Archive

Monthly Archives: May 2020


 

Deerislandeggs

There are over 30,000 accelerators operating worldwide with sales of $3.5 billion/yr and impact of over $500 billion/yr (Henning and Shank 2010). These accelerators are predominantly warm/copper technology. Because there is a need to treat high volumes in the environmental applications, superconducting accelerators are needed. Design commonalities for such accelerators, include an electron generating thermionic gun that creates a high-current electron beam, a cryostat with a Nb3Sn SRF cavity for acceleration, cryocoolers to reduce power demand and a coaxial input power couples for the RF cavity (Thangaraj and Ciovanti 5/10/2018 presentation at Fermilab).

The first foray into municipal water treatment using an electron beam has its origins in a study conducted by Sandia Labs and New Mexico State University that looked at the feasibility of sludge disinfection with electron beams and cesium 137 in 1974. The positive disinfection data obtained (Trump (not that one), 1980) led to the establishment of a large scale pilot facility at the Deer Island Treatment Plant in Boston, Massachusetts that focused on treatment of different sludges from the process at Deer Island (Kurucz, et al, 1995).  That study was funded by the National Science Foundation to investigate high energy electron disinfection of wastewater residuals (Bryan, 1990). The research team was led by MIT.

At the time, the Deer Island facility was operated by the Metropolitan District Commission, and subsequently the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA – MWRA, nd).  The Deer Island facility started operations in 1968. At the time of the ebeam test, the plat had a capacity of 343 MGD, but experienced peaks of 850 mgd (MWRA 2020; ND).  Combined sewer overflows plagued the system (60 days per year).  Sludge disinfection was an emerging issue under the Clean Water Act rules.

The electron beam experiment was conducted at 70 gpm or 100,000 gpd, using a 50 kW/850 kvolt electron accelerator supplied by High Voltage Engineering Corp.  The e-beam first started operations in April 1976.  The liquid sludge was presented as a wide thin layer of liquid cascading downward through the electron beam.  All sludge must receive disinfection and therefore the setup requires that all of the sludge be penetrated by the electron beam. A 400 kilorad dosage was used for liquid sludge.  Trump et al (1979) found that the concentrations of salmonella, total coliforms, sand shigella were reduced between 4 and 5 orders of magnitude.  The most resistant parasite was ascaris.

The electron beam had benefits beyond pathogen reduction. Trump et al (1979) reported that trace polychlorinated biphenyls were effectively destroyed by as little as 10 krads in pure water.  Fragments disappeared at 50-100 kilorads.  The studies confirmed that the electron beam was capable of disinfecting raw, digested, waste activated primary and secondary and composted sludge effectively. (Trump et al 1979).

 

 


Here is something you probably have never heard of, but maybe you want to.  Electron beams.  They are not radiation, but they do irradiate and thereby disinfect.  We use them all the time (about 20,000) the them to irradiate and disinfect food, post office packages, and more.  But we don’t use them for water or wastewater treatment.  So would they work?  This is a four-part blog to outline electron beams and how we might use them to solve some recalcitrant water treatment problems.  But first, what is an electron beam?  There are two case studies that will be discussed in Parts 2 &3, which the more recent research outlined in part 4.  Sludge was the first area of investigation, but emerging contaminants, pathogens and the like are all subject to destruction by electron beams.

The basic concept of the technology is to accelerate electrons in a vacuum and focus those electrons using a magnetic field to create a concentrated, high-energy beam that can be directed at a target. In 1913, William Coolidge developed a high vacuum, thermionic cathode that he used to produce an prototype of the modern electron beam accelerator at General Electric (Coolidge 1916; Coolidge 1917). In 1925, Coolidge placed a thin foil window at one end of a high vacuum tube and studied the effects of the electron beam on a variety of materials using a 200 keV tube (Coolidge 1926; Coolidge and Moore 1926; Coolidge 1933). In the early 1930s, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton developed circuitry for increasing the voltage for the particle discharge, which was the basis for many high-current, mid-energy electron accelerators (Berejka and Cleland, 2011). This design was improved by Willem Westendorp, who developed one of the first industrial electron beam accelerators at GE which were the first industrial electron beam processing (Westendorp 1940). In 1937, William Hansen and Sigurd Varian developed the klystron amplifier, which increases the amount of available power levels of microwave linear accelerators (linac), which with one or two milliamps of average beam current at 10 MeV are widely used for medical device sterilization and food treatment, accounting for most of the current industrial applications (Berejka and Cleland 2011). By 1941, technological innovations brought forth the commercialization of the industrial computerized tomography accelerator (Berejka and Cleland 2011).

Since the mid-20th century, electron beam technology has provided the basis for a variety of applications. Among the companies that became active with accelerators were High Voltage Engineering Company, Vivirad-High Voltage, Cryovac division of the Sealed Air Corporation, Nissin-High Voltage (NHV) and Wasik Associates.  Arno Brasch and Wolfgang Huber developed a pulsed accelerator, based on capacitor banks being charged in parallel and discharged in series, made commercially available through the Electronized Chemicals Corporation (Berejka and Cleland 2011).  With their pulsed accelerator, they showed that short pulses of high voltage, high current electron beams could effectively sterilize and preserve food with minimum damage.

Marshall Cleland and Kennard Morganstern founded Radiation Dynamics, Inc. (RDI) in 1958 to sell their Dynamitron which could attain the combination of higher electron energy and higher beam currents that other accelerators (many of which remain in operation -Berejka and Cleland 2011). The Dynamitron can operate at up to 5.0 MeV with total beam power up to 300 kW, thereby forming the basis for the electron transformer-rectifier (ELV) electron beam accelerators produced by the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics in Novosibirsk, Russia (Berejka and Cleland 2011).  Berejka and Cleland (2011) and Nayak et al. (2016) report that the Budker Institute has accelerators that operate between 400 keV and 2.5 MeV with a maximum beam power of 400 kW at 1.0 MeV. In addition, high current pulsed beams, radiofrequency accelerators which operate between 700 keV and 5.0 MeV with a high current version have been developed, and researchers are working on a 10 MeV at 100 kW accelerator.

The Efremov Research Institute of Electrophysical Apparatus in Saint Petersburg also produces a variety of industrial electron accelerators ranging between 0.5 and 2.5 MeV with electron beam power ratings up to 100 kW (Berejka and Cleland 2011).  Ford Motor Company initially used energy electron beams (400 keV or less) to cure coatings, which generated a host of companies including Radiation Polymer Company (now Broadbeam Equipment part of PCT Engineered Systems), Energy Sciences Incorporated (ESI), Applied Advanced Technologies (now known as Advanced Electron Beams – AEB), and Ion Beam Applications SA (IBA). The IBA design has become better known as the Rhodotron™.  The US Postal Service uses a Rhodotron to sanitize critical US Federal government mail (Berejka and Cleland 2011).  The major competition for particle accelerators is gamma irradiators.  The gamma irradiators have issues with radiation.  As a result, there are 8 times as many particle accelerators in use as gamma irradiators.

New accelerators include changes to the older designs to improve efficiency and reduce operating costs.  The basic unit of acceleration in particle accelerators is the RF cavity. Conventional accelerators are made from copper cavities and referred to as warm accelerating technology. More recently, superconducting materials like niobium, referred to as cold accelerating technology because of the need to operate cryogenic temperatures, have gained favor because of their ability to operate more efficiently. Bulk materials processing applications require multi-MeV energy for penetration and thousands of kW (or even MW) of beam power.  Inherent losses in copper accelerators limit their efficiency (heat vs beam power). Heat removal limits duty factor, gradient and average power.  Superconducting radio frequency (SRF)-based accelerators, found typically only in big science, are huge with complex cryogenic refrigerators, cryomodules, etc.  High wall plug power efficiency of these SRF accelerators (e.g. ~75%) allows a large fraction of the input power to go into the beam and ultimately the target.

Recent efforts at institutions like the DOE’s Fermilab have incorporated several new technologies into superconducting RF accelerators to remove the need for liquid cryogens thus greatly reducing the size and complexity of the accelerator.  This is in part made possible using cryocoolers to remove heat conductively.  Since less heat removal is possible with conduction and the cryocoolers than convection and liquid helium, a bulk of the other technology advances like Nb3Sn thin films, low loss power coupling and accelerator operating parameters are made to reduce heat load which ultimately improves efficiency. The advantages of such an accelerator includes energy efficiency (lower operating cost), smaller foot print (portable and fits into existing operations more easily), less complexity and therefore more robust and higher power allowing for treatment of more mass per unit time.

 


Dr. Jeffrey Shaman said the Trump administration should have developed a robust plan to control outbreaks as states seek to reopen safely.
— Read on www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-shaman-meet-the-press-20200510-cew7nouxqzf2fjj6bwudvvpjga-story.html


coltrip

(source earthjustice (https://www.google.com/search?q=coal+ash+colstrip&rlz=1C1CAFA_enUS637US637&sxsrf=ALeKk004AREfCJSrTWaKecd-ZpjyJkxkZw:1587325972064&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiakdSFovXoAhVrdt8KHX4YDnsQ_AUoAnoECAsQBA&biw=1342&bih=743#imgrc=2-VWv2rrptxAbM)

In a recent blog I talked about the issues with coal ash along side water bodies.  North Carolina is doing some cleanup.  TVA closed it last Kentucky coal plant, and coal use is declining worldwide.  There is a 50% decline in the past 10 years in the US alone.  But declining is not gone, and gone will not mean the threats are gone.  Exhibit A (like we need another one) – Colstrip coal fire power plant in Montana.  Which stores coal ash in 3 locations which have been leaking since the 1970s and have yet to be cleaned up.  Two of the four site have approved remediation action plans, the other does not.  While the current flows are under 0.5 million gallons per day, coal ash contains mercury, selenium, arsenic, chromium and a host of other toxins at concentrated levels.  Mercury is acutely and chronically toxic.  Selenium has been indicated as the cause of spinal deformities in fish.  The concern is that these ponds will leak faster and impact downstream users like the coal ash spill in West Virginia did 4 years ago – and it still remains ap problem.  Coal ash should not be stored near streams.  he Montana Ligsilature approved $107 million to help clean the mess up, but I am still trying to figure out the wisdom behind this practice.


Licensure_2017

Did you know that many states have proposed, and some have enacted, legislation that threatens the engineering licensure process?  You should because some of the things proposed are a little scary.

Over half the states have had legislation introduced over the past 5 years associated with one of two issues.  The first is a series of “Right to Engage in a Lawful Occupation”-type acts that seek to limit or lessen business or occupation regulating (NSPE 2020).  The legislation often proposes the elimination of licensure requirements for certain professions under the premise that a person has a “right to engage in a lawful profession or vocation without being subject to an occupational regulation.”  Many of these acts do contain language that retains regulatory authority on occupations that are necessary and to meet public health, safety, or welfare objectives and require a review over 4 or 5 years of each and every license and licensing board.

These proposals are often related to sunset laws that require review and analysis of licensing boards, associated with a regulatory requirement that the respective board be dissolved when no longer needed.  In addition, some states proposed these laws to “remove any unnecessary or overly burdensome licensing requirements,” and recommendation for continuation of the Board.  For example, Ohio enacted legislation that states “Ohio will use the least restrictive regulation to protect public health and safety” as a part of reviewing all licensing boards.

Two states, Indiana and Missouri, introduced a “Consumer Choice” bill that proposed to allow unlicensed persons to practice occupations that require licensure, provided the persons disclosed that they are unlicensed.  Both bills fortunately died in the legislature in 2019, but could return.  Neither bill was specifically oriented toward engineers, but the Indiana Job Creation Commission (JCC) recommended to elimination of licensure of Professional Engineers in 2014.   The State of Montana introduced legislation ins 2017 to eliminate the licensing for profession al engineers.  It died in committee in 2017.

New Mexico’s governor issues and executive order (2018-048) to permit unlicensed persons doing work that otherwise requires a license if the customer is informed and signs and contract acknowledging the unlicensed person is doing work.  The Tennessee and West Virginia legislatures are considering such a bill in 2020.  The idea that it is ok to have non-licensed people doing engineers because the person paying of the work said it was is preposterous.  It is a clear devaluation of engineers, engineering degrees and licensure on the part of elected officials, an issue that we need to change!

Remember the difference between an engineer and a medical doctor is that a doctor’s mistake can only kill one patient at a time.  Engineers on the other hand….Well think 737 Max, BRidges that fail, Hyatt in St. Louis to name a few….  To value engineers so little is clearly not in the interests of public health safety and welfare, which is what elected officials are tasked to protect.


When you read the news or listen to commentary on TV, it’s easy to presume that most of the COVID-19 cases are in big cities. In terms of absolute numbers, that’s true. However, if you scale the case count for local population size, a different picture…
— Read on m.dailykos.com/stories/2020/5/4/1942482/-COVID-Spread-in-Rural-Areas-We-really-do-have-a-problem