EnerT@@liI ENVIRONMENTAL, + INC,

Date: ProgramName:

Award Dates: Project Officer: Contract #: Title: PI Name: Company Name: Address:

Phone:

0 S.T I Subject: ERIP Technical Progress Report #4

04/08/96 FY95 U. S . Department of Energy, Energy Related Invention’s Program Under the Non-Nuclear Research and Development Act of 1974 04/24/95 - 04/23/97 Mi. Elliott P. Levine DE-FGO 1 -95EE 15623 Clean Energy F m Municipal Solid Waste

EnerTech Environmental, he.

A h m G A 30318

Mr. Michael Klosky, VP EllgneIlng

430 Tenth StreetN.W.; Suite N-104

(404) 892-9440

The following Technical Progress Report has been prepared in accordance with the reporting requirements of the DOE General Terms and Conditions for Research Grants, Section 9 of EnerTechs under this program.

I. ACCOMPLISHMENTS For the time period 01/96 - 04/96, EnerTech completed an additional slurry carbonktion pilot p&

campaign at the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) in North Dakota. Prior to this campaign, seved modifications to the sluny carbonization pilot plant were completed includq installation of a gas flow meter system, addition of amdiary insulation around the reactors, updatmg the data acquisition system, and moddimtion to the feed pump system. As with previous camp-, RDF pellets fiom Thief River Falls, Minnesota were utilized as the fkl material to the pilot plant and were shredded to a minus 1/16 inch.

Table 1 depicts the statistical experhent that was performed with the slurry carbonization pilot plant campaign. This screening experiment has been modified since the last reportmg period by slightly expndmg the range of the variables to be investigated but not changmg any of the variables.

Table 1 - Final Test Matrix For Completed Slurry Carbonization Pilot Plant Run.

Based upon the above test matrix, Table 2 details the recipe that was utilized for each test condition for the feed RDF slurry. The recipes for each test condition were based upon BETEC’s (an independent labomry) 430 Tenth Street, NW, Suite N-104, Atlanta, GA 30318 404-892-9440 Office 404-892-8816 FAX

~~~~~

DISCLAlMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

plastic analysis of the Thief River Falls RDF. The “waste paper” was a combination of several waste papers w a ~ supplied paddy shredded fiom a Material Recovery Fad@ (MRF) located in Grand Forks, North Dakota. The composition of the ‘tvaste paper” was based upon the cllsposed paper percentages in EPA 1994 MSW c ~ r i z a t i o n study. The “waste paper” consisted of the following materials which were added to the recipe as the “waste paper” component:

Cardboard 40 wt.% Newspaper 30 Office Paper 20

10 Other P m r s - Total Waste Paper 100 wt.%

The entire 300 lb. (dry bask) sample for each test &on was processed at the specdied temperature. The feed RDF slurry was prepared at approximately 8.0 wt.% total solids. In *ion, carbonized product fiom each test condition was dewatered separately and the sampled, and weghted for mass balances. Between each test conditiion, the pilot flush the entire system before f e the next RDF sample.

Table 2 - Final Recipes of the Test Matrix For the Completed Slurry Carbonization Pilot Plant Run.

The reasons for ad- waste paper to the recipes versus a higher percentage of plastics were threefold:

1) to alleviate concerns with operating the pilot plant with a feed sluny that contained a s i g m t i d y higher p u c content (the mbod product has a component h c h solidi€ies upon p d mlmg and clogs pipes, which has been attributed to plastics in the feed RDF);

2) the range for the total plastic percentage variable could be expanded in the test matrix without baving to operate the pilot plant with m e r plastic content feeds;

3) the test matrix could investgate an equal distance in the positive and negative direction for the percentage and PE plastic percentage. Since the carbonized products fiom each test condition were final blended carbonized product would consist of approximately the same plastic and paper o r i d RDF. FmerTech prefers ths final carbonized product for the important planned dioxin

2

versus a c a r b o l l l z e d product with a sigdicantly higher plastic content which may have an unknown effect u p the combustiontest.

The slurry carbonization pilot plant was started on Februaty 5 and was o p e d continuously through February 9. Dumg this operational period of the pilot plant, six of the eight planned test conditons were completed. Test #4 and #8 were not completed dunng this hhl run due to unscheduled mintemnce do& (please see Section XI. Di&ulties for more S o d o n ) and conflicts with other operational schedules at EERC for other clients. The slurry carbonization pilot plant was restarted on February 27 and Test #4 and #8 were completed by February 28 without any major & c ~ e s or mechanical Mures. Samples of the feed RDF, carbonized RDF, carbonization gas, and fikrate were collected for each test period for laboratory analysis.

Once each test period was completed, samples coHected, and products weighted, the filter cakes each test period were blended together and shipped to IKA Works for gnndmg and carbonized RDF s preparation using IKA's pilot scale shear units. Approximately 1600 lbs. of carbonized RDF slurry d be sheared at IKA's facility on April 17 and 18, @ped back to EERC for the planned dioxin combwbon test.

IKA is a leadug vendor for commercial shear units

Table 3 Summarizes the initial laboratory analysis completed to date on the samples collected from each slurry carbonkation statistical test period. As can be seen from Table 3, the heatmg value has the chlorine umtent has been reduced dramatically in the carbonized RDF for all eight test note that the chloride numbers are for unwashed filter cakes. Samples of the &r cakes will be washed to reduce chlorine levels and reanalyzed in the next reporbng period. In addition, the carbonized RDF exhibited rheologies and energy densities comparable to coal-water-fbels (CWF) or coal-water The statistical sigdicant effxt of the major test variables on these carbonized RDF properties in the next reportug period. Furthennore, material and energy yields and balances will be calculated m the reporting period.

I #I

ultimate, wt.%, mf Carbon 65.48 Hydrogen 6.35 Nitrogen 0.70 Sulfur 0.11 oxygen 14.3 1 Ash 13.05

Chlorine, uglg, mf 540 Rheology

48.2 Slurry wtoh @, 500 CP

mf, Btu/lb 12,030 Slurry, EWlb 5,800

Higher Heating Value

Sll #2 #3

62.45 66.20 7.32 5.69 0.83 0.80 0.15 0.11

18.40 14.80 10.85 12.40 657 1190

47.5 44.2

12,650 12,090 6,010 5,350

ry cart #4

70.09 8.34 1.06 0.08

11.35 9.08 615

43.5

15,890 6,920

Table 3 - Initial Analysis of Carbonized RDF Fr

nkation Test #5 #6 #7 #8

68.97 58.18 68.44 63.33 7.58 6.58 7.58 6.05 0.85 0.56 0.94 0.56 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.12

10.77 22.86 11.75 17.19 11.73 11.72 11.23 12.75 833 82 482 334

45.8 46.4 47.0 52.0

13,400 12,320 14,330 12,410 6,140 5,720 6,740 6,460

a Each Test Period.

Finally, basic performance parameters have been collected from equipment vendors for various &rate water recychg and zero discharge technologies. The technologies under consideration include reverse osmosis,

3

mechanical vapor recompression, multiple effect evaporation, and brine c r y m o n . performance intbrmation, various compufer shnulation modules have been developed fix each technology inserted into the previously reported slurry carbonizaton computer shnuMon model. It is anticipated that in next reporting period, each technology will be simulated to generate approximak capital and Based upon this cost information, the lowest cost technology will be laboratory tested to co- performance information and assutnptions.

Based upon

It is estimated that this project is approximately 90% completed and on time with projected schedules.

II. DIFFICULTIES As mentioned, three mechanical delays were experienced dunng this slurry carbonization p

campagn. Dunng Test #5 and #7, the slurry carbonization pilot plant did experience two Herent with the control of the pressure letdown system of the hot c a r b o d RDF slurry fiom the reactors (p Figure 1). The pressure letdown system operates by flashmg the hot, pressurized carbonized RDF slurry the reactors, to atmospheric pressure through alternatmg valves. The hot, pressurized a deadad pipe leg with a nitrogen cap and level float to reduce flow rate variations these valves. The valves open and close, in altermtq Man, based upon the level sensed in the dead-end leg by a float. This pressure letdown system was 0rigma.U~ designed for extxemely abrasive coal slurries modified by EnerTech to run on a RDF slurry. The RDF slurry has a much lower solid particle density than and the solid particles, especdy plast~cs, have a tendency to float. Dunng Test #5, it appears that some carbonized RDF or plastic particles floated up to level float and blocked the moving action of the float. With float blocked, the pressure letdown valves were not opening and the pilot plant had to be shutdown.

Atmxpheric Carbonized Slurry

t Controller

- , . . . I . . . . . N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hat Carbonized .... I...

Alternating R a r e

Reduction I . . . Vdves ....

s u n y Lwel

m - - Ressurized Carbonized SI wry From Reactor

Figure 1 - Schematic of the Slurry Carbonization Pilot Plant Pressure Letdown System.

During Test #7, one of the pressure letdown valves Med shut, so that the pilot plant had to be &ut- down and the pressure letdown valves rebuilt. EnerTech has experienced both of these opportunities in p pilot plant research with regulas RDF slurries, and does not feel the higher plastic c~nterrt RDF was the cause of either problem. Furthermore, EnerTech feels these operational problems are inherent to the design of this pilot plant, h c h would not be emulated in a commercial f&ciIity design.

4

Dunng Test #2, the slurry carbonization pilot plant did experience a plug, betww the reactors pressure letdown valves. Agaq the pilot plant had to be shutdown and the pipes cleared material appeared to be a hard soliddied mate~~.I, possibly soliddied plast~cs. Sine Test # high polyethylene content feed RDF, EnerTech hypothesizes as one possibhty that the pol melted at the reaction temperatures and then re-solidified and slowly deposited on the cold pipe reactors and pressure letdown valves, mtd the solidified material plugged the flow of carbonized RDF slurry. Along certain lengths of the plugged pipes, it appeared that the c a r b o d RDF slurry was flowing in the of the solidified mated .

As a second possibility, EnerTech hypothesis that the polyethylene may have floated to the top of reactors and a c c u m w until suf3ciently reacted that a viscous plug formed which then flowed or slink to bottom of the reactors and plugged the smaller pipes between the reactors and pressure letdown valves. However, Test #M contained a similar PE content and utilized a similar reactor hnpemlme but the plug did develop in the reactors. conq7aison and conclusion can be drawn between Test #2 and Test #4.

Obviously, additional d y s k andor experiments must be completed befbre

III. ANTICIPATED ACTIVITIES

analyses will be completed for the feed RDF, carbonized RDF, filtrate, and carbonization gas samp for each test condition. The analyses to be completed will include ultimate, heatmg value, chloride rheology, and GC. Also, a composite filtrate sample has been submitted for dioxin analysis and one RDF sample has been submitted for u n r d plastic content analysis. The carbonized RDF produced, and prepared at IKA Works will be shipped back to EERC for the combustion combustion test of the c a r b o d RDF is scheduled to be wmpleted dmng approximately May 1996.

For the upcOming time period 04/96 - 06/96, it is anticipated that the remahing fuel

Mi- \

Michael Klosky \ Principal Investigator

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thcreof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

5