Technology evaluation

NISTTHERMO U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology evaluated chemical thermodynamic properties of inorganic and organic substances containing one or two carbon atoms... 

U.S. EPA, Geosafe Corporation In Situ Nitrification Innovative Technology Evaluation Report, EPA/540/R-94/520, Washington, D.C., 1995. 

T. M. Keinath, Technology Evaluation for Priority Pollutant Removalfrom Dyestuff Manufacture Wastewaters, USEPA report 600/S2-84-055, Washington, D.C., Apr. 1984. 

SITE Program Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program... 

Institutional needs for each alternative must be developed as part of the technology evaluation. Specifically, this should address the effects of federal, state and local environmental and public health standards, regulations, guidance, advisories, ordinance or community relations on the design, operation and timing of each alternative. 

Corrective Action Application This technology is currently being evaluated under the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. 

We have developed an approach termed ARBITER (Architecture for Reliable Business Improvement and Technology Evaluation in Research) [25], with associated simulation and visualization capability, that combines... 

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) through the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP) as a Nation Research Laboratory (NRL) project. 

This work was supported by the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science Engineering Fotjndation, the Center for Ultramicrochemical Process Systems, and the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology Evaluation and Planning. The authors are also gratefiil to ftie BK 21 Project, the Center for Ultramicrochemical Process Systems (ERC) and the National Research Laboratory Program. 

For the estimation of the contaminants uptake rate and consequently the time required for the phytoremediation of a contaminated site, single mathematical models may be applied. In the following paragraphs, analysis as well as the examples given in Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Technology Evaluation Report on Phytoremediation, by Schnoor, is presented without modification.8... 

Schnoor, J.L., Phytoremediation. Technology Evaluation Report TE-98-01, Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997. 

Yin, Y. and Allen, H.E., In-Situ Chemical Treatment, Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), Technology Evaluation Report, E Series TE-99-01, 1999. 

Venosa, A.D. and Swanson, G.R., Innovative Technology Evaluation Report for the High Energy Electron Injection (E-Beamj Technology, EPA 600-R-02-066, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, 2002. 

U.S. EPA, Texaco Gasification Process Innovation Technology Evaluation Report, Office of Research and Development Superfund Innovation Technology Evaluation Program, EPA/540/R-94/514, July 1995. 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), 10 514, 21 588-589, 14 581 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE), 25 837 Superfund legislation, 21 588 Superfund Reauthorization Act, 21 589 Super glue, 1 539 Super Grubbs catalyst, 26 933 Superheated aqueous solution processing, 14 80... 

Other important documents in HSTAT include the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference Reports and Technology Assessment Reports the HIV/AIDS Treatment Information Service (ATIS) resource documents the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (SAMHSA/CSAT) Treatment Improvement Protocols (TIP) and Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (SAMHSA/CSAP) Prevention Enhancement Protocols System (PEPS) the Public Health Service (PHS) Preventive Services Task Force s Guide to Clinical Preventive Services the independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Services Guide to Community Preventive Services and the Health Technology Advisory Committee (HTAC) of the Minnesota Health Care Commission (MHCC) health technology evaluations. 

The goals of this VIP are to document which technology evaluation criteria are applicable and then to conduct a formal technology screening and evaluation assessment. The result is a prioritized listing of technology options for each selected application for the project. The preferred time to execute this VIP is the midpoint in the conceptual phase (FEL-1). 

Table 1 gives cost and maintenance information for the frozen barrier installed as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Table 2 gives physical design data for the ORNL project. 

Based on data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration, the total cost for PF extraction was estimated to be 307/kg of trichloroethene (TCE) removed. This demonstration was conducted over a 4-week period in August and September of 1992 at an industrial site in Somerville, New Jersey. The cost estimate includes expenses associated with both PF and soil vapor extraction. Major cost factors were labor (29%), capital equipment (22%), VOC emission control (19%), site preparation (11%), and residuals management (10%) (D10589F, p. v). 

According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) report, treatment costs for the BioGenesis soil washing technology are affected by the following factors ... 

---