a specially designed screwfeeder system that will provide
constant volume delivery rates. The precision and accuracy of the screwfeeder delivery rate will have
been characterized by the manufacturer when operating at ambient temperatures and pressures. The
accuracy and precision of screwfeeder delivery rates during test operations will be assessed by
measuring the volume and/or weight of biomass feedstock delivered to the inlet hopper during a test.
Solid feedstocks of kaolinite and sand also will be supplied to the system during the test.
Measurement of composition and flow rate are not critical to carbon balance calculations. They are
useful operating parameters and needed for overall mass balance calculations that include ash
outputs. The composition of these materials will not be analyzed, but will be determined from the
supplier assays, or from standard reference books. The feed rate will be determined by adding
known volumes.
1V-13
-------
Seclion 4
Revision ]
December 1995
Page 7 of 14
Output Gases
The effluent of the HPR will consist of a mixture of gases, including hydrogen, methane, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. Measuring the carbon content and flow rate of the HPR
effluent stream is critical to carbon balance calculations. Obtaining additional speciation, and
measuring the effluent temperature, pressure and flow rate are also critical to the energy balance
calculations. Additional measurements of trace materials such as hydrogen sulfide and non-methane
hydrocarbons are not critical for carbon balances but are useful operating parameters for
characterization of pollutant or contaminant release. The composition of the HPR effluent gas has
been modeled during the process design phase of this project. A breakdown by percent volume is
shown in Table 4-5 to illustrate the nature of the analyses required. Gas samples will be collected and
analyzed once for each set of test operating conditions that reach steady state. The number of
samples will be specified later as part of a final test plan prepared prior to the initiation of the testing.
Steady state operation of the HPR has yet to be defined because no such system has been operated. It
is anticipated, however, that preliminary tests will be conducted on the system to establish a time
interval to reach steady state conditions as determined by temperature monitoring and compositions
monitoring of major gas constituents in the effluent.
Tabic 4-5. Example design composition of HPR effluent gas
Species
Volume %
H 2
37%
CO
13%
co2
8%
CH4
19%
NMOC
<1%
n2
2%
h2o
20%
h2s
0.03%
Gases will be extracted from the processes stream at sampling port SP-825, and measured using a
combination of continuous and canister sampling techniques adapted from stationary source
sampling methods. Several factors combine to preclude the straightforward application of standard
source sampling methods. These include the high pressure (30 atm), high water content (20% by
vol), and small process pipe diameter (1" NPT). Different sampling strategies will be required for
different components of the gas stream. Engineering details of the sampling system have not yet
been designed. The basis of the sampling methods is described below.
The sample collection system will include a sample extraction system consisting of a water cooled
sampling line, ball valve, filter for particle removal (not to be analyzed), and regulating valve to
IV-14
-------
Section 4
Revision I
December 1995
Page 8 of 14
reduce sample pressure to atmospheric. All components of the system will be made of corrosion
resistant materials and will be maintained at a temperature above 200°C to prevent moisture
condensation. Components upstream of the regulating valve will operate at the pressure of the
reactor piping (30 atm). Various gas sampling systems will be attached to the output of the
regulating valve.
Water vapor will be analyzed by passing the sample though a cooling system and quantitatively
collecting the condensed water using methods based on EPA Method 5 or (one of its state or local
variants).
H2S will be analyzed by quantitative dilution of the gas stream with clean dry gas, cooled, and then
sampled using NIOSH sampling tubes. In order to avoid loss of H2S, the sample gas must not be
passed through the condensing system used for determination of water vapor.
The output of the condensing system or the output of the dilution system will be analyzed for CO,
CO2, CH4, and non-methane organics (NMOC) by collection into canisters and subsequent analysis
by GC/FID, following procedures based on California South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Method 25.1. The concentrations of carbon gases in the effluent are higher than the
concentration ranges that Method 25.1 was designed for. CE-CERT will work with the GC equipment
manufacturer to determine the maximum working ranges for these compounds. If the instruments
are capable of quantifying these compounds at high concentration, then the instruments will be
calibrated and used at these high ranges. If the effluent concentrations are too high for the GC, then
the canister samples will be diluted quantitatively, and standard calibration ranges will be used. The
methods discussed above are straightforward for the single carbon gases, but controversial for
NMOC.
Sampling NMOC from hot gas streams is a complex issue involving operational definitions of
condensable versus gas-phase compounds, and significant potential for loss of volatile gases to the
walls of sampling equipment. It is currently the subject of ongoing research efforts. For this project,
the concentration of NMOC is expected to be very low compared with the concentrations of single
carbon gases, and is not likely to be a significant factor in the carbon or energy balances. The
quantification of NMOC will be considered non-critical, and the results provided by standard
sampling methods accepted with the understanding that potential problems may be encountered
which are not identified at this time.
The non-carbon gases H2, O2, and N2 collected in the canister will be analyzed by GC/TCD. Current
plans are to subcontract these analyses to a commercial laboratory. If the number of samples
provided by this and other projects justifies it, then GC/TCD sampling equipment will be leased or
purchased by CE-CERT.
At the option of CE-CERT, depending on the availability and cost of equipment, continuous
monitoring of CO and CO2 will be implemented in addition to the canister samples. Samples would
be continuously extracted from port SP-825, cooled, and dried, using either the water condenser
system or the dilution system. The continuous CO and CO2 measurements would not be used for
IV-15
-------
Section 4
Revision I
December 1995
Page 9 of 14
carbon or energy balance calculations. They would provide a means of monitoring operating
conditions for determination of steady state and the variability of gas concentration at apparent
steady state. These monitors also would provide a cross-check of canister/GC results.
Output Solids
The HPR test system includes three hoppers and a baghouse for collection of solids. Reactor bed
materials are collected into one hopper from the base of the HPR reactor, and into another hopper
from the upper portion of the reactor. Suspended particles are removed from the effluent of the HPR
cyclone by a high temperature filter candle, and the collected particles are stored in the vessel until
the end of the test. Suspended particles remaining in the process flow downstream of the filter candle
are not collected; they are flared.
For this study, ash samples will be collected from the three hopper systems: reactor bottoms, top of
bed, and filter candle catch. Hoppers will be emptied at the beginning of a test run. At the end of a
sample run the hopper contents will be weighed, and samples collected into glass jars. The ash
samples will be shipped to a commercial laboratory for analysis of: Na, K, Ca, Mg by AA; and for
total carbon by carbon analyzer. A subset of samples will be taken to analyse the ash for speciated
organic compounds using GC/MS. Selected samples of ash will be sent to Pall Corp. for
determination of particle size distribution using Coulter counters and for determination of particle
morphology using SEM.
Process Measurements
In addition to the measurements necessary to determine process inputs and outputs, additional
measurements of process operating parameters will be made at various points throughout the system.
These process measurements are not critical to determining carbon or energy balances, but are used
to assess and control the operation of the fluidized bed, cyclone, filter, heat exchanger, steam
generator, etc. With one exception, they consist of temperature, pressure, and pressure drop
measurements which will be monitored continuously using thermocouples, pressure transducers, and
pressure drop transducers. One in-process measurement poses special problems: measurement of
suspended particle loading upstream of the filter candle. Particulate samples will be collected from
port SP-817. In addition to measuring particulate mass, the metals content of the particulate will also
be determined. The method employed to collect the sample and determine total particles will be an
adaptation of EPA Method 5 for stationary source testing (or one of its state or local variants). The
metals will be analyzed by AA for Na, K, Ca, and Mg. If possible, a subset of particle samples will be
obtained for size distributions using modifications of California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Method 501.
Method 5 calls for drawing a sample through an isokinetic probe in the process stream, then through
a specially lined sampling line and filter maintained at 120°C, followed by a series of impingers
maintained at 0°C containing water, empty, and silica gel, and finally through gas metering
equipment. Total Particulate for the purpose of Method 5 includes particles and condensables other
than water that are caught in the probe tip, sampling line, filter and impingers. Method 5 also call'
IV-16
-------
Section 4
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 10 of 14
for measurement of process stream velocities using pitot tubes and collecting from various locations
within the process stream.
In this study, the particulate loading in the process upstream of the filter candle will be used to help
determine filter candle requirements, and will be used to assess the effects of different operating
conditions on the expected life of the filter and on the requirements for the filter. Thus, Method 5
will be modified to focus on the particulate concentration at high temperature. In particular,
condensables are not important. The method has not yet been determined and will depend on
engineering details of the process piping and on the availability of commercial sampling equipment.
Samples are planned to be taken through an isokinetic probe, a ball valve, a filter, an orifice meter,
and a flow regulating valve, in that order, all maintained at moderately high temperature. This
obviates the need for specially lined sampling lines and the need for impingers to determine the mass
of water vapor and condensables. Flow velocity in the process pipe will be estimated from the
continuously monitored volumetric flow rate of the process rather than from pitot tubes. This leaves
the problem of particles impacting in the isokinetic probe tip. Method 5 calls for the removal of the
probe and collection of these particles. Implementation of the method will require design of a
removable probe system, or a straight probe configuration to eliminate particle impaction losses.
Method 501 calls for drawing the sample through an isokinetic probe, a cascade impactor system,
then through water collection and gas flow metering equipment. Due to the high sample pressure,
implementation of Method 501 will require the design of a removable probe or a straight through
probe, and the use of a cascade impactor that can withstand 30 atm. It has not been determined if
cascade impactors capable of operating at this pressure are available. This will be done as a part of
the final test plan to be assembled prior to the testing program.
Structural Measurements
At the conclusion of the HPR test cycle, structural components of the system will be examined for the
effects of temperature and pressure cycling, corrosion, and abrasion. Components such as the
refractory, filter candles, and exposed metal will be examined microscopically for physical
characteristics. Small samples of material will be obtained for the analysis and sent to commercial
laboratories for evaluation. The filter candle will be returned to the manufacturer, Pall Corp., for
surface analysis by SEM, mechanical strength by C-ring compression test, and for porosity by bubble
test.
IV-17
-------
BULK materials" area
<
I
' 1 * V-41
a n—L-i—a
—© ©
T-605
IH I/I m Of |
EEED TANK SKID
Y
0—N—o
AIR compressor skid
r o
NATURAL OAS
D.J. TATC GJ-21-M
Acurex Environmental Corporation
HYNOL
CORRECTED PER NEW ROW OATA
REIEASEO FOR REVIEW
«*Xrf CI NO
RELEASED FOR REVIEW
HPR PROCESS AND
INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
OCSCAPTQN
REVISIONS
OWM1MWO QXIC1
¦ **»—¦ <»». C*
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
B
8570G003
1 Of 4
O 73 &o
<§828
ZI s: g-
~ z* § 3
o $ 3
Lr\
Figure 4-1. HPR P&ID
-------
O 70 on
JS g S 8
4 <^>
BS*
KS
R-101
®-
^OsrQ-
sw:
0^ow^
® a ^
—A o
i ®
®
TO ftAOHOUU
©
I • HI • 1/4 • Ml - 0*
Acurex Environmental Corporation
O.J. TATE CO-21
HYNOL
CORRECTED PER NEW R.0W DATA
04-2S94
HPR PROCESS AND
INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
RELEASED FOR REVIEW
04-15-M
P^OJCCT NO
8570 • 300
RELEASED FOR REVIEW
04-OS-W
0»Q NO
8570G003
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
Figure 4-1. HPR P&ID
-------
(&)- - 1 *1/1
{ mOM IMQ1
TO KX
<^> <^> (£>
©~A^ L»i-@
FILTER SKID
j F-104 \^~® '
I---® T _ E?
I WTBOOtH V—
' », z^zi
v F*0* HX-OM I
_=!U_r\
mtmoocm ^
I 1 *>
»-n«
-©
NATURAL OAS
-©gH
Acurex Environmental Corporation
D.J. TATE 0J-21-W
HYNOL
corrected pen new flow oata
04-2S-M
HPR PROCESS AND
INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
RELEASEO FOR REVIEW
04-1S-94
1570 - 900
RELEASEO FOR REVIEW
NONE
DWO NO
8570G003
3 Of 4
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
« 3 .p.
§
Figure 4-1. HPR P&ID
-------
OQ
-C*>-
><
!Q
rCH
L J
STEAM SKID
Acurex Environmental Corporation
D.J. TATE
HYNOL
CORRECTED PER NEW FLOW OATA
0 JT
04 25 94
HPR PROCESS AND
INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
RELEASEO FOR REVIEW
OJT
RELEASED FOR REVIEW
OJT
NONE
8570G003
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
Figure 4-1. HPR P&ID
-------
Section 5
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 1 of 3
SECTION 5
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR THE HPR
Laboratory analytical procedures will either follow or be adapted from those of standard methods
published by ASTM, EPA, CARB, or SCAQMD. To ensure the accuracy of the data, calibration
frequencies and tolerances will meet or exceed the requirements prescribed in the standard methods,
and the analytical laboratories will be challenged with QA standards procured or prepared separately
from the calibration standards. Quality control measures include duplicate sample collection,
replicate sample analyses, zero checks, and span checks. The analytical procedures for measuring
each parameter and the appropriate standard or calibration method are listed in Table 5-1.
Continuous Data
Instruments such as thermocouples, orifice plates, and differential pressure transducers are pre-
calibrated by the manufacturer. Temperature and pressure transducers will be checked before each
HPR start by comparing instrument readouts at ambient temperature and pressures with laboratory
thermometers and barometers. Pressure difference transducers will be checked by comparing against
a manometer. Orifice plate flow rates calculated from delta pressure will be compared with dry test
meter flow rate measurements made at ambient temperature and pressure.
Gas Samples
Analysis of carbon containing gases from the sample canisters will follow procedures in SCAQMD
25.1 In this method, an aliquot of gas sample is separated into CO, CO2, CH4, and NMOC fractions,
by capillary column GC, oxidized to CO2, reduced to methane, and detected using FID. A zero plus
2 point calibration is performed once each morning. A 1-point calibration check and a replicate
sample analysis is performed every fifth run. Gas samples will be analyzed within three days of
acquisition. Method 25.1 is not designed to cover the range of high concentrations expected for the
HPR study. The method will be adapted by using high concentration range standards, and by using
small sample aliquot loops. If the concentrations are still too high, the gases will be quantitatively
diluted. Dilution is done using a static system quantified by accurate measurement of mixing vessel
pressure. Procedures, calibration, and QC results will be regularly reviewed and summarized by the
QA coordinator. These summaries will be reported with the data. The target uncertainty for carbon
gas measurements is the larger of: 2% of the measured concentration; or 0.1% by volume, i.e. +/-
1000 ppm.
Analysis of H2, N2, and O2 will be by GC/TCD. A packed column GC will be set up at the CE-CERT
laboratory. A mixed calibration standard will be purchased from a specialty gas supplier. Precision
will be assessed by replicate analyses. Target uncertainty for these analyses is +/- 0.5% by volume,
i.e., +/- 5000 ppm.
Accuracy of analysis for H2S will rely on the manufacturer's stated specifications for the hand-drawn
gas sample tubes. Precision will be assessed by replicate analyses.
IV-22
-------
Section 5
Revision I
December 1995
Page 2 of 3
Biomass Feedstock and Ash Solids
Samples for laboratory chemical analysis include biomass feed, bed bottom ash, bed top ash, and
candle filter ash. These samples will be collected and submitted to commercial laboratories for
analysis. We will attempt to locate standard methods appropriate for wood solids and wood ash. If
procedures specific to wood can not be located, then the analyses for density, moisture content, and
heating value, as well as the proximate and ultimate analyses for water, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur
content will be based on ASTM methods designed for coal. Analysis of metals in ash will be by AA
or ICAP. Portions of the sampled solids will be stored in identified hermetically sealed containers in
CE-CERT's laboratory. The storage is under the responsibility and control of the laboratory
manager.
IV-2 3
-------
Section 5
Revision I
December 1995
Page 3 of 3
Table 5-1. Standard measurement and calibration methods for the HPR
Parameter
Measurement Method
Accuracy/Precision
Calibration
Temperature
Type K thermocouple
For 0-1,250 C°:
±2.2 C° or ±0.75%
ASTM E-220
Pressure
Pressure transducers
Differential
Regular
±0.2% of span (±2 psi)*
±0.5% of span (±5 psi)*
Periodic calibration with test
gauge against transducer
Flow rate (gas)
Orifice plates
Dependent on other
measurements'"
±1.0%C
Calibration against other orifice
plate meters
Flow rate (solid)
Screwfeeder rpm
±1.0%d
gravimetric
Gas composition
Carbon
Non-carbon
Extraction:
GC/FIS
GC/TCD
±1000 ppmd
±5000 ppmd
SCAQMD 25.1
Gas particulates
EPA/CARB Method 501
(isokinetic sampling with a
cascade impactor)
±10%e
EPA/CARB Method 501
H2S concentration
Solids analysis:
Collection in tedlar bag
diluted with N2
TBD'
NIOSH Sampling Tubes
Proximate:
Moisture
ASTM D-3173*
±0.2-0.3%
ASTM D-3173
Volatile matter
ASTM D-3175*
±0.2-1.0%
ASTM D-3175
Ash
ASTM D-3174*
±0.2-0.5%
ASTM-D-3174
Fixed carbon
By difference
Ultimate
Sulfur
ASTM D-3177*
±0.05-0.1%
ASTM D-3177
C, H
ASTM D-3178s
±0.3%, ±0.07%
ASTM D-3178
N
ASTM D-31798
TBD
ASTM D-3179
Ash
ASTM D-3174*
±0.2-0.5%
ASTM D-3174
Moisture
ASTM D-3176*
±0.2-0.3%
ASTM D-3176
Oxygen
By difference
Heating value
Calorimeter
TBD
Calibration
Particle sizes
Coulter counter
TBD
Calibration
'Roscmount catalog.
'Accuracy of orifice plates depends on accuracy of other measurements.
cGerand venturi.
¦"Engineering estimate; varies depending on compound's concentration compared to detection limit (see
Section 3.5).
^Anderson Samplers, Inc.
fTBD = To be determined.
^Methods described for coal; assumed applicable to wood pending confirmation with commercial laboratories.
IV-24
-------
Section 6
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 1 of 7
SECTION 6
HPR DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
6.1 Data Reporting
Field measurements from the pilot-scale reactor and laboratory analyses will be integrated into the
final report. The Principal Investigator will have responsibility for final data reduction and
integration of data into the report. Data will be acquired using a data logger for continuous
measurements, and through use of data notebooks.
Data tapes or records and field laboratory workbooks will be turned over to the CE-CERT Project
Engineer after sampling concludes. The field measurement data will be reduced by staff engineers
under the supervision of the CE-CERT Project Engineer and the Acurex Project Manager.
The analytical data (for solid samples) from the laboratories will be supplied to the CE-CERT Project
Engineer and reported as quantity of analyte measured per sample unit. The CE-CERT Project
Engineer will audit the laboratory results for completeness. The QA Reviewer will also review the
laboratory reports.
The CE-CERT Project Engineer will assemble and integrate the analytical data with the reduced field
data into the draft final report, which will present measurement results, interpretations, and
conclusions. The draft final report will also contain a QA/QC evaluation section in which
measurement accuracy, precision, and completeness will be assessed. The QA results will be
compared to the project Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). If the DQOs are not met, the report will
discuss the resulting impacts, if any, on project objectives. Reports on any corrective action and
discussions of outstanding issues and concerns resulting from any external performance audits will
also be addressed in the QA/QC section of the report.
6.2 Data Reduction
Table 6-1 summarizes the data reduction methods that will be used to interpret the data from the HPR
study. The overall goal of this project is to achieve at least an 80-percent carbon conversion
efficiency at a feed flow rate of 50 lb/hr. It is also the objective of this demonstration project to
determine the range of flow rates that will yield a carbon conversion within an acceptable range of the
carbon conversion goal. Overall and carbon mass balances will provide important tools for making
this determination.
Table 6-2 shows sampling points for continuous gas flow data. These include thermocouples and
pressure transducers associated with flows into and out of the HPR. Gas flows are calculated based on
the pressure drop across an orifice meter as indicated in Table 6-3.
The primary data analysis effort will be the analysis process flow rates and material balances to
determine carbon conversion and evaluating kinetics. For each test matrix data set, the measured gas
flows in the HPR will be compared with equilibrium predictions. Figure 6-1 shows the planned
IV-25
-------
Section 6
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 2 of 7
comparison of HPR gas flow rates. Gas flow rates in kmol/h will be determined from the gas
concentrations and HPR exit flow rate (QHo). The range of HPR exit flow rates will be compared to
those predicted by equilibrium.
Figure 6-2 shows the carbon balance analysis for the HPR. The total carbon converted will be
calculated from inlet and exit gas and solids compositions and flow rates and compared to
equilibrium values. This calculation of net carbon is based on the difference between the carbon
content of inlet and exit gas flow rates.
Carbon conversion will be assessed in terms of the ratio of measured carbon to expected carbon.
Table 6-4 shows the figures of merit that will be used to assess the carbon conversion in the HPR.
The first evaluation, carbon conversion, shows the fraction of the biomass feed that is converted to
carbon in the HPR outlet gas. The carbon balance data will also be compared with the carbon content
of HPR char in the bottom ash and the filtered particles. The carbon conversion does not rank to
what degree equilibrium was achieved. The approach to equilibrium will be rated for total carbon
balance as well as in terms of desired products (CO and CC>2)-
6.3 Data Validation
Several mechanical and mathematical procedures will be used to ensure that valid results and
calculations arc achieved. These will be provided in the form of a check list for the operator and
analyst. The check list will be used for data review and audits.
Data validation and reduction auditing will be performed at several levels. The Sample Custodian will
review and audit the field data sheets for completeness and accuracy by comparing them with
previously compiled data. The Principal Investigator and the Acurex Project Manager will also
review the reduced field and analytical data for completeness, and will perform audits of selected
calculations to ensure data validity. An internal audit by the CE-CERT QA reviewer will be made
with the CE-CERT Project Engineer at least once during the test period. The test program identified
in this effort is sufficient to ensure that sources of sampling and analysis error will be identified.
Table 6-1. Data reduction objectives for the HPR
Data Reduction or Calculation
Goal
Overall mass balance
±10%
Carbon conversion efficiency
>80% ±5%
Carbon conversion to equilibrium CO, CH4, and
CO2
>90% ±5%
Operating range of flow rales
50 lb/hr ±x Ib/hr
Residence time at steady state, t = m/Q
Find range t±7.
rV-26
-------
Section 6
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 3 of 7
Table 6-2. Continuous data collection parameters
PRIMARY DATA - MEASURED VALUES
Parameter
Symbol
Instrument
Units
H2 inlet pressure differential
dP3
PDIT-003
kPa
H2 inlet pressure
P2B
PI-002B
kPa
CC>2 inlet pressure differential
dP44
PDIT-044
kPa
CO2 inlet pressure
P42B
P1-042B
kPa
CO2 inlet temperature
T56
TE-056
C
CO inlet pressure differential
dP7
PDIT-007
kPa
CO inlet pressure
P6B
PI-006B
kPa
Process N2 inlet pressure differential
dPll
PDIT-011
kPa
Process N2 inlet pressure
dPIOB
P1-010B
kPa
Mixed gas inlet temperature
T24
TE-024
C
Mixed gas stream pressure
P28
PT-0028
kPa
Mixed solids feed rate
M850
SF-850
rpm
Mixed gas post-HX temperature
T14
TE-014
C
Mixed gas post-heater temperature
T17
TE-017
C
Reactor outlet, pre-filter temperature
T818
TE-818
c
Reactor outlet, post-filter temperature
T824
TE-824
c
Reactor outlet CO2 concentration1
SP-825
NDIR2
ppm
Reactor outlet CO concentration1
SP-825
NDIR2
ppm
Reactor outlet, post-HX temperature
T827
TE-827
c
Reactor outlet, post-HX pressure
P823
PT-823
kPa
Reactor outlet, post-HX pressure differential
dP826
PD1T-826
kPa
Steam inlet temperature
T503
TF--503
C
Steam inlet pressure differential
dP506
PDIT-506
kPa
Steam inlet pressure
P514
PE-514
kPa
Natural gas inlet (total) temperature
T633
TE-633
C
Natural gas inlet (total) differential pressure
dP607
PDIT-607
kPa
Natural gas inlet (total) pressure
P603B
PI-603B
kPa
System N2 to T-805 differential pressure
dP403
PDP-403
kPa
System N2 to T-805 pressure
P402B
PI-402B
kPa
High pressure N2 to F-104 differential pressure
dP55
PDT-055
kPa
High pressure N2 to F-104 pressure
P54
PI-054
kPa
High pressure N2 to T-842 pressure
P456B
PI-456B
kPa
High pressure N2 to F-104 pressure
P459
PI-459B
kPa
Air to burner - differential pressure
dP703
PDIT-703
kPa
Air to burner - pressure
P702B
PI-702B
kPa
1 optional
2 not yet specified
IV-27
-------
Section 6
Revision !
December 1995
Page 4 of 7
Table 6-3. Flow rate calculation procedures
PRIMARY DATA - CALCULATED VALUES
Flow rate calculations Symbol Units
Formula
Hj inlet
COj inlet
CO inlet
Process N2 inlet
Product (post-filter)
Steam inlet
Air to burner
System N2 to T-805
Solids
Constant values:
N-H2IN
N-C021N
N-COIN
N-N2IN
N-OUT
N-STMIN
N-AIR
N-N2SYS
m-FEED
KAi
Y
R
M
kmol/h
kmol/h
kmol/h
kmol/h
kmol/h
kmol/h
kmoi/h
kmol/h
kg/h
N = KA3 • Y
2•P2B•dP3
I 2.02R(T24 + 273 + dT24)
N = KA44 • Y
2 • P24B • dP44
y 44.01R(T56 + 273)
N = KA7 • Y
2•P6B•dP7
N = KAI 1 • Y.
^ 28.01 R(T24 + 273 + dT24)
V
2 ¦ P10B • dPl I
28.01 R(T24 + 273 +dT24)
N = KA826- Y,
I 2(P823 + dP826) ¦ dP826
I 8.31R(T827 + 273 + dT827)
N = KA506 • Y
2•P514¦dP506
1| 18.02R(T503 + 273)
I 2 ¦ P702B • dP703
N = KA703 • Y J
29.ORCT^b + 273)
N = KA403 • Y.
2 • P402B • dP403
\28.01R(Tam„+ 273)
m « K850 • N850
Constant: orifice plate calibration factor and orifice plate area
constants for each flow
Pressure drop correction factor
Universal gas constant = 8.314 m-*Pa/mol*K
Molecular weight of gas stream being measured
h2
2.02
CO
28.01
co2
44.01
ch4
16.04
h2o
18.02
n2
28.01
Natural gas
17
Air
29
Mixed gas
8.31
T (Kelvin) = T (measured, C) + 273
dTi = temperature change across orifice
1V-28
-------
Section 6
Revision I
December 1995
Page 5 of 7
Figure 6-1. Comparison of HPR exit gas compositions
HPR Exit Gas Flow (kmol/h)
C02I
CH4
CxHy
H20
N2|
Equilibrium
Measured
I I I
1.8 2
0.2 0.4 0.6
0.8
Gas flow
1.2
(kmol/h)
1.4 1.6
HPR data analysis
Run No. CW1001
Recycle R1
HPR feed gas to biomass ratio (mol/kg)
Recycle 148
Steam 2 9
Natural gas 12
HPR out (kmol/h)
Component Equilibrium Measured
N2
0.063
0.060
H20
0.960
0.800
CxHy
0.000
0.040
CH4
1.030
1.000
C02
0.390
0.410
CO
0.670
0.590
H2
1.920
1.8S0
Total
5.033
4.750
IV-29
-------
Section 6
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 6 of 7
Figure 6-2. Carbon balance calculations
HPR Exit, Net Carbon (kg/h)
¦ Equilibrium C
^ Measured C
-I 1 (—1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—I 1 1—t r-
Carbon flow (kg/h)
HPR Carbon Balance
Equilibrium Measured
(kmol/h) (kg C) (kmol/h) (kg C)
Inlet aas
Total C
1.168
14.03
1.15
13.8120
CxHy
0.170
2.04
0.00
0.0000
CH4
0.320
3.84
0.30
3.6030
C02
0255
3.06
0.26
3.1226
00
0.423
5.08
0.S9
7.0859
Biomass
--
1 2
-
1 2
HPR out
Total C
2.09
25.10
2.04
24.50
CxHy
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.48
CH4
1.03
12.37
0.96
11.53
C02
0.39
4.68
0.41
4.92
00
0.67
8.05
0.63
7.57
Net Carbon
(gas QMt
¦ aas in)
Total C
0.922
11.07
0.89
10.69
CxHy
-0.170
-2.04
0.04
0.48
CH4
0.710
8.53
0.66
7.93
C02
0.135
1.62
0.15
1 80
CO
0.247
2.97
0.04
0.48
Char (Carbon flow)
Mass balance
-0.927
-1.311
From ash content
-
-1 .500
Carbon conversion
(Net C/biomassC)
92.3%
89.1%
Approach to equilibrium (Measured/Equilibrium)
(Net Carbon) 96.5%
(Net C-C02) 94.0%
XV_3u 93.0%
-------
Section 6
Revision I
December 1995
Page 7 of 7
Table 6-4. Evaluation of carbon conversion
Conversion evaluation
Measured quantity
Ideal quantity
Carbon conversion
Net carbon HPR outlet
Carbon in biomass feed
Carbon conversion relalive to
equilibrium
Measured carbon conversion
Equilibrium carbon conversion
Carbon conversion - CO2 relative to
equilibrium
Net carbon - CO2
Equilibrium net carbon - CO2
Methane production relative to
equilibrium
Measured CH4
Equilibrium CH4
IV-31
-------
Section 7
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 1 of 6
SECTION 7
ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE HPR
Due to the nature of this demonstration project, highly precise and accurate measurements are not
essential to the project's success. The most important measurement parameter for the project is the
outlet gas composition and flow rate, which is used to calculate the carbon conversion via a mass
balance. Gas compositions measured within 0.1 percent (an accuracy well within the limitations of
the GC) are sufficient for the purposes of this project to determine the optimal operating parameters.
In measuring gas compositions of the samples, accuracy will be assessed through spike and recovery
analyses and the use of 10-percent blanks (1 blank per 9 real samples). For air flow rate,
temperature, and pressure measurements, accuracy will be established by calibrating the instruments
using ASTM standard methods or a primary standard. Precision is generally measured through the
analysis of duplicate samples.
All instruments used will be regularly calibrated to ensure the data's accuracy and validity,
balances will also be performed.
Mass
CE-CERT will evaluate the magnitude of uncertainty in the values shown in Table 6-1. We will track
the propagation of uncertainties of calculated quantities from all of their constituent measured
quantities.
The overall uncertainty, in a function f (x, y, z) can be expressed as:
8f
U —
Sx
V
t - N2
<5/
U —
' Sy
Sf
U —
1 Sz.
(7-1)
As an example, equation (7-1) can be applied to the carbon conversion efficiency, T}c, where:
mrout - mrin x — y
= ~t: — = =- = / (7-2)
mcbiomass z
To arrive at:
+
A
V z
+
(7-3)
IV-32
-------
Section 7
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 2 of 6
and the fractional form:
2
/ \
U
X
2
( u )
y
2 /
+
Kx~y.<
i
H
\
Table 7-1 shows the extent of error propagation in T]c. The carbon conversion efficiency is defined
as the converted carbon in the HPR divided by the carbon in the biomass feed. Because natural gas
and optional CO feed gases are already converted to a carbon certainty gas, these are subtracted from
the HPR output gas. Table 7-2 shows the quantities used to calculated TJC. The uncertainty for each
quantity will be estimated, with Table 5-1 providing guidelines on their magnitude. The error
propagation technique in equation (7-1) will be applied to the quantities in Tables 7-1 and 7-2, with
the overall uncertainty in 1]<. yielded by equation (7-4).
A similar approach will be carried out for mass balance calculations and the other quantities in
Table 6-1.
For quantities derived from GC measurements, the overall uncertainty will depend largely upon the
uncertainty in the measurement of the mass of each component (denoted m, or mk in Table 7-2). The
error in /w, or mk depends on the detection limit for that compound. Determination of the uncertainty
in ms will depend on the stability of the flow rate through the screw conveyor.
IV-3 3
-------
si -
u
II
a
5
Section 7
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 3 of 6
%
a."
8
5
8
¦S
o8
5
d»
II
8
•5
d*
§
•B
J
e
•»*
•su
I
s
«s
OS
s
I
as
3
O
•S
IV-34
-------
Section 7
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 4 of 6
Table 7-2. Measurements and calculations for carbon conversion efficiency
Quantity
Description
/I
Orifice plate area
Ceo = 0.429
Carbon content of CO
c,
Carbon content of component t of HPR outlet sample
Q
Carbon content of component k of natural gas sample
Qvc
Carbon content of feed gas
Coul
Carbon content of HPR gas
C\
Carbon content of solid feed
AP
Pressure drop across orifice plate
K
Orifice plate calibration factor
™co
Mass flow rate of CO
m,
Mass of component i of HPR outlet GC sample
mk
Mass of component k of natural gas GC sample
-------
Section 7
Revision I
December 1995
Page 5 of 6
Table 7-2 (continued). Measurements and calculations for carbon conversion efficiency
Quantity
Description
MC0= 28.01
Molecular weight of CO
;
Mm =
mNCS
Molecular weight of feed gas
J Mm
1 J out
mos
Molecular weight of HPR gas
Mi
Molecular weight of component i of HPR gas
Mk
Molecular weight of component k of natural gas
P
Pressure
nC0 = kayI 2P'dP
V mcort,
CO molar flow rate
P,=P2 + dP
Pressure before flow orifice
P2
Pressure after flow orifice
dP
Pressure differential across flow orifice
HPR gas molar flow rate
Nng
Natural gas molar flow rate
n 8.3143 m1 ¦ Pa
A —
£ Wiofe • ^
Universal gas constant
PM
Gas density at conditions P; and T,-
H' RT)
T
Temperature, Kelvin
IV-36
-------
Section 7
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 6 of 6
Table 7-2 (concluded). Measurements and calculations for carbon conversion efficiency
Ouantitv
Description
Tt=T2+ dT
t2
dT
t
Temperature before flow orifice
Temperature after flow orifice
Temperature differential across flow orifice
Time
IV-37
-------
Section 8
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 1 of 1
SECTION 8
PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM AUDITS
The internal auditing procedures to be used in this project will be implemented by the Principal
Investigator. The CE-CERT Project Engineer will be responsible for internal auditing at the data
collection level, and the CE-CERT Project Engineer and the QA Reviewer at the data reduction and
evaluation level. Monitoring of sampling activities will be performed by the CE-CERT Project
Engineer, who has primary responsibility for data quality. The CE-CERT Project Engineer will
continually assess the performance of the sampling team members during field testing, and ensure
that proper equipment is used as specified in the sampling protocols. This monitoring will extend to
performance of on site analyses and to sample preparation, collection, recovery, and packaging. The
QA Reviewer will conduct at least one independent audit of this process during the test period and
advise the Principal Investigator, the Acurex Project Manager, and the CE-CERT Project Engineer of
any issues to be dealt with. The QA Reviewer will audit the data reduction and evaluation process
once in the early stages of testing in accordance with a procedure established by the CE-CERT
Project Engineer. A second audit will be conducted at the end of the testing as a cross-check on the
results.
If external performance audits are scheduled by the AEERL QA Officer (QAO), the facility operators
will cooperate fully. In addition, audit samples deemed appropriate by the AEERL QAO will be
processed. No performance audits are currently planned.
IV-38
-------
Section 9
Revision 1
December 1995
Page 1 of 1
SECTION 9
CORRECTIVE ACTION
Corrective actions are initiated whenever measurement precision or accuracy deviates from the
objectives for each phase of the project. In addition, corrective actions are initiated whenever
problems are identified through the internal or external auditing procedures described in Section 8.
Corrective action will be assured by the QA Reviewer after the initial audit, and if needed an
additional audit will be scheduled with the Principal Investigator and the CE-CERT Project Engineer.
A posteriori correction may be needed at the final audit after data processing review. If this is
required, steps for corrections will be agreed upon by the QA Reviewer, the Principal Investigator, and
the Acurex Project Manager. After revisions of data analysis are complete the QA reviewer will again
audit the results to assure that corrections or inconsistencies are accounted for.
Corrective actions begin with identifying the source of the problem. Potential problems might
include failure to adhere to prescribed methods, or equipment malfunction. Such problems are
corrected by more intensive staff training, if appropriate, or by equipment repair followed by
increased preventive maintenance.
The CE-CERT Project Manager has the primary responsibility for initiating and completing
corrective action required for field measurement systems. Problems may be identified by sampling
personnel, or by the CE-CERT Project Engineer. If staff training is required, the Principle
Investigator is responsible for ensuring it takes place. The QA Reviewer monitors the progress of
corrective actions and ensures that they proceed in a timely manner. The Principal Investigator
approves all corrective actions, and, if necessary, obtains concurrence from the AEERL Work
Assignment Officer and QAO.
IV-39
-------
APPENDIX IV
FINAL DRAFT
Evaluation of a Process to Convert
Bioniass to Methanol Fuel
Measurement Plan for Hydrogasifier Performance Testing
March 1999
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air & Energy Engineering Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Under Cooperative Agreement no. CR-824-308-1010
by
The Bourns College of Engineering
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
rv-40
-------
Table of Contents
Section Title Page (IV-)
1 Overview and Objectives 42
2 Carbon Conversion Efficiency 43
3 Sampling Methodology 46
4 Supplemental Analyses 48
5 Energy Analysis 52
6 Test Plan and Data Management 54
7 References 57
Appendix A Process and Instrumentation Diagram 5b
Appendix B Error Analysis 63
Appendix C Enthalpy Balance Calculations 67
List of Tables and Illustrations
Table Title Page
1 Predicted flow rates for carbon-containing process streams 45
2 Additional, non-critical analyses to be performed on 48
biomass and ash
3 Predicted flow rates and flow rate uncertainties for process 53
streams
4 Frequency of Measurements 54
5 Instruments directly connected to computer data logging 55
device
Figure
1 Pre-filter sampling configuration 50
2 Post-filter particulate sampling configuration 51
IV-41
-------
SECTION 1
it
'
OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES
-------
SECTION 2
CARBON CONVERSION EFFICIENCY
A carbon balance on the HPR system will be used to calculate the carbon conversion efficiency,
r|c. At steady state, a carbon balance should reveal that the amount of carbon leaving the system
(as gas, char, and ash) is equal to the amount of carbon entering the system (as gas and biomass).
The relation used for the carbon conversion efficiency calculation will be:
^gasiOHS C.om ~ ^gaseous C.in (2"1)
btonasj C
This requires knowledge of the amount of carbon entering and leaving the HPR. Therefore, flow
rates and compositions of the biomass feed, input gases, and output gases must be measured. To
complete the carbon balance, the flow rate and composition of the reactor char and filter ash also
must be measured.
2.1 BIOMASS
The biomass is stored in a large bin with a 2400 lb capacity (2-3 days of testing). The biomass is
weighed in the storage bin with four load cells, one under each leg. Each load cells has a
manufactured accuracy of 0.1% with a combined accuracy of +/- 40 lb. This accuracy accounts
for a theoretical uncertainty in the biomass input of 6% (assuming a 12-hour sample duration).
The storage bin/weighing system schematic is shown in the P&1D. The system uncertainty will
be estimated with a five point calibration at CE-CERT using water to obtain lk, 1,5k, 2k, and
2.5k distributed loads. The biomass enters the reactor, RIO I, through a pressurized lock-hopper
system that is controlled by a level sensor. The biomass feed system is completely automatic and
requires no operator control except fof occasional bridging problems in the storage bin.
The amount of carbon in the biomass will be determined at Desert Analytics in Tucson, Arizona,
using the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods D-3175/D-1102. During
a test period, a series of representative samples of biomass will be analyzed. The exact number of
samples will be determined at the time of the testing after analyses of at least eight initial
samples. Carbon composition throughout the biomass pile is not expected to vary by more than
±0.5%. When coupled with the uncertainty in the analytical method and the moisture uniformity,
which will be approximately 1.5% (absolute), the uncertainty in the carbon composition of the
biomass will be about 3%.
The total uncertainty in the amount of carbon entering the HPR as biomass will be approximately
3.4% (relative). An example error analysis is shown in Appendix B for illustration of the
methods to be used.
22 MAKE-UP GASES (INPUT GASES)
The input gases simulate the recycle stream from the methanol synthesis reactor in the integrated
Hynol system. Of these, recycled CO, C02, steam, and CH< are important to the carbon
conversion efficiency. CO will be provided in a compressed gas trailer from Air Products Corp.
(with an N1ST traceable certificate). The C02 will be supplied through a line from Bourns, Inc.,
which is adjacent to CE-CERT. Both CO and C02 will be periodically checked for purity using
the continuous gas analyzers, described in Section 3. The CIl» will be provided through public
natural gas lines. Since natural gas is not completely composed of CH4, the natural gas
1c =
where m denotes mass flow rate.
IV-43
-------
composition will be analyzed for CNM*. CO;, and N? from an integrated sample, at least once
during each test period. A gas chromatograph with thermal conductivity detector (GC.TCD) at
the Inchscape Laboratories will be used for this purpose. The method to be used for this analysis
is EPA Method 18.
Procedures for measurements of parameters such as gas flow, temperature, pressure, and
measurement uncertainty will be taken from the Performance Test Codes (PTC) published by
Flow rates of input gases will be measured by orifice flow meters [4] using methods outlined in
ASME P.C. 19.5. The correlation used to calculate flow rate through an orifice meter is:
where Q is the flow rate, M is the molecular weight of the gas. P is the pressure, dP is the
pressure differential across the orifice plate, and T is the absolute temperature. C is the orifice
constant, determined by calibration with known gas flow rates (obtained from factory
certification).
Temperatures will be measured (using the methods outlined in ASME P.C. 19.3) with Type K
thermocouples, which have a precision of ±I0°C. Pressure will be measured (ASME P.C. 19.2)
with pressure transducers, which have a precision of approximately ±1.5 psi. Pressure
differentials will be measured by differential pressure transmitters, which have a precision of
±0.0022 psi. Taking these uncertainties (found by the methods outlined in ASME P.C. 19.1) into
account, the total relative uncertainty in a flow rate measurement will be about ±0.4%. The
uncertainty in the gaseous carbon input rate will be 0.4% for input gases. Illustrative calculations
of these errors are shown in Appendix B.
The accuracy of the temperature and pressure sensors will be established following standard
procedures, with references to primary standards. For temperature, the thermocouples will be
calibrated over a range of interest using immersion in boiling fluids of known boiling point or
freezing point. Pressure sensors will be calibrated in a dead weight tester from 0 - 1000 psi.
Gas samples will be collected in pre-cleaned, evacuated stainless steel sample canisters. These
samples will then be analyzed for CH4, C02, CO, and non-methane organic compounds (NMOC),
using GC/TCD analyses at Inchscape Laboratories. The method used for this GC/TCD analysis
will be EPA Method 18. Additional analyses, important to the energy and material balances, will
also be performed on the canister samples. These analyses are described in Section 3.
The flow rate of the effluent (following moisture removal) will be measured in the same way as
that of the input gases. Combining the uncertainties resulting from carbon concentration
measurements and flow rates, the relative uncertainty in the carbon output rate will be about ±1%.
Char will be collected from the HPR bottom lockhopper and weighed once every hour. This will
establish an hourly flow rate. Because the char from the HPR will contain sand andkaolinite, the
mass of actual wood char will be determined by subtracting the hourly sand and kaolinite feed
rates from the char output rate.
ASME.
(2-2)
23 OUTPUT GASES (GASIFIER EFFLUENT)
2.4 CHAR AND BOTTOM FILTER ASH
IV-44
-------
Once steady state is reached, the filter ash will be emptied and discarded. The filter ash
accumulated from then on will represent an average of the filter ash during the steady state
operation. The Uncertainty in the ash flow rate and carbon content is estimated to be small in
comparison to the uncertainties in other flow streams. If this assumption is proven in operation,
these uncertainties will be neglected in the analysis.
The composition of the char from the HPR and the ash from the filter will be analyzed at Desert
Analytics and Core Laboratories Petroleum. The carbon contents will be analyzed using ASTM
Methods D-3175/D1102.
2.5 CARBON CONVERSION EFFICIENCY CALCULATION
Simulations of the gasification process have been performed at the EPA National Risk
Management Research laboratory [5], Table 1 shows estimated flow rates and flow rate errors for
the process streams containing carbon.
Table 1. Predicted flow rates for carbon-containing process streams.
Stream
Flow rate
Carbon flow rate
Carbon flow rate
uncertainty'
(kmol/h)
(kmol/h)
(kmol/h)
Entering
Biomass
22.7 (kg/h)
0.8210
0.047
CO
0.1612
0.1612
0.00067
C02
0.0983
0.0983
0.0004
cm
0.0449
0.0449
0.0002
Exiting
Effluent"
3.056
1.0575
0.0004
Ash
1.564 (kg/h)
0.1303
* Calculations of these values are shown in Appendix B
** Composition of effluent is shown in Appendix B.
Using these values, an HPR carbon conversion efficiency is calculated as:
1.0575 - (0.1612 + 0.0983 + 0.0449)
n = * —- = 0.917
lc 0.821
Although 91.7% carbon conversion efficiency is not necessarily expected to be achieved in actual
operation, the method of calculation will remain the same. In the case of less efficient carbon
conversion, the excess carbon would exit as char from the bottom of the HPR, and as particulate
carbon (ash) collected on the outflow filter. The latter is expected to be small compared with the
flow of bottom char. Using the predicted values in the error analysis specified in Appendix B, the
uncertainty in r)c is expected to be ±5.6 % in carbon conversion.
IV-45
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
Acquisition of samples is required for gas and aerosol particle carbon analysis of effluents from
the HPR system. To accomplish this task, special techniques are required. The methods to be
used for gas and particulate sampling are described in the following paragraphs.
To obtain samples of effluent, the system pressure must be reduced from 29atm to approximately
1 atm before passing through moisture condensers and the gas analyzers. Extracted samples also
must be cooled from operating temperatures of the HPR system to a level above saturation for
effluent water vapor, but a level where samples can be handled safely. After particle removal at
elevated temperature to prevent condensation on the filter, the gas stream must then be cooled
further to remove the water vapor, and then passed into the gas analyzers.
The planned pre-filter sampling configuration is shown in Figure 1. Sample flow through this
system will be measured using a calibrated dry gas meter. This sampling tap will be located at
the top of the exit gas cyclone. Two additional sampling taps will be installed, for collection of
samples downstream of the process filter. The sampling configurations at these taps are
described in later sections of this plan. Most samples will be taken from this location because of
the much lower effluent temperature. Isokinetic sampling will be attempted at both locations.
This is not critical, however, because of the fact that the particles present are expected to be in the
sub-micrometer size range, and will be at low concentration. The hot gas filter is predicted to
have a collection efficiency of over 99%; thus, the particles that penetrate the filter should be
small enough to follow the gas flow into the sampling stream. The low concentrations of
particles will introduce a small potential for uncertainty in the carbon balance calculations. For
practical purposes, the small concentrations will add only a small uncertainty in the evaluations of
the filter performance by means of collection efficiency estimates.
The sampling filters will collect samples of particles in the stream. The concentration of these
particles should be small if the HPR and hot gas filter operate as expected. With the gas sampling
measurement system, the mass concentration of particles in the stream can be calculated from the
mass collected in the filter, and the amount of tars collected in the knockout section over a time
period. When particulate samples are not being taken, the filter and tar knockout section will
serve primarily to condition the gas sample entering the continuous analyzers.
The gas stream will periodically be analyzed for hydrogen sulfide content, as part of the pollution
assessment, to be described in more detail in Section 4.2.
Gravimetric analyses of the impinger solutions will be used to determine the moisture content of
the effluent according to EPA Method 4. The method has an accuracy of ±2 %. The impingers
are used to remove moisture from the effluent gas, so as to condition it before passing through the
continuous analyzers. Some samples of this water will be analyzed at Core Laboratories
Petroleum for trace constituents, using EPA Method 8240 for condensed organ ics, and EPA
Method 8270 for extractable organics.
The carbon content of the HPR effluent will be measured by continuous gas analyzers. These
measurements will be used to determine and characterize achievement of steady state. Three
nondispersive infrared analyzers will detect the concentrations of CH4, CO, and COi in the
effluent, with approximately ±5 % accuracy. The method of calibration will be South Coast Air
Quality Management District Method 100.1. Calibration will employ bottled gas standard
mixtures whose composition is traceable to primary standard mixtures. The bottled gas mixtures
will be obtained from Scott Specialty Gases.
IV-46
-------
Canister samples will be analyzed for carbon-containing compounds, as specified in Section 2.3.
The samples will also be analyzed for H: using the GC7TCD supplied by CE-CERT. These
measurements will be used for the energy balance. Trace contaminants will also be measured
from the canister samples and the condensate traps using GC7MS analysis from Performance
Analytical laboratories.
IV-47
-------
SECTION 4
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES
In addition to the analysis of carbon content, various other analyses will be performed on the
biomass and the ash by BC Laboratories. Table 2 lists the analyses and the methods that will be
used. During the first day of the first test period, samples of biomass will be gravimetrically
analyzed for moisture on site three times per hour. The purpose of the frequency of this analysis
is to determine the variability of moisture in thebiomass throughout the stock, and throughout the
day. The frequency of moisture analyses will be adjusted in subsequent testing according to the
amount of variability observed. Alkali getter serves to neutralize the alkaline ash from the wood.
Its performance will be determined by measuring the amount of alkali getting agent and alkali
metals in ash and collected filter particles.
Table 2. Additional, non-critical analyses to be performed on biomass and asb.
Analysis
Method
Biomass only
Moisture
ASTM E-871
Hi, 03, Total Nitrogen, Total
Sulfur
AOAC 972.43
Gross Heating Value
ASTM D-240
Ash only
High molecular weight
hydrocarbons, pollutants and
potentially toxic organics
EPA 8270
Biomass and Ash
Na, K.
Flame atomic absorption
Al, Be, Cd, Ca. Cr, Fe, Mg,
Mn, Ni, K, N, V, Zn
EPA 6010
Volatiles
ASTM D-3175
Ash
ASTM D-1102
Fixed Carbon
Difference between residues
from the volatiles test and the
ash test.
4.1 STEADY-STATE CHARACTERIZATION
Steady state operation will be determined through monitoring continuous process measurements
such as fluidized bed height, temperature, pressure, pressure differentials, and effluent carbon
content. The data collected by the continuous gas analyzers will be used to characterize the
gaseous output at steady state, in addition to calculating the carbon conversion efficiency. The
temperatures, pressures, and pressure differentials at both critical and non-critical locations will
be continuously monitored in order to characterize steady state. The locations of the instruments
are specified in the P&ID in Appendix A.
IV-48
-------
4.2 POLLUTION CONTROL
The char and ash analyses for metals and potentially toxic organics, specified in Table 2. will be
part of the pollution assessment. These analyses apply to HPR char and filter ash. The
particulates collected in the sampling filters will be analyzed for potentially toxicorganics and
pollutants by EPA Method 8270 at Core Laboratories Petroleum. The analyses ofbiomass, char,
ash. and effluent for sulfur-containing compounds will also serve this purpose. The sulfur content
of the effluent will be measured using a Sensidyne H2S detector tube.
4.3 FILTER PERFORMANCE
Filter performance will be determined by measuring particle loading of the effluent before and
after the filter, mass and composition of filtered particles. The pre-filter sampling line is located
at the top of the HPR, with the probe extending down through the tube right above the cyclone.
The schematic of the sampling configuration is shown in Figure 1. An additional post-filter
sampling tap is installed after the hot gas particulate filter but before the heat exchangers. This
sampling system is shown in Figure 2. The sampling systems will be used for particulate loading
measurements, as well as for determination of condensable tars and composition of effluent
gases. There is some question as to whether particulates will fall out of the effluent stream while
passing through the many turns in the heat exchangers. Therefore, we have chosen to sample the
effluent before the heat exchangers as a representation of the post-filter particulate loading. This
sampling point will provide a precise measurement of particulates than the sampling point before
the final heat exchanger. In both pre- and post-filter sampling lines the filter will collect
particulates, equilibrated to <50% humidity, and then will be weighed. The difference in amount
of particulates collected at pre- and post-filter sites will be used to assess filter performance. The
moisture content of the gas stream will also be analyzed before the filter using the hand-held
digital hygrometer.
Isokinetic sampling from the top of the HPR will be difficult because the flow leaving the cyclone
will be extremely turbulent. However, a quasi-isokinetic sampling will be attempted at this
location by sampling the gas at the top of the reactor at the same sample nozzle velocity as the
velocity through the exit stream of the HPR.
1V-49
-------
SETPOINT •
t-4
MK-910
f-942
'It
SP-l/<-P01-«
F-940
SP-l/4-POl-Ot
y-i/«-m-Q7
DGM 950
SCTPOINT •
t-* M
F-943
Pre Tllter
Sample
MK-911
Figure 1. Pre-filter sampling configuration.
Valves denoted by "R" are regulating valves. All others are ball valves.
-------
CDNTROL TRAILER
U
F-944
V-'
SHEET 3 N
|rB°"
.DGM 951
SP-I/4-P0I-I7
MK-913
Post Filter
Sanple
Figure 2. Post-filter particulate sampling configuration.
Valve denoted by "R" is a regulating valve. All others are ball valves.
-------
SECTION 5
ENERGY ANALYSIS
An energy balance will be used to determine the energy usage of the system. Ideally, the HPR-
Methano! synthesis system should operate without any additional energy input other than the
process stream enthalpies and exothermic reactions within the reactor system. An energy balance
of the HPR requires that the flow rates, composition, and enthalpy of each process stream be
known.
The method of calculation will be:
where m is the mass flow rate, h is the specific enthalpy of a species, and £ denotes the sum over
the total species entering or leaving the system. Enthalpies are found in the thermodynamic
literature, and flow rates are measured. Estimated heat losses can be calculated from the thermal
properties of the gases and solids flow, the flow rates, and the thermophysical properties of the
vessels, piping, etc.
To calculate flow stream enthalpies, flow rates and temperatures need to be measured. Enthalpy
values at the measured temperatures will then be estimated from data in enthalpy tables taken
from literature.
5.1 ENERGY RELATED MEASUREMENTS
Biomass feed rate will be measured as specified in Section 2.1. The enthalpy of thebiomass is
specified in Appendix C.
The method of flow rate measurement for the input gases and effluent is mentioned in Section
2.2. The Type K thermocouples to be used for temperature measurements are also described in
that section. Literature enthalpy values for the input gases are shown in Appendix C.
Because the effluent will be a mixture of different gases, the composition of the gas will be
analyzed as noted above. Once every species in the effluent has been characterized, the enthalpy
of the stream will be determined by summing the enthalpies of the components.
The method of ash flow rate measurement was described in Section 2.4. A literature-based
enthalpy value for ash is shown in Appendix C.
5.2 ENERGY BALANCE CALCULATION
The energy balance, in its expanded form, is:
enthalpy difference = [(mh)^* + (m/iy - [(mh^^ + (mh)^ „ + (m/iki» +
(m/l)cO,io + (Ifl A)c02, is + (ftl A)cH4, in + (™'l)ffiO,iJ (5-2)
Table 3 specifies the flow rates that have been calculated for each stream during simulations. The
table also shows the flow rate uncertainties, which are needed to conduct an error analysis of the
energy balance.
= enthalpy difference
m
(5-1)
IV-52
-------
Table 3. Predicted flow rates and flow rate uncertainties for process streams.
Stream
Flow rate
Flow rate uncertainty"
(kmol/h)
(kmol/h)
Entering
biomass
22.7 (kg/h)
0.45 (kg/h)
CO
0.1612
0.0007
co2
0.0983
0.0004
ch4
0.0449
0.0002
h2
1.771
0.0074
n2
.1711
0.0007
h2o
0.2859
0.0012
Exiting
effluent"
3.056
0.0062
ash
1.564 (kg/h)
0.1 (kg/h)
* Calculations of these values are shown in Appendix B.
•* Effluent composition is specified in Appendix B
When the flow rates and enthalpies from Appendix C are substituted,
enthalpy difference = -106 ± 836 kJ/h.
This enthalpy difference from the illustrative calculations in Appendix C is approximately 0.3%
of the enthalpy entering and exiting the reactor, and is attributable to predicted instrumental
measurement errors and uncertainties in calculated enthalpies of the gases and solids, including
operating temperature variability. The calculated uncertainty of 836 kJ/h represents
approximately 0.4% of the enthalpy accounted for. The reactor is assumed for the calculation to
be operating adiabatic, excluding work and heat loss from equipment and flow. Table C-l in
Appendix C shows the parameters necessary for the calculation process.
IV-53
-------
SECTION 6
TEST PLAN AND DATA MANAGEMENT
6.1 OPERATING RANGE
While the first test sequence will serve to demonstrate achievement of steady state and explore
steady state vs. transient conditions, the second sequence will be used to determine the carbon
conversion and the energy balance for steady state conditions and the nominal operating
temperature and pressure expected for the system. The third test will be used to confirm the
carbon conversion and energy balance, and to investigate the sensitivity of the process to
variables including reactor pressure and temperature. Pending the success of the first test, the
exact conditions for the next two sequences will be specified.
6.2 MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY
Process measurements will be taken at regular intervals. Table 4 shows the frequency of
measurements to be taken for each test period. Each test period will last three to five days,
depending on achievement of steady state.
Table 4. Frequency of measurements.
Measurement
Frequency
Biomass analysis
1 per test
On-site biomass moisture analysis
every 20 minutes (first day)
Ash weighing
hourly
Ash analysis
1 per test (three samples from different days)
Pre-reactor
Natural gas analysis
1 per test
Input flow rates
every 10 seconds
Pre-filter
Particulates
2 per test (two samples each time)
Moisture
2 per test (two samples each time)
Post-filter
Continuous gas analysis
every 10 seconds
Effluent flow rate
every 10 seconds
Particulates
2 per test (two samples each time)
Particulate - pollutants and toxics
1 per test
Moisture
2 per test (two samples each time)
Moisture - trace constituents
1 per test
H2S
2 per test (two samples each time)
Sample canister GC/TCD analysis
2 per test (two samples each time)
Sample canister GC/MS analysis
1 per test
System parameters
every 60 seconds
Filter candle analysis
1 per test
Materials analysis
1 per test
1V-54
-------
6.3 MEASUREMENT SCHEDULE
Tentatively, the testing is scheduled to start in Fall of 1998. Preliminary operational tests should
start in Spring. 1999. The first test period should take place in June or July. 1999. with data
analysis following. The next two tests should take place in August and September, 1999,
respectively.
6.4 DATA LOGGING
Table 5 lists the instruments whose data will be logged directly onto a computer with adata
logging program. The P&ID in Appendix A shows where the instruments are located. All other
data will be logged by the person performing the measurement.
Table 5. Instruments directly connected to computer data logging device.
Type of Instrument
Tag Numbers
Pressure Differential Indicating Transmitter
(PD1T)
003, 007, 011,044,403, 506, 607,613,614,
615,616, 656, 703,816, 823
Pressure Differential Transmitter (PDT)
055
Pressure Indicating Transmitter (PIT)
822
Pressure Transmitter (PT)
028, 030, 804, 807, 823. 836, 847
Thermocouple (TE)
014, 017, 020, 024, 025, 028, 633, 808, 809,
810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815,818,824,825,
826, 827, 828, 831.841
Temperature Indicating Controller (TIC)
017
Pressure switch high/high (PSHH)
027, 030, 836,853
Pressure switch high (PSH)
631, 847
Pressure switch low/low (PSLL)
411
Pressure switch low (PSL)
057,411,631,715, 847
Temperature switch high/high (TSHH)
020, 809,810
Temperature switch high (TSH)
025, 814, 841
Flow switch, low (FSL)
Oil
Continuous analyzers
for CO, CO? and CH4
6.5 STAFFING
Because the process will be operating 24 hours a day once it is started, there will need to be staff
on site at all times. We plan to organize in two 12-hour shifts. This staff will need to ensure that
the process is operating correctly, and they will need to perform sampling and weighing. It is
estimated that a staff of three people may be needed on-site during the first shift of the first test.
The second and third shifts will fall back to two people per shift. After verifying that the plant is
operating as planned, the staff can be reduced to two people for all shifts in the second and third
test periods. The two staff members will include a supervisor and a process operation technician.
The supervisors need to have full knowledge of how the plant functions and what the test
objectives are, so as to ensure the proper functioning toward achieving those objectives. They
need to be able to analyze the data as it is processed and suggest corrections or modifications as
needed. The sampling technicians need to have knowledge of all the sampling and on-site
analysis methods, and make sure that they are carried out with accuracy and precision. The
process operation technicians need to know how the input and output streams function, how the
vessels function, and how to verify that the system is functioning appropriately. They must also
have the ability to fix or adjust any of the equipment on site.
1V-55
-------
Prior to proceeding wilh the tests, all statT will be trained to have knowledge of the overall HPR
system operation and will be checked out on the specific equipment in the process, as well as the
control system for the HPR.
TV-56
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
[ I ] CE-CERT - Evaluation of a Process to Convert Biontass to Methanol Fuel - Work Plan.
Univ. of CA. Riverside, 1995.
[2] CE-CERT. - Evaluation of a Process to Convert Biomass to Methanol Fuel - Quality
Assurance Plan, Univ. of CA, Riverside, 1995.
[3] CE-CERT, - Evaluation of a Process to Convert Biomass to Methanol Fuel - Quality
Assurance Plan, Univ. ofCA, Riverside, 1995.
[4] American Society of Materials Engineering. P.C. 19.5 Application, Part II of Fluid
Meters.
[5] Letter from Robert H. Borgwardt, Project Officer, Atmospheric Protection Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, to Dr. Joseph Norbeck, Director, Center of
Environmental Research and Technology, Bourns College of Engineering, University of
California, Riverside. February 3, 1997.
IV-57
-------
Appendix A - PAID
Notation
TF Thermocouple
PI Pressure indicator
PT Pressure transmitter
PDIT Pressure differential transmitter
IV-58
-------
STSTCM
ei
INTERLOCK
, w »F\
|T0 S^IC >)
©-¦GSEBE
? ?/, __
[p
~ V-«4I
; v—T——T,
F-104W
r-842
T-104
TO R-101
1-037
NITROGEN
1-030
nuor
£-<§>
v-w
SOL-L-N ( Wr i/« - m - «
NATURAL GAS
^ ^ 7
!TTr"iwlK
V-7t7
D. J. TATE 03-21-94
Environmental Corporation
H Y N ~ L
18-16-96
HPR PROCESS
INSTRUMENTATION
AND
DIAGRAM
7-13-97
PROJECT
NO. 8370 - 300
RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
4-23-97
NONE
DVG. NO.
DESCRIPTION
TITLE
8570G003
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
3 or 5
-------
|gy - 1/4 - im - n - l-l/ll
rv - i/4 - m - m
MX-107
HX-204
TV-9II
P-511
NITHOttN
H-036
CITY WATCH
"^-366 P-560 -O
DVN
i. J. TATC
EnvJronriental Corporation
CHK
MSA
12-16-96
CE-CERT AS-BUILT REVISION
APPD
CE-CERT AS BUILT REVISION
HV/ZK
HPR PRDCESS
INSTRUMENTATION
AND
DIAGRAM
DJT
7-13-97
PROJECT NO. 8370 - 300
RELEASED FDR CONSTRUCTION
DJT
SCALE
NONE
aHto»t»
-------
1 IgnHlon Syfttff*
Packap# VMtf Cos
CONTROL TRAILER I
^©-®—©-y
¦944
V
.KM 991
4¥&j
ov
MLrOOl.
SYSTEM
INTERLOCK
IFRCN R-101
| FV 0D1C
DWN
TATE
Acurex / CE-CERT
CHK
ENG
MSA
CE-CERT AS-BUILT REVISION
APPD
CE-CERT AS-BUILT REVISION
MV/ZK
HPR PROCESS
INSTRUMENTATION
AND
DIAGRAM
DJT
PROJECT NO. 8570 - 300
SCALE
NONE
RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DJT
DCSOVtPTION
TITLE
DATE
LTR
WC
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
-------
.A.
Ti> i .xd
: ~y* :
\.. 4 f-
® '
c - tiw V
SVSTCH
tNTCRLQCK
® I a • w - ii
V-«7»
V-4U
C-OM
»€l'j >
rwjhWTl
V-«H
SCftVlCC AM
U*v /' / j » *«,
'' ' X N %
w ?
V-447
SMXT I
. VW OAS
ft - «I 1—
® I
Sr-806
NITROGEN
NlTROCCN
Acurex Environmental Corporation
D. J. TATE
33-21-94
H Y N ~ L
12-16-98
ZK/MV
1-22-98
HPR PRDCESS
INSTRUMENTATION
AND
DIAGRAM
7-13-97
8570 - 300
RELEASED FDR CONSTRUCTION
4-25-97
NONE
DW& Ml
gpmtimg nrr
8
DESCRIPTION
TITLE
8570G003
REVISIONS
REFERENCE
DRAWINGS
-------
Appendix B - Error Analysis
Notation
%C
weight percent of carbon
C
constant
dP
differential pressure
n
efficiency
M
molecular weight
r&
mass (or mole) flowrate
P
pressure
T
temperature
U
uncertainty
Subscripts
B Biomass
BC Carbon entering system as biomass
GC Gaseous carbon
The uncertainty, U/, in a function, f (x, y, z), can be expressed as [2]:
-\2 ( o-rV f Sf\2
U'={ U'SXJ
8f\ L, Sf
. Sy.
Ku-h
-------
Gaseous Carbon Flow Rate
The gaseous flow rate is determined by
which results in an uncertainty expressed as
u, (b-s,
IP ' 2dP , 2T C j
\ / \ ) V J \ J
for the inlet gases. However, for the effluent, there is uncertainty in the molar mass,
because it must be determined, by GC/TCD, using the relation
M = X(vM) (B-6)
where M denotes the average molar mass of the mixture, and y and M denote the mole
fraction and the molar mass of each component, respectively. This yields an uncertainty
expressed as
(B-7)
An estimate of the uncertainty of a GC/TCD is about ± 1.1% of the mole fraction
measurement. Using the mole fraction of H2 for each gas in the mixture results in an
uncertainty of 0.198 g/mol in the molar mass of the effluent.
For the effluent stream, therefore, the expression for the flow rate uncertainty is
Ct/>'t, f1v* *T1 p' *11 f1T1 T (b-8)
'-[» } MP j [IT ) (2M J C J
Table B shows values for the parameters needed to calculate flow rate uncertainty.
IV-64
-------
Table B. Parameters necessary for flow rale error calculation.
Flowmeter Pressure (psia)
441
Pressure error (psia)
1.5
Diff. Pres. (inH:0)
27.7
Diff. Pres. error (inH20)
0.0554
Temp. (R)
536.4
Temp, error (R)
3.96
Gas Stream
Flow rate
(kmol/h)
CO
0.3377
co2
0.1792
CH4
0.5406
effluent
3.056
Effluent composition
mole %
CO
11.05
C02
5.86
ch4
17.87
h2o
19.69
H2
40.08
n2
5.31
molar mass
14.4
Uncertainty in molar mass
0.198
In the CO, COi, and CH4 streams, the molar carbon flow rate uncertainty is equal to the
flow rate uncertainty because the gases each contain one mole of carbon per mole of gas.
However, the effluent stream has the composition specified in Table B-l. Thus, the
effluent contains 0.346 moles of carbon per mole of effluent. Multiplying the flow rate
uncertainty by 0.346 gives the carbon flow rate uncertainty for the effluent, which is also
the total uncertainty in the gaseous carbon flow rate exiting the system, Ucc.oui-
Substituting values into Equation B-5 gives the uncertainty values specified in Table 2.
Total Gaseous Carbon Entering
The total carbon entering the system is the sum of the carbon flow rates for the CO, CO2,
and CH4 streams. The uncertainty in the carbon flow rate entering is then expressed as
4 (B-9)
When the appropriate values, shown in Table 3, are substituted into Equations B-6 and B-
7, the total gaseous carbon entering the system is calculated to be 0.3044 ± 0.001
kmol/hr.
IV-65
-------
Carbon Conversion Efficiency
The carbon conversion efficiency is calculated as specified in Equation 2-1. The
uncertainty in r)g is expressed by
"i-
V
GO out
m
BC
U
CC.i(i
. ( U BC
m
BC
mCC.om ~mCC,m
m
(B-10)
BC
When values are substituted into Equations 2-1 and B-7, the carbon conversion efficiency
calculated is 91.7 ± 5.6 % carbon conversion efficiency.
Energy Balance
The energy balance is calculated as specified in Equation 3-1. The uncertainty in this
balance can be expressed as
(B-ll)
where Ueb is the uncertainty in the energy balance. The uncertainties in the mass flow
rates are calculated using Equation B-5. These values are shown in Table 3. The specific
enthalpy values calculated by the correlations shown in Appendix C are also used. When
values are substituted into Equation B-10, the result is a total uncertainty of ± 836 kJ/h in
the energy balance.
IV-66
-------
Appendix C - Enthalpy Balance Calculations
The specific enthalpies of formation for gaseous species were calculated using verified
correlations provided by Robert Borgwardt. The correlations are shown in Table C-l. The
biomass and ash enthalpy values were taken from the same process simulation flowsheet,
provided by Robert Borgwardt [5].
Table C-l. Enthalpy data required for the energy balance error analysis.
Mass flow rate
(kmol/h)
Flow rate error
(kmol/h)
Enthalpy flow rate
(kj/hr)
Enthalpy error
(kJ/hr)
Input
Gases
CO
0.161
0.00068
-13103
-55
C02
0.098
0.00041
-34173
-144
CH4
0.045
0.00019
-886
-4
N2
0.171
0 00072
4939
21
H20
0.286
0.00120
-58924
-248
H2
1.771
0.00745
48313
203
Total
2.532
0.0076
-53834
356
Biomass
22.700
0.1135
-150394*
-752
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
Effluent
Gas mixture
3.056
0.00125
-206491
-84
Char/ash
1.56
N/A
2157*
N/A
(kg/h)
Enthalpy
difference
-106*
836
*Using the values reported in [5]
Since Aspen does not produce errors in enthalpy for given mass flow rate errors, Stanjan was
used to calculate the specific enthalpies of the gaseous streams and enthalpy errors were
calculated using equation B-11. Since the mass flow rate and therefore the energy flow rate of
the reactor bottom ash and char arc small compared to the other flows involved, the error in
enthalpy for that stream is not considered.
IV-67
-------
I
-------
Appendix V
Calibration Curves and Tables
V-i
-------
-------
Designed Flow
Flow ENGL
Uncertainty Measured
Expected DelP
Entering
(kmol/hr)
(scfm)
0/
/o
in H20
biomass
22.7 (kg/h)
50 (Ib/hr)
in progress
n/a
CO
0.161
2.12
0.3%
0.964
C02
0.098
1.29
0.6%
1.70
CH4
0.045
0.592
1.4%
0.513
H2
1.771
23.4
1.9%
3.52
N2
0.171
2.25
0.3%
4.73
H20
0.286
6.77
in progress
n/a
Exiting
(kmol/hr)
(scfm)
%
in H20
effluent
3.06
40.3
0.8%
n/a
ash
1.564 (kg/h)
3.4 (Ib/hr)
in progress
n/a
Hynol designed flowrates and uncertainties
V-l
-------
Calibration Sheet for CH4 Process Operation (PT = 450, TE = 70 F)
1.90 t-
1.80
1.70
1.60
1.50
R = 0.9998
1.40
1.30
j= 1.20
o
£ 1.10
5
o 1 nn
u.
"g 0.90
| 0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Del P (inH20)
-------
Calibration Sheet for C02 Process Operation (PT = 450, TE = 70 F)
2.5
2.0
y = 0.9998x° 4889
R2 = 0.9999
E
o
w
LL
(C
E
o
z
0.5
0.0
1—
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
6
Del P (inH20)
-------
Calibration Sheet for CO Process Operation (PT = 450, TE = 70 F)
0.4767
y = 2.1627x
R' = 0.9999
1.0 —
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0 1.5
Del P (inH20)
2.0
2.5
-------
Calibration Sheet for H2 - 003 Operation (PT = 450 psig, TE = 70 F)
y = -0.1666X2 + 5.0274X + 7.7426
R2 = 0.9991
y = 12.541 x
R2 = 0.9918
Calibration w/ n2
y= 13.256X04413
R2 = 0.9978
Calibration w/ h2
5 H
Del P (inH20)
-------
PDIT 003 flow with hydrogen gas at conditions
30.000 T
25.000
20.000
=1.1842X2 + 8.9429X + 3.1645
R2 = 0.9989
E
o
u>
I 15.000 4
Q
5
o
Li.
10.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
Sqrt(t,p,delP)
-------
Calibration Sheet for N2 - 011 Operation (PT = 450 psig, TE = 70 F)
4.500
4.000
3.500
y = 1,0449x° 4944
Ft2 = 0.9999
3.000
E
o
s' 2.500
o
u.
¦o
n 2.000
(0
E
u.
O
z
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
Del P (lnH20)
-------
Calibration Sheet for Air Burner Operation (PT = 130 psig, TE = 70 F)
35.000
30.000
y = 5.5164x°4891
R2 = 0.9987
25.000
E
o
^ 20.000
o
< u.
CO
=5 15.000
E
k.
o
z
10.000
5.000
0.000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Del P (lnH20)
-------
Calibration Sheet for CH4 Burner Operation (PT = 450 psig, TE = 70 F)
PDIT ?607? (inH20)
-------
Calibration Sheet for CH4 Burner Operation (PT = 450 psig, TE = 70 F)
0.499
y = 0.8174x
R' = 0.9999
1 -
10
15
Del P (inH20)
20
25
30
-------
Calibration Sheet for N2 - 403 Feed System Operation (PT = 450 psig, TE = 70 F)
3.500
3.000
0.5165
y = 0.883x
R2 - 0.9997
2.500 -
"T 2.000
m 1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00 8.00
Del P (inH20)
10.00
12.00
14.00
-------
Appendix VI
Standard Operating Procedures
VI-i
-------
APPENDIX VI
CE-CERT
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
ISSUED BY: Maintenance & Safety S.O.P. NO. S-001
John Wright
SUBJECT: Reactor Start Up Main PAGE: 1 OF 4
APPROVED BY: Kent Johnson
EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/1/99
REVISED DATE: 12/3/99
The purpose of this SOP provide instruction on reactor pre-start, startup, and shut down
procedures. Sign and date after each instruction when completed.
PreStart Up:
1. Complete and post the test notification form. See SOP xx for details. .
2. Analyze biomass moisture (Three times each location).
See SOP ## for details. Record data in log book. .
3. Calibrate H2 flow system at scfm (~450 psi). Result should be less than < 2%
from DGM flow. See SOP 010001 for details. .
4. Calibrate N2-011 flow system at scfm ( psi). Result should be less than
< 2% from DGM flow. See SOP 010001 for details. .
5. Calibrate N2-403 flow system at scfm ( psi). Result should be less than
< 2% from DGM flow. See SOP 010001 for details. .
6. Calibrate Effluent flow system at scfm. Result should be less than < 2%
from DGM flow. See SOP 010005 for details. .
7. Calibrate Air flow system. Result should be less than < 2% from DGM flow.
See SOP ## for details.
8. Calibrate H2 % system (1.5 slpm through DGM). Result should be less than
< 2% from desired. See SOP ## for details.
9. Calibrate Biomass flow system. Result should be less than < 2% from measured.
See ## for details.
10. Prime N2 and NG compressed gas cylinders. See SOP xx for details.
11. Initialize valves. See SOP xx for details.
VI-1
-------
SUBJECT: Reactor Start Up - Main
PAGE: 2 OF 4
12. Confirm operation of burner. See SOP ## for details.
13. Confirm operation of electric heaters. See SOP ## for details.
14. Confirm operation of the Mogas valves and Everlasting valves at 0 psi. See
SOP xx for details.
15. Inspect PDIT 483 - 489 lines for blockage. Clean as necessary.
16. Prepare sample system plumbing, filters, and instruments. See SOP xx for details
(pre start sample should go through non filter reg ).
17. Pressure test reactor to psi (at least 2(1 % over test pressure). Leak rate
should be less than 10% psi loss over 24 hours.
18. Confirm operation of the Everlasting valves at psi (test pressure).
See SOP xx for details.
19. Move NG cylinders to Flare Stack and set ING compressor up with N2.
See SOP xx for details.
20. Confirm operation of flare stack. See SOP ## for details.
21. If PreStart is successful, order hydrogen as needed for the test six packs.
Start Up (Prelleating):
22. Set Air flow to ~10 scfm at 25-30 psig through electric heater.
23. Start electric heaters (Max Element Temp is 3090 °F in air). See SOP xx for details.
24. Set pressure regulator, PICV-xxx on sample system, to get desired flow through
DGM (1 revolution ~33 seconds).
25. Add _____ blocks dry ice to impinger water bath. Try to maintain an exit
temperature less than 55 °F. Sec SOP xx for details.
26. Once TE-020 is > °F start burner. See SOP xx for burner startup.
27. Maintain burner temperature by adjusting NG and Air flow (do not exceed
100 °F/hr at a maximum of 2000 °F at TE-Pilot or TE-020). See SOP xx for detail.
28. Continue to operate burner until TE-809b is greater than 1472 °K and the
temperature distribution is less than 200 °F between TE-809b and TE-8I1.
(exg TE-809b = 1490 then TE-811 > 1490-200 = 1290 °F). It may be necessary to
add air and/or NG through the Mogas valves (FV-858) to achieve bed
temperatures of 1472 °F. See SOP xxx for detail.
29. Once TE-809b is greater than 1472 °F and the temperature distribution is less
than 200 °F between TE-809b and TE-811, Turn off the burner and depressurize.
30. Once the pressure is 0 psi, add + 0.6L InvestoCastSO. See SOP xx for details.
VI-2
-------
SUBJECT: Reactor Start Up - Main
PAGE: 3 OF 4
31. Turn the burner back on and perform successful ash removal cycles
at ~25 psi while heating the bed material to 1472 °F. See SOP xx for details. Note:
Approximately 600 ml of bed material will be lost. This has been considered in
the total bed volume added.
32. Record the total pressure drop across the distributor and reactor (- 15 inII20).
33. Prime biomass-fill cycles into T-801.
Pre Hydrogasifying Setup:
34. Calibrate NDIR analyzers both zero and span. See SOP ## for details.
35. Change system to have sample gas go through filtered regulator.
36. Add more dry ice as necessary to maintain 55 F impinger exit temperature.
Hyd rogasifyi ng:
37. Start Hydrogasifying after TE-809b is greater than 1472 °F and the temperature
difference is less than 200 °F between TE-809b and TE-811.
38. Isolate the nitrogen & air valves (V-xx & xx) first, then shut off the burner and electric
heater. See SOP xx for burner shut down details.
39. Let the system depressurize by opening gate valve V- all the way.
40. Once reactor is at 0 psi purge reactor with hydrogen by slowly add hydrogen into the
reactor at a flow of 16.6 sefm. Pressure at PT-003 should be 400 psi. While purging
at this flow turn on the electric heater (Max Element temp is 2100F).
41. After 5 minutes of purging, close gate valve V- all the way to increase reactor
pressure to gasifying conditions (PT-030 = 120 psi).
42. Set the meter screw to Hz ( lb/hr) and set the feed screw to 50.
43. Increase electric heater control signal as necessary and let the pressure build to 105
psig before starting the feed system. (Note: bed temperatures will drop while
pressurizing).
44. Start the feed system once PT-030 is -120 psi ± 10 psi. (We may want to add a little
air through the heater to maintain bed temperatures > 1425 °F.)
45. If bed temperatures start to decrease slowly add air through the Mogas valves.
Record flow in slpm on log form.
V.T-3
-------
SUBJECT: Reactor Start Up - Main
PAGE: 4 OF 4
46. Continue hydrogasifying until cither the hydrogen runs out or there are operating
problems with the gasifier. Gasifying problems are defined as:
• Ash removal cycles not successful
• High temperature filter pressure drop is greater than 10 psi.
• Bed temperatures drop below 900 °F
• Pressure drop total (sum of PDIT 487,485, and 483) is less than 5 inII20.
• Bed height should increase ~ 12 " per hour at 25kg/hr with 80% conversion.
Therefore it should be expected that the pressure drop will increase and move
up the bed.
47. Once hydrogasification is completed, isolate the hydrogen valves and burn off any excess
biomass in the reactor using air at a flow of 10-15 scfm through the electric heater.
48. The temperatures TE-809 will decrease when the biomass is all gone. Continue running air
until TE-809 is less than 900 °F and decreasing.
49. Once TE-809 is less than 900 °F start the burner and try to bring the filter temperature down
slowly. Note TE-809 should start to increase. Run the burner with excess air until the
temperature at the filter exceeds 500 °F for at least 1 hour. Then slowly isolate the natural gas
and air and purge the reactor with nitrogen for 5 more hours at 0 - 1 psi, - 2 scfm.
VI-4
-------
Appendix VII
Diagrams and Locations of Sensors
Vll-i
-------
-------
805
V1I-1
-------
SCTPOWT *
LH-0CI
-------
±
1 BULK materials area
ART I19USS »#*¦,.*
?<«e te
twq rat c^*crr
? i ,
T-421
SETroWT
im •
V-41B
V-«17
SB™*
? - Ng - 1/4 - W1 - 03|
*
mmatm ]«• _
Mxrts— t > • n • w • 11
FEED TANK SKID
StTPuth? C
V-424
EMfRGENCY \>-v VT
ii^no
v- Q
(ElTTJ
/A
D
cr-ct»T as luiLT stvisio
MSA
I2-16-98
C
CI-CCRT A* RliLl HCvmtX
MW/ZK
I-22-98
B
HtVISED SXC^S ) M NO C*V«CS TQ 1*1$ S*CE»
DJT
7-15-97
A
RELEASED "OR CONSTRUCTION
DJT
4-25-97
LTR
DESCRIPTION
APPD
DATE
NUMB£R
TITur
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DR<
00
^vj
6 5 ^
VTI-3
-------
- J «• {
ST-806
< pcsgeict n
SHCCT 3
ie - 1/4 - poi -
CA • 1/2 - P» - 83
»CET 3
AIR
WG - 3/8 - PW - u
3/8 - PCI - P4
SCTPQ1NT 9
TQ PLANT sues
AS NCC8CD N
-|sCf?VlCC ~AI«T
DWN
Acurex Environmental Corporation
CHK
PROJECT
ENG
APPD
PROCESS
AND
HPR
INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
PROJECT NO 8570 - 300
SCALE
NONE
0»IGIh*tiwo price
size
SHEET
Itam yle». C«
8570G003
r*rio^r nr
VII-4
-------
SC'POINT V fp\
«MJ cMig
V-005
V-OjI
He yQ/e - PQI - Oi
SCTPQINT f
V-Ott
,V-W9
ck* ' aesr
i i - cv - i/e - P03 - te 1
H*-833
5CTPQ1NT •
««3 p»<
T-052
"fe^v-oof5
—(S)
V-046
VIHT TO ATM
V-410
- PC! - Oi
C-052
sr-906
xxiimc .MOD
M.LON IMC)
I SCR VICE air
V-«S8
v-42t
V-«67
I ^
[wixec squids^)
Sr-806
NITROGEN
STPOINT * SZ
12-16-98
Ct-Ct»t M-MLT DCVISIW
ZK/MW
1-22-98
H-CCBI AS-
I BtVISICH
7-15-97
HCvlStB vCC'S 3 I « « wwii TO T*U KC1
RELEASED FDR CONSTRUCTION
4-25-97
title
DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
REVISIONS
REFERENCE
DRAVI
VII-5
-------
©tCYCic
^ SKCT 3
SYSTEM
INTERLOCK
3/4' _Pl_U££it D BRANCH UMC
NAfjOM. CAS
cu®» rat sm)
SCTPGINT •
SKCT 5
10 SA**>>r I
TO f-104
" x-. nt\
-
-®(D—
V-476
V-477
Me - 1/4 - PCI - 19
v-478
I VCC1 4
COOLtNCi VMM ]
ro w-
SHlEi 3
NITROGEN
I - Ng - |/4 - P01 > in ' < ,
OWN
D- J. TATE
03-21-94
CHK
ENG
Acurex Environmental Corporation
PROJECT
H Y N 0. L
C-
~p
APPD
PROJECT NO.
8570 - 300
scale
NONE
HPR PRDCESS AND
INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
CAGE NO.
originating orrice
NGS
r
Howmtpcrt View, CO
Durhow. HC
Jgff»r«on, Ag
UBCB5
DB3UI
SIZE
DB3V4
DWG. NO.
8570G003
SHEET
a of 5
l
REV
D
vn-6
-------
8
7
6
5
r
1/4 - PCI - 13
/"V
1/2
- s
F-104
T-104
TO R-101
*£.
B-037
B-038
*11.0?
V-709
V-641
AIR
CA - I/? - F03 - »
i r
NATURAL OAS
N.C.
ca -i/a - poi - w
*6 - 1/4 »
3Pr
D
CC-COT U-lulLt BCvBHW
MSA
12-16-98
C
a-cut u-miui Kvisibi
MNZ
1-22-98
B
W KCTP SO. KLCTCO HWSVMK rr-«M I Dl&llw.
1WUT P9M-936. MB MOEB M«SV«£ P»*i-S56
DJT
7-15-97
A
RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DJT
4-25-97
LTI
! DESCRIPTION
APP0
DATE
NUMBER
TITLE
REVISIONS
R
EFERENCE DRAV
8
7
6
5
VII-7
-------
*»_. 1/g - PQ4 - 03 . 1 « It
P04 - as * i » t
y ¦ m\ (
\i ¦ HZ - 1/4 - P31 - 14 I
tt - a - pw - «
It KStWCB ON UK
Y A "
Nsn - P0< - 04 - 1 - l}
10
AT* scfpomt i
i hM CMMQ
|ac • iz - we - ot - i "H]
€5pha
¦ VH54f
bv-
_y \_
b • Hg - i7T- po» -
m - ic - p>e - 13
/L3SZ*
I t - « - l/« - P01 - I? |
DWN D. J. TATE
CHK
ENG
APPD
03-21-94
PROJECT NO. 8570 - 300
SCALE
NONE
Acurex Environmental Corporation
PROJECT
H Y N ~. L SB
HPR PROCESS AND
INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
originating qrricc
/INGS
J
wountoi Vie», CA
Du-Haw, HC
JtfflfMn, AW
size
onv4
3
DVG NO
8570G003
SHEET
3 OF 5
1
REV
D
Vll-8
-------
sheet e
[hFR-RECYCLE
V-023
SYSTEM
INrLKLuCK
- 1/2 - Ml - »
| ! <§>'<§>
.. w 3 /\ T ; J
FROM F-104 >—¦( > " ' I
' 1/ ' [«: - I? - Pt2 - 66
V-3Q3
¦HX-203
HX-lOT^Z HX-108
HX-I09
HX-2D4
SCTPQINT C
[STN - 1/4 - PQt - 01 - I • I
\tr V-5»
fvi
* ©
¦n—
V • v-oh rcv-«i
5>CCT 3
NITROGEN
2 - - i/4 - pet - J*
H-036
nr - u -1 • /hj\ ;1 IT,.
A
drain
PCET 1
PROCESS H8
$yKi_i
e
UlLM MTO
saa
0
CE-CERT AS-BUILT REVISION
MSA
12-16-98
c
CE-CERT AS BUILT REVISION
VJ/ZK
1-82-98
B
* axt® i-2. x 1 4. klcicd mwom I nxt-nj.
M» AOKD MW-MJ L fSK-tej
DJT
7-15-97
A
RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DJT
4-25-97
LTR
DESCRIPTION
APPD
DATE
NUMBER
title
REVISIONS
REFERENCE DRAW1
CD
6
5 /
VU-9
-------
T-514
T-513I-513 TV -569
stew net win
} V-517
ir« - i/« - wi - a;
rv - J/» - P03 - 01
TV-S11
P-511
V-318
VtKT GAS
HX-]10b
J V
-O
IN
L-O
DVN
D j t*te B3-21-94
Acurex Environmental Corporation
CHK
PROJECT
ENG
APPD
HPR PROCESS
INSTRUMENTATION
AND
DIAGRAM
PROJECT ND. 8570 - 300
SCALE
"rigiGTwri^ ornct
none:
SHEET
dwg. >e
SIZE
REV
8570G003
Ho^ntftin Vitti, CA
Purhc«. WC
j»rrrrto*. aft
: NGS
0»3v«
VII-10
-------
S*CT 2 N
[FROM R-101 V
HK-910
\if-U*'PQ\-Q4
&} r-942
SP-l/4-P6t-03l
SP-1/4-PQ1-K
r-940
V-%3
V-920
SP
y-t/4-P01>Q7|
SP-1/4-POI-M
rr \ F*94l
?.} F-943
V-9M
Sanpte 1
MK-912
y-i^-KM-TFli JJ "1955
m) r-944
jy>i?4-wwn
S^-l/4-PO »H
P-f—nTrrtf5
T >5P-t/4-pqt-i7l
FROM r-104
DCM 961
V-921
(y-i/4-Poi-ifc [
KK-913
5P-1/4-P01-IS
StTPOlHT «
t>y m
VL) F-945
|SP-l/4-PQM>r
FROM HX
V-873
t-tn
SHLI I 4
system
INTERLOCK
©
FROM
SM??T 4
rv ooic
octvae mxKf
5ft
D
CE-CERT AS-BUllT REVISION
MSA
12-16-98
A
CE-CERT AS-BUILT REVISION
MV/ZK
1-22-98
B
!N SCCTOI 0-1 KUtEt HMWffi PT-0* & HGir*.
tnt niMX. ANt ««t MMtvME PSMt-SX
DJT
7-15-97
A
RELEASED FDR CONSTRUCTION
DJT
4-25-97
LTR
DESCRIPTION
ftPPD
DATE
NUMBER
title
REVISIONS
REFERENCE drawii-
8
7
6
5 i
i
VII-1 1
-------
i
isp-iM-pQt-osl
ISP-I/4-P01-1Q
DCM 950
CONTROL TRAILER
I/4-TO1-14
Package Vaste Gas Burner & Ignition Systfn
L cv CD? CO
dCV-828
a_
CONTftOUCS
„
r-CHO
(ri
4—o-c
V~^ST.
-®
<
10 PS!0 MtN.
100 KtC MAX
WlUUi. W I
1
a
n
$. M£r001 LJ
A
DVN
D. J. TATE 03-3!-94
CHK
ENG
Acurex / CE-CERT
PROJECT
H Y N ~ L
s-^7
APPD
PRDJECT NO. 8570 - 300
SCALE
NONE
HPR PRDCESS AND
INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM
j?igin»t}mg ornct
'Hpywf* Vtow, CA
Duchon. NC
SIZE
DWG. NO.
8570G003
SHEET
5 of 5
"1
REV
D
VII-12
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing j
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/R-00-092
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation of a Process to Convert Biomass to
Methanol Fuel
5. REPORT DATE
October 2000
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORISI
Joseph M. Norbeck and Kent Johnson
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING OROANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
University of California, Riverside
College of Engineering {Mail Code 022)
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
Riverside, California 92521-0434
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
CR 824308-01-0
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 6/95 - 8/00
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15.supplementary NOTES APPCD project officer is Robert II. Borgwardt, Mail Drop t>3,
919/541-2336.
i6. abstract rep0rt gives results of a review of the design of a reactor capable of
gasifying approximarely 50 lb/hr of biomass for a pilot-scale facility to develop,
demonstrate, and evaluate the Hynol Process, a high-temperature, high-pressure
method for converting biomass into methanol fuel. The report also discusses design
modifications and gives preliminary results of operating the facility. Significant
flaws in the initial design were discovered and corrected.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cosati Field/Group
Pollution
Biomass
Gasification
Carbinols
Fuels
Evaluation
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Methanol
Hynol Process
13B
08A,06C
13H.07A
07C
21D
14G
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pagej
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
VII-13
------- |