SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Savannah River Mission Completion is the Liquid Waste (LW) contractor at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The LW mission is tasked with treating and disposing of legacy nuclear waste. There are multiple facilities involved in this work, including the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities (CSTF), the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), and the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). The CSTF includes 43 underground waste tanks used to store and support processing of radioactive liquid waste. Waste removal activities, such as salt dissolution campaigns and sludge agitation, are conducted within the CSTF waste tanks to convert the waste into a form that allows for downstream processing at other LW facilities. While performing these waste removal campaigns, camera inspections are performed to assess the quantity and distribution of the remaining waste within the waste tank (i.e. saltcake or sludge). Understanding the quantity and distribution of the salt/sludge within the waste tanks allows for improved waste removal strategies (e.g. mixing pump operation) and refined safety controls. Typically, several camera inspections are performed during a waste removal transfer to verify the elevation of the visible salt/sludge mounds against the known elevation of the liquid surface. The camera inspection footage must then be interpreted by a trained engineer who will develop a 2-D map that depicts the waste distribution at various elevations within the waste tank. This tank mapping is then used in conjunction with conservative assumptions to evaluate the volume of saltcake or sludge that is present within the waste tank.
To develop a means of detecting pollution, it s necessary to know something about the source and nature of the pollution. The type of pollution rising from solid wastes differs considerably from hat from liquid wastes or that from gaseous wastes ni its effect on the immediate environment. It may be "defined" by a series of negatives. When solid wastes are discarded on land, the resulting pollution is not land pollution in the sense of air and water pollution. For one thing, the solid wastes do not become a "part" of the land in that the wastes are neither intimately mixed nor homogenized into the land as are liquid and gaseous wastes into their respective media. The waste particles retain not only their chemical identity but also their visible (i.e., physical) characteristics. When buried, for example, the soil is under, above, and around the solids, because the wastes are there as discrete units. Secondly, solid wastes neither diffuse nor are they carried from the place at which they were deposited. In other words they remain stationary, providing of course the disposal site is land and not moving water. In a given area, solid wastes be not distributed uniformly over that area. Even the solid wastes falling into the specification of letter meets these specifications. In contrast liquid and gaseous wastes become intimately mixed, homogenized, and even dissolved in their media. Because solid wastes remain stationary, pollution constituted by their presence is highly localized and heavily concentrated, even to the extent that the pollution could be termed "micro" when compared to the macro-pollution arising from liquid and gasequs wastes.
Waste management technologies for space life support systems are currently at low development levels. Manual compaction of waste in plastic bags and overboard disposal to earth return vehicles are the primary current waste management methods. Particularly on future missions, continuance of current waste management methods would tend to expose the crew to waste hazards, forfeit recoverable resources such as water, consume valuable crew time, contaminate planetary surfaces, and risk return to Earth of extraterrestrial life. Improvement of waste management capabilities is needed for adequate management of wastes. Improvements include recovery of water and other resources, conversion of waste to states harmless to humans, long-term containment of wastes, and disposal of waste. Current NASA requirements documents on waste management are generally not highly detailed. More detailed requirements are needed to guide the development of waste management technologies that will adequately manage waste. In addition to satisfying requirements, waste management technologies must also recover resources. Recovery of resources such as water and habitat volume can reduce mission cost. This paper explores the drivers for waste management technology development including requirements and resource recovery.
This report explores using "generator knowledge" to determine whether a solar photovoltaic (PV) module must be managed as hazardous waste prior to recycling or landfilling. Generator knowledge is a legal term and existing regulatory pathway for making a hazardous waste determination that has been used by other industries but is a relatively unknown option to the PV industry. In the United States, a hazardous waste determination often acts as a pre-requisite to recycle or landfill a PV module. The results of the hazardous waste determination dictate whether the PV module must be managed as hazardous waste or nonhazardous solid waste. Managing a PV module as hazardous waste requires compliance with stringent U.S. federal and state hazardous waste law. In addition to increased management costs, which can be ten times higher, legal liability for PV modules regulated as hazardous waste is also heightened with both civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance which includes making an inaccurate or faulty hazardous waste determination. The most common reason a PV module would be regulated as hazardous is if it contains a regulated metal in an amount that equals or exceeds the toxicity characteristic limits. To determine whether a PV module exhibits a hazardous characteristic, the regulated person/entity must "apply knowledge...in light of the materials and processes used." In the absence of adequate knowledge to determine whether the PV module is hazardous, it must be tested using Test Method 1311 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or an equivalent EPA-approved method. Although TCLP is the predominant method used to today to make a hazardous waste determination for PV modules, evidence from this study concludes it is not practical to TCLP test every PV module even in a single utility-scale installation, and a scalable solution is needed. This study finds that knowledge-based hazardous waste determinations may allow a regulated person/entity to make a hazardous waste determination for more than one PV module at one time - making this regulatory pathway a potential scalable solution. Through legal analysis and interviews with 44 experts, the authors explore what it means to make an accurate knowledge-based hazardous determination for PV modules considering sources and forms of information as well as potential limitations. The work aims to provide a foundation for building consensus on whether knowledge-based hazardous determinations are a viable, scalable industry approach for solar.
In the United States, coal waste from over a century of mining and burning coal for heat and electricity has accumulated as mountains of coal fly ash and bottom ash and acre-size ponds, coal fines and gob. These materials can be a problem for local communities and water systems. A cost-effective process to utilize high volumes of these coal wastes in a high-value product would be beneficial to those communities by reducing the amount of waste and providing jobs, manufacturing components, and materials from the waste. Many coal-to-products technologies (e.g., carbon fibers, graphene, carbon foam) rely on carefully choosing the starting material and then altering it chemically or thermally to make the products work. Due to the wide variability of composition and coal content in typical coal waste streams, many high-volume coal waste streams are likely to be unsuitable for use in those technologies. Semplastics’ technology has been shown to utilize most types of coal waste successfully without any pre-selection or pre-processing requirements other than a nominal particle-size reduction for wastes like bottom ash. This characteristic of Semplastics’ solution may enable the use of much larger volumes of a wider range of coal wastes than other coal-to-products technologies. In this project, Semplastics leveraged its unique experience with both coal waste (fly ash or coal combustion residuals), resin materials, and 3D printing to develop 3D printer filaments using common coal wastes – bituminous coal fines and fly ash – and researched the feasibility of using other forms of coal waste as fillers. Simple 3D-printed parts were successfully produced from the coal waste enhanced filaments, which were found to have improved strength and stiffness.
The Liquid Waste (LW) contractor at the Savannah River Site, Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC), supports the storage, processing, and safe disposition of legacy, radioactive liquid waste. The LW Tank Farms contain approximately 127 million liters (33.5 million gallons) of liquid waste within 43 active, underground waste tanks. To meet mission critical milestones for the closure of waste tanks and processing of 34 million liters (9 million gallons) of salt waste per year by the LW Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), an increase in Tank Farm operations, including waste tank transfers, is required. Waste is compiled in salt and sludge batches in the Tank Farms and transferred to SWPF and the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) for treatment. All waste tank transfers, such as waste removal and batch compilation transfers, must be pre-evaluated to ensure Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) requirements are met via Evaluated Transfer Approval Forms (ETAFs). Facility conditions and configurations may change as a result of a waste transfer. These changes must be reflected in the Tank Farms Emergency Response Datasheet (ERD), which contains data utilized for operation and emergency situations.
This report documents the inadvertent human intruder (IHI) analysis for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS), near Aiken, South Carolina. This analysis supports the revised ELLWF Performance Assessment (PA), complying with the Department of Energy standard for operation of low-level waste disposal facilities (USDOE, 2017). The ELLWF is an operating waste disposal facility and is scheduled to continue accepting waste to 2065. One task of the revised PA is to establish waste inventory limits for the various disposal units at ELLWF. This is done by modeling future contaminant release and transport through applicable pathways to human receptors, comparing predicted doses per disposed curie with applicable performance measures, to obtain inventory limits which will assure that doses to receptors do not exceed performance measures. This report documents results of modeling future doses to one class of receptor, the inadvertent human intruder. It is assumed that after site closure, public knowledge of the site is lost, and IHIs will engage in activities on the ELLWF that will disrupt the closure cap, causing dose to the IHI. Following USDOE (2017), six different stylized exposure scenarios are considered, simulating activities by an IHI which could result in a radiological dose. The six scenarios are: • Acute – Basement Construction: IHI constructs a basement and encounters waste during excavation which is inadvertently mixed with clean soil and diluted. • Acute – Well Drilling: IHI drills a water well through waste and is exposed to drill cuttings mixed with clean soil that are brought to the surface. • Acute – Discovery: IHI begins constructing a basement but stops when encountering the riprap in the final closure cap and is exposed to photon radiation from unexcavated material residing in the undisturbed waste zone. • Chronic – Agriculture: Resident IHI is exposed to waste that was excavated for basement construction and mixed with native soil in the intruder’s vegetable garden. • Chronic – Post-Drilling: Resident IHI is exposed to waste from drill cuttings mixed with native soil and scattered in the garden area. • Chronic – Residential: Resident IHI is exposed to external radiation while in home located above waste with shielding provided by the concrete basement floor and any soil or engineered material remaining between the basement and waste. Dose calculations are performed using the SRNL Dose Toolkit (Aleman, 2023), following the approach of Smith et al (2019). Calculations are performed separately for 27 of the 33 disposal units (DUs) at ELLWF and are radionuclide specific. The results of the IHI analysis include: • Dose Factors: mrem per disposed curie (acute) and mrem/yr per disposed curie (chronic) for each parent radionuclide, for each DU. • Inventory Limits: in curies, for each parent radionuclide, for each DU. • Estimated Dose to IHI: mrem (acute) and mrem/yr (chronic), for each DU, given its projected closure inventory without inventory biases applied. Most DU-specific IHI inventory limits are in the range of 10 3 to 10 7 curies per nuclide. The lowest inventory limits are associated with gamma-emitters such as Sn-126, Ra-226, Th-232, and Cm-248. Radionuclides with short half-lives such as Pu-241, and nuclides which are pure beta emitters or which decay by electron capture, such as Ni-59 and Ni-63, have the highest limits. For the 27 evaluated DUs, predicted IHI doses are shown in Table ES-1. The maximum acute dose is 1.18 mrem, at ST23, much less than the DOE performance measure of 500 mrem (USDOE, 2017). The highest chronic dose is 37.2 mrem/yr at ST02, below the DOE performance measure of 100 mrem/yr. Also shown are estimated inventory sums of fractions (SOFs) at closure in 2065, for groundwater (GW) and IHI pathways. For each DU, the inventory is constrained by the GW pathway. For most DUs, the IHI SOFs are approximately 1000 times lower than the GW SOF values, and the IHI pathway does not drive risk for any disposal unit.
Human exploration missions to Mars pose difficulties due to the significant waste that will be generated during transit, which will need to be carried along or disposed of in some fashion. Waste removal from the spacecraft decreases the spacecraft’s mass as well as the associated logistic items necessary for storing the waste. A mission propellant analysis was performed to highlight the mass benefits that may be accessed via waste removal. The propellant mass savings were determined for different waste removal rates (2.9 – 11.6 kg/day) with the highest removal rate leading to the greatest propellant savings of 7,785 kg for an 850-day round-trip mission. Due to these benefits, two methods for waste reduction were studied for the 850-day Mars mission: Trash-to-Gas (TtG) and physical jettison via a trash-lock. The trash-to-gas methods considered were combustion, steam reforming, and pyrolysis, which convert waste into ventable gases (e.g., CO2, CO, CH4, etc.). Combustion and steam reforming require a co-reactant (O2 and/or H2O). Therefore, additional processing units or integration with the spacecraft’s environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) are required to facilitate recycle of the pertinent species. In contrast, pyrolysis is a purely thermal degradation process, which can operate as a standalone system; however, a lower percentage of waste is gasified with pyrolysis. The study herein compares standalone TtG (e.g., Advanced Organic Waste Gasifier, Plasma Pyrolysis, etc.), integrated TtG-ECLSS (e.g., Orbital Syngas Commodity Augmentation Reactor, Incineration/Gasification, etc.), and physical jettison. Each system’s mass, volume, power, and cooling requirements were compared via an equivalent system mass (ESM) analysis to ascertain potentially promising technologies that can achieve efficient waste removal while minimizing their own spacecraft load. This study highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the different waste management technologies and provides recommendations on the promising technologies based on the ESM metric and propellant mass savings.
The current solid waste management system employed on the International Space Station (ISS) consists of compaction, storage, and disposal. Wastes such plastic food packaging and trash are compacted manually and wrapped in duct tape footballs by the astronauts. Much of the waste is simply loaded either into the empty Russian Progress vehicle for destruction on reentry or into Shuttle for return to Earth. This manual method is wasteful of crew time and does not transition well to far term missions. Different wastes onboard spacecraft vary considerably in their characteristics and in the appropriate method of management. In advanced life support systems for far term missions, recovery of resources such as water from the wastes becomes important. However waste such as plastic food packaging, which constitutes a large fraction of solid waste (roughly 21% on ISS, more on long duration missions), contains minimal recoverable resource. The appropriate management of plastic waste is waste stabilization and volume minimization rather than resource recovery. This paper describes work that has begun at Ames Research Center on development of a heat melt compactor that can be used on near term and future missions, that can minimize crew interaction, and that can handle wastes with a significant plastic composition. The heat melt compactor takes advantage of the low melting point of plastics to compact plastic materials using a combination of heat and pressure. The US Navy has demonstrated successful development of a similar unit for shipboard application. Ames is building upon the basic approach demonstrated by the Navy to develop an advanced heat melt type compactor for space mission type wastes.
The Hanford Site stores approximately 56 million gallons of radioactive legacy defense waste in underground tanks. Direct feed of southeast quadrant tank waste to a high-level waste treatment facility is currently being explored to accelerate tank treatment activities. This study seeks to de-risk waste transfers by favorably altering the resuspension and critical velocities of wastes through strategic waste blending. Wastes rich in aluminum- and zirconium-bearing solids pose significant risks due to their high settled strength and density. A series of tests explores how solid phase particle size and suspending phase chemistry alter waste transport properties, quantified through the just-suspended mixing speed (NJS), for pure and blended aluminum- and zirconium-bearing waste solid simulants. The study utilizes a range of gibbsites (three sizes spanning 10 to 90 µm) and zirconia solids (three sizes spanning 10 to 100 µm). As expected, the NJS of pure solids largely follows predictions based on literature correlations; blends of gibbsite and zirconium-bearing solids of differing particle sizes exhibit NJS maxima attributed to dense packing of the mixed-size settled solids. The findings of this study will assist in developing strategies to optimize the transport of waste solids for the safe and efficient delivery of tank waste.
This Summer I participated in two projects at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The projects focus on the NASA's Deep Space Gateway applications for future Mars travel. All of these projects use recycling technology to use resources found on Earth and on other planets for fuel and other environmental applications. The first project I took the lead on is “Plasma Arc Gasification.†Plasma is a high temperature and very efficient way to process waste to create usable byproducts. The plasma chamber in temperature is comparable to that of the sun and this energy will help create an environment in which the waste can be recycled properly for not only plant support, but also for possible fuel application as well. I preformed the tests in a quartz tube, which is used to hold the waste (cotton, plastics, nylon, paper and a human waste simulant) and the waste is then combusted using O2 (present in air) into gases such as H2, H2O, CH4 and CO2. I determined which gases are present using a Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) machine, which analyzes the peaks of the gases using liquid nitrogen. Problems arose in the beginning from the reactor emitting electromagnetic waves (EMI) that interfered with the technology of the experiment, specifically the thermocouples. This was solved through multiple tests with the positioning of the thermocouple power supply further away from the plasma reactor. I worked with another intern, Daniel Santander, who developed a space plant chamber which uses CO2 and H2O (harvested from the plasma reactor) to grow plants in space. The chamber possess a CO2 monitor, which controls the amount of gas that enters the chamber, along with a water integration system to supply the amount of water needed for proper plan growth. This technology will then be used for plant growth in space for the Astronauts on future space flights and possibly on the International Space Station (ISS). The second project I worked on is the “Orbital Syngas / Commodity Augmentation Reactor (OSCAR)†which focuses on the issues experienced in long-duration space flight regarding waste disposal. In previous space flight missions, waste was stored on board and returned to Earth for disposal. This technique is not applicable to long space flight missions to Mars due to the rocket being months away from Earth. OSCAR is using microgravity waste disposal techniques to produce fuels from the recycled waste. The waste is converted to syngas through a thermal degradation process. This process helps create an environmentally friendly way to dispose and reuse trash on board the space craft. Currently waste is being tested in the form of cotton and plastics. OSCAR is designed as a microgravity reactor that is currently being tested in a drop tower rig at Glenn Research Center. I helped design the 3D model for the insulation that will line the reactor. The first few trials, I dissolved the plastic of the mold in acetone. This method worked, but was very costly. I then received a silicone material to construct the mold from Swamp Works here at Kennedy. Through multiple trials with the silicone, this method worked best for developing the end pieces of the insulation for the chamber.
Waste is a universal problem, on Earth, in spacecraft, and for any closed ecological system. Waste must be processed and is often recycled to recover resources. Many different approaches and technologies are used. Spacecraft waste is derived from the spacecraft logistics supplies, the materials provided for use by the crew. The composition of spacecraft logistics and the resulting waste depend on the mission and its duration and use of recycling. Spacecraft waste is a more serious problem on long duration missions because of the large logistics supplies consumed and the difficulty of storing or disposing of waste. The quantity and composition of waste can vary and may require flexible management. Most missions will produce about two kilograms per crewmember per day of trash, consisting of food waste, plastic, paper, packaging, hygiene wipes and many other supplies used and discarded by the crew. The waste is bulky, messy and difficult to store since the wet waste can decompose and produce odors and an accumulation of pathogenic bacteria. Many different methods have been proposed for managing spacecraft waste.
Astronaut waste is an important aspect of the planning and execution of long-term crewed missions, especially to the Moon and Mars. However, as new technologies arise and mission planning evolves, the projected composition of the waste similarly evolves. This poses a problem for researchers who are investigating various approaches to mitigating crew waste, since the investigation of each new waste-mitigation technology typically uses a static waste composition that is based on a simulant developed at the time of the research; several such waste simulants have been developed over recent years. To mitigate the ‘moving target’ aspect of crew waste composition and use, researchers at NASA KSC have developed a computational tool wherein researchers can adjust the composition of the crew waste, as well as other important parameters such as crew size, mission duration, and waste mitigation method (e.g., incineration, compaction, jettison, etc.). The computational tool then returns important mission metrics such as waste-related mass reduction, power consumed, water produced or consumed, elemental mass balance, and available feedstock for in-space manufacturing (ISM) applications. This tool can then be used to adjust aspects of a waste model (e.g., removal of metal aluminum (Al) for ISM applications) and determine an associated set of metrics in order to inform mission planning.
The recently released Circularity Gap Report 2023 by the Circle Economy Foundation states that the circularity score for the global economy is declining. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tracked municipal solid waste from 1960 to 2018 and found that 50% of the waste was destined for landfills. EPA estimates that US industry is responsible for 2.7 Gt of solid nonhazardous waste annually in the US mostly linear economy model. The circular economy framework aims to decouple economic value generation from the extraction of virgin materials from nature. The linear model of material extraction and disposal at the end of life is highly unsustainable. Manufacturing companies are adopting ambitious waste reduction targets to achieve sustainability. Through the Better Plants program, US DOE has established the Waste Reduction Network, which offers technical assistance to partners to achieve their ambitious waste reduction goals. Basic requirements of establishing a target include identifying a baseline, quantifying waste performance, and measuring progress over time. One problem faced by industry is unstandardized metrics for quantifying waste performance that may not be well suited to demonstrate progress. This paper studies traditional methods used to measure waste performance and highlights advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of each method. It also examines the suitability of applying the methods in different manufacturing circumstances. Finally, the paper presents a case study of a large manufacturer that faced inconsistencies in its tracked measurement metric. A solution was proposed and implemented to alter the methodology to enable more accurate waste performance tracking against a baseline.
It is known that the predictive life of the refractory ceramic liner of nuclear waste glass melters is conservative, as demonstrated by performance of these materials such as in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). The motivation for this task is to maximize the useful life of the melters that will be operated at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), which will in turn minimize procurement and disposal costs and melter outage times, as well as to identify maximum loadings in the waste glass of those species that corrode melter components. This task was initiated jointly with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) with the objective to develop a methodology and model to enable more accurate prediction of refractory service life under prototypic conditions from laboratory-scale material corrosion tests. Refractory corrosion is generally reported as physical material loss, measured in units of distance (e.g., inch) or as physical material loss rate, measured in units of distance per time (e.g., inch/day). In post-operational melters, the refractory corrosion is measured directly, sometimes reported as corrosion depth. Crucible tests are used in the laboratory to accelerate the refractory corrosion to facilitate a meaningful measurement in a commensurate amount of time. Crucible tests are particularly useful in understanding refractory corrosion across a large glass composition space, where operational testing would be prohibitive. Some of the critical parameters that are known to influence refractory corrosion by molten glass in a crucible test are temperature, system redox, molten salt phases, glass chemistry, and test duration. The majority of data collected for Monofrax® K-3 (hereafter referred to as K-3) corrosion is from crucible tests, but a small amount comes directly from scaled and production melters. Crucible test data has been collected under varying conditions, whereas data collected from operational melters is relatively fewer and represents conditions specific to the melter campaign. The result is that the published data can be grouped and analyzed in multiple ways, not all of which are readily comparable. The Standard Test Method for Isothermal Corrosion Resistance of Refractories to Molten Glass (ASTM C621) outlines the general guidelines used across industry. That method describes a sealed, static test in which the surface area of the refractory coupon and the volume of glass are fixed. A significant portion of the crucible data pertaining to nuclear waste glasses has been collected in a modified configuration; the most notable differences being the surface area of the refractory coupon to volume of the glass and use of a method for bubbling the melt. To our knowledge, the influence of those parameters on the refractory corrosion has not been quantified. In this work, it was determined that static tests and bubbled tests would be performed. Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) was tasked with setting up and performing static testing while PNNL was tasked with setting up and performing bubbled testing. Initial activities were performed to establish laboratory methods that reproduce data comparable to existing data sets of K-3 refractory corrosion by low activity waste (LAW) and high-level waste (HLW) glass compositions. Later activities were focused on refining the test parameters to establish a standard test practice to be used between Laboratories and collecting additional data to be used in the enhanced waste glass model development. This document serves primarily to convey the refractory loss measurement results from corrosion testing of K-3 refractory with waste glass compositions developed for use in the WTP melters. The data will be used in the enhanced property/composition models being developed for waste glass vitrification and melter operations.
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.
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.