Posts

Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) recently announced they’re developing a unique combustion method that results in lower power plant pollutant emissions, without efficiency penalties, by combining staged-combustion with nitrogen-enriched air.

The SCNEA combustion method burns fuels in two or more stages, where the fuel is combusted fuel-rich with nitrogen-enriched air in the first stage, and the fuel remaining after the first stage is combusted in the remaining stage(s) with air or nitrogen-enriched air. This method substantially reduces the oxidant and pollutant loading in the effluent gas and is applicable to many types of combustion equipment including: boilers, burners, turbines, internal combustion engines and many types of fuel including coal, oil and natural gas.

Results to date are from computer models. The next stage (Phase 1), to be completed in October ’02, is to do a small scale-pilot program involving experimental measurements at a bench scale (10-50 kw) to confirm predictions. Thereafter, Phase 2 will be conducted using commercial boilers and burners with an industry partner.

Provisional patents have been filed for the coal applications, and are in the process of filing on others.

To date, the work has been funded internally by the lab, and they are seeking additional funds (e.g. DOE, industry matching, etc.) to continue. LLNL is in the process of forming a consortium that includes the EPA, DOE, utilities, suppliers to the industry (e.g. boiler and burner manufacturers), engineering design firms, and suppliers of nitrogen enriched air. They are actively encouraging participation from industry.

^^^^^^^
Here is the abstract of a recent 8-page unpublished white paper prepared by LLNL. (I can send the pdf on request).

“A new primary control process for stationary combustion processes is predicted to significantly reduce NOx emissions, reduce corrosion in equipment, and enhance energy efficiency. This combustion method combines the technologies of stage-combustion with nitrogen-enriched air for the oxidant stream in one or more of the combustion stages, and is termed Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA). … SCNEA can replace or enhance currently employed NOx control technologies, such as low-NOx burners, overfire, reburning, and advanced flue gas treatment. SCNEA offers the ability to achieve NOx emission levels lower than levels attained using secondary control methods (e.g. SCR and SNCR) without the use of a catalyst.”

[another excerpt]
“SCNEA utilizes two stages. The first combustion stage is operated fuel-rich so that enough fuel remains for a second combustion stage. Nitrogen-enriched air is used as the oxidant stream in the first combustion stage, which allows precise control of the combustion temperature while producing effluent gases that have a very low oxidant and pollutant loading. The fuel remaining after the first combustion stage (along with the other effluent gases) is mixed with a stoichiometric amount of air and burned in the second stage. The temperature of the second combustion stage is maintained at or below the temperature of the first combustion stage by: (1) controlling the amount of fuel remaining after the first combustion stage (the equivalence ratio of the first combustion stage), (2) using nitrogen-enriched air as the oxidant stream for the second stage, and/or (3) controlling the minimum temperature between the two combustion stages.
NOx levels are significantly lower (1.40×10-2 lb NOx/MBTU) than either of the other single stage methods. Oxidant levels are also significantly reduced (3.30×10-2 lb O2/MBTU, and 6.45×10-6 lb O/MBTU). These advantages are coupled with an improvement in the amount of heat released per scf, i.e. 75.2 BTU/scf. ”

For more information, contact:
Kevin O’Brien, New Business Development
LLNL, Livermore, CA
925-422-7782 obrien14@llnl.gov

Building Products from Fly Ash and CO2

/0 Comments/in , /by

Our friends at Materials Technology Ltd. have shared with me the following information about the significant progress they’re making to turn ash into useful materials using Supercritical CO2. Especially noteworthy is the fact that the CO2 is expected to come from the power plant flue gas, and thus represents significant sequestration of CO2 at the same time. Note the information presented on CO2 separation methods.

The original UFTO note about this work appeared on January 1, 1997 – available in the UFTO website database.

Here is the abstract of a paper they will present at the Green Chemistry Conf, Jun 30 – July 2 in Washington (conference details are attached below).

BUILDING PRODUCTS MADE FROM SUPERCRITICAL CARBON DIOXIDE AND FLY ASH

Authors:
Roger Jones, President and CEO,
Materials Technology Ltd, 14525 Rim Rock Road, Reno, NV 89511;
Frank G. Baglin, Prof of Physical Chemistry, Univ of Nevada – Reno,
Bruce A. Salisbury, Plant Engineer, Four Corners Power Plant,
Arizona Public Service, P.O. Box 355, Fruitland, NM 87416.

Introduction:

Coal-fired electric power plant wastes, portland cement, calcium oxide and supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) are feedstocks to make low-cost, superior roofing shingles, wallboard and other fiber-reinforced products. Flue-gas CO2, recovered using thermally-driven, gas-stripping techniques(1), is permanently bound into the products as carbonates, reducing atmospheric pollution and its contribution to global warming.
Abstract:

The purpose of this patented technology is to produce profitable building products and many other useful things using cemented “dusty” wastes treated with supercritical CO2 (2,3). Products are shaped from a paste made of quick lime, a small amount of portland cement, foamed fly ash and fiberglass reinforcement. Once hydrated, they are treated with supercritical CO2 (preferably recovered from flue gas) to react the hydroxide components, forming carbonates and water and reducing alkalinity to about neutral.

The process has four important advantages:

– Capital required is low (three-year plant and equipment payback).
– Parasitic energy loss to the power plant is low or non-existent.
– There is a sufficiently high value-added component in final products to offset the logistics costs of raw materials and finished goods.

Production of cementitious goods and gas separation technologies are well-settled. Practical gas-separation technologies can be subdivided into four broad categories (4):

Absorption
Membrane separation followed by distillation
Membrane absorption
The appropriate technology depends upon feed stream composition and thermodynamics and upon required quantities of carbon dioxide. In our planned implementation, we will use propylene carbonate absorption. CO2 stripping will occur after sulfur and nitrogen scrubbing.

Forming fiber-reinforced cementitious products like wallboard and roof shingles is also settled technology. Presently, fiberglass reinforced cementitious products demand costly alkali-resistant or plastic-coated glass to prevent alkali-silica reaction. Supercritical carbonation technology allows use of low-cost e-glass instead.

With the exception of foaming agents, fiber reinforcement and portland cement, all raw materials are available on site. The lightweight building products (in this case, fiberglass reinforced roofing shingles and fiberglass reinforced wallboard) are made by cementing foamed fly ash (about 53,000 tons annually for this plant) with calcium oxide (quick lime) and a small amount of portland cement. Both products will be made on continuous lines. After cementing, the products are subjected to treatment with supercritical CO2, again, in a continuous process. The CO2 forms carbonates and carbonated zeolites and reduces the alkalinity of the product to about neutral (pH 7). This permits incorporation of low-cost e-glass fibers without fear of subsequent, harmful alkali-silica reaction. The reinforcement is in the form of both continuous and chopped fiber.

An analysis of the relative inputs to the prototype shingle compared with competing roofing products was made and the results appear in the chart at left (5).

Based on costs of raw materials and energy, our studies indicate that we will be able to sell these waste-based products at pricing points below those of the lowest-priced competing products.

These products are examples of practical, solid-waste-feedstock, chemically bonded ceramics. Many other products can be produced in a similar manner, sequestering large quantities of solid waste and CO2 while offsetting manufacture of products using more energy-intensive systems that increase atmospheric CO2. Examples of such systems include thermoplastics, metals, composites, ceramics and forest products.

As industrial infrastructure in the developed countries ages and requires replacement or renovation, it will be wise to consider supercritical CO2 treated chemically bonded ceramics to reduce energy, raw materials and atmospheric pollution. For developing countries, the benefits are even greater.

In a developing economy, the creation of new industrial infrastructure requires huge investments in transportation systems for feedstocks, raw materials and components. Investment is also required to develop primary, secondary and tertiary manufacturing capacity as well as power plants and facilities to dispose of all types of plant wastes at all levels. Supercritical CO2 chemically bonded ceramic technology reduces much of this investment. Wastes and CO2 simply replace most feedstocks. Ancillary benefits arise from reduction of capital and energy needed to harvest, mine, or otherwise produce raw materials and transport them and intermediate raw materials for secondary or tertiary manufacturing.

Supercritical CO2-treated chemically bonded ceramics rely upon proven, practical technology to produce valuable products from solid waste feedstocks. Capital requirements are lower than conventional production systems, particularly when considering cradle-to-grave economics. Parasitic energy loss to producers is essentially none. Profit margins are high, because most products can be produced with low-cost or no-cost feedstocks.

References:

2 United States Patent 5,518,540 issued May 21, 1996, Cement Treated with High-pressure CO2

3 United States Patent 5,690,729 issued November 27, 1997, Cement Mixtures with Alkali-Intolerant Matter and Method for Making Same

4 21 unpublished papers on methodology for practical recovery of food-grade CO2 from power plant flue gases, Carnegie Mellon University, Professor W.T. Berg, Senior Design Project, March 6, 1996

—————————————

The 2nd Annual Green Chemistry and Engineering Conference: Global Perspectives
June 30 – July 2, 1998
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

The Conference is cosponsored by the American Chemical Society, Committee on Environmental Improvement, Division of Environmental Chemistry, Division of Industrial & Chemical Engineering, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Council for Chemical Research, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Research Council, National Science Foundation, Engineering Directorat, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics and Office of Research and Development.

Details, registration form and complete program available at:
http://www.acs.org/meetings/gcec98.htm

Contact Dianne Ruddy at the ACS for further information at
(202) 872-4402, or e-mail d_ruddy@acs.org.

Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Wed, DOE announced the Clinton Administration’s plan for the Electric Power Industry. The Summary, complete text, and Q&A, appear on the DOE’s home page (attached) at:

http://www.hr.doe.gov/electric/cecp.htm

———————————————————-
Here is the press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 25, 1998

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Tom Welch, 202/586-5806

Administration’s Plan Will Bring Competition
To Electricity, Savings to Consumers

$20 Billion a Year in Savings for Consumers

The Clinton Administration today announced a proposal to bring competition and consumer choice to the electricity industry, saving consumers roughly $20 billion a year and improving the environment by reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Administration’s Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan will provide customer choice by 2003, but will allow states to opt out of competition if they believe that their consumers would be better off under the status quo. Replacing a regulated monopoly system with competition will also encourage efficiency, bring new products and services, strengthen reliability of service and protect consumers.

“This proposal will provide incentives for increased efficiency in the electricity market, saving American consumers $20 billion a year and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Both the economy and the environment will benefit,” said President William J. Clinton.

“We will bring America’s electric industry into the modern era and save consumers money. A family of four will save $232 a year — about two weeks of groceries. For the average family, this is the equivalent of getting a 5 percent income tax cut,” said Secretary of Energy Federico Pe–a. “Competitive forces will also create a more efficient, leaner and cleaner industry. And the environment will benefit as reduced emissions accompany this increased efficiency.”

“This comprehensive plan is the Clinton Administration’s blueprint to Congress so that together we can design legislation that protects the environment, public health and the economy,” said EPA Administrator Carol Browner. “In addition to bringing competition to the electricity industry, this plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in cost-effective ways and march in lockstep with our previous commitments to clean air.”

“Sixteen states have already moved to provide for electricity industry competition. There are, however, issues that only the federal government can deal with,” said Secretary Pe–a. “Federal legislation is needed to enable states to implement retail competition effectively. And only federal legislation can modify or repeal outdated federal laws, cover regional electricity markets, address concerns about market power, ensure that the interstate electricity grid is reliable, and establish uniform standards so that all Americans are receiving the same information about their utility suppliers. We want to work with Congress to get comprehensive legislation that benefits all consumers.”

The Administration’s Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan:

– Provides for customer choice by January 1, 2003, but allows states to opt out of the competitive market structure if they believe that their consumers would be better off under the status quo system or their own unique restructuring proposal. This will give states the freedom to structure retail competition that works best for their citizens.

– Supports stranded cost recovery for utilities that might not otherwise be able to recover the costs of certain past investments that are no longer economic in the low-cost competitive market. The plan encourages states to provide for recovery of stranded costs, supporting their fundamental authority in these matters.

– Strengthens electric service reliability by requiring that all participants in physical electric transactions on the grid comply with mandatory standards. The plan improves reliability by building on the industry’s tradition of self-regulation and giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authority to approve and oversee a private, self regulating organization that develops and enforces mandatory reliability standards.

– Gives FERC authority to require transmitting utilities to turn over operational control of transmission facilities to an independent system operator. The plan also includes a proposal to amend federal law to encourage the development of regional transmission planning and siting groups.

– Requires all utility companies to disclose, in a consistent format, information about the services they offer so customers can comparison shop and know what they are buying. Just as the Food and Drug Administration requires manufacturers to disclose nutrition information on a cereal box, utilities will use a standard consumer label that will include information on prices, terms, conditions, and the environmental impacts of the electric power being sold.

– Establishes a Renewable Portfolio Standard to ensure that at least 5.5 percent of all electricity sales include generation from renewable energy sources by 2010. This would double the projected amount of energy from non hydroelectric renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass. If companies cannot generate power from their own renewable sources, they can purchase credits from those who exceed their targets. The proposal includes a backup cost cap to limit program costs.

– Cuts pollution and greenhouse gases. When costs start to matter, there will be increased economic incentives to cut the two-thirds of energy currently wasted in fossil fuel electricity generation. Greater power plant efficiency saves fuel, cuts oil imports and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

– Establishes a Public Benefits Fund to provide matching funds of up to $3 billion to states for low-income assistance, energy-efficiency programs, research and development, and renewable technologies. These costs are currently passed on to consumers by regulated utilities in their rates. For example, many utilities include in their rates the cost of programs that make sure the poor and elderly do not have their heat shut off during the winter months. This funding approach will no longer work under competition because utilities will have to compete with new suppliers who do not have to pay for these costs. Many states that are moving to competition intend to continue funding these programs through a separate distribution fee on all electricity customers. The Public Benefit Fund would encourage and support states to ensure that the current level of funding for these programs, estimated at about $6 billion in 1996, is preserved.

– Gives EPA authority to provide interstate nitrogen oxide trading authority to assure that we achieve NOx reductions as cost-effectively as possible and enhance air quality.

– Modernizes federal electricity law to get the right balance of competition without market abuse, including giving FERC the authority to mitigate market power in the event that some companies begin to acquire excessive control over retail electricity markets and repealing outdated laws like the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and the “must buy” provision of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act.

“The electricity industry is still operating under a regulated, monopoly system — rules, regulations and laws that were first enacted decades ago. Consumers can’t choose their own suppliers and there is little incentive for companies to be cost- and energy-efficient. Why? Because a regulated monopoly supplier doesn’t have to compete and essentially has a guarantee that its costs will be recovered.

“If you’re the only game in town, you set the rules of the game,” Pe–a said. “With competition, we’re going to change this. With competition, the customer will come first.”

– DOE –

R-98-035

————————————————————
[Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan]

Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan on-line
Download a copy of the Comprehensive Electricity
Competition Plan (*PDF format)

Summary on-line
Download a copy of the Summary (*PDF format)

Questions and Answers about the Plan 0n-line
Download a copy of the Questions and Answers about
the Plan (*PDF format)

News Release on the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Plan

Fact Sheets
————————————————————

Benefits of Plan
Need for Federal Action
Retail Competition Policy – Flexible Mandate
Stranded Cost Principle
Consumer Information
Strengthen Electric System Reliability
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Public Benefits Fund
Air Quality
Download a copy of all Fact Sheets (*PDF format)
Download a copy of Fact Sheets about Impact of Plan on
Consumers by Identified Regions (*PDF format)

Charts

Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

/0 Comments/in , /by

An old friend of mine works at the NRC, and mentioned this draft report that he’d been involved in. Note the principal websites cited at EPA and NRC for additional information.

————————————————–

Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

MARSSIM will provide guidance for planning, conducting, evaluating and documenting environmental radiological surveys for demonstrating compliance with dose-based regulations.
————————————————–

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup/

Office of Radiation & Indoor Air
Radiation Protection Division
Cleanup Regulation HomePage

Radiation Site Cleanup Regulation HomePage

Welcome to the EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Rule HomePage.

The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air is developing standards for cleaning up radioactively contaminated sites. This HomePage provides related documents and information that have been made available to the public during the course of the standards development process.

The HomePage also includes other documents and information that apply to radiation site cleanups. For example, the HomePage includes information on the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), a multi-agency survey and compliance demonstration document.

This HomePage will be updated periodically as the rule development process continues.

———————————————

The following link has a comprehensive list of EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Rule and MARSSIM files available for viewing and downloading.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup/BBS_tbl.htm#marssim

Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)

MARSSIM will provide guidance for planning, conducting, evaluating and documenting environmental radiological surveys for demonstrating compliance with dose-based regulations. The MARSSIM, when finalized, will be a multi-agency consensus information document. MARSSIM has been developed collaboratively over the past three years by four Federal agencies having authority for control of radioactive material; DoD, DOE, EPA, and NRC. The draft manual is being prepared by a multi-agency technical working group composed of representatives from DoD, DOE, EPA, and NRC.

Ceramicrete Phosphate Ceramic

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ceramicrete Phosphate Ceramic (…particularly applicable to fly-ash)

Argonne has developed this low-cost, ceramic binder which can be used in a wide variety of commercial applications, ranging from hazardous waste disposal to low-cost insulation. Since it won the R&D 100 award in 1996, Argonne has had more than 100 serious licensing inquiries, so they are setting strict conditions that applicants have a specific application and a well developed business plan. They’re open to collaboration for development and testing to see what specifications can be met with the particular materials in question.

Called CERAMICRETE, the binder — developed to stabilize and solidify radioactive and hazardous wastes — can also join ceramics together and convert nonhazardous wastes into useful construction products and nonflammable structural materials. It is formed by mixing magnesium oxide powder and soluble phosphate powder (common low cost materials) with water.

It is particularly applicable to fly-ash, because it is completely insensitive to the pH level, and it immobilizes virtually any type of contaminant, including mercury and other heavy metals. It forms a nonporous leach-resistant, hard, and dense ceramic which lab tests indicate meet or pass the EPA TCLP leaching standards.

CERAMICRETE can be manufactured at a low cost compared to other ceramic binders because it is made at room temperature and does not need high-temperature treatment. The setting times are short. Equipment needed is conventional (much like for cement) and hence is readily available, and training required for operations is simple.

The final material can be cast in any shape, and is very dense and strong. It can be used as a structural material in buildings, roads or other structures, or as brick, blocks, or tiles. It has compressive strength ranging from 2000 psi with binder to 6-8000 psi and even more with binder plus additives. In fact, the materials properties can be tailored, with strength increased by compaction during formation.

Besides solidifying wastes, the process can be used to convert lumber wastes into non-flammable particle board or to recycle waste plastic into blowable insulation that is fire- and moisture-proof. CERAMICRETE has already been used to make insulation products with thermal resistance (R values) of 4.5 per inch.

Argonne is using the CERAMICRETE process to stabilize low-level radioactive waste, such as soil, sludge, and lead bricks in a 55-gallon drum mixer. Contaminated wastes that contain radioactive contaminants and hazardous volatiles, such as mercury, lead, and cadmium are solidified in the binding process at room temperature to form a ceramic, noncorrosive, and final waste form. The process is unique because contaminants are converted and stabilized chemically into their natural minerals in a single step. Once encapsulated, the chemicals do not dissolve in groundwater and are isolated from the environment. Performance tests show that the waste forms far exceed the regulatory performance criteria set by DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contact: Don Johnson, Director, Center for Industrial Technology Systems 630-252-3392

——————

>From the 18th U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference held in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, on May 20-22, 1997.

CERAMICRETE STABILIZATION OF LOW-LEVEL MIXED WASTES – A COMPLETE STORY

A. S. Wagh, D. Singh, S. Y. Jeong, and R. V. Strain
Energy Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory

ABSTRACT

During the last three years, Ceramicrete (chemically bonded phosphate ceramics) has been investigated at Argonne-East for low-temperature stabilization and solidification of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE’s) mixed wastes, for which conventional high-temperature treatments cannot be used because of volatiles and pyrophorics present in these wastes. This paper summarizes the development of Ceramicrete and provides the current technology status. We discuss our early investigations with surrogates that are typical of DOE mixed wastes, subsequent testing with actual waste streams, and scale-up of the process to an operational level. Current efforts include testing the process at an operational level for an ash waste stream from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and obtaining sufficient information to prepare a technology performance report.

Complete paper available at:
http://www.inel.gov/resources/research/.llrw/1997Conference/TRACK1/TRACK1-21.htm

EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note — EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

————————————————————–
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675
| http://www.ufto.com edbeards@ufto.com
————————————————————–

EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium
August 25-29, 1997
Washington Hilton & Towers, Washington, DC.

Background
This first-ever “Mega” Symposium will combine the SO 2 Control Symposium, the Joint Symposium on Stationary Combustion NO x Control, and the Particulate/Air Toxins Control Symposium into a single, week-long event. Cosponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this multi-pollutant conference will continue the tradition of its predecessor meetings of showcasing the latest developments and operational experience with state-of-the-art methods for reducing NO x , SO 2 , and particulate/air toxics emissions from fossil-fueled boilers. Sessions will also be devoted to Continuous Emissions Monitors.

You can get the details on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/conferences/airsymp.pdf.
(This is an Acrobat Reader file,which if you don’t have can be downloaded at
http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html.)
A text version is reproduced below.

Registration fee for the full symposium is $600 ($650 after 8/3).
For a single topic is $350 ($400 after 8/3).
For information call Lori Adams, EPRI Sr. Conference Coordinator,
415-855-8763

DOE Environmental Remediation — Innovative Technology Summary Reports — “Green Books”

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note – DOE Environmental Remediation — Innovative Technology Summary Reports — “Green Books”
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

————————————————————–
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675
| http://www.ufto.com edbeards@ufto.com
————————————————————–

DOE Environmental Remediation — Innovative Technology Summary Reports — “Green Books”

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Office of Environmental Management (EM)
Office of Science and Technology (OST)

Innovative Technology Summary Reports present information about remediation technologies that OST has demonstrated in the DOE complex. The information includes technology summaries and information on performance, applicability, cost, regulatory issues, and lessons learned during the demonstrations.

Officially known as Innovative Technology Summary Reports and nicknamed the “green books,” these 10- to 20-page reports cover one DOE-developed technology per book. OST began publishing the reports in April 1995. To date, 13 technologies demonstrated by OST have been the topic of a DOE green book (see list below). More titles are in preparation. In particular, the DD&D (decommissioning) Large Scale Demonstration Project results will be published as part of this series.

The purpose is to provide a quick reference that will enable technology users to determine if an innovative technology is appropriate for their sites.

To make the reports useful across federal departments, OST collaborated with the EPA and DOD to determine the information they would contain. (EPA and DOD produce similar documents about technologies they have developed and demonstrated.) Each report contains the same seven sections: summary, technology descriptions, performance, technology application and alternatives, cost, regulatory/policy issues, and lessons learned. Demonstration site characteristics and references are included as appendices.

These reports are a way for vendors to submit technologies for acceptance into the DOE EM site clean-up realm. The format was revised to standardize and simplify the general requirements for those that wish to bring an existing technology to DOE for use on a contaminated site. With a Green Book in hand, a vendor can ease into the procurement process. Without it, they may have difficulty getting site managers to consider using their technology.

Copies of these reports are available free of charge from DOE/EM’s Center for Environmental Management Information, 1-800-736-3282.
Some titles can be found through NTIS.

The publication of this series is managed by
Diana Krop, DOE-EM, 301-903-7918, diana.krop@em.doe.gov
They can also provide copies free of charge.

Most of the reports are also available on line in their entirety, at
http://em-52.em.doe.gov/ifd/ost/pubs.htm

Innovative Technology Summary Reports (abstracts below)

*Cone Penetrometer
*In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing
*Pipe Explorer System
*Advanced Worker Protection System
*Lasagna Soil Remediation
*Dynamic Underground Stripping
*Frozen Soil Barrier Technology
*In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells
*Resonant Sonic Drilling
*Six Phase Soil Heating
*In Situ Air Stripping Using Horizontal Wells
*Flameless Thermal Oxidation
*SEAMIST

———————————–
*Cone Penetrometer
(DOE/EM–0309) — Cone penetrometer: Innovative technology summary report . USDOE Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC . Office of Program Analysis . Apr 1996 . 24p . DOE Contract NODATA . Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE96014782. NTIS Order Number DE96014782 . Source: OSTI (DOE and DOE contractors only); NTIS (Public Sales); GPO Dep. (Depository Libraries)

Cone penetrometer technology (CPT) provides cost-effective, real-time data for use in the characterization of the subsurface. Recent innovations in this baseline technology allow for improved access to the subsurface for environmental restoration applications. The technology has been improved by both industry and government agencies and is constantly advancing due to research efforts. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and Technology (formerly Technology Development) has contributed significantly to these efforts. This report focuses on the advancements made in conjunction with DOE’s support but recognizes Department of Defense (DOD) and industry efforts.

———————————–
*In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing
(DOE/EM–0289) In situ enhanced soil mixing. Innovative technology summary report. USDOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Washington, DC . Feb 1996. 25p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Source: OSTI; GPO Dep.

In Situ Enhanced Soil Mixing (ISESM) is a treatment technology that has been demonstrated and deployed to remediate soils contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The technology has been developed by industry and has been demonstrated with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science and Technology and the Office of Environmental Restoration. The technology is particularly suited to shallow applications, above the water table, but can be used at greater depths. ISESM technologies demonstrated for this project include: (1) Soil mixing with vapor extraction combined with ambient air injection. [Contaminated soil is mixed with ambient air to vaporize volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The mixing auger is moved up and down to assist in removal of contaminated vapors. The vapors are collected in a shroud covering the treatment area and run through a treatment unit containing a carbon filter or a catalytic oxidation unit with a wet scrubber system and a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.] (2) soil mixing with vapor extraction combined with hot air injection [This process is the same as the ambient air injection except that hot air or steam is injected.] (3) soil mixing with hydrogen peroxide injection [Contaminated soil is mixed with ambient air that contains a mist of diluted hydrogen peroxide (H{sub 2}O{sub 2}) solution. The H{sub 2}O{sub 2} solution chemically oxidizes the VOCs to carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) and water.] (4) soil mixing with grout injection for solidification/stabilization [Contaminated soil is mixed as a cement grout is injected under pressure to solidify and immobilize the contaminated soil in a concrete-like form.] The soils are mixed with a single-blade auger or with a combination of augers ranging in diameter from 3 to 12 feet.

———————————–
*Pipe Explorer System
(DOE/EM-0306) — Pipe Explorer{sup {trademark}} system. Innovative technology summary report . Oak Ridge National Lab., TN . Apr 1996 . 20p . DOE Contract AC0584OR21400 . Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE96014788. NTIS Order Number DE96014788 . Source: OSTI (DOE and DOE contractors only); NTIS (Public Sales); GPO Dep. (Depository Libraries)

The Pipe Explorer{trademark} system, developed by Science and Engineering Associates, Inc. (SEA), under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Morgantown Energy Technology Center, has been used to transport various characterizing sensors into piping systems that have been radiologically contaminated. DOE’s nuclear facility decommissioning program must characterize radiological contamination inside piping systems before the pipe can be recycled, remediated, or disposed. Historically, this has been attempted using hand-held survey instrumentation, surveying only the accessible exterior portions of pipe systems. Various measuring difficulties, and in some cases, the inability to measure threshold surface contamination values and worker exposure, and physical access constraints have limited the effectiveness of traditional survey approaches. The Pipe Explorer{trademark} system provides a viable alternative.

———————————–
*Advanced Worker Protection System
Advanced Worker Protection System . Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN (United States) . Apr 1996 . 17p . DOE Contract AC0584OR21400 . Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE96014778. NTIS Order Number DE96014778 . Source: OSTI (DOE and DOE contractors only); NTIS (Public Sales); GPO Dep. (Depository Libraries)

The Advanced Worker Protection System (AWPS) is a liquid-air-based, self-contained breathing and cooling system with a duration of 2 hrs. AWPS employs a patented system developed by Oceaneering Space Systems (OSS), and was demonstrated at their facility in Houston, TX as well as at Kansas State University, Manhattan. The heart of the system is the life-support backpack that uses liquid air to provide cooling as well as breathing gas to the worker. The backpack is combined with advanced protective garments, an advanced liquid cooling garment (LCG), a respirator, and communications and support equipment. The prototype unit development and testing under Phase 1 has demonstrated that AWPS has the ability to meet performance criteria. These criteria were developed with an understanding of both the AWPS capabilities and the DOE decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) activities protection needs.

———————————–
*Lasagna Soil Remediation
Lasagna{trademark} soil remediation . Science Applications International Corp., Gaithersburg, MD . Apr 1996 . 19p . DOE Contract AC0584OR21400 . Sup.Doc.Num. E 1.99:DE96014787. NTIS Order Number DE96014787 . Source: OSTI (DOE and DOE contractors only); NTIS (Public Sales); GPO Dep. (Depository Libraries)

Lasagna{trademark} is an integrated, in situ remediation technology being developed which remediates soils and soil pore water contaminated with soluble organic compounds. Lasagna{trademark} is especially suited to sites with low permeability soils where electroosmosis can move water faster and more uniformly than hydraulic methods, with very low power consumption. The process uses electrokinetics to move contaminants in soil pore water into treatment zones where the contaminants can be captured and decomposed. Initial focus is on trichloroethylene (TCE), a major contaminant at many DOE and industrial sites. Both vertical and horizontal configurations have been conceptualized, but fieldwork to date is more advanced for the vertical configuration. Major features of the technology are electrodes energized by direct current, which causes water and soluble contaminants to move into or through the treatment layers and also heats the soil; treatment zones containing reagents that decompose the soluble organic contaminants or adsorb contaminants for immobilization or subsequent removal and disposal; and a water management system that recycles the water that accumulates at the cathode (high pH) back to the anode (low pH) for acid-base neutralization. Alternatively, electrode polarity can be reversed periodically to reverse electroosmotic flow and neutralize pH

———————————–
*Dynamic Underground Stripping
(DOE/EM–0271) Dynamic underground stripping. Innovative technology summary report. Stone and Webster Environmental Technology and Services, Boston, MA ; Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA . Apr 1995. 30p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . DOE Contract FG34-91RF00117. Order Number DE96003566. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

Dynamic Underground Stripping (DUS) is a combination of technologies targeted to remediate soil and ground water contaminated with organic compounds. DUS is effective both above and below the water table and is especially well suited for sites with interbedded sand and clay layers. The main technologies comprising DUS are steam injection at the periphery of a contaminated area to heat permeable subsurface areas, vaporize volatile compounds bound to the soil, and drive contaminants to centrally located vacuum extraction wells; electrical heating of less permeable sediments to vaporize contaminants and drive them into the steam zone; and underground imaging such as Electrical Resistance Tomography to delineate heated areas to ensure total cleanup and process control. A full-scale demonstration was conducted on a gasoline spill site at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California from November 1992 through December 1993.

———————————–
*Frozen Soil Barrier Technology
(DOE/EM–0273) Frozen soil barrier technology. Innovative technology summary report. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN . Apr 1995. 20p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Order Number DE96003568. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

The technology of using refrigeration to freeze soils has been employed in large-scale engineering projects for a number of years. This technology bonds soils to give load-bearing strength during construction; to seal tunnels, mine shafts, and other subsurface structures against flooding from groundwater; and to stabilize soils during excavation. Examples of modern applications include several large subway, highway, and water supply tunnels. Ground freezing to form subsurface frozen soil barriers is an innovative technology designed to contain hazardous and radioactive contaminants in soils and groundwater. Frozen soil barriers that provide complete containment ({open_quotes}V{close_quotes}configuration) are formed by drilling and installing refrigerant piping (on 8-ft centers) horizontally at approximately 45{degrees} angles for sides and vertically for ends and then recirculating an environmentally safe refrigerant solution through the piping to freeze the soil porewater. Freeze plants are used to keep the containment structure at subfreezing temperatures. A full-scale containment structure was demonstrated from May 12 to October 10, 1994, at a nonhazardous site on SEG property on Gallaher Road, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

———————————–
*In Situ Bioremediation Using Horizontal Wells
(DOE/EM–0270) In situ bioremediation using horizontal wells. Innovative technology summary report. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN . Apr 1995. 30p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Order Number DE96003565. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

In Situ Bioremediation (ISB) is the term used in this report for Gaseous Nutrient Injection for In Situ Bioremediation. This process (ISB) involves injection of air and nutrients (sparging and biostimulation) into the ground water and vacuum extraction to remove Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from the vadose zone concomitant with biodegradation of the VOCs. This process is effective for remediation of soils and ground water contaminated with VOCs both above and below the water table. A full-scale demonstration of ISB was conducted as part of the Savannah River Integrated Demonstration: VOCs in Soils and Ground Water at Nonarid Sites. This demonstration was performed at the Savannah River Site from February 1992 to April 1993.

———————————–
*Resonant Sonic Drilling
(DOE/EM–0268-96003563) ResonantSonic drilling. Innovative technology summary report. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN ; Colorado Center for Environmental Management, Denver, CO . Apr 1995. 22p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . DOE Contract FG34-91RF00117. Order Number DE96003563. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

The technology of ResonantSonic drilling is described. This technique has been demonstrated and deployed as an innovative tool to access the subsurface for installation of monitoring and/or remediation wells and for collection of subsurface materials for environmental restoration applications. The technology uses no drilling fluids, is safe and can be used to drill slant holes.

———————————–
*Six Phase Soil Heating
(DOE/EM–0272) Six phase soil heating. Innovative technology summary report. Stone and Webster Environmental Technology and Services, Boston, MA ; Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA . Apr 1995. 25p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . DOE Contract FG34-91RF00117. Order Number DE96003567. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

Six Phase Soil Heating (SPSH) was developed to remediate soils contaminated with volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds. SPSH is designed to enhance the removal of contaminates from the subsurface during soil vapor extraction. The innovation combines an emerging technology, six-phase electric heating, with a baseline technology, soil vapor extraction, to produce a more efficient in situ remediation systems for difficult soil and/or contaminate applications. This document describes the technology and reports on field demonstrations conducted at Savannah River and the Hanford Reservation.

———————————–
*In Situ Air Stripping Using Horizontal Wells
(DOE/EM–0269) In situ air stripping using horizontal wells. Innovative technology summary report. Stone and Webster Environmental Technology and Services, Boston, MA ; Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA . Apr 1995. 30p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . DOE Contract FG34-91RF00117. Order Number DE96003564. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

In-situ air stripping employs horizontal wells to inject or sparge air into the ground water and vacuum extract VOC’S from vadose zone soils. The horizontal wells provide better access to the subsurface contamination, and the air sparging eliminates the need for surface ground water treatment systems and treats the subsurface in-situ. A full-scale demonstration was conducted at the Savannah River Plant in an area polluted with trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. Results are described.

———————————–
*Flameless Thermal Oxidation
(DOE/EM–0287) (DOE/EM–0287) Flameless thermal oxidation. Innovative technology summary report. USDOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Washington, DC . Sep 1995. 19p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Order Number DE96009312. Source: OSTI; NTIS; INIS; GPO Dep.

The Flameless Thermal Oxidizer (FTO) is a commercial technology offered by Thermatrix, Inc. The FTO has been demonstrated to be an effective destructive technology for process and waste stream off-gas treatment of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and in the treatment of VOC and chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) off-gases generated during site remediation using either baseline or innovative in situ environmental technologies. The FTO process efficiently converts VOCs and CVOCs to carbon dioxide, water, and hydrogen chloride. When FTO is coupled with a baseline technology, such as soil vapor extraction (SVE), an efficient in situ soil remediation system is produced. The innovation is in using a simple, reliable, scalable, and robust technology for the destruction of VOC and CVOC off-gases based on a design that generates a uniform thermal reaction zone that prevents flame propagation and efficiently oxidizes off-gases without forming products of incomplete combustion (PICs).

———————————–
*SEAMIST
(DOE/EM–0288) SEAMIST{trademark}. Innovative technology summary report. USDOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Washington, DC . Aug 1995. 23p. Sponsored by USDOE, Washington, DC . Source: OSTI; GPO Dep.

SEAMIST has been demonstrated and deployed as an innovative tool to better access the subsurface for characterization and monitoring of contaminants in both vertical and horizontal boreholes. The technology has been developed by industry with assistance from DOE’s Office of Technology Development to ensure it meets the needs of the environmental restoration market.

TECH NUGGETS

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO TECH NUGGETS 8/7/96
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 13:58:36 -0700
From: Ed Beardsworth <edbeards@batnet.com>

UFTO TECH NUGGETS 8/7/96

Powersystems World Conference:

** Powersystems World ’96 is a major conference in Las Vegas, September 7-13, covering power quality, power conversion, power electronics, alternate energy and storage and power value. It’s actually five conferences in one, including a variety of course offerings, technical sessions, and exhibits from over 200 companies. Tel 805-650-7070, fax 805-650-7054, or check out the complete program on the web at

http://www.powersystems.com

Site Characterization:

** EPA’s VendorFACTS 1.0 is a database of innovative site characterization technologies, available free on diskettes or via downloading. It contains information provided by vendors on the applicability, performance and current use of their products, including portable and transportable technologies for on-site screening, characterizing, monitoring and analysis of hazardous substances. It does not include equipment for off-site analysis or for monitoring industrial process streams.

Call 800-245-4505 or 703-883-8448

—————————————————————
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth * Consultant |
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670 |
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675 |
—————————————————————