EPRI Journal Winter 2000eprijournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2000-Journal... ·...

OURNALJWINTER 2000

®

About EPRI®

EPRI creates science and technology solutions for theglobal energy and energy services industry. U.S. electricutilities established the Electric Power Research Insti-tute® in 1973 as a nonprofit research consortium for thebenefit of utility members, their customers, and society.Now known simply as EPRI, the company provides awide range of innovative products and services to morethan 1000 energy-related organizations in 40 countries.EPRI’s multidisciplinary team of scientists and engi-neers draws on a worldwide network of technical andbusiness expertise to help solve today’s toughest energyand environmental problems.

EPRI. Electrify the WorldSM

Staff and Contributors

DAVID DIETRICH, Editor-in-Chief

TAYLOR MOORE, Senior Feature Writer

SUSAN DOLDER, Senior Technical Editor

MARTHA LOVETTE, Senior Production Editor

DEBRA MANEGOLD, Typographer

KATHY MARTY, Art Consultant

BRENT BARKER, Manager, Corporate Communications

MARK GABRIEL, Vice President, Global Marketing and Strategic Planning

Address correspondence to:Editor-in-ChiefEPRI JournalP.O. Box 10412Palo Alto, CA 94303

The EPRI Journal is published quarterly. For informa-tion on subscriptions and permissions, call 650-855-2300 or fax 650-855-2900. Please include the codenumber from your mailing label with inquiries aboutyour subscription.

Visit EPRI’s Web site at http://www.epri.com.

For further information about EPRI, call the EPRICustomer Assistance Center at 800-313-3774 or 650-855-2121 and press 4, or e-mail [email protected].

© 2000 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rightsreserved. Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and EPRI Jour-nal are registered service marks of the Electric Power ResearchInstitute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service markof the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

COVER: Atmospheric mercury that ends up in lakes and otheraquatic environments is passed up the food chain from plank-ton to small fish to larger fish, where it can accumulate. (Art by Rob Barber)

OURNALJ ®

1000909

EDITORIAL

2 Closing in on “Living Silver”

COVER STORY

8 Mercury’s Pathways to Fish

The EPA has identified critical uncertainties that must be resolved

before the United States can adopt mercury management practices

with predictable outcomes. EPRI is leading the effort to resolve these

issues through multidisciplinary studies of mercury cycling in the

environment.

FEATURES

18 Power for a Digital Society

Today’s microprocessor-based digital economy is increasingly calling

for ultrahigh power quality—a level of reliability that the nation’s

power delivery infrastructure is not yet able to provide.

26 Hybrid EVs: Making the Grid Connection

Although commercially available hybrid electric vehicles offer better

fuel economy and lower emissions than conventional cars, EPRI has

launched an initiative to develop grid-connected hybrids that will

come much closer to the ideal of a true EV.

DEPARTMENTS

3 Contributors

4 Products

6 Discovery

34 In the Field

LISTINGS

36 Technical Reports and Software

39 EPRI Events

40 2000 Journal Index

V O L U M E 2 5 , N U M B E R 4 W I N T E R 2 0 0 0

OURNALJ

8 Mercury research

26 Hybrid EVs

18 Digital power

2 EPRI JOURNAL Winter 2000

Editorial

It was known to the ancient Greeks as hydrargyros,

“liquid silver,” and to Imperial Rome as argentum

vivum, “living silver.” These days, mercury is per-

haps best remembered as the silvery plaything of

high school lab wonks—a substance extracted from

mercuric oxide stored high on shelves in dark brown

glass jars. But this fascinating element, which is

found naturally and ubiquitously in the earth’s crust,

is a poison to the human nervous system and may

alter other functions in both developing fetuses and

mature adults. It most commonly finds its way into

the human organism as monomethylmercury, formed

by sulfur-reducing bacteria in some freshwater sys-

tems, taken up by plankton and then fish, and finally

ingested by predator mammals, eagles and other rap-

tors, or human anglers.

The scientific questions surrounding mercury and

its effects on human health have been with us for cen-

turies, but they were focused sharply with the discovery

in the 1950s of severe poisoning among fishing villag-

ers in Minamata, Japan, and later in the larger city of

Niigata. Thousands died from the extreme amounts

of mercury received in those cases. However, dose esti-

mates for those high exposures were not made until

years after the exposures occurred, leaving many un-

certainties regarding the manifestation of mercury-

induced effects among adults and particularly among

children exposed to mercury while in their mothers’

wombs. The exposed children who survived have been

followed since the 1970s by physicians at the Institute

for Minamata Disease. The physicians are looking for

signs of adult-onset neurological or other effects as in-

dications of the disease.

Mercury levels potentially faced by U.S. fish con-

sumers are hundreds to thousands of times lower than

those in the Japanese cases. However, there is still sub-

stantial uncertainty about what levels can be consid-

ered safe, as well as about the sources of atmospheric

mercury and how the substance cycles through the

environment. Researchers are now zeroing in on some

quantitative answers to these questions. For example,

measurements from aircraft by EPRI researchers this

past summer demonstrated that forest fires and wild-

fires may be a significant pathway for mercury con-

tained in surface deposits to enter the atmosphere. At

the same time, an international field team in Ontario,

jointly supported by EPRI and by Canadian and U.S.

agencies, is following mercury tracers through a lake

watershed to determine how long it might take the

mercury levels in fish in such lakes to drop if mercury

emissions from power plants or other sources were

reduced significantly.

In the most important studies under way, EPRI and

many other institutions are working to determine the

true threshold levels at which mercury affects child-

hood development. Several long-term studies of moth-

ers and children around the world who have been ex-

posed to mercury via fish consumption are continuing

or being reevaluated. In one such study, researchers are

examining the validity of developmental tests used in

international studies by assessing the test performance

of U.S. children already known to be developmentally

challenged. This work will make it possible to calibrate

the sensitivity of the test instruments to yield consis-

tent findings worldwide.

These and many other scientific studies are leading

to a deeper understanding of where mercury in the

environment originates, how it is released and then

cycles among aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric set-

tings, and how it reaches the fish and marine life we

consume. The importance of this work will ultimately

be judged by its contributions to clarifying key prac-

tical issues: how much of a threat to human health

mercury poses, what populations are exposed at the

levels of concern, and how mercury emissions manage-

ment can be tailored to allow us to measure and assess

any resulting benefits.

Leonard Levin, Program Manager

Air Toxics Health and Risk Assessment

Closing in on “Living Silver”

Winter 2000 EPRI JOURNAL 3

Contributors

Mercury’s Pathways to Fish (page 8) was written

by Norva Shick, science writer, with technical assis-

tance from Leonard Levin, Paul Chu, and Richard

Carlton of EPRI’s Science and Technology Develop-

ment Division.

LEONARD LEVIN, program manager for air toxics

health and risk assessment, came to EPRI in 1986

after six years as a senior scientist

at Woodward-Clyde Consultants.

Before that, he worked at Science

Applications International and as

the director of physical sciences

programs for EA Engineering, Sci-

ence, and Technology. He has a BS degree in earth,

atmospheric, and planetary sciences from the Massa-

chusetts Institute of Technology, an MS in atmo-

spheric sciences from the University of Washington,

and a PhD in meteorology from the University of

Maryland.

PAUL CHU manages research on toxic substances,

including field studies to characterize air toxics emis-

sions from power plants. Before

joining EPRI in 1992, he was a re-

search engineer for five years at

Babcock & Wilcox, where he was

involved in various development

projects related to the removal of

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates from

flue gas. Chu has a BS in chemical engineering from

the University of Arkansas and an MS in chemical en-

gineering from the University of Texas.

RICHARD CARLTON is manager for quantitative

ecology, biogeochemistry, and aquatic toxics, with

a special focus on biogeochemical

processes in lake and marine sedi-

ments. Before coming to EPRI in

1997, he taught biological sciences

for seven years at the University of

Notre Dame. He has also taught at

Michigan State University’s Center for Microbial Ecol-

ogy and lectured at the University of Aarhus in Den-

mark. Carlton holds a BS in limnology and an MS in

ecology from the University of California at Davis and

a PhD in zoology from Michigan State University.

Power for a Digital Society (page 18) was written

by John Douglas, science writer, with technical assis-

tance from Karl Stahlkopf of the Science and Tech-

nology Development Division.

KARL STAHLKOPF is vice president for power

delivery. He joined EPRI in 1973 as a project man-

ager and went on to hold a number of increasingly

responsible positions. Many of his

assignments have involved work

with international utility consortia,

government and private partner-

ships, and new technology ventures.

Earlier in his career, Stahlkopf

spent seven years in the U.S. Navy, where he special-

ized in nuclear propulsion. He holds BS degrees in

electrical engineering and naval science from the

University of Wisconsin at Madison and MS and

PhD degrees in engineering from the University of

California at Berkeley.

Hybrid EVs: Making the Grid Connection (page

26) was written by Taylor Moore, Journal senior fea-

ture writer, with technical assistance from Robert

Graham of the Retail Product Sector.

ROBERT GRAHAM, leader of technology develop-

ment for the transportation and mass markets and

commercial product lines, focuses on the implemen-

tation of next-generation tech-

nology development projects. Be-

fore joining EPRI in March 1999,

he worked for Northrop Grumman

Corporation as director of its pro-

gram on advanced-technology

transit buses. Graham received a BS degree with an

interscience major from Hampden-Sydney College

in Virginia, and he also earned an MBA degree from

Pepperdine University.


ProductsDeliverables now available to EPRI members and customers

Waste Logic FastTrack 2000

U tility managers for low-level radioactive waste pro-cessing need reliable tracking and trending data in

order to efficiently monitor the performance of their sys-tems. EPRI developed the Waste Logic™ FastTrack 2000software for collecting such data for liquid waste sys-ems. This personal computer–based tool is an advancedcomponent of EPRI’s Waste Logic suite of programs,which enable processing managers to track chemistry,operating parameters, plant events, and system informa-tion for greater control over operating costs and performance. Waste Logic FastTrack2000 also provides processing managerswith analyses, data, and graphics for use in management presentations and can pro-duce output in a variety of report formats.� For more information, contact Sean

Bushart, [email protected], 650-855-

2978. To order the software (AP-114520),

call EPRI Customer Service, 800-313-3774.

Pump Troubleshooting Guide

S ince pumps are an integral part of many systems in nuclear power plants,the ability to accurately diagnose and troubleshoot pump problems is vital

to plant maintenance, engineering, and operating staffs. Volume 1 of thisNuclear Maintenance Applications Center guide describes the research andexperience of the late Dr. Elemer Makay, a world-renowned expert in the field ofpump design, operation, and troubleshooting. Volume 2, developed with inputfrom utility and industry experts on power plant pumps, discusses the practicalapplication of many of the principles set forth in the first volume. It describesthe use of basic pump diagnosticinformation and presentsguidelines to assist personnelof all types and with variouslevels of experience—fromthe new systems engineer tothe veteran pump mechanic.� For more information, contact

Michael Pugh, [email protected],

704-547-6004. To order the guide

(TR-114612-V1 and -V2), call

EPRI Customer Service, 800-313-3774.

CO

URT

ESY

PAC

IFIC

GA

S A

ND

ELE

CTR

IC

Substation Life Extension Guidelines

The CD-ROM version of a new report to help substation owners and opera-tors meet cost, performance, and reliability goals is flying off the shelves.

Guidelines for the Life Extension of Substations: 2000 Update provides the latestinformation on equipment maintenance practices, condition assessment tech-niques, and decision-making methods for equipment replacement and refurbish-ment. Incorporating the experience of utility, consulting, and equipment engi-neers, the revised guidelines cover such new topics as SF6 handling anddetection, switch and circuit breaker lubrication, reliability-centered mainte-

nance, bushing failure modes, leak mitigation, loadtap changer coking, corona camera technology,surge arrestor monitors, and substation automation.The updated CD-ROM, available in both Windowsand Macintosh formats, features enhanced searchcapabilities and hyperlinks that make it easier andfaster to research specific topics.� For more information, contact Steve Eckroad, seckroad

@epri.com, 650-855-1066. To order the report on CD-

ROM (1000032) or in a loose-leaf binder (1000031),

call EPRI Customer Service, 800-313-3774.


Risk Manager and Related Tools

P art of the EPRI Energy Book System, the RiskManager software is designed to help users

manage businesses in the power and energy mar-kets. It is intended for use with one or more of thesystem’s other software products: Contract Evalua-tor, a tool for valuing, pricing, and hedging con-tracts in wholesale energy markets; Retail ProductMix, a tool for designing profitable retail energy ser-vice offerings; and Generation Asset Evaluator andProject Evaluator, tools for managing fossil-fired generation assets. Applyingmethods of derivative asset valuation, the Energy Book System programs esti-mate the market value of energy resources and explicitly account for uncer-tainty in the underlying markets. Risk Manager assesses portfolio exposureto commodity markets and customer loads, evaluates overall portfolio risk interms of cash flow or value, and assists in the design of portfolio risk man-agement programs. The Energy Book System can meet the quantitative needsof individual units within a company as well as the company’s overall riskassessment and management needs.� For more information, contact Art Altman, [email protected], 650-855-8740. To

order Risk Manager (AP-113198-P1R2) or other products in the Energy Book Sys-

tem, call EPRI Customer Service, 800-313-3774.


DiscoveryBasic science and innovative engineering at the cutting edge

MGP Sites Yield Possible New Cancer Clues

M edical science has known for morethan 200 years, from observations

of chimney sweeps, that skin contact withcoal soot and creosote is linked to a highincidence of skin cancers and other derma-tological disorders. In the first quarter ofthe twentieth century, researchers foundthat coal tar and residues of other sub-stances that had been heated to high tem-peratures induced skin tumors in animals.Scientists came to associate the tumor-causing activity with one or more mem-bers of the class of chemicals known aspolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).In the 1930s, a known skin tumor agent—benzo[a]pyrene (BaP)—was isolated fromcoal tar. Since then, hundreds of PAHcompounds have been synthesized andtested.

The basic method of identifying cancer-causing chemicals has changed little fromthe time BaP was discovered. Data from

mouse skin assays dominate the extensivescientific literature on cancer causation byPAHs. For regulatory purposes, however,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyprefers the use of animal data from life-time feeding studies to identify carcino-gens and determine their potency (a mea-sure of tumor incidence as a function ofthe dose of an administered carcinogen).

BaP plays an important role as a surro-

gate for estimating the potency of envi-ronmental PAHs, which are always foundas complex mixtures. One such mixture isthe coal tar and residue found at the for-mer sites of some 1500 U.S. manufacturedgas plants (MGPs), which produced gasfrom coal for lighting, heating, and cook-ing in the nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies. EPRI and the utility industryhave conducted extensive work over thepast 20 years to assess and remediateenvironmental hazards at these sites andto better understand the toxicology ofcoal tar.

The EPA currently calculates BaP po-tency on the basis of data from two ani-mal studies, neither of which was under-taken specifically to establish potency ormade use of the lifetime feeding studyprotocol. One study combined data fromgroups of mice given different dose levelsand assumed a linear increase in tumorincidence, and the other study combinedunrelated tumors.

Because of the shortcomings in thesestudies for regulatory purposes, EPRIentered into a cooperative R&D agree-ment with the U.S. Food and Drug Ad-ministration (FDA) to develop new infor-mation about the potency of BaP. UsingEPA-preferred methods, a team led by sci-entists at the National Center for Toxico-logical Research (NCTR) conducted atwo-year feeding study. The study com-pared the tumorigenicity of two coal tarmixtures known to contain BaP—one acomposite of tar from seven MGP sites—with that of BaP alone. This comparisonmade it possible to determine whether thetumor-causing potential of coal tar, a mix-ture in which up to 10,000 compoundsmay be present, could be predicted fromthe concentration of a single tumorigeniccomponent.

The NCTR researchers, led by DavidGaylor, calculated the BaP potency fac-tor for humans to be 1.2 per milligramper kilogram of body weight, which is

approximately one-sixth of the potencyfactor (7.3) listed in the EPA’s IntegratedRisk Information System, or IRIS, data-base. Values presented in this database arean integral element in human health riskassessments at both federal and state levels.

Larry Goldstein, who manages EPRI’scontaminated sites health and risk target,points out that the potency factor for BaPinfluences the potency factors for othercancer-causing PAHs, since those factorswere derived from studies in which thecompounds’ cancer-causing effects werecompared directly with BaP’s. “The potencyfactor for BaP derived from the FDA-EPRIstudy would reduce the potency factor foreach of the seven priority cancer-causingPAH compounds by a factor of 6,” saysGoldstein. Because the cancer hazard riskof so many MGP sites is influenced byPAHs, it is particularly important that therisk be evaluated appropriately. Goldsteinnotes that on the basis of data from theFDA-EPRI study, a group of experts con-cluded that the “carcinogenicity of coaltars cannot be fully accounted for by BaP.”

If not BaP, then what?If BaP does not fully account for the car-cinogenicity of coal tars, how can the risk that they pose to human health beestimated? A recent discovery by anEPRI-sponsored team of scientists led byEric Weyand at Rutgers University sug-gests an alternative to BaP for evaluatingthe health risk of PAH compounds.

It is generally accepted that tumor for-mation by PAHs is due in part to the forma-tion of DNA adducts, a specific type ofcellular damage. The Rutgers researchersreported earlier this year that a PAH noton the EPA priority list is likely to beresponsible for significant DNA adductformation in the lung, the most sensitiveorgan for tumor induction in mice fedwith coal tar. The compound is 7H-benzo[c]fluorene, which had not pre-viously been implicated in cancer out-

H2C

7H-benzo[c]fluorene


comes in mice or any other species. Wey-and and his colleagues are currentlyattempting to determine whether 7H-benzo[c]fluorene—alone, in the presenceof other PAH components of coal tar, orin the presence of coal tar itself—induceslung tumors in mice. “The results willhave obvious implications for risk asses-sors now evaluating MGP sites on thebasis of BaP,” says Goldstein.

Recent work by Weyand and his Rut-gers colleagues addressed the question ofwhether the lungs of mice fed differentcoal tars and coal tar–contaminated soilshave damage caused by BaP and 7H-benzo[c]fluorene. Although the presenceof 7H-benzo[c]fluorene in coal tar or coaltar–contaminated soils cannot be estab-lished by using conventional gas chroma-tography–mass spectrometry, its presencecan be inferred from the formation of aDNA adduct specifically associated with it.

On this basis, 7H-benzo[c]fluorene wasfound in all the samples impacted by coaltar and in coal tar itself. The compound’spresence in soil samples from actual sitesindicates that natural processes that act toremove or degrade 7H-benzo[c]fluorenehave not completely eliminated it. Thepresence of the 7H-benzo[c]fluorene-derived DNA adducts suggests that thecompound is extracted from impacted soilfollowing ingestion. In contrast, BaP inimpacted soil and even in coal tar maynot result in detectable adducts followingingestion. “Taken together, these datamay indicate that 7H-benzo[c]fluorenemay be more bioavailable and more impor-tant in health outcomes than BaP, whoserole in coal tar–induced tumor formationis now in question,” says Goldstein.

Implications for utilities and societyResults from EPRI’s innovative, high-risk research on the role of BaP and 7H-benzo[c]fluorene in the potential cancerhazard at contaminated former MGP siteshave major implications for utilities and

for society in general. The results come ata time when increasing resources are beingdirected both at eliminating environmen-tal sources of cancer risk and at achievingscientific breakthroughs in understandingthe causes, formation, prevention, andtreatment of cancer.

At former MGP sites, soil accounts forthe majority of impacted material. Theconcentration of PAHs in soil is likely tobe much lower than the concentration ofPAHs in source materials. But given themethods now used by federal and stateregulators—methods based on BaP con-tent—the estimated risk to human healthfor much of the impacted soil at theseformer MGP sites may exceed acceptablelevels for residential and, occasionally,commercial land use.

In fact, the calculated allowable level of BaP is close to or sometimes lower than the background level in the areasurrounding a site. Continuing to use BaP as the basis for site managementdecisions increases the likelihood thatcleanups to or below ambient levels maybe required even though BaP may con-tribute little to coal tar–induced cancers.“Continuing to rely on BaP as a basis forsite management is, at best, question-able,” says Goldstein.

“Although we still lack evidence that7H-benzo[c]fluorene causes tumors, itscapacity to effectively form DNA adductsis consistent with such a role,” Goldstein

points out. “Results from studies to ad-dress this directly are forthcoming, butthe studies were not designed to derive apotency factor. Thus 7H-benzo[c]fluorenemay provide an alternative to BaP formaking site management decisions, butits actual role in risk assessment remainsto be established.”

Goldstein notes that the scientific com-munity is only beginning to comprehendthe potential role of 7H-benzo[c]fluorenein cancer incidence. If that PAH is foundto cause tumors, it will be vital to estab-lish how individuals may be exposed to it and what the relative contribution ofsuch exposures is to overall PAH expo-sure. Although 7H-benzo[c]fluorene is in coal tar, it has also been detected incigarette smoke and in cooked food, twosources that are likely to contribute signif-icantly to overall body burdens. “A com-prehensive program to fully understandthe role of this new candidate carcinogenis warranted,” concludes Goldstein.

Further reading

Identifying Potential Cancer Hazards at ContaminatedSites. EPRI. September 2000. Technical Brief 1000791.

Koganti, A., et al.“7H-benzo[c]fluorene: A Major DNAAdduct–Forming Component of Coal Tar.” Carcino-genesis, Vol. 21, No. 8 (2000), pp. 1601–1609.

Culp, S. J., et al.“A Comparison of the Tumors Induced by Coal Tar and Benzo[a]pyrene in a 2-Year Bioassay.”Carcinogenesis, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1998), pp. 117–124.

� For more information, contact Larry Gold-

stein, [email protected], 650-855-2725.

Former MGP site

Mercury’s Mercury’s by Norva Shickby Norva Shick

Pathways to FishPathways to Fish


The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency has stated that by Decem-ber 15, 2000, it will decide whetherto regulate hazardous air pollu-

tant (HAP) emissions from electric utilitysteam-generating power plants. In essence,that date is decision day for mercury—oneof the 189 substances listed as HAPs in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Con-gress determined that these so-called airtoxics pose potential risks to public healthand charged the EPA with further inves-tigation. In 1997 the agency reported toCongress “a plausible link between anthro-pogenic releases of mercury from indus-trial and combustion sources in the U.S.and methylmercury in fish,” and in 1998 itsaid, “Based on available information andcurrent analyses, the EPA believes that mer-cury from coal-fired utilities is the HAP ofgreatest potential concern and merits addi-tional research and monitoring.” Regula-tions cutting mercury emissions from med-ical waste incinerators and from municipaland hazardous waste combustors are al-ready in place.

The EPA is concerned about emissionsfrom coal-fired generating plants becauseburning coal releases trace amounts ofmercury that persist in the environment.Although mercury may transform fromone chemical species to another, it doesnot degrade or disappear. In lakes andwetlands, it may transform to methylmer-cury—an organic form that is consideredmore toxic than other forms and that ac-cumulates in fish muscle tissue and en-ters the bodies of people who eat the fish.Methylmercury is a neurotoxin, and thosemost at risk for brain and nervous systemdamage are fetuses whose mothers eatlarge amounts of high-methylmercury fishduring pregnancy. Hence, mercury is onthe EPA’s list of persistent bioaccumulativetoxic chemicals, and industries must re-port environmental releases of mercuryabove 10 pounds (4.5 kg) per year to theagency for its Toxics Release Inventory(TRI). Electric generating companies be-gan this documentation for the TRI re-porting year 1999.

The EPA’s goal, if it decides to regulateutility mercury emissions, will be to lowerthe potential for human ingestion of mer-

cury by reducing methylmercury concen-trations in fish. But no one knows howthese concentrations will be affected byemissions reductions or whether it is pos-sible to achieve any significant public healthbenefit at reasonable cost to electric powergenerators who burn coal. If the relation-ship between mercury released by powerplants and methylmercury in fish were asimple one, then decreasing plant emis-sions might solve the problem of too muchmethylmercury in fish. Unfortunately, therelationship appears to be highly complex.As noted by the EPA in its 1998 report toCongress, the quantitative nature of the re-lationship between power plant emissionsand fish methylmercury remains a key un-certainty that must be resolved before theUnited States can adopt mercury manage-ment practices with predictable outcomes.

At stake are billions of dollars in mer-cury control costs annually, with estimatesranging from $2 billion (EPA, 1999) to $6billion (Edison Electric Institute, 1997).Some industry observers predict that mer-cury emissions will decline without spe-cific regulatory intervention as old coal-fired plants are retired, natural gas growsas a fuel of choice, and existing facilitiesinstall additional equipment to meet thecurrent provisions of the Clean Air ActAmendments for controlling sulfur diox-ide and nitrogen oxides. In the meantime,“what makes the most sense in this wholedebate,” says David Michaud, principal en-vironmental scientist at Wisconsin Elec-tric Power Company, “is to ask, how do weget from today to the future using coal andour other resources to the best practicaladvantage? We’re in a global economy. Isit cost-effective to spend billions of dollarsin the energy supply and services area forwhat may be small changes in methyl-mercury levels in fish?”

EPRI has provided input to the mercurydebate from the beginning. In the 1980s,well before the passage of the Clean AirAct Amendments, EPRI realized the urgentneed to study mercury in the environmentand established a mercury research pro-gram. Before the EPA began preparing itsreports to Congress on mercury and otherHAPs from electric utility plants, EPRI wasissuing comprehensive reports on work that

applied consistent analytical procedures tocollect accurate data sets (which were sub-sequently shared with the EPA). In severalcase studies, EPRI found that the amountof methylmercury in lake fish that mightcome from nearby power plants was wellbelow the amount the EPA says people maytake into their bodies without harmingtheir health.

EPRI’s reports supported the EPA’s ef-forts to understand utility mercury re-leases in a context relevant to policymak-ing. Indeed, a hallmark of EPRI’s programhas been to share its results and cooperatewith many other stakeholders. It partici-pates in joint mercury studies with a num-ber of agencies—including the EPA, theU.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S.Food and Drug Administration—as wellas with Canada and other countries.

In its 1998 report to Congress, the EPAidentified critical uncertainties that makeit difficult to quantify health risks due toutility mercury emissions. The agency willbe making its regulatory determination onor before December 15 with many of theseuncertainties still unresolved. In its 1999draft mercury research strategy, the EPAexplicitly notes that EPRI work to be per-formed over the next several years is partof its plan to resolve these uncertainties.

If the EPA decides to regulate utilitymercury emissions, there will be severalmore years for power generators and otherstakeholders to perform studies of mer-cury management, including detailed costanalyses. According to anticipated sched-ules, a proposed rulemaking would be dueDecember 15, 2003, with a final rulemak-ing following a year later. Implementationof the regulations would begin in 2007.

Once the decision-making deadline haspassed, two critical issues affecting the de-tails of mercury management will remain,according to Leonard Levin, head of EPRI’sair toxics health and risk assessment pro-gram. One critical issue is understandingmercury cycling through air and water sothat it is possible to predict how quicklychanges in mercury source emissions willappear in receiving waters and fish. This isimportant for discussions about strategiesfor managing mercury, says Levin, “sincethe results of any management strategy


should be clear and demonstrable healthbenefits.”

The second critical issue is understand-ing source attribution—that is, determin-ing how well mercury in particular water-ways and resident fish can be tied to

particular sources and source categories.Here it is essential to study the backgroundmercury that is already present in naturalsystems and continues to be mobilized inthe environment. Background mercury—which is either a naturally occurring com-

ponent of soil, water, and plants or alegacy of human activities like mining—apparently plays a large role in determin-ing mercury concentrations and deposi-tion rates in the United States. “It’s criticalto have a clear view of all the sources, in-cluding these background sources andother poorly quantified human sources ofmercury. Trying to do source attributionwithout a thorough understanding of allthe sources is impossible,” Levin declares.Accurate source attribution will make ef-fective mercury reduction feasible by iden-tifying the right sources to control.

Work on the first critical issue, under-standing mercury cycling in the environ-ment, was a cornerstone of EPRI’s originalmercury research program and continuesat a sophisticated level today. Over the past20 years, EPRI has developed models topredict where mercury goes in the envi-ronment. These include three models thattogether describe mercury’s movementthrough the air to its final destination onthe ground: a global-scale chemical trans-port model (CTM), the regional-scale TraceElement Analysis Model (TEAM), and thelocal-scale Total Risk of Utility Emissions(TRUE) model. Another EPRI model, theMercury Cycling Model (MCM), describesmercury’s movement through water, in-cluding its methylation and the transfer of methylmercury through the food chain.In order to obtain accurate predictionsfrom these models, EPRI has provided themost current and comprehensive inputdata. It also has made extensive measure-ments of mercury in the environment andof methylmercury in fish for comparisonwith model predictions.

Mercury cycling in airIn its most comprehensive assessment ofmercury cycling in air, EPRI modeled mer-cury deposition both on a global scale andon a regional scale. According to global-scale model predictions for 1998, easternAsia and the northwestern Pacific Oceanreceived the most mercury returning tothe earth in rain and snow (wet deposi-tion). This mercury came from all conti-nents, and the deposition pattern reflectedthe fact that emissions from Asia accountedfor about half of all releases due to global

In EPRI modeling of mercury deposition for 1998, global-scale predictions (top) showed thatthe eastern half of the United States received a substantial amount of its mercury in rain andsnow. This mercury came from all continents, with Asia contributing about half of the mercuryreleased by human activities worldwide. Regional-scale predictions (bottom) showed the dis-tribution of total deposition in detail. The regional-scale predictions were based on releasesfrom North American sources—with boundary conditions set by global modeling—and agreedreasonably well with measurements taken at Mercury Deposition Network stations locatedacross the country.


human activities. The eastern half of theUnited States also received a substantialamount of global mercury in rain andsnow. It is apparent that sources outsidethe United States contribute to mercurydeposition within the country. As for mer-cury returning to the earth by turbulenceand gravity (dry deposition), the simula-tion found that mercury generally fell nearareas where human activities released it in large amounts—for example, Asia, Eu-rope, South Africa, and the eastern UnitedStates. The model predictions agreed rea-sonably well with actual measurementsmade by 11 laboratories at Mace Head onthe western coast of Ireland during Sep-tember 1998.

In an interesting test of the globalCTM’s sensitivity, EPRI reduced the mod-eled Asian industrial emissions of mercuryby 50% and ran the simulation again. Thistime, areas in Wisconsin and Florida re-ceived about 10% less mercury, solely as a result of the Asian reductions; areas ofTexas experienced a decrease in depositionof more than 20%. Deposition to well-studied lakes in these areas is importantbecause it will be a key input to EPRI’s

MCM in future research to predict methyl-mercury levels in fish.

Since U.S. activities accounted for abouta fifth of global emissions in the originalsimulation, it is clear that reducing mer-cury from U.S. industry solves only part ofthe mercury management problem. Indeed,some scientists think that considering nat-ural releases must also be a part of any ef-fective mercury reduction strategy.

To model mercury deposition on a finerscale within the continental United States,EPRI used TEAM inside boundaries de-fined by the global CTM. TEAM calculatesmercury deposition inside the cells of a100-kilometer grid, which is about eighttimes as fine as the grid used by the globalmodel. TEAM’s finer grid allows the influ-ence of local and regional sources to beseen. In the EPRI simulation of 1998 de-position, the northeastern United Statesreceived the most mercury. Regions withheavy precipitation, such as the easternstates, northeastern Minnesota, and west-ern Washington and Oregon, experiencedconsiderable wet deposition—especiallyareas with local mercury sources, such asiron-roasting sites in Minnesota. Again,

dry deposition followed the patterns of in-dustrial activity.

TEAM predictions of atmospheric con-centrations of mercury near the earth’ssurface agreed reasonably well with mea-surements taken at Mercury DepositionNetwork (MDN) stations, which are oper-ated under the National Atmospheric De-position Program. It is noteworthy thatTEAM predicted a smaller range of sur-face concentrations in Florida than thosemeasured at MDN stations there. Floridapresents a unique problem for TEAM andother simulation tools because sources(such as waste incinerators and cementkilns) and receptors (such as lakes) arepacked so closely together on the penin-sula that the model’s 100-kilometer resolu-tion cannot reproduce local impacts. Forthis reason, researchers may need to turnto models with finer resolution, such asEPRI’s TRUE model.

It is tempting to draw conclusions aboutareas of the United States experiencing themost mercury deposition and about sourcescontributing to that deposition. However,such conclusions would be premature. AsLevin notes, modelers don’t have all theinput they need to attribute mercury de-position to particular sources or sourcecategories. To acquire part of that informa-tion, EPRI is improving its inventory ofnatural releases by measuring mercuryspecies lofted into the air when biomassburns in forest fires. Canadian and U.S.researchers are using an aircraft-borneanalyzer that makes these measurementsautomatically.

Furthermore, the various-scale CTMsneed refinement. The EPRI simulation as-sumed a uniform distribution of ozoneacross the United States, but scientistsknow that ozone is actually higher on theEast Coast. Since ozone reacts with ele-mental mercury in the air to form oxidizedmercury, which deposits to the ground,the East Coast may have more mercury de-position than this study showed.

Of course, the output of CTMs is onlyas good as their input. To improve model-ing accuracy, EPRI made a thorough evalu-ation of 1999 mercury emissions from U.S.coal-fired power plants. Working closelywith the EPA to analyze data submitted in

Hg(II) CH3Hg

Hg(0)

Volatilization

Hg(II)depositionand runoff

Sedimentation

CH3Hgdepositionand runoff

Sedimentation

Predatoryfish

Smallfish

Zoo-plankton

Phyto-plankton

Reduction Demethylation

Methylation

Volatilization

Mercury entering lakes—by direct surface deposition or terrestrial runoff—typically includeselemental mercury, Hg(0); oxidized mercury, Hg(II); and extremely small amounts of methyl-mercury, CH3Hg. Most lake methylmercury, however, is produced when anaerobic bacteria inthe water and sediments methylate oxidized mercury through a metabolic process. Methyl-mercury is bioaccumulated by plankton and other organisms and then passed up the foodchain to fish, where it also concentrates. While this diagram represents major processes in theaquatic mercury cycle, the overall cycle is complex and cannot be generalized for all lakes.

ROB

FITZ

SIM

MO

NS


response to the agency’s mercury Informa-tion Collection Request (ICR), EPRI criti-cally examined the results of some 40,000coal analyses and numerous flue gas mea-surements from 84 representative plants.

To predict mercury emissions, it is im-portant to know the chloride content ofcoal as well as its mercury content, sincechlorine reacts with elemental mercuryduring combustion to form oxidized mer-cury—which, in units having sulfur diox-ide scrubbers, is effectively removed bythat equipment. It is also important toquantify the various mercury species emit-ted in flue gas because they take differentdeposition paths. Oxidized mercury dis-solves in airborne moisture and depositsrelatively close to its source in rain andsnow, while most elemental mercury trav-els around the globe and remains aloft forabout a year before it oxidizes and de-posits to the ground over a wider region.Mercury also adsorbs to particles of ash ordust to become particulate mercury, whichgravity or turbulence pulls down to theearth.

With the ICR data in hand, EPRI devel-oped—for each of 12 categories of controltechnology—a set of correlations relating

the mercury in power plant feed coal to themercury leaving plant stacks. Using thesecorrelations as well as information aboutpower plant configurations and the totalamount of coal burned in 1999, the re-searchers then calculated total and speci-ated mercury emissions for all 1128 coal-fired units in operation that year. Of the 41 metric tons of mercury released, theyfound that 58% was elemental, 41% wasoxidized, and 1% was particulate. In otherwords, more than half of the mercury re-leased by U.S. coal-fired power plants isthe type—elemental mercury—that entersthe global cycle and returns to the earthfar from its source. “In general, what we’reseeing for the 1999 emissions is relativelyconsistent with EPRI’s 1990 estimates,”notes Paul Chu, the EPRI manager whodirected this phase ofthe work.

EPRI also updatedits North Americanmercury emissions in-ventory to include re-leases from human ac-tivities and naturalsources in the parts ofCanada and Mexico

that influence the United States, and it re-vised similar inventories for other conti-nents when new information was avail-able. All emissions were speciated on thebasis of current knowledge, with thosefrom natural sources considered to be ele-mental mercury. Of the calculated 2300metric tons of mercury released annuallyby human activities around the globe, 49%came from Asia, and 6% came from theUnited States; 2% was attributed to U.S.coal-fired power plants.

Regional relationshipsAlthough specifying the contribution ofglobal mercury to deposition across theUnited States is essential, it is as importantto focus on regional relationships. In 1997,for instance, EPRI coupled TEAM with a

regional version of MCM to pre-dict methylmercury levels in fishin eight lakes. On the basis ofmercury deposition input fromTEAM, MCM predicted methyl-mercury levels in six fish species.The predictions showed statisti-cally significant agreement withmeasured levels of methylmer-cury in the fish.

Regional relationships are thesubject of EPA pilot studies on to-tal maximum daily load (TMDL)being conducted at Devil’s Lakein Wisconsin and at Water Con-servation Area 3A in the FloridaEverglades. Both sites are classi-fied by the EPA as impaired wa-

Field measurements of actual mercury deposition are importantfor validating and refining models of mercury cycling in the en-vironment. But tracing this deposition back to likely emissionssources is extremely complicated, requiring the consideration ofbackground sources—releases from soil and plants, for example—as well as current industrial emissions. The release of mercury from soils is monitored in Nevada.

A controlled forest burn in northern Canada releases mercuryfrom biomass.

Mercury deposition is mea-sured in the Everglades.

ters and have advisories warning anglersabout high levels of methylmercury intheir fish. These sites and others like themmust comply with state water quality stan-dards, and the EPA wants to help states de-velop compliance procedures.

The standard compliance procedure de-fines an allowable TMDL for a given chem-ical in a body of water and then allocatesthat load (with a margin of safety) amongthe state-regulated sources—such as watertreatment plants—that release chemicalsdirectly into the water. However, tracechemicals like mercury may arrive mainlyby air. The EPA hopes to use regionalmodels to simulate a range of mercury de-position to waterways and MCM to showthe impacts of the various levels of deposi-tion on water quality and resident fish.With this information in hand, states will

be able to predict the reductions in mer-cury deposition needed to meet their wa-ter quality standards. Learning how toachieve those reductions will depend onfurther investigation to identify distantsources that release mercury into the air.Basic technical support and a critical re-view of source-receptor modeling for thesestudies are being provided by EPRI, withfunding from stakeholders in the coal,iron, and steel industries as well as frompower generators.

EPRI also is helping plan an interna-tional study to determine the fate of mer-cury released by coal-fired power plantsaround Lake Superior and the effects ofthis mercury on the lake and surroundingwatershed. Lake Superior, one of theworld’s largest freshwater lakes, coversnearly 3800 square miles (9840 km2). In

contrast, Devil’s Lake covers 2.6 squaremiles (6.7 km2) and Water ConservationArea 3A covers 700 square miles (1810km2). Yet for all three, researchers are ask-ing the same basic questions about re-gional relationships.

Some parts of the ambitious Lake Supe-rior basin program, which is funded byEPRI, the EPA, and DOE, are already inplace. Power generators in Minnesota,Wisconsin, Michigan, and the Canadianprovince of Ontario have measured fluegas mercury released from their facilities.EPRI has collected speciated emissionsdata from Wisconsin Electric’s Presque Isleplant on the south shore of Lake Superiorand from Minnesota Power’s Clay Boswellplant near Cohasset, Minnesota. Also, bymonitoring mercury at a downwind sam-pling site in Isle Royale National Park, re-


number of national and interna-tional health advisory boards haveestablished levels of exposure tomethylmercury that they con-

sider to be safe. These safe levels vary sig-nificantly among institutions. The EPA hasset 0.1 microgram per kilogram of bodyweight per day as a safe level of exposure.This level, or reference dose, takes bodyweight into account to protect fetuses andchildren as well as adults. It is based onconservative assumptions designed to safe-guard the health of society’s most vulnera-ble members—fetuses whose mothers eatlarge amounts of high-methylmercury fishduring pregnancy.

When the EPA set its current referencedose, the only scientific information avail-able about methylmercury’s effects camefrom poisoning episodes very unlike U.S.citizens’ exposure to the chemical in fishin their diet. Now, results from two studiesof island populations who eat substantialamounts of fish are available, and the EPAplans to redefine its reference dose on thebasis of this new information. The studieslooked at two groups of mothers and chil-dren—one group living in the Faroe Is-lands north of Scotland and the other in

the Seychelles, a nation of islands off thecoast of eastern Africa. In both studies, re-searchers monitored mercury levels in themothers during pregnancy and tested thechildren for neurological problems anddevelopmental delays after birth.

The mothers in the Faroe Islands studyate fish that were relatively low in methyl-mercury, and they periodically feasted onfreshly caught pilot whales known to con-tain high levels of polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs) in their blubber as well asmethylmercury in their meat. The Faroesechildren were tested once at age seven.Those whose mothers had shown high lev-els of mercury at the time of birth scoredlower than less-exposed children on lan-guage, attention, and memory tests; theyalso had higher blood pressure readings.

The mothers in the Seychelles study atefish that, compared with U.S. fish, werevery high in methylmercury, and their chil-dren have been tested at intervals begin-ning at six months of age. In the carefullychosen set of motor, sensory, and cognitivetests, the highly exposed children haveshown no effects of methylmercury incomparison with their less-exposed peers.Results from the testing at 9 years of age

will be available shortly. The children willcontinue to be tested through age 11.

In reviewing these studies at the EPA’srequest, the U.S. National Academy of Sci-ences found both to be methodologicallysound, but it recommended that the EPAbase its revised reference dose on resultsfrom the Faroe Islands study. If followedby the agency, this course of action willproduce a reference dose identical to theone currently in place. However, concernpersists that the Faroese mothers’ feastingon pilot whales, which periodically ex-poses them to large doses of PCBs andother persistent organic pollutants, couldbe confounding the mercury results—es-pecially since these pollutants and methyl-mercury are likely to have similar effectson developing nervous systems.

In its report, the academy commendedan EPRI physiologically based pharmaco-kinetic (PBPK) model for reducing uncer-tainty about the methylmercury dose toimportant organs when mothers eat fish.The PBPK model accounts for individualdifferences in body response to methyl-mercury and calculates the dose to bothmother and fetus. EPRI is using the modelto determine the most accurate measure ofmethylmercury exposure during the criti-cal phase of prenatal development. (Mer-cury concentrations in maternal hair and

How Much Is Too Much?

A

searchers have learned how stack emis-sions from Ontario Hydro’s Thunder Bayplant disperse into the Lake Superiorbasin. Finally, EPRI has modified a dy-namic version of MCM to fit the complexwater circulation patterns of the lake.

Mercury cycling in water“I think the big problems are understand-ing methylation and—particularly—link-ing deposition to methylation,” says DonPorcella, international expert on mercuryin the environment and retired manager ofEPRI’s mercury research program. “We’regoing to get at this linkage in EPRI’s workon METAALICUS.” He is referring to theMercury Experiment to Assess AtmosphericLoading in Canada and the United States.This collaborative effort is the first directtest of the hypothesis that changing mer-

cury input to a lake will proportionatelychange methylmercury levels in fish livingthere. According to Porcella, the key to in-vestigating this issue was in finding an in-genious experimental approach.

The elegant design of METAALICUSdepends on the fact that researchers canuse several stable nonradioactive isotopesof oxidized mercury. These isotopes areforms of mercury with similar chemicalbehavior but different atomic weights.Three such isotopes will be used to tracemercury through the entire ecosystem ofLake 658, a small freshwater lake in anisolated region of southwestern Ontarioprovince. One isotope will be deposited onthe lake’s surface, and researchers will de-termine how fast it appears in lake water,sediments, and food chain participants,including fish. Measuring levels of the iso-

tope at various points along this pathwaywill show how much deposited mercurymethylates and how much accumulates infish. Depositing a second isotope on wa-tershed wetlands and a third isotope onuplands away from the lake’s surface willreveal the relative importance of thesepathways in conveying deposited mercuryto resident fish.

The isotopes will be deposited to thelake and its watershed packaged as sea-sonal rain or snow. All told, the amount ofmercury added—about one-half teaspoonover the five-year study—will result in adeposition rate four to five times the back-ground rate established for the lake. Thiselevated rate is approximately the rate ofwet deposition in northeastern and northcentral U.S. watersheds. In two years ofpreliminary work, researchers have veri-


fied their ability to detect the isotopic mercury additions and have defined base-line levels of mercury and methylmercurythroughout the watershed. The full-scalestudy will begin in 2001 and last threeyears.

One question METAALICUS will ad-dress is whether fish respond mainly to

mercury of recent deposition (“new” mer-cury) or mercury stored in sediments andsoils (“old” mercury). If the new isotopicmercury dominates, then changing mer-cury deposition rates should alter methyl-mercury concentrations in fish relativelyquickly. Conversely, if the old mercurydominates, fish will respond slowly. In any

event, it is difficult to predict the timescaleof response.

The other, very important questionMETAALICUS will address is whether therelationship between mercury depositionand fish methylmercury is linear or morecomplex. The full-scale experiment willprovide two points on the response curve—

Sampling fish for mercury analysis

Introducing mercury tracers into the watershed

METAALICUS, an international study cofunded by EPRI, is the firstdirect test of the hypothesis that changing mercury input to a lakewill proportionately change methylmercury levels in fish livingthere. In the study, minute amounts of three nonradioactive mercuryisotopes will be deposited on or near Lake 658, a small, isolatedresearch lake in southwestern Ontario. Researchers will trace theseisotopes through the lake’s entire ecosystem—as well as conductexperiments in areas of a nearby lake, using structures called limno-corrals—to identify mercury’s chemical and biological pathways anddetermine how quickly changes occur.

Lake 658

Limnocorrals


before and after increasing the rate of iso-topic mercury deposition. An ingenious pi-lot experiment now in progress will add a few more points to the curve and in-crease certainty about its shape. For thispilot effort, researchers have installed fourso-called limnocorrals in a nearby lakesimilar to Lake 658 and are applying inter-mediate amounts of a single mercury iso-tope inside three of them, reserving thefourth as a control.

Each limnocorral is an open cylindricalstructure, made of flexible vinyl, whosetop is above water and whose bottom isembedded in the lake sediments. Each cre-ates an isolated minilake, 10 meters in di-ameter and about 2–3 meters deep, withthe same characteristics as the surround-ing lake water except that large fish areexcluded. “There is no top carnivore thatfeeds on smaller fish. In such a limitedspace, carnivorous fish would consume allthe other fish we need to measure,” pointsout Rick Carlton, EPRI manager on theMETAALICUS team. “Our top fish eatszooplankton.” The limnocorrals are iso-lated from watershed influences, so theexperiment will reveal only the effects ofdirect deposition to the lake’s surface.

The version of MCM currently beingused to analyze data from Lake 658 as-sumes a linear relationship between mer-cury deposition and fish methylmercury.EPRI will apply results from METAALI-CUS to refine the model and improve itspower to predict methylmercury levels infish under mercury reduction scenarios.

The METAALICUS study team includesleading mercury researchers from theUnited States and Canada. Funding for the $6 million project is being provided byEPRI, the EPA, DOE, the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, the Wisconsin Department of Nat-ural Resources, and Canadian governmentagencies.

Answers in the near term Tracing mercury’s pathways to fish is acomplex problem, and EPRI is attacking it with parallel, multidisciplinary studiesfor a faster solution. Within two to threeyears, EPRI’s work will provide key infor-mation needed to quantify the relationshipbetween U.S. coal-fired power plant mer-

cury emissions and methylmercury levelsin fish in North American lakes.

Commenting on EPRI’s use of models tomake predictions and its complementarycollection of mercury measurements to re-fine the models, David Michaud of Wis-consin Electric says, “I think the modelsand the approach EPRI is using provide uswith the most reliable ideas of what the re-sponse to mercury reduction might looklike.” And in testimony before a subcom-mittee of the U.S. Senate Committee onEnvironment and Public Works, LeonardLevin stated, “It is clear that these studies,when complete, will better inform any de-liberations about the need for, and focusof, mercury management decisions.” �

Further reading

Assessment of Mercury Emissions, Transport, Fate, and Cy-cling for the Continental United States: Model Descriptionand Evaluation. EPRI. December 2000. Report 1000522.

An Assessment of Mercury Emissions From U.S. Coal-FiredPower Plants. EPRI. October 2000. Report 1000608.

Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. National AcademyPress, Washington, D.C. July 2000.

Mercury Sorbent Effectiveness and Cost: An EPRI Synopsis.EPRI. 1999. Report SP-113805.

Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From ElectricUtility Steam Generating Units—Final Report to Congress.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1998.EPA-453/R-98-004.

Mercury Study Report to Congress. U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency. 1997. EPA-452/R-97-005.

Background information for this article was providedby Leonard Levin ([email protected]), Paul Chu ([email protected]), Rick Carlton ([email protected]), JaniceYager ([email protected]), George Offen ([email protected]), and Ramsay Chang ([email protected]).

Options for Control

P rudent mercury management will balance the benefits of reducing emissionsto target levels with the costs of the required control options. In compiling its1999 emissions inventory for U.S. coal-fired power plants, EPRI found that

existing sulfur dioxide scrubbers and particulate controls remove mercury: on av-erage, the levels of mercury emitted by plants with this equipment were about 40% lower than the mercury levels in the plants’ feed coal. However, reductions atindividual plants may differ significantly from this average. EPRI is studying con-trol technologies, their efficiencies, their costs, and their impact on combustion by-product use and disposal for in-dividual power plants with vari-ous operating characteristics anddesigns.

A wide range of potential op-tions for mercury managementare under consideration. Theseoptions include enhancing ex-isting technologies (for exam-ple, converting elemental mer-cury in flue gas to oxidizedmercury for removal by sulfurdioxide scrubbers); adapting technologies used in other industries (for example, in-jecting activated carbon sorbent into the postcombustion pathway); and developingnovel concepts for mercury control. EPRI is evaluating the performance and cost ofcommercially available sorbents for power plant flue gas and is experimenting withlower-cost sorbent materials.

Full-scale demonstrations of mercury control technologies at individual powerplants are just getting under way, cosponsored by EPRI and DOE. “I would like toencourage EPRI’s members to open their plants and their wallets over the next threeyears to help understand what it takes to control mercury,” says David Michaud,principal environmental scientist at Wisconsin Electric Power Company. “Unless wesee more and varied plants participating, we’re not going to have the information weneed to show the EPA the benefits of a flexible regulatory approach.” �

Measuring mercury in flue gas

Power for a DigitalPower for a Digital

T h e S t o r y i n B r i e f

The proliferation of power-sensitive digital

technology poses new challenges for the

planners and operators of the North

American power delivery system: how to provide

enough electricity to meet unexpectedly high

demand, and how to ensure that the quality of

power is adequate for a microprocessor-based

economy. EPRI has responded to these challenges

by launching two national programs. The Power

Delivery Reliability Initiative, now finishing its

first year, focuses on immediate steps that can

be taken to improve the reliability of utility net-

works. The Consortium for Electric Infrastructure

to Support a Digital Society, set to begin opera-

tion in January 2001, is concerned with finding

long-range solutions to reliability problems and

involves not only utilities but also equipment

manufacturers and end-users.

SocietySociety

b y J o h n D o u g l a s


Just at a time when consumers are de-manding a higher level of power reli-ability to keep their sensitive elec-tronic equipment running smoothly,the ability to deliver the “digitalquality” electricity they need is being

severely challenged. Transmission line ad-ditions are not keeping up with the expo-nentially increasing volume of wholesalepower transactions. Many urban distribu-tion systems have aging infrastructures,whose vulnerability has been exposed by aseries of expensive, highly publicized out-ages. Industry restructuring has not yetoffered sufficient financial incentives toattract the capital investment necessary forimproving the reliability of power deliverynetworks. Neither digital equipment man-ufacturers nor users are sure what level ofreliability they can expect “at the plug”and whether there will be enough ride-through capability for the equipment. Avariety of small power generation and en-ergy storage units entering the marketcould help improve reliability for individ-ual customers, but these units—known asdistributed resources (DR)—could also cre-ate new problems for the utility grids towhich they are connected.

Meeting these complex challenges re-quires a focused national research and de-velopment effort, one involving not onlyelectric utilities but also major groups ofcustomers and manufacturers and eventu-ally government agencies. EPRI has re-sponded to this situation by launching abold, two-phase plan to mobilize all stake-holders in a unified effort to improve over-all power delivery system reliability—fromgenerator to end-user—in the most cost-effective manner. The plan’s first phase,called the Power Delivery Reliability Ini-tiative, is already under way and is focusedon making immediate, clearly needed im-provements in utility transmission anddistribution systems. The plan’s secondphase will begin early in 2001 with thelaunching of the Consortium for ElectricInfrastructure to Support a Digital Society(CEIDS), a broadly based effort to findlong-term solutions to the challenges ofreliability.

“Even at this early stage, one thing isabundantly clear: we can’t solve all relia-

bility problems by trying to gold-plate thegrid,” says Karl Stahlkopf, EPRI vice presi-dent for power delivery. “A combination oftechnologies, applied at various levels ofthe power system, will be needed. Someimprovements are best made at the end-use level; for example, adding a large ca-pacitor to a computer circuit board couldenable the computer to ride through a mo-mentary outage. Other improvements arebest applied on power delivery systems,and we’re already working on several ofthose. EPRI is providing the leadershipnecessary to coordinate reliability enhance-ment on a national scale by bringing to-gether all the concerned parties.”

The rise of the digital economyThe digitization of the global economy israpidly entering its third phase. First camecomputers, which revolutionized informa-tion processing and fundamentally trans-formed the way most businesses operate.Next, as the cost of microprocessorsplunged, individual silicon chips began toappear in all sorts of unexpected places—from phones to car brakes. This embed-ded-processor phase of digitization hasprogressed to the point that for every chipin a computer, 30 more are deployed instand-alone applications.

In phase three, computers and micro-processors are being linked into networks,a trend seen most clearly in the explosivegrowth of electronic commerce. There arecurrently more than a million Web sites onthe Internet, potentially available to some200 million computers around the world.As a result, Internet-based commerce al-ready represents about 2% of the Ameri-can gross domestic product, and by the endof next year, the revenues from e-commerceare expected to exceed those of the entireU.S. electric power industry.

Networked information technology(IT) systems are believed to be exerting ahighly leveraged influence on U.S. produc-tivity growth as well. The United Stateshas invested more than $1 trillion in ITequipment in the past 5 years, a period in which U.S. productivity surged after 30years of subpar growth (about 1% a year).While productivity growth is still highlyconcentrated in the information indus-

tries, it is expected to continue to spreadto other parts of the economy. For exam-ple, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Fed-eral Reserve Board, believes that the effi-ciency gains of electronic commerce couldlead to a drop in overall product invento-ries of $250 billion to $300 billion a year—a reduction of as much as 30% in the coun-try’s inventory levels.

Computers, the Internet, fiber optics,and wireless communications—just someof the technologies underlying the digitalrevolution—will also transform the use ofelectricity in the new millennium. Ad-vances will include Web-connected house-hold appliances, smart houses, advancedautomated manufacturing, self-diagnosingand self-repairing equipment, and real-time, off-site process control.

In the digital economy, there will be anew level of involvement in energy mar-kets. Customers will have access to a net-work of information on energy availabil-ity, prices, and assets. Digital connectionswill enable all market players to be linkedthrough instantaneous communications,opening up the possibility for new andmore creative relationships between buy-ers and sellers. Consumers will use theInternet to select and pay for customizedenergy services in the new, deregulated en-ergy markets.

Still, as inevitable as this emerging digi-tal future seems, its success depends onthe reliability of its power supply back-bone. The proliferation of networked dig-ital technology poses two challenges forthose who must supply the necessary elec-tric power—quantity and quality. Together,microprocessors and the equipment theycontrol have helped stimulate growth inelectricity demand well beyond previousexpectations. Information technology it-self now accounts for an estimated 13% of electricity consumption in the UnitedStates, and some industry observers be-lieve the IT share may grow to as much as50% by 2020. Even given the uncertaintyin this extreme estimate, it is clear that IT-related electricity use is growing rapidlyand could conceivably eclipse analog powerneeds in a few years.

Moreover, the amount of electricity useddirectly for computers and other digitalPH

OTO

ILLU

STRA

TIO

N P

AG

ES 1

8–19

BY

MA

RTH

A L

OVE

TTE


devices represents only the tip of the ice-berg: virtually all the commercial and in-dustrial equipment controlled by micro-processors also requires electricity. Thus,digitization has increased the electrifica-tion of the economy. More than 80% of thegrowth in total U.S. energy demand since1990 has been met by electric power, andwithin 25 years electricity is expected toaccount for more than half of the energyconsumed in most industrial nations.

The demand for higher-quality electric-ity has also become critical. An unpro-tected microprocessor will malfunction ifpower is interrupted for even a single accycle—one-sixtieth of a second. On an an-nual basis, this means electricity must beavailable 99.9999999% of the time; that is,it must have what is called 9-nines relia-bility. Since the average reliability of deliv-ered power is only about 3 nines (99.9%),additional measures are required to pre-

vent malfunctions of computers and oth-er microprocessor-based equipment. Suchmalfunctions can be expensive. At a steel-rolling mill, for example, plate thickness iscontrolled by microprocessors. Even abrief interruption can cause rollers to getout of alignment, making it necessary toremelt the product. Similarly, computerfailure at a paper mill can create a messthat requires two work shifts to clean up.

Need for a national effortThe challenges just described come at atime of rapid change for the U.S. electricpower industry—especially for the powerdelivery system. Federal deregulation hasopened utility transmission networks foruse by third parties, resulting in a greatlyincreased volume of bulk power transac-tions and a host of new wholesale marketplayers. Meanwhile, most states are con-sidering ways to increase competition in

retail markets and provide customers withgreater choice among electricity providers.

Grid expansion and upgrades, however,have not kept up with the new demandsbrought by deregulation. Most transmis-sion and distribution systems were de-signed more than half a century ago, whenlong-distance power transfer was usedmainly for economic exchange among afew utilities and when the reliability re-quirements of distribution systems weremuch less rigorous than in today’s digitaleconomy. So far, the needed improvementsin both capacity and reliability have notbeen made. During the last decade, for ex-ample, total electricity demand in the U.S.rose by nearly 30%, but the nation’s trans-mission network grew by only 15%. Overthe same period, expenditures by investor-owned utilities for distribution systemconstruction fell by about 10% in realterms. The outlook for the next decade is

The urgency of the power reliability challenge is intensifiedby the unrelenting pace of the technologies driving the de-velopment of the digital society. These technologies—in-cluding microchips, networks, the Internet, and broadband

communications—will increasingly require electric power reli-ability at the 9-nines (99.9999999%) level.

Microchips The computing power of microchips contin-ues to double about every 18 months (as postulated in Moore’slaw), and there is no end in sight. Today’s silicon chips are 1 billion times smaller, cheaper, and more powerful than theirpredecessors of the 1950s. Looking ahead, Arno Penzias, aNobel Prize winner and the former chiefscientist and vice president of Bell Labs, says, “We can expect a million-fold increasein the power of microprocessors in the nextfew decades, yielding computers more pow-erful than today’s workstations for about theprice of a postage stamp and in postagestamp quantities.” Low-end, single-functionmicroprocessors—already referred to as jellybeans in the trade because they can be pro-duced as easily and cheaply as candy—willeventually be embedded into every appli-ance, tool, and product. The billions of mi-crochips in operation around the world to-day are likely to become trillions within afew decades.

Networks A network is made up of two ingredients, nodesand interconnections, and its value grows in proportion to theirnumber. In the case of digital networks, the individual nodes—the microprocessors—are exponentially shrinking in size andexpanding in power, while the interconnections, both wiredand wireless, are exploding in terms of connectivity, speed, andcapacity. These developments are accelerating at such a ratethat over the next few decades we will effectively be connectingeverything to everything.

Internet Starting from scratch in the early 1990s, the Inter-net now boasts an estimated 200 million users, most of them inthe high-tech regions of the world. Global Internet traffic isdoubling about every three months, and by 2025 more than

3 billion people (nearly half the planet’spopulation) are expected to be communi-cating and doing business via the Web.

Broadband communications Capa-bilities for interconnection and communi-cation among microprocessors and com-puters are growing at least as fast as, if notfaster than, computing power itself. The to-tal bandwidth of communications systemsis expected to triple every 12 months (Gild-er’s law). Global voice traffic—1000 timesgreater than global data traffic in 1998—isexpected to be only one-tenth of data traf-fic by 2005. Some analysts predict that by2008 two-thirds of all U.S. households willhave high-speed data capacity. �

A Race With the Digital Future


even worse: demand is expected to growby 20%, but planned transmission systemgrowth is only 3.5%.

The effects of the lag between demandand infrastructure investment are alreadybeing felt. In four of the past five years, the United States has faced serious relia-bility problems. In August 1996, voltagedisturbances cascaded through the WestCoast transmission system, causing wide-spread blackouts that cost California alonemore than $1 billion. In June 1998, trans-mission system constraints disrupted thewholesale power market in the Midwest,with prices per megawatthour rising froman average of $30 to peaks as high as$10,000. Similar service curtailments andprice spikes occurred in the summers of1999 and 2000. Distribution system weak-nesses have also become apparent, as ma-jor local blackouts have affected custom-ers around the country—sometimes withlong-term consequences. For example, theAugust 1999 outage that affected busi-nesses and government offices in Chicago’sdowntown South Loop district promptedthe city’s utility, Commonwealth Edison,to launch a $1.5 billion distribution sys-tem upgrade program.

Clearly, the productivity of the Ameri-can economy is more and more dependenton power reliability, but the delivery gridcan no longer supply electricity that meetsthe reliability needs of a growing propor-tion of customers. Addressing this prob-lem will require the concerted effort andcommitment of resources from a variety ofstakeholders, including the electric powerindustry, equipment manufacturers, gov-ernment agencies, and major consumersof the highest-quality electricity.

Taking the initiative on reliability The first step in creating such a nationalendeavor came in January 2000, with theformation of EPRI’s Power Delivery Relia-bility Initiative. This two-year effort is fo-cused on determining the root causes ofrecent reliability problems and on identi-fying ways to provide immediate improve-ment. The initiative is being conducted by EPRI in coordination with the NorthAmerican Electric Reliability Council andis funded entirely by private participants,which currently include more than 40utilities. In addition to helping improvethe nation’s power delivery system for thebenefit of the whole industry, initiative

participants gain access to informationand technology they can use right away tostrengthen their own networks.

One of the first tasks of the initiative’stransmission portion has been to developsoftware tools that security coordinatorsand system operators can use immediatelyto reduce the probability and potential im-pact of regional power disturbances. Twoof these tools were delivered in June 2000and were used during the summer to en-hance overall system reliability.

The Real-Time Security Data Display(RSDD) software provides operators witha bird’s-eye view of transmission reliabilityover a large region—as large as the entireNorth American grid. Previously, securitydata were displayed mainly for individualcontrol areas. RSDD shows voltage valuesand voltage limits for about 300 criticalbuses, selected from all three major inter-connections (Eastern, Western, and Texas);a color code indicates whether any voltageis dropping below safe levels. In addition,the direction and amount of power flow inmegawatts are displayed for about 50 so-called flowgates in the Eastern Interconnec-tion. Each flowgate represents a critical lineor set of lines needing close monitoring.

The Tag Dump software provides oper-ators with aggregated schedules of whole-sale power transactions between controlareas. Regional security coordinators canuse this information to determine morereliably whether particular flowgates arelikely to become overloaded. If so, a coor-dinator can order certain transactions tobe curtailed. Tag Dump automatically con-solidates the data needed by a coordinatoror an operator to optimize power flowthroughout a region for the next severalhours or the next day. Planners also canuse the Tag Dump software to develop sce-narios of severe transfer patterns for fur-ther study.

Another major task of the reliability ini-tiative’s transmission program is to con-duct a new type of reliability analysis of theNorth American interconnections. Con-ventional reliability assessments use de-terministic techniques that calculate theeffects of losing critical transmission cir-cuit elements. Each such potential loss is known as a contingency. The problem

Developed in cooperation with NERC, EPRI’s Real-Time Security Data Display software allowssecurity coordinators and control area operators to view national transmission grid maps onwhich bus voltages and power flows on critical lines are superimposed.


with this approachis that it does nottake into account ei-ther the likelihoodor the severity of individualcontingencies. As a result,deterministic techniques canlead to inefficient, overly con-servative system operation.The new reliability assess-ment method, called proba-bilistic risk assessment (PRA),identifies the failure modeswith the most severe conse-quences and then weightsthem according to how likelythey are to occur. Using thePRA approach, planners can explicitly de-termine the trade-offs involved in operat-ing their system beyond certain limits.Such knowledge will eventually help op-erators understand how best to respondwhen a system starts to get overloaded.

The PRA methodology developed forthe reliability initiative has so far under-gone two beta tests, which have led to sev-eral enhancements. Currently, it is beingapplied to the Eastern Interconnection; areport on the results is due in February2001. Analyses of the PRA results for allthe interconnections will lead to recom-mendations for operational changes to im-prove overall system security and relia-bility. In addition, technical measures forstrengthening specific transmission or gen-eration systems may be proposed to elimi-nate or manage bottlenecks.

In contrast to transmission networks,individual utility distribution systems dif-fer significantly from one another in archi-tecture, equipment, and operating proce-dures. As a result, it is not cost-effective toapply probabilistic techniques to distribu-tion system reliability analysis. Therefore,

deterministic methods are being used toanalyze representative distribution systemsand identify generic weaknesses. Each dis-tribution system assessment will addressequipment conditions, available marginsfor load growth, maintenance techniques,

system adequacy for meeting various op-erating conditions, human factors perfor-mance, and root causes of recent systemoutages.

Distribution system assessments havebeen completed for Commonwealth Edi-son, Consolidated Edison of New York,and Duquesne Light. An assessment atDuke Power is under way, and information

gathered in a previously con-ducted assessment at PublicService Electric and Gas is be-ing reviewed. Although the as-sessment results have variedwidely from utility to utility,some general findings haveemerged. For example, main-tenance practices need to berevised, system monitoringand protection enhanced, andcable systems reinforced towithstand heavy loads duringparticular weather conditions.

The assessment results willbe used to develop a self-assessment template that in-dividual utilities can employ

to determine the reliability of their owndistribution systems. Specifically, the tem-plate will enable a utility to compare itssystem with systems having similar weatherconditions and types of equipment. Forexample, if a utility is concerned about

System Voltage Risk = 0.027System Overload Risk = 2.480System Voltage Stability Risk = 0.000Total System Risk = 2.508

System Voltage Risk = 0.027No. of Buses 1943Normalized System Voltage Risk = 0.0000141System Overload Risk = 2.480No. of Branches 2467Normalized System Overload Risk = 0.0010054

Beta tests conducted by Southern Company Services and EPRI of a new probabilistic riskassessment methodology demonstrated how PRA can be used to compute relative risk valuesand identify transmission bottlenecks. This diagram shows the four zones with the highestannual voltage risk (circles) and the four zones with the highest overload risk (hexagons) inthe Southern Control Area of the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council.

EPRI’s Tag Dump soft-ware displays aggre-gated schedules ofwholesale powertransactions betweencontrol areas, help-ing users to reliablydetermine whetherparticular flowgatesare likely to becomeoverloaded.


what relay settings to use for transformerloading in anticipation of four days of90°F (32°C) temperatures and 80% hu-midity, it can see how other utilities setthose parameters and learn what is con-sidered best practice under such circum-stances. The self-assessment template willbe available to initiative participants inFebruary 2001.

CEIDS: broadening the effortThe second phase of the national effort toensure power for a digital society will of-ficially begin in January 2001 with thelaunching of CEIDS. Already, however, apreliminary study of reliability needs isunder way, and a tentative program tomeet those needs through advanced tech-nologies is being designed. CEIDS willhave a much broader membership thanthe reliability initiative; as well as utilities,it will include equipment manufacturersand representatives of industrial groups(for example, high-tech companies) thatare particularly sensitive to power reliabil-ity. CEIDS will also have broader goals, fo-cusing not only on how to improve utilitypower delivery systems but also on how tointegrate DR into the power grid and howto provide end-use equipment with an ap-propriate level of built-in protection.

Meeting these goals will require theadoption of separate strategies for improv-ing the reliability of transmission systems,distribution systems, and end-use prod-ucts. Each strategy will rely heavily on theuse of new technologies, but there will beimportant choices to make about how bestto apply the technologies. A major task ofCEIDS will be to determine which combi-nation of technologies is likely to be mostcost-effective in optimizing reliability. Op-timization planning must take into ac-count the differing needs of diverse cus-tomers. For example, power quality can besignificantly improved by adding backupgeneration or power-conditioning equip-ment at the site of use, and many largemanufacturers with sensitive equipmenthave already invested in such customizedsolutions. However, these sophisticatedadd-ons are often too expensive for smalland medium-size customers, who mightbe more interested in efforts to increasepower quality at the distribution level.

“Unless the needs of diverse market seg-ments are met through a combination ofpower delivery and end-use technologies,U.S. productivity growth and prosperitywill increasingly be constrained,” declaresStahlkopf. “It’s important that CEIDS ex-amine the impact of reliability on a wide

spectrum of industries and determine thelevel of reliability each requires.”

To establish a firm basis for the CEIDStechnology development and applicationprogram, the link between power reliabil-ity and economic productivity must bebetter understood. Lawrence Berkeley Na-tional Laboratory has been selected to con-duct a three-month study to document theeconomic losses caused by power out-ages—losses for the U.S. economy as awhole and for vulnerable sectors of theeconomy and regions of the country. Theresearchers will also make documented,credible projections of the growth of digi-tization in the overall economy. Usingthese data, they will estimate the impact of improving—or neglecting—power reli-ability in the future. In addition, they willestimate the current level of investment in on-site backup generation and power-conditioning equipment.

Drawing on the results of this study andguided by the specific priorities of consor-tium members, CEIDS will launch a three-pronged technical program to identify im-provements needed by the transmission,

Participation in CEIDS

Once it officially begins operationin January 2001, the Consortiumfor Electric Infrastructure to Sup-

port a Digital Society will be open toutilities, equipment manufacturers,and major electricity consumers con-cerned about power reliability—andto the trade associations of all thesegroups. The goals of CEIDS are tobetter understand the link betweenpower reliability and economic pro-ductivity and to demonstrate techno-logical solutions to current problemsthat threaten this linkage. By joining,participants can help shape the con-sortium’s research program to ensurethat it meets the needs of their indus-tries and can gain first access to thetechnologies developed in the pro-gram. For more information, contactKarl Stahlkopf ([email protected];650-855-2073). �

Grid reliability will be enhanced greatly by the widespread implementation of integrated net-work control, in which equipment operational data are collected from across the grid by dis-tributed sensors and measurement devices. Gathered and time-stamped by global positioningsystem satellites, the data are then sent to control centers, analyzed, and used to make operat-ing decisions that can be implemented through advanced power electronics control devices.


distribution, and end-use segments of thepower system.

In the area of transmission, existing sys-tems have about 4-nines (99.99%) relia-bility, but this respectable level is deterio-rating as capacity growth lags behinddemand. Given the current difficulty inobtaining permission to construct newhigh-voltages lines, the most promisingstrategy for quickly increasing transmis-sion capacity is to upgrade existing sys-tems by means of advanced technologies.Some of these technologies can be appliedimmediately on individual systems; theextent to which others are used will de-pend on how regional transmission groupsare organized. A particularly urgent needis the widespread implemen-tation of integrated networkcontrol (previously referred toas hierarchical FACTS con-trol), in which the operationof multiple FACTS controllersis coordinated by using real-time information from a wide-area measurement system.

Distribution systems, wheremost of the power system dis-turbances that affect custom-ers originate, have a reliabilitylevel of about 3 nines (99.9%).In many cases, as recent urbanblackouts have dramatically il-lustrated, investment has notkept up with either load in-creases or customers’ demandsfor higher-quality power. Nowthis situation is being furthercomplicated by the introduc-tion of DR units, such as back-up diesel generators at indus-trial facilities, microturbines atsmall businesses, and variousenergy storage units.

A number of new technologies are avail-able to help improve reliability throughouta distribution system—from substation tocustomer premises—but choosing the bestimplementation strategy will require care-ful assessment of specific local issues. Oneimportant factor affecting this choice isthe trend in retail power markets to movefrom average-cost pricing to real-timepricing, which requires the use of elec-

tronic meters. These meters could alsoregister sales of electricity from a cus-tomer’s DR unit to the utility during pe-riods of peak demand. Such arbitrage ofpower—buying from or selling to the gridas prices change—could help both thecustomer (by providing a return on theDR investment) and the utility (by level-ing load).

Strategies for end-use equipment in-volve making up the difference betweenthe reliability of delivered power and thereliability needed by the customer. Someindustries are currently pushing for a 6-nines (99.9999%) reliability standard for“information-quality” power at the plug.That represents a total of about 30 seconds

of outage a year. The gap between thisstandard and the 9-nines reliability re-quired for an unprotected microprocessorwould presumably be filled by on-site DRor storage capability. In the simplest case,a large capacitor built into end-use equip-ment itself could provide a few seconds ofride-through capability.

CEIDS will need to explore whether a 6-nines standard for delivered power is

feasible as well as what options could fur-ther boost reliability to the 9-nines levelneeded by sensitive electronics. In particu-lar, such studies could generate valuableinformation for manufacturers to use indesigning equipment capable of perform-ing effectively under the expected powerreliability conditions.

Launching the consortiumA national endeavor to improve overallpower system reliability will eventuallyneed to involve a public-private partner-ship. As a first step, CEIDS is being estab-lished as an EPRI initiative to solicit pri-vate funds. Once sufficient private fundshave been raised to mount a research ef-

fort that could at least make acredible study of current prob-lems and propose viable solu-tions, EPRI would be in a po-sition to seek public funds todemonstrate the technologiesinvolved. In particular, federalfunds may be sought througha separate entity, whose struc-ture remains to be determined.

“EPRI is in a unique posi-tion to form a consortium thatcan bring together diversepublic and private interestsand conduct a research pro-gram touching all segments ofthe electricity enterprise,” con-cludes Stahlkopf. “EPRI haspioneered many of the ad-vanced technologies that arenow being considered forwidespread deployment ontransmission and distributionnetworks and in end-use de-vices in order to increase over-all system reliability. I believethat by promoting the judi-

cious use of these technologies, CEIDScan make a significant contribution topower reliability in ways that could po-tentially translate into billions of dollars inincreased productivity for the Americaneconomy.” �

Background information for this article was providedby Karl Stahlkopf ([email protected]), Dejan So-bajic ([email protected]), and Bernard Ziemianek([email protected]).

Responding to the power quality needs of a digital society will require a combination of technologies deployed at different locations. Thetransmission and distribution system currently provides basic 3-nines(99.9%) reliability, although such advanced grid technologies as FACTSor Custom Power devices can improve on this average. Power qualityparks or on-site distributed generation or storage equipment can boostreliability to the 6-nines, or information-quality, level. Achieving 9 ninesmay require an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) at the actual pointof use or a large capacitor built into the end-use equipment itself. Whichoptions are actually deployed will depend on the power quality needsof the individual customer.

9 nines

6 nines

3 nines

To the chip

To the plug

To customer premises

UPS under

the desk

Capacitor on a circuit board

Power quality park

UPS substation

On-site distributed resources

Grid technologies

Hybrid EVs:by Taylor Moore

Cle . n Air Hybrid E/ectri Bus

THE STORY IN BRIEF

Hybrid electric vehicles, featuring

both a gasoline engine and a

battery storage system, became

commercially available from two ma-

jor auto manufacturers this year. While

these hybrids offer better fuel economy

and lower emissions than conventional

cars, their battery packs are relatively

small and are charged by the onboard

gasoline engine-generator. In an effort to

achieve efficiency and emissions levels

closer to those of a true electric vehicle,

EPRI is developing a grid-connected hy-

brid that operates the majority of the

time in an all-electric mode, using its

small gasoline engine only to extend

driving range or to provide extra power.

The development initiative—being pur-

sued in alliance with General Electric,

General Motors, Ford Motor, EPRI mem-

ber utilities, and other key technology

stakeholders—is at first focused on

producing midsize hybrid buses and de-

livery vans and demonstrating their po-

tential for cost savings to fleet vehicle

operators. Expanded in the past year to

put more emphasis on systems and

components development, the initiative

has as its ultimate goal the commercial-

ization of grid-connected hybrid buses,

vans, trucks, and automobiles.

Making the Grid Connection

CO

URT

ESY

ORI

ON

BU

S IN

DU

STRI

ES


The limited range and high costof today’s early-market, low-production electric vehicles(EVs)—drawbacks that are duealmost entirely to the perfor-

mance and cost of currently available bat-teries—are driving automakers to consideralternative approaches for environment-friendly vehicles. These include hybridEVs (HEVs) with a drive system that com-bines an internal combustion engine witha modest amount of battery storage. De-pending on the drive system design, theinternal combustion engine can provideeither primary propulsion or onboard bat-tery recharging for electric drive. Whenoperated at constant speed, the engine canbe optimized for low emissions.

Toyota Motor Corporation’s five-passen-ger Prius gasoline-electric HEV, which gets52 miles per gallon (22 km/L) in city driv-ing, went on sale in the United States ear-lier this year after a commercial debut inJapan. Honda Motor Company offers atwo-seater HEV—the Insight—with a 61-mpg (26-km/L) city rating, and the auto-maker plans to introduce a four-passengerCivic HEV in 2001, first in Japan and thenin the United States. Ford Motor Companyhas developed a 70-mpg (30-km/L) proto-type hybrid electric family sedan called theProdigy, and earlier this year it said itwould begin selling a hybrid version of itsEscape, a small sport utility vehicle, in2003. Meanwhile, several bus manufactur-ers are developing diesel-electric hybridtransit buses.

Much of the rush to develop commer-cial HEVs is being driven—just as was thecase earlier with EVs—by a looming regu-latory mandate in California, whose AirResources Board launched a zero-emissionvehicle (ZEV) program a decade ago. Al-though the mandate has been revisedtwice since then to remove intermediatepercentage requirements for ZEVs, it stillrequires that, starting in 2003, 10% of allnew light-duty vehicles sold in the state bymajor manufacturers be ZEVs. In part be-cause of the shortcomings of commerciallyavailable batteries for EVs, regulators areallowing vehicle makers considerable flex-ibility in meeting the ZEV requirements.The 6 largest manufacturers can satisfy

three-fifths of the 10% requirement withlow-emission vehicles, including futureHEV models, while 11 other manufactur-ers will be permitted to meet their entire10% obligation with such vehicles.

The push by vehicle manufacturers todevelop commercial HEVs to satisfy muchof the California 2003 ZEV mandate is nodoubt somewhat of a disappointment tothe state’s electric utilities. The utilitieshave long championed electric transpor-tation as a compelling solution to the ve-hicular emissions and petroleum depen-

dency problems resulting from Californi-ans’ abiding love-hate relationship withthe automobile and the freeway. Utilitieshave supported—and in some cases in-stalled—thousands of public EV chargingstations to accommodate the more than2300 EVs now operating in California. Butfor the most part, today’s HEVs and thoseanticipated in the near future have fuel-only designs that feature an internal com-bustion engine and a relatively small bat-tery pack; all the electricity for rechargingcomes either from the engine-generator or

Fuel: Gasoline

Fuel: Gasoline and/or electricity from grid

Electric motor

Gas

Battery

Engine

Battery

Gas

Engine

Electric motor

Battery

Fuel: 100% electricity from grid

Electric motor

Comparing the Options

Plug- In

Hybrid

Electr ic

Vehicle

Non-Plug-

In Hybrid

Tailpipe emissions: Zero

Tailpipe emissions: Extremely low overall; zero in all-electric mode

Tailpipe emissions: Comparable to ultralow-emission gas-powered vehicle

(GCHEV)

Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) can be divided into two basic types, depending on electricitysource. Like an all-electric vehicle, a plug-in hybrid gets electricity for battery recharging fromthe utility grid. Such a grid-connected HEV (GCHEV) uses its small gasoline engine only whenan extended driving range or extra power is required. A non-plug-in hybrid is fueled entirelyby gasoline, with the engine-generator and regenerative brakes providing the electricity forbattery recharging. GCHEVs are expected to be able to operate in the zero-emission (battery-only) mode for over 60% of the annual miles traveled by the average U.S. vehicle.

CO

URT

ESY

SOU

THER

N C

ALI

FORN

IA E

DIS

ON

from regenerative brakes. These HEV de-signs continue to rely solely on petroleum-based fuels.

“With a few exceptions, the grid-con-nected, all-electric vehicle is being left bythe wayside,” says Robert Graham, EPRI’sretail product sector leader for technologydevelopment. “The EV industry has lostmuch of its momentum, and the automo-tive industry is moving in the direction ofhybrid vehicles that are not grid con-nected. EPRI and the utility industry stillwant to electrify transportation, however,and we’re not ready to give up just yet.We’ve launched an initiative to try to sal-vage the pure EV market—an initiativethat takes advantage of electricity’s bene-fits as a transportation fuel and an alter-native to the continued burning of fossilfuels in vehicles.”

Next best to an EVGraham says several studies suggest thateven with a modest 40-mile (64-km) rangein all-electric operation (that is, using onlybattery power), grid-connected HEVs, orGCHEVs, could handle more than 60% ofthe total annual miles traveled by the av-erage U.S. vehicle. The percentage couldbe considerably larger for delivery trucksand smaller buses, given their typical driv-ing cycles.

In GCHEVs, an electric motor and on-board batteries would propel the vehicle

most of the time; at a set speed or duringlonger trips, a small internal combustionengine would begin operating to provideextra power or range. Although a GCHEVcould include regenerative brakes, mostbattery recharging would be done whilethe vehicle is parked and plugged into ahome, office, or public charging unit fedby a utility distribution system.

For many observers, GCHEVs directlyaddress the two major commercializationhurdles—range and cost—facing pure EVs.A GCHEV needs a battery pack only abouthalf the size of that of a pure EV to serve adaily driving cycle of approximately 20miles (32 km), which is typical for mil-lions of vehicles. Viewed from an operat-ing and life-cycle perspective, GCHEVshave lower costs than pure EVs, even whenbattery replacement is considered.

“A grid-connected hybrid is the next bestthing to an EV,” says Ed Kjaer, director ofelectric transportation for Southern Cali-fornia Edison (SCE), a leading utility sup-porter of EVs and the operator of thenation’s largest corporate EV fleet—150vehicles of various types. “The attractionof a grid-connected hybrid is that for mostof the duty cycle, it would basically oper-ate as an electric, zero-emission vehicle.”

In a bid to reverse the trend away fromgrid-connected vehicles, the EPRI-led ini-tiative—whose participants include SCE,other utilities, and vehicle and componentmanufacturers—is aggressively pursuingthe development of GCHEVs as midsizebuses and delivery vans. “Our strategy isto determine whether GCHEVs serving asfleet vehicles that return to a base everynight and are operated the majority of the


Although they have the highest fuel econ-omy ratings of all passenger cars sold in theUnited States, non-plug-in gasoline-electrichybrids like the two-seat Honda Insight andthe five-passenger Toyota Prius rely exclu-sively on fuel derived from petroleum, mostof which is imported.

DA

VID

MO

RIN

Honda Insight

CO

URT

ESY

AM

ERIC

AN

HO

ND

A M

OTO

R C

O.

Toyota Prius

time in all-electric mode will have loweroperating costs than internal combustionvehicles or fuel-only HEVs,” says Graham.

“We have extensively documented thatelectric drive systems are more efficientand reduce operating costs, but customershave a fear of insufficient range,” Grahamcontinues. “So the goal is to get enoughGCHEVs into the fleet vehicle market toprove they actually reduce operating costs.We have to prove to fleet operators thatrange is no longer a problem and thatthere is value in the form of reduced oper-ating costs. We know we cannot force amarket or paradigm shift on environmen-tal benefits alone.”

To avoid reinventing the wheel, the ini-tiative is focused on the use of commer-cially available components for GCHEVdrivetrains. “All the components requiredfor a GCHEV—control systems, motors,and batteries—are available today,” notesGraham. “But whether an integrated pack-age will be affordable is the question. Theanswer will still be driven primarily by thecost of the battery in relation to the re-quired vehicle duty cycle.”

EPRI continues to work with automak-ers and battery manufacturers through theU.S. Advanced Battery Consortium to de-velop next-generation batteries, and itsponsors ongoing efforts to develop mar-kets for such batteries, both in transporta-tion applications and in stationary, backuppower applications. Advanced technolo-gies include the nickel–metal hydride bat-tery (now commercially available fromtwo manufacturers) for use in the nearterm and the lithium-ion and lithium-polymer batteries (under development byseveral manufacturers) for use in the longterm. “GCHEVs are likely to make it to themarketplace only if further battery devel-opment and cost reductions occur in con-cert with EPRI’s and the utility industry’saggressive leadership of the GCHEV ini-tiative,” says Graham.

Adds SCE’s Kjaer, “Any grid-connectedtechnology could use these advanced bat-teries. To help bring down their cost, wewant to start to create a volume base withvarious nonvehicle applications. We arehopeful that if advanced battery technol-ogy can successfully migrate into multiple

applications, the cost will come down tothe point that grid-connected vehicles willbe more attractive, both from a consumereconomics perspective and from a busi-ness perspective.”

Kjaer says the fact that advanced bat-teries are still too expensive for afford-able, mass-market EVs obscures the tre-mendous progress in cost reduction madeover the past decade. Today the cost of ad-vanced batteries per kilowatthour of ca-pacity is one-sixth the cost in 1990. On thebasis of projected demand for the 2003California ZEV mandate, the cost can beexpected to be reduced by another two-thirds—to around $350/kWh—in just afew years. Kjaer stresses that this cost pro-jection assumes neither technology stan-dardization nor any stationary applicationmarket demand.

“Although getting below $350/kWh maybe difficult from a chemistry perspective,the business rationale seems clear,” saysKjaer. “Even $200/kWh, which is not in-conceivable, is still expensive. What weneed to recognize, however, is that this isexpensive only relative to a mature tech-nology and to an industry that has had acentury to refine its product. We need tobe a little more patient. We’re dealing notwith an evolutionary technology but witha revolutionary one. We need to recognizethat electric transportation represents afundamental shift in what we consume intransportation and conveyance technol-ogy. That fundamental societal shift is go-ing to take some time. But it’s absolutelycritical that we begin to make that shift to-day and not continue to wait for some bet-ter future technology.”

Plug-in hybrid fleets on the streetThe GCHEV initiative is pursuing severalefforts to demonstrate the economic andenvironmental value of grid-connected hy-brids in fleet applications. In one, EPRIand the New York Power Authority arecosponsoring work with General Electricto develop an advanced hybrid propulsionsystem for heavy-duty vehicles; the systemfeatures a battery pack combined with anultracapacitor and an internal combustionengine-generator. In another effort, EPRIand SCE are exploring the market poten-

tial for GCHEVs as passenger shuttle vansor as step vans for express package deliv-ery. Meanwhile, an alliance that includesEPRI, Ford Motor, GE, NYPA, other NewYork utilities, and service vehicle manu-facturers is developing detailed businessanalyses of GCHEV van and shuttle fleetsfor key commercial applications. Ford al-ready manufactures chassis for vehiclesthat are built and assembled by other com-panies—for example, Grumman Olson In-dustries in the case of vans and DiamondCoach Corporation in the case of shuttles.

At a former U.S. Air Force base in NewYork, 500 long-life electric trucks for resi-dential mail delivery are being built for theU.S. Postal Service in a joint venture be-tween Baker Electromotive and Ford. In-tended primarily for use in California, theshort-range, aluminum-body trucks areequipped with lead-acid batteries and adrive system Ford developed for its elec-tric Ranger pickup truck. The USPS hassaid it will order an additional 5500 deliv-ery vehicles if the first 500 meet expecta-tions. Although the initial lot are not hy-brid EVs, this application could be wellserved by hybrids.

Another type of vehicle considered idealfor hybrids is the 2-ton delivery van widelyused by the USPS, United Parcel Service,Federal Express, and other companies.NYPA has placed three 2-ton electric vansin service in New York City, where theirsuccessful operation encouraged the USPSto request bids for 20 more. Bart Chezar,electric transportation manager for NYPA,which is organizing a team of companiesto bid for the contract, says hybrid ver-sions of such delivery trucks could makeelectric van fleets more attractive in urbanareas that are more spread out than NewYork. In such cities—for example, Atlantaand Los Angeles—the range of all-electricvans may be insufficient to meet typicaldaily driving cycles.

NYPA’s near-term focus is to develop a40-foot (12-m) hybrid electric transit bus.It is pursuing this goal in work with NewYork City Transit (NYCT), which, as anagency of the Metropolitan TransportationAuthority (MTA), operates the largest fleetof transit buses in the country (more than4000). Such vehicles represent possibly


CO

URT

ESY

SAN

TA B

ARB

ARA

MTD

, SA

NTA

BA

RBA

RA E

TI

Commercial, private, and gov-ernment fleets are consideredideal early niche markets forGCHEVs because many fleetvehicles have fixed routes andreturn at day’s end to a cen-tral location where they canbe easily recharged. PotentialGCHEV fleet applicationsinclude 2-ton delivery trucks,campus maintenance trucks,airport service vehicles, shut-tle buses, and transit buses.

DA

VID

MO

RIN

CO

URT

ESY

UN

ITED

PA

RCEL

SER

VIC

E


the most challenging applicationfor any type of electric drive sys-tem. “Transit buses are tremen-dous energy hogs. They do a lot ofacceleration and deceleration, puta lot of stress on the engine, andhave huge heating and coolingsystems and a lot of other electriccomponents that add to the energyload,” explains Chezar. “There areno batteries available that couldsupply the energy demand of anall-electric bus.”

A prototype of the 40-foot hybrid buswas developed with GE and successfullyoperated. It had very low emissions, andcompared with a conventional diesel bus,it offered significantly improved fuel econ-omy and similar or better performance.The specifications developed in that effortwere used by NYCT in a request for bidsresulting in the production of 10 hybridtransit buses by Orion Bus Industries.These vehicles are currently in service,and another five buses are being manufac-tured by Nova Bus Corporation. Both theOrion and Nova buses use a drive systemproduced by Lockheed Martin Corpora-tion. Meanwhile, NYCT awarded a con-tract to General Motors’ Allison Transmis-sion Division for retrofit hybrid electricdrive systems to be installed as midlife re-placement drives on diesel transit buses.The transit agency recently ordered 125

more hybrid electric buses from Orion, andits parent body, the MTA, has agreed topurchase another 250 in the future.

Chezar says that the 10 electric transitbuses now in service, although built asgrid-connected vehicles, are still primarilyusing their onboard generators to rechargetheir lead-acid batteries (designed mainlyas power batteries to provide for frequentacceleration). In addition, every decelera-tion sends a surge of electricity back intothe batteries from regenerative brakes. Useof the onboard generators has resulted in suboptimal, uneven charging that willshorten battery life. “If the batteries areproperly charged overnight at the depot,they will last much longer,” notes Chezar,adding that recharging infrastructure isbeing installed. The start-stop nature ofurban bus driving generates heat in thebatteries, which will also shorten their op-erating life.

Ultracapacitors provide a boostNYCT’s experience with hybridelectric buses has prompted thecurrent effort involving GE,NYPA, and EPRI (as well as theNew York State Energy Researchand Development Authority) todevelop an advanced hybrid en-ergy storage system that includesan ultracapacitor. Says Chezar,“We’ve undertaken a compre-hensive assessment of what canbe done to make the next gen-eration of hybrid electric busesbetter. We want them to be moreefficient, and we want theiremissions to be even lower. Wealso want to reduce the buses’overall weight so that passen-ger load does not have to be sac-rificed to accommodate batter-ies and components. And finally,the buses need to be more cost-effective.” Extensive analyticaland laboratory test data on com-ponents were subjected to GE’shighly regarded Six Sygma statis-tical analysis to identify the mostcost-effective, efficient, and vi-able configuration.

Combining advanced batterieswith an ultracapacitor, which can quicklystore or discharge a substantial powerpulse, makes it possible to design and sizethe batteries more for energy storage thanfor power, Chezar points out. “When abus with this kind of system accelerates,power first comes from the ultracapacitor;once the bus gains speed, the battery takesover. The ultracapacitor acts as a buffer, al-lowing the flow of electricity into and outof the battery to be controlled. This pre-vents overheating and enables a smaller,more efficient engine with the potentialfor much lower emissions,” he says.

“Such an advanced hybrid energy stor-age system also enables the bus to operatein what we call stealth mode—that is, all-electrically in and around the depot and atstoplights and bus stops, without the en-gine,” Chezar adds. “So most of the time,these advanced hybrid transit buses willbe quiet and will have no emissions—not

A major supporter of electrictransportation and of EPRI’sGCHEV initiative, SouthernCalifornia Edison has thelargest corporate EV fleet in the country. It also operates anISO-certified technical centerwhere it conducts electric andhybrid propulsion system test-ing for cars, trucks, forklifts,buses, and other vehicles. Withfunding from the U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation, thecenter is converting a utilityline truck to grid-connectedhybrid operation, using an SCE-designed battery pack.SCE will field-test the truck toevaluate the electrical systemand fleet-use impacts of largehybrid vehicles.

PHO

TOS

CO

URT

ESY

SOU

THER

N C

ALI

FORN

IA E

DIS

ON


even hot air—coming from the back. Theyare a much better technology that peoplewill be more inclined to use.”

With the advanced hybrid drive pro-gram in its second phase, full-size compo-nents have been assembled in a 40-footbus for testing, which is expected to becompleted by early 2001. Chezar says thatGE has made a commitment either to com-mercially produce the energy control sys-tem electronics or to license the technol-ogy to another manufacturer. Eventually,advanced battery technologies could be in-corporated into the hybrid storage system,which also could be adapted for other fleetvehicle platforms.

Making grid-connected hybrids a realityThe 2003 mandate for zero-emission vehi-cles in California, which was forged by airquality regulators in political compromisewith automakers and hence is unlikely tobe further relaxed, has placed a short fuseon work by many companies to bring hy-brid EVs to market. “Our plan with GEand NYPA is to have a 40-foot bus with theadvanced propulsion system integratedand running by the summer of 2001, andwe expect similar time frames for a grid-

connected hybrid shuttlebus and a step van,” saysEPRI’s Graham. “We be-lieve that we can havegrid-connected fleet ve-hicles in the marketplacearound 2003 and that thegrid-connected electriccar market could evolvearound 2007–2008.”

The GCHEV initiativethat EPRI is spearhead-ing is leveraging approximately $2.5 mil-lion from its various cosponsors; EPRIitself has contributed about $350,000.Substantial participation from nonutilityorganizations—including GE, the Califor-nia Air Resources Board, and the Califor-nia South Coast Air Quality ManagementDistrict—attests to the broad constituencythat recognizes the importance of usingelectricity as a direct energy source, ratherthan as an intermediate form, to powertransportation. For the long term, the sub-stitution of electric drive and electricitystorage technologies for petroleum-fueled,internal combustion–based vehicles is theonly sustainable route to cleaner trans-portation for a substantially more crowdedworld in the future. It may also be a key

solution in dealing with greenhouse gasemissions from vehicles.

“You can’t look at EVs, particularly thecurrent generation, in isolation and say,‘Well, they’re too expensive and you’llnever get the cost down—they require toomuch technology,’” says SCE’s Kjaer. “To-day’s technology is already migrating intothe hybrids and fuel cell vehicles beingdeveloped for the future. You can’t look atEVs as a one-model, one-cycle wonder.We need to be looking at this in terms ofthe next hundred years of electrodrivetechnology.

“There’s a general consensus that about$2 billion to $2.5 billion has been spent onelectrodrive technology for EVs thus far,”he continues. “Although that is a lot ofmoney, consider that one automaker alonehas said it will spend $56 billion on ad-vanced technology in the next three years.I don’t think the $2.5 billion spent to thispoint has been wasted or been a failure.There are over 2000 EVs on the road thatare amazing test beds. At SCE, we operatethe largest EV fleet in the country. Weknow the technology works, and we knowthe investment to this point has alsohelped make hybrids a reality and willhelp make fuel cell vehicles a reality.

“The right philosophy is, the more EVsyou get on the road today, the more hy-brids and fuel cell vehicles you will sell inthe future,” Kjaer concludes. “That’s be-cause the more familiar people becomewith electrodrive in all the various appli-cations, the more comfortable they willbecome with EVs as appliances that plugin and perform, thanks to the new fuel—electricity.” �

Background information for this article was providedby Robert Graham ([email protected]).

This 100-kW energy manage-ment system, developed byGeneral Electric, serves as theelectronic interface betweena set of ultracapacitors and abattery pack in an advancedhybrid energy storage systemdesigned for use in transitbuses and other heavy-dutyvehicles. Testing of the hybridsystem in a 40-foot (12-m)bus is expected to be com-pleted by early 2001.C

OU

RTES

Y G

ENER

AL

ELEC

TRIC

Ten diesel-electric hybrid transit buses produced by Orion Bus Industries are currently in servicewith New York City Transit, and the agency has ordered 125 more. The buses were built to speci-fications for a prototype developed earlier with support from the New York Power Authority.

CO

URT

ESY

ORI

ON

BU

S IN

DU

STRI

ES


In the FieldDemonstration and application of EPRI science and technology

Fuel Cell System Delivers for USPS in Alaska

The U.S. Postal Service and Alaska’sChugach Electric Association have

given a stamp of approval to energy effi-ciency and environmental protection withthe nation’s first commercial fuel cell sys-tem operated as part of a utility grid. The1-MW system, which EPRI cosponsored,is also the largest U.S. commercial fuelcell installation.

The fuel cell system ensures continu-ous power and heat at the Anchorage mail processing center, the major sortingand distribution point for mail sent intoand out of Alaska. Operating 24 hours aday, 7 days a week, the center has approx-imately 425 employees and processes anaverage of 1.2 million pieces of mail a day.

Chugach Electric, a member-ownedcooperative and Alaska’s largest electricutility, installed and operates the fuel cellsystem for the USPS. Made up of five 200-kW fuel cells connected in parallel, thesystem is the primary source of power forthe Anchorage postal facility. It is dis-patched from Chugach’s power controlcenter, and any excess electricity it gener-

ates is fed into the utility grid. In additionto electricity, each of the fuel cells gener-ates more than 700,000 Btu of heat perhour, which is used for heating the facil-ity. This application increases the center’soverall fuel efficiency.

New technology developed for theproject by the Army Corps of Engineers’Construction Engineering Research Labo-ratory ensures that in the event of a gridoutage, the fuel cells automatically switchto independent operation and continue tosupply electricity to the facility. Thus theneed for conventional uninterruptiblepower supplies and standby generators iseliminated.

The fuel cell system was inaugurated ina ceremony last August, at which U.S.Postmaster General Bill Henderson con-gratulated those involved in the project.“Clearly, this fuel cell installation will addto our ability to serve postal customerswell throughout the great state of Alaskaand also help us safeguard its uniqueenvironment,” he said. Also attending theceremony was U.S. Senator Ted Stevens ofAlaska, who applauded both ChugachElectric and the USPS for a project that“opens the door to new and creative ways

to produce energy in a cost-effective andclean manner.” And Eugene Bjornstad,general manager of Chugach, noted thatthe project helps position the utility in theemerging competitive power industrybecause “fuel cells allow us to offer cus-tomers options.”

The fuel cells are IFC PC25 units fromInternational Fuel Cells, a subsidiary ofUnited Technologies Corporation. Inaddition to Chugach, the USPS, and EPRI,funders of the $5.5 million system in-cluded the U.S. Department of Defenseand the Cooperative Research Network ofthe National Rural Electric CooperativeAssociation.� For more information, contact Ammi Amar-

nath, [email protected], 650-855-2548.

Radar Produces 3-D Underground Images

An innovative radar system that can accurately locate underground

objects and create three-dimensionalimages of them has been developed byscientists from Schlumberger Corpora-tion and EPRI, with additional supportfrom the Gas Technology Institute (for-merly the Gas Research Institute).

A key enhancement of the new ground-penetrating radar system is advancedimage-processing software. This softwareenables utilities, construction companies,and others involved with undergroundinfrastructure to create precise 3-D mapsof the complex array of electric, gas,water, and communications lines lyingbeneath today’s busy city streets. Armedwith this information, the companies can better manage, maintain, and buildunderground networks that serve down-town business centers and residentialareas.

“The growing economy has placed newpressures on underground utility infra-structure,” says Ralph Bernstein, an EPRIC

OU

RTES

Y IN

TERN

ATI

ON

AL

FUEL

CEL

LS

technical leader in the distribution andmetering area. “This system will helpenergy companies improve undergroundplanning and maintenance as well asavoid disruptive construction accidents.”

The system is based on existing ground-penetrating radar technology, which usesa transmitting antenna to send high-frequency radar pulses into the ground.When a pulse hits a buried object, such as a rock or a metal or plastic pipe, it isreflected back to the surface, where it is picked up by a receiving antenna. As a van moves the radar system along theground surface, data on the timing ofpulses and echoes are collected. The ad-vanced image-processing software usesthis information to create realistic 3-Dimages of underground objects.

In field demonstrations in New YorkCity, San Diego, and other urban areas,the system—called the CART (Computer-Aided Radar Tomography) Imaging Sys-tem—has demonstrated that it can create3-D images of objects as deep as 10 feet (3 m) under most conditions. It can alsoacquire 3-D data 10 times faster than ear-lier systems.

The Schlumberger-EPRI team workedwith two small companies, Witten Tech-nologies and Malå Geoscience, in devel-oping the new system. Schlumberger and

Dycom Industries plan to offer utilitymapping services with CART systems.� For more information, contact Ralph Bern-

stein, [email protected], 650-855-2023.

SNCR Controls NOx in Tests With High-Sulfur Coal

In a successful six-week demonstrationprogram hosted by American Electric

Power, selective noncatalytic reduction(SNCR)—a urea-based technology forcontrolling emissions of nitrogen oxidesat fossil fuel plants—was tested on a largeboiler firing high-sulfur coal.

SNCR, for which EPRI received theoriginal patent, had achieved NOx reduc-tion levels of 30–50% onrelatively small boilers, butbefore the testing at AEP,there had been no long-term operating experiencewith boilers larger thanabout 160 MW. Moreover,virtually all applicationsusing medium- and high-sulfur coal had experi-enced troublesome impactsdownstream of the reagentinjection site, primarilyplugging of air preheaterswith ammonium bisulfate.Thus EPRI wanted to spon-sor a test program to address both thescale-up of SNCR and the process’sbalance-of-plant impacts in operationwith high-sulfur (>2.5%) coal.

The test program was conducted atAEP’s Cardinal unit 1, a 600-MW cell-fired boiler retrofitted with low-NOx

burners and firing coal with a nominalsulfur content of 3.8%. During the tests,the SNCR system was operated in auto-matic mode under normal load dispatchconditions. It maintained NOx levels cor-responding to reductions of 25% at fullload and 30% at low load, while maintain-

ing ammonia slip at less than 5 parts permillion. A modest increase in air preheaterpressure drop resulted from ammoniumbisulfate deposition during the demon-stration; the pressure drop reverted to thebaseline value after three weeks of opera-tion without urea injection.

In addition to EPRI and AEP, the testprogram was supported by several otherEPRI members, the Ohio Coal Develop-ment Office, the U.S. Department of En-ergy, and Fuel Tech, Inc. The program isdocumented in a recent EPRI technicalreport (1000154).

Says Jeff Stallings, EPRI manager forNOx emissions control, “As a result of thiswork, it was concluded that for some large-scale coal-fired boilers, SNCR might be a

candidate technology as a supplement oralternative to selective catalytic reduction,offering NOx reductions in the range of30%.” But, he continues, “when firingmedium- to high-sulfur coal, the need forperiodic off-line water washing should be taken into account. SNCR remains aniche technology that can be used eitherseparately or in conjunction with otherapproaches for reducing NOx.”� For more information, contact Jeff Stallings,

[email protected], 650-855-2427. To order

report 1000154, call EPRI Customer Service,

800-313-3774.


CO

URT

ESY

AM

ERIC

AN

ELE

CTR

IC P

OW

ER

CART image of a transmission line conduitsystem beneath a New York City street

To place an order, call EPRI Customer Service at800-313-3774 or 650-855-2121, and press 1 forsoftware or 2 for technical reports. Target fund-ers can download an Acrobat PDF file of a tech-nical report by searching for the report numberon EPRI’s Web site (www.epri.com).

Energy Delivery

UPS Substation™: Control SystemFeasibility Evaluation1000002Target: Substation Assets UtilizationEPRI Project Manager: R. Schainker

Guidelines for the Life Extension ofSubstations: 2000 Update1000031Target: Substation O&MEPRI Project Manager: S. Eckroad

Guidelines for the Life Extension of Sub-stations (CD-ROM Version): 2000 Update1000032Target: Substation O&MEPRI Project Manager: S. Eckroad

Evaluation of Premolded and Field-Assembled Joints for Extruded DielectricMedium-Voltage Cables1000045Target: Underground Distribution InfrastructureEPRI Project Manager: B. Bernstein

Advanced Composites for Utility Applica-tions, Phase 3: Polymer CompositeTransformer Tank (500 kVa)1000046Target: Underground Distribution InfrastructureEPRI Project Manager: B. Bernstein

Injection-Molded Lineworkers Gloves1000047Target: Distribution SystemsEPRI Project Manager: B. Bernstein

Controlled Release of Fungicides for Wood Pole Applications1000048Target: Distribution SystemsEPRI Project Manager: B. Bernstein

Five-Wire Distribution SystemDemonstration Project1000074Target: Distribution SystemsEPRI Project Manager: H. Ng

Switching Practices Survey: TowardImproved Safety and Reliability1000123Target: Substation O&MEPRI Project Manager: P. Dessureau

Proceedings: Substation EquipmentDiagnostics Conference VIII1000124Target: Substation O&MEPRI Project Manager: S. Lindgren

SF6 Gas Condition Assessment andDecontamination1000131Target: Substation O&MEPRI Project Manager: B. Damsky

Nonintrusive Predictive Distribution Main-tenance: Radio Frequency Interference/Ultrasonic Surveys of Distribution Lines1000194Target: Distribution SystemsEPRI Project Manager: H. Ng

Rendering [Line Inspections] Nonhaz-ardous: Unmanned Airborne Vehicle1000712Targets: Disaster Planning and MitigationTechnologies; Overhead TransmissionEPRI Project Managers: M. Ostendorp, R. Lings

LoadDynamics™: Model for DevelopingProbabilistic Forecasts of Load ConditionsVersion 2.0 (Windows 95, 98, NT); AP-109732-R1Targets: Distribution Systems; UndergroundDistribution InfrastructureEPRI Project Manager: S. Chapel

Environment

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and theImmune System: A ReviewTR-113375Target: MGP SitesEPRI Project Manager: L. Goldstein

Evaluation of Biocriteria as a Concept,Approach, and Tool for Assessing Impactsof Entrainment and Impingement UnderSection 316(b) of the Clean Water ActTR-114007Target: Section 316(a) and (b) Fish ProtectionIssuesEPRI Project Manager: D. Dixon

Evaluation of Technologies to Remove LightNonaqueous-Phase Liquids in the SubsurfaceTR-114754Target: MGP Site ManagementEPRI Project Manager: A. Quinn

Female Breast Cancer Feasibility Study:A Comparison of Magnetic Field Exposuresin a Garment Manufacturing Facility andElectric Utility Work EnvironmentsTR-114845Target: Occupational Health AssessmentEPRI Project Manager: K. Ebi

PISCES Water Characterization Field StudyTR-114966Target: Plant Multimedia Toxics Characteriza-tion (PISCES)EPRI Project Manager: P. Chu

Service Center Site Assessment1000065Target: T&D Soil and Water IssuesEPRI Project Manager: M. McLearn

Study of the Potential for Electric PowerFacilities to Affect Use of the GlobalPositioning System1000085Target: Electromagnetic CompatibilityEPRI Project Manager: F. Young

Peer Review of the Watershed Analysis RiskManagement Framework (WARMF)1000252Target: TMDL, Watershed, and Ecosystem IssuesEPRI Project Manager: R. Goldstein

PISCES Power Plant Chemical Assess-ment Model, Version 3.1: User ManualAddendum1000335Target: Plant Multimedia Toxics Characteriza-tion (PISCES)EPRI Project Manager: P. Chu

Fossil and Renewable Generation

Hydro Life Extension ModernizationGuides, Vol. 2: Hydromechanical EquipmentTR-112350-V2Targets: Hydropower Operations and AssetManagement; Relicensing Forum; PlantMaintenance and Life ManagementEPRI Project Manager: D. Gray

Volatility of Aqueous Acetic Acid, FormicAcid, and Sodium AcetateTR-113089Target: Boiler and Turbine Steam and CycleChemistryEPRI Project Manager: B. Dooley

Steel Penstock Coating and LiningRehabilitation (Hydropower TechnologyRoundup, Vol. 3)TR-113584-V3Target: Hydropower Operations and AssetManagementEPRI Project Manager: M. Blanco

Pulverizer Interest Group: ResearchActivities, June 1996 to December 1999TR-113825Target: Coal Boiler Performance/CombustionNOx ControlEPRI Project Manager: R. Brown


Technical Reports & Software

Guidelines for Reducing the Time and Cost of Turbine Generator MaintenanceOverhauls and Inspections, Vol. 3 (Balanc-ing and Alignment) and Vol. 4 (Blade/Bucket Procurement and Refurbishment)TR-114128-V3, -V4Target: Steam Turbines, Generators, andBalance of PlantEPRI Project Manager: A. Grunsky

Productivity Improvement Handbook forFossil Steam Power Plants, Second EditionTR-114910Targets: 16 fossil targetsEPRI Project Manager: A. Armor

Interim Guidelines for In Situ Visual Inspec-tion of Inlet and Outlet Turbine Stages,Part 2: Remote Visual InspectionTR-114961Target: Steam Turbines, Generators, andBalance of PlantEPRI Project Manager: T. McCloskey

FERC/EPRI Tainter Gate Workshop1000054Target: Dam and Civil Works IssuesEPRI Project Manager: M. Bahleda

Conversion to Deaerated Stator CoolingWater in Generators Previously CooledWith Aerated Water: Interim Guidelines1000069Target: Steam Turbines, Generators, andBalance of PlantEPRI Project Manager: J. Stein

Association of State Dam Safety Officials(ASDSO)/EPRI Spillway Gate Workshop(January 2000)1000101Target: Hydropower Operations and AssetManagementEPRI Project Manager: M. Bahleda

Cardinal 1 Selective Noncatalytic Reduc-tion (SNCR) Demonstration Test Program1000154Target: Postcombustion NOx ControlEPRI Project Manager: J. Stallings

MERLIN Analysis of Leesville Dam1000165Target: Hydropower Operations and AssetManagementEPRI Project Manager: M. Bahleda

Testing of Stator Windings for ThermalAging1000376Target: Steam Turbines, Generators, andBalance of PlantEPRI Project Manager: J. Stein

Nuclear Generation

PWR Secondary Water Chemistry Guide-lines, Revision 5TR-102134-R5Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: P. Frattini

PWR Primary-to-Secondary Leak Guide-lines, Revision 2TR-104788-R2Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: T. Gaudreau

Steam Generator Tube Integrity RiskAssessment, Vol. 1 (General Methodology)and Vol. 2 (Diablo Canyon Application)TR-107623-V1, -V2Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: M. Merilo

Cooperative IASCC Research Program:CIR-CD Version 0.06AP-108557-R5CDTarget: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: L. Nelson

Time-Limited Aging Analysis Report for theEdwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power PlantTR-110042Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: J. Carey

Failure Root Cause of PCI Suspect FuelRods From Kernkraftwerk LeibstadtReactor, Parts 1 and 2TR-111065-P1, -P2Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: S. Yagnik

Understanding of Thermal DiffusivityRecovery With Thermal Annealing:Addendum—Quantitative Electron OpticalCharacterizations of Fuel SamplesAD-111068Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: S. Yagnik

Assessment of the Effects of Flow andSubcooling on Y-Pattern Unbalanced GlobeValve Thrust RequirementsTR-111595Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: J. Hosler

Testing of Power Plant Cables in thePresence of an Ionizable Gas: Demonstra-tion in a Simulated Plant EnvironmentTR-112235Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: G. Toman

Optimum Discharge Burnup for NuclearFuel: A Comprehensive Study of DukePower’s ReactorsTR-112571Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: O. Ozer

High-Range Radiation Monitor CableStudy: Phase 2TR-112582Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: G. Toman

Routine Preventive Maintenance Guidancefor ABB K-Line Circuit BreakersTR-113736 (revises NP-7410-V1P1)Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: J. Sharkey

Pump Troubleshooting, Vol. 1TR-114612-V1Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: M. Pugh

Cracking in Vessel Head Adaptors:Analysis of Crack Growth Rate Reports(PWR Materials Reliability Project)TR-114757Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: R. Pathania

EPRI Baffle Bolt Project SummaryAP-114779-CDTarget: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: L. Nelson

Review of Phosphorous Segregation andIntergranular Embrittlement in ReactorPressure Vessel Steels (PWR MaterialsReliability Project)TR-114783Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: S. Rosinski

Welding and Repair Technology for PowerPlants: Fourth RRAC International ConferenceTR-114858-CDTarget: Repair and Replacement ApplicationsCenter ProgramEPRI Project Managers: S. Findlan, D. Gandy,K. Coleman

Joint Owners Baffle Bolt ProgramAP-114929-CDTarget: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: L. Nelson

Analytical Electron Microscopy Charac-terization of Upper Free Span IGA and SCC in Steam Generator Tubing FromOconee 1, 2, 3TR-114980Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: A. McIlree

Routine Preventive Maintenance Guidancefor Westinghouse DHP Circuit Breakers1000010 (revises NP-7410-V2P3)Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: J. Sharkey

Evaluation of HCR Methodology Imple-mentation in PSA and Control RoomHuman Factors Review for José CabreraNuclear Power Plant1000028Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: F. Rahn

Crack Growth of Alloy 182 Weld Metal in PWR Environments (PWR MaterialsReliability Project)1000037Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: R. Pathania

Condensate Pump Application andMaintenance Guide1000052Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: M. Pugh


Bolt Preload Stress for ANSI Raised-FaceFlanges Using Spiral-Wound Gaskets(Sealing Technology and Plant LeakReduction Series)1000066Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: J. Jenco

Lessons Learned From Implementing RI-IST Programs1000094Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: F. Rahn

Dose Rate and Coolant Chemistry Data atPWRs Operating With Alternative PrimaryCoolant Chemistry1000153Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: H. Ocken

Losses of Off-Site Power at U.S. NuclearPower Plants—Through 19991000158Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: F. Rahn

Oconee Electrical Component Integrated Plant Assessment and Time-Limited Aging Analyses for License Renewal, Revision 11000174Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: J. Carey

Zinc Addition at the Palisades PWR toReduce Shutdown Dose Rates1000190Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: H. Ocken

Condensate Filter/DemineralizerQualification and Testing in PrecoatApplication at Comanche Peak SteamElectric Station1000199Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: S. Bushart

Fire Barrier Penetration Seal Handbook1000213Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: R. Kassawara

Rod Bundle Heat Transfer for PWRs at Operating Conditions1000215Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: P. Frattini

Evaluation of Zinc Addition in Cycle 13 atFarley Unit 21000251Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: R. Pathania

SysMon 2.0: Templates for SystemMonitoring by System EngineersVersion 2.0 (Windows 95, 98, NT); 1000261Target: Nuclear PowerEPRI Project Manager: T. Eckert

Retail and Power Markets

Cool Storage Technology GuideTR-111874Target: Residential and Commercial BusinessDevelopmentEPRI Project Manager: J. Kesselring

Strategic Overview of DistributedResourcesTR-114273Targets: Distributed Resources BusinessStrategy Development; Using DR to CreateRetail Business Strategic Advantage; MarketResearch and Tools for Retail Energy ServicesEPRI Project Manager: D. Herman

Strategies for Providing DistributedResource Services to DistributionCompaniesTR-114275Targets: Distributed Resources BusinessStrategy Development; Using DR to CreateRetail Business Strategic Advantage; MarketResearch and Tools for Retail Energy ServicesEPRI Project Manager: D. Herman

Light Trespass ResearchTR-114914Target: Residential and Commercial BusinessDevelopmentEPRI Project Manager: J. Kesselring

Long-Term Performance of ScrewbaseCompact Fluorescent LampsTR-114923Target: Residential and Commercial BusinessDevelopmentEPRI Project Manager: J. Kesselring

Voltage Unbalance: Power Quality Issues, Related Standards, and MitigationTechniques1000092Target: New Electric Motor/Drive Markets andSolutionsEPRI Project Manager: B. Banerjee

Residential Duct Sealing Cost-BenefitAnalysis1000102Target: Residential and Commercial BusinessDevelopmentEPRI Project Manager: J. Kesselring

Electrotechnologies in Metal Heat TreatingSystems: Marketing Kit1000136Target: Materials Fabrication IndustryEPRI Project Manager: L. Svendsen

UV Curable Coatings: Marketing Kit1000138Target: Materials Fabrication IndustryEPRI Project Manager: L. Svendsen

Nonferrous Metal Melting: Marketing Kit1000140Target: Materials Production IndustryEPRI Project Manager: L. Svendsen

Contract EvaluatorVersion 1.20 (Windows 95, 98, NT);AP-113198-P2R2Target: Asset and Risk ManagementEPRI Project Manager: A. Altman

Generation Asset EvaluatorVersion 1.20 (Windows 95, 98, NT);AP-113198-P3R2Target: Asset and Risk ManagementEPRI Project Manager: A. Altman

Project EvaluatorVersion 1.20 (Windows 95, 98, NT);AP-113198-P4R2Target: Asset and Risk ManagementEPRI Project Manager: A. Altman

Risk ManagerVersion 1.20 (Windows 95, 98, NT);AP-113198-P1R2Target: Asset and Risk ManagementEPRI Project Manager: A. Altman

Strategic Science and Technology

In Situ Measurement of Residual SurfaceStressesTR-109717Program: Strategic Science and TechnologyEPRI Project Managers: A. McIlree, B. Syrett

Iron-Based Metallic Interconnects forReduced-Temperature Solid Oxide FuelCellsTR-114131Program: Strategic Science and TechnologyEPRI Project Manager: W. Bakker

Corrosion Control Using RegenerativeBiofilms That Secrete Antimicrobials andCorrosion InhibitorsTR-114824Program: Strategic Science and TechnologyEPRI Project Manager: B. Syrett

Steam Chemistry: Interaction of ChemicalSpecies With Water, Steam, and MaterialsDuring Evaporation, Superheating, andCondensationTR-114837Program: Strategic Science and TechnologyEPRI Project Manager: B. Dooley

Measurement of Residual Stresses byPhotothermal Method1000156Program: Strategic Science and TechnologyEPRI Project Managers: R. Pathania, B. Syrett

Electrokinetic Removal of Arsenic From Contaminated Soil: ExperimentalEvaluation1000203Program: Strategic Science and TechnologyEPRI Project Manager: M. McLearn

Advanced Coating Development for GasTurbine Components1000298Program: Strategic Science and TechnologyEPRI Project Manager: V. Viswanathan


January 2001

10–12PWR and BWR Plant Chemistry San Antonio, TexasContact: Barbara James, 707-829-3500

15–17Balance-of-Plant Heat Exchanger NDE and Condition Assessment forEngineersCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

15–19Electrohydraulic Controls Workshop andSteam Turbine Generator Users GroupNew Orleans, LouisianaContact: Linda Parrish, 704-547-6061

15–26Ultrasonic Examination: Level 1Charlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

16–18Modifying and Maintaining Structures and Conductors in Transmission LineUpratingHaslet, TexasContact: Gayle Robertson, 817-439-5900

16–18Utility Generator Predictive Maintenanceand RefurbishmentNew Orleans, LouisianaContact: Barbara McCarthy, 650-855-2127

22–24Pressure Relief Device Users GroupOrlando, FloridaContact: Linda Parrish, 704-547-6061

22–25AK/AKR and Magne-Blast Circuit BreakerUsers GroupNew Orleans, LouisianaContact: Linda Parrish, 704-547-6061

30–February 1Heat Rate Improvement in a DeregulatedEnvironmentDallas, TexasContact: Barbara McCarthy, 650-855-2127

February

5–9Infrared Thermography: Level 1Kingston, TennesseeContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

5–9NDE Instructor TrainingCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

18–21Substation Equipment DiagnosticsConferenceNew Orleans, LouisianaContact: Marjorie Morales, 650-855-2254

19–23NDE of High-Energy Piping Charlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

21–22Fluid Sealing Technology Working GroupCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: John Jenco, 704-547-6054

March

5–9Visual Examination: Level 1Charlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

12–16Advanced Structural Analysis and DesignMethods for Electric Power LinesHaslet, TexasContact: Gayle Robertson, 817-439-5900

April


30–May 4NDE for EngineersCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

May

7–11 Visual Examination: Level 2Charlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

16–18 CEM (Continuous Emissions Monitoring)Users GroupCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: Barbara McCarthy, 650-855-2127

June

4–5 Containment Inspection: VisualExamination, Level 2Charlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

4–6The Smart Solution: Conference on Industrial and RecreationalTransportation La Jolla, CaliforniaContact: Laura Ramos, 650-855-7919

6–8 ASME Section XI Flaw EvaluationCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174


12–14PQA 2001 North America: Riding the Rivers of ChangePittsburgh, PennsylvaniaContact: Barbara McCarthy, 650-855-2127

18–22NDE Technical Skills Training: Level 3Basic/SpecificCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

19–22EPRI-IAEA Maintenance OptimizationTechnical Specialists MeetingCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: Martin Bridges, 704-547-6175

25–29International Low Level Waste Conference and ASME-EPRI WorkshopOrlando, FloridaContact: Barbara McCarthy, 650-855-2127

25–29Visual Examination: Level 3Charlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174

July

9–18IGSCC DetectionCharlotte, North CarolinaContact: Sherryl Stogner, 704-547-6174


EPRI Events

A

ASAPP2 software, for utility pollutionprevention, Spring 4

B

Barker, Brent, Summer 3

Benzo[a]pyrene, evaluating cancer risk of,Winter 6

Birds, safety of around utility equipment,Summer 6

Burns, electrical, software for evaluating,Spring 5

Business risk management software, Winter 5

BWR water chemistry guidelines, Fall 4

C

Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant, licenserenewal for, Fall 8

Carbon dioxide emissions control technology development for, Fall 7trading of, Summer 18U.S. policies on, Summer 26

Carey, John, Fall 3

Carlton, Richard, Winter 3

Carns, Keith, Fall 3

CEIDS (Consortium for Electric Infrastructureto Support a Digital Society), Winter 18

Chow, Winston, Fall 3

Chu, Paul, Winter 3

CIN/SI (Complex Interactive Networks/Sys-tems Initiative), Summer 6

Coal-fired generation, and sustainabledevelopment, Summer 26; Fall 7

Combustion turbines, life-cycle managementfor blades of, Fall 6

Competitionand electricity pricing, Fall 5, 18and nuclear plant license renewal, Fall 8and retail service offerings, Fall 18and software for business risk manage-

ment, Winter 5

Customer choice, Share Wars research on,Fall 18

Customer relationships, Custom-ER softwarefor managing, Summer 5

D

Decontamination handbook, for nuclear powerplants, Fall 4

Deregulation. See Competition.

Distributed generationfield tests of microturbines for, Summer 34and utility fuel cell installation, Winter 34

Distribution systemsimproving the reliability of, Winter 18underground, 3-D mapping of, Winter 34

Dynamic Security Assessment software, foroptimizing transmission system capacity,Summer 4

Dynamic Thermal Circuit Rating software, forpower equipment, Spring 18

E

Earthquake experience database, on-line,Spring 4

Edris, Abdel-Aty, Spring 3

E-EPIC study, of U.S. energy and environ-mental policies, Summer 26

Electric and magnetic fields. See Magneticfields.

Electricity pricing, in competitive markets, Fall 5, 18

Electricity Technology Roadmap, Summer 8

Electric vehicles, grid-connected hybrid,Winter 26

Electrification, and global sustainability,Summer 2, 8; Fall 7

Electrotechnologies, advanced, for healthcareindustry, Fall 24

Emergency assistance, for utilities, Spring 26

EMF Management Reference Book, Fall 5

EMF Modeler software, for mapping magneticfields from utility equipment, Spring 5

Emissions, mercury, environmental cycling of,Winter 8

Emissions, nitrogen oxides, and selectivenoncatalytic reduction, Winter 35

Emissions policies, U.S., for greenhouse andother gases, Summer 26

Emissions trading, for greenhouse gases,Summer 18

EPRIElectricity Technology Roadmap,

Summer 8Global Coal Initiative, Fall 7and government-industry research initiative

on complex networks, Summer 6Grid-Connected Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Initiative, Winter 26Healthcare Initiative, Fall 24Power Delivery Reliability Initiative,

Spring 2; Winter 18technology centers, Spring 26, 32, 33

EPRIsolutions, and urgent-response services,Spring 26

F

Feature articlesDynamic Ratings Boost Transmission

Margins, Spring 18E-EPIC: Analyzing Emissions Policies,

Summer 26Hybrid EVs: Making the Grid Connection,

Winter 26License Renewal Revitalizes the Nuclear

Industry, Fall 8Mercury’s Pathways to Fish, Winter 8Power for a Digital Society, Winter 18Powering Healthcare’s Future, Fall 24Renewed Interest in Space Solar Power,

Spring 6Retail Service Offerings: Thinking Beyond

Price, Fall 18Technology and the Quest for Sustainability,

Summer 8Urgent-Response Services for a Fast-

Paced Industry, Spring 26The Value of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Trading, Summer 18

Fish, methylmercury in, and public health,Winter 8

Fuel cell system, installation of on utility grid,Winter 34

G

Garber, Patricia B., Fall 3

GasVue camera, utility use of for SF6 leakdetection, Fall 34

Global Coal Initiative, Fall 7

Global sustainability, Summer 2, 8, 18, 26;Fall 7

Graham, Robert, Winter 3

Greenhouse gasesand emissions trading, Summer 18and SF6 leak detection, Fall 34U.S. policies on, Summer 26

Grid-connected hybrid electric vehicles,Winter 26

H

Healthcare, advanced technologies, for, Fall 24

Health risksof methylmercury in fish, Winter 8of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,

Winter 6

Hester, Gordon, Summer 3

High-temperature superconducting cable, firstutility system installation of, Fall 35

Hospitals, advanced technologies for, Fall 24

Hybrid electric vehicles, grid-connected,Winter 26


Index to 2000 EPRIJournal

I

Information security, and the energy industry,Summer 7

Intelligent agents, for distributed powersystem control, Summer 6

K

Kyoto Protocol, and greenhouse gasemissions, Summer 18, 26

L

Lakes, and mercury deposition, Winter 8

Levin, Leonard, Winter 2, 3

License renewal, for nuclear power plants,Fall 2, 8

Life-cycle managementfor combustion turbine blades, Fall 6for nuclear power plants, Fall 8

Life extension guidelines, for substations,Winter 5

Lightning Protection Design Workstation, Fall 5

Lineweber, David C., Fall 3

M

Magnetic fields reference book for managing, Fall 5and shield design software, Summer 5software for mapping, Spring 5

MagShield software, for designing magneticfield shielding, Summer 5

Maintenance, predictive, an integrated plantapproach to, Spring 33

Manufactured gas plant sites, evaluatinghealth risks at, Winter 6

Marston, Ted, Fall 2

Mercury cycling, and methylmercury in fish,Winter 8

Microturbines, field tests of, Summer 34

Miller, Michael, Summer 2

Moore, Taylor, Spring 3

N

Natural gas–fired generation, and U.S. energyand environmental policies, Summer 26

Nitrogen oxides, selective noncatalytic reduc-tion technology for emissions of, Winter 35

Nondestructive evaluationpersonnel-testing software, Summer 5phased-array ultrasonic technology for,

Spring 32

Nuclear power plantsBWR water chemistry guidelines for, Fall 4decontamination handbook for, Fall 4license renewal for, Fall 2, 8and on-line earthquake experience

database, Spring 4and phased-array ultrasonic inspection

technology, Spring 32

Nuclear power plants (cont.)pump troubleshooting guide for, Winter 4and software for testing nondestructive

evaluation personnel, Summer 5and software for tracking low-level waste,

Winter 4steam turbine reference book for, Spring 4

O

Oconee nuclear power plant, license renewalfor, Fall 8

P

Phased-array ultrasonic inspection technology,for nuclear steam turbines, Spring 32

Photovoltaics, in space-based power systems,Spring 6

Pollution prevention software, for utilityfacilities, Spring 4

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, evaluatingcancer risks of, Winter 6

Power Delivery Reliability Initiative, Spring 2;Winter 18

Power outages, and EPRI’s urgent-responseservices, Spring 26

Power qualityfor digital society, Winter 18and healthcare industry, Fall 24monitoring of, Summer 35

PQPager, for monitoring power quality,Summer 35

Predictive maintenance, an integrated plantapproach to, Spring 33

Pricing, in competitive electricity markets, Fall 5, 18

Priest, Ken, Spring 3

Pumps, nuclear power plant, troubleshootingguide for, Winter 4

R

Radar imaging system, for 3-D mapping ofunderground infrastructure, Winter 34

Reliability of power delivery systemand distributed intelligent control,

Summer 6and electronic security, Summer 7EPRI initiative for, Spring 2; Winter 18

Renewable energy technologies, and spacesolar power, Spring 6

Retail service offerings, in competitiveelectricity markets, Fall 18

Risk management, business, software toolsfor, Winter 5

Roadmap, Electricity Technology, Summer 8

S

Security, electronic, for energy industry,Summer 7

Seismic qualification, on-line earthquakeexperience database for, Spring 4

Selective noncatalytic reduction, for control-ling emissions of nitrogen oxides, Winter 35

SF6. See Sulfur hexafluoride.

Share Wars customer choice research andsoftware, Fall 18

Solar power satellites, Spring 6

Sootblowing, intelligent system for, Summer 34

Space solar power systems, Spring 6

Stahlkopf, Karl, Spring 2, 3; Winter 3

Steam turbinesfossil and nuclear, reference book on,

Spring 4nuclear, ultrasonic inspection of, Spring 32

Substations life extension guidelines for, Winter 5SF6 leak detection camera for, Fall 34

Sulfur hexafluoride, camera for detectingleaks of, Fall 34

Superconducting cable, high-temperature, firstutility system installation of, Fall 35

Sustainability, global, Summer 2, 8, 18, 26;Fall 7

T

Technology, and global sustainability, Summer 8

Thermal ratings, dynamic, software for, Spring 18

3-D BurnVision software, for evaluatingelectrical and other burns, Spring 5

Transmission systemsand bird safety, Summer 6improving the reliability of, Spring 2;

Summer 6; Winter 18lightning protection for, Fall 5software for assessing the capacity of,

Summer 4software for calculating dynamic thermal

ratings for, Spring 18

Turbine steam path damage, reference bookon, Spring 4

U

UCA (Utility Communications Architecture), asIEEE standard, Summer 4

Ultrasonic inspection technology, phased-array, for nuclear steam turbines, Spring 32

Underground infrastructure, radar imagingsystem for 3-D mapping of, Winter 34

Urgent-response services, for utility emergen-cies, Spring 26

W

Waste, hazardous, at utility facilities, ASAPP2software for tracking, Spring 4

Waste Logic FastTrack 2000, for managinglow-level radioactive waste, Winter 4

Water chemistry guidelines, for BWRs, Fall 4

Wilhite, Robert, Spring 3

Wilson, Tom, Summer 3


EPRI Journal Winter 2000eprijournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2000-Journal... ·...

Documents

Transcript of EPRI Journal Winter 2000eprijournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2000-Journal... ·...