Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Direct contact column”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

23 records · Page 2

Ion Exchange Processing of AN-107 Hanford Tank Waste through Crystalline Silicotitanate in a Staged 2- then 3-Column System

The Hanford Site stores an estimated 56 million gallons of mixed radioactive and chemically hazardous waste in large underground tanks. In support of the Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) Program for expediting Hanford tank waste supernate treatment, laboratory-scale ion exchange processing using prototypic unit operations was conducted on AN-107 tank waste at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Radiochemical Processing Laboratory. This report describes the small-scale ion exchange testing with 13.7 L of diluted and filtered supernate from Tank 241-AN-107 (hereafter referred to as AN-107) at 16 °C (62 °F). One of the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) Low-Activity Waste Facility is that the waste must contain less than 3.18×10 -5 Ci 137 Cs per mole of Na. For the AN-107 tank waste to meet this criterion, only 0.147% of the influent 137 Cs concentration may be delivered to the WTP; this requires a Cs decontamination factor of 678. Testing with AN-107 matched current Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) facility prototypic operations where a lead-lag configuration was used until the lag column reached the WAC limit, then a polish column was brought online for continued processing in a lead-lag-polish column configuration. Feed was processed at 1.9 bed volumes (BVs) per hour; the flowrate, in terms of contact time with the crystalline silicotitanate (CST) bed, matched the expected flowrate at TSCR. The Cs-decontaminated product was retained for vitrification testing (to be reported separately). The lead column reached 40% Cs breakthrough after processing ~1700 BVs of feed; the 50% Cs breakthrough was extrapolated from the breakthrough data to occur at 1873 BVs. Testing compared to previous AP-101 and AP-107 testing at 16 °C showed ~300 BV increases in volume processed to reach the WAC limit for both lead and lag columns. The increase in capacity was determined to be due to the significantly lower K concentration in the AN-107 compared to the other tank waste matrices. A comparison in breakthrough curves for the three tests indicated slightly slower kinetic behavior in the AN-107, with variations in feed matrices (high organic complexants) likely responsible for the deviation. The Cs effluent from the lag column reached the WAC limit after processing 1097 BVs. Anticipating this breakthrough point, the polish column was preemptively installed around 900 BVs. Cs breakthrough from the lag column began at 500 BVs, reaching 3.06×10 0 µCi/mL, or 2.6 % Cs breakthrough, after processing all 1700 BVs of feed. Table S.1 and Figure S.1 summarize the observed column performance and relevant Cs loading characteristics.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Ion Exchange Processing of AW-105 Hanford Tank Waste through Crystalline Silicotitanate in a Staged 2- then 3-Column System

The Hanford Site stores an estimated 56 million gallons of mixed radioactive and chemically hazardous waste in large underground tanks. In support of the Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) Program for expediting Hanford tank waste supernate treatment, laboratory-scale ion exchange processing using prototypic unit operations was conducted on AW-105 tank waste at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Radiochemical Processing Laboratory. This report describes the small-scale ion exchange testing with 9.2 L of diluted and filtered supernate from Tank 241-AW-105 (hereafter referred to as AW-105) at 16 °C (62 °F). One of the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) Low-Activity Waste Facility is that the waste must contain less than 3.18×10 -5 Ci 137 Cs per mole of Na. For the AW-105 tank waste to meet this criterion, only 0.225% of the influent 137 Cs concentration may be delivered to the WTP; this requires a Cs decontamination factor of 445. Testing with AW-105 matched current Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) facility prototypic operations where a lead-lag configuration was used until the lag column reached the WAC limit, then a polish column was brought online for continued processing in a lead-lag-polish column configuration. Feed was processed at 1.9 bed volumes (BVs) per hour; the flowrate, in terms of contact time with the crystalline silicotitanate (CST) bed, matched the expected flowrate at TSCR. The Cs-decontaminated product was retained for vitrification testing (to be reported separately). The lead column reached 83% Cs breakthrough after processing ~1500 BVs of feed; the 50% Cs breakthrough was interpolated from the breakthrough data and occurred at 1041 BVs. Despite the AW-105 having a significantly higher K concentration (0.55 M compared to 0.10 M), testing compared to previous AP-107 ion exchange column testing at 16 °C showed no difference in BVs processed to reach the WAC on the lead column and only an approximate ~20 BV decrease in volume processed to reach the WAC limit on the lag column. The negligible differences in capacity despite the 5x concentration differences in K was determined to be due to the significantly lower NO3 concentration in the AW-105 supernate compared to the AP-107 tank waste matrix. A comparison in breakthrough curves for the two tests also indicated slightly faster kinetic behavior in the AW-105, with the variations in feed matrices (lower NO3 concentration) likely responsible for the deviation. The Cs effluent from the lag column reached the WAC limit after processing 772 BVs. Anticipating this breakthrough point, the polish column was preemptively installed around 675 BVs. Cs breakthrough from the lag column began at 300 BVs, reaching 1.10×10 1 µCi/mL, or 14.13 % Cs breakthrough, after processing all 1500 BVs of feed. The polish column processed nominally 830 BVs and reached 2.10×10 -1 µCi/mL, or 0.27 % Cs breakthrough at the conclusion of the test. Table S.1 and Figure S.1 summarize the observed column performance and relevant Cs loading characteristics.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

HarDWR - Water Management Area (WMA) Shapefiles

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office

Economics↗

Modular Adaptive Packing for Integrally Cooled Absorbers

Process intensification is one cornerstone in ION Clean Energy’s (ION) efforts to lowering CO2 capture cost. ION has modeled, designed, and fabricated an innovative gas-liquid contactor known as Modular Adaptive Packing (MAP). During two successful SBIR Phase I and II projects entitled: “Rapid Design and Testing of Novel Gas-Liquid Contacting Devices for Post-Combustion CO2 Capture via 3D-printing”, ION developed and proved this new technology at bench scale. MAP, a 3D-printed lattice-structured packing, combines the absorber gas/liquid contactor with an innovative in-situ heat-exchanger. Thanks to the capabilities of 3D-printing, the lattice structure of MAP contains hollow channels through which coolant water can be pumped to remove the heat of reaction from CO2 absorption. ION refers to this novel method of heat exchange as intracooling. After 25.4 cm (10 in) diameter MAP modules were fabricated, ION built and tested a packing characterization rig at its pilot facility in Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A. To provide baseline results for the characterization rig, ION tested Sulzer’s Mellapak™ 250Y (MP250Y) as a standard structured packing. ION’s MAP was then compared directly to the baseline MP250Y packing to evaluate key indicators including pressure drop, liquid hold-up, and effective area. MAP has a higher pressure drop than MP250Y at the same gas velocities in addition to greater liquid holdup. However, ION found that MAP displays a higher wetting coverage of 93% compared to 65% for MP250Y and reduces shearing forces that result in undesirable droplet formation. Using Optimized Gas Treating’s (OGT) rate-based simulation software ProTreat®, a conceptual evaluation of MAP was modeled for a CO2 absorber using 30 wt% MEA solvent over a range of lean loadings at 90% CO2 capture from a coal-fired power plant. ION modeled a 25-meter column absorber for both the standard MP250Y packing and a hybrid column. The hybrid absorber contained 10 m of MP250Y packing at the top and bottom with the middle 5 meters comprised of MAP. Compared to a traditional intercooled absorber, MAP can remove 22% more heat and increase overall MEA carrying capacity by 4% without increasing overall pressure drop.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗