Internal Letter Rockwell Internationa lDate : . September 15, 1978

TO : (Name, Organization, lnte - 1 Add.ss)

Subject : .

78-768-000-194

FROM : ( Name, Organization , fnte- a! Address, Phone)

G . W. JeffsCorporate Offices-E1 Segundo970, 001-A12

S . F . IacobellisEnergy Systems Group797, 071-LA042201

One-Quarter-Ton-Per-Hour Coal Hydropyrolysis ConversionTest Facility (AR 91AF1 )

INTRODUCTION

The Energy Systems_ Group requests a project _ appropriation__of '.EDACTEIconsisting of REDACTED _ y to provideequipment and facility modifications for expansion, modification, andrelocation of the One-Quarter-Ton-Per-Hour (1/4 TPH) Coal HydropyrolysisConversion Test Facility .

BACKGROUND

The existing 1/4-TPH coal research pilot plant was activated in December1975 by the Rocketdyne Division for the development of their hydrogena-tion process for coal liquefaction and gasification . Under IR&D tasksand a DOE-sponsored hydrogasification program (Contract EX-77-C-01-2518),the facility has been used to develop process system and subsystemdesign data required to advance the development of the single-stagehydrogasifier (reactor) . The 1/4-TPH Coal Hydropyrolysis ConversionTest Facility will be directed toward further characterizing the perform-ance and requirements of the reactor system, providing additional datafor process optimization, and for design of the 4-TPH reactor which willbe constructed in FY 1979 at the Bowl Area VTS-III test stand . ThisDOE-sponsored program is a 36-month p roq_ram scheduled to start in October1978 with a contract value of REDACTE E

The above DOE contract for the 4-TPH Gasifier Reactor Development Programrequires 100% dedication of the 1/4-TPH facility for at least 15 monthsstarting in January 1979 . Therefore, this use of the facility (aspresently designed) will preclude its use for other contracts and company-sponsored programs for commercial applications of flash hydropyrolysis(i .e ., crude oil residual upgrading, petrochemical production, peatgasification, etc .) . Additionally, dedication of the facility wouldpreclude process development for hydropyrolysis applications within thescope of the Cities Service/ESG agreement . For this reason, facilityexpansion is required . The proposed expansion of the 1/4-TPH CoalHydropyrolysis Conversion Test Facility will immediately establish adual test position test facility with provisions for a coal flow loop .This expansion will allow additional contract and company-sponsoredprograms to be conducted simultaneously with the existing gasificationreactor development contract . The expanded facility will make extensiveuse of common test and instrumentation systems for multiple-shiftoperations (i .e., first shift dedicated to DOE Reactor Developmen t

Fn . ., . Ill-" , 7r,

I I'D II DIEBNA05909301

HDMSp01740783

G . W . JeffsSeptember 15, 1978Page 2

Program ; second shift dedicated to the hydropyrolysis process-applicationsand development) .

The planned facility modification and projected test density increasefor both the 1/4-TPH reactor and the currently adjoining RocketdyneLaser Engineering Test Facility (LETF) present operational problems .The previous 30 months of mutual testing in the LETF area has beenaccomplished by close coordination between the two facilities and byextended shift operation on a daily basis by the coal gasificationpersonnel . It will be impossible, however, to continue in this mannerdue to increased test density and the mutually exclusive nature (explosionhazard, experimental hardware, noncoded vessels) of the testing . Forthese reasons, facility relocation is required .

Historically, great benefits have been obtained by separating growing,diverse programs and test facilities . Additionally, a minimum totalimpact to both the 1/4-TPH reactor and LETF test programs will be incurredif the coal facility is relocated concurrently with the planned expansion/modification. Minimal schedule impact is emphasized since the committedand proposed programs for the Coal Conversion Facility require thefacility to be in operation in January 1979 .

Relocation of the facility will also provide for a coal flow test loopfacility to support hydropyrolysis process development . The loop willbe used for DOE- and company-funded programs to establish engineeringdesign data for dense phase flow systems of solid carbonaceous feed(coal, peat, petroleum, coke, etc .) . This installation is required tosupport detailed process designs of feed systems for pilot and commercial-scale plants .

PROPOSAL

The Energy Systems Group proposes to expand, modify, and relocate the1/4-TPH Coal Hydropyrolysis Conversion Test Facility to the Bowl AreaControl Center . This will locate the facility in the Bowl Area which isnow assigned in its entirety to the Energy Systems Group and whichcontains the 1-TPH reactor at VTS-II and the planned 4-TPH reactor atVTS-III .

ALTERNATIVES

Six alternatives were evaluated to select a course of action that wouldmeet the objectives of the program in a cost-effective manner .

n iinuu ~munu I'D T DIEBNA05909302

HDMSp01740784

G . W. JeffsSeptember 15, 1978Page 3

1 . Remain at the present location (LETF) .

2 . Construct a 1/4-TPH facility at a new and independent location .

3 . Relocate to Rocketdyne's Component Test Laboratory I (CTL-I) .

4 . Relocate to Rocketdyne's Component Test Laboratory V (CTL-V) .

5 . Relocate to the Bowl Area VTS-I test stand .

6 . Relocate to the test cells at the Bowl Control Center .

It was concluded from this investigation that the relocation of the1/4-TPH facility from its present location is required , and the mostfeasible site for relocation is a test cell at the Bowl Area ControlCenter.

Consideration of a new and independent location was ruled out whenpreliminary cost estimates indicated that costs would exceed othercandidate locations by a factor of three or four . (A major cost itemfor the new independent location would be a data acquisition system .Such a system exists and is in operation at the Bowl Control Center .)

Recent programmatic developments at Rocketdyne have eliminated CTL- Ias a candidate location . Rocketdyne has immediate plans for conductingIR&D laser programs at this facility, which would present the sameproblem of competing test programs in direct proximity to one anothersuch as exist now at LETF . Rocketdyne has future plans for fullutilization of CTL-I for F-15 auxiliary power unit testing if they aresuccessful in obtaining follow-on production contracts .

The comparative cost estimates for the alternative locations presente din Attachment A are limited to the costs associated with the modificationand relocation of the 1/4-TPH plant . While this tabulation reveal sCTL-V to be the least costly alternative, additional costs would beincurred if this alternative were selected because of CTL-V's locationaway from other ESG facilities in the Bowl Area . In addition, CTL-Vis currently in a deactivated state (reference Attachment B) .

The remaining candidate locations are the Bowl Control Center and theVTS-I test stand, both of which are in the area now assigned to theEnergy Systems Group . The major factors leading to the selection of theControl Center location was the fact that operations can be conducted atthe 1/4-TPH facility, the 1-TPH facility at VTS-II, and the planned4-TPH facility at VTS-III with a minimum amount of interference (roadaccess and potential blast hazards) . Also, Bowl Control Center costsare less than those of VTS-I .

n un ii i i ~uinmiI'DBNA05909303

HDMSpO1740785

G . W . JeffsSeptember 15, 1978Page 4

The 1/4-TPH Facility Flow Diagram is shown in Attachment C .. Attachment Dshows the projected component layout in the Bowl Control Center .

JUSTIFICATION

The need for expanding the 1/4-TPH Coal Hydropyrolysis Conversion TestFacility is based on the contractual need to increase the present 8-minduration capability to 1 hr for one test position and concurrentlyprovide for other contract and/or company-sponsored test programs at asecond test position .

Need for relocating the 1/4-TPH facility is based on projected increasesin test density and resultant constraints on existing programs . Thechoice of the site for relocation is based upon avoidance of future testinterference and programmatic priorities, centralization of coal utiliza-tion test facilities, and lowest cost . Attachment E provides the projectedtest density for the 1/4-TPH facility and indicates the multiple-shif ttest operation required .

The operation of the 1/4-TPH facility on a noninterference basis isessential to the support of the DOE - sponsored 4-TPH reactor design andESG's objectives to advance the development of the single - stage hydro-gasifier to commercial status .

Due to the developmental nature of this program , utilizing a facility ofless than commercial capacity to promote markets for new products and todevelop products for eventual manufacture , in accordance with CorporateFinancial Policy , Section 12, Chapter 10, Publication 1, no financialanalysis or computation of return on assets is provided . However, itcan be stated that this investment is essential to the current sales_effort _which is expected to generate sales amounting to at leastREDACTEDduring the 5-year period, 1979 through 1983 .

METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATIO N

This project will be managed under the direction of a facilities projectengineer . This individual will control the scope of work, costs andschedules, and coordinate all ESG functions including Engineering,Operations, Purchasing, outside construction contractors, and interfacewith Rocketdyne as required . Fossil Energy Conversion Systems of theEnergy Systems Group will monitor the project to ensure compliance withtechnical and scheduler requirements .

The project will be implemented in two phases . Engineering and designof the site preparation, structural supports, and basic utility service s

n iinuu ~munu I'D uiiiuiu uBNA05909304

HDMSp01740786

G . W . JeffsSeptember 15, 1978Page 5

for the facility will be prepared by F&IE for construction by an outsidecontractor . Minimal engineering guides in the form of process andinstrumentation diagrams and equipment layouts will be prepared byEngineering for the installation of the process system piping and instru-mentation . This work will be performed using combinations of outsidesubcontract and in-house labor under the direction of a field engineer .This method of implementation was selected as the most effective meansto accomplish the work within the planned schedule, indicated in Attach-ment F, while concurrently minimizing design and engineering costs . Therequired capital funding is included in the Energy Systems Group AnnualCapital Plan for FY 1979 .

ENVIRONMENTAL/ENERGY CONSERVATION CONSIDERATION S

The emissions generated by the 1/4-TPH facility are considered to belaboratory or bench-scale quantities . Therefore, this facility has beenexempted from an operating permit by the Ventura County Air PollutionControl Board .

Modifications to the facility will neither increase nor decrease theenvironmental /energy conservation considerations .

RECOMMENDATIONS

Approval of REDACTED i s recommendedto support modifications to and relocation of the 1/4-TPH Coal Hydro-pyrolysis Conversion Test Facility. The proposed changes will eliminatethe operational constraints which would prevent ESG from being able tomeet contract schedules .

I A '~ , ~ a~'LL.S . F. IacobellisPresidentEnergy Systems Grou p

jcs :921

Attachments

n un ii i i ~uinmi I'D IIa DIEBNA05909305

HDMSp01740787

1/4-TPH COAL FACILITY COMPARATIVE COST ESTIMATES

VTS- I

Demolition and Site Preparation

Structural R/L and Addition s

Gas (GN2-GH2) and Water Services(Includes Firex Modifications)

Electrical Power for GH2 ResistanceHeate r

Disconnection of Process Piping atCHTL

R/L and Installation of Process Piping

Valve Servicing

100 Channels of Instrumentation28-V dc Control s

Additional Metering Instrumentation

R/L and Installation of SystemInstrumentation and Controls

Dense Phase Flow Loo p

Engineering and Field Supervision

Totals

CTL-VBowl Control

Center

*See Attachment B for additional costs associated with this alternative .

jcs :921

CTL-I

N(D r c-

t-o ctr DrD o n3 =Cr 9) =1

01 Dc-L(D

V VI0a

Attachment BIL to G . W . JeffsSeptember 15, 197 8

ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CTL- V

The CTL-V facility is located approximately 1/2 mile from the-Bowl Areaand is presently deactivated . Reactivation of CTL- V as the site for the1/4-TPH facility would result in additional capital requirements as well

as operating costs . An analysis of these costs is summarized below :

CAPITAL COST

Utility Meterin g

The metering of gaseous hydrogen , gaseous nitro-gen, electric power, and water used by ES Gfacilities is required to permit proper apportion ;merit of costs between Rocketdyne and ESG . Thi scan be accomplished with single meteringinstallations serving all facilities within theBowl Area . If the 1/4-TPH facility were locatedat CTL-V, additional meters would be required oneach of these systems .

Mobile Handling Equipmen t

A forklift is a very essential piece ofequipment for the operation of all of the coalhydropyrolysis facilities . By locating the1/4-TPH facility within the Bowl Area,utilization of a forklift could be share das required by the 1/4 TPH, the 1 TPH, and theproposed 4 TPH . Locating the 1/4-TPH facilityat.a remote location such as CTL-V wouldrequire the acquisition of an additionalforklift .

Shop Support Equipmen t

There are a number of items of operationssupport equipment that can be shared by allfacilities located within the Bowl Area . Ifthe 1/4-TPH facility were located at CTL-V ,these items would have to be duplicated a tthe other location . This equipment would include!tube bending and flaring equipment, pip ethreader, cutoff saw, grinder, etc .

TOTAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL',r'

REDACTED

I uiiiuiuu lID 11 DIEBNA05909307

HDMSp01740789

ANNUAL OPERATING COST S

Personnel

The close proximity of the test facilities whenall are located within the Bowl Area, as wellas the common use of support systems, lendsitself to the effective utilization and rotationof test mechanics as required between theindividual test installations .

The location of the 1/4 TPH at CTL-V would resultin the need for one ( 1) additional mechanic tooffset the time lost in transferring personnelbetween areas and maintaining the additionalsupport systems such as the data acquisitionequipment .

The reactivation of CTL-V would require additional)Plant Services support estimated at 1 .5 EP's .This would include janitorial support, preventivemaintenance, and normal repair maintenanc eassociated with building support equipment andutility systems .

Utilities

The activation of the CTL-V Control Center andpretest building would result in increasedutility costs for heating, air conditioning,and lighting .

15 kW - lightin g5 kW - instrumentatio n20 kW - air conditioning and heating5 kW - miscellaneou s

45 kW

Taxes

REDACTED

This estimate is based on 1977 assessments/exceptions for property "held for convenienceof the Government" (to be confirmed byCorporate Tax Department) .

TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST S

jcs :921 2

COS T

I uiiiuiuu lID II uii DIEBNA05909308

HDMSp01740790

~O'>~ . Ss /aa i^•Ires~ rr . v<~ :'~.. L r

G7~SGMI /6G1~ "2 ''srO I' r•- N•'O 1/

ft. . Q ..I'. S ,

I11111111

r1~

I uinmi II 0BNA05909309

HDMSpO1740791

C~ .+a}L~ , d a7. <~. c

syS ~~~ ~~y.vaNa TT k J : .

}Ja 1Ua 7~ ~Ya ~l.

G_.;,r~t.J t to r

P4 ~+/N !~ • .

At(

Ga ✓ o- +~o-L . .~f .on I

✓ a. l v ¢ ~~ c o-.. 4-, 1 ~-l- a

d~a .... / g.s :,Lrc . .. . T'(.a : .

,.am ."= o*rC If s.sC-M

Iuun ii i i ~uinmi DIEBNA05909310

HDMSp01740792

® ITJ ' L_t

VY• .LIG4 L

lsmp L

✓--1 7(.

IYOS.li-

UILSt ONt1.Mltt SW"t tObr(MtrOMS ut ~ rMtgr n'o. ro tuusM

~~rbr SY*r r•OVCMMESS

tOutto 'r .+:ttS'-I QOECV At t OI Il) 7W

MOt13 a.OTC • t .LL•U." rMAU "U . Ct

_ tin oete _ a l4- alp wo ml

VM . . axa arema « me _ a: e

TA . t mm . CoD - S0Lds EOtra . OLIO - s :3

OO .IOr sc.t n rr

caslf',CAnoty '40u TYL. . :

o PVs1+IC0 '~ /•II V14 r'~ 4

I DIEBNA05909311

HDMSp01740793

PLAN V'- /'0 "

SOUTH ELEYAT/ON . . /'0'AT7-AGq ME A-3i 'D

umnuu ~munu II iimmu i

(/ TPHCeL

n iinuu ~munu uiuiu i iiiu uBNA05909313

HDMSp01740795

Peat Gasification (DOE)

FHP of HC Liquids (IR&D)

Coal Gasification (DOE)

Relocation

Testing

Syngas Proc . Dev . (IR&D)

Alt . Resource Conversion(IR&D)

1/4-TPH FACILITY UTILIZATIO N

1978

A S 0 N D J F Fl

1979

A 11 J 1 J A S 0 N D J

El :S-0- ;7 E4(D • fD

C~m

c o

.ics :921

Attachment FIL to G . W . JeffsSeptember 15, 1978

AR Preparation andApprova l

Design (O .C .) Demo .Struct ., Elect ., GH2,Firex, Vsl . Mod .

P&ID and ControlsMinimal Design (I .Hr )

Bid and Award (O .C . )

Vessel Mod . and Fab .(Inc. Duration )

Demo . Process Sys . Camp .Controls and Instr.

(I .H . )

Valve Servicing andInstr . Cal ., etc .

Construction (O .C . )

Process Piping Instr .and Controls (I .H . )

jcs :921

1978Se t . Oct. Nov . Dec .

1979Jan .

I

Feb Mar .

BNA05909315

HDMSpO1740797

SEPTEMBER 11, 197 8

1/4 TPH COAL HYDROPYROLYSIS CONVERSION TEST FACILIT Y

PLANNED EXPANSION, MODIFICATION & RELOCATIO N

1 . PLAN OF ACTION.

A .B .C .D .

FACILITY PHOTOBOWL RELOCATION AREA PLA NMODIFIED 1/4 TPH FACILITY FLOW DIAGRA MNEW DENSE PHASE FLOW DIAGRAM

2 . SCHEDULE

A .B .

FACILITY UTILIZATIONFACILITY MODIFICATION/RELOCATIO N

3 . COSTS

A . ALTERNATE RELOCATION SITE SUMMARYB . BOWL AREA SIT E

0

00

Cd

u i i 111111111 vii lii vii III viiBNA05909317

HDMSp01740799

11 O

as

I uiiiuiuu uBNA05909319

HDMSpO1740801

-i 1 -12 -1 3

~.

D g •308

43.7.Olt

~~320

41 5

405

391.334

393-1.1, a 0 0Q307 ®

30 7

f •

/''.~✓o,e CAP/r 9 /rv,P,Po✓4-lvetvrs

~cc4rss i 14V 7 CF,~i. cSPic,c W' K

8. 4 Ec r1eiCicc- tS'&e e,,,cE $00 K!/~r Sue

C. 61-12 %'i M' /9,C'EssuA'E Z/NE

D. 6W2 1116N ~,~ESS&'e I, Ve

E EO W rA- c~E.P/'/L'G

DIEBNA05909320

HDMSp01740802

9-eiNcTbR

S IMPLt F D SCI-1C= 4&T( GOP ► /q.-TPU CO&L COKV ~- r2S IC)Q 'F~, cl L IT--r

GNz Cob. L

4-ZZ LQ ~~t~,(tnao- ~-'c~0.Q1FIkD

C.C4J1R

-r3J cf I I-f IGt4F- ~ozMcIF»J

UIGL P2 ~wn. R Tr~c~C(ooo GPL)

4f;~ J2E SEPACL~

vnJGLu

REACTOR

3Qu JCu

P1 & FLOC Loos

R-um e4 f .4Pbv FOQ.WA20Rev 2s Roc

Ud COA LP~wwocwti

1/4-TONS/HR RELOCATION COST ESTIMATESCOAL FACILITY

DEMIOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION

STRUCTURAL R/L AND ADDITION S

GAS (GN22-GII2) AND WATER SERVICES(INCLl1DES FIREX MODIFICATIONS)

ELECTRICAL POTTER FOR G112 RESISTANCEHEATE R

DISCONNECTION OF PROCESS PIPING AT CHTL

R/L AND INSTALLATION OF PROCESS PIPING

VALVE SERVICING

100 CHANNELS OF INSTRUMENTATION),,28 VDC CONTROL S

ADDITIONAL METERING INSTRUMENTATIO N

R/L AND INSTALLATION : OF SYSTEMINSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS

TOTALS

i

VTS-I :CTL V---------- --

BOWL CONTRO LCENTER CTL- 1

, . 1 r . . 7/11 .

Agenda

Coal Hydropyrolysis Discussion

September 19, 1978

1 . Technical Status Friedman

2 . Marketing Status Friedman

3 . 1/4 TPH Plant Johanson

A . Description of Present Plant

B . Limitations

C . Alternatives Considered

4 . Plans re 1/4 TPH Plant Breese

5. 4 TPH Plant Powel l

mim :2/3

n un ii i i ~uinmiI'DBNA05909324

HDMSp01740806