National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for lng storage tank

  1. Comparative safety analysis of LNG storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fecht, B.A.; Gates, T.E.; Nelson, K.O.; Marr, G.D.

    1982-07-01

    LNG storage tank design and response to selected release scenarios were reviewed. The selection of the scenarios was based on an investigation of potential hazards as cited in the literature. A review of the structure of specific LNG storage facilities is given. Scenarios initially addressed included those that most likely emerge from the tank facility itself: conditions of overfill and overflow as related to liquid LNG content levels; over/underpressurization at respective tank vapor pressure boundaries; subsidence of bearing soil below tank foundations; and crack propagation in tank walls due to possible exposure of structural material to cryogenic temperatures. Additional scenarios addressed include those that result from external events: tornado induced winds and pressure drops; exterior tank missile impact with tornado winds and rotating machinery being the investigated mode of generation; thermal response due to adjacent fire conditions; and tank response due to intense seismic activity. Applicability of each scenario depended heavily on the specific tank configurations and material types selected. (PSB)

  2. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  3. ,"Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  4. ,"Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  5. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  6. ,"Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  7. ,"Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  8. ,"Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  9. ,"Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  10. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  11. ,"Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  12. ,"Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  13. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  14. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  15. ,"Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  16. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  17. ,"Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska...

  18. ,"California Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  19. ,"Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  20. ,"Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  1. ,"Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  2. ,"Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  3. ,"Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  4. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  5. ,"Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  6. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  7. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  8. ,"Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  9. ,"Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  10. ,"Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  11. ,"Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  12. ,"Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  13. ,"Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  14. ,"Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  15. ,"Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  16. ,"California Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  17. ,"Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  18. ,"Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  19. ,"Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  20. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  1. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  2. ,"Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  3. ,"Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  4. ,"Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  5. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  6. ,"Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  7. ,"Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  8. ,"Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  9. ,"Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015"...

  10. Offshore LNG (liquefied natural gas) production and storage systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barden, J.K.

    1982-01-01

    A barge, outfitted with gas liquefaction processing equipment and liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage tanks, is suggested as a possible way to exploit remote offshore gas production. A similar study with a barge-mounted methanol plant was conducted several years ago, also using remote offshore feed gas. This barge-mounted, LNG system is bow-moored to a single point mooring through which feed gas is piped via seafloor pipeline from a nearby gas production facility. The barge is arranged with personnel accommodation forward, LNG storage midships, and gas liquefaction processing equipment aft. A flare boom is cantilevered off the barge's stern. The basis of design stipulates feed gas properties, area environmental data, gas liquefaction process, LNG storage tank type plus other parameters desirable in a floating process plant. The latter were concerned with safety, low maintenance characteristics, and the fact that the process barge also would serve as an offshore port where LNG export tankers would moor periodically. A brief summary of results for a barge-mounted methanol plant from an earlier study is followed then by a comparison of LNG and methanol alternatives.

  11. Investigation of low-cost LNG vehicle fuel tank concepts. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O`Brien, J.E.; Siahpush, A.

    1998-02-01

    The objective of this study was to investigate development of a low-cost liquid natural gas (LNG) vehicle fuel storage tank with low fuel boil-off, low tank pressure, and high safety margin. One of the largest contributors to the cost of converting a vehicle to LNG is the cost of the LNG fuel tank. To minimize heat leak from the surroundings into the low-temperature fuel, these tanks are designed as cryogenic dewars with double walls separated by an evacuated insulation space containing multi-layer insulation. The cost of these fuel tanks is driven by this double-walled construction, both in terms of materials and labor. The primary focus of the analysis was to try to devise a fuel tank concept that would allow for the elimination of the double-wall requirement. Results of this study have validated the benefit of vacuum/MLI insulation for LNG fuel tanks and the difficulty in identifying viable alternatives. The thickness of a non-vacuum insulation layer would have to be unreasonably large to achieve an acceptable non-venting hold time. Reasonable hold times could be achieved by using an auxiliary tank to accept boil-off vapor from a non-vacuum insulated primary tank, if the vapor in the auxiliary tank can be stored at high pressure. The primary focus of the analysis was to try to devise a fuel tank concept that allowed for the elimination of the double-wall requirement. Thermodynamic relations were developed for analyzing the fuel tank transient response to heat transfer, venting of vapor, and out-flow of either vapor or liquid. One of the major costs associated with conversion of a vehicle to LNG fuel is the cost of the LNG fuel tank. The cost of these tanks is driven by the cryogenic nature of the fuel and by the fundamental design requirements of long non-venting hold times and low storage pressure.

  12. Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals ... Net Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from Storage Minnesota Liquefied Natural Gas ...

  13. Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million ... Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from Storage Minnesota Liquefied Natural Gas ...

  14. Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic ... Additions of Liquefied Natural Gas into Storage Minnesota Liquefied Natural Gas Additions ...

  15. California Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic ... Additions of Liquefied Natural Gas into Storage California Liquefied Natural Gas Additions ...

  16. California Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million ... Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from Storage California Liquefied Natural Gas ...

  17. Nippon Kokan technical report No. 42, December 1984: overseas. LNG technology special issue

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1984-01-01

    Contents INCLUDE: fracture toughness of 9% Ni steel and safety of LNG storage tank; fatigue strength and safety assessment of membrane components; comparison of LNG carriers of membrane tank system and spherical tank system; diesel-driven LNG carrier with reliquefaction plant; construction of TGZ MK I system LNG carrier model tank and its cryogenic tests; vacuum insulation test using LNG model tank; estimation of impact pressure and hydrodynamic force due to sloshing in LNG carrier; Higashi-Ohgishima LNG receiving facility for the Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.; design of LNG receiving facility; receiving and circulation control system of Higashi-Ohgishima LNG terminal; welding procedure of LNG pipelines; the design method of inground LNG storage tank; the design method of aboveground LNG storage tank; various applications of LNG tank roll-over simulation program ROSP.

  18. ,"New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  19. ,"New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  20. ,"New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  1. ,"New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  2. ,"South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  3. ,"North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  4. ,"Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  5. ,"North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  6. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  7. ,"New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  8. ,"South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  9. ,"South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  10. ,"Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  11. ,"South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Dakota...

  12. ,"New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9302015" ,"Next Release...

  13. ,"Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350snv2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  14. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350stn2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  15. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350sne2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  16. ,"Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350swa2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  17. ,"Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350smo2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  18. ,"Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350sva2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  19. ,"Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350smd2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  20. ,"Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350sor2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  1. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...nghistna1350smn2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  2. ,"Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ...nghistna1350sma2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ...

  3. ,"North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ...nghistna1350snc2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ...

  4. ,"New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ...nghistna1350snh2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ...

  5. ,"U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ...nghistna1340nus2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  6. ,"U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ...nghistna1350nus2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  7. ,"U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ...nghistna1330nus2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  8. Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 ...

  9. ,"Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ...Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"4292016 7:06:12 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage ...

  10. Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 0 2000's 1 158 319 467 697 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from

  11. Onboard Storage Tank Workshop | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Onboard Storage Tank Workshop Onboard Storage Tank Workshop The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Sandia National Laboratories co-hosted the Onboard Storage Tank Workshop on April 29th, 2010. Onboard storage tank experts gathered to share lessons learned about research and development (R&D) needs; regulations, codes and standards (RCS); and a path forward to enable the successful deployment of hydrogen storage tanks in early market fuel cell applications. The workshop also included initial

  12. Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 61 265 243 47 97 147 20 65 174 164 1990's 142 749 796 462 1,156 857 850 1,056 102 162 2000's 174 72 254 1,290 971 850 390 1,093 656 698 2010's 468 430 517 624 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next

  13. Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 316 192 260 55 66 120 36 295 143 202 1990's 188 355 1,216 800 996 908 1,603 1,533 851 139 2000's 986 413 301 1,205 1,058 786 411 1,089 730 954 2010's 698 436 457 645 879 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  14. South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 342 546 401 292 258 293 342 481 547 547 1990's 247 396 323 752 682 754 910 461 406 493 2000's 1,194 651 488 718 622 757 892 987 1,847 1,268 2010's 1,574 1,183 491 914 1,252 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  15. South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 44 83 2000's 70 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Additions of Liquefied Natural Gas

  16. South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 15 13 0 0 0 143 0 53 74 2000's 66 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Liquefied

  17. Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 136 238 283 60 272 131 64 74 253 228 1990's 116 167 57 112 266 206 269 143 85 53 2000's 71 76 102 95 49 114 60 148 130 80 2010's 63 107 33 103 196 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  18. Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 212 151 207 153 162 151 138 164 172 174 1990's 126 131 117 110 316 120 329 92 106 114 2000's 111 102 94 86 94 90 96 70 79 98 2010's 92 87 100 89 138 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  19. Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -13 -3 -1 -124 32 178 -346 -122 560 49 1990's -249 220 -33 -222 -257 114 -246 48 -256 73 2000's 208 19 -70 15 -3 217 -119 -136 -222 247 2010's -53 -25 -16 -50 111 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016

  20. Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -869 967 -292 -1,120 1,448 -627 259 1,135 -163 -1,974 1990's 2,632 -22 72 -204 797 -398 867 -1,237 533 669 2000's -206 2,063 -958 -809 689 278 -628 -393 151 -690 2010's 39 206 889 -82 -1,132 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  1. Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 14 5 21 0 44 18 22 52 42 30 1990's 128 38 50 53 73 29 0 57 64 52 2000's 52 50 85 36 76 72 45 54 51 27 2010's 42 47 57 52 56 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  2. Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 24 32 34 8 26 18 43 54 62 1990's 23 49 51 44 68 56 85 68 62 53 2000's 52 52 81 88 40 51 57 57 72 51 2010's 40 53 48 40 42 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  3. Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural

  4. Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 113 99 118 94 149 133 0 6 93 39 1990's 88 79 61 99 225 103 237 112 77 83 2000's 182 88 127 219 230 138 68 215 122 121 2010's 73 64 117 63 157 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016

  5. Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 102 121 123 110 126 71 66 89 76 1990's 81 72 66 95 202 103 226 121 70 52 2000's 99 78 170 191 220 145 68 220 104 118 2010's 76 96 66 131 128 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  6. Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 110 361 110 230 287 93 0 528 258 1990's 291 340 1,338 1,389 554 405 636 868 776 720 2000's 29 1,358 239 210 330 46 415 89 0 528 2010's 142 146 211 13 64 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  7. Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 277 327 524 338 1,034 653 199 223 393 0 1990's 883 115 570 417 1,326 370 971 283 60 650 2000's 97 654 69 875 406 3 238 475 1 465 2010's 398 657 750 40 61 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  8. Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 318 305 477 868 381 858 469 320 325 579 1990's 302 344 348 448 1,317 382 1,259 483 410 409 2000's 467 424 352 326 348 405 358 343 383 726 2010's 325 530 331 362 503 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next

  9. Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -86 15 -85 5 12 6 0 0 4 1990's -4 1 4 -2 5 3 4 -2 17 15 2000's 12 0 6 51 22 34 18 -21 0 -33 2010's -25 -18 2 1 4 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net

  10. Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 -26 -13 -14 47 -10 5 10 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied

  11. Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 95 -54 -286 162 -70 -136 -48 14 132 -204 1990's 339 -119 111 65 26 -134 127 122 -351 176 2000's -132 348 -31 -83 -8 121 -122 18 -15 -10 2010's 39 -73 -140 280 -202 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  12. Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 289 149 68 89 110 256 -170 205 1990's -548 728 -71 9 -30 31 72 61 -31 -29 2000's -17 1 6 21 -1 8 -55 -73 17 -76 2010's -69 -42 -63 -57 16 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  13. Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 185 30 66 -580 459 -459 132 -46 164 -422 1990's 456 -19 239 215 448 -164 -303 425 32 -219 2000's -285 -136 298 -47 19 114 -7 -209 -73 178 2010's -21 -75 -22 63 -206 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  14. Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's -2,581 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's -1 1 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied

  15. Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 14 -19 -11 -34 36 -8 4 9 -12 -32 1990's 106 -11 -1 9 5 -27 -85 -11 2 -1 2000's -1 -2 4 52 -36 -20 12 -3 -21 -24 2010's 2 -7 9 12 14 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016

  16. California Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -916 -105 19 -430 -335 -207 -5 0 -11 0 1990's 0 32 -38 -24 -80 -33 -13 -58 -114 -59 2000's 234 -1 4 3 -1 -31 -16 10 -1 -5 2010's 2 7 -5 3 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  17. Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas

  18. Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -820 701 -1,356 -385 544 -187 198 121 75 -604 1990's 822 -103 -355 -29 -61 -373 680 94 66 -66 2000's -471 -169 182 140 -91 -240 -286 102 207 164 2010's 178 129 260 -68 -327 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  19. Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 113 -3 -3 -29 39 7 -71 -60 4 -38 1990's 6 7 -5 3 23 -1 11 -8 8 31 2000's 83 10 -43 -28 -10 7 -1 -6 17 3 2010's -2 -31 51 -68 29 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016

  20. Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 19 132 -16 -52 -634 -932 -86 334 165 1990's 23 113 -47 51 182 -29 -25 32 -460 492 2000's -361 307 -42 91 120 143 -140 -99 -147 387 2010's 70 -19 139 -259 -676 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next

  1. Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -41 22 47 -530 653 -205 -270 -96 69 -579 1990's 580 -229 222 -31 9 -12 -289 -200 -351 241 2000's -370 231 -283 -548 -58 402 119 132 -381 -260 2010's 74 127 419 -322 -442 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  2. Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -129 204 1,991 -498 1,878 429 615 541 6,077 344 1990's 230 595 -339 738 -95 -239 -234 653 486 582 2000's -480 223 -376 -28 -187 236 -275 86 -766 -590 2010's 835 -380 -977 -81 771 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  3. Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -609 -259 726 -1,220 1,015 -813 -496 -208 -171 292 1990's 541 1,343 412 75 346 -651 1,978 241 280 72 2000's -53 -411 -743 -1,077 761 219 -899 -115 -166 -244 2010's 146 14 428 -151 -647 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  4. New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 5 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 29 80 138 99 27 101 45 82 2010's 33 112 65 124 185 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Additions of

  5. New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 27 11 21 84 0 0 100 91 142 213 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 102 37 0 82 137 100 26 103 44 73 2010's 35 108 71 124 185 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring

  6. New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 150 878 1,170 1,050 836 1,073 777 892 370 595 1990's 303 309 363 440 835 886 1,262 760 260 454 2000's 938 575 822 1,988 913 635 597 656 717 1,025 2010's 705 671 584 528 1,194 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  7. Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 251 265 28 649 304 461 0 183 803 940 1990's 754 609 376 1,137 860 790 693 889 757 540 2000's 997 1,234 594 977 1,193 1,733 1,078 613 1,315 683 2010's 343 336 299 276 822 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next

  8. Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 264 268 29 773 272 283 346 305 243 890 1990's 1,003 389 409 1,360 1,117 675 939 841 1,014 468 2000's 789 1,215 664 992 1,190 1,950 959 749 1,537 436 2010's 396 361 315 326 711 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  9. Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 364 166 203 308 127 226 157 29 1990's 18 25 26 16 27 19 26 11 61 83 2000's 45 14 23 0 0 0 19 20 32 0 2010's 0 0 36 46 39 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  10. Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 86 349 251 198 296 121 227 157 25 1990's 22 23 22 19 22 16 22 13 44 68 2000's 33 14 17 51 22 34 37 40 32 33 2010's 25 18 34 45 35 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring

  11. Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,851 623 581 394 500 867 616 480 771 760 1990's 377 531 715 610 529 540 691 252 29 221 2000's 1,023 3,687 3,912 2,648 452 499 3,418 881 370 371 2010's 378 352 359 466 563 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  12. Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 7 26 29 57 21 28 58 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Additions of Liquefied Natural

  13. Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 33 39 43 10 31 23 48 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Liquefied

  14. Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 225 119 7 283 65 4 81 130 299 210 1990's 493 92 283 287 393 115 915 505 0 377 2000's 288 598 187 601 449 185 303 214 159 165 2010's 346 147 1 407 481 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  15. Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 130 173 293 121 135 140 129 115 167 414 1990's 155 211 173 222 367 248 788 383 351 201 2000's 421 251 217 518 441 306 181 196 174 175 2010's 308 220 141 128 683 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next

  16. Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 294 241 133 419 217 441 213 696 1990's 356 767 83 253 241 259 180 276 92 206 2000's 153 211 181 193 199 587 316 202 174 106 2010's 125 112 82 153 227 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  17. Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 5 92 65 330 107 185 383 491 1990's 904 39 155 244 271 228 109 214 124 235 2000's 170 210 174 214 198 595 261 275 157 182 2010's 195 154 146 210 211 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  18. Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 655 908 754 353 838 512 581 465 607 512 1990's 893 511 501 612 944 524 979 960 501 564 2000's 729 504 871 655 509 493 704 868 1,003 1,676 2010's 946 754 562 822 1,664 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next

  19. Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 470 878 688 933 379 971 449 511 444 934 1990's 437 530 262 396 497 688 1,282 535 469 783 2000's 1,014 641 573 607 528 606 698 1,078 1,076 1,498 2010's 968 829 583 759 1,869 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  20. Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,581 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 159 319 467 697 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Additions of Liquefied

  1. Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -7 -5 -14 -87 41 -3 -49 4 -29 -6 1990's 48 -71 6 -102 -121 -62 17 108 -142 126 2000's 146 56 -543 -400 0 -168 24 79 58 81 2010's -207 1,588 1,296 40 28 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next

  2. Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's -8 2 -471 -4,718 640 -153 -72 48 -877 761 2000's 90 -87 18 4 -63 10 380 195 -657 532 2010's 0 100 16 -77 -1,094 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  3. Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -76 87 76 -93 110 -20 -74 -90 81 54 1990's -10 35 -59 2 -50 85 -60 51 -21 -61 2000's -40 -26 8 -9 45 -23 36 78 51 -18 2010's -29 20 -67 13 58 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  4. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Breakout Session 1C—Fostering Technology Adoption I: Building the Market for Renewables with High Octane Fuels Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Ryan Haerer, Program Analyst, Alternative Fuels, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Environmental Protection Agency

  5. South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 345 736 35 132 362 484 403 545 503 490 1990's 394 346 339 1,231 847 927 976 6 56 1,204 2000's 1,131 1,330 605 716 813 776 784 1,089 1,872 1,283 2010's 1,360 1,386 391 879 1,371 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  6. Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,222 2,508 2,491 977 2,376 2,105 1,766 1,135 2,109 1,879 1990's 3,008 1,522 2,759 2,663 2,985 2,414 2,809 1,875 1,816 2,181 2000's 884 1,606 1,849 1,889 913 1,065 1,391 2,312 2,186 1,867 2010's 1,175 1,688 3,028 2,243 7,227 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  7. Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,865 2,742 1,850 2,222 1,303 2,477 1,695 1,228 2,053 3,757 1990's 2,377 1,923 3,065 2,931 2,879 3,035 3,985 2,416 3,562 3,005 2000's 2,664 2,273 2,234 2,960 1,564 1,487 1,121 3,864 3,509 2,748 2010's 2,738 1,499 2,963 3,505 7,759 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  8. Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,626 1,876 1,865 1,223 1,812 2,117 1,989 112 231 2,167 1990's 190 173 173 173 116 1,214 1,631 1,096 632 1,318 2000's 972 691 7,692 1,691 973 1,510 487 1,057 869 1,008 2010's 664 1,977 1,699 764 1,033 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  9. Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,633 1,881 1,879 1,310 1,771 2,120 2,038 108 260 2,173 1990's 142 243 168 274 236 1,276 1,614 988 774 1,192 2000's 826 634 8,235 1,292 973 1,342 511 978 811 927 2010's 871 389 402 724 1,005 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  10. Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 96 2 0 3,167 2,340 1,902 2,284 2,193 902 2,502 2000's 1,268 2,039 1,094 3,067 2,628 2,526 2,283 2,406 1,760 2,937 2010's 1,157 1,664 1,154 905 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016

  11. Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 104 0 471 7,886 1,701 2,055 2,356 2,145 1,779 1,741 2000's 1,178 2,126 1,076 3,071 2,565 2,536 2,663 2,211 2,417 2,405 2010's 1,157 1,564 1,138 981 1,094 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  12. Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,336 2,160 1,766 980 1,673 1,466 1,035 1,281 1,229 1,115 1990's 1,696 1,010 359 610 1,435 736 2,265 832 447 334 2000's 707 245 438 468 1,299 1,383 532 587 1,008 713 2010's 651 655 743 558 1,032 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  13. Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,156 1,459 3,122 1,365 1,129 1,653 837 1,160 1,154 1,720 1990's 874 1,112 714 640 1,497 1,109 1,585 737 381 400 2000's 1,178 414 256 608 1,208 1,143 246 485 802 549 2010's 473 526 484 626 1,359 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  14. Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 20,484 1,508 1,555 1,024 678 1,834 1,942 1,150 1,702 2,930 1990's 2,779 1,969 1,573 1,855 3,788 3,746 6,523 3,221 1,760 607 2000's 3,241 6,772 3,426 5,422 5,570 5,971 7,705 2,817 4,372 3,182 2010's 2,693 3,306 2,097 1,385 7,130 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  15. Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 19,950 3,106 2,914 1,193 881 2,359 1,346 1,001 1,157 2,586 1990's 1,435 1,579 1,557 1,896 3,881 5,210 6,712 3,374 2,458 2,010 2000's 4,367 562 1,029 3,283 4,518 4,535 1,968 1,493 1,891 1,210 2010's 2,314 764 719 180 4,046 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  16. Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,107 1,966 4,352 785 2,714 923 777 806 6,321 737 1990's 1,027 1,517 849 2,320 2,638 1,316 4,337 2,520 1,589 2,000 2000's 795 1,477 1,726 2,197 1,602 831 1,447 2,663 982 691 2010's 1,983 609 0 925 2,193 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  17. Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,236 1,762 2,361 1,283 836 494 162 265 244 393 1990's 796 922 1,188 1,582 2,733 1,554 4,571 1,867 1,102 1,418 2000's 1,275 1,254 2,103 2,169 1,415 1,066 1,172 2,577 1,748 1,281 2010's 1,148 989 977 1,005 1,422 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  18. Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3,063 2,576 5,243 256 3,089 289 154 670 477 1,008 1990's 1,196 2,012 4,659 5,671 3,867 2,346 5,262 2,134 1,269 1,697 2000's 1,226 702 943 3,153 1,665 2,626 2,438 3,080 3,178 1,652 2010's 1,458 1,858 1,408 2,252 2,054 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  19. Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3,672 2,835 4,517 1,476 2,074 1,102 650 878 648 715 1990's 655 669 4,247 5,597 3,521 2,996 3,284 1,893 989 1,624 2000's 1,279 1,112 1,687 2,075 2,427 2,845 1,540 3,195 3,344 1,897 2010's 1,312 1,844 980 2,403 2,701 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  20. Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 3,991 2,622 -3,556 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 1,697 558 448 -1,356 -429 308 -39 2,174 13,871 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,446 2010's 0 0 -24 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016

  1. Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -2,408 91 95 -159 150 -81 153 2 -7 -62 1990's 392 126 89 85 410 1,291 4,190 1,186 785 494 2000's -339 -761 -98 -1,789 -1,705 -2,703 3,122 -250 632 4,488 2010's -13 42 27 -5 41 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  2. Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -3,383 2,585 -1,618 -700 2,734 45 593 -2,043 -1,644 -6,447 1990's 308 -3,967 -1,844 -2,368 -6,820 -3,134 -5,364 -3,517 -7,243 -2,447 2000's -7,518 350 767 4,359 1,584 3,129 156 -1,560 -1,694 -1,221 2010's -963 -753 -1,384 -864 734 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  3. Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 534 -1,598 -1,359 -169 -203 -525 596 149 545 343 1990's 1,345 390 16 -42 -94 -1,464 -189 -153 -698 -1,403 2000's -1,126 6,210 2,397 -2,138 -1,052 -1,436 -5,737 1,323 2,481 1,972 2010's 379 2,542 1,378 1,205 3,085 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  4. New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3,617 4,658 4,518 4,770 4,781 4,317 5,384 3,236 3,243 1,433 1990's 3,740 2,683 2,422 2,620 4,835 3,055 5,033 3,926 4,922 7,035 2000's 7,688 3,844 6,373 9,189 7,532 8,448 4,574 7,290 5,792 4,919 2010's 3,304 5,018 3,483 5,401 6,733 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  5. New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3,300 3,541 4,329 4,979 3,313 4,064 3,468 3,422 3,202 2,444 1990's 2,298 2,221 2,471 2,313 3,565 2,982 3,219 3,330 4,305 6,752 2000's 7,501 3,732 4,778 6,554 5,603 5,915 3,680 5,513 5,971 4,425 2010's 3,693 4,404 3,278 5,208 6,218 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  6. New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 2,599 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Liquefied

  7. New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 432 1,240 1,124 1,174 1,017 1,312 647 1,188 449 564 1990's 1,205 559 732 810 1,125 926 1,853 1,625 318 651 2000's 1,176 276 713 2,073 1,253 869 510 880 981 1,047 2010's 1,032 524 416 1,106 1,868 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  8. North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 597 1,497 1,372 1,145 1,511 1,164 1,663 1,609 2,151 1,597 1990's 2,023 1,219 1,030 1,681 2,118 1,572 2,708 2,016 1,286 4,086 2000's 4,168 5,477 4,026 8,122 5,039 6,445 2,639 5,744 4,493 6,838 2010's 4,410 5,500 3,504 7,765 10,765 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  9. North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 1,591 1,483 1,427 1,063 1,397 977 1,571 1,890 2,803 1990's 578 1,232 1,122 1,823 1,802 1,710 2,490 1,686 1,083 2,089 2000's 4,891 3,680 4,860 7,779 5,773 5,762 2,952 5,522 4,490 6,027 2010's 7,052 3,305 3,762 7,315 10,303 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  10. Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 4,046 4,051 3,234 1,970 3,714 2,309 2,657 1,381 3,023 2,268 1990's 4,311 2,390 2,869 4,329 5,826 3,523 5,590 4,615 5,092 5,146 2000's 4,918 4,907 862 4,496 2,938 3,416 2,200 2,292 2,683 1,681 2010's 2,353 2,620 2,651 3,644 3,364 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  11. Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 4,915 3,084 3,526 3,090 2,266 2,936 2,398 247 3,186 4,242 1990's 1,679 2,412 2,797 4,534 5,030 3,921 4,722 5,852 4,559 4,477 2000's 5,124 2,844 1,820 3,688 3,627 3,694 1,571 2,685 2,532 2,371 2010's 2,314 2,415 1,763 3,726 4,496 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  12. Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 22,711 96,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 27,903 33,284 12,545 30,677 17,823 5,032 7,016 30,419 30,385 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,446 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  13. Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 18,720 94,323 3,556 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 26,206 32,726 12,097 32,033 18,252 4,723 7,056 28,245 16,515 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 24 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  14. Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 443 714 676 235 650 786 769 482 764 697 1990's 769 657 804 696 939 1,831 4,881 1,439 813 715 2000's 684 2,926 3,814 4,437 2,157 3,203 296 631 1,002 4,859 2010's 366 394 386 461 604 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  15. Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,885 15,234 14,021 6,599 9,844 9,261 6,184 5,732 5,782 10,004 1990's 6,586 4,399 5,147 5,531 5,550 5,898 6,107 5,049 2,712 3,934 2000's 4,480 6,382 5,683 10,035 9,485 7,643 5,966 10,006 5,863 7,244 2010's 5,507 7,558 3,805 8,339 10,621 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  16. Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 11,268 12,649 15,639 7,299 7,110 9,216 5,591 7,775 7,427 16,450 1990's 6,279 8,366 6,990 7,900 12,369 9,033 11,471 8,565 9,955 6,381 2000's 11,998 6,033 4,916 14,393 11,070 10,772 6,122 11,567 7,557 8,465 2010's 6,470 8,311 5,189 9,203 9,887 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  17. Montana Underground Storage Tanks Webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tanks Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Montana Underground Storage Tanks Webpage Abstract Provides overview...

  18. Alaska Underground Storage Tanks Website | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tanks Website Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Alaska Underground Storage Tanks Website Author Division of Spill...

  19. Hawaii Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Webpage...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tank Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Hawaii Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Webpage Abstract...

  20. Utah Underground Storage Tank Installation Permit | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Storage Tank Installation Permit Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Utah Underground Storage Tank Installation Permit Form Type Application...

  1. Texas Petroleum Storage Tanks Webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Petroleum Storage Tanks Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Texas Petroleum Storage Tanks Webpage Author Texas Commission on...

  2. ,"New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  3. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  4. ,"New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  5. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  6. ,"Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  7. ,"South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  8. ,"South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1998 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  9. ,"Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wisconsin Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  10. ,"Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  11. ,"Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  12. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  13. ,"California Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  14. ,"Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  15. ,"Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Connecticut Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  16. ,"Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Delaware Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  17. ,"Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Georgia Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  18. ,"Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Idaho Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1350_sid_2a.xls"

  19. ,"Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Illinois Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  20. ,"Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  1. ,"Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Iowa Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","na1350_sia_2a.xls"

  2. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  3. Underground storage tank management plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-09-01

    The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Management Program at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant was established to locate UST systems in operation at the facility, to ensure that all operating UST systems are free of leaks, and to establish a program for the removal of unnecessary UST systems and upgrade of UST systems that continue to be needed. The program implements an integrated approach to the management of UST systems, with each system evaluated against the same requirements and regulations. A common approach is employed, in accordance with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) regulations and guidance, when corrective action is mandated. This Management Plan outlines the compliance issues that must be addressed by the UST Management Program, reviews the current UST inventory and compliance approach, and presents the status and planned activities associated with each UST system. The UST Management Plan provides guidance for implementing TDEC regulations and guidelines for petroleum UST systems. (There are no underground radioactive waste UST systems located at Y-12.) The plan is divided into four major sections: (1) regulatory requirements, (2) implementation requirements, (3) Y-12 Plant UST Program inventory sites, and (4) UST waste management practices. These sections describe in detail the applicable regulatory drivers, the UST sites addressed under the Management Program, and the procedures and guidance used for compliance with applicable regulations.

  4. Notification for Underground Storage Tanks (EPA Form 7530-1)...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Notification for Underground Storage Tanks (EPA Form 7530-1) Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Notification for Underground Storage Tanks...

  5. NMAC 20.5 Petroleum Storage Tanks | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    5 Petroleum Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: NMAC 20.5 Petroleum Storage TanksLegal Abstract...

  6. NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: NMED Petroleum Storage Tank Bureau webpage Abstract This is the...

  7. Idaho DEQ Storage Tanks Webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Storage Tanks Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Idaho DEQ Storage Tanks Webpage Abstract This webpage provides an overview of the...

  8. NM Underground Storage Tank Registration | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tank Registration Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- OtherOther: NM Underground Storage Tank RegistrationLegal...

  9. Hydrogen Storage "Think Tank" Report | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Hydrogen Storage "Think Tank" Report Hydrogen Storage "Think Tank" Report This report is a compilation of information exchanged at a forum on March 14, 2003, in Washington, D.C....

  10. Comparative Safety Analysis of LNG Storage Tanks B. A. Fecht

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    ... on AGA Project IS-l09-l, Feb. 1977. 4. Hamilton, D.C. and W.R. Morgan, "Radiant ... Louis, MO, May 1977. 5. Hamilton, D.C. and Morgan, H.R., "Radiant-Interchange ...

  11. LNG production for peak shaving operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Price, B.C.

    1999-07-01

    LNG production facilities are being developed as an alternative or in addition to underground storage throughout the US to provide gas supply during peak gas demand periods. These facilities typically involved a small liquefaction unit with a large LNG storage tank and gas sendout facilities capable of responding to peak loads during the winter. Black and Veatch is active in the development of LNG peak shaving projects for clients using a patented mixed refrigerant technology for efficient production of LNG at a low installed cost. The mixed refrigerant technology has been applied in a range of project sizes both with gas turbine and electric motor driven compression systems. This paper will cover peak shaving concepts as well as specific designs and projects which have been completed to meet this market need.

  12. Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Release Date: 4292016 Next Release Date: 5312016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from Storage Texas Liquefied Natural Gas Additions to and Withdrawals ...

  13. South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 -15 11 0 0 0 -143 0 -9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied Natural Gas from Storage South Dakota

  14. Caribbean LNG project marks progress; LNG tanker launched

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-10-20

    World LNG trade continues to expand as construction of a major LNG project in the Caribbean hits full stride this fall and another LNG carrier was launched earlier this year. Engineering is nearly complete and construction is nearing midway on Trinidad`s Atlantic LNG. In Japan, NKK Corp. launched another LNG tanker that employs the membrane-storage system. The 50-mile pipeline to move natural gas to the Atlantic LNG facility is also on track for completion by October 1998.

  15. Monitoring, safety systems for LNG and LPG operators

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    True, W.R.

    1998-11-16

    Operators in Korea and Australia have chosen monitoring and control systems in recent contracts for LNG and LPG storage. Korea Gas Corp. (Kogas) has hired Whessoe Varec, Calais, to provide monitoring systems for four LNG storage tanks being built at Kogas` Inchon terminal. For Elgas Ltd., Port Botany, Australia, Whessoe Varec has already shipped a safety valve-shutdown system to a new LPG cavern-storage facility under construction. The paper describes the systems, terminal monitoring, dynamic approach to tank management, and meeting the growing demand for LPG.

  16. Texas Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Additions of Liquefied Natural Gas into Storage Texas Liquefied Natural Gas Additions to and Withdrawals from Storage Additions of Liquefied Natural Gas into

  17. North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 597 -94 -111 -282 448 -233 686 39 261 -1,205 1990's 1,445 -13 -92 -142 316 -138 218 330 203 1,997 2000's -722 1,797 -834 -343 734 -684 313 222 3 811 2010's -2,643 2,194 -258 449 462 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  18. Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's -255 73 -17 -8 31 27 -16 -230 31 -38 1990's -46 393 -420 -337 160 -51 -753 -476 -749 24 2000's -812 -341 -47 -84 87 -64 21 4 -74 -256 2010's -230 -7 60 -21 -879 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  19. South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3 190 -366 -160 104 191 61 64 -44 -57 1990's 147 -50 16 478 165 173 65 -455 -350 711 2000's -63 680 117 2 -191 -19 108 102 26 15 2010's -214 204 -100 -35 119 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  20. New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 2,599 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Liquefied

  1. New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 282 362 -46 124 181 239 -130 296 80 -31 1990's 902 250 370 371 290 40 591 865 58 197 2000's 238 -298 -110 -85 -340 -234 87 224 264 21 2010's 327 -147 -168 578 674 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  2. FFTF vertical sodium storage tank preliminary thermal analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Irwin, J.J.

    1995-02-21

    In the FFTF Shutdown Program, sodium from the primary and secondary heat transport loops, Interim Decay Storage (IDS), and Fuel Storage Facility (FSF) will be transferred to four large storage tanks for temporary storage. Three of the storage tanks will be cylindrical vertical tanks having a diameter of 28 feet, height of 22 feet and fabricated from carbon steel. The fourth tank is a horizontal cylindrical tank but is not the subject of this report. The storage tanks will be located near the FFTF in the 400 Area and rest on a steel-lined concrete slab in an enclosed building. The purpose of this work is to document the thermal analyses that were performed to ensure that the vertical FFTF sodium storage tank design is feasible from a thermal standpoint. The key criterion for this analysis is the time to heat up the storage tank containing frozen sodium at ambient temperature to 400 F. Normal operating conditions include an ambient temperature range of 32 F to 120 F. A key parameter in the evaluation of the sodium storage tank is the type of insulation. The baseline case assumed six inches of calcium silicate insulation. An alternate case assumed refractory fiber (Cerablanket) insulation also with a thickness of six inches. Both cases assumed a total electrical trace heat load of 60 kW, with 24 kW evenly distributed on the bottom head and 36 kW evenly distributed on the tank side wall.

  3. NMAC 20.5.2 Petroleum Storage Tanks Registration of Tanks | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    .2 Petroleum Storage Tanks Registration of Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: NMAC 20.5.2 Petroleum...

  4. 100-N Area underground storage tank closures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rowley, C.A.

    1993-08-01

    This report describes the removal/characterization actions concerning underground storage tanks (UST) at the 100-N Area. Included are 105-N-LFT, 182-N-1-DT, 182-N-2-DT, 182-N-3-DT, 100-N-SS-27, and 100-N-SS-28. The text of this report gives a summary of remedial activities. In addition, correspondence relating to UST closures can be found in Appendix B. Appendix C contains copies of Unusual Occurrence Reports, and validated sampling data results comprise Appendix D.

  5. Recommended research on LNG safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carpenter, H.J.; Gilmore, F.R.

    1981-03-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting research on the safety and other environmental aspects of liquefied energy gases including liquefied natural gas (LNG). The effort reported here was conducted as part of the planning for further research into the safety aspects of transporting and storing LNG, with primary emphasis on public safety. Although the modern LNG industry has enjoyed excellent success in providing for safe operations, significant questions remain on the part of many, the expressions of which were intensified with the addition of marine-based LNG import terminals. Public safety with regard to large-scale importation of this fuel has received widespread attention in the US Congress, state legislatures, county and city governments, and from various individuals and public groups, with coverage in all the news media, including books published on the subject. The safety concerns have centered around the consequences to the public of a large spill of the cryogenic liquid from an ocean tanker or a larger storage tank, either of which might hold as much as 125,000 m/sup 3/ of LNG.

  6. Technical Assessment of Cryo-Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Technical Assessment of Cryo-Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for Automotive Applications Technical report describing DOE's second assessment report on a third generation ...

  7. WSDE Underground Storage Tank Program webpage | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: WSDE Underground Storage Tank Program webpage Author Washington State Department of Ecology Published...

  8. RCW - 90.76 Underground Storage Tanks | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - 90.76 Underground Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: RCW - 90.76 Underground Storage...

  9. WAC - 173-360 Underground Storage Tank Regulations | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    60 Underground Storage Tank Regulations Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: WAC - 173-360 Underground Storage...

  10. Decision analysis of Hanford underground storage tank waste retrieval systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Merkhofer, M.W.; Bitz, D.A.; Berry, D.L.; Jardine, L.J.

    1994-05-01

    A decision analysis approach has been proposed for planning the retrieval of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes from underground storage tanks. This paper describes the proposed approach and illustrates its application to the single-shell storage tanks (SSTs) at Hanford, Washington.

  11. Permanent Closure of the TAN-664 Underground Storage Tank

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bradley K. Griffith

    2011-12-01

    This closure package documents the site assessment and permanent closure of the TAN-664 gasoline underground storage tank in accordance with the regulatory requirements established in 40 CFR 280.71, 'Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks: Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure.'

  12. U.S. Department of Energy Onboard Storage Tank Workshop Notes...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Onboard Storage Tank Workshop Notes U.S. Department of Energy Onboard Storage Tank Workshop Notes These notes and action items were derived from the Onboard Storage Tank Workshop ...

  13. U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,581 1980's 52,780 47,839 73,028 121,928 42,791 34,671 31,500 24,379 36,949 36,467 1990's 65,814 63,259 44,033 75,217 68,478 43,897 73,057 69,865 57,887 38,333 2000's 36,869 45,210 43,504 66,162 51,956 53,444 38,706 50,180 45,060 47,096 2010's 32,205 39,999 28,445 41,961 63,718 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA

  14. U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's -2,581 1980's -9,651 4,687 2,488 -5,699 8,780 -3,283 6,504 -89 10,559 -13,807 1990's 13,271 169 -4,501 -6,972 -2,211 -6,549 3,770 348 3,522 2,154 2000's -14,644 9,740 707 -4,213 -834 -3,405 -4,958 14 -302 5,797 2010's -4,282 6,424 1,491 -309 505 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  15. U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas LNG Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 62,431 43,152 70,540 127,627 34,011 37,954 24,996 24,468 26,390 50,274 1990's 52,544 63,090 48,534 82,189 70,689 50,446 69,287 69,517 54,365 36,179 2000's 51,513 35,470 42,797 61,950 51,123 50,039 33,749 50,167 45,362 41,298 2010's 36,487 33,575 26,955 42,270 63,213 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  16. New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Hampshire Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's -22 -11 0 -84 0 0 -100 -91 -142 -213 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's -102 -37 29 2 -1 1 -1 -2 1 9 2010's -3 4 -6 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  17. New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 317 1,117 189 -209 1,468 253 1,916 -185 40 -1,011 1990's 1,442 461 -49 307 1,270 73 1,814 596 617 283 2000's 187 112 1,596 -2,634 -1,929 -2,534 -894 1,776 -178 494 2010's -390 613 205 193 515 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  18. Feasibility study for the construction of a new LNG receiving terminal, turkey. Volume 2. Appendix. Export trade information. [LNG (liquified natural gas)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-06-01

    The report was prepared by The M. W. Kellogg Co. for BOTAS Petroleum Pipeline Corporation of Ankara, Turkey. The study was undertaken to evaluate the cost and economics of constructing a second liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal in Turkey to meet future requirements for natural gas. Volume 2 contains the following appendices: LNG Storage Tanks; Vaporizers; Compressors; Pumps; Loading Arms; Marine Installations; Shipping; and Seismic Study.

  19. Use belowground storage tanks to manage stormwater

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nedrow, J.

    1996-01-01

    To meet performance and operating requirements under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), BP Oil`s Toledo Refinery installed two 10-million-gallon (MMgal) concrete belowground storage tanks to replace the existing impoundment ponds. Environmental, safety and operating criteria influenced how this older refinery could cost-effectively replace impoundment ponds without interrupting the production schedule. The north stormwater impoundment pond at BP Oil`s Toledo Refinery had received primary sludge, a RCRA-listed hazardous waste and material exceeding the toxic characteristic limit for benzene (0.5 ppm). Because the pond could not be adapted to meet RCRA standards, it had to be replaced by a system that met these standards and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Under normal operating conditions, stormwater was commingled with process wastewater and processed at the wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) before final disposal. However, when flow in the sewer system exceeded the capacity of the WWTU, excess flow was stored in an impoundment system. The case history shows how BP Oil`s project engineers, working with a consulting engineering group and a general contractor (GC), cost-effectively replaced the impoundment pond to handle stormwater runoff for the refinery.

  20. ARM 17-56 - Underground Storage Tanks Petroleum and Chemical...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    6 - Underground Storage Tanks Petroleum and Chemical Substance Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: ARM 17-56 -...

  1. 30 TAC, part 1, chapter 334 Underground storage tanks general...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    34 Underground storage tanks general provisions Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: 30 TAC, part 1, chapter 334...

  2. Technical Assessment of Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    TIAX LLC) were estimated for compressed hydrogen storage tanks with design pressures of 350 bar (5000 psi) and 700 bar (10,000 psi) capable of storing 5.6 kg of usable hydrogen. ...

  3. Technical Assessment of Cryo-Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for Automotive Applications

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Report on technical assessment of cyro-compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications.

  4. International LNG report/Developments proceed slowly in world LNG industry

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hale, D.

    1980-03-01

    A discussion of developments in the world LNG industry covers U.S. developments, including the Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, the National Fire Protection Association's 1979 edition of Standard 59A for the production, storage, and handling of LNG, and progress in the permitting of major LNG import projects changes in U.S. rules on LNG pricing; LNG accidents, including the grounding of the LNG carrier Vertical BarEl Paso Paul Kaise.

  5. 200-Area plateau inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks locations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brevick, C.H.

    1997-12-01

    Fluor Daniel Northwest (FDNW) has been tasked by Lockheed Martin Hanford Corporation (LMHC) to incorporate current location data for 64 of the 200-Area plateau inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks (IMUST) into the centralized mapping computer database for the Hanford facilities. The IMUST coordinate locations and tank names for the tanks currently assigned to the Hanford Site contractors are listed in Appendix A. The IMUST are inactive tanks installed in underground vaults or buried directly in the ground within the 200-East and 200-West Areas of the Hanford Site. The tanks are categorized as tanks with a capacity of less than 190,000 liters (50,000 gal). Some of the IMUST have been stabilized, pumped dry, filled with grout, or may contain an inventory or radioactive and/or hazardous materials. The IMUST have been out of service for at least 12 years.

  6. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... 1980 1984 1990 1995 1981 1985 1988 2005 Prior to Oct. 1980: No single or double wall tanks are warrantied for any alcohol or alcohol blended fuels. Oct. 1980 to Jun. 1984: ...

  7. LNG - Engine Delivery - Energy Innovation Portal

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Vehicles and Fuels Vehicles and Fuels Find More Like This Return to Search LNG - Engine Delivery Idaho National Laboratory Contact INL About This Technology Technology Marketing Summary This is a method of improved delivery of liquid natural gas (LNG) within an engine delivery system. The LNG is first pumped into the insulated holding tank from a fueling station. As a tank is refueled, any remaining natural gas vapors are condensed and returned to the liquid state. This allows the tank to fill

  8. LNG plants in the US and abroad

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blazek, C.F.; Biederman, R.T.

    1992-12-31

    The Institute of Gas Technology recently conducted a comprehensive survey of LNG production and storage facilities in North America. This survey was performed as part of IGT`s LNG Observer newsletter which covers both domestic and international LNG news, reports on LNG related economics and statistics, and routinely conducts interviews with key industry leaders. In addition to providing consulting services to the LNG industry, IGT has cosponsored the International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas for the part 20 years. The objective of this paper is to present a summary of our recent survey results as well as provide an overview of world LNG trade. This information is important in assessing the potential near term availability of LNG for transportation applications. The IGT LNG Survey appraised the capacity and current market activity of LNG peak shaving, satellite storage, and import receiving facilities in the United States and Canada. Information was requested from facilities on three main topics: liquefaction, storage, and regasification. Additional questions were posed regarding the year of operation, designer/contractor for liquefaction cycle and storage, source of LNG (for storage-only facilities), plans for expansion, and level of interest in providing LNG as a vehicle fuel. The IGT LNG Survey has to date received information on 56 LNG peak shaving facilities, 28 satellite storage facilities, and 4 LNG import receiving terminals.

  9. Hanford Tank Farm interim storage phase probabilistic risk assessment outline

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-05-19

    This report is the second in a series examining the risks for the high level waste (HLW) storage facilities at the Hanford Site. The first phase of the HTF PSA effort addressed risks from Tank 101-SY, only. Tank 101-SY was selected as the initial focus of the PSA because of its propensity to periodically release (burp) a mixture of flammable and toxic gases. This report expands the evaluation of Tank 101-SY to all 177 storage tanks. The 177 tanks are arranged into 18 farms and contain the HLW accumulated over 50 years of weapons material production work. A centerpiece of the remediation activity is the effort toward developing a permanent method for disposing of the HLW tank`s highly radioactive contents. One approach to risk based prioritization is to perform a PSA for the whole HLW tank farm complex to identify the highest risk tanks so that remediation planners and managers will have a more rational basis for allocating limited funds to the more critical areas. Section 3 presents the qualitative identification of generic initiators that could threaten to produce releases from one or more tanks. In section 4 a detailed accident sequence model is developed for each initiating event group. Section 5 defines the release categories to which the scenarios are assigned in the accident sequence model and presents analyses of the airborne and liquid source terms resulting from different release scenarios. The conditional consequences measured by worker or public exposure to radionuclides or hazardous chemicals and economic costs of cleanup and repair are analyzed in section 6. The results from all the previous sections are integrated to produce unconditional risk curves in frequency of exceedance format.

  10. Effect of viscosity on seismic response of waste storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tang, Yu; Uras, R.A.; Chang, Yao-Wen

    1992-06-01

    The dynamic response of liquid-storage tanks subjected to harmonic excitations and earthquake ground motions has been studied. A rigid tank of negligible mass, rigidly supported at the base having a diameter of 50 ft. and fluid height of 20.4 ft. was used in the computer analysis. The liquid is assumed to have a density of 1.5 g/ml. Viscosity values, {mu} = 60, 200, 100, and 10,000 cP, were used in the numerical analyses to study the effects of viscosity on sloshing wave height, impulsive and convective pressure on the tank wall, base shear and base moments. Harmonic excitations as well as earthquake ground motions were used as input motions. The harmonic excitations used in the analyses covers a wide range of frequencies, including both the resonant and non-resonant frequencies. Two earthquake motions were used. One matches the Newmark-Hall median response spectrum and is anchored at 0.24 g for a rock site with a damping of 2% and a time duration of 10 s. The other is the 1978 Tabas earthquake which had a peak ZPA of 0.81 g and a time duration of 29 s. A small tank, about 1/15 the size of the typical waste storage tank, was used in the harmonic excitation study to investigate the effect of viscosity on the response of liquid-storage tanks and how the viscosity effect is affected by the size of the storage tank. The results of this study show that for the typical waste storage tank subjected to earthquake motions, the effect of viscosity on sloshing wave height and impulsive and convective pressures is very small and can be neglected. For viscosity effect to become noticeable in the response of the typical waste storage tank, the waste viscosity must be greater than 10,000 cP. This value is far greater than the estimated viscosity value of the high level wastes, which may range from 60 to 200 cP for some tanks.

  11. Case Study in Corporate Memory Recovery: Hanford Tank Farms Miscellaneous Underground Waste Storage Tanks - 15344

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Washenfelder, D. J.; Johnson, J. M.; Turknett, J. C.; Barnes, T. J.; Duncan, K. G.

    2015-01-07

    In addition to managing the 177 underground waste storage tanks containing 212,000 m3 (56 million gal) of radioactive waste at the U. S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Site 200 Area Tank Farms, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC is responsible for managing numerous small catch tanks and special surveillance facilities. These are collectively known as “MUSTs” - Miscellaneous Underground Storage Tanks. The MUSTs typically collected drainage and flushes during waste transfer system piping changes; special surveillance facilities supported Tank Farm processes including post-World War II uranium recovery and later fission product recovery from tank wastes. Most were removed from service following deactivation of the single-shell tank system in 1980 and stabilized by pumping the remaining liquids from them. The MUSTs were isolated by blanking connecting transfer lines and adding weatherproofing to prevent rainwater entry. Over the next 30 years MUST operating records were dispersed into large electronic databases or transferred to the National Archives Regional Center in Seattle, Washington. During 2014 an effort to reacquire the historical bases for the MUSTs’ published waste volumes was undertaken. Corporate Memory Recovery from a variety of record sources allowed waste volumes to be initially determined for 21 MUSTs, and waste volumes to be adjusted for 37 others. Precursors and symptoms of Corporate Memory Loss were identified in the context of MUST records recovery.

  12. 7 C.C.R. 1101-14 - Underground Storage Tanks and Aboveground...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    C.C.R. 1101-14 - Underground Storage Tanks and Aboveground Storage tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: 7...

  13. K Basins sludge removal temporary sludge storage tank system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mclean, M.A.

    1997-06-12

    Shipment of sludge from the K Basins to a disposal site is now targeted for August 2000. The current path forward for sludge disposal is shipment to Tank AW-105 in the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS). Significant issues of the feasibility of this path exist primarily due to criticality concerns and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) in the sludge at levels that trigger regulation under the Toxic Substance Control Act. Introduction of PCBs into the TWRS processes could potentially involve significant design and operational impacts to both the Spent Nuclear Fuel and TWRS projects if technical and regulatory issues related to PCB treatment cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Concerns of meeting the TWRS acceptance criteria have evolved such that new storage tanks for the K Basins sludge may be the best option for storage prior to vitrification of the sludge. A reconunendation for the final disposition of the sludge is scheduled for June 30, 1997. To support this decision process, this project was developed. This project provides a preconceptual design package including preconceptual designs and cost estimates for the temporary sludge storage tanks. Development of cost estimates for the design and construction of sludge storage systems is required to help evaluate a recommendation for the final disposition of the K Basin sludge.

  14. Diagnosis of Solar Water Heaters Using Solar Storage Tank Surface Temperature Data: Preprint

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burch, J.; Magnuson, L.; Barker, G.; Bullwinkel, M.

    2009-04-01

    Study of solar water heaters by using surface temperature data of solar storage tanks to diagnose proper operations.

  15. LNG plants in the US and abroad. [Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blazek, C.F.; Biederman, R.T.

    1992-01-01

    The Institute of Gas Technology recently conducted a comprehensive survey of LNG production and storage facilities in North America. This survey was performed as part of IGT's LNG Observer newsletter which covers both domestic and international LNG news, reports on LNG related economics and statistics, and routinely conducts interviews with key industry leaders. In addition to providing consulting services to the LNG industry, IGT has cosponsored the International Conference on Liquefied Natural Gas for the part 20 years. The objective of this paper is to present a summary of our recent survey results as well as provide an overview of world LNG trade. This information is important in assessing the potential near term availability of LNG for transportation applications. The IGT LNG Survey appraised the capacity and current market activity of LNG peak shaving, satellite storage, and import receiving facilities in the United States and Canada. Information was requested from facilities on three main topics: liquefaction, storage, and regasification. Additional questions were posed regarding the year of operation, designer/contractor for liquefaction cycle and storage, source of LNG (for storage-only facilities), plans for expansion, and level of interest in providing LNG as a vehicle fuel. The IGT LNG Survey has to date received information on 56 LNG peak shaving facilities, 28 satellite storage facilities, and 4 LNG import receiving terminals.

  16. High-expansion foam for LNG vapor mitigation. Topical report, September 1987-December 1989

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Atallah, S.; Shah, J.N.; Peterlinz, M.E.

    1990-05-01

    One of the purposes of these high expansion foam systems is to reduce the extent of the hazardous vapor cloud generated during an accidental LNG release. Should the LNG ignite, these systems serve the additional function of controlling the LNG fire and minimizing its radiation to the surroundings. Foam generators have been installed along the tops of dike walls surrounding some LNG storage tanks, and around other fenced containment areas where LNG may be accidentally released, such as LNG pump pits and pipe rack trenches. To date there are no technically justifiable guidelines for the design and installation of these systems. Furthermore, there are no models that may be used describe the vapor source so as to be able to predict the reduction in the hazardous vapor cloud zone when high expansion foam is applied to an LNG spill. Information is essential not only for the optimal design of high expansion foam systems, but also for comparing the cost effectiveness of alternative LNG vapor mitigation measures.

  17. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS WASTE STORAGE TANK VAPOR CONTROL ATTEMPTS ON SINGLE SHELL TANK (SST) & DOUBLE SHELL TANK (DST) FARMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BAKER, D.M.

    2004-08-03

    This report forms the basis for a feasibility study and conceptual design to control vapor emissions from waste storage tanks at the Hanford Site. The Carbtrol, Vapor Mixing, and High Efficiency Gas Absorber (HEGA) vapor controls were evaluated to determine the lessons learned from previous failed vapor control attempts. This document illustrates the resulting findings based on that evaluation.

  18. LNG infrastructure and equipment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Forgash, D.J.

    1995-12-31

    Sound engineering principals have been used by every company involved in the development of the LNG infrastructure, but there is very little that is new. The same cryogenic technology that is used in the manufacture and sale of nitrogen, argon, and oxygen infrastructure is used in LNG infrastructure. The key component of the refueling infrastructure is the LNG tank which should have a capacity of at least 15,000 gallons. These stainless steel tanks are actually a tank within a tank separated by an annular space that is void of air creating a vacuum between the inner and outer tank where superinsulation is applied. Dispensing can be accomplished by pressure or pump. Either works well and has been demonstrated in the field. Until work is complete on NFPA 57 or The Texas Railroad Commission Rules for LNG are complete, the industry is setting the standards for the safe installation of refueling infrastructure. As a new industry, the safety record to date has been outstanding.

  19. Integrated heat exchanger design for a cryogenic storage tank

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fesmire, J. E.; Bonner, T.; Oliveira, J. M.; Johnson, W. L.; Notardonato, W. U.; Tomsik, T. M.; Conyers, H. J.

    2014-01-29

    Field demonstrations of liquid hydrogen technology will be undertaken for the proliferation of advanced methods and applications in the use of cryofuels. Advancements in the use of cryofuels for transportation on Earth, from Earth, or in space are envisioned for automobiles, aircraft, rockets, and spacecraft. These advancements rely on practical ways of storage, transfer, and handling of liquid hydrogen. Focusing on storage, an integrated heat exchanger system has been designed for incorporation with an existing storage tank and a reverse Brayton cycle helium refrigerator of capacity 850 watts at 20 K. The storage tank is a 125,000-liter capacity horizontal cylindrical tank, with vacuum jacket and multilayer insulation, and a small 0.6-meter diameter manway opening. Addressed are the specific design challenges associated with the small opening, complete modularity, pressure systems re-certification for lower temperature and pressure service associated with hydrogen densification, and a large 8:1 length-to-diameter ratio for distribution of the cryogenic refrigeration. The approach, problem solving, and system design and analysis for integrated heat exchanger are detailed and discussed. Implications for future space launch facilities are also identified. The objective of the field demonstration will be to test various zero-loss and densified cryofuel handling concepts for future transportation applications.

  20. Floating LNG plant will stress reliability and safety

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kinney, C.D.; Schulz, H.R.; Spring, W.

    1997-07-01

    Mobil has developed a unique floating LNG plant design after extensive studies that set safety as the highest priority. The result is a production, storage and offloading platform designed to produce 6 million tons per year of LNG and up to 55,000 bpd of condensate from 1 Bcfd of feed gas. All production and off-loading equipment is supported by a square donut-shaped concrete hull, which is spread-moored. The hull contains storage tanks for 250,000 m{sup 3} of LNG, 6540,000 bbl of condensate and ballast water. Both LNG and condensate can be directly offloaded to shuttle tankers. Since the plant may be moved to produce from several different gas fields during its life, the plant and barge were designed to be generic. It can be used at any location in the Pacific Rim, with up to 15% CO{sub 2}, 100 ppm H{sub 2}S, 55 bbl/MMcf condensate and 650 ft water depth. It can be modified to handle other water depths, depending upon the environment. In addition, it is much more economical than an onshore grassroots LNG plant, with potential capital savings of 25% or more. The paper describes the machinery, meteorology and oceanography, and safety engineering.

  1. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 134: Aboveground Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2009-06-30

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 134 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) as Aboveground Storage Tanks and consists of the following four Corrective Action Sites (CASs), located in Areas 3, 15, and 29 of the Nevada Test Site: CAS 03-01-03, Aboveground Storage Tank CAS 03-01-04, Tank CAS 15-01-05, Aboveground Storage Tank CAS 29-01-01, Hydrocarbon Stain

  2. Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID). Technology summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-02-01

    The DOE complex currently has 332 underground storage tanks (USTs) that have been used to process and store radioactive and chemical mixed waste generated from weapon materials production. Very little of the over 100 million gallons of high-level and low-level radioactive liquid waste has been treated and disposed of in final form. Two waste storage tank design types are prevalent across the DOE complex: single-shell wall and double-shell wall designs. They are made of stainless steel, concrete, and concrete with carbon steel liners, and their capacities vary from 5000 gallons (19 m{sup 3}) to 10{sup 6} gallons (3785 m{sup 3}). The tanks have an overburden layer of soil ranging from a few feet to tens of feet. Responding to the need for remediation of tank waste, driven by Federal Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCAs) at all participating sites, the Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID) Program was created by the US DOE Office of Technology Development in February 1991. Its mission is to focus the development, testing, and evaluation of remediation technologies within a system architecture to characterize, retrieve, treat to concentrate, and dispose of radioactive waste stored in USTs at DOE facilities. The ultimate goal is to provide safe and cost-effective solutions that are acceptable to the public and the regulators. The UST-ID has focused on five DOE locations: the Hanford Site, which is the host site, in Richland, Washington; the Fernald Site in Fernald, Ohio; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; the Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Savannah River Site in Savannah River, South Carolina.

  3. Estimating Residual Solids Volume In Underground Storage Tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clark, Jason L.; Worthy, S. Jason; Martin, Bruce A.; Tihey, John R.

    2014-01-08

    The Savannah River Site liquid waste system consists of multiple facilities to safely receive and store legacy radioactive waste, treat, and permanently dispose waste. The large underground storage tanks and associated equipment, known as the 'tank farms', include a complex interconnected transfer system which includes underground transfer pipelines and ancillary equipment to direct the flow of waste. The waste in the tanks is present in three forms: supernatant, sludge, and salt. The supernatant is a multi-component aqueous mixture, while sludge is a gel-like substance which consists of insoluble solids and entrapped supernatant. The waste from these tanks is retrieved and treated as sludge or salt. The high level (radioactive) fraction of the waste is vitrified into a glass waste form, while the low-level waste is immobilized in a cementitious grout waste form called saltstone. Once the waste is retrieved and processed, the tanks are closed via removing the bulk of the waste, chemical cleaning, heel removal, stabilizing remaining residuals with tailored grout formulations and severing/sealing external penetrations. The comprehensive liquid waste disposition system, currently managed by Savannah River Remediation, consists of 1) safe storage and retrieval of the waste as it is prepared for permanent disposition; (2) definition of the waste processing techniques utilized to separate the high-level waste fraction/low-level waste fraction; (3) disposition of LLW in saltstone; (4) disposition of the HLW in glass; and (5) closure state of the facilities, including tanks. This paper focuses on determining the effectiveness of waste removal campaigns through monitoring the volume of residual solids in the waste tanks. Volume estimates of the residual solids are performed by creating a map of the residual solids on the waste tank bottom using video and still digital images. The map is then used to calculate the volume of solids remaining in the waste tank. The ability to accurately determine a volume is a function of the quantity and quality of the waste tank images. Currently, mapping is performed remotely with closed circuit video cameras and still photograph cameras due to the hazardous environment. There are two methods that can be used to create a solids volume map. These methods are: liquid transfer mapping / post transfer mapping and final residual solids mapping. The task is performed during a transfer because the liquid level (which is a known value determined by a level measurement device) is used as a landmark to indicate solids accumulation heights. The post transfer method is primarily utilized after the majority of waste has been removed. This method relies on video and still digital images of the waste tank after the liquid transfer is complete to obtain the relative height of solids across a waste tank in relation to known and usable landmarks within the waste tank (cooling coils, column base plates, etc.). In order to accurately monitor solids over time across various cleaning campaigns, and provide a technical basis to support final waste tank closure, a consistent methodology for volume determination has been developed and implemented at SRS.

  4. Structural analysis of underground gunite storage tanks. Environmental Restoration Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-08-01

    This report documents the structural analysis of the 50-ft diameter underground gunite storage tanks constructed in 1943 and located in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) South Tank Farm, known as Facility 3507 in the 3500-3999 area. The six gunite tanks (W-5 through W-10) are spaced in a 2 {times} 3 matrix at 60 ft on centers with 6 ft of soil cover. Each tank (Figures 1, 2, and 3) has an inside diameter of 50 ft, a 12-ft vertical sidewall having a thickness of 6 in. (there is an additional 1.5-in. inner liner for much of the height), and a spherical domed roof (nominal thickness is 10 in.) rising another 6 ft, 3 in. at the center of the tank. The thickness of both the sidewall and the domed roof increases to 30 in. near their juncture. The tank floor is nominally 3-in. thick, except at the juncture with the wall where the thickness increases to 9 in. The tanks are constructed of gunite (a mixture of Portland cement, sand, and water in the form of a mortar) sprayed from the nozzle of a cement gun against a form or a solid surface. The floor and the dome are reinforced with one layer of welded wire mesh and reinforcing rods placed in the radial direction. The sidewall is reinforced with three layers of welded wire mesh, vertical {1/2}-in. rods, and 21 horizontal rebar hoops (attached to the vertical rods) post-tensioned to 35,000 psi stress. The haunch at the sidewall/roof junction is reinforced with 17 horizontal rebar hoops post-tensioned with 35,000 to 40,000 psi stress. The yield strength of the post-tensioning steel rods is specified to be 60,000 psi, and all other steel is 40,000 psi steel. The specified 28-day design strength of the gunite is 5,000 psi.

  5. A NOVEL PROCESS TO USE SALT CAVERNS TO RECEIVE SHIP BORNE LNG

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Michael M. McCall; William M. Bishop; Marcus Krekel; James F. Davis; D. Braxton Scherz

    2005-05-31

    This cooperative research project validates use of man made salt caverns to receive and store the cargoes of LNG ships in lieu of large liquid LNG tanks. Salt caverns will not tolerate direct injection of LNG because it is a cryogenic liquid, too cold for contact with salt. This research confirmed the technical processes and the economic benefits of pressuring the LNG up to dense phase, warming it to salt compatible temperatures and then directly injecting the dense phase gas into salt caverns for storage. The use of salt caverns to store natural gas sourced from LNG imports, particularly when located offshore, provides a highly secure, large scale and lower cost import facility as an alternative to tank based LNG import terminals. This design can unload a ship in the same time as unloading at a tank based terminal. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve uses man made salt caverns to securely store large quantities of crude oil. Similarly, this project describes a novel application of salt cavern gas storage technologies used for the first time in conjunction with LNG receiving. The energy industry uses man made salt caverns to store an array of gases and liquids but has never used man made salt caverns directly in the importation of LNG. This project has adapted and expanded the field of salt cavern storage technology and combined it with novel equipment and processes to accommodate LNG importation. The salt cavern based LNG receiving terminal described in the project can be located onshore or offshore, but the focus of the design and cost estimates has been on an offshore location, away from congested channels and ports. The salt cavern based terminal can provide large volumes of gas storage, high deliverability from storage, and is simplified in operation compared to tank based LNG terminals. Phase I of this project included mathematical modeling that proved a salt cavern based receiving terminal could be built at lower capital cost, and would have significantly higher delivery capacity, shorter construction time, and be much more secure than a conventional liquid tank based terminal. Operating costs of a salt cavern terminal are lower than tank based terminals because ''boil off'' is eliminated and maintenance costs of caverns are lower than LNG tanks. Phase II included the development of offshore mooring designs, wave tank tests, high pressure LNG pump field tests, heat exchanger field tests, and development of a model offshore LNG facility and cavern design. Engineers designed a model facility, prepared equipment lists, and confirmed capital and operating costs. In addition, vendors quoted fabrication and installation costs, confirming that an offshore salt cavern based LNG terminal would have lower capital and operating costs than a similarly sized offshore tank based terminal. Salt cavern storage is infinitely more secure than surface storage tanks, far less susceptible to accidents or purposeful damage, and much more acceptable to the community. More than thirty industry participants provided cost sharing, technical expertise, and guidance in the conduct and evaluation of the field tests, facility design and operating and cost estimates. Their close participation has accelerated the industry's acceptance of the conclusions of this research. The industry participants also developed and submitted several alternative designs for offshore mooring and for high pressure LNG heat exchangers in addition to those that were field tested in this project. HNG Storage, a developer, owner, and operator of natural gas storage facilities, and a participant in the DOE research has announced they will lead the development of the first offshore salt cavern based LNG import facility. Which will be called the Freedom LNG Terminal. It will be located offshore Louisiana, and is expected to be jointly developed with other members of the research group yet to be named. An offshore port license application is scheduled to be filed by fourth quarter 2005 and the terminal could be operational by 2009. This terminal allows the large volume importation of LNG without disrupting coastal port operations by being offshore, out of sight of land.

  6. First LNG from North field overcomes feed, start-up problems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Redha, A.; Rahman, A.; Al-Thani, N.H.; Ishikura, Masayuki; Kikkawa, Yoshitsugi

    1998-08-24

    Qatar Gas LNG is the first LNG project in the gas-development program of the world`s largest gas reservoir, North field. The LNG plant was completed within the budget and schedule. The paper discusses the LNG plant design, LNG storage and loading, alternative mercaptan removal, layout modification, information and control systems, training, data management systems, start-up, and performance testing.

  7. LNG 2016 | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    2016 LNG 2016 PDF icon LNG 2016.pdf More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2015 LNG Annual Report - 2013 LNG Annual Report - 2014

  8. Technical Assessment of Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for Automotive Applications

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report examines performance and cost of compressed hydrogen storage tank systems compared to the US Department of Energy (DOE) 2010, 2015, and ultimate targets for automotive applications.

  9. Two-tank working gas storage system for heat engine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hindes, Clyde J.

    1987-01-01

    A two-tank working gas supply and pump-down system is coupled to a hot gas engine, such as a Stirling engine. The system has a power control valve for admitting the working gas to the engine when increased power is needed, and for releasing the working gas from the engine when engine power is to be decreased. A compressor pumps the working gas that is released from the engine. Two storage vessels or tanks are provided, one for storing the working gas at a modest pressure (i.e., half maximum pressure), and another for storing the working gas at a higher pressure (i.e., about full engine pressure). Solenoid valves are associated with the gas line to each of the storage vessels, and are selectively actuated to couple the vessels one at a time to the compressor during pumpdown to fill the high-pressure vessel with working gas at high pressure and then to fill the low-pressure vessel with the gas at low pressure. When more power is needed, the solenoid valves first supply the low-pressure gas from the low-pressure vessel to the engine and then supply the high-pressure gas from the high-pressure vessel. The solenoid valves each act as a check-valve when unactuated, and as an open valve when actuated.

  10. H.A.R. 11-281 - Underground Storage Tanks | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    81 - Underground Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: H.A.R. 11-281 - Underground Storage...

  11. Polymeric hydrogen diffusion barrier, high-pressure storage tank so equipped, method of fabricating a storage tank and method of preventing hydrogen diffusion

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lessing, Paul A.

    2004-09-07

    An electrochemically active hydrogen diffusion barrier which comprises an anode layer, a cathode layer, and an intermediate electrolyte layer, which is conductive to protons and substantially impermeable to hydrogen. A catalytic metal present in or adjacent to the anode layer catalyzes an electrochemical reaction that converts any hydrogen that diffuses through the electrolyte layer to protons and electrons. The protons and electrons are transported to the cathode layer and reacted to form hydrogen. The hydrogen diffusion barrier is applied to a polymeric substrate used in a storage tank to store hydrogen under high pressure. A storage tank equipped with the electrochemically active hydrogen diffusion barrier, a method of fabricating the storage tank, and a method of preventing hydrogen from diffusing out of a storage tank are also disclosed.

  12. Polymeric hydrogen diffusion barrier, high-pressure storage tank so equipped, method of fabricating a storage tank and method of preventing hydrogen diffusion

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lessing, Paul A.

    2008-07-22

    An electrochemically active hydrogen diffusion barrier which comprises an anode layer, a cathode layer, and an intermediate electrolyte layer, which is conductive to protons and substantially impermeable to hydrogen. A catalytic metal present in or adjacent to the anode layer catalyzes an electrochemical reaction that converts any hydrogen that diffuses through the electrolyte layer to protons and electrons. The protons and electrons are transported to the cathode layer and reacted to form hydrogen. The hydrogen diffusion barrier is applied to a polymeric substrate used in a storage tank to store hydrogen under high pressure. A storage tank equipped with the electrochemically active hydrogen diffusion barrier, a method of fabricating the storage tank, and a method of preventing hydrogen from diffusing out of a storage tank are also disclosed.

  13. Permanent Closure of MFC Biodiesel Underground Storage Tank 99ANL00013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kerry L. Nisson

    2012-10-01

    This closure package documents the site assessment and permanent closure of the Materials and Fuels Complex biodiesel underground storage tank 99ANL00013 in accordance with the regulatory requirements established in 40 CFR 280.71, “Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks: Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure.”

  14. Feasibility report on criticality issues associated with storage of K Basin sludge in tanks farms

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vail, T.S.

    1997-05-29

    This feasibility study provides the technical justification for conclusions about K Basin sludge storage options. The conclusions, solely based on criticality safety considerations, depend on the treatment of the sludge. The two primary conclusions are, (1) untreated sludge must be stored in a critically safe storage tank, and (2) treated sludge (dissolution, precipitation and added neutron absorbers) can be stored in a standard Double Contained Receiver Tank (DCRT) or 241-AW-105 without future restrictions on tank operations from a criticality safety perspective.

  15. FLORIDIAN NATURAL GAS STORAGE COMPANY, LLC- FE DKT. NO. 15-38-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an application filed on February 24, 2015, by Floridian Natural Gas Storage Company, LLC (Floridian) requesting long-term, multi-contract...

  16. Cove Point: A step back into the LNG business

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Katz, M.G.

    1995-12-31

    In 1978, ships began unloading LNG from Algeria at Cove Point`s berthing facilities 1.25 miles offshore. An underwater pipeline transported the LNG to land, where it was stored in the terminal`s four 140-foot-high cryogenic storage tanks. When the LNG was needed, the terminals 10 vaporizers converted it back to gas for send out via an 87-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline linking the terminal with interstate pipelines of CNG Transmission Corp. and Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. in Loudon County, Va. But Cove Point handled only about 80 shiploads of LNG before shutting down in December 1980, after a dispute about gas prices between US customers and Algeria. The plant sat dormant until the natural gas industry`s deregulation under Order 636. Deregulation resulted in major pipelines abandoning their sales service, and gas distributors and large customers found it was now their obligation to ensure that they had adequate gas supplies during winter peak-demand periods. Enter Cove Point`s peaking capabilities. They had to add the liquefaction unit and recommission other parts of the plant, but the timing was right. Cove Point`s new liquefaction unit is liquefying about 15 million cubic feet (MMcf) of LNG per day of domestic gas. It chills the gas to {minus}260 degrees Fahrenheit to turn it into a liquid for injection and storage in one of the facility`s double-walled insulated tanks. During its initial injection season, which ends Dec. 15, Cove Point is expected to produce enough LNG to almost fill one tank, which can store up to 1.25 billion cubic feet (Bcf). Were the gas not intended for peak-shaving purposes, it would be enough to supply 14,000 homes for a year. As it is, most of the gas will be returned as pipeline gas, during next January and February`s expected cold snaps, to the utilities and users who supplied it. Cove Point`s initial daily sendout capacity is about 400 MMcf.

  17. EIS-0212: Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, WA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This environmental impact statement asseses Department of Energy and Washington State Department of Ecology maintanence of safe storage of high-level radioactive wastes currently stored in the older single-shell tanks, the Watchlist Tank 101-SY, and future waste volumes associated with tank farm and other Hanford facility operations, including a need to provide a modern safe, reliable, and regulatory-compliant replacement cross-site transfer capability. The purpose of this action is to prevent uncontrolled releases to the environment by maintaining safe storage of high-level tank wastes.

  18. North American LNG Project Sourcebook

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2007-06-15

    The report provides a status of the development of LNG Import Terminal projects in North America, and includes 1-2 page profiles of 63 LNG projects in North America which are either in operation, under construction, or under development. For each project, the sourcebook provides information on the following elements: project description, project ownership, project status, projected operation date, storage capacity, sendout capacity, and pipeline interconnection.

  19. Analysis of LNG import terminal release prevention systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Baker, E G

    1982-04-01

    The release prevention systems of liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal were analyzed. A series of potential release scenarios were analyzed to determine the frequency of the release events, the probability these releases are not stopped or isolated by emergency shutdown systems, the estimated release quantities, and the critical components of the system. The two plant areas identified as being most significant with respect to safety are the unloading system and the storage system. Rupture of the main transfer line and gross failure of the storage tanks are the two release scenarios of primary safety interest. Reducing the rate of failure by improved design, better maintenance and testing, or adding redundancy of the critical system components for these plant areas and release scenarios will result in improved safety. Several design alternatives which have the potential to significantly reduce the probability of a large release of LNG occurring at an import terminal are identified. These design alternatives would reduce the probability of a large release of LNG by reducing the expected number of failures which could cause a release or by reducing the magnitude of releases that do occur. All of these alternatives are technically feasible and have been used or considered for use in at least one LNG facility. A more rigorous analysis of the absolute risk of LNG import terminal operation is necessary before the benefits of these design alternatives can be determined. In addition, an economic evaluation of these alternatives must be made so the costs and benefits can be compared. It is concludd that for remotely located facilities many of these alternatives are probably not justified; however, for facilities located in highly populated areas, these alternatives deserve serious consideration.

  20. Hydrogen Storage "Think Tank" Report | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    "Think Tank" Report Hydrogen Storage "Think Tank" Report This report is a compilation of information exchanged at a forum on March 14, 2003, in Washington, D.C. The forum was assembled for innovative and non-conventional brainstorming on this issue of hydrogen storage technologies. PDF icon Hydrogen Storage "Think Tank" Report More Documents & Publications Hydrogen Program Goal-Setting Methodologies Report to Congress FY 2003 Progress Report for Hydrogen, Fuel

  1. Technical Assessment of Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for Automotive Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hua, Thanh; Ahluwalia, Rajesh; Peng, J. -K; Kromer, Matt; Lasher, Stephen; McKenney, Kurtis; Law, Karen; Sinha, Jayanti

    2010-09-01

    This technical report describes DOE's assessment of the performance and cost of compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications. The on-board performance (by Argonne National Lab) and high-volume manufacturing cost (by TIAX LLC) were estimated for compressed hydrogen storage tanks. The results were compared to DOE's 2010, 2015, and ultimate full fleet hydrogen storage targets. The Well-to-Tank (WTT) efficiency as well as the off-board performance and cost of delivering compressed hydrogen were also documented in the report.

  2. A STUDY OF CORROSION AND STRESS CORROSION CRACKING OF CARBON STEEL NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE TANKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BOOMER, K.D.

    2007-08-21

    The Hanford reservation Tank Farms in Washington State has 177 underground storage tanks that contain approximately 50 million gallons of liquid legacy radioactive waste from cold war plutonium production. These tanks will continue to store waste until it is treated and disposed. These nuclear wastes were converted to highly alkaline pH wastes to protect the carbon steel storage tanks from corrosion. However, the carbon steel is still susceptible to localized corrosion and stress corrosion cracking. The waste chemistry varies from tank to tank, and contains various combinations of hydroxide, nitrate, nitrite, chloride, carbonate, aluminate and other species. The effect of each of these species and any synergistic effects on localized corrosion and stress corrosion cracking of carbon steel have been investigated with electrochemical polarization, slow strain rate, and crack growth rate testing. The effect of solution chemistry, pH, temperature and applied potential are all considered and their role in the corrosion behavior will be discussed.

  3. Forklift Storage Tank R&D: Timely, Critical, Exemplary

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    McDaniel Fuel Cells Tony Martino Storage Daniel Dedrick (acting) Utility-scale Storage Anna Lord Storage materials Vitalie Stavila Systems Engineering Aaron Harris Market ...

  4. Heat pump water heater and storage tank assembly

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Dieckmann, John T.; Nowicki, Brian J.; Teagan, W. Peter; Zogg, Robert

    1999-09-07

    A water heater and storage tank assembly comprises a housing defining a chamber, an inlet for admitting cold water to the chamber, and an outlet for permitting flow of hot water from the chamber. A compressor is mounted on the housing and is removed from the chamber. A condenser comprises a tube adapted to receive refrigerant from the compressor, and winding around the chamber to impart heat to water in the chamber. An evaporator is mounted on the housing and removed from the chamber, the evaporator being adapted to receive refrigerant from the condenser and to discharge refrigerant to conduits in communication with the compressor. An electric resistance element extends into the chamber, and a thermostat is disposed in the chamber and is operative to sense water temperature and to actuate the resistance element upon the water temperature dropping to a selected level. The assembly includes a first connection at an external end of the inlet, a second connection at an external end of the outlet, and a third connection for connecting the resistance element, compressor and evaporator to an electrical power source.

  5. OAR 340-150 - DEQ Underground Storage Tank Rules | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    150 - DEQ Underground Storage Tank Rules Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: OAR 340-150 - DEQ Underground...

  6. MCA 75-11-501 et seq. - Montana Underground Storage Tank Act...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    11-501 et seq. - Montana Underground Storage Tank Act Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: MCA 75-11-501 et seq. -...

  7. UC 19-6-401 et seq. - Utah Underground Storage Tank Act | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    9-6-401 et seq. - Utah Underground Storage Tank Act Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: UC 19-6-401 et seq. - Utah...

  8. IDAPA 58.01.07 - Rules Regulating Underground Storage Tank Systems...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    7 - Rules Regulating Underground Storage Tank Systems Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: IDAPA 58.01.07 - Rules...

  9. Technical Assessment of Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for Automotive Applications

    Fuel Cell Technologies Publication and Product Library (EERE)

    This technical report describes DOE's assessment of the performance and cost of compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications. The on-board performance (by Argonne National Lab)

  10. Light duty remote manipulator for underground storage tank inspection and characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kruse, P.W.; Carteret, B.A.

    1994-12-31

    The Light Duty Utility Arm (LDUA) is a remote manipulator which is being designed and fabricated to perform surveillance and characterization activities in support of the remediation of underground storage tanks at the Hanford site as well as other DOE sites. The LDUA is a highly dexterous manipulator which utilizes an advanced control system to safely and reliably deploy a series of sensors to characterize underground storage tanks.

  11. Analysis of embedded waste storage tanks subjected to seismic loading

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zaslawsky, M.; Sammaddar, S.; Kennedy, W.N.

    1991-01-01

    At the Savannah River Site, High Activity Wastes are stored in carbon steel tanks that are within reinforced concrete vaults. These soil-embedded tank/vault structures are approximately 80 ft. in diameter and 40 ft. deep. The tanks were studied to determine the essentials of governing variables, to reduce the problem to the least number of governing cases to optimize analysis effort without introducing excessive conservatism. The problem reduced to a limited number of cases of soil-structure interaction and fluid (tank contents) -- structure interaction problems. It was theorized that substantially reduced input would be realized from soil structure interaction (SSI) but that it was also possible that tank-to-tank proximity would result in (re)amplification of the input. To determine the governing seismic input motion, the three dimensional SSI code, SASSI, was used. Significant among the issues relative to waste tanks is to the determination of fluid response and tank behavior as a function of tank contents viscosity. Tank seismic analyses and studies have been based on low viscosity fluids (water) and the behavior is quite well understood. Typical wastes (salts, sludge), which are highly viscous, have not been the subject of studies to understand the effect of viscosity on seismic response. The computer code DYNA3D was used to study how viscosity alters tank wall pressure distribution and tank base shear and overturning moments. A parallel hand calculation was performed using standard procedures. Conclusions based on the study provide insight into the quantification of the reduction of seismic inputs for soil structure interaction for a soft'' soil site.

  12. Analysis of embedded waste storage tanks subjected to seismic loading

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zaslawsky, M.; Sammaddar, S.; Kennedy, W.N.

    1991-12-31

    At the Savannah River Site, High Activity Wastes are stored in carbon steel tanks that are within reinforced concrete vaults. These soil-embedded tank/vault structures are approximately 80 ft. in diameter and 40 ft. deep. The tanks were studied to determine the essentials of governing variables, to reduce the problem to the least number of governing cases to optimize analysis effort without introducing excessive conservatism. The problem reduced to a limited number of cases of soil-structure interaction and fluid (tank contents) -- structure interaction problems. It was theorized that substantially reduced input would be realized from soil structure interaction (SSI) but that it was also possible that tank-to-tank proximity would result in (re)amplification of the input. To determine the governing seismic input motion, the three dimensional SSI code, SASSI, was used. Significant among the issues relative to waste tanks is to the determination of fluid response and tank behavior as a function of tank contents viscosity. Tank seismic analyses and studies have been based on low viscosity fluids (water) and the behavior is quite well understood. Typical wastes (salts, sludge), which are highly viscous, have not been the subject of studies to understand the effect of viscosity on seismic response. The computer code DYNA3D was used to study how viscosity alters tank wall pressure distribution and tank base shear and overturning moments. A parallel hand calculation was performed using standard procedures. Conclusions based on the study provide insight into the quantification of the reduction of seismic inputs for soil structure interaction for a ``soft`` soil site.

  13. Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage (Summary...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions LNG Storage Withdrawals LNG Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease ... Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period: Monthly Annual Download Series ...

  14. Underground storage tank 291-D1U1: Closure plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mancieri, S.; Giuntoli, N.

    1993-09-01

    The 291-D1U1 tank system was installed in 1983 on the north side of Building 291. It supplies diesel fuel to the Building 291 emergency generator and air compressor. The emergency generator and air compressor are located southwest and southeast, respectively, of the tank (see Appendix B, Figure 2). The tank system consists of a single-walled, 2,000- gallon, fiberglass tank and a fuel pump system, fill pipe, vent pipe, electrical conduit, and fuel supply and return piping. The area to be excavated is paved with asphalt and concrete. It is not known whether a concrete anchor pad is associated with this tank. Additionally, this closure plan assumes that the diesel tank is below the fill pad. The emergency generator and air compressor for Building 291 and its associated UST, 291-D1U1, are currently in use. The generator and air compressor will be supplied by a temporary above-ground fuel tank prior to the removal of 291-D1U1. An above-ground fuel tank will be installed as a permanent replacement for 291-D1U1. The system was registered with the State Water Resources Control Board on June 27, 1984, as 291-41D and has subsequently been renamed 291-D1U1. Figure 1 (see Appendix B) shows the location of the 291-D1U1 tank system in relation to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Figure 2 (see Appendix B) shows the 291-D1U1 tank system in relation to Building 291. Figure 3 (see Appendix B) shows a plan view of the 291-D1U1 tank system.

  15. Educational program on potential impacts of regulated underground storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Titus, E.W.

    1995-12-01

    This paper defines a brief (three to four hours) and effective method of educating future environmental professionals, concerned citizens of the community, or local government officials about the long term residual contamination potential posed by underground storage tank sites (UST`s). The format will be designed so that the student will have a clear understanding of the function and capabilities of UST systems, the required monitoring and maintenance, and the extensive commitments necessary to remediate a contaminated site. Subject material covered will include regulation overview, system design and installation, current remediation technologies and future trends. The curriculum will be presented in lecture/workshop format, and will feature color photographs, sites studies and relevant maps. Hypothetical statistical and chemical analytical results will be supplied for interpretation. The student will synthesize, in participatory work groups, the information using some of the various types of UST evaluation systems and formats currently in use by the individual states. This approach exposes the student to participatory group planning and decision making. This type of learning experience would be of significant value because UST`s have left an indelible mark on many street corners across the country. A variety of factors, such as population shifts from urban to suburban areas, governmental regulations, and overhead costs, caused many business owners to want to close their existing UST sites and sell the property. With these closed or abandoned sites comes the potential for soil and groundwater contamination due to petroleum product spillage, or leaking UST`s still under the surface of the site. The goal of this comprehensive approach is to enable the student to make informed judgements as to both the current and long term risks of UST systems. As an additional benefit these individuals will gain a better understanding about their local environment.

  16. Status report for inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks at Hanford Site 200 Areas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Powers, T.B.

    1995-10-01

    The purpose of this status report is to summarize updated data and information from the FY 1994 strategy plan that is associated with inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks (IMUSTs). Assumptions and processes to assess potential risks and operational concerns are documented in this report. Safety issue priorities are ranked based on a number of considerations. Sixty-three IMUSTs have been Identified and placed on the official IMUST list. All the tanks are associated with past Hanford Site operations. Of the 63 tanks., 19 are catch tanks, 20 are vault tanks, 3 are neutralization tanks, 8 are settling tanks, 2 are solvent makeup tanks used to store hexone, 2 are flush tanks, 3 are decontamination tanks, 1 is a diverter station, 1 is a receiver tank, 1 is an experimental tank, and 3 are waste handling tanks. It is important to proactively deal with the risks Imposed by these 63 tanks, and at the same time not jeopardize the existing commitments and schedules for mitigating and resolving identified safety issues related to the 177 SSTs and DSTS. Access controls and signs have been placed on all but the three official IMUSTs added most recently. An accelerated effort to identify authorization documents and perform unreviewed safety question (USQ) screening has been completed. According to a set of criteria consistent with the safety screening data quality objective (DQO) process, 6 IMUSTs are ranked high related to the hydrogen generation potential safety Issue, 1 is ranked high related to the ferrocyanide potential safety issue, 6 are ranked high related to the flammability potential safety issue, and 25 are ranked high related to the vapor emissions potential safety issue.

  17. LNG Annual Report - 2006 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    6 LNG Annual Report - 2006 LNG Annual Report - 2006 PDF icon LNG Annual Report - 2006 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2007 LNG Annual Report - 2008

  18. LNG Annual Report - 2010 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    10 LNG Annual Report - 2010 LNG Annual Report - 2010 PDF icon LNG Annual Report - 2010 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2009 LNG Annual Report - 2008

  19. LNG Monthly Report - 2015 | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Monthly Report - 2015 LNG Monthly Report - 2015 LNG Monthly Report - 2015 PDF icon LNG 2015.pdf More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2014 LNG Annual Report - 2013

  20. LNG Monthly 2016 | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Monthly 2016 LNG Monthly 2016 PDF icon LNG 2016.pdf More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2015 LNG Annual Report - 2013 LNG Annual Report - 2012

  1. LNG Reports | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    LNG Reports LNG Reports May 13, 2016 LNG Monthly 2016 February 12, 2016 LNG Annual Report - 2015 LNG Annual Report - 2015 June 17, 2015 LNG Annual Report - 2014 LNG Annual Report - 2014 May 28, 2015 Order 3643: Alaska LNG Project, LLC This is the order authorizing Alaska LNG Project, LLC to export Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to non-FTA countries. May 12, 2015 Order 3638: Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project This is the order authorizing the Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project to export Liquefied

  2. LNG -- A paradox of propulsion potential

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McKay, D.J.

    1995-12-31

    Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has been demonstrating its viability as a clean-burning alternative fuel for buses and medium- and heavy-duty trucks for the past 30 years. The first known LNG vehicle project began in San Diego in 1965, When San Diego Gas and Electric converted 22 utility trucks and three passenger vehicles to dedicated LNG. A surge in LNG vehicle project activity over the past five years has led to a fairly robust variety of vehicles testing the fuel, from Class 8 tractors, refuse haulers and transit buses to railroad locomotives and ferry boats. Recent technology improvements in engine design, cryogenic tanks, fuel nozzles and other related equipment have made LNG more practical to use than in the 1960s. LNG delivers more than twice the driving range from the same-sized fuel tank as a vehicle powered by compressed natural gas (CNG). Although technical and economic hurdles must be overcome before this fuel can achieve widespread use, various ongoing demonstration projects are showing LNG`s practicality, while serving the vital role of pinpointing those areas of performance that are the prime candidates for improvement.

  3. Experience with thermal storage in tanks of stratified water for solar heating and load management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wildin, M.W.; Witkofsky, M.P.; Noble, J.M.; Hopper, R.E.; Stromberg, P.G.

    1982-01-01

    Results have been obtained for performance of stratified tanks of water used to store heating and cooling capacity in a 5574 m/sup 2/ university building. The major sources of energy used to charge the heated tanks were solar energy, obtained via collectors on the roof of the building, and excess heat recovered from the interior of the building via thermal storage and electric-driven heat pump/chillers. Through stratification of the water in the storage tanks and an appropriate system operating strategy, 40 percent of the building's total heating needs were supplied by solar energy during the first four months of 1981. Month-long thermal efficiencies of the storage array ranging from 70 percent during the heating season to nearly 90 percent during the cooling season, were measured. Work is underway to improve the performance of thermal storage.

  4. Underground storage tank 253-D1U1 Closure Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mancieri, S.; Giuntoli, N.

    1993-09-01

    This report is a closure plan for a diesel fuel tank at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Included are maps of the site, work plans, and personnel information regarding training and qualification.

  5. Safe interim storage of Hanford tank wastes, draft environmental impact statement, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-01

    This Draft EIS is prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). DOE and Ecology have identified the need to resolve near-term tank safety issues associated with Watchlist tanks as identified pursuant to Public Law (P.L.) 101-510, Section 3137, ``Safety Measures for Waste Tanks at Hanford Nuclear Reservation,`` of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, while continuing to provide safe storage for other Hanford wastes. This would be an interim action pending other actions that could be taken to convert waste to a more stable form based on decisions resulting from the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) EIS. The purpose for this action is to resolve safety issues concerning the generation of unacceptable levels of hydrogen in two Watchlist tanks, 101-SY and 103-SY. Retrieving waste in dilute form from Tanks 101-SY and 103-SY, hydrogen-generating Watchlist double shell tanks (DSTs) in the 200 West Area, and storage in new tanks is the preferred alternative for resolution of the hydrogen safety issues.

  6. ERS 14.3 Underground and Above Ground Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks FPS 12.1, 1/9/01

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The objective of this surveillance is to verify underground and above ground diesel storage tanks are maintained, monitored, configured and marked as required.  These surveillance activities...

  7. Advanced Liquid Natural Gas Onboard Storage System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greg Harper; Charles Powars

    2003-10-31

    Cummins Westport Incorporated (CWI) has designed and developed a liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicle fuel system that includes a reciprocating pump with the cold end submerged in LNG contained in a vacuum-jacketed tank. This system was tested and analyzed under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced LNG Onboard Storage System (ALOSS) program. The pumped LNG fuel system developed by CWI and tested under the ALOSS program is a high-pressure system designed for application on Class 8 trucks powered by CWI's ISX G engine, which employs high-pressure direct injection (HPDI) technology. A general ALOSS program objective was to demonstrate the feasibility and advantages of a pumped LNG fuel system relative to on-vehicle fuel systems that require the LNG to be ''conditioned'' to saturation pressures that exceeds the engine fuel pressure requirements. These advantages include the capability to store more fuel mass in given-size vehicle and station tanks, and simpler lower-cost LNG refueling stations that do not require conditioning equipment. Pumped LNG vehicle fuel systems are an alternative to conditioned LNG systems for spark-ignition natural gas and port-injection dual-fuel engines (which typically require about 100 psi), and they are required for HPDI engines (which require over 3,000 psi). The ALOSS program demonstrated the feasibility of a pumped LNG vehicle fuel system and the advantages of this design relative to systems that require conditioning the LNG to a saturation pressure exceeding the engine fuel pressure requirement. LNG tanks mounted on test carts and the CWI engineering truck were repeatedly filled with LNG saturated at 20 to 30 psig. More fuel mass was stored in the vehicle tanks as well as the station tank, and no conditioning equipment was required at the fueling station. The ALOSS program also demonstrated the general viability and specific performance of the CWI pumped LNG fuel system design. The system tested as part of this program is designed to be used on Class 8 trucks with CWI ISX G HPDI engines. Extensive test cart and engineering truck tests of the pump demonstrated good durability and the high-pressure performance needed for HPDI application. The LNG tanks manufactured by Taylor-Wharton passed SAE J2343 Recommended Practice drop tests and accelerated road-load vibration tests. NER and hold-time tests produced highly consistent results. Additional tests confirmed the design adequacy of the liquid level sensor, vaporizer, ullage volume, and other fuel system components. While the testing work performed under this program focused on a high-pressure pumped LNG fuel system design, the results also validate the feasibility of a low-pressure pumped fuel system. A low-pressure pumped fuel system could incorporate various design refinements including a simpler and lighter-weight pump, which would decrease costs somewhat relative to a high-pressure system.

  8. A strategy for resolving high-priority Hanford Site radioactive waste storage tank safety issues

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Babad, H.; DeFigh-Price, C.; Fulton, J.C.

    1993-02-01

    High-activity radioactive waste has been stored in large underground storage tanks at the US Department of Energy`s (DOE) Hanford Site in Eastern Washington State since 1944. Since then, more than 227,000 m{sup 3} (60 Mgal) of waste have been accumulated in 177 tanks. These caustic wastes consist of many different chemicals. The waste forms include liquids, slurries, salt cakes, and sludges. A number of safety issues have been raised about these wastes, and resolution of these issues is a top priority of DOE. A Waste Tank Safety Program has been established to resolve these high-priority safety issues. This paper will deal with three of these issues. The issues described are the release of flammable vapors from single- and double-shell tanks, the existence of organic chemicals, and/or ferrocyanide ion-containing fuel-rich mixtures of nitrate and nitrite salts in single-shell tanks.

  9. Review of sensors for the in situ chemical characterization of the Hanford underground storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kyle, K.R.; Mayes, E.L.

    1994-07-29

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in the Technical Task Plan (TTP) SF-2112-03 subtask 2, is responsible for the conceptual design of a Raman probe for inclusion in the in-tank cone penetrometer. As part of this task, LLNL is assigned the further responsibility of generating a report describing a review of sensor technologies other than Raman that can be incorporated in the in-tank cone penetrometer for the chemical analysis of the tank environment. These sensors would complement the capabilities of the Raman probe, and would give information on gaseous, liquid, and solid state species that are insensitive to Raman interrogation. This work is part of a joint effort involving several DOE laboratories for the design and development of in-tank cone penetrometer deployable systems for direct UST waste characterization at Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID).

  10. A simple model for a zinc/bromine flow cell and associated storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Simpson, G.D.; White, R.E. . Dept. of Chemical Engineering)

    1990-06-01

    A simple model for a parallel plate, zinc/bromine flow cell and associated storage tanks is presented and used to make time-dependent predictions for various quantities in the system. The model is based on a previously published algebraic model of the cell at steady-state and time-dependent, first-order differential equations for the storage tanks. The Butler--Volmer equation is used for the electrochemical reactions, and the homogeneous reaction between bromine and bromide is included. The model predictions indicate that the charging operation of a zinc/bromine battery can be significantly improved by using a storage tank with a larger residence time for the bromine side of the system.

  11. Safety implications of a large LNG tanker spill over water.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hightower, Marion Michael; Gritzo, Louis Alan; Luketa-Hanlin, Anay Josephine

    2005-04-01

    The increasing demand for natural gas in the United States could significantly increase the number and frequency of marine LNG (liquefied natural gas) imports. Although many studies have been conducted to assess the consequences and risks of potential LNG spills, the increasing importance of LNG imports suggests that consistent methods and approaches be identified and implemented to help ensure protection of public safety and property from a potential LNG spill. For that reason the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy, requested that Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) develop guidance on a risk-based analysis approach to assess and quantify potential threats to an LNG ship, the potential hazards and consequences of a large spill from an LNG ship, and review prevention and mitigation strategies that could be implemented to reduce both the potential and the risks of an LNG spill over water. Specifically, DOE requested: (1) An in-depth literature search of the experimental and technical studies associated with evaluating the safety and hazards of an LNG spill from an LNG ship; (2) A detailed review of four recent spill modeling studies related to the safety implications of a large-scale LNG spill over water; (3) Evaluation of the potential for breaching an LNG ship cargo tank, both accidentally and intentionally, identification of the potential for such breaches and the potential size of an LNG spill for each breach scenario, and an assessment of the potential range of hazards involved in an LNG spill; (4) Development of guidance on the use of modern, performance-based, risk management approaches to analyze and manage the threats, hazards, and consequences of an LNG spill over water to reduce the overall risks of an LNG spill to levels that are protective of public safety and property.

  12. Mobilization of cohesive sludge in storage tanks using jet mixers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Poirier, M.R.

    2000-02-04

    The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Savannah River Site and ITT Flygt Corporation conducted a joint mixer testing program sponsored by the DOE to evaluate the applicability of Flygt mixers to nuclear tank waste retrieval. Testing was carried out in three different tank sizes so that a scaling method could be evaluated and validated and the results could be used to make a full-scale mixer performance prediction. This presentation focuses on testing the mobilization of the sludge simulant composed of fine-grained particles cohesively bonded together by both colloidal and mechanical forces.

  13. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 135: Areas 25 Underground Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. H. Cox

    2001-06-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 135, Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, was closed in accordance with the approved Corrective Action Plan (DOE/NV, 2000). CAU 135 consists of three Corrective Action Sites (CAS). Two of these CAS's were identified in the Corrective Action Investigation Data Quality Objective meeting as being improperly identified as underground storage tanks. CAS 25-02-03 identified as the Deluge Valve Pit was actually an underground electrical vault and CAS 25-02-10 identified as an Underground Storage Tank was actually a former above ground storage tank filled with demineralized water. Both of these CAS's are recommended for a no further action closure. CAS 25-02-01 the Underground Storage Tanks commonly referred to as the Engine Maintenance Assembly and Disassembly Waste Holdup Tanks and Vault was closed by decontaminating the vault structure and conducting a radiological verification survey to document compliance with the Nevada Test Site unrestricted use release criteria. The Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, (CAS 25-02-01), referred to as the Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (E-MAD) Waste Holdup Tanks and Vault, were used to receive liquid waste from all of the radioactive and cell service area drains at the E-MAD Facility. Based on the results of the Corrective Action Investigation conducted in June 1999, discussed in ''The Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 135: Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada'' (DOE/NV, 199a), one sample from the radiological survey of the concrete vault interior exceeded radionuclide preliminary action levels. The analytes from the sediment samples exceeded the preliminary action levels for polychlorinated biphenyls, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel-range organics, and radionuclides. The CAU 135 closure activities consisted of scabbling radiological ''hot spots'' from the concrete vault, and the drilling removal of the cement-lined vault sump. Field activities began on November 28, 2000, and ended on December 4, 2000. After verification samples were collected, the vault was repaired with cement. The concrete vault sump, soil excavated beneath the sump, and compactable hot line trash were disposed at the Area 23 Sanitary Landfill. The vault interior was field surveyed following the removal of waste to verify that unrestricted release criteria had been achieved. Since the site is closed by unrestricted release decontamination and verification, post-closure care is not required.

  14. Final Environmental Impact Statement Safe Interim Storage Of Hanford Tank Wastes

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    1995/01eis0212_cl.html[6/27/2011 1:02:59 PM] Final Environmental Impact Statement Safe Interim Storage Of Hanford Tank Wastes DOE/EIS-0212 VOLUME 1 OF 2 VOLUME 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SAFE INTERIM STORAGE OF HANFORD TANK WASTES Hanford Site Richland, Washington October, 1995 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY NUCLEAR WASTE PROGRAM LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 99352 Department of Energy Richland, WA 99352

  15. Implementation plan for Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 280 and 281; Final rules for underground storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stupka, R.C.

    1989-04-01

    This report presents the schedules and methods required to comply with the newly promulgated Underground Storage Tank (UST) Regulations Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 280 and 281. These rules were promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 23, 1988, and became effective December 22, 1988. These regulations are required by Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Their purpose is to protect the groundwater supplies of the United States in the following ways: Closing old tanks; detecting and remediating tank leaks and spills; establishing stringent standards for new tanks; and upgrade of existing tanks to new-tank standards. 3 refs., 5 tabs.

  16. Underground storage tank integrated demonstration: Evaluation of pretreatment options for Hanford tank wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lumetta, G.J.; Wagner, M.J.; Colton, N.G.; Jones, E.O.

    1993-06-01

    Separation science plays a central role inn the pretreatment and disposal of nuclear wastes. The potential benefits of applying chemical separations in the pretreatment of the radioactive wastes stored at the various US Department of Energy sites cover both economic and environmental incentives. This is especially true at the Hanford Site, where the huge volume (>60 Mgal) of radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks could be partitioned into a very small volume of high-level waste (HLW) and a relatively large volume of low-level waste (LLW). The cost associated with vitrifying and disposing of just the HLW fraction in a geologic repository would be much less than those associated with vitrifying and disposing of all the wastes directly. Futhermore, the quality of the LLW form (e.g., grout) would be improved due to the lower inventory of radionuclides present in the LLW stream. In this report, we present the results of an evaluation of the pretreatment options for sludge taken from two different single-shell tanks at the Hanford Site-Tanks 241-B-110 and 241-U-110 (referred to as B-110 and U-110, respectively). The pretreatment options examined for these wastes included (1) leaching of transuranic (TRU) elements from the sludge, and (2) dissolution of the sludge followed by extraction of TRUs and {sup 90}Sr. In addition, the TRU leaching approach was examined for a third tank waste type, neutralized cladding removal waste.

  17. Forklift Storage Tank R&D: Timely, Critical, Exemplary

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Download presentation slides from the DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Program webinar, Material Characterization of Storage Vessels for Fuel Cell Forklifts, presented by Sandia National Laboratories on August 14, 2012.

  18. RCRA corrective action for underground storage tanks -- Subtitle C for Subtitle I

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-08-01

    The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to DOE and DOE contractor personnel responsible for planning and implementation of corrective measures addressing cleanup of releases of hazardous materials or regulated substances from underground storage tanks regulated under RCRA Subtitle C or Subtitle I.

  19. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 130: Storage Tanks Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alfred Wickline

    2009-03-01

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 130: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management. The corrective action sites (CASs) within CAU 130 are located within Areas 1, 7, 10, 20, 22, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site. Corrective Action Unit 130 is comprised of the following CASs: 01-02-01, Underground Storage Tank 07-02-01, Underground Storage Tanks 10-02-01, Underground Storage Tank 20-02-03, Underground Storage Tank 20-99-05, Tar Residue 22-02-02, Buried UST Piping 23-02-07, Underground Storage Tank This CR provides documentation supporting the completed corrective action investigations and provides data confirming that the closure objectives for CASs within CAU 130 were met. To achieve this, the following actions were performed: Reviewed the current site conditions, including the concentration and extent of contamination. Implemented any corrective actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. Properly disposed of corrective action and investigation-derived wastes. From August 4 through September 30, 2008, closure activities were performed as set forth in the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for CAU 130, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. The purposes of the activities as defined during the data quality objectives process were: Determine whether contaminants of concern (COCs) are present. If COCs are present, determine their nature and extent, implement appropriate corrective actions, confirm that no residual contamination is present, and properly dispose of wastes. Constituents detected during the closure activities were evaluated against final action levels to identify COCs for CAU 130. Assessment of the data generated from closure activities indicates that no further action is necessary because no COCs were identified at any CAU 130 CAS. Debris removal from these CASs was considered a best management practice because no contamination was detected. The DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office provides the following recommendations: No further corrective action is required at all CAU 130 CASs. A Notice of Completion to DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, is requested from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for closure of CAU 130. Corrective Action Unit 130 should be moved from Appendix III to Appendix IV of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

  20. LNG Annual Report - 2004 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    4 LNG Annual Report - 2004 LNG Annual Report - 2004 PDF icon LNG Annual Report - 2004 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2005 LNG Annual Report - 2007 LNG Annual Report - 2006

  1. LNG Annual Report - 2005 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    5 LNG Annual Report - 2005 LNG Annual Report - 2005 PDF icon LNG Annual Report - 2005 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2004 LNG Annual Report - 2006 LNG Annual Report - 2007

  2. LNG Annual Report - 2011 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    1 LNG Annual Report - 2011 LNG Annual Report - 2011 (Revised 3/15/2012) PDF icon LNG Annual Report 2011 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2012 LNG Annual Report - 2013 LNG Annual Report - 2010

  3. LNG Annual Report - 2012 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    2 LNG Annual Report - 2012 LNG Annual Report - 2012 (Revised 3/21/2013) PDF icon LNG Annual Report - 2012 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2013 LNG Annual Report - 2014 LNG Annual Report - 2011

  4. LNG Annual Report - 2013 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    3 LNG Annual Report - 2013 LNG Annual Report - 2013 PDF icon LNG 2013.pdf More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2012 LNG Annual Report - 2014 LNG Annual Report - 2015

  5. LNG Annual Report - 2014 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Annual Report - 2014 LNG Annual Report - 2014 LNG Annual Report - 2014 rev PDF icon LNG 2014 rev2.pdf More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2013 LNG Annual Report - 2012 LNG Annual Report - 2015

  6. LNG Annual Report - 2015 | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Annual Report - 2015 LNG Annual Report - 2015 LNG Annual Report - 2015 PDF icon LNG 2015.pdf More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2014 LNG Annual Report - 2013 LNG Monthly 2016

  7. American LNG Hialeah Facility Terminal

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    1. R = Registration of company; C (LNG) = Contract involving LNG; C (NG)= Contract involving natural gas supply

  8. LNG: new driving force

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adkins, R.E.

    1981-11-01

    Spurred by recent legislation promoting the use of methane as a motor fuel, Beech Aircraft is gearing up for market production of a complete vehicular conversion kit and ground support equipment for a liquefied-methane fuel system that is suitable for the use of conventional LNG or methane collected from coalbeds, sewage plants, or landfills and liquefied on site. As demonstrated in field tests of prototype fuel systems, liquefied methane stores conveniently and is safe in motor vehicles. Compared with compressed methane, the liquefied form provides more horsepower and longer mileage between fuelings. Fully fueled, the Beech system weighs less than a gasoline or diesel tank of the same size. The system features electronic-capacitance gaging for direct dashboard quantity reading, a standby time of 14 days (from filling time until the time it reaches the maximum allowable vapor pressure of 60 psi), and the choice of vapor or liquid withdrawal.

  9. LNG Annual Report - 2008 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    8 LNG Annual Report - 2008 LNG Annual Report - 2008 (Revised 10/14/2009) PDF icon LNG Annual Report - 2008 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2009

  10. LNG Annual Report - 2009 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    9 LNG Annual Report - 2009 LNG Annual Report - 2009 PDF icon LNG Annual Report - 2009 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2008

  11. Freeport LNG Terminal | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Freeport LNG Terminal Freeport LNG Terminal Freeport LNG Terminal Long-Term Contract Information and Registrations at U.S. LNG Export Facilities Filing Date Type (1) Description ...

  12. Guidelines for development of structural integrity programs for DOE high-level waste storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bandyopadhyay, K.; Bush, S.; Kassir, M.; Mather, B.; Shewmon, P.; Streicher, M.; Thompson, B.; Rooyen, D. van; Weeks, J.

    1997-01-01

    Guidelines are provided for developing programs to promote the structural integrity of high-level waste storage tanks and transfer lines at the facilities of the Department of Energy. Elements of the program plan include a leak-detection system, definition of appropriate loads, collection of data for possible material and geometric changes, assessment of the tank structure, and non-destructive examination. Possible aging degradation mechanisms are explored for both steel and concrete components of the tanks, and evaluated to screen out nonsignificant aging mechanisms and to indicate methods of controlling the significant aging mechanisms. Specific guidelines for assessing structural adequacy will be provided in companion documents. Site-specific structural integrity programs can be developed drawing on the relevant portions of the material in this document.

  13. Petroleum USTs: RCRA Subtitle 1, Underground Storage Tanks. RCRA Information Brief

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dailey, R.

    1994-01-01

    Underground tanks that contain petroleum or hazardous substances may be subject to the Federal Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations. These regulations, issued by EPA under authority of Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery (RCRA) [Section 9003 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act of 1984 (HSWA)], establish standards for installation, operation, release detection, corrective action, repair, and closure. The Department of Energy (DOE) is required by Section 9007 of RCRA to implement these regulations at DOE facilities with USTs. DOE prepared a guidance document, Regulated Underground Storage Tanks (DOE/EH-231/0041/0191, June 1992), that describes the UST procedural requirements which regulate tanks and piping for both petroleum and hazardous substance USTs as well as USTs containing radioactive material regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011). This information Brief supplements the UST guidance by responding to critical questions concerning how the regulations apply to petroleum USTs. It is part of a series of information Briefs which address issues pertinent to specific categories of USTs.

  14. EIS-0062: Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High Level Waste Storage, Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS analyzes the impacts of the various design alternatives for the construction of fourteen 1.3 million gallon high-activity radioactive waste tanks. The EIS further evaluates the effects of these alternative designs on tank durability, on the ease of waste retrieval from such tanks, and the choice of technology and timing for long-term storage or disposal of the wastes.

  15. C-tank transfers: Transuranic sludge removal from the C-1, C-2, and W-23 waste storage tanks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahl, T.L.; Lay, A.C.; Taylor, S.A.; Moore, J.W.

    1999-05-01

    Two fluidic pulse jet mixing systems were used to successfully mobilize remote-handled transuranic sludge for retrieval from three 50,000-gal horizontal waste storage tanks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The results of this operation indicate that the pulse jet system should be considered for mixing and bulk retrieval of sludges in other vertical and horizontal waste tanks at ORNL and at other U.S. Department of Energy sites.

  16. ERS 14.3 Underground and Above Ground Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks FPS 12.1, 1/9/01

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

     The objective of this surveillance is to verify underground and above ground diesel storage tanks are maintained, monitored, configured and marked as required.  These surveillance activities...

  17. METHODOLOGY & CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BARKER, S.A.

    2006-07-27

    Waste stored within tank farm double-shell tanks (DST) and single-shell tanks (SST) generates flammable gas (principally hydrogen) to varying degrees depending on the type, amount, geometry, and condition of the waste. The waste generates hydrogen through the radiolysis of water and organic compounds, thermolytic decomposition of organic compounds, and corrosion of a tank's carbon steel walls. Radiolysis and thermolytic decomposition also generates ammonia. Nonflammable gases, which act as dilutents (such as nitrous oxide), are also produced. Additional flammable gases (e.g., methane) are generated by chemical reactions between various degradation products of organic chemicals present in the tanks. Volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals in tanks also produce organic vapors. The generated gases in tank waste are either released continuously to the tank headspace or are retained in the waste matrix. Retained gas may be released in a spontaneous or induced gas release event (GRE) that can significantly increase the flammable gas concentration in the tank headspace as described in RPP-7771. The document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 5 is the annual update of the methodology and calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

  18. METHODOLOGY & CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    TU, T.A.

    2007-01-04

    Waste stored within tank farm double-shell tanks (DST) and single-shell tanks (SST) generates flammable gas (principally hydrogen) to varying degrees depending on the type, amount, geometry, and condition of the waste. The waste generates hydrogen through the radiolysis of water and organic compounds, thermolytic decomposition of organic compounds, and corrosion of a tank's carbon steel walls. Radiolysis and thermolytic decomposition also generates ammonia. Nonflammable gases, which act as dilutents (such as nitrous oxide), are also produced. Additional flammable gases (e.g., methane) are generated by chemical reactions between various degradation products of organic chemicals present in the tanks. Volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals in tanks also produce organic vapors. The generated gases in tank waste are either released continuously to the tank headspace or are retained in the waste matrix. Retained gas may be released in a spontaneous or induced gas release event (GRE) that can significantly increase the flammable gas concentration in the tank headspace as described in RPP-7771, Flammable Gas Safety Isme Resolution. Appendices A through I provide supporting information. The document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste and characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 6 is the annual update of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

  19. Technical assessment of compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hua, T. Q.; Ahluwalia, R. K.; Peng, J. K.; Kromer, M.; Lasher, S.; McKenney, K.; Law, K.; Sinha, J.

    2011-02-09

    The performance and cost of compressed hydrogen storage tank systems has been assessed and compared to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 2010, 2015, and ultimate targets for automotive applications. The on-board performance and high-volume manufacturing cost were determined for compressed hydrogen tanks with design pressures of 350 bar ({approx}5000 psi) and 700 bar ({approx}10,000 psi) capable of storing 5.6 kg of usable hydrogen. The off-board performance and cost of delivering compressed hydrogen was determined for hydrogen produced by central steam methane reforming (SMR). The main conclusions of the assessment are that the 350-bar compressed storage system has the potential to meet the 2010 and 2015 targets for system gravimetric capacity but will not likely meet any of the system targets for volumetric capacity or cost, given our base case assumptions. The 700-bar compressed storage system has the potential to meet only the 2010 target for system gravimetric capacity and is not likely to meet any of the system targets for volumetric capacity or cost, despite the fact that its volumetric capacity is much higher than that of the 350-bar system. Both the 350-bar and 700-bar systems come close to meeting the Well-to-Tank (WTT) efficiency target, but fall short by about 5%. These results are summarized.

  20. Technical efforts focus on cutting LNG plant costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aoki, Ichizo; Kikkawa, Yoshitsugi

    1995-07-03

    LNG demand is growing due to the nuclear setback and environmental issues spurred by concern about the greenhouse effect and acid rain, especially in the Far East. However, LNG is expensive compared with other energy sources. Efforts continue to minimize capital and operating costs and to increase LNG plant availability and safety. Technical trends in the LNG industry aim at reducing plant costs in pursuit of a competitive LNG price on an energy value basis against the oil price. This article reviews key areas of technical development. Discussed are train size, liquefaction processes, acid gas removal, heavy end removal, nitrogen rejection, refrigeration compressor and drivers, expander application, cooling media selection, LNG storage and loading system, and plant availability.

  1. Refinement of Modeling Techniques for the Structural Evaluation of Hanford Single-Shell Nuclear Waste Storage Tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Karri, Naveen K.; Rinker, Michael W.; Johnson, Kenneth I.; Bapanapalli, Satish K.

    2012-11-10

    ABSTRACT Several tanks at the Hanford Site (in Washington State, USA) belong to the first generation of underground nuclear waste storage tanks known as single shell tanks (SSTs). These tanks were constructed between 1943 and 1964 and are well beyond their design life. This article discusses the structural analysis approach and modeling challenges encountered during the ongoing analysis of record (AOR) for evaluating the structural integrity of the SSTs. There are several geometrical and material nonlinearities and uncertainties to be dealt with while performing the modern finite element analysis of these tanks. The analysis takes into account the temperature history of the tanks and allowable mechanical operating loads of these tanks for proper estimation of creep strains and thermal degradation of material properties. The loads prescribed in the AOR models also include anticipated loads that these tanks may see during waste retrieval and closure. Due to uncertainty in a number of inputs to the models, sensitivity studies were conducted to address questions related to the boundary conditions to realistically or conservatively represent the influence of surrounding tanks in a tank farm, the influence of backfill excavation slope, the extent of backfill and the total extent of undisturbed soil surrounding the backfill. Because of the limited availability of data on the thermal and operating history for many of the individual tanks, some of the data was assumed or interpolated. However, the models developed for the analysis of record represent the bounding scenarios and include the loading conditions that the tanks were subjected to or anticipated. The modeling refinement techniques followed in the AOR resulted in conservative estimates for force and moment demands at various sections in the concrete tanks. This article discusses the modeling aspects related to Type-II and Type-III SSTs. The modeling techniques, methodology and evaluation criteria developed for evaluating the structural integrity of SSTs at Hanford are in general applicable to any similar tanks or underground concrete storage structures.

  2. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT. NO. 13-160-LNG - 3443 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT. NO. 13-160-LNG - 3443 October 2014 April 2015 More...

  3. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - PORT ARTHUR LNG - DKT. NO. 15-53-LNG - ORD...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT. NO. 13-160-LNG - 3443 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR WALLER LNG SERVICES, LLC DBA WALLER POINT LNG - FE DKT. NO. 12-152-LNG...

  4. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT. NO. 13-160-LNG - 3443 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT. NO. 13-160-LNG - 3443 PDF icon October 2014 PDF icon April ...

  5. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    WEBER RA

    2009-01-16

    The Hanford Site contains 177 large underground radioactive waste storage tanks (28 double-shell tanks and 149 single-shell tanks). These tanks are categorized into one of three waste groups (A, B, and C) based on their waste and tank characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement gas release event. Assignments of waste groups to the 177 double-shell tanks and single-shell tanks, as reported in this document, are based on a Monte Carlo analysis of three criteria. The first criterion is the headspace flammable gas concentration following release of retained gas. This criterion determines whether the tank contains sufficient retained gas such that the well-mixed headspace flammable gas concentration would reach 100% of the lower flammability limit if the entire tank's retained gas were released. If the volume of retained gas is not sufficient to reach 100% of the lower flammability limit, then flammable conditions cannot be reached and the tank is classified as a waste group C tank independent of the method the gas is released. The second criterion is the energy ratio and considers whether there is sufficient supernatant on top of the saturated solids such that gas-bearing solids have the potential energy required to break up the material and release gas. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and that have an energy ratio < 3.0 do not have sufficient potential energy to break up material and release gas and are assigned to waste group B. These tanks are considered to represent a potential induced flammable gas release hazard, but no spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0, but that pass the third criterion (buoyancy ratio < 1.0, see below) are also assigned to waste group B. Even though the designation as a waste group B (or A) tank identifies the potential for an induced flammable gas release hazard, the hazard only exists for specific operations that can release the retained gas in the tank at a rate and quantity that results in reaching 100% of the lower flammability limit in the tank headspace. The identification and evaluation of tank farm operations that could cause an induced flammable gas release hazard in a waste group B (or A) tank are included in other documents. The third criterion is the buoyancy ratio. This criterion addresses tanks that are not waste group C double-shell tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0. For these double-shell tanks, the buoyancy ratio considers whether the saturated solids can retain sufficient gas to exceed neutral buoyancy relative to the supernatant layer and therefore have buoyant displacement gas release events. If the buoyancy ratio is {ge} 1.0, that double-shell tank is assigned to waste group A. These tanks are considered to have a potential spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard in addition to a potential induced flammable gas release hazard. This document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 8 is the annual update of the calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

  6. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    FOWLER KD

    2007-12-27

    This document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 7 is the annual update of the calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs. The Hanford Site contains 177 large underground radioactive waste storage tanks (28 double-shell tanks and 149 single-shell tanks). These tanks are categorized into one of three waste groups (A, B, and C) based on their waste and tank characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement gas release event. Assignments of waste groups to the 177 double-shell tanks and single-shell tanks, as reported in this document, are based on a Monte Carlo analysis of three criteria. The first criterion is the headspace flammable gas concentration following release of retained gas. This criterion determines whether the tank contains sufficient retained gas such that the well-mixed headspace flammable gas concentration would reach 100% of the lower flammability limit if the entire tank's retained gas were released. If the volume of retained gas is not sufficient to reach 100% of the lower flammability limit, then flammable conditions cannot be reached and the tank is classified as a waste group C tank independent of the method the gas is released. The second criterion is the energy ratio and considers whether there is sufficient supernatant on top of the saturated solids such that gas-bearing solids have the potential energy required to break up the material and release gas. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and that have an energy ratio < 3.0 do not have sufficient potential energy to break up material and release gas and are assigned to waste group B. These tanks are considered to represent a potential induced flammable gas release hazard, but no spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0, but that pass the third criterion (buoyancy ratio < 1.0, see below) are also assigned to waste group B. Even though the designation as a waste group B (or A) tank identifies the potential for an induced flammable gas release hazard, the hazard only exists for specific operations that can release the retained gas in the tank at a rate and quantity that results in reaching 100% of the lower flammability limit in the tank headspace. The identification and evaluation of tank farm operations that could cause an induced flammable gas release hazard in a waste group B (or A) tank are included in other documents. The third criterion is the buoyancy ratio. This criterion addresses tanks that are not waste group C double-shell tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0. For these double-shell tanks, the buoyancy ratio considers whether the saturated solids can retain sufficient gas to exceed neutral buoyancy relative to the supernatant layer and therefore have buoyant displacement gas release events. If the buoyancy ratio is {ge} 1.0, that double-shell tank is assigned to waste group A. These tanks are considered to have a potential spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard in addition to a potential induced flammable gas release hazard.

  7. LNG Annual Report - 2007 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    7 LNG Annual Report - 2007 LNG Annual Report - 2007 (Revised 10/10/2008) PDF icon LNG Annual Report - 2007 More Documents & Publications LNG Annual Report - 2008 LNG Annual Report - 2006

  8. Cryograb: A Novel Approach to the Retrieval of Waste from Underground Storage Tanks - 13501

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Brien, Luke; Baker, Stephen; Bowen, Bob; Mallick, Pramod; Smith, Gary; King, Bill; Judd, Laurie

    2013-07-01

    The UK's National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) is investigating the use of cryogenic technology for the recovery of nuclear waste. Cryograb, freezing the waste on a 'cryo-head' and then retrieves it as a single mass which can then be treated or stabilized as necessary. The technology has a number of benefits over other retrieval approaches in that it minimizes sludge disturbance thereby reducing effluent arising and it can be used to de-water, and thereby reduce the volume of waste. The technology has been successfully deployed for a variety of nuclear and non-nuclear waste recovery operations. The application of Cryograb for the recovery of waste from US underground storage tanks is being explored through a US DOE International Technology Transfer and Demonstration programme. A sample deployment being considered involves the recovery of residual mounds of sludge material from waste storage tanks at Savannah River. Operational constraints and success criteria were agreed prior to the completion of a process down selection exercise which specified the preferred configuration of the cryo-head and supporting plant. Subsequent process modeling identified retrieval rates and temperature gradients through the waste and tank infrastructure. The work, which has been delivered in partnership with US DOE, SRNL, NuVision Engineering and Frigeo AB has demonstrated the technical feasibility of the approach (to TRL 2) and has resulted in the allocation of additional funding from DOE to take the programme to bench and cold pilot-scale trials. (authors)

  9. Fluid dynamic studies for a simulated Melton Valley Storage Tank slurry

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hylton, T.D.; Youngblood, E.L.; Cummins, R.L.

    1994-07-01

    The Melton Valley Storage Tanks (MVSTs), are used for the collection and storage of remote-handled radioactive liquid wastes. These wastes, which were typically acidic when generated, were neutralized with the addition of sodium hydroxide to protect the storage tanks from corrosion, but this caused the transuranic and heavy metals to precipitate. These wastes will eventually need to be removed from the tanks for ultimate disposal. The objective of the research activities discussed in this report is to support the design of a pipeline transport system between the MVSTs and a treatment facility. Since the wastes in the MVSTs are highly radioactive, a surrogate slurry was developed for this study. Rheological properties of the simulated slurry were determined in a test loop in which the slurry was circulated through three pipeline viscometers of different diameters. Pressure drop data at varying flow rates were used to obtain shear stress and shear rate data. The data were analyzed, and the slurry rheological properties were analyzed by the Power Law model and the Bingham plastic model. The plastic viscosity and yield stress data obtained from the rheological tests were used as inputs for a piping design software package, and the pressure drops predicted by the software compared well with the pressure drop data obtained from the test loop. The minimum transport velocity was determine for the slurry by adding known nominal sizes of glass spheres to the slurry. However, it was shown that the surrogate slurry exhibited hindered settling, which may substantially decrease the minimum transport velocity. Therefore, it may be desired to perform additional tests with a surrogate with a lower concentration of suspended solids to determine the minimum transport velocity.

  10. Storage Tanks and Dispensers for E85 and Bio-Diesel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Webster, Michael; Frederick, Justin

    2014-02-10

    Project objective is to improve the District's alternative fueling infrastructure by installing storage tanks and dispensers for E-85 and Bio-Diesel at the existing Blackwell Forest Preserve Alternative Fuel Station. The addition of E-85 and Bio-Diesel at this station will continue to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, while promoting the use of clean burning, domestically produced, renewable alternative fuels. In addition, this station will promote strong intergovernmental cooperation as other governmental agencies have expressed interest in utilizing this station.

  11. Results Of Routine Strip Effluent Hold Tank, Decontaminated Salt Solution Hold Tank, Caustic Wash Tank And Caustic Storage Tank Samples From Modular Caustic-Side Solvent Extraction Unit During Macrobatch 6 Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Peters, T. B.

    2014-01-02

    Strip Effluent Hold Tank (SEHT), Decontaminated Salt Solution Hold Tank (DSSHT), Caustic Wash Tank (CWT) and Caustic Storage Tank (CST) samples from the Interim Salt Disposition Project (ISDP) Salt Batch (“Macrobatch”) 6 have been analyzed for 238Pu, 90Sr, 137Cs, and by Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy (ICPES). The Pu, Sr, and Cs results from the current Macrobatch 6 samples are similar to those from comparable samples in previous Macrobatch 5. In addition the SEHT and DSSHT heel samples (i.e. ‘preliminary’) have been analyzed and reported to meet NGS Demonstration Plan requirements. From a bulk chemical point of view, the ICPES results do not vary considerably between this and the previous samples. The titanium results in the DSSHT samples continue to indicate the presence of Ti, when the feed material does not have detectable levels. This most likely indicates that leaching of Ti from MST has increased in ARP at the higher free hydroxide concentrations in the current feed.

  12. Results Of Routine Strip Effluent Hold Tank, Decontaminated Salt Solution Hold Tank, Caustic Wash Tank And Caustic Storage Tank Samples From Modular Caustic-Side Solvent Extraction Unit During Macrobatch 6 Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Peters, T. B.

    2013-10-01

    Strip Effluent Hold Tank (SEHT), Decontaminated Salt Solution Hold Tank (DSSHT), Caustic Wash Tank (CWT) and Caustic Storage Tank (CST) samples from several of the ''microbatches'' of Integrated Salt Disposition Project (ISDP) Salt Batch (''Macrobatch'') 6 have been analyzed for {sup 238}Pu, {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, and by Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy (ICPES). The results from the current microbatch samples are similar to those from comparable samples in Macrobatch 5. From a bulk chemical point of view, the ICPES results do not vary considerably between this and the previous macrobatch. The titanium results in the DSSHT samples continue to indicate the presence of Ti, when the feed material does not have detectable levels. This most likely indicates that leaching of Ti from MST in ARP continues to occur. Both the CST and CWT samples indicate that the target Free OH value of 0.03 has been surpassed. While at this time there is no indication that this has caused an operational problem, the CST should be adjusted into specification. The {sup 137}Cs results from the SRNL as well as F/H lab data indicate a potential decline in cesium decontamination factor. Further samples will be carefully monitored to investigate this.

  13. New LNG process scheme

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Foglietta, J.H.

    1999-07-01

    A new LNG cycle has been developed for base load liquefaction facilities. This new design offers a different technical and economical solution comparing in efficiency with the classical technologies. The new LNG scheme could offer attractive business opportunities to oil and gas companies that are trying to find paths to monetize gas sources more effectively; particularly for remote or offshore locations where smaller scale LNG facilities might be applicable. This design offers also an alternative route to classic LNG projects, as well as alternative fuel sources. Conceived to offer simplicity and access to industry standard equipment, This design is a hybrid result of combining a standard refrigeration system and turboexpander technology.

  14. LNG Safety Assessment Evaluation Methods

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Muna, Alice Baca; LaFleur, Angela Christine

    2015-05-01

    Sandia National Laboratories evaluated published safety assessment methods across a variety of industries including Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), hydrogen, land and marine transportation, as well as the US Department of Defense (DOD). All the methods were evaluated for their potential applicability for use in the LNG railroad application. After reviewing the documents included in this report, as well as others not included because of repetition, the Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Safety Plan Checklist is most suitable to be adapted to the LNG railroad application. This report was developed to survey industries related to rail transportation for methodologies and tools that can be used by the FRA to review and evaluate safety assessments submitted by the railroad industry as a part of their implementation plans for liquefied or compressed natural gas storage ( on-board or tender) and engine fueling delivery systems. The main sections of this report provide an overview of various methods found during this survey. In most cases, the reference document is quoted directly. The final section provides discussion and a recommendation for the most appropriate methodology that will allow efficient and consistent evaluations to be made. The DOE Hydrogen Safety Plan Checklist was then revised to adapt it as a methodology for the Federal Railroad Administration’s use in evaluating safety plans submitted by the railroad industry.

  15. The Performance of Underground Radioactive Waste Storage Tanks at the Savannah River Site: A 60-Year Historical Perspective

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiersma, Bruce J.

    2014-02-08

    The Savannah River Site produced weapons-grade materials for nearly 35 years between 1953 and 1988. The legacy of this production is nearly 37 million gallons of radioactive waste. Since the 1950s, the liquid waste has been stored in large, underground carbon steel waste tanks. During the past 20 years, the site has begun to process the waste so that it may be stored in vitrified and grout forms, which are more suitable for long-term storage. Over the history of the site, some tanks have experienced leakage of the waste to the secondary containment. This article is a review of the instances of leakage and corrosion degradation that the tanks and associated equipment have experienced since the first tanks were built. Furthermore, the activities that the site has taken to mitigate the degradation and manage the service life of the tank for its anticipated lifetime are reviewed.

  16. The Performance of Underground Radioactive Waste Storage Tanks at the Savannah River Site: A 60-Year Historical Perspective

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Wiersma, Bruce J.

    2014-02-08

    The Savannah River Site produced weapons-grade materials for nearly 35 years between 1953 and 1988. The legacy of this production is nearly 37 million gallons of radioactive waste. Since the 1950s, the liquid waste has been stored in large, underground carbon steel waste tanks. During the past 20 years, the site has begun to process the waste so that it may be stored in vitrified and grout forms, which are more suitable for long-term storage. Over the history of the site, some tanks have experienced leakage of the waste to the secondary containment. This article is a review of themore » instances of leakage and corrosion degradation that the tanks and associated equipment have experienced since the first tanks were built. Furthermore, the activities that the site has taken to mitigate the degradation and manage the service life of the tank for its anticipated lifetime are reviewed.« less

  17. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 121: Storage Tanks and Miscellaneous Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2008-09-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 121 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) (1996, as amended February 2008) as Storage Tanks and Miscellaneous Sites. CAU 121 consists of the following three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Area 12 of the Nevada Test Site, which is approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada: (1) CAS 12-01-01, Aboveground Storage Tank; (2) CAS 12-01-02, Aboveground Storage Tank; and (3) CAS 12-22-26, Drums; 2 AST's. CAU 121 closure activities were conducted according to the FFACO and the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for CAU 121 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 2007). Field work took place from February through September 2008. Samples were collected to determine the path forward to close each site. Closure activities were completed as defined in the plan based on sample analytical results and site conditions. No contaminants of concern (COCs) were present at CAS 12-01-01; therefore, no further action was chosen as the corrective action alternative. As a best management practice (BMP), the empty aboveground storage tank (AST) was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. At CAS 12-01-02, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were present above the preliminary action level (PAL) in the soil beneath the AST that could possibly have originated from the AST contents. Therefore, PCBs were considered COCs, and the site was clean closed by excavating and disposing of soil containing PCBs. Approximately 5 cubic yards (yd{sup 3}) of soil were excavated and disposed as petroleum hydrocarbon PCB remediation waste, and approximately 13 yd3 of soil were excavated and disposed as PCB remediation waste. Cleanup samples were collected to confirm that the remaining soil did not contain PCBs above the PAL. Other compounds detected in the soil above PALs (i.e., total petroleum hydrocarbons [TPH] and semi-volatile organic compounds [SVOCs]) were determined to not likely have originated from the tank. Additional sample results showed that the compounds were likely present as a result of degraded asphalt around the adjacent, active water tank and not from the abandoned AST; therefore, they were not considered COCs. As a BMP, the empty AST was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. No COCs were present at CAS 12-22-26; therefore, no further action was chosen as the corrective action alternative. Although TPH was present at concentrations that exceeded the PAL, the volatile organic compound and SVOC hazardous constituents of TPH did not exceed the final action levels (FALs); therefore, TPH was not considered a COC. As a BMP, the empty AST was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. Closure activities generated sanitary waste, petroleum hydrocarbon PCB remediation waste, PCB remediation waste, and hazardous waste. Waste was appropriately managed and disposed. Waste that is currently staged on site is being appropriately managed and will be disposed under approved waste profiles in permitted landfills. Waste minimization activities included waste characterization sampling and segregation of waste streams.

  18. Technical assessment of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ahluwalia, R.; Hua, T.; Peng, J.-K.; Lasher, S.; McKenney, K.; Sinha, J.; Gardiner, M.; Nuclear Engineering Division; TIAX LLC; U.S. DOE

    2010-05-01

    On-board and off-board performance and cost of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage are assessed and compared to the targets for automotive applications. The on-board performance of the system and high-volume manufacturing cost were determined for liquid hydrogen refueling with a single-flow nozzle and a pump that delivers liquid H{sub 2} to the insulated cryogenic tank capable of being pressurized to 272 atm. The off-board performance and cost of delivering liquid hydrogen were determined for two scenarios in which hydrogen is produced by central steam methane reforming (SMR) or by central electrolysis. The main conclusions are that the cryo-compressed storage system has the potential of meeting the ultimate target for system gravimetric capacity, mid-term target for system volumetric capacity, and the target for hydrogen loss during dormancy under certain conditions of minimum daily driving. However, the high-volume manufacturing cost and the fuel cost for the SMR hydrogen production scenario are, respectively, 2-4 and 1.6-2.4 times the current targets, and the well-to-tank efficiency is well short of the 60% target specified for off-board regenerable materials.

  19. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR THE OPERATION OF VENTILATION SYSTEMS FOR UNDERGROUND RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE TANKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiersma, B.; Hansen, A.

    2013-11-13

    Liquid radioactive wastes from the Savannah River Site are stored in large underground carbon steel tanks. The majority of the waste is confined in double shell tanks, which have a primary shell, where the waste is stored, and a secondary shell, which creates an annular region between the two shells, that provides secondary containment and leak detection capabilities should leakage from the primary shell occur. Each of the DST is equipped with a purge ventilation system for the interior of the primary shell and annulus ventilation system for the secondary containment. Administrative flammability controls require continuous ventilation to remove hydrogen gas and other vapors from the waste tanks while preventing the release of radionuclides to the atmosphere. Should a leak from the primary to the annulus occur, the annulus ventilation would also serve this purpose. The functionality of the annulus ventilation is necessary to preserve the structural integrity of the primary shell and the secondary. An administrative corrosion control program is in place to ensure integrity of the tank. Given the critical functions of the purge and annulus ventilation systems, engineering controls are also necessary to ensure that the systems remain robust. The system consists of components that are constructed of metal (e.g., steel, stainless steel, aluminum, copper, etc.) and/or polymeric (polypropylene, polyethylene, silicone, polyurethane, etc.) materials. The performance of these materials in anticipated service environments (e.g., normal waste storage, waste removal, etc.) was evaluated. The most aggressive vapor space environment occurs during chemical cleaning of the residual heels by utilizing oxalic acid. The presence of NO{sub x} and mercury in the vapors generated from the process could potentially accelerate the degradation of aluminum, carbon steel, and copper. Once identified, the most susceptible materials were either replaced and/or plans for discontinuing operations are executed.

  20. Melton Valley liquid low-level radioactive waste storage tanks evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-06-01

    The Melton Valley Liquid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Tanks (MVSTs) store the evaporator concentrates from the Liquid Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLLW) System at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The eight stainless steel tanks contain approximately 375,000 gallons of liquid and sludge waste. These are some of the newer, better-designed tanks in the LLLW System. They have been evaluated and found by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to comply with all Federal Facility Agreement requirements for double containment. The operations and maintenance aspects of the tanks were also reviewed by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) in September 1994. This document also contains an assessment of the risk to the public and ORNL workers from a leak in one of the MVSTs. Two primary scenarios were investigated: (1) exposure of the public to radiation from drinking Clinch River water contaminated by leaked LLLW, and (2) exposure of on-site workers to radiation by inhaling air contaminated by leaked LLLW. The estimated frequency of a leak from one of the MVSTs is about 8 {times} 10{sup {minus}4} events per year, or about once in 1200 years (with a 95% confidence level). If a leak were to occur, the dose to a worker from inhalation would be about 2.3 {times} 10{sup {minus}1} mrem (with a 95% confidence level). The dose to a member of the public through the drinking water pathway is estimated to be about 7 {times} 10{sup {minus}1} mrem (with a 95% confidence level). By comparison with EPA Safe Drinking Water regulations, the allowable lifetime radiation dose is about 300 mrem. Thus, a postulated LLLW leak from the MVSTs would not add appreciably to an individual`s lifetime radiation dose.

  1. Custody transfer measurements for LNG/LPG

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Williams, R.A.

    1984-04-01

    The buying, selling, and transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) requires the use of sophisticated measurement systems for accurate determination of the total quantity and energy content for custody transfer reporting and safe cargo handling of these cryogenic products. These systems must meet strict safety standards for operation in a hazardous environment and, at the same time, provide accurate, reliable information for the storage, transfer, and data reporting required for both operational and financial accounting purposes. A brief discussion of LNG and LPG characteristics and detailed description of these special measurement techniques are given in this presentation.

  2. Combined cooling and purification system for nuclear reactor spent fuel pit, refueling cavity, and refueling water storage tank

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Corletti, Michael M. (New Kensington, PA); Lau, Louis K. (Monroeville, PA); Schulz, Terry L. (Murrysville Boro, PA)

    1993-01-01

    The spent fuel pit of a pressured water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plant has sufficient coolant capacity that a safety rated cooling system is not required. A non-safety rated combined cooling and purification system with redundant branches selectively provides simultaneously cooling and purification for the spent fuel pit, the refueling cavity, and the refueling water storage tank, and transfers coolant from the refueling water storage tank to the refueling cavity without it passing through the reactor core. Skimmers on the suction piping of the combined cooling and purification system eliminate the need for separate skimmer circuits with dedicated pumps.

  3. Combined cooling and purification system for nuclear reactor spent fuel pit, refueling cavity, and refueling water storage tank

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Corletti, M.M.; Lau, L.K.; Schulz, T.L.

    1993-12-14

    The spent fuel pit of a pressured water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plant has sufficient coolant capacity that a safety rated cooling system is not required. A non-safety rated combined cooling and purification system with redundant branches selectively provides simultaneously cooling and purification for the spent fuel pit, the refueling cavity, and the refueling water storage tank, and transfers coolant from the refueling water storage tank to the refueling cavity without it passing through the reactor core. Skimmers on the suction piping of the combined cooling and purification system eliminate the need for separate skimmer circuits with dedicated pumps. 1 figures.

  4. Underground motor-fuel storage tanks: a national survey. Vol. 1. Technical report. Vol. 2. Appendices. Final report, February 1984-May 1986

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dietz, S.K.; Flora, J.D.; Strenio, J.F.; Vincent, C.J.

    1986-05-01

    A nationally representative sample of 2,812 establishments were interviewed to determine the presence of underground motor-fuel storage tanks. The sample represented establishments in fuel-related industries (1,612), large establishments in all other industries (600), and farms (600). A total of 890 of these establishments were found to have a total of 2445 underground motor fuel storage tanks. A subsample of 218 establishments was selected for tank tightness testing, using a modification of a commercially available test. The method over-filled the tank system into a standpipe, and thus detected leakage anywhere in the system of tank vessel, pipes, lines, joints, and fittings.

  5. Technical assessment of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ahluwalia, R. K.; Hua, T. Q.; Peng, J.-K.; Lasher, S.; McKenney, K.; Sinha, J.; Nuclear Engineering Division; TIAX LLC

    2010-03-03

    On-board and off-board performance and cost of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage has been assessed and compared to the DOE 2010, 2015 and ultimate targets for automotive applications. The Gen-3 prototype system of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was modeled to project the performance of a scaled-down 5.6-kg usable hydrogen storage system. The on-board performance of the system and high-volume manufacturing cost were determined for liquid hydrogen refueling with a single-flow nozzle and a pump that delivers 1.5 kg/min of liquid H{sub 2} to the insulated cryogenic tank capable of being pressurized to 272 atm (4000 psi). The off-board performance and cost of delivering liquid hydrogen were determined for two scenarios in which hydrogen is produced by central steam methane reforming (SMR) and by central electrolysis using electricity from renewable sources. The main conclusions from the assessment are that the cryo-compressed storage system has the potential of meeting the ultimate target for system gravimetric capacity and the 2015 target for system volumetric capacity (see Table I). The system compares favorably with targets for durability and operability although additional work is needed to understand failure modes for combined pressure and temperature cycling. The system may meet the targets for hydrogen loss during dormancy under certain conditions of minimum daily driving. The high-volume manufacturing cost is projected to be 2-4 times the current 2010 target of $4/kWh. For the reference conditions considered most applicable, the fuel cost for the SMR hydrogen production and liquid H{sub 2} delivery scenario is 60%-140% higher than the current target of $2-$3/gge while the well-to-tank efficiency is well short of the 60% target specified for off-board regenerable materials.

  6. EIS-0512: Alaska LNG Project, Alaska

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), with DOE as a cooperating agency, is preparing an EIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to develop, construct, and operate facilities that would commercialize the natural gas resources on Alaska’s North Slope. The proposed Alaska LNG Project would include a gas treatment plant, more than 800 miles of natural gas pipeline, liquefaction and storage facilities, an LNG export (marine) terminal, and associated infrastructure and facilities. DOE, Office of Fossil Energy, has an obligation under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to authorize the export of natural gas, including LNG, unless it finds that the export is not consistent with the public interest.

  7. SAVANNAH RIVER SITE INCIPIENT SLUDGE MIXING IN RADIOACTIVE LIQUID WASTE STORAGE TANKS DURING SALT SOLUTION BLENDING

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leishear, R.; Poirier, M.; Lee, S.; Steeper, T.; Fowley, M.; Parkinson, K.

    2011-01-12

    This paper is the second in a series of four publications to document ongoing pilot scale testing and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of mixing processes in 85 foot diameter, 1.3 million gallon, radioactive liquid waste, storage tanks at Savannah River Site (SRS). Homogeneous blending of salt solutions is required in waste tanks. Settled solids (i.e., sludge) are required to remain undisturbed on the bottom of waste tanks during blending. Suspension of sludge during blending may potentially release radiolytically generated hydrogen trapped in the sludge, which is a safety concern. The first paper (Leishear, et. al. [1]) presented pilot scale blending experiments of miscible fluids to provide initial design requirements for a full scale blending pump. Scaling techniques for an 8 foot diameter pilot scale tank were also justified in that work. This second paper describes the overall reasons to perform tests, and documents pilot scale experiments performed to investigate disturbance of sludge, using non-radioactive sludge simulants. A third paper will document pilot scale CFD modeling for comparison to experimental pilot scale test results for both blending tests and sludge disturbance tests. That paper will also describe full scale CFD results. The final paper will document additional blending test results for stratified layers in salt solutions, scale up techniques, final full scale pump design recommendations, and operational recommendations. Specifically, this paper documents a series of pilot scale tests, where sludge simulant disturbance due to a blending pump or transfer pump are investigated. A principle design requirement for a blending pump is UoD, where Uo is the pump discharge nozzle velocity, and D is the nozzle diameter. Pilot scale test results showed that sludge was undisturbed below UoD = 0.47 ft{sup 2}/s, and that below UoD = 0.58 ft{sup 2}/s minimal sludge disturbance was observed. If sludge is minimally disturbed, hydrogen will not be released. Installation requirements were also determined for a transfer pump which will remove tank contents, and which is also required to not disturb sludge. Testing techniques and test results for both types of pumps are presented.

  8. An International Survey of Electric Storage Tank Water Heater Efficiency and Standards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, Alissa; Lutz, James; McNeil, Michael A.; Covary, Theo

    2013-11-13

    Water heating is a main consumer of energy in households, especially in temperate and cold climates. In South Africa, where hot water is typically provided by electric resistance storage tank water heaters (geysers), water heating energy consumption exceeds cooking, refrigeration, and lighting to be the most consumptive single electric appliance in the home. A recent analysis for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) performed by the authors estimated that standing losses from electric geysers contributed over 1,000 kWh to the annual electricity bill for South African households that used them. In order to reduce this burden, the South African government is currently pursuing a programme of Energy Efficiency Standards and Labelling (EES&L) for electric appliances, including geysers. In addition, Eskom has a history of promoting heat pump water heaters (HPWH) through incentive programs, which can further reduce energy consumption. This paper provides a survey of international electric storage water heater test procedures and efficiency metrics which can serve as a reference for comparison with proposed geyser standards and ratings in South Africa. Additionally it provides a sample of efficiency technologies employed to improve the efficiency of electric storage water heaters, and outlines programs to promote adoption of improved efficiency. Finally, it surveys current programs used to promote HPWH and considers the potential for this technology to address peak demand more effectively than reduction of standby losses alone

  9. Implementation of seismic design and evaluation guidelines for the Department of Energy high-level waste storage tanks and appurtenances

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Conrads, T.J.

    1993-06-01

    In the fall of 1992, a draft of the Seismic Design and Evaluation Guidelines for the Department of Energy (DOE) High-level Waste Storage Tanks and Appurtenances was issued. The guidelines were prepared by the Tanks Seismic Experts Panel (TSEP) and this task was sponsored by DOE, Environmental Management. The TSEP is comprised of a number of consultants known for their knowledge of seismic ground motion and expertise in the analysis of structures, systems and components subjected to seismic loads. The development of these guidelines was managed by staff from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Engineering Research and Applications Division, Department of Nuclear Energy. This paper describes the process used to incorporate the Seismic Design and Evaluation Guidelines for the DOE High-Level Waste Storage Tanks and Appurtenances into the design criteria for the Multi-Function Waste Tank Project at the Hanford Site. This project will design and construct six new high-level waste tanks in the 200 Areas at the Hanford Site. This paper also discusses the vehicles used to ensure compliance to these guidelines throughout Title 1 and Title 2 design phases of the project as well as the strategy used to ensure consistent and cost-effective application of the guidelines by the structural analysts. The paper includes lessons learned and provides recommendations for other tank design projects which might employ the TSEP guidelines.

  10. Qualitative Risk Assessment for an LNG Refueling Station and Review of Relevant Safety Issues

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Siu, N.; Herring, J.S.; Cadwallader, L.; Reece, W.; Byers, J.

    1998-02-01

    This report is a qualitative assessment of the public and worker risk involved with the operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicle refueling facility. This study includes facility maintenance and operations, tank truck deliveries, and end-use vehicle fueling; it does not treat the risks of LNG vehicles on roadways. Accident initiating events are identified by using a Master Logic Diagram, a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis, and historical operating experiences. The event trees were drawn to depict possible sequences of mitigating events following the initiating events. The phenomenology of LNG and other vehicle fuels is discussed to characterize the hazard posed by LNG usage. Based on the risk modeling and analysis, recommendations are given to improve the safety of LNG refueling stations in the areas of procedures and training, station design, and the dissemination of ``best practice`` information throughout the LNG community.

  11. Refinement of Modeling Techniques for the Structural Evaluation of Hanford Single-Shell Nuclear Waste Storage Tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Karri, Naveen K.; Rinker, Michael W.; Johnson, Kenneth I.; Bapanapalli, Satish K.

    2012-03-01

    Abstract: A total of 149 tanks out of 177 at the Hanford Site (in Washington State, USA) belong to the first generation of underground nuclear waste storage tanks known as single shell tanks (SSTs). These tanks were constructed between 1943 and 1964 and are well beyond their design life. All the SSTs had been removed from active service by November 1980 and have been later interim stabilized by removing the pumpable liquids. The remaining waste in the tanks is in the form of salt cake and sludge awaiting r permanent disposal.. The evaluation of the structural integrity of these tanks is of utmost importance not only for the continued safe storage of the waste until waste retrieval and closure, but also to assure safe retrieval and closure operations. This article discusses the structural analysis approach, modeling challenges and issues encountered during the ongoing analysis of record (AOR) for evaluating the structural integrity of the SSTs. There are several geometrical and material nonlinearities and uncertainties to be dealt with while performing the modern finite element analysis of these tanks. Several studies were conducted to refine the models in order to minimize modeling artifacts introduced by soil arching, boundary effects, concrete cracking, and concrete-soil interface behavior. The analysis takes into account the temperature history of the tanks and allowable mechanical operating loads of these tanks for proper estimation of creep strains and thermal degradation of material properties. The loads imposed in the AOR models also include anticipated loads that these tanks may see during waste retrieval and closure. Due to uncertainty in a number of inputs to the models, sensitivity studies were conducted to address questions related to the boundary conditions to realistically or conservatively represent the influence of surrounding tanks in a tank farm, the influence of backfill excavation slope, the extent of backfill and the total extent of undisturbed soil surrounding the backfill. The article also discusses the criteria and design standards used for evaluating the structural integrity of these underground concrete tanks. Because of the non-availability of complete data on the thermal and operating history for many of the individual tanks, some of the data was assumed or interpolated. However, the models developed for the analysis of record represent the bounding scenarios and include the worst and extreme loading cases that the tanks were subjected to or anticipated. The modeling refinement techniques followed in the AOR resulted in conservative estimates for force and moment demands at various sections in the concrete tanks. The SSTs are classified into 4 types as per their configuration and capacity. This article discusses the modeling aspects related to two types of SSTs that have been analyzed until now. The TOLA results combined with seismic demands from seismic analysis for the analysis of record indicate that the tanks analyzed are structurally stable as per the evaluation criteria established. These results are presented in a separate article. The modeling techniques, methodology and evaluation criteria developed for evaluating the structural integrity of SSTs at Hanford are in general applicable to any similar tanks or underground concrete storage structures.

  12. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - FLORIDIAN NATURAL GAS STORAGE COMPANY, LLC...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    REPORT - FLORIDIAN NATURAL GAS STORAGE COMPANY, LLC - 15-38-LNG - ORDER 3691 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - FLORIDIAN NATURAL GAS STORAGE COMPANY, LLC - 15-38-LNG - ORDER 3691 PDF icon ...

  13. Sabine Pass LNG Terminal | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Sabine Pass LNG Terminal Long-Term Contract Information and Registrations at U.S. LNG Export Facilities Filing Date Type (1) ...

  14. Dominion Cove LNG Terminal | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Dominion Cove LNG Terminal Dominion Cove LNG Terminal Dominion Cove LNG Terminal Long-Term Contract Information and Registrations at U.S. LNG Export Facilities Filing Date Type (1) ...

  15. Steam reforming as a method to treat Hanford underground storage tank (UST) wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miller, J.E.; Kuehne, P.B.

    1995-07-01

    This report summarizes a Sandia program that included partnerships with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Synthetica Technologies, Inc. to design and test a steam reforming system for treating Hanford underground storage tank (UST) wastes. The benefits of steam reforming the wastes include the resolution of tank safety issues and improved radionuclide separations. Steam reforming destroys organic materials by first gasifying, then reacting them with high temperature steam. Tests indicate that up to 99% of the organics could be removed from the UST wastes by steam exposure. In addition, it was shown that nitrates in the wastes could be destroyed by steam exposure if they were first distributed as a thin layer on a surface. High purity alumina and nickel alloys were shown to be good candidates for materials to be used in the severe environment associated with steam reforming the highly alkaline, high nitrate content wastes. Work was performed on designing, building, and demonstrating components of a 0.5 gallon per minute (gpm) system suitable for radioactive waste treatment. Scale-up of the unit to 20 gpm was also considered and is feasible. Finally, process demonstrations conducted on non-radioactive waste surrogates were carried out, including a successful demonstration of the technology at the 0.1 gpm scale.

  16. Thermal performance of a full-scale stratified chilled-water thermal storage tank

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bahnfleth, W.P.; Musser, A.

    1998-12-31

    The thermal performance of a full-scale 1.47 million gallon (5300 m{sup 3}), 44.5 ft (13.6 m) water-depth, naturally stratified chilled-water thermal storage tank with radial diffusers is analyzed. Controlled, constant inlet flow rate tests covering the full range of the system have been performed for both charge and discharge processes. Thermal performance for these half-cycle tests is quantified using performance metrics similar to the figure of merit (FOM). Lost capacity, a new measure of performance with practical significance, is also presented. Uncertainty analysis shows that under some circumstances, particularly for tall tanks, lost capacity allows thermal performance to be quantified with less experimental uncertainty than FOM. Results of these tests indicate that discharge cycles performance is not as good as charge cycle performance at the same flow rate. However, the half-cycle figure of merit for all cycles tested was in excess of 90%, despite the fact that the inlet Reynolds number exceeded that recommended in the literature by up to a factor of five.

  17. Estimating heel retrieval costs for underground storage tank waste at Hanford. Draft

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DeMuth, S.

    1996-08-26

    Approximately 100 million gallons ({approx}400,000 m{sup 3}) of existing U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) owned radioactive waste stored in underground tanks can not be disposed of as low-level waste (LLW). The current plan for disposal of UST waste which can not be disposed of as LLW is immobilization as glass and permanent storage in an underground repository. Disposal of LLW generally can be done sub-surface at the point of origin. Consequently, LLW is significantly less expensive to dispose of than that requiring an underground repository. Due to the lower cost for LLW disposal, it is advantageous to separate the 100 million gallons of waste into a small volume of high-level waste (HLW) and a large volume of LLW.

  18. High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID), Volume 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01

    The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 4) presents the standards and requirements for the following sections: Radiation Protection and Operations.

  19. High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator standards/requirements identification document (S/RID), Vol. 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01

    Radiation protection of personnel and the public is accomplished by establishing a well defined Radiation Protection Organization to ensure that appropriate controls on radioactive materials and radiation sources are implemented and documented. This Requirements Identification Document (RID) applies to the activities, personnel, structures, systems, components, and programs involved in executing the mission of the Tank Farms. The physical boundaries within which the requirements of this RID apply are the Single Shell Tank Farms, Double Shell Tank Farms, 242-A Evaporator-Crystallizer, 242-S, T Evaporators, Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF), Purgewater Storage Facility (PWSF), and all interconnecting piping, valves, instrumentation, and controls. Also included is all piping, valves, instrumentation, and controls up to and including the most remote valve under Tank Farms control at any other Hanford Facility having an interconnection with Tank Farms. The boundary of the structures, systems, components, and programs to which this RID applies, is defined by those that are dedicated to and/or under the control of the Tank Farms Operations Department and are specifically implemented at the Tank Farms.

  20. Refinement of Modeling Techniques for the Structural Evaluation of Hanford Single-Shell Nuclear Waste Storage Tanks - 12288

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Karri, Naveen K.; Rinker, Michael W.; Johnson, Kenneth I.; Bapanapalli, Satish K.

    2012-07-01

    The single-shell tanks at the Hanford Site (in Washington State, USA) were constructed between 1943 and 1964 and are well beyond their estimated 25 year design life. This article discusses the structural analysis approach and modeling challenges encountered during the ongoing analysis of record for evaluating the structural integrity of the single-shell tanks. There are several geometrical and material nonlinearities and uncertainties to be dealt with while performing the modern finite element analysis of these tanks. The analysis takes into account the temperature history of the tanks and allowable mechanical operating loads for proper estimation of creep strains and thermal degradation of material properties. The loads prescribed in the analysis of record models also include anticipated loads that may occur during waste retrieval and closure. Due to uncertainty in a number of modeling details, sensitivity studies were conducted to address questions related to boundary conditions that realistically or conservatively represent the influence of surrounding tanks in a tank farm, the influence of backfill excavation slope, the extent of backfill and the total extent of undisturbed soil surrounding the backfill. Because of the limited availability of data on the thermal and operating history for many of the individual tanks, some of the data was assumed or interpolated. However, the models developed for the analysis of record represent the bounding scenarios and include the loading conditions that the tanks were subjected to or anticipated. The modeling refinement techniques followed in the analysis of record resulted in conservative estimates for force and moment demands at various sections in the concrete tanks. This article discusses the modeling aspects related to Type-II and Type-III single-shell tanks. The modeling techniques, methodology and evaluation criteria developed for evaluating the structural integrity of single-shell tanks at Hanford are in general applicable to other similar tanks or underground concrete storage structures. This article presented the details of the finite element models and analysis approach followed during the ongoing effort to establish structural integrity of single shell tanks at the Hanford site. The details of the material constitutive models applicable to the underground Hanford concrete tanks that capture the thermal and creep induce degradation are also presented. The thermal profiles were developed based on the available tank temperature data for the Type II and Type III single-shell tanks, and they were chosen to yield conservative demands under the thermal and operating loads analysis of these tanks. Sensitivity studies were conducted to address two issues regarding the soils modeled around the single-shell tanks. The results indicate that excluding the boundary separating the backfill soil from the undisturbed soil will result in conservative demands (plots 14b and 14c green lines for circumferential Demand/Capacity ratios). The radial extent study indicated that the soil model extending to 240 ft gave more conservative results than the model with 62 ft of soil (plots 17a and 17c magenta lines for hoop Demand/Capacity ratios). Based on these results, a 240 ft far-field soil boundary with backfill throughout the lateral extent was recommended and used for the finite element models used in the Type-II and Type-III analyses of record. The modeling effort and sensitivity studies discussed in this article helped in developing bounding models for the structural integrity evaluation of single shell tanks at the Hanford site. (authors)

  1. American LNG Marketing, LLC- FE Dkt. 16-33-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on March 8, 2016, by American LNG Marketing, LLC, (American LNG) ...

  2. Project financing knits parts of costly LNG supply chain

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Minyard, R.J.; Strode, M.O.

    1997-06-02

    The supply and distribution infrastructure of an LNG project requires project sponsors and LNG buyers to make large, interdependent capital investments. For a grassroots project, substantial investments may be necessary for each link in the supply chain: field development; liquefaction plant and storage; ports and utilities; ships; receiving terminal and related facilities; and end-user facilities such as power stations or a gas distribution network. The huge sums required for these projects make their finance ability critical to implementation. Lenders have become increasingly comfortable with LNG as a business and now have achieved a better understanding of the risks associated with it. Raising debt financing for many future LNG projects, however, will present new and increasingly difficult challenges. The challenge of financing these projects will be formidable: political instability, economic uncertainty, and local currency volatility will have to be recognized and mitigated. Described here is the evolution of financing LNG projects, including the Rasgas LNG project financing which broke new ground in this area. The challenges that lie ahead for sponsors seeking to finance future projects selling LNG to emerging markets are also discussed. And the views of leading experts from the field of project finance, specifically solicited for this article, address major issues that must be resolved for successful financing of these projects.

  3. Use of risk-analysis methods in the LNG industry

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pelto, P.J.

    1982-06-01

    This paper examines the use of probabilistic risk analysis methods in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry and summarizes some ongoing work being conducted at Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) using risk analysis techniques to assess LNG facility release prevention systems. The basic facilities for LNG processing, transportation, and storage include export terminals, marine vessels, import terminals, peakshaving/satellite facilities, and truck tankers. Risk analysis results can be used to characterize the safety of the current systems, to identify areas for improvement, to determine regulatory compliance, to guide research and development, and to evaluate system changes. Previous risk analysis studies on LNG facilities are reviewed in terms of successes and problems in meeting the above objectives. PNL is performing a study of the effectiveness of LNG release prevention and control systems. The overall objectives of this PNL research project are to develop an adequate understanding of LNG release prevention and control systems and to identify factors which may alter or nullify their usefulness. Analyses of LNG import terminal release prevention systems are summarized. Representative release scenarios are developed for reference import terminal. The analysis of these release scenarios consists of four main parts: (1) predicting the expected number of occurrences for each scenario, (2) determining the reliability and effectiveness of the emergency sensors and shutdown systems, and (3) estimating the size of the potential releases, and (4) evaluating design alternatives.

  4. A RAM (Reliability, Availability and Maintainability) analysis of the proposed Tinker AFB Jet Fuel Storage Tank Facility. [Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wright, R.E.; Sattison, M.B.

    1987-08-01

    The purpose of this study is to determine the Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) at the 30% design phase of a Jet Fuel Storage Tank Facility that is to be installed at the Tinker Air Force Base, Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Jet Fuel Storage Tank Facility was divided into four subsystems: Fuel Storage and Pipeline Transfer Pumps; Truck Unloading and Loading; Fire Protection (foam and water supply systems); and Electric Power. The RAM analysis was performed on four functions of these subsystems: transferring fuel from the two new 55K barrel storage tanks to the existing fuel pipeline system; transferring fuel from the two 55K barrel storage tanks to the aircraft refueler trucks; transferring fuel from the road transport trucks to the aircraft refueler trucks; and fire protection. A fault tree analysis was performed on each functional system. The quantification was performed for several mission times.

  5. Field Sampling Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System - 1997 Notice of Violation Consent Order

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Evans, S.K.

    2002-01-31

    This Field Sampling Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System is one of two documents that comprise the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the HWMA/RCRA closure certification of the TRA-731 caustic and acid storage tank system at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. This plan, which provides information about sampling design, required analyses, and sample collection and handling procedures, is to be used in conjunction with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System.

  6. Field Sampling Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System - 1997 Notice of Violation Consent Order

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Evans, Susan Kay; Orchard, B. J.

    2002-01-01

    This Field Sampling Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System is one of two documents that comprise the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the HWMA/RCRA closure certification of the TRA-731 caustic and acid storage tank system at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. This plan, which provides information about sampling design, required analyses, and sample collection and handling procedures, is to be used in conjunction with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System.

  7. Topsides equipment, operating flexibility key floating LNG design

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yost, K.; Lopez, R.; Mok, J.

    1998-03-09

    Use of a large-scale floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant is an economical alternative to an onshore plant for producing from an offshore field. Mobil Technology Co., Dallas, has advanced a design for such a plant that is technically feasible, economical, safe, and reliable. Presented were descriptions of the general design basis, hull modeling and testing, topsides and storage layouts, and LNG offloading. But such a design also presents challenges for designing topsides equipment in an offshore environment and for including flexibility and safety. These are covered in this second article. Mobil`s floating LNG plant design calls for a square concrete barge with a moon-pool in the center. It is designed to produce 6 million tons/year of LNG with up to 55,000 b/d of condensate from 1 bcfd of raw feed gas.

  8. Semi-annual Reports for Cameron LNG LLC - Dk. No. 11-145-LNG...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Semi-annual Reports for Cameron LNG LLC - Dk. No. 11-145-LNG - Order 3059 Semi-annual Reports for Cameron LNG LLC - Dk. No. 11-145-LNG - Order 3059 PDF icon April 2012 PDF icon ...

  9. SEMI ANNUAL REPORTS - CAMERON LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-204-LNG...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    SEMI ANNUAL REPORTS - CAMERON LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-204-LNG - ORDER NO. 3620 SEMI ANNUAL REPORTS - CAMERON LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-204-LNG - ORDER NO. 3620 PDF icon October ...

  10. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR CAMERON LNG LLC - DKT. NO. 11-162-LNG...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR Cameron LNG, LLC - FE Dkt. No. 15-36-LNG - ORDER 3680 SEMI ANNUAL REPORTS - CAMERON LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-204-LNG - ORDER NO. 3620 Semi-annual Reports ...

  11. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - G2 LNG LLC - FE DKT. NO. 15-44-LNG - ORDER...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    REPORT - G2 LNG LLC - FE DKT. NO. 15-44-LNG - ORDER 3682 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - G2 LNG LLC - FE DKT. NO. 15-44-LNG - ORDER 3682 PDF icon October 2015 More Documents & Publications ...

  12. A review of large-scale LNG spills : experiment and modeling.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Luketa-Hanlin, Anay Josephine

    2005-04-01

    The prediction of the possible hazards associated with the storage and transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by ship has motivated a substantial number of experimental and analytical studies. This paper reviews the experimental and analytical work performed to date on large-scale spills of LNG. Specifically, experiments on the dispersion of LNG, as well as experiments of LNG fires from spills on water and land are reviewed. Explosion, pool boiling, and rapid phase transition (RPT) explosion studies are described and discussed, as well as models used to predict dispersion and thermal hazard distances. Although there have been significant advances in understanding the behavior of LNG spills, technical knowledge gaps to improve hazard prediction are identified. Some of these gaps can be addressed with current modeling and testing capabilities. A discussion of the state of knowledge and recommendations to further improve the understanding of the behavior of LNG spills on water is provided.

  13. Development of a simple 5-15 litre per hour LNG refueling system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Corless, A.J.; Sarangi, S.; Hall, J.L.; Barclay, J.A.

    1994-12-31

    A variable capacity, small-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) refueling system has been designed, built, and tested at the Cryofuel Systems` Laboratory, University of Victoria, Canada. The system, designed to continuously liquefy between 5 and 15 litres of NG, utilizes liquid nitrogen (LN{sub 2}) as its cold source and contains most of the components found in a typical commercial refueling system; i.e. purification system, liquefier, LNG storage, automatic control and monitoring system. This paper describes the design of the system as well as the results of a set of LNG production trials. The performance of the system exceeded expected LNG production rates, but at levels of efficiency somewhat less than predicted. Cryofuel Systems expects to use this system to implement an LNG vehicle demonstration program and to gain experience in the integration of LNG refueling systems which exploit advanced liquefaction technology such as magnetic refrigeration.

  14. Seismic design and evaluation guidelines for the Department of Energy High-Level Waste Storage Tanks and Appurtenances

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bandyopadhyay, K.; Cornell, A.; Costantino, C.; Kennedy, R.; Miller, C.; Veletsos, A.

    1995-10-01

    This document provides seismic design and evaluation guidelines for underground high-level waste storage tanks. The guidelines reflect the knowledge acquired in the last two decades in defining seismic ground motion and calculating hydrodynamic loads, dynamic soil pressures and other loads for underground tank structures, piping and equipment. The application of the guidelines is illustrated with examples. The guidelines are developed for a specific design of underground storage tanks, namely double-shell structures. However, the methodology discussed is applicable for other types of tank structures as well. The application of these and of suitably adjusted versions of these concepts to other structural types will be addressed in a future version of this document. The original version of this document was published in January 1993. Since then, additional studies have been performed in several areas and the results are included in this revision. Comments received from the users are also addressed. Fundamental concepts supporting the basic seismic criteria contained in the original version have since then been incorporated and published in DOE-STD-1020-94 and its technical basis documents. This information has been deleted in the current revision.

  15. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 124, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada with Errata Sheet, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alfred Wickline

    2008-01-01

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 124, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nevada. This report complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management (FFACO, 1996; as amended January 2007). This CR provides documentation and justification for the closure of CAU 124 without further corrective action. This justification is based on process knowledge and the results of the investigative activities conducted in accordance with the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 124: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (NNSA/NSO, 2007). The SAFER Plan provides information relating to site history as well as the scope and planning of the investigation. Therefore, this information will not be repeated in this CR.

  16. Underground storage tank management plan, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-09-01

    The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant was established to locate UST systems at the facility and to ensure that all operating UST systems are free of leaks. UST systems have been removed or upgraded in accordance with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) regulations and guidance. With the closure of a significant portion of the USTs, the continuing mission of the UST Management Program is to manage the remaining active UST systems and continue corrective actions in a safe regulatory compliant manner. This Program outlines the compliance issues that must be addressed, reviews the current UST inventory and compliance approach, and presents the status and planned activities associated with each UST system. The UST Program provides guidance for implementing TDEC regulations and guidelines for petroleum UST systems. The plan is divided into three major sections: (1) regulatory requirements, (2) active UST sites, and (3) out-of-service UST sites. These sections describe in detail the applicable regulatory drivers, the UST sites addressed under the Program, and the procedures and guidance for compliance.

  17. Field-measured performance of four full-scale cylindrical stratified chilled-water thermal storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Musser, A.; Bahnfleth, W.P.

    1999-07-01

    Results are presented for controlled flow rate tests in four full-scale cylindrical chilled-water storage tanks. The tanks range in volume from 1.15 to 5.18 million gallons (4.35 to 19.61 million liters) and have water depths of 40 to 65 ft (12.2 to 19.8 m). Water is introduced into and withdrawn from two of these tanks using radial parallel plate diffusers, while the remaining two tanks utilize octagonal slotted pipe diffuser designs. Thermal performance is quantified for full cycles in terms of Figure of Merit, for single charge and discharge processes as half-cycle Figure of Merit, and for incomplete charge and discharge processes as Lost Capacity. Results show that the thermal performance of all four tanks is excellent, with less than 4% of theoretical cooling capacity lost to inlet mixing and other degradation mechanisms for flow rates less than or equal to design. Based on these results, the appropriateness of current design guidance is discussed. Operational issues that affect implementation of controlled flow rate full-scale tests are also identified, and measurement issues are addressed.

  18. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 127: Areas 25 and 26 Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2008-02-01

    CAU 127, Areas 25 and 26 Storage Tanks, consists of twelve CASs located in Areas 25 and 26 of the NTS. The closure alternatives included no further action, clean closure, and closure in place with administrative controls. The purpose of this Closure Report is to provide a summary of the completed closure activities, documentation of waste disposal, and analytical data to confirm that the remediation goals were met.

  19. EIS-0063: Waste Management Operations, Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy developed this statement to evaluate the existing tank design and consider additional specific design and safety feature alternatives for the thirteen tanks being constructed for storage of defense high-level radioactive liquid waste at the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. This statement supplements ERDA-1538, "Final Environmental Statement on Waste Management Operation."

  20. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System - 1997 Notice of Violation Consent Order

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Evans, Susan Kay; Orchard, B. J.

    2002-01-01

    This Quality Assurance Project Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System is one of two documents that comprise the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the HWMA/RCRA closure certification of the TRA-731 caustic and acid storage tank system at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. This plan, which provides information about the project description, project organization, and quality assurance and quality control procedures, is to be used in conjunction with the Field Sampling Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System. This Quality Assurance Project Plan specifies the procedures for obtaining the data of known quality required by the closure activities for the TRA-731 caustic and acid storage tank system.

  1. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System - 1997 Notice of Violation Consent Order

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Evans, S.K.

    2002-01-31

    This Quality Assurance Project Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA- 731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System is one of two documents that comprise the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the HWMA/RCRA closure certification of the TRA-731 caustic and acid storage tank system at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. This plan, which provides information about the project description, project organization, and quality assurance and quality control procedures, is to be used in conjunction with the Field Sampling Plan for the HWMA/RCRA Closure Certification of the TRA-731 Caustic and Acid Storage Tank System. This Quality Assurance Project Plan specifies the procedures for obtaining the data of known quality required by the closure activities for the TRA-731 caustic and acid storage tank system.

  2. A thermodynamic tank model for studying the effect of higher hydrocarbons on natural gas storage in metal-organic frameworks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhang, HD; Deria, P; Farha, OK; Hupp, JT; Snurr, RQ

    2015-01-01

    Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are promising materials for storing natural gas in vehicular applications. Evaluation of these materials has focused on adsorption of pure methane, although commercial natural gas also contains small amounts of higher hydrocarbons such as ethane and propane, which adsorb more strongly than methane. There is, thus, a possibility that these higher hydrocarbons will accumulate in the MOF after multiple operating (adsorption/desorption) cycles, and reduce the storage capacity. To study the net effect of ethane and propane on the performance of an adsorbed natural gas (ANG) tank, we developed a mathematical model based on thermodynamics and mass balance equations that describes the state of the tank at any instant. The required inputs are the pure-component isotherms, and mixture adsorption data are calculated using the Ideal Adsorbed Solution Theory (IAST). We focused on how the "deliverable energy'' provided by the ANG tank to the engine changed over 200 operating cycles for a sample of 120 MOF structures. We found that, with any MOF, the ANG tank performance monotonically declines during early operating cycles until a "cyclic steady state'' is reached. We determined that the best materials when the fuel is 100% methane are not necessarily the best when the fuel includes ethane and propane. Among the materials tested, some top MOFs are MOF-143 > NU-800 > IRMOF-14 > IRMOF-20 > MIL-100 > NU-125 > IRMOF-1 > NU-111. MOF-143 is predicted to deliver 5.43 MJ L-1 of tank to the engine once the cyclic steady state is reached. The model also provided insights that can assist in future work to discover more promising adsorbent materials for natural gas storage.

  3. U.S. Department of Energy Onboard Storage Tank Workshop Notes

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... For example, NASA-WSTF can conduct stress rupture NDE inspection and monitoring of tanks at pressure. Other NDE tools and methods of interest include portable Raman spectrometry ...

  4. Injections of Natural Gas into Storage (Annual Supply & Disposition...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price ... By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground Storage Base ...

  5. Structural Integrity Program for the 300,000-Gallon Radioactive Liquid Waste Storage Tanks at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bryant, Jeffrey W.

    2010-08-12

    This report provides a record of the Structural Integrity Program for the 300,000-gal liquid waste storage tanks and associated equipment at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, as required by U.S. Department of Energy M 435.1-1, “Radioactive Waste Management Manual.” This equipment is known collectively as the Tank Farm Facility. This report is an update, and replaces the previous report by the same title issued April 2003. The conclusion of this report is that the Tank Farm Facility tanks, vaults, and transfer systems that remain in service for storage are structurally adequate, and are expected to remain structurally adequate over the remainder of their planned service life through 2012. Recommendations are provided for continued monitoring of the Tank Farm Facility.

  6. LNG annotated bibliography

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bomelburg, H.J.; Counts, C.A.; Cowan, C.E.; Davis, W.E.; DeSteese, J.G.; Pelto, P.J.

    1982-09-01

    This document updates the bibliography published in Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Safety and Environmental Control Assessment Program: third status report (PNL-4172) and is a complete listing of literature reviewed and reported under the LNG Technical Surveillance Task. The bibliography is organized alphabetically by author.

  7. Cameron LNG LLC- 14-001-CIC

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Application of Cameron LNG, LLC to Transfer Control of Long-term Authorization to Export LNG to Free Trade Agreement Nations and Conditional Long-term Authorization to Export LNG to Non-free Trade...

  8. U.S. LNG Imports from Canada

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    LNG Imports from Canada Champlain, NY Highgate Springs, VT Sumas, WA LNG Imports from Egypt Cameron, LA Cove Point, MD Elba Island, GA Everett, MA Freeport, TX Gulf LNG, MS Lake...

  9. Identification of mixing effects in stratified chilled-water storage tanks by analysis of time series temperature data

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Caldwell, J.S.; Bahnfleth, W.P.

    1998-12-31

    Several one-dimensional models of mixing in stratified chilled-water thermal energy storage tanks have been proposed. In the simplest models, mixing is assumed to be uniform throughout the tank. Other models permit spatial variation of mixing intensity. Published models were developed by adjusting model parameters to achieve qualitative agreement with measured profiles. The literature does not describe quantitative criteria for evaluating the performance of mixing models. This paper describes a method that can be used to determine the relative spatial distribution of mixing effects directly from experimental data. It also illustrates a method for quantitative comparison of experimental and modeled temperature profiles. The mixing calculation procedure may be applied to instantaneous spatial temperature data if temperature sensor spacing is sufficiently small. When sensors are widely spaced, time series data taken at individual sensors provide better accuracy. A criterion for maximum sensor spacing is proposed. The application of these procedures to time series charge-cycle operating data from a full-scale chilled-water thermal storage system serving a large medical center is described. Results of this analysis indicate that mixing is localized near the inlet diffuser and that one-dimensional flow with streamwise conduction predominates in most of the tank.

  10. Annova LNG, LLC- 14-004-CIC

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Application of Annova LNG, LLC to Transfer Control of Long-term Authorization to Export LNG to Free Trade Agreement Nations and Request for Expedited Treatment.

  11. LNG to the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davenport, S.T.

    1984-04-01

    By 2000, about 190 MM metric-tpy of LNG will be moving in world trade, with Asia-Pacific as the dominant producer By the year 2000, approximately 190 million metric tons per year of LNG will be moving in worldwide trade. Production of LNG will be spread throughout most of the world, with Asia-Pacific as the dominant producer. LNG will be delivered only to the heavily industrialized areas of North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The success of any LNG project will be dependent on its individual economics, market needs, financial planning, and governmental permit processes. We hope industry will be able to put together the LNG projects required to meet the quanitities of production forecast here for the year 2000.

  12. Systems engineering study: tank 241-C-103 organic skimming,storage, treatment and disposal options

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Klem, M.J.

    1996-10-23

    This report evaluates alternatives for pumping, storing, treating and disposing of the separable phase organic layer in Hanford Site Tank 241-C-103. The report provides safety and technology based preferences and recommendations. Two major options and several varations of these options were identified. The major options were: 1) transfer both the organic and pumpable aqueous layers to a double-shell tank as part of interim stabilization using existing salt well pumping equipment or 2) skim the organic to an above ground before interim stabilization of Tank 241-C-103. Other options to remove the organic were considered but rejected following preliminary evaluation.

  13. Corrosion Control Measures For Liquid Radioactive Waste Storage Tanks At The Savannah River Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiersma, B. J.; Subramanian, K. H.

    2012-11-27

    The Savannah River Site has stored radioactive wastes in large, underground, carbon steel tanks for approximately 60 years. An assessment of potential degradation mechanisms determined that the tanks may be vulnerable to nitrate- induced pitting corrosion and stress corrosion cracking. Controls on the solution chemistry and temperature of the wastes are in place to mitigate these mechanisms. These controls are based upon a series of experiments performed using simulated solutions on materials used for construction of the tanks. The technical bases and evolution of these controls is presented in this paper.

  14. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR ALASKA LNG PROJECT, LLC - FE DKT NO. 14-96-LNG -

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    ORDER 3643 (NFTA) | Department of Energy ALASKA LNG PROJECT, LLC - FE DKT NO. 14-96-LNG - ORDER 3643 (NFTA) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR ALASKA LNG PROJECT, LLC - FE DKT NO. 14-96-LNG - ORDER 3643 (NFTA) PDF icon October 2015 PDF icon April 2016 More Documents & Publications SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR ALASKA LNG PROJECT LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-96-LNG - ORDER NO. 3554/3643 Conditional Order Order 3643: Alaska LNG Project, LLC Alaska LNG Project LLC - 14-96-LNG

  15. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR MAGNOLIA LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-183-LNG - ORDER

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    3245; 13-131-LNG ORDER 3406 | Department of Energy MAGNOLIA LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-183-LNG - ORDER 3245; 13-131-LNG ORDER 3406 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR MAGNOLIA LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-183-LNG - ORDER 3245; 13-131-LNG ORDER 3406 PDF icon Feb. 26, 2013 thru Feb. 28, 2014 PDF icon October 2014 PDF icon April 2015 PDF icon October 2015 PDF icon October 2014 (Order 3406) PDF icon April 2016 More Documents & Publications SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR SCT&E LNG LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-89-LNG -

  16. Turning the Corner on Hanford Tank Waste Cleanup-From Safe Storage to Closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boston, H. L.; Cruz, E. J.; Coleman, S. J.

    2002-02-25

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of River Protection (ORP) is leading the River Protection Project (RPP) which is responsible for the disposition of 204,000 cubic meters (54 million gallons) of high-level radioactive waste that have accumulated in large underground tanks at the Hanford Site since 1944. ORP continues to make good progress on improving the capability to treat Hanford tank waste. Design of the waste vitrification facilities is proceeding well and construction will begin within the next year. Progress is also being made in reducing risk to the worker and the environment from the waste currently stored in the tank farms. Removal of liquids from single-shell tanks (SSTs) is on schedule and we will begin removing solids (salt cake) from a tank (241-U-107) in 2002. There is a sound technical foundation for the waste vitrification facilities. These initial facilities will be capable of treating (vitrifying) the bulk of Hanford tank waste and are the corners tone of the clean-up strategy. ORP recognizes that as the near-term work is performed, it is vital that there be an equally strong and defensible plan for completing the mission. ORP is proceeding on a three-pronged approach for moving the mission forward. First, ORP will continue to work aggressively to complete the waste vitrification facilities. ORP intends to provide the most capable and robust facilities to maximize the amount of waste treated by these initial facilities by 2028 (regulatory commitment for completion of waste treatment). Second, and in parallel with completing the waste vitrification facilities, ORP is beginning to consider how best to match the hazard of the waste to the disposal strategy. The final piece of our strategy is to continue to move forward with actions to reduce risk in the tank farms and complete cleanup.

  17. Risks of LNG and LPG. [Review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fay, J.A.

    1980-01-01

    Since the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) as fuels is likely to increase and will certainly persist for some time to come, assessment of the safety of LNG/LPG systems will continue to draw attention and is quite likely to force continuing review of operating and design standards for LNG/LPG facilities. Scientific investigations to date appear to have identified the major hazards. Except for the dispersive behavior of vapor clouds - a not-insignificant factor in risk evaluation - the consequences of spills are well circumscribed by current analyses. The physically significant effects accompanying nonexplosive combustion of spilled material are fairly well documented; yet, potentially substantial uncertainties remain. Catastrophic spills of 10/sup 4/-10/sup 5/ m/sup 3/ on land or water are possible, given the current size of storage vessels. Almost all experimental spills have used less than 10 m/sup 3/ of liquid. There is thus some uncertainty regarding the accuracy and validity of extrapolation of current empirical information and physical models to spills of catastrophic size. The less-likely but still-possible explosive or fireball combustion modes are not well understood in respect to their inception. The troubling experience with such violent combustion of similar combustible vapors suggests that this possibility will need further definition. Extant LNG and LPG risk analyses illustrate the difficulties of substantiating the numerous event probabilities and the determination of all event sequences that can lead to hazardous consequences. Their disparate results show that significant improvements are needed. Most importantly, a detailed critique of past efforts and a determination of an exhaustive set of criteria for evaluating the adequacy of a risk analysis should precede any further attempts to improve on existing studies. 44 references, 1 table.

  18. Evolution of temperature distributions in a full-scale stratified chilled-water storage tank with radial diffusers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Musser, A.; Bahnfleth, W.P.

    1998-10-01

    Temperature profiles in a full-scale, naturally stratified, chilled-water thermal storage tank are described. Tests were performed using a 1.4 million gallon (5,300 m{sup 3}), 44.5 ft (13.56 m) water depth cylindrical tank with radial diffusers. Nine charge and discharge cycle tests were performed for various flow rates, covering and extending beyond the normal operating range of the system. A method for obtaining thermocline thickness from field data was derived, and a relationship between inlet flow rate and initial thermocline thickness was established. Significant differences between profiles obtained for charge and discharge cycles at similar flow rates suggest that the free surface at the top of the tank allows more mixing to occur near the upper diffuser. A study of thermocline growth compares measured temperature profiles with those predicted by a numerical conduction model that uses temperature profiles measured early in the cycle as an initial condition. Comparison with the numerical study shows that, for high flow rate tests, large-scale mixing induced by the inlet diffuser can have significant effects on thermocline development, even after the thermocline has moved away from the inlet diffuser.

  19. LABORATORY TESTING TO SIMULATE VAPOR SPACE CORROSION IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE TANKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiersma, B.; Garcia-Diaz, B.; Gray, J.

    2013-08-30

    Radioactive liquid waste has been stored in underground carbon steel tanks for nearly 70 years at the Hanford nuclear facility. Vapor space corrosion of the tank walls has emerged as an ongoing challenge to overcome in maintaining the structural integrity of these tanks. The interaction between corrosive and inhibitor species in condensates/supernates on the tank wall above the liquid level, and their interaction with vapor phase constituents as the liquid evaporates from the tank wall influences the formation of corrosion products and the corrosion of the carbon steel. An effort is underway to gain an understanding of the mechanism of vapor space corrosion. Localized corrosion, in the form of pitting, is of particular interest in the vapor space. CPP testing was utilized to determine the susceptibility of the steel in a simulated vapor space environment. The tests also investigated the impact of ammonia gas in the vapor space area on the corrosion of the steel. Vapor space coupon tests were also performed to investigate the evolution of the corrosion products during longer term exposures. These tests were also conducted at vapor space ammonia levels of 50 and 550 ppm NH{sub 3} (0.005, and 0.055 vol.%) in air. Ammonia was shown to mitigate vapor space corrosion.

  20. EIS-0518: Annova LNG Brownsville Project; Cameron County, Texas

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), with DOE as a cooperating agency, is preparing an EIS that analyzes the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) production, storage, and export facility on the southern bank of the Brownsville Ship Channel. DOE, Office of Fossil Energy, has an obligation under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to authorize the export of natural gas, including LNG, unless it finds that the export is not consistent with the public interest.

  1. Complete LNG Terminal Status Maps | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Complete LNG Terminal Status Maps Complete LNG Terminal Status Maps A series of slides showing the status of various LNG terminals (existing, under construction, proposed, etc.) in...

  2. Detailed Monthly and Annual LNG Import Statistics (2004-2012...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Detailed Monthly and Annual LNG Import Statistics (2004-2012) Detailed Monthly and Annual LNG Import Statistics (2004-2012) Detailed Monthly and Annual LNG Import Statistics ...

  3. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B permit application for tank storage units at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-05-01

    In compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), this report discusses information relating to permit applications for three tank storage units at Y-12. The storage units are: Building 9811-1 RCRA Tank Storage Unit (OD-7); Waste Oil/Solvent Storage Unit (OD-9); and Liquid Organic Solvent Storage Unit (OD-10). Numerous sections discuss the following: Facility description; waste characteristics; process information; groundwater monitoring; procedures to prevent hazards; contingency plan; personnel training; closure plan, post closure plan, and financial requirements; record keeping; other federal laws; organic air emissions; solid waste management units; and certification. Sixteen appendices contain such items as maps, waste analyses and forms, inspection logs, equipment identification, etc.

  4. Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 124: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (Draft), Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alfred Wickline

    2007-04-01

    This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 124, Areas 8, 15, and 16 Storage Tanks, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Corrective Action Unit 124 consists of five Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Areas 8, 15, and 16 of the Nevada Test Site as follows: 08-02-01, Underground Storage Tank 15-02-01, Irrigation Piping 16-02-03, Underground Storage Tank 16-02-04, Fuel Oil Piping 16-99-04, Fuel Line (Buried) and UST This plan provides the methodology of field activities necessary to gather information to close each CAS. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 124 using the SAFER process.

  5. Turning the Corner on Hanford Tank Waste Cleanup from Safe Storage to Closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CRUZ, E.J.; BOSTON, H.L.

    2002-02-04

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of River Protection (ORP) is leading the River Protection Project (RPP) which is responsible for the disposition of 204,000 cubic meters (54 million gallons) of high-level radioactive waste that have accumulated in large underground tanks at the Hanford Site since 1944. ORP continues to make good progress on improving the capability to treat Hanford tank waste. Design of the waste vitrification facilities is proceeding well and construction will begin within the next year. Progress is also being made in reducing risk to the worker and the environment from the waste currently stored in the tank farms. Removal of liquids from single-shell tanks (SSTs) is on schedule and we will begin removing solids (salt cake) from a tank (241-U-107) in 2002. There is a sound technical foundation for the waste vitrification facilities. These initial facilities will be capable of treating (vitrifying) the bulk of Hanford tank waste and are the cornerstone of the clean-up strategy. ORP recognizes that as the near-term work is performed, it is vital that there be an equally strong and defensible plan for completing the mission. ORP is proceeding on a three-pronged approach for moving the mission forward. First, ORP will continue to work aggressively to complete the waste vitrification facilities. ORP intends to provide the most capable and robust facilities to maximize the amount of waste treated by these Initial facilities by 2028 (regulatory commitment for completion of waste treatment). Second, and in parallel with completing the waste vitrification facilities, ORP is beginning to consider how best to match the hazard of the waste to the disposal strategy. The final piece of our strategy is to continue to move forward with actions to reduce risk in the tank farms and complete cleanup. The goal of these efforts is to keep the RPP on a success path for completing cleanup of Hanford tank waste. While all parties are aggressively moving forward to provide vitrification facilities with enhanced capabilities, work continues toward a credible plan for completing waste treatment and accelerating risk reduction. In all of these efforts two principles are paramount; (1) all actions are focused on protecting worker health and the environment and complying with laws and regulations, and (2) open discussion, involvement, and cooperation of regulators and stakeholders is fundamental to any decision making.

  6. INHIBITION OF STRESS CORROSION CRACKING OF CARBON STEEL STORAGE TANKS AT HANFORD

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BOOMER, K.D.

    2007-01-31

    The stress corrosion cracking (SCC) behavior of A537 tank steel was investigated in a series of environments designed to simulate the chemistry of legacy nuclear weapons production waste. Tests consisted of both slow strain rate tests using tensile specimens and constant load tests using compact tension specimens. Based on the tests conducted, nitrite was found to be a strong SCC inhibitor. Based on the test performed and the tank waste chemistry changes that are predicted to occur over time, the risk for SCC appears to be decreasing since the concentration of nitrate will decrease and nitrite will increase.

  7. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR CAMERON LNG LLC - DKT. NO. 11-162-LNG...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    4 April 2015 October 2015 More Documents & Publications SEMI ANNUAL REPORTS - CAMERON LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-204-LNG - ORDER NO. 3620 Semi-annual Reports for Cameron LNG LLC -...

  8. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - PORT ARTHUR LNG - DKT. NO. 15-53-LNG - ORD...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    PDF icon October 2015 PDF icon April 2016 More Documents & Publications Semi-annual Reports for Cameron LNG LLC - Dk. No. 11-145-LNG - Order 3059 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR ANNOVA LNG ...

  9. LNG Observer: Second Qatargas train goes onstream

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1997-01-01

    The January-February, 1997 issue of the LNG Observer is presented. The following topics are discussed: second Qatargas train goes onstream; financing for the eighth Indonesian liquefaction train; Koreans take stakes in Oman LNG; US imports and exports of LNG in 1996; A 60% increase in proved reserves on the North West Shelf; proposals for Indian LNG terminal CEDIGAZ forecasts world LNG trade by 2010; growth for North African gas production and exports; and new forecast sees strong growth for Asian gas.

  10. Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for Corrective Action Unit 121: Storage Tanks and Miscellaneous Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2007-06-01

    This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan identifies the activities required for the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 121, Storage Tanks and Miscellaneous Sites. CAU 121 is currently listed in Appendix III of the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' (FFACO, 1996) and consists of three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) located in Area 12 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS): CAS 12-01-01, Aboveground Storage Tank; CAS 12-01-02, Aboveground Storage Tank; and CAS 12-22-26, Drums; 2 AST's. CASs 12-01-01 and 12-01-02 are located to the west of the Area 12 Camp, and CAS 12-22-26 is located near the U-12g Tunnel, also known as G-tunnel, in Area 12 (Figure 1). The aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) present at CASs 12-01-01 and 12-01-02 will be removed and disposed of at an appropriate facility. Soil below the ASTs will be sampled to identify whether it has been impacted with chemicals or radioactivity above action levels. If impacted soil above action levels is present, the soil will be excavated and disposed of at an appropriate facility. The CAS 12-22-26 site is composed of two overlapping areas, one where drums had formerly been stored, and the other where an AST was used to dispense diesel for locomotives used at G-tunnel. This area is located above an underground radioactive materials area (URMA), and within an area that may have elevated background radioactivity because of containment breaches during nuclear tests and associated tunnel reentry operations. CAS 12-22-26 does not include the URMA or the elevated background radioactivity. An AST that had previously been used to store liquid magnesium chloride (MgCl) was properly disposed of several years ago, and releases from this tank are not an environmental concern. The diesel AST will be removed and disposed of at an appropriate facility. Soil at the former drum area and the diesel AST area will be sampled to identify whether it has been impacted by releases, from the drums or the AST, with chemicals or radioactivity above action levels. CAS 12-22-26 has different potential closure pathways that are dependent upon the concentrations and chemicals detected. If only petroleum hydrocarbons are detected above action levels, then the area will be use-restricted. It will not be excavated because of the more significant hazard of excavating within a URMA. Similarly, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) will only be excavated for concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) or greater, if there are no other factors that require excavation. For PCBs at concentrations above 1 ppm, the area will be use-restricted as required by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 761 for PCBs (CFR, 2006), in the ''Toxic Substances Control Act'' (TSCA). Other chemicals at concentrations above the final action levels (FALs) will be excavated. If radioactivity is above action levels, then the soil will be excavated only to a depth of 1 foot (ft) below ground surface (bgs) and replaced with clean fill. This action is intended to remove the ''hot spot'' on the surface caused by leakage from a drum, and not to remediate the URMA.

  11. Compressed/Liquid Hydrogen Tanks

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Currently, DOE's physical hydrogen storage R&D focuses on the development of high-pressure (10,000 psi) composite tanks, cryo-compressed tanks, conformable tanks, and other advanced concepts...

  12. Cameron LNG LLC - 14-001-CIC | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Cameron LNG LLC - 14-001-CIC Cameron LNG LLC - 14-001-CIC Application of Cameron LNG, LLC to Transfer Control of Long-term Authorization to Export LNG to Free Trade Agreement...

  13. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - GULF LNG LIQUEFACTION COMPANY, LLC - FE...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    GULF LNG LIQUEFACTION COMPANY, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-47-LNG - ORDER 3104 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - GULF LNG LIQUEFACTION COMPANY, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-47-LNG - ORDER 3104 PDF icon ...

  14. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PANGEA LNG (NORTH AMERICA) HOLDINGS,...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    PANGEA LNG (NORTH AMERICA) HOLDINGS, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-174-LNG - ORDER 3227 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PANGEA LNG (NORTH AMERICA) HOLDINGS, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-174-LNG - ORDER ...

  15. Annova LNG, LLC - 14-004-CIC | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Annova LNG, LLC - 14-004-CIC Annova LNG, LLC - 14-004-CIC Application of Annova LNG, LLC to Transfer Control of Long-term Authorization to Export LNG to Free Trade Agreement ...

  16. LNG -- Technology on the edge

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alexander, C.B.

    1995-10-01

    With immense promise and many supporters, LNG as a vehicular fuel is still, a nascent industry. In about two years, an array of LNG engines should be commercially available, and infrastructure greatly expanded. These developments should reduce the present premium of LNG equipment, greatly improving industry economics. The most propitious sign for LNG-market developed lies in the natural gas industry`s recently refined strategy for natural gas vehicles. The new strategy targets the right competitor--diesel, not gasoline. It also targets the right market for an emerging fuel--high-fuel-usage fleets made up of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, often driven long distances. But problems persist in critical areas of development. These problems are related to the materials handling of LNG and the refueling of vehicles. The paper discusses the studies on LNG handling procedures, its performance benefits to high-fuel use vehicles, economic incentives for its use, tax disadvantages that are being fought, and LNG competition with ``clean`` diesel fuels.

  17. Evaluation of methods to measure surface level in waste storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Peters, T.J.; Park, W.R.; Cuta, F.M.

    1993-06-01

    This report describes the results of a program conducted at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) and Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) to identify alternative methods to measure the surface level in the waste tanks. This program examined commercially available devices for measuring the distance to a target. Test were performed with five devices to determine their applicability to measure the surface level in the waste tanks. The devices were the Enraf-Nonius{sup {trademark}} 872 Radar Gauge, the Enraf-Nonius{sup {trademark}} 854 Advanced Technology Gauge, the Stanley Tool Laser Measuring Device, the Robertshaw Inven-Tel{sup {reg_sign}} Precision Level Gauge, and the Micro Switch 942 Acoustic Sensor. In addition, discussions were held with several manufacturer representatives regarding other potential devices.

  18. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR MAGNOLIA LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-183...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    MAGNOLIA LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-183-LNG - ORDER 3245; 13-131-LNG ORDER 3406 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR MAGNOLIA LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-183-LNG - ORDER 3245; 13-131-LNG ORDER ...

  19. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR LNG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC (D/B/A Oregon...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    LNG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC (DBA Oregon LNG) - FE DKT. NO. 12-48-LNG - ORDER 3100 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR LNG DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC (DBA Oregon LNG) - FE DKT. NO. 12-48-LNG ...

  20. Alaska LNG Project LLC- 14-96-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an application filed on July 18, 2014, by, Alaska LNG Project LLC submits this application requesting long-term authorization to export 20...

  1. Downeast LNG, Inc.- FE Dkt. No. 14-172-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed October 15, 2014, by Downeast LNG, Inc. (Downeast), seeking a long-term multi-contract authorization to export...

  2. Cameron LNG, LLC- FE Dkt. No. 15-90-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed May 28, 2015, by Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron), seeking a long-term multi-contract authorization to export domestically...

  3. Downeast LNG, Inc.- FE Dkt. No. 14-173-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed October 15, 2014, by Downeast LNG, Inc. (Downeast), seeking a long-term multi-contract authorization to export...

  4. Texas Brownsville LNG LLC- FE Dkt. 15-62-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed April 15, 2015, by Texas Brownsville LNG LLC (TBLNG), seeking a long-term multi-contract authorization to export...

  5. Cameron LNG, LLC- FE Dkt. No. 15-67-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed on April 3, 2015, by Cameron LNG, LLC seeking long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced...

  6. Rio Grande LNG LLC- Dkt. No. 15-190-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed December 23, 2015, by Rio Grande LNG, LLC (Rio Grande), seeking a long-term multi-contract authorization to export...

  7. Analysis of Underground Storage Tanks System Materials to Increased Leak Potential Associated with E15 Fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kass, Michael D; Theiss, Timothy J; Janke, Christopher James; Pawel, Steven J

    2012-07-01

    The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 was enacted by Congress to move the nation toward increased energy independence by increasing the production of renewable fuels to meet its transportation energy needs. The law establishes a new renewable fuel standard (RFS) that requires the nation to use 36 billion gallons annually (2.3 million barrels per day) of renewable fuel in its vehicles by 2022. Ethanol is the most widely used renewable fuel in the US, and its production has grown dramatically over the past decade. According to EISA and RFS, ethanol (produced from corn as well as cellulosic feedstocks) will make up the vast majority of the new renewable fuel requirements. However, ethanol use limited to E10 and E85 (in the case of flex fuel vehicles or FFVs) will not meet this target. Even if all of the E0 gasoline dispensers in the country were converted to E10, such sales would represent only about 15 billion gallons per year. If 15% ethanol, rather than 10% were used, the potential would be up to 22 billion gallons. The vast majority of ethanol used in the United States is blended with gasoline to create E10, that is, gasoline with up to 10% ethanol. The remaining ethanol is sold in the form of E85, a gasoline blend with as much as 85% ethanol that can only be used in FFVs. Although DOE remains committed to expanding the E85 infrastructure, that market will not be able to absorb projected volumes of ethanol in the near term. Given this reality, DOE and others have begun assessing the viability of using intermediate ethanol blends as one way to transition to higher volumes of ethanol. In October of 2010, the EPA granted a partial waiver to the Clean Air Act allowing the use of fuel that contains up to 15% ethanol for the model year 2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. This waiver represents the first of a number of actions that are needed to move toward the commercialization of E15 gasoline blends. On January 2011, this waiver was expanded to include model year 2001 light-duty vehicles, but specifically prohibited use in motorcycles and off-road vehicles and equipment. UST stakeholders generally consider fueling infrastructure materials designed for use with E0 to be adequate for use with E10, and there are no known instances of major leaks or failures directly attributable to ethanol use. It is conceivable that many compatibility issues, including accelerated corrosion, do arise and are corrected onsite and, therefore do not lead to a release. However, there is some concern that higher ethanol concentrations, such as E15 or E20, may be incompatible with current materials used in standard gasoline fueling hardware. In the summer of 2008, DOE recognized the need to assess the impact of intermediate blends of ethanol on the fueling infrastructure, specifically located at the fueling station. This includes the dispenser and hanging hardware, the underground storage tank, and associated piping. The DOE program has been co-led and funded by the Office of the Biomass Program and Vehicle Technologies Program with technical expertise from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The infrastructure material compatibility work has been supported through strong collaborations and testing at Underwriters Laboratories (UL). ORNL performed a compatibility study investigating the compatibility of fuel infrastructure materials to gasoline containing intermediate levels of ethanol. These results can be found in the ORNL report entitled Intermediate Ethanol Blends Infrastructure Materials Compatibility Study: Elastomers, Metals and Sealants (hereafter referred to as the ORNL intermediate blends material compatibility study). These materials included elastomers, plastics, metals and sealants typically found in fuel dispenser infrastructure. The test fuels evaluated in the ORNL study were SAE standard test fuel formulations used to assess material-fuel compatibility within a relatively short timeframe. Initially, these material studies included test fuels of Fuel C, CE10a, CE17a, and CE25a. The CE17a test fuel was selected to represent E15 since surveys have shown that the actual ethanol upper limit can be as high as 17%. Later, CE50a and CE85a test fuels were added to the investigation and these results are being compiled for a follow-on report to be published in 2012. Fuel C was used as the baseline reference and is a 50:50 blend of isooctane and toluene. This particular composition was used to represent premium-grade gasoline and was also used as the base fuel for the ethanol blends, where it is denoted by 'C' in the fuel name. The level of ethanol is represented by the number following the letter E. Therefore a 10% blend of ethanol in Fuel C is written as CE10a, where 'a' represents an aggressive formulation of the ethanol that contains water, NaCl, acetic and sulfuric acids per the SAE J1681 protocol.

  8. EA-1044: Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project- Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposal to construct and maintain additional storage capacity at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,...

  9. High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator standards/requirements identification document (S/RID), Vol. 7

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01

    This Requirements Identification Document (RID) describes an Occupational Health and Safety Program as defined through the Relevant DOE Orders, regulations, industry codes/standards, industry guidance documents and, as appropriate, good industry practice. The definition of an Occupational Health and Safety Program as specified by this document is intended to address Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendations 90-2 and 91-1, which call for the strengthening of DOE complex activities through the identification and application of relevant standards which supplement or exceed requirements mandated by DOE Orders. This RID applies to the activities, personnel, structures, systems, components, and programs involved in maintaining the facility and executing the mission of the High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms.

  10. In-situ radiation measurements of the C1 and C2 waste storage tank vault

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yong, L.K.; Womble, P.C.; Weems, L.D.

    1996-09-01

    In August of 1996, the Applied Radiation Measurements Department (ARMD) of the Waste Management and Remedial Action Division (WMRAD) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was tasked with characterizing the radiation fields in the C{sub 1} and C{sub 2} Liquid Low Level Waste (LLLW) tank vault located at ORNL. These in-situ measurements were made to provide data for evaluating the potential radiological conditions for personnel working in or around the vault during future planned activities. This report describes the locations where measurements were made, the types of radiation detection instruments used, the methods employed, the problems encountered and resolved, and discusses the results obtained.

  11. HANFORD TANK CLEANUP UPDATE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BERRIOCHOA MV

    2011-04-07

    Access to Hanford's single-shell radioactive waste storage tank C-107 was significantly improved when workers completed the cut of a 55-inch diameter hole in the top of the tank. The core and its associated cutting equipment were removed from the tank and encased in a plastic sleeve to prevent any potential spread of contamination. The larger tank opening allows use of a new more efficient robotic arm to complete tank retrieval.

  12. Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG)- FE Dkt. No. 16-28-LNG- FTA/NFTA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed March 1, 2016, by Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG), seeking a long-term multi-contract authorization...

  13. DOE - Fossil Energy: 2013 LNG Export Applications

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    LNG LLC Dkt. Index Comment Period Closed 78 FR 75339 13-120-NG 080513 Expt Mexico Energia Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V. Dkt. Index 3348 13-121-LNG 082313 Expt FTANFTA Sabine Pass...

  14. Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG)- Blanket Authorization to Export Previously Imported LNG- FE Dkt. No. 15-103-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed June 25, 2015 by Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG), requesting blanket authorization to export liquefied...

  15. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR SCT&E LNG LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-89-LNG - ORDER NO.

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    3566 | Department of Energy FOR SCT&E LNG LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-89-LNG - ORDER NO. 3566 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR SCT&E LNG LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-89-LNG - ORDER NO. 3566 PDF icon April 2015 PDF icon October 2015 PDF icon April 2016 More Documents & Publications SCT&E LNG, LLC - FE Dkt. No. 14-89-LNG SCT&E LNG, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 14-98-LNG NFTA SCT&E LNG, LLC - FE Dkt. No. 14-72-LNG

  16. Introduction to LNG vehicle safety. Topical report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bratvold, D.; Friedman, D.; Chernoff, H.; Farkhondehpay, D.; Comay, C.

    1994-03-01

    Basic information on the characteristics of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is assembled in this report to provide an overview of safety issues and practices for the use of LNG vehicles. This document is intended for those planning or considering the use of LNG vehicles, including vehicle fleet owners and operators, public transit officials and boards, local fire and safety officials, manufacturers and distributors, and gas industry officials. Safety issues and mitigation measures that should be considered for candidate LNG vehicle projects are addressed.

  17. Technical Assessment of Cryo-Compressed Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for Automotive Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ahluwalia, Rajesh; Hua, T. Q.; Peng, J. -K.; Lasher, S.; McKenney, Kurtis; Sinha, J.

    2009-12-01

    Technical report describing DOE's second assessment report on a third generation (Gen3) system capable of storing hydrogen at cryogenic temperatures within a pressure vessel on-board a vehicle. The report includes an overview of technical progress to date, including the potential to meet DOE onboard storage targets, as well as independent reviews of system cost and energy analyses of the technology paired with delivery costs.

  18. Method for processing LNG for rankine cycle

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aoki, I.; Matsumoto, O.

    1983-06-14

    A method is disclosed for processing lng using a mixed heat medium for performing a rankine cycle to gasify the lng. The medium is prepared by batch distillation using only lng. The method comprises the steps of condensing an upflow vapor in a single distillation column employing part of the lng in an lng batch distillation cycle, venting one fraction having low boiling point components mainly containing methane, and accumulating the other fractions containing ethane and components heavier than ethane. The supply of lng to be distilled in the column is halted. A total condensing operation is performed in which the other fractions are sequentially condensed by part of the lng at the condenser to sequentially recover and mix each component with the other fractions. Lng is added as the methane component to the recovered mixture of components to prepare a mixed heat medium consisting of components selected from hydrocarbons having 1-6 carbon atoms, or hydrocarbons having 1-6 carbon atoms and nitrogen. The mixed heat medium is stored. A mixed heat medium vapor generated by heat input to the stored mixed heat medium is condensed by lng and returned to the mixed heat medium; collection and complete gasification of the low boiling point components mainly containing methane and the lng is gasified by condensation to provide an lng vapor gas. Lng is gasified by performing the rankine cycle with the mixed heat medium.

  19. LNG to CNG refueling stations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Branson, J.D.

    1995-12-31

    While the fleet operator is concerned about the environment, he or she is going to make the choice based primarily on economics. Which fuel provides the lowest total operating cost? The calculation of this costing must include the price-per-gallon of the fuel delivered, as well as the tangible and intangible components of fuel delivery, such as downtime for vehicles during the refueling process, idle time for drivers during refueling, emissions costings resulting from compressor oil blow-by, inclusion of non-combustible constituents in the CNG, and energy consumption during the refueling process. Also, the upfront capital requirement of similar delivery capabilities must be compared. The use of LNG as the base resource for the delivered CNG, in conjunction with the utilization of a fully temperature-compressed LNG/CNG refueling system, eliminates many of the perceived shortfalls of CNG. An LNG/CNG refueling center designed to match the capabilities of the compressor-based station will have approximately the same initial capital requirement. However, because it derives its CNG sales product from the {minus}260 F LNG base product, thus availing itself of the natural physical properties of the cryogenic product, all other economic elements of the system favor the LNG/CNG product.

  20. OPTIMIZATION OF INTERNAL HEAT EXCHANGERS FOR HYDROGEN STORAGE TANKS UTILIZING METAL HYDRIDES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Garrison, S.; Tamburello, D.; Hardy, B.; Anton, D.; Gorbounov, M.; Cognale, C.; van Hassel, B.; Mosher, D.

    2011-07-14

    Two detailed, unit-cell models, a transverse fin design and a longitudinal fin design, of a combined hydride bed and heat exchanger are developed in COMSOL{reg_sign} Multiphysics incorporating and accounting for heat transfer and reaction kinetic limitations. MatLab{reg_sign} scripts for autonomous model generation are developed and incorporated into (1) a grid-based and (2) a systematic optimization routine based on the Nelder-Mead downhill simplex method to determine the geometrical parameters that lead to the optimal structure for each fin design that maximizes the hydrogen stored within the hydride. The optimal designs for both the transverse and longitudinal fin designs point toward closely-spaced, small cooling fluid tubes. Under the hydrogen feed conditions studied (50 bar), a 25 times improvement or better in the hydrogen storage kinetics will be required to simultaneously meet the Department of Energy technical targets for gravimetric capacity and fill time. These models and methodology can be rapidly applied to other hydrogen storage materials, such as other metal hydrides or to cryoadsorbents, in future work.

  1. LNG Export Studies | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Export Studies LNG Export Studies In 2012, and again in 2015, DOE released studies to assess the macroeconomic impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, to inform the decisions on applications seeking authorization to export LNG from the lower-48 states to non-free trade agreement countries. The 2012 LNG Export Study evaluated exports in the range of 0 to 12 billion cubic feet (Bcf), per year. The 2015 LNG Export Study evaluated exports in the range of 12 to 20 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per

  2. ORDER 3770: BEAR HEAD LNG CORPORATION and BEAR HEAD LNG (USA), LLC |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy 3770: BEAR HEAD LNG CORPORATION and BEAR HEAD LNG (USA), LLC ORDER 3770: BEAR HEAD LNG CORPORATION and BEAR HEAD LNG (USA), LLC OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING LONG-TERM, MULTI-CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION TO EXPORT U.S.-SOURCED NATURAL GAS BY PIPELINE TO CANADA FOR LIQUEFACTION AND RE-EXPORT IN THE FORM OF LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TO NON-FREE TRADE AGREEMENT COUNTRIES On February 5, 2016, the Energy Department issued an authorization to Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG

  3. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR SOUTHERN LNG COMPANY - FE DKT. NO. 12-54-LNG -

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    ORDER 3106 | Department of Energy SOUTHERN LNG COMPANY - FE DKT. NO. 12-54-LNG - ORDER 3106 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR SOUTHERN LNG COMPANY - FE DKT. NO. 12-54-LNG - ORDER 3106 PDF icon October 2012 PDF icon April 2013 PDF icon October 2013 PDF icon April 2014 PDF icon October 2014 PDF icon April 2015 PDF icon October 2015 PDF icon APRIL 2016 More Documents & Publications SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - GULF LNG LIQUEFACTION COMPANY, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-47-LNG - ORDER 3104 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR

  4. Life Cycle Assessment of Thermal Energy Storage: Two-Tank Indirect and Thermocline

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heath, G.; Turchi, C.; Burkhardt, J.; Kutscher, C.; Decker, T.

    2009-07-01

    In the United States, concentrating solar power (CSP) is one of the most promising renewable energy (RE) technologies for reduction of electric sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and for rapid capacity expansion. It is also one of the most price-competitive RE technologies, thanks in large measure to decades of field experience and consistent improvements in design. One of the key design features that makes CSP more attractive than many other RE technologies, like solar photovoltaics and wind, is the potential for including relatively low-cost and efficient thermal energy storage (TES), which can smooth the daily fluctuation of electricity production and extend its duration into the evening peak hours or longer. Because operational environmental burdens are typically small for RE technologies, life cycle assessment (LCA) is recognized as the most appropriate analytical approach for determining their environmental impacts of these technologies, including CSP. An LCA accounts for impacts from all stages in the development, operation, and decommissioning of a CSP plant, including such upstream stages as the extraction of raw materials used in system components, manufacturing of those components, and construction of the plant. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is undertaking an LCA of modern CSP plants, starting with those of parabolic trough design.

  5. Potential for long-term LNG supplies to the United States

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lihn, M.L.

    1992-02-01

    Topics discussed here include: (1) terminal capacity; (2) potential sources for US LNG (liquefied natural gas) imports; (3) LNG liquefaction and transportation capacity; (4) historical US LNG imports; (5) LNG supply costs; (6)delivered cost of future LNG imports.

  6. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS - TEXAS LNG BROWNSVILLE LLC - FE DKT. 15...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR TEXAS LNG - TEXAS LNG - FTA - FE DKT. NO. 13-160-LNG - 3443 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR DOWNEAST LNG, INC. - FT DKT. NO. 14-172-LNG - ORDER NO. 3600 (FTA) ...

  7. Design advanced for large-scale, economic, floating LNG plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Naklie, M.M.

    1997-06-30

    A floating LNG plant design has been developed which is technically feasible, economical, safe, and reliable. This technology will allow monetization of small marginal fields and improve the economics of large fields. Mobil`s world-scale plant design has a capacity of 6 million tons/year of LNG and up to 55,000 b/d condensate produced from 1 bcfd of feed gas. The plant would be located on a large, secure, concrete barge with a central moonpool. LNG storage is provided for 250,000 cu m and condensate storage for 650,000 bbl. And both products are off-loaded from the barge. Model tests have verified the stability of the barge structure: barge motions are low enough to permit the plant to continue operation in a 100-year storm in the Pacific Rim. Moreover, the barge is spread-moored, eliminating the need for a turret and swivel. Because the design is generic, the plant can process a wide variety of feed gases and operate in different environments, should the plant be relocated. This capability potentially gives the plant investment a much longer project life because its use is not limited to the life of only one producing area.

  8. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT - GULF LNG LIQUEFACTION COMPANY, LLC - FE...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    More Documents & Publications SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR SOUTHERN LNG COMPANY - FE DKT. NO. 12-54-LNG - ORDER 3106 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR GULF COAST LNG EXPORT, LLC - FE DKT. NO. ...

  9. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR ANNOVA LNG COMMON INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    December 2014 PDF icon April 2015 PDF icon October 2015 More Documents & Publications Annova LNG, LLC - 14-004-CIC SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR Cameron LNG, LLC - FE Dkt. No. 15-36-LNG ...

  10. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR DELFIN LNG - DKT. NO. 13-129-LNG - ORDER...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    April 2014 PDF icon October 2014 PDF icon April 2015 PDF icon October 2015 More Documents & Publications SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS FOR GULF COAST LNG EXPORT, LLC - FE DKT. NO. 12-05-LNG ...

  11. American LNG Marketing LLC- FE Dkt. No. 15-19-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an application filed on February 3, 2015, by American LNG Marketing LLC (American LNG) requests long-term, multi-contract authorization to...

  12. Sempra LNG Marketing, LLC- FE Dkt. No. 14-177-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed October 24, 2014 by Sempra LNG Marketing, LLC (Sempra LNG Marketing), requesting blanket authorization to export...

  13. AMERICAN LNG MARKETING LLC- FE Dkt. No. 14-209-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an application filed on December 31, 2014, by American LNG Marketing LLC (American LNG) requests long-term, multi-contract authorization to...

  14. Port Arthur LNG, (LLC)- FE Dkt.No. 15-96-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed March 20, 2015, by Port Arthur LNG, (LLC) (Port Arthur LNG), seeking a long-term multi-contract authorization to export...

  15. Port Arthur LNG, (LLC)- FE Dkt.No. 15-53-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Office of Fossil Energy gives notice of receipt of an Application filed March 20, 2015, by Port Arthur LNG, (LLC) (Port Arthur LNG), seeking a long-term multi-contract authorization to export...

  16. Complete LNG Terminal Status Maps | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Complete LNG Terminal Status Maps Complete LNG Terminal Status Maps A series of slides showing the status of various LNG terminals (existing, under construction, proposed, etc.) in North America. PDF icon Complete LNG Terminal Status Map as of December 2012 More Documents & Publications Summary of LNG Export Applications of the Lower 48 States EA-1942: Finding of No Significant Impact ORDER NO. 3413: Jordan Cove LNG

  17. AX Tank Farm tank removal study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SKELLY, W.A.

    1998-10-14

    This report considers the feasibility of exposing, demolishing, and removing underground storage tanks from the 241-AX Tank Farm at the Hanford Site. For the study, it was assumed that the tanks would each contain 360 ft{sup 3} of residual waste (corresponding to the one percent residual Inventory target cited in the Tri-Party Agreement) at the time of demolition. The 241-AX Tank Farm is being employed as a ''strawman'' in engineering studies evaluating clean and landfill closure options for Hanford single-shell tank farms. The report is one of several reports being prepared for use by the Hanford Tanks Initiative Project to explore potential closure options and to develop retrieval performance evaluation criteria for tank farms.

  18. Energy Department Authorizes American LNG Marketing LLC's Application...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    American LNG Marketing LLC's Application to Export Liquefied Natural Gas Energy Department Authorizes American LNG Marketing LLC's Application to Export Liquefied Natural Gas ...

  19. LNG Safety Research Report to Congress | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Safety Research Report to Congress LNG Safety Research Report to Congress LNG Safety Research Report to Congress May 2012 The February 2007 Government Accountability Office Report ...

  20. Energy Department Conditionally Authorizes Cameron LNG to Export...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Cameron LNG to Export Liquefied Natural Gas Energy Department Conditionally Authorizes Cameron LNG to Export Liquefied Natural Gas February 11, 2014 - 11:15am Addthis WASHINGTON -...

  1. EIS-0494: Excelerate Liquefaction Solutions Lavaca Bay LNG Project...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    gas from existing pipeline systems to the LNG terminal facilities. EIS-0494: Excelerate Liquefaction Solutions Lavaca Bay LNG Project Public Comment Opportunities No public ...

  2. EIS-0508: Downeast LNG Import-Export Project, Robbinston, Maine...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    8: Downeast LNG Import-Export Project, Robbinston, Maine EIS-0508: Downeast LNG Import-Export Project, Robbinston, Maine SUMMARY The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is ...

  3. EIS-0492: Oregon LNG Export Project (Warrenton, OR) and Washington...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    2: Oregon LNG Export Project (Warrenton, OR) and Washington Expansion Project (between Sumas and Woodland, WA) EIS-0492: Oregon LNG Export Project (Warrenton, OR) and Washington ...

  4. Energy Department Conditionally Authorizes Oregon LNG to Export...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    WASHINGTON - The Energy Department announced today that it has conditionally authorized LNG Development Co., LLC (Oregon LNG) to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas ...

  5. EIS-0501: Golden Pass LNG Export and Pipeline Project, Texas...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    1: Golden Pass LNG Export and Pipeline Project, Texas and Louisiana EIS-0501: Golden Pass LNG Export and Pipeline Project, Texas and Louisiana Summary The Federal Energy Regulatory ...

  6. 2016 - LNG Export, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Re-Exports ...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    - LNG Export, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Re-Exports & Long Term Natural Gas Applications 2016 - LNG Export, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Re-Exports & Long Term Natural Gas ...

  7. Orders Granting Natural Gas, LNG & CNG Authorizations Issued...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Orders Granting Natural Gas, LNG & CNG Authorizations Issued in 2014 Orders Granting Natural Gas, LNG & CNG Authorizations Issued in 2014 Order 3378 - Encana Natural Gas Inc. Order...

  8. Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P., FLNG Liquefaction, LLC, FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC and FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC- 14-005-CIC; 10-160-LNG; 10-161-LNG, 11-161-LNG and 12-06-LNG

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Application of Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P., FLNG Liquefaction, LLC, FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC and FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC to Transfer Control of Long-term Authorization to Export LNG to Free Trade...

  9. Optimizing PT Arun LNG main heat exchanger

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Irawan, B.

    1995-12-01

    The capacity of a LNG liquefaction unit has been increased by upgrading the refrigeration system, without making changes to the main heat exchanger (MHE). It is interesting, that after all modifications were completed, a higher refrigerant circulation alone could not increase LNG production. However, by optimizing the refrigerant component ratio, the UA of the MHE increased and LNG production improved. This technical evaluation will provide recommendations and show how the evaluation of the internal temperature profile helped optimize the MHE operating conditions.

  10. Microsoft Word - LNG_Jan2007.doc

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    07 1 January 2007 Short-Term Energy Outlook Supplement: U.S. LNG Imports - The Next Wave Damien Gaul and Kobi Platt Overview * This supplement to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) January 2007 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) focuses on recent trends in global and U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade and presents factors expected to influence U.S. LNG imports through 2008. * After substantial increases early this decade (including more than doubling between 2002 and 2003), the

  11. 2012 LNG Export Study | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    2012 LNG Export Study 2012 LNG Export Study As part of a broader effort to further inform decisions related to LNG exports, the Department of Energy commissioned NERA Economic Consulting to conduct a third party study in order to gain a better understanding of how U.S. LNG exports could affect the public interest, with an emphasis on the energy and manufacturing sectors. The Department is releasing that study and making it available for public review and comment. As this is not a Department of

  12. Fragility Analysis Methodology for Degraded Structures and Passive Components in Nuclear Power Plants - Illustrated using a Condensate Storage Tank

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nie, J.; Braverman, J.; Hofmayer, C.; Choun, Y.; Kim, M.; Choi, I.

    2010-06-30

    The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) is conducting a five-year research project to develop a realistic seismic risk evaluation system which includes the consideration of aging of structures and components in nuclear power plants (NPPs). The KAERI research project includes three specific areas that are essential to seismic probabilistic risk assessment (PRA): (1) probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, (2) seismic fragility analysis including the effects of aging, and (3) a plant seismic risk analysis. Since 2007, Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has entered into a collaboration agreement with KAERI to support its development of seismic capability evaluation technology for degraded structures and components. The collaborative research effort is intended to continue over a five year period. The goal of this collaboration endeavor is to assist KAERI to develop seismic fragility analysis methods that consider the potential effects of age-related degradation of structures, systems, and components (SSCs). The research results of this multi-year collaboration will be utilized as input to seismic PRAs. In the Year 1 scope of work, BNL collected and reviewed degradation occurrences in US NPPs and identified important aging characteristics needed for the seismic capability evaluations. This information is presented in the Annual Report for the Year 1 Task, identified as BNL Report-81741-2008 and also designated as KAERI/RR-2931/2008. The report presents results of the statistical and trending analysis of this data and compares the results to prior aging studies. In addition, the report provides a description of U.S. current regulatory requirements, regulatory guidance documents, generic communications, industry standards and guidance, and past research related to aging degradation of SSCs. In the Year 2 scope of work, BNL carried out a research effort to identify and assess degradation models for the long-term behavior of dominant materials that are determined to be risk significant to NPPs. Multiple models have been identified for concrete, carbon and low-alloy steel, and stainless steel. These models are documented in the Annual Report for the Year 2 Task, identified as BNL Report-82249-2009 and also designated as KAERI/TR-3757/2009. This report describes the research effort performed by BNL for the Year 3 scope of work. The objective is for BNL to develop the seismic fragility capacity for a condensate storage tank with various degradation scenarios. The conservative deterministic failure margin method has been utilized for the undegraded case and has been modified to accommodate the degraded cases. A total of five seismic fragility analysis cases have been described: (1) undegraded case, (2) degraded stainless tank shell, (3) degraded anchor bolts, (4) anchorage concrete cracking, and (5)a perfect combination of the three degradation scenarios. Insights from these fragility analyses are also presented.

  13. EIS-0494: Excelerate Liquefaction Solutions Lavaca Bay LNG Project, Calhoun and Jackson Counties, Texas

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is preparing, with DOE as a cooperating agency, an EIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal consisting of two floating liquefaction, storage and offloading units and a 29-mile pipeline header system to transport natural gas from existing pipeline systems to the LNG terminal facilities.

  14. U.S. LNG Exports:

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    LNG Exports: State-Level Impacts on Energy Markets and the Economy November 13, 2013 Submitted to: American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Submitted by: ICF International 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA USA ICF Contact Harry Vidas 703-218-2745 Other ICF Contributors Briana Adams William Pepper Robert Hugman Warren Wilczewski Thu Nguyen blank page Warranties and Representations. ICF endeavors to provide information and projections consistent with standard practices in a

  15. LNG Analysis Summary: A Different Way of Looking at the Future of World LNG Trade

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This report examines alternative future scenarios for global LNG trade. The analysis calibrates initial liquefied natural gas (LNG) demand projections to external forecasts. Alternative LNG demand and supply scenarios are then generated to assess a range of potential outcomes. Scenarios include variations in Chinese, European and Japanese market conditions, changes in natural gas pipeline supplies and alternative LNG export conditions from the Middle East. Overall, the report foresees a LNG market where supply growth is likely to outpace demand and lead to downward pressure on LNG prices. The analysis projects North American LNG exports to the Atlantic Basin to fall in a range between 8.8 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) and 12.2 Bcfd in 2030.

  16. Guidance on risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill over water.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wellman, Gerald William; Melof, Brian Matthew; Luketa-Hanlin, Anay Josephine; Hightower, Marion Michael; Covan, John Morgan; Gritzo, Louis Alan; Irwin, Michael James; Kaneshige, Michael Jiro; Morrow, Charles W.

    2004-12-01

    While recognized standards exist for the systematic safety analysis of potential spills or releases from LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) storage terminals and facilities on land, no equivalent set of standards or guidance exists for the evaluation of the safety or consequences from LNG spills over water. Heightened security awareness and energy surety issues have increased industry's and the public's attention to these activities. The report reviews several existing studies of LNG spills with respect to their assumptions, inputs, models, and experimental data. Based on this review and further analysis, the report provides guidance on the appropriateness of models, assumptions, and risk management to address public safety and property relative to a potential LNG spill over water.

  17. Strategic evaluation central to LNG project formation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nissen, D.; DiNapoli, R.N.; Yost, C.C.

    1995-07-03

    An efficient-scale, grassroots LNG facility of about 6 million metric tons/year capacity requires a prestart-up outlay of $5 billion or more for the supply facilities--production, feedgas pipeline, liquefaction, and shipping. The demand side of the LNG chain requires a similar outlay, counting the import-regasification terminal and a combination of 5 gigawatts or more of electric power generation or the equivalent in city gas and industrial gas-using facilities. There exist no well-developed commodity markets for free-on-board (fob) or delivered LNG. A new LNG supply project is dedicated to its buyers. Indeed, the buyers` revenue commitment is the project`s only bankable asset. For the buyer to make this commitment, the supply venture`s capability and commitment must be credible: to complete the project and to deliver the LNG reliably over the 20+ years required to recover capital committed on both sides. This requirement has technical, economic, and business dimensions. In this article the authors describe a LNG project evaluation system and show its application to typical tasks: project cost of service and participant shares; LNG project competition; alternative project structures; and market competition for LNG-supplied electric power generation.

  18. Waste Management's LNG Truck Fleet: Final Results

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chandler, K.; Norton, P.; Clark, N.

    2001-01-25

    Waste Management, Inc., began operating a fleet of heavy-duty LNG refuse trucks at its Washington, Pennsylvania, facility. The objective of the project was to provide transportation professionals with quantitative, unbiased information on the cost, maintenance, operational, and emissions characteristics of LNG as one alternative to conventional diesel for heavy-duty trucking applications.

  19. LNG links remote supplies and markets

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Avidan, A.A.; Gardner, R.E.; Nelson, D.; Borrelli, E.N.; Rethore, T.J.

    1997-06-02

    Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has established a niche for itself by matching remote gas supplies to markets that both lacked indigenous gas reserves and felt threatened in the aftermath of the energy crises of the 1970s and 1980s. It has provided a cost-effective energy source for these markets, while also offering an environmentally friendly fuel long before that was fashionable. The introduction of natural-gas use via LNG in the early years (mostly into France and Japan) has also allowed LNG to play a major role in developing gas infrastructure. Today, natural gas, often supplied as LNG, is particularly well-suited for use in the combined cycle technology used in independent power generation projects (IPPs). Today, LNG players cannot simply focus on monetizing gas resources. Instead, they must adapt their projects to meet the needs of changing markets. The impact of these changes on the LNG industry has been felt throughout the value chain from finding and producing gas, gas treatment, liquefaction, transport as a liquid, receiving terminals and regasification, and finally, to consumption by power producers, industrial users, and households. These factors have influenced the evolution of the LNG industry and have implications for the future of LNG, particularly in the context of worldwide natural gas.

  20. Reserves hike to buoy Bontang LNG

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-07-27

    This paper reports that a redetermination of reserves in an Indonesian production sharing contract (PSC) will boost liquefied natural gas sales for an Indonesian joint venture (IJV) of Lasmo plc, Union Texas (South East Asia) Inc., Chinese Petroleum Corp. (CPC), and Japex Rantau Ltd. The Indonesian reserves increase involves the Sanga PSC operated by Virginia Indonesia Co., a 50-50 joint venture of Lasmo and Union Texas. Union Texas holds a 38% interest in the IJV and Lasmo 37.8%, with remaining interests held by CPC and Japex. meantime, in US LNG news: Shell LNG Co. has shelved plans to buy an added interest in the LNG business of Columbia Gas System Inc. Panhandle Eastern Corp. units Trunkline Gas Co., Trunkline LNG Co., and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. (PEPL) filed settlement agreements with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to recover from customers $243 million in costs associated with Panhandle's Trunkline LNG operation at Lake Charles, Louisiana.