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

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

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,
They can also provide copies free of charge.

Most of the reports are also available on line in their entirety, at

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

*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).

(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.

Reliability TF Draft “Framework”

Subject: UFTO Note – Reliability TF Draft “Framework”
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 07:37:59 -0700
From: Ed Beardsworth

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

Attached below is the first page of a revised draft of “An Organizational Framework for Bulk Electric System Reliability: Functions and Interrelationships”. This paper will be the focus of discussions at the June 3 Task Force meeting.

The entire paper is 7-12 pages (depending on font choice). I can send it as a Word attachment or in the body of an email note.

A copy will also be available at the meeting.

Draft: May 20, 1997 Task Force on Electric System Reliability



This paper presents one possible organizational framework to ensure the reliable operation of the bulk power system. It was written to provide a focal point for future discussions within the Task Force on Electric System Reliability of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The paper is based on discussions by Task Force members at their first two meetings as well as their comments on a draft of this paper. The organizational framework is, at this point, necessarily described in broad terms. This document will evolve through further Task Force discussions and will become more specific as issues and alternatives are considered and addressed.

This paper does not attempt to address whether there are sufficient legal authorities to accomplish what is proposed herein. The need for additional legal authorities will be addressed after a suitable organizational framework has been designed.

In addition, five supporting papers discuss and propose positions on some important issues that cut across the organizations proposed in this framework document.

SPIRE Visualization System Finds Data Fast

Subject: UFTO Note – SPIRE Visualization System Finds Data Fast
Date: Fri, 23 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
Spatial Paradigm for Information Retrieval and Exploration (SPIRE)

Visualization System Finds Data Fast

Some of you have seen Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL) presentations about SPIRE, for example at the Electrotechnology Conference in Tampa, April 1996. In September 1996, R&D Magazine selected this technology as one of the 100 most technologically Significant Products of the Year.

ThemeMedia, Inc., a new company, has recently licensed SPIRE for commercial development.

SPIRE is a revolutionary software-based solution to a problem facing professional and casual knowledge workers alike — information overload. It enables users to make sense of the mountains of text-based digital information bombarding them daily from media sources, on-line services, and the World Wide Web.

Through proprietary text analysis, visualization and interaction techniques, users can rapidly process textual databases and create visual maps describing the thematic contents of thousands of documents.

The result is information shown as 3-D images that seem familiar to the user — either as stars in the sky or peaks and valleys in a landscape. By interacting with the resulting visualizations, users can explore complex relationships between documents, themes and topics and quickly identify documents which are critical to their analysis.

Uses currently include such applications as intelligence analysis, legal-case preparation and medical case analysis. The technology works with almost any database – word processing files, e-mail messages, patent filings, research papers, legal transcripts, news archives, and even web sites.

ThemeMedia Inc.
8383 158th Ave N.E, 3rd Floor
Redmond, WA 98052
(425) 602-3550

(Above text adapted from

News clip from web site:
New software manages mountains of information

Steve Alexander / Star Tribune

Picture this: You are flying over an unearthly landscape where the mountain peaks are yellow, the valleys violet and the terrain has labels such as “TWA crash” and “Clinton and Whitewater.”

No, this is not a nightmare. The information landscape is created by computer software from a start-up Minneapolis company called ThemeMedia that provides a new way of organizing and looking at computerized data.

Originally developed for federal government spies, the software, called Spire, “visualizes” computer data as “Themescapes” (mountains and valleys) or “Galaxies” to help people make quicker decisions.

“Everyone is overwhelmed with information,” said Gary Smaby, a Minneapolis-based technology analyst with the Smaby Group who is chief executive officer of ThemeMedia. “This takes the fire hose and turns it into a soda straw you can drink from.”

But there’s much more to Spire than pretty pictures. The software actually reads and sorts thousands of documents using a proprietary “algorithm,” or computer code, that scans documents for “concepts” rather than words.

What that means is Spire sorts documents into categories without anyone reading them first, and that’s something experts say hasn’t been possible up to now.

Even today’s most sophisticated computer databases require a person to classify information before the database can use it.

That sounds good to Karen Moser, a senior analyst at the Aberdeen Group, a Boston computer industry market research firm.

“I know of no document management vendor whose product could automatically categorize documents without manual or human intervention,” Moser said. Current computer technology for classifying documents is based on searching for key words, not concepts, she said.

ThemeMedia licensed the Spire technology from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., which is operated by the Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus, Ohio, under a contract with the Department of Energy. The laboratory had developed the software for the U.S. intelligence community to help it deal with worldwide information gathering.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had been the focus of U.S. intelligence-gathering operations for decades, spies needed new ways to find information, said Gerald Work, associate laboratory director and a member of the ThemeMedia board of directors along with Smaby and ThemeMedia Chairman John Rollwagen, the former chairman and chief executive officer of Cray Research.

“Suddenly they were faced with the challenge of trying to look all over the world and derive information about a series of events not related to one location or one country. Therefore their intelligence-gathering went from covert sources of their own to open sources of literature — news reports, scientific journals, popular magazines and transcripts of meetings. And they challenged us to come up with a new way of looking at research and analysis when there was too much information to use the old ‘read and discard’ method.”

Seeking intelligence:
In the early 1990s, Work said, U.S. intelligence agencies used Spire to determine whether certain Middle East countries could produce a nuclear bomb. One way to find out was to locate the country that was supplying the nuclear technology. But by using Spire to read thousands of publicly available scientific documents from all over the world and sort them for related concepts, the spies found out in 20 minutes which country was supplying nuclear technology. As a result, they concluded that Middle Eastern nations could indeed build a nuclear bomb, he said.

Now that Spire is being spun off as a commercial product to ThemeMedia, it could affect the way people do research of all kinds, Work said.

“Imagine the impact on a medical researcher interested in particular disease. He or she can scan all the medical literature in the world — not just about that disease, but about other similar diseases or other treatments — then see all that data in a landscape-like view.”

Smaby said that in military applications versions of the Spire software enabled analysts with three years of experience to evaluate information with the same types of insights as 20-year veterans.

Spire scans documents for concepts, then assigns numerical values to documents that reflect the “theme” of the written material. These numerical values determine the relationships shown in the Themescape mountain fly-over view or the alternative “Galaxies” presentation, in which individual documents are shown as stars in a galaxy. Future versions of the software will automatically classify and organize audio and video clips in the same way this one handles documents, Smaby said.

Initially ThemeMedia will offer to do Spire computer processing for other companies, and later will license customer companies to use the software themselves, Smaby said. Although Spire software now runs only on high-powered Silicon Graphics or Sun Microsystems workstations, by mid-1998 it will operate on high-end personal computers running the Windows NT operating system, he said. ThemeMedia also hopes to license the technology to firms that sell databases.

Smaby’s role:
Smaby said he’ll be the CEO only for the start-up phase of ThemeMedia, whose operations and seven employees are located in Richland, Wash. As a start-up, ThemeMedia has raised about $400,000 in private venture capital, will soon seek another $400,000 and by summer may seek an additional $3 million, Smaby said.

Smaby sees the initial users of Spire as “power knowledge professionals” such as Wall Street analysts, product marketers trying to understand trends, advertising executives and newspaper reporters. It also might improve the ability of companies to track news about their competitors, he said. For example, using Spire to scan and display Internet newsgroup discussions of a competitor’s product might reveal a growing number of complaints about the product, which would be displayed on the screen as an expanding mountain.

But Moser said the demand for such a product is unknown. “The proof will be in how many users actually do this rather than just think, wow, what a great idea. The concept sounds good, but we don’t have proof of viability in the real world, and that will be the key issue for [ThemeMedia].”

DD&D Conference

Subject: UFTO Note – DD&D Conference
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:15:16 -0700
From: Ed Beardsworth

This is a follow up to the May 12 UFTO Note on Nuclear Decommissioning.

The detailed agenda for the Conference at Argonne is now available. The first page is shown below. I have an electronic copy of the whole document that I can forward on request.

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

The Fourth Annual Nuclear Decommissioning Decisionmakers’ Forum
A Monitor Publications & Forums Event
Co-sponsored by: Commonwealth Edison

Argonne National Laboratory
Executive Conference Center
Chicago, Illinois
June 24-27, 1997

Melding Government, Utilities & University DD&D Programs
. . . to Get Real World Solutions

. . . A gathering of Who’s Who in the federal & commercial decommissioning arena where one is able to raise key concerns with key decisionmakers

– James J. O’Connor, CEO and Chairman, Commonwealth Edison
– Dr. Dean Eastman, Director, Argonne National Laboratory
– Cherri Langenfeld, Manager, Chicago Operations Office – DOE
– Dr. Clyde Frank, Dpty Assist Scrtry for Sci. & Technol, DOE – EM
– Rita Bajura, Director, DOE Federal Energy Technology Center

… plus other senior utility executives and top officials from DOE, EPA, NRC; and executives from decommissioning service firms

Special On-Site Visits. . . See Actual DD&D at Argonne’s CP-5 and ComEd’s Dresden-1 Reactors. View the actual opening of the CP-5 reactor containment vessel utilizing new robotics technology


DOE Electric Reliability TF-2nd Meeting Minutes

Subject: UFTO Note – DOE Electric Reliability TF-2nd Meeting Minutes
Date: Mon, 19 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

DOE SEAB Electric Reliability Task Force-2nd Meeting Minutes

According to our contacts at DOE, the second meeting went well. The group is starting to close on some basic assumptions regarding the future of the electric power industry and on a set of basic concepts/requirements for electric system reliability. In addition, the Task Force is gaining a better understanding of the differing viewpoints of NERC, Power Marketers, and DOE on how to maintain and assure reliability.

The complete minutes are posted at

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
Task Force on Electric System Reliability

Minutes of Second Task Force Meeting March 25, 1997
Madison Hotel, Washington, D.C.

1.0 Opening Remarks and Perspectives

The second meeting of the Secretary’s Task Force on Electric System Reliability was held on March 25, 1997, in the Madison Hotel, Washington, D.C. Chairman Sharp opened the meeting at 8 a.m., noted that several new members had been added since the first meeting, and introduced those members. Following the introductions, Chairman Sharp stressed his receptiveness to advice from members at any time on how best to handle the agenda and schedule to make the best use of time. He stated his intent to try to get general consensus on a number of issues but stressed that at most some tentative conclusions might be reached at this meeting. He assured the members that they would have other opportunities to consider both the statement of the issues and the consensus Task Force position on each. He encouraged members to speak up and register their thoughts and concerns as the meeting proceeded.

Robert Hanfling, Chairman, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), was introduced by Chairman Sharp and welcomed the Task Force members on behalf of the SEAB and Secretary of Energy, Federico Peña.

2.0 Discussion of Assumptions Regarding the Future of the Electricity Industry

The Chairman thanked Dr. Theresa A. Flaim for her paper about how the electric industry is likely to evolve which proposed a division of assumptions into; A) those on which there may be emerging consensus; and, B) others. He asked that she lead the discussion of assumptions on which there may already be consensus among members. The Task Force opted to add several assumptions, including the one listed first, to better indicate its sense of priorities. There was preliminary consensus on each of the following assumptions:

Assumption #1: The reliability of the bulk electric power system will be maintained.
Comment: The reliability of the bulk electric power system must be a paramount objective in the transition to and maintenance of a competitive market. It was agreed among the members that introduction of competition should not be allowed to negatively impact the reliability of the nation’s integrated bulk electric power system.

Assumption #2: Retail customers will have their choice of supplier.
Comment: Retail customers in many states will also have the right not to choose (i.e., retain service from their existing supplier with a presumption that supplier would remain a provider of last resort).

Assumption #3: Generation can and likely will be deregulated as to price.
Comment: Although market power and transition costs were considered likely to be difficult issues, they were believed not to be closely linked to reliability.

Assumption #4: Transmission and distribution will remain regulated.
Comment: Some ancillary services may be purchased competitively on the open market.

Assumption #5: Power marketers, brokers and commodity retailers will have significant roles.
Comment: None.

Assumption #6: A reliable system will require a Regional Independent Operator (RIO).
Comment: The Task Force noted its unwillingness to use the term “ISO” because it is presently used in widely differing ways by other parties and to avoid appearing to support a particular type of institution at this time.

Assumption #7: The RIO will be a monopoly function and, thus, will need to be regulated.
Comment: This would not preclude a competitive process for acquiring RIO services or for outsourcing by the RIO for specific functions to for-profit contractors.

Assumption #8: Traditional obligation-to-serve compacts will be replaced by obligation-to- connect compacts.
Comment: None.

Assumption #9: RIO’s must not have a commercial interest in the market.
Comment: The security function must be separated completely from commercial operation of the market to avoid conflict of interest.

Assumption #10: RIOs must be able to direct and re-dispatch all generators and customers during emergencies.
Comment: However, RIOs would not necessarily need to have direct control of generation.

Assumption #11: The reliability of the bulk electric power system must be compatible with a range of reliability options for individual customers.
Comment: Customer end-use reliability should be conceptually distinguished from bulk electric power system reliability.

3.0 DOE Paper on Electric Systems Reliability Concepts

The Chairman moved to a discussion of a DOE staff paper intended to promote a better understanding of reliability by identifying basic system concepts and actions required for its attainment/maintenance. The members discussed the primary points made in the paper and reached general agreement on the following concepts:

Concept #1: Characteristics of Electric Systems
General Agreements: The Task Force generally agreed with the staff paper position as follows:

• The bulk power system needs continuous and near instantaneous balancing of generation and load.

• The transmission network is primarily passive but is becoming more active in time..e.g., FACTS.

• Any action can affect many other activities on the grid. — The activities of all players must be coordinated. However, all actions are not equally important.

• Cascading outages are unacceptable. — The physical system and the rules for its operation must minimize the likelihood of such outages.

• The need to be ready for the next credible contingency dominates the design and operation of the bulk power system.

Concept #2: Historical Design Criteria
General Agreements: The Task Force generally agreed with the staff paper position as follows:
• Generation & Transmission Adequacy — Capacity needed to maintain reliability is usually based on probabilistic analyses intended to meet a loss-of-load probability of one day in ten years.

• Generation & Transmission Security — Capacity needed to maintain reliability is based on
N-1 contingency.

Concept #3: Seven Critical Activities for A Reliable Power System
General Agreements: For the purposes of this discussion, the Task Force defined the term ‘system’ to include loads, transmission, distribution and generation and expanded the list of critical activities suggested in the DOE staff paper from five to seven. The additions are distinguished by an asterisk (*).

• Observe the network.
• Analyze and model the system.
• Communicate with operators of other systems.*
• Take control actions.
• Monitor and enforce compliance.
• Plan to expand and/or modify the system (including load management).
• Ensure incentive system for reliability.*

Concept #4: Time Scales for Reliability Maintenance.
General Agreements: The DOE staff paper pointed out that actions required to maintain system reliability take place in very different time frames, from cycles to minutes, to day ahead, to week ahead, to annual maintenance scheduling, and to several years ahead for transmission and generation planning. Each activity and its relative time frame is indicated in Table 1, shown at the end of this document.

Concept #5: Potential Restructuring Impacts
General Agreements: The Task Force generally agreed with the staff paper position that restructuring is likely to affect activities in different time frames, as follows:

• Automatic Protection — No effect
• Disturbance Response — Must consider contractual obligations
• Regulation and Voltage Control — Competitive markets will replace centralized control in selecting resources
• Economic Dispatch — Selecting units based on markets need not affect reliability
• Maintenance Scheduling — Scheduling of transmission maintenance should be under the authority of the Regional Independent Operator
• Fuel Planning — No effect
• Transmission Planning — If congestion rents can be captured, reliability constraints will be relieved. If not, there will be little incentive to take actions to relieve constraints.
• Generation Planning — Reliability will be maintained during the transition from central planning to the marketplace.
4.0 Panel Discussion and Roundtable on Policy and Institutional Issues

The Chairman moved to the next item on the agenda and introduced each of three panelists representing different perspectives on reliability and restructuring: Marc W. Chupka, DOE Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs; David R. Nevius, Vice President of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC); and, Barry N. P. Huddleston, Regional Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Destec Energy Corp. The Chairman pointed out that the panelists’ positions on each of the seven policy and institutional issues scheduled for discussion were documented in the meeting material and that, consequently, he would ask them to provide only brief introductions and then join in the Task Force roundtable discussion of each issue.

After a brief introduction by each panelist, the Chairman opened the discussion of the issues presented in the meeting material. While it is premature to consider any of the comments shown below as a conclusion or consensus by the Task Force, the following reflects some of the more notable opinions relative to each issue discussed.

Issue #1: Who should define and measure bulk power system reliability?
• Reliability standards should not be legislated.
• The institutions setting reliability standards must be separated from those responsible for measurement or enforcement.
• The composition of the institutions setting reliability standards should reflect that of the restructured industry (including customers).
• Setting and enforcing reliability standards probably will require a regulatory backstop.
• Relationships established by legislation and contracts will need to be well understood (e.g., who has enforcement responsibility? who has an appellate function?).
• In the future, reliability will need to be defined in terms of customer perspectives but customers will not be able to purchase higher reliability than is designed into the bulk electric system unless they are willing to acquire localized resources for themselves.
• Approved tariffs of the future will be required to specify the applicable standards and the consequences that will apply if they are not met.
• Compacts among states to address reliability issues may alleviate the need for intervention by the federal government at the time of an emergency.
• States certainly will want to continue to be involved to protect their constituents.
• Additional federal authority may be needed to resolve all the compliance matters.
• NEPOOL depends on regulatory agencies in six states that have a history of long standing coordination and cooperation, but they rely on FERC regulation for backstop.
• FERC only exercises jurisdiction over 60-70% of the power system. The system also involves Canada and Mexico — clearly not under FERC jurisdiction. Legislation, or the threat of legislation, will be needed.
• A broad based organization (like NERC) is the best option to define standards regarding the security of the bulk electric power system. However, the marketplace should decide on matters of adequacy.
• A region like New England that decides to join together and operate in a unified system may not need federal authority except on issues that may affect the Regional boundaries.
• Legislation may be required to clarify federal authorities, as opposed to expanding them.

The Chairman concluded this portion of the discussion and opened the floor to comments by members of the public.

5.0 Public Comment Period.

The Chair recognized Mr. Mark Lively who indicated his concerns about how the industry will function in a deregulated environment, particularly in terms of two sciences, physics and economics. He referred to NERC’s interests as those representing the science of physics and FERC’s interests the science of economics. He stressed a need to consider them jointly and to be very precise in the definitions used in the process (e.g., utilities have not had an obligation to serve, they have had an obligation to serve at a price). He questioned whether transmission needs to remain a natural monopoly.

The Chair next recognized Mr. Jose Calvo of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Mr. Calvo stressed the need to set reliability standards before problems arise…not afterwards. He indicated NRC’s interests in the possible effects of restructuring on the availability of off-site power for nuclear plants. He noted that additional on-site backup power sources may be needed at nuclear plants if backup supplies from the grid cannot be assured at all times.
6.0 Panel Discussion and Roundtable (Cont’d)

Following comments by the public, the Chairman resumed discussion of the seven issues presented in the meeting material. Again, while it is premature to consider any of the comments shown below as a conclusion or consensus by the Task Force, the following reflects some of the more notable opinions relative to each issue discussed.

Issue #2: Should a minimum capacity requirement, or reserve margin, be established for all load-serving entities?
• The Regional Independent Operator should assure that the necessary minimum reserve is available.
• If capacity reserves can be procured in the market, let the market supply them.
• The system can be operated reliably with insufficient reserves…those customers with reserves could continue to be served while those without would have service terminated.
• Customers that want to pay for 15% capacity overhang should be able to buy it — those that want 30% capacity overhang should be able to buy that — but to obtain higher reliability than the bulk system is designed for will require that customers acquire local supplies for themselves.
• The need to establish day-ahead minimum capacity requirements is clear. The issue is how far to go into the future — 6 months?–12 months?
• Another key issue is ‘who gets disconnected first?’ Those with reserves will stay connected. It is a matter of defining the rights and incentives (or penalties) of customers.
• Long term prices send signals for the investment community to build capacity and, in addition, customers are going to have contracts. The contracts will specify how much reliability customers want.
• Bulk system reliability has the characteristics of a “public good.” That is, everyone wants it. If it is obtained, everyone enjoys it whether they paid their share of its costs or not. Consequently, everyone has an incentive to avoid paying for it — which puts the good at risk.
• A basic problem: How to manage unpredictable loads while minimizing the need for installed capacity? Edicts by fiat on how much reserve capacity is needed for reliability are likely to be incorrect by a significant margin. The solution is to let the market resolve these balancing problems whenever possible.
• Legislation may be required to clarify federal authorities, as opposed to expanding them.

Issue #3: What is the appropriate use of engineering standards and markets to ensure adequate ancillary services?
• The overall presumption of this committee should be biased toward letting the market provide ancillary services …if it can. If it can’t, the Regional Independent Operator takes over. Market rules should be relied on to the maximum extent. A basic problem: Where’s the boundary? Who determines it?
• Make Regional Independent Operators responsible for providing the services but allow self-provision of ancillary services by suppliers and customers as an option.
• Let individual buyers and sellers work out their own arrangements…but assure that the Regional Independent Operator takes over in default.
• Line loading relief and re-dispatch should be a Regional Independent Operator function.

Issue #4: Who should be responsible for transmission planning, construction and maintenance?
• The issue is not who can build…but who has the capacity to collect from customers, so as to cover the costs of construction? Only a regulatory entity has the right to site.
• A regional focus for planning is essential.
• Transmission expansion does not present premium investment opportunities. There does not appear to be any way to avoid taking a regulated approach, with investment going into a rate base.
• The core issue seems to be who should be doing studies to determine whether new transmission is needed and, if so, where.
• Studies done in the 1980s on transmission siting by NGA and Keystone should be reviewed.

Issue #5: What authorities or incentives are needed to ensure that system operators will be able to compel real time actions by users of the bulk power system, when necessary, to maintain reliability?
• Additional regulatory authorities are not needed. It should be possible to design and utilize contract provisions that are capable of ensuring proper behavior by users of the bulk power system.
• Penalty-backed financial decisions could be used to force customers off the system when necessary. After-the-fact assessments of very high costs for service (e.g. $90,000/kWh) are likely to be effective.
• We need an objective, duly appointed body to say what is fair and what the standard (penalty) should be. Probably FERC.
• After-the-fact penalty assessments will assure that someone pays, but in real time someone will have already paid for whatever extra capacity is available, and that margin gives others the opportunity to “lean” on the system. We need to be careful that this sort of opportunistic behavior does not erode the system’s resilience.

Issue #6: What legal recourse should customers, other market participants, or the public have if reliability is not maintained?
• The court system permits utilities, RIOs , etc. to be sued. These entities will have to carry insurance…for which users will have to pay…somehow.
• A FERC-backed stiff penalty ($90,000/kWh) may be the answer.
• Penalties are preferable to extensive reliance on court proceedings.
• Litigation has not been effective in the Northwest.

Issue #7: What is the appropriate role for government in ensuring electric system reliability?
• FERC may be the right agency to handle oversight responsibilities, but are they equipped to handle the additional mission?
• FERC could delegate oversight responsibilities to NERC.
• Bulk power should be a federal oversight responsibility. Local reliability should be a state function.
• An industry compact could cover all sectors that are now regulated by FERC plus some areas (Canada, Mexico) that are non-FERC jurisdictional.
• States may need help in dealing with new T&D issues [EPRI has good material on this, e.g., EPRI has a power quality benchmarking capability already].

7.0 Final Public Comment

The Chairman offered a final opportunity for public comment and Mr. Mark Lively was the only commentor. He offered his opinion that, if a very large penalty ($90,000) was adopted for customers leaning on the system in the short term, the long term will take care of itself. Investors will see the opportunity and invest accordingly.

The Chairman closed the meeting by thanking the members for their participation. He advised them that the next meeting would probably be scheduled sometime in late May but would be coordinated with everyone’s schedule, and adjourned the meeting at 4 p.m.

Mr. Rich Burrow, DOE staff representative to the SEAB, suggested that Task Force members use the SEAB Home Page for information pertaining to minutes of meetings, membership, notices of future meetings, reports, etc. He announced that the Internet address of the SEAB Home Page is: http: //
Table 1:
Services Affecting Bulk Power Reliability

Service Time Scale Description
Automatic Protection Instantaneous Minimize damage to equipment and service interruptions
Disturbance Response Instantaneous-minutes-hours Adjust generation, breaker, and other transmission equipment
Regulation & Voltage Control Seconds-minutes Adjust generation to match scheduled intertie flows and actual system load
Economic Dispatch Minutes-hours Adjust committed units to maintain frequency…at minimum cost
Unit Commitment Hour ahead & week ahead Decide when to start up and shut down generating units
Maintenance Scheduling
(Long Term) 1-3 years ahead Schedule and coordinate interutility sales and planned maintenance
Fuel Planning
(Long Term) 1-5 years ahead Develop least cost fuel supplies, contracts and delivery schedules
Transmission Planning
(Long Term) 2-10 years ahead Design regional and local system additions
Generation Planning
(Long Term) 2-5 years ahead Develop mix of new units, retirements, life extensions, and repowering based on long term load forecasts

Reliability TF, 3rd Meeting Notice, June 3

Subject: UFTO Note – Reliability TF, 3rd Meeting Notice, June 3
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 13:29:09 -0700
From: Ed Beardsworth <>

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

The next meeting of the DOE Reliablility Task Force, scheduled for June 3, 1997 in Philadelphia PA, will focus on several of the key policy and institutional differences between NERC, Power Marketers and DOE.

Here is the official notice to appear in the Federal Register.

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
Notice of Open Meeting
SUMMARY: Consistent with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770), notice is hereby given of the following advisory committee meeting:
Name: Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
– Electric System Reliability Task Force
Dates and Times: Tuesday, June 3, 1997, 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM
Place: Valley Forge Hilton
Rittenhouse Ballroom
251 West Dekalb Pike
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard C. Burrow, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (AB-1), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-1709 or (202) 586-6279 (fax).


The electric power industry is in the midst of a complex transition to competition, which will induce many far-reaching changes in the structure of the industry and the institutions which regulate it. This transition raises many reliability issues, as new entities emerge in the power markets and as generation becomes less integrated with transmission.

Purpose of the Task Force
The purpose of the Electric System Reliability Task Force is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board regarding the critical institutional, technical, and policy issues that need to be addressed in order to maintain the reliability of the nation’s bulk electric system in the context of a more competitive industry.

Tentative Agenda

8:30 – 8:45 Opening Remarks & Objectives;
Philip Sharp, Chairman, Electric System Reliability Task Force
8:45 – 9:15 Presentation and Discussion:
Legal Issues Regarding FERC as a “Backstop”
9:15 – 10:15 Discussion: Role of the FERC
10:15 – 10:30 Break
10:30 – 11:45 Discussion: Role of the National
Reliability Organization (NERC and RRCs)
10:30 – 11:45 Discussion: Role of the
National Reliability Organization (NERC and RRCs)
11:45 – 12:00 Public Comment
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch
1:00 – 2:15 Discussion: Role of the Regional
Independent System Operator
2:15 – 2:30 Break
2:30 – 3:45 Discussion:
Role of States and Regional Regulatory Agencies
3:45 – 4:00 Closing remarks; Philip Sharp, Chairman,
Electric System Reliability Task Force
4:00 Adjourn

This tentative agenda is subject to change. The final agenda will be available at the meeting.

Public Participation
The Chairman of the Task Force is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will, in the Chairman’s judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of business. During its meeting in Washington, D.C. the Task Force welcomes public comment. Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up at the beginning of the meeting. The Task Force will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties. Written comments may be submitted to David Cheney, Acting Executive Director, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, AB-1, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585.

Minutes and a transcript of the meeting will be available for public review and copying approximately 30 days following the meeting at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190 Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
Issued at Washington, DC, on

Rachel Samuel
Acting Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer

Electrochemical Ozone Generator

Subject: UFTO Note – Electrochemical Ozone Generator
Date: Fri, 16 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

Electrochemical Ozone Generator

The usual method of producing ozone is by corona discharge in air. It requires auxiliary equipment to precondition the air (cooling to – 60 degrees C), it produces NOx and particulates, and it is limited to delivery of ozone at 2% concentration and atmospheric pressure. Despite these limitations, there is a rapidly growing use of ozone for laundries (hotels and hospitals especially), waste water treatment, and many other applications.

Lynntech, Inc, of College Station TX, is a multi-disciplinary technology development company established in 1990. To date, most of its revenues have come from SBIRs. The company has developed a range of new technologies which are in various stages of commercialization.

One of these new technologies is a patented electrochemical method of producing ozone, which overcomes many of the limitations described above. It introduces no impurities, requires no preparation of the air, and delivers ozone at 10-15% concentration at 30 psi or higher. Inherently simple with no moving parts, it can be scaled to very small sizes, allowing many new fields of use that aren’t practical with existing methods, including point of entry/use potable water treatment (e.g. bottled water production).

Lynntech is currently assembling pre-production units for testing by various customers. These cabinet-sized units will produce 5 pounds per day, and will be available in limited production quantities within a year. The company also has a one pound/day unit in prototype, and much smaller units are also envisioned. One patent is issued, and several more are pending.

The company is in the process of considering various options for business models to carry these developments forward, and would welcome discussions with interested parties.


Stan Simpson, 409-693-0017, fax 409-764-7479

New combustion system MERIT

Subject: UFTO Note — New combustion system MERIT
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth <>

(this is a news item, right off the web. The only additional info I could find is a brief mention on the NIRE web site..the address appears below.)
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

New combustion system MERIT has smooth burn

Nikkei English News via Individual Inc. : (Nikkei Industrial Daily, May 6, 1997)

The Agency of Industrial Science and Technology’s National Institute for Resources and Environment reports progress in the design of a next-generation combustion system dubbed MERIT, for Mediator Recirculation Integrating Technology.

MERIT combines oxidation and reduction steps to minimize energy loss and the release of polluting emissions during fuel combustion. Fuel is not burned directly, but exposed to a circulating metallic mediator.

The method is said to be as much as 10% more energy efficient than conventional combustion systems which directly burn fuel. Moreover, no nitrogen oxides are released and pure carbon dioxide is easily recovered.

In the latest development, the institute succeeded in running smooth continuous combustion reactions in a small prototype system. The next step is to design larger facilities, with the aim of eventually introducing the technology to power-generating turbines and boilers.

The prototype system comprises a pair of reaction columns connected at the top and bottom. Metal particles are exposed to air in the first column and undergo a sudden oxidation reaction, generating heat of 1,000 C.

The now-oxidized metal particles are then moved to the second column, where they mix with fuel and undergo a reduction reaction. Once reduced, they can be transferred back to the first column and oxidized again. In this way, the circulating metal particles act as a mediator for an overall combustion reaction.

In the tests, nickel was used as the metal mediator, and both the oxidation and reduction reactions were completed in less than one-tenth of a second. By circulating the nickel particles at a high enough speed it was possible to run a continuous oxidation-reduction reaction.

The challenge now is to find metals with higher durability and to develop a way to control the oxidation reaction. With these research topics in mind, the institute said it plans to work with other research institutes and private concerns to develop a practical technology.

<<Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. — 05-07-97>>
see also: