2009 EVALUATION OF TRITIUM REMOVAL AND MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT Page: 39 of 51
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DOE/RL-2009-18
Revision 0
population dose of 0.20 person-mrem is essentially the same as the airborne-pathway population
dose (Blount et al. 2003).
A sheet pile dam for collection of water and forest irrigation system was installed in 2000 and
2001, respectively, for tritium remediation at a cost of about $1,500,000. Tritiated water behind
the dam is used for irrigation of 25 acres of natural forest pines and hardwood trees located up
gradient of the seep line. The irrigation supplements natural precipitation. Annual operating
cost is about $500,000 and about 7,570,000 liters (2,000,000 gallons) of tritiated water was used
for irrigation of the forest in FY 2003 (Blount 2003). This project has resulted in a 65%
reduction in tritium concentrations in water discharged to Fourmile Branch (SRS 2008).
3.3.4.2 Incineration
Incineration or direct contact evaporation provides a controlled and measurable means of
disposing of tritiated water though a stack. The Brookhaven National Laboratory used a low
flow pumping system to remove the highest concentrations of tritium from the aquifer south of
the High Flux Beam Reactor. Approximately 340,000 liters (90,000 gallons) of tritiated water at
500,000 pCi/L was transported to Oakridge National Laboratory for disposal at the GTS Duratek
incinerator. Transportation and off site disposal cost of the tritiated groundwater was about
$5.30 per liter ($20 per gallon). Low flow pumping, transportation, and incineration were
stopped in early 2001 after removing the target 0.2 Ci of tritium from the aquifer. The DOE at
Brookhaven made the decision to dispose of the tritiated groundwater offsite rather than
construct and operate a treatment facility at Brookhaven (ROD 2000, Klem 2004).
3.3.4.3 Application at the Hanford Site
Evaporation has the advantage that it may completely eliminate the liquid tritium waste stream,
often at a moderate cost compared to separations options. A major negative is that it discharges
the tritium into the air.
Table 5 shows the maximum tritium concentration and depth to groundwater. Depths range
between 20 m and 100 m except at the Columbia River shoreline. Also, phytoremediation for
minimizing water entering a contaminated aquifer typically uses either hybrid poplars or pine
trees. Neither of these types of plants would be amenable to the natural environment on the
Hanford site. The 1994 tritium technology evaluation scored irrigation (phytoremediation) as the
poorest based on relative cost and risk (Allen 1994).3-24
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
KJ, LUECK; DJ, GENESSE & GE, STEGEN. 2009 EVALUATION OF TRITIUM REMOVAL AND MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT, report, February 26, 2009; Richland, Washington. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc902458/m1/39/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.