Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “effluents”

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.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The WTP LAB stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the DV of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the maximum conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be = 20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be = 20% COV. Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stacks must agree within 5% COV. In general, these criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Some specific items for each scale model and full-scale stack comparison should be noted in assessing the validity of the verification tests. The LB-C2 scale model stacks were performed with single fan operations at then-minimum flow conditions. These conditions resulted in DV values that were too low to meet the DV range criterion, and therefore are unable to be used in qualifying single fan operations on the full-scale stack. However, the single fan operations demonstrated COV values for velocity uniformity as well as flow angles that were comparable to the dual-fan operations at high flows. Overall, the test conditions and test results were within the range of acceptable values based on current design flow rates. Single fan operations are expected to only occur infrequently for maintenance needs and is therefore not a planned operating condition at this time. The LB-S1 scale model stacks were performed at three fan combinations, and in each combination, at least one test was performed at the then-minimum flow conditions as well as at then-maximum flow conditions. While the then-minimum flow conditions result in a DV range that is lower than the verification test DV value, and therefore does not meet the criterion, these tests are un-necessary for the verification test acceptance. The normal and maximum flow conditions from the scale model stack tests meet the DV range criterion, and the velocity uniformity test results compare favorably with the full-scale stack results. The LB-S2 scale model stacks were performed at nominally the same maximum flow condition; however, the 6 DV value for Fan A operation was slightly lower than the full-scale stack test DV. The COV values from the scale model stacks were comparable between the Fan A and Fan B results, and the overall test conditions are within the range of acceptable values. The stack verification is therefore considered acceptable for both Fan A and Fan B operations. The verification tests were performed at flows that were appreciably higher than the design conditions, and further elevated flow rates would be beyond the range of acceptable DV. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stacks meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the scale model test reports (Glissmeyer, Flaherty, and Piepel (2001), Glissmeyer and Geeting (2013)) may require additional tests and additional analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAB stacks are 625 to 47,237 scfm for LB-C2, 1,704 to 103,131 scfm for LB-S1, and 467 to 18,088 scfm for LB-S2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10 degrees, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 17.6 degrees; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 3.5% COV, which were all within the range of the target %COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring - Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant low activity waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAW stacks are 815–55,758 scfm for LV-S1, 980–112,078 scfm for LV-S2, 264–22,901 scfm for LV-S3, and 981–79,832 scfm for LV-C2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAW facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for one LV-S2 Fan A result, which was 13.2°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 1.5 COV and 9.2% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the four LAW filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan operating conditions for LV-S1 and LV-S2, dual-fan operations for LV-S3 at both the continuous air monitor and record sampler locations, and both the single-fan as well as the dual-fan operations for LV-C2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Flue-Gas Desulfurization Effluent Management using an Innovative Low-Energy Biosorpotion Treatment System to Remove Key Contaminants

Among the most critical water contaminants of concern affecting wide geographical regions and a number of industries and natural systems is selenium. Selenium found in surface, ground and wastewater in originates from natural sources, as well as industrial sources such as petroleum refineries, electronics manufacturing, pesticides, and coal power plants and mining also contribute to selenium contamination in water in the US. At high concentrations, selenium is toxic to human and wildlife. There are a number of technologies that have been used to treat selenium and other similar contaminants in water. Biological treatment of selenium has been used in the past to reduce soluble SeVI and/or SeIV to insoluble Se0, which is then filtered in the same vessel. The insoluble selenium (Se0) is then backwashed from the system and solids are separated for subsequent disposal, if they meet the leaching and water content criteria. In order to promote biological reduction to insoluble Se0, heating of bioreactor is needed in some applications, and excess food source (electron donor) is added so that all selenium can be filtered. An additional disadvantage of these systems is the significant amount of water lost due to extensive and frequent backwash and rinse cycles. When comparing the advantages and energy requirements of the various treatment technologies, RO membrane filtration immediately stands out due to the excessive energy expenditure needed to pump water across the membrane although RO is an effective way to remove selenium. In addition, RO requires extensive pretreatment, such as MF membrane, and frequent maintenance, rendering it an expensive option that may be out of reach for certain applications. In fact, although the performance was good during the pilot testing by the NSMP Working Group for treatment naturally occurring selenium in the surface water, the high electricity requirements and significant reject water stream made it an infeasible alternative. While conventional ion exchange maybe an effective treatment option, it requires frequent regeneration of the resin when applied to highly contaminated water, which leads to several tons of contaminant-laden, high-salinity brine that needs to be disposed off-site each day. One of the water systems in the west coast currently uses ion exchange for selenium treatment and has been trucking selenium laden hazardous brine waste weekly in the last several years. Pneumatic pumping and rinse water pumping required for ion exchange also increase the energy usage. In comparison, adsorption process is a passive treatment system where contaminated water comes in contact with an adsorption media in a vessel. Typically, there is no mixing, backwash, or recycle pumping required, thus significantly reducing the energy usage. A passive single-use adsorption system does not require backwash, thereby generating small amount of process waste, and producing the highest water yield among the alternatives. The energy and water efficiencies, and applicability for SeVI and SeIV are summarized in Table 1. Despite these benefits though, adsorption typically does not work for the most oxidized form of selenium (SeVI). The innovative biosorption process integrates both process to increase the treatment efficiency while minimizing energy, chemical, and time required to treat both SeVI and SeIV. Additional advantages include simple partial biological reduction with reduced on-site waste generation, which lead to water and electricity savings, and less operational need compared to biological treatment alone. This makes biosorption especially suitable for remote areas, where liquid backwash and brine disposal may be cost prohibitive or infeasible.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Absolute Reactive Oxygen Species Densities in the Effluent of the COST Reference Source and Plasma-generated Atomic Oxygen Density Measurements in Liquid using TALIF

Reactive oxygen species are one of the most important species produced in a plasma. In particular the role of atomic oxygen and the hydroxyl radical OH has attracted many studies ranging from plasma medicine to plasma-driven biocatalysis and water treatment. Atomic oxygen and the hydroxyl radical OH are very reactive and react unselectively with many different substrates. The quantification of atomic oxygen and OH is challenging because of their reactivity and unknown reactions and rate constants.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation (Rev.1)

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of discovering that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stacks. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. For this analysis, the range of qualified flow rates listed is conservatively based on the average DV through 6 DV for LV-S1, LV-S2, and LV-C2, and 1/3 DV to 3 DV for LV-S3. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the conservative lower and upper qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAW facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the upper qualified stack.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAB facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 13.7°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 4.1% COV, which were all within the range of the target percent coefficient of variation values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

A Brief Review of Technologies for Separating Tritium from the Aqueous Effluent of Reprocessing Plants

The scope of this letter report encompasses a review of technologies applicable to separating tritiated water from light and heavy water with a focus on wastewater arising from the reprocessing of UNF. Reports considering flowsheet options for tritium management are also reviewed. The main objective of this letter report is to support consideration of programmatic opportunities for the Materials Recovery and Waste Form Development (MRWFD) Campaign within the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Is Genetic Engineering a Route to Enhance Microalgae-Mediated Bioremediation of Heavy Metal-Containing Effluents?

Contamination of the biosphere by heavy metals has been rising, due to accelerated anthropogenic activities, and is nowadays, a matter of serious global concern. Removal of such inorganic pollutants from aquatic environments via biological processes has earned great popularity, for its cost-effectiveness and high efficiency, compared to conventional physicochemical methods. Among candidate organisms, microalgae offer several competitive advantages; phycoremediation has even been claimed as the next generation of wastewater treatment technologies. Furthermore, integration of microalgae-mediated wastewater treatment and bioenergy production adds favorably to the economic feasibility of the former process—with energy security coming along with environmental sustainability. However, poor biomass productivity under abiotic stress conditions has hindered the large-scale deployment of microalgae. Recent advances encompassing molecular tools for genome editing, together with the advent of multiomics technologies and computational approaches, have permitted the design of tailor-made microalgal cell factories, which encompass multiple beneficial traits, while circumventing those associated with the bioaccumulation of unfavorable chemicals. Previous studies unfolded several routes through which genetic engineering-mediated improvements appear feasible (encompassing sequestration/uptake capacity and specificity for heavy metals); they can be categorized as metal transportation, chelation, or biotransformation, with regulation of metal- and oxidative stress response, as well as cell surface engineering playing a crucial role therein. This review covers the state-of-the-art metal stress mitigation mechanisms prevalent in microalgae, and discusses putative and tested metabolic engineering approaches, aimed at further improvement of those biological processes. Finally, current research gaps and future prospects arising from use of transgenic microalgae for heavy metal phycoremediation are reviewed.

Ranjbar, Saeed (ORCID:0000000256518605)↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pump-and-Treat Impacts on Aquifer Conditions and the Development of System-Wide Performance Strategies - 20377

The pump-and-treat (P and T) system on the Hanford Site's Central Plateau currently treats multiple contaminants within the 200-ZP-1 operable unit, including nitrate through its biological treatment processes. Although it was initially designed to support the 200-ZP-1 Remedial Action Objectives, the P and T system has evolved in use to address contaminants from other regions of the aquifer as well. The P and T influents are biogeochemically distinct, treating groundwaters with elevated concentrations of cyanide, uranium, technetium-99, and nitrate. Given the varying geochemical signatures from current and potential future sources, operational conditions, and amendments considered for treatment processes, there is a need to identify the impacts that the P and T effluent has on the aquifer, and how the aquifer affects P and T performance. To this end, laboratory efforts have focused on characterizing P and T effluent and its biogeochemical effects on the sediments through a series repacked column experiments. The P and T effluent is rich in particulate matter. A systematic inspection of this particulate matter in the P and T effluent showed significant levels of manganese/iron oxides, calcite crystals, relatively large organic matter molecules, and biomass. Therefore, the column experiments were designed and conducted for four different treatment systems: artificial groundwater, filtered P and T effluent, non-filtered P and T effluent, and chlorinated P and T effluent. Different levels of microbiologically- and geochemically-induced changes in the columns occurred and modified the flow systems. For example, physical filtration occurred in the sediments where the particulate material had accumulated in the top portion of the column. Reactive transport modeling of the laboratory experiments is being carried out so that the reaction network can be extrapolated to the field scale. These simulations will provide predictive evaluations of system performance based on P and T operational changes and aquifer mass loading and capacity estimates. This information can be used to address combined subsurface and operational challenges, such as the need for frequent well redevelopment to maintain injection capacity. This information also provides the technical basis for decisions related to the P and T system operations that support remedy optimization efforts and short- and long-term remedy decisions related to multiple operable units on the Hanford Site Central Plateau. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Acetonitrile Destruction and Fate of Organics in the Reverse Osmosis System at the ETF

The Hanford Site Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) currently treats aqueous waste streams that include condensates from the 242-A evaporator, leachate from the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF), as well as laboratory wastes and, in the future, will treat liquid effluents from the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) and Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) leachate. Liquid effluents from the WTP will have significant concentrations of acetonitrile. Acetonitrile is formed by reaction of nitrates and sugar in the WTP low activity waste (LAW) melters and is prevalent in the submerged bed scrubber (SBS) and wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) liquid effluents from WTP off-gas treatment. When these liquids are concentrated in the WTP Effluent Management Facility (EMF) evaporator in the direct feed low activity waste (DFLAW) flow-sheet, testing has shown that the majority of the acetonitrile partitions to the evaporator condensate. Since the evaporator condensate is directed to the ETF, this creates a potential issue with the ETF waste acceptance criteria. Consequently, there is a need to validate flow-sheet assumptions on the fate of acetonitrile and other organics within the ETF. The present plan includes the addition of a steam stripper to the ETF to remove acetonitrile. There is, therefore, also a need to determine a suitable method to destroy acetonitrile in the overhead condensate stream from the new steam stripper. Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) previously contracted with Atkins and the Vitreous State Laboratory (VSL) of The Catholic University of America (CUA) to perform development and testing work to evaluate potential methods for destruction of acetonitrile in WTP secondary liquid effluents. Based on the results of that work, WRPS requested that follow-on testing be conducted to further evaluate acetonitrile destruction in the steam stripper condensate using ultraviolet oxidation (UV/OX) with persulfate. WRPS also requested testing to assess the rejection rate of organics in the reverse osmosis (RO) system installed in the ETF. This report presents the results from testing to address those needs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

The efficacy and ecological impact of mercury sorbents on the physiology and reproductive fitness of Daphnia magna

Environmental mercury (Hg) contamination threatens ecosystems due to its bioaccumulation and toxicity. Effective and sustainable remediation strategies are essential, with carbon-based sorbents like biochar (BC) and activated carbon (AC) gaining attention for their high adsorption capacity and cost-effectiveness. However, their ecological impacts remain poorly understood. This study evaluates the Hg removal efficacy and ecological effects of three sorbents—BC, granular AC (GAC), and AC fiber (ACF)—in a flow-through column system with and without Hg additions. We tested Hg removal at two concentrations (1 and 4 µg/L Hg) and assessed chronic exposure effects on a sentinel and sensitive freshwater organism, Daphnia magna, over 30 days of exposure to the columns’ effluent. GAC removed 100 % of Hg, while BC and ACF achieved 99 % removal. The ACF + 4 µg/L Hg effluent induced 70 % lethality in D. magna after nearly three weeks of exposure, while the GAC effluent significantly reduced fecundity, even in the absence of Hg exposure. In contrast, the BC effluent enhanced reproductive output, likely due to inputs of carbon and nitrogen in the effluent. These findings highlight the need to balance Hg removal efficacy with ecological safety, emphasizing the importance of considering both remediation effectiveness and potential environmental impacts.

Activated carbon↗
DOE OSTI2020

Monthly Sewer Monitoring Report for LLNL Livermore Site, April 2020

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) collects effluent samples from its sewer outfall at the B196 Sewer Monitoring Station (SMS). Effluent flow-proportional composite samples are collected at the SMS on a daily (midnight-to-midnight), weekly (Thursday through Wednesday), and “monthly” (composited from daily) basis; effluent grab samples are also collected each month at that same location. Certified contract laboratories analyzes these compliance samples, and results (Tables 1–3) are used to establish LLNL compliance with the 2019–2020 Wastewater Discharge Permit (Permit 1250) granted by the City of Livermore Water Resources Division (WRD). Supplemental analyses for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) are performed onsite and reported (Table 4) for the calculation and assessment of sewer service charges. Quarterly, effluent is sampled for metals (24-hour composite) and cyanide (grab sample) concentrations (mg/L). The results are presented in Table 5. In addition to the sampling noted above, the SMS continuously monitors LLNL sewage effluent in real-time for flow rate, pH, metals, and radioactivity. Standard measurement methods are used to monitor flow and pH to determine permit compliance. Unique nonstandard analytical methods monitor for the presence of metals and radioactivity using x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and gamma spectroscopy, respectively. If an anomalous condition is detected by the monitoring system, an alarm activates LLNL’s Sewer Diversion Facility (SDF) and Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP) operators are notified that a potential release has occurred.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Acetonitrile Destruction in ETF Feed Solutions by UV/OX and Persulfate (Final Report)

The Hanford Site Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) currently treats aqueous waste streams that include condensates from the 242-A evaporator, leachate from the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF), as well as laboratory wastes and, in the future, will treat liquid effluents from the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) and Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) leachate. Liquid effluents from the WTP will have significant concentrations of acetonitrile. Acetonitrile is formed by reaction of nitrates and sugar in the WTP low activity waste (LAW) melters and is prevalent in the submerged bed scrubber (SBS) and wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) liquid effluents from WTP off-gas treatment. When these liquids are concentrated in the WTP Effluent Management Facility (EMF) evaporator in the direct feed low activity waste (DFLAW) flow-sheet, testing has shown that the majority of the acetonitrile partitions to the evaporator condensate. Since the evaporator condensate is directed to the ETF, this creates a potential issue with the ETF waste acceptance criteria and, specifically, the ETF Delisting Modification treatability envelope limits. Consequently, there is a need to assess possible mitigation approaches, one of which involves identification and assessment of potential treatment processes to destroy the acetonitrile, which is the subject of the present report.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Testing of UV Oxidation Process for Acetonitrile Destruction

The Hanford Site Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) currently treats aqueous waste streams that include condensates from the 242-A evaporator, leachate from the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF), as well as laboratory wastes and, in the future, will treat liquid effluents from the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) and Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) leachate. Liquid effluents from the WTP will have significant concentrations of acetonitrile. Acetonitrile is formed by reaction of nitrates and sugar in the WTP low activity waste (LAW) melters and is prevalent in the submerged bed scrubber (SBS) and wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) liquid effluents from WTP off-gas treatment. When these liquids are concentrated in the WTP Effluent Management Facility (EMF) evaporator in the direct feed low activity waste (DFLAW) flow-sheet, testing has shown that the majority of the acetonitrile partitions to the evaporator condensate. Since the evaporator condensate is directed to the ETF, this creates a potential issue with the ETF waste acceptance criteria and, specifically, the ETF Delisting Modification treatability envelope limits. Consequently, there is a need to assess possible mitigation approaches, one of which involves identification and assessment of potential treatment processes to destroy the acetonitrile, which is the subject of the present report.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗