Effluent test facility

Samples of effluents or receiving waters requiring immediate testing should be adjusted to the required temperature for the relevant toxicity test(s) immediately on receipt at the test facility. If the sample is not to be tested immediately, it should be stored in darkness at 2-8°C. 

G.K.Bowler and P.Bridges, Experiences with a Kiln Test Facility for the Treatment of Fletton Brickworks Chimney Effluent , 1. Chem. E. Symposium Series No. 57, undated. 

In Section 7, columns C and E you must Indicate the range of influent concentration and treatment efficiency, respectively, lor each treatment system listed. The facility must estimate the efficiency and influent concentration of each air omission treatment system, as the stack test program did not determine influent concentrations. The facility has manufacturers data on the efficiency of each treatment system and should use this information along with effluent concentration data to estimate the influent concentrations. The efficiency estimates for air treatment systems are not based on operating data this must be indicated in column F of Section 7. 

Contamination of aquatic foodstuffs by the radiocerium in fallout from weapons tests and effluents from nuclear power facilities is well documented. The concentrations of 144Ce in clam muscle and cuttlefish in Japan in 1960 exceeded those of Sr by one to two orders of magnitude and were somewhat greater than those measured in food crops (Nezu et al., 1962). Radiocerium was detected in only a few samples of aquatic foods monitored in the Central Pacific during nuclear device testing there in 1962 (Welander and Palumbo, 1963 ... 

The AEA effluent management system proposal is to send dilute nitric acid that is not used as process water makeup as a waste stream to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) under a pretreatment exemption. An analysis of the characteristics of effluent from the Demo II tests shows that it could be disposed of in a POTW however, it is not known whether such a facility exists. 

The Demo II test evaluated all of the major effluent streams for a full suite of trace species and reaction byproducts. At the time the committee was preparing its Demo II report, not all of the data were available and the impact of trace species, particularly in brines and atmospheric releases, on facility permitting remains to be determined. This information was still unavailable to the committee as of the time the present report was being prepared. 

The Department collected data on treatment of the aqueous wastes with metals from six major sources the Department s analysis of samples collected from operating facilities, responses from the Department s Industry Survey, EPA evaluation of commercial facilities, EPA s pilot test evaluations, EPA s Development Documents for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, and the literature. Table 2 summarizes information on the treatment data sources used for the treatment levels calculations. 

The flowsheet has three aqueous effluents. The first is the decontaminated aqueous raffinate stream. For economic reasons, entrained solvent in the raffinate must be recovered test results show that coalescers are practical and effective [89], In the baseline SWPF, the raffinate stream will be transferred to the Saltstone Facility, where it will be disposed of in a cementitious low-activity waste form called saltstone. The... 

Pilot testing is conducted after the most effective bench treatment technology has been selected. Pilot-scale testing involves experimental treatment of a portion of the facility effluent flow in actual climate conditions (or in a laboratory equipped to simulate these conditions). Key considerations for pilot-scale testing include ... 

Among common radionuclide sources are the natural environment, fallout from nuclear weapon tests, effluents from nuclear research laboratories, the nuclear power fuel cycle, radiopharmaceutical development, manufacturing, and various application, teaching and research uses. Decontamination and decommissioning activities at former nuclear facilities and the potential of terrorist radionuclide uses are current topics of interest for radioanalytical chemistry laboratories. Simplified information on the numerous radionuclides is conveniently found in Charts of the Nuclides such as Nuclides and Isotopes (revised by J. R. Parrington, H. D. Knox, S. L. Breneman, E. M. Baum, and F. Feiner, 15th Edition, 1996, distributed by GE Nuclear Energy). 

Material Balance Requirements. Regular production testing of individual oil wells is a mandatory requirement for proper production accounting. A good practice is to place a well on a production test 1 day of every month, if feasible, to determine its individual oil-, water-, and gas-producing rates. The results can then be used to allocate that specific well s contribution to the overall producing rates on a monthly basis based upon a fieldwide proration factor. These allocations are updated with each new production test for that specific well. In essence, the total volume of fluids produced at the well sites must be accounted for at the final effluent streams of the treatment facilities (excluding accumulation within the individual vessels). 

In this phase of testing, samples were obtained from five locations around the United States. At each site, seven samples were taken, including the influent and effluent of the facility and representative distribution points throughout the system. Four replicates of each were tested using the electrode method and the DPD-colorimetric method [5 ]. In cases where chlorine was not detectable, it was added prior to testing. The data are summarized in Table 1. 

The superior flux and rejection capabilities of the thin film composite membrane has been demonstrated at the municipal wastewater reclamation facility of the Orange County Water District in California. Both asymmetric cellulose acetate and thin film composite membranes were tested on lime clarified secondary effluent. The pilot plants were operated at 85% recovery and the rejections reported in Table 4.5 are the percent rejection of the constituents in the feed-water and not the rejection of the average concentration of the specific constituents in the feed/reject stream. Use of the average concentration would give a higher rejection in both cases. 

---