Both TGER prototypes underwent a third party assessment conducted by the US Army Aberdeen Test Center. Three high risk and five medium risk hazards were identified on the TGERs. All risks were mitigated with minor hardware modifica­tions, and sufficient safety devices and equipment were supplied as part of the basic issue items (BII). 007-DT-ATC-REFXX-D5104

Given that the mission of the Rapid Equipping Force is to quickly respond to field commanders’ requests by accelerating new technologies, the two first stage TGER prototypes were deployed by intent at what was considered to be the mini­mum technical readiness level for field evaluation. TGER assessment during the 90 day deployment to Victory Base Camp, Iraq met its objectives by identifying the key engineering challenges needed to advance from a first stage scientific prototype to an acquisition candidate system (Fig. 8).

The Iraq deployment validated the utility of the TGER system as an efficient means to address a complex, mixed, wet and dry waste stream while producing power. The science and technology underlying the hybrid design of the TGER is unique and has considerable advantages over other unitary approaches. The engi­neering of the TGER system and, in particular, the difficulties which arose in having to modify third-party commercial off the shelf equipment to TGER purposes, were an expected and commensurate problem.

Overall, the TGER performed well as a system for the first month of deployment. During the second month, unanticipated problems with the downdraft gasifier arose

Fig. 8 Deployed TGER which required considerable remedial attention by the technicians. With remote coordination with the manufacturer, many of these problems were quickly resolved, but the overall reliability and performance of the downdraft gasifier was in gen­eral decline over the three months, resulting in considerable down-time during the deployment.

Despite some initial tankage limitations (due to a delay in site prep by the Victory Base Camp DPW) and intermittent performance of the chiller system due to extremely high (120°F) ambient temperatures, the bioreactor performed well during the first month. The chiller was eventually upgraded with one of greater capacity, but during the final month the system encountered a compro­mised heat exchanger, some pumping problems, and apparent loss of biocatalyst efficacy due to heat exposure. The technicians were able to bypass the failed heat exchanger, modify pump elevations and add fresh biocatalysts to recover system performance.

About halfway through deployment, one of the two laboratory pelletizers became inoperative and could not be recovered. This resulted in a shift from a daily to an intermittent duty cycle (every other day) as the operators could not produce suf­ficient waste fuel pellets to keep the downdraft gasifier running continuously. The downdraft gasifier requires 60 lb/pellets/h and both pelletizers were needed to meet that throughput.

Alternatively, the biggest issues anticipated prior to deployment, i. e., the viability of the waste processing equipment involving the shredder, material transport/feeding and generator flex-fuel control performed reliably and were generally trouble free. Our pre-deployment effort on these critical system tasks ensured the system per­formed reasonably well during the first month, and allowed the other engineering issues to emerge from the background for proper identification and characterization for remedy.

Despite the mechanical issues, when the various elements of the TGER system were pulled together (routinely during the first month, then intermittently during the last two months) the system performed remarkably well. Field data demon­strated operations at or near 90% efficiency, with excellent throughput of both liquid and dry waste. The system generally conserved water at steady state and no environmental or safety problems emerged.