Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “grout”

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 55 records · Page 3

Hydropower Geotechnical Foundations: Current Practice and Innovation Opportunities for Low-Head Applications

Hydropower is a renewable energy resource that produces electricity from flowing water under pressure. Engineered hydropower structures, such as dams, are used to create a hydraulic head, enabling a turbinegenerator unit to convert pressurized flow into electricity. While hydropower has been a source of renewable energy since antiquity, new development in the United States has slowed in recent decades. Based on recent resource assessments, the largest opportunity to expand hydropower in the United States is from new stream-reach development (i.e., new hydropower development along stream-reaches that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities or other forms of infrastructure, such as dams). Roughly 75% of identified new stream-reach development potential is from low-head sites (less than 30 ft of head), which typically suffer from smaller power densities and higher normalized costs, given economies of scale. Hydropower developers and other stakeholders are thus interested in strategies to reduce initial capital costs while practicing sustainable development to maximize environmental compatibility with minimal disruption to natural aquatic life, sediment, and water flows. Historically, civil works have represented a significant cost driver for new hydropower development, with the foundation system representing a major cost component and source of uncertainty. The foundation system is the collection of engineered structural features (e.g. cutoff trenches, walls, grouting, anchors) constructed at or below the preconstruction ground surface that interfaces between the overlying structures (superstructures) and the bed material below (subsurface). Development of a hydropower foundation system must consider the various characteristics of the surrounding stream environment and subsurface while adhering to the engineering requirements of the superstructure that it supports. The care of water, excavation, and other construction activities are important features of foundation design and construction. The design and construction cost of the foundation system is largely dependent on the site geology and riverbed composition and is influenced by the level of geotechnical assessment required and conducted. Thus, a hydropower facility’s geotechnical foundation is often highly site-specific, with proper site selection and assessment being important to project success. The foundation system is designed to provide structural stability (of the foundation and dam), limit seepage, ensure public safety, and maintain functionality for the project life, during both construction and facility operations. Inadequate foundation or dam design can result in dam failure and the uncontrolled release of significant volumes of water, which could cause a high number of casualties and extensive property damage downstream of the failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, approximately 30% of all historical dam failures in the United States are attributed to foundation or abutment defects, and another 20% are attributed to piping or seepage through the embankment, foundation, or abutment. To ameliorate these safety considerations, foundations often require massive amounts of construction material (e.g., grout, concrete, engineered dam fill) and long construction times. Foundation design also requires significant analysis prior to construction because the initial in-stream and abutment subsurface conditions are site-specific, and sufficient data for them often are lacking. Current practice requires on-site assessment, using expensive drilling and invasive and non-invasive investigation methods, to determine the expected cost of foundation material and treatment. Additionally, foundation construction often requires site dewatering (and other care of water activities), which involves constructing temporary diversion structures upstream and often downstream, called cofferdams, and water diversion systems that route water around the construction site. Cofferdams and water diversion systems can drastically increase construction costs and contribute to environmental disruption, including modification of flow patterns and benthic habitats. Given the technical, economic, and environmental challenges associated with hydropower foundations, opportunities exist to improve the current state of practice and to develop new and innovative solutions to Hydropower is a renewable energy resource that produces electricity from flowing water under pressure. Engineered hydropower structures, such as dams, are used to create a hydraulic head, enabling a turbinegenerator unit to convert pressurized flow into electricity. While hydropower has been a source of renewable energy since antiquity, new development in the United States has slowed in recent decades. Based on recent resource assessments, the largest opportunity to expand hydropower in the United States is from new stream-reach development (i.e., new hydropower development along stream-reaches that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities or other forms of infrastructure, such as dams). Roughly 75% of identified new stream-reach development potential is from low-head sites (less than 30 ft of head), which typically suffer from smaller power densities and higher normalized costs, given economies of scale. Hydropower developers and other stakeholders are thus interested in strategies to reduce initial capital costs while practicing sustainable development to maximize environmental compatibility with minimal disruption to natural aquatic life, sediment, and water flows. Historically, civil works have represented a significant cost driver for new hydropower development, with the foundation system representing a major cost component and source of uncertainty. The foundation system is the collection of engineered structural features (e.g. cutoff trenches, walls, grouting, anchors) constructed at or below the preconstruction ground surface that interfaces between the overlying structures (superstructures) and the bed material below (subsurface). Development of a hydropower foundation system must consider the various characteristics of the surrounding stream environment and subsurface while adhering to the engineering requirements of the superstructure that it supports. The care of water, excavation, and other construction activities are important features of foundation design and construction. The design and construction cost of the foundation system is largely dependent on the site geology and riverbed composition and is influenced by the level of geotechnical assessment required and conducted. Thus, a hydropower facility’s geotechnical foundation is often highly site-specific, with proper site selection and assessment being important to project success. The foundation system is designed to provide structural stability (of the foundation and dam), limit seepage, ensure public safety, and maintain functionality for the project life, during both construction and facility operations. Inadequate foundation or dam design can result in dam failure and the uncontrolled release of significant volumes of water, which could cause a high number of casualties and extensive property damage downstream of the failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, approximately 30% of all historical dam failures in the United States are attributed to foundation or abutment defects, and another 20% are attributed to piping or seepage through the embankment, foundation, or abutment. To ameliorate these safety considerations, foundations often require massive amounts of construction material (e.g., grout, concrete, engineered dam fill) and long construction times. Foundation design also requires significant analysis prior to construction because the initial in-stream and abutment subsurface conditions are site-specific, and sufficient data for them often are lacking. Current practice requires on-site assessment, using expensive drilling and invasive and non-invasive investigation methods, to determine the expected cost of foundation material and treatment. Additionally, foundation construction often requires site dewatering (and other care of water activities), which involves constructing temporary diversion structures upstream and often downstream, called cofferdams, and water diversion systems that route water around the construction site. Cofferdams and water diversion systems can drastically increase construction costs and contribute to environmental disruption, including modification of flow patterns and benthic habitats. Given the technical, economic, and environmental challenges associated with hydropower foundations, opportunities exist to improve the current state of practice and to develop new and innovative solutions to challenges frequently encountered with traditional approaches. With this understanding, it is critically important to understand and document the current state of practice for hydropower geotechnical foundations, identify key challenges, and define opportunities for innovative solutions. To this end, this report documents the current state of practice across the three main phases of geotechnical foundation development: (1) geotechnical site assessment, (2) design, and (3) construction for hydropower systems. It also describes the major challenges with conventional approaches and identifies opportunities for innovation to reduce hydropower foundations costs, timelines, and risks. Key takeaways from this report include the following: Approximately 80% of available low-head sites are expected to have foundations on soil beds rather than rock beds, suggesting that rockfill and earthfill dams may be the most cost-effective conventional dam type for new projects.; Geotechnical and geologic investigation activities are time-consuming and expensive but are essential to define the parameters and criteria needed for foundation design.; Certain riverbed soil and bedrock types present significant technical challenges or require expensive foundation construction, which can prove financially prohibitive for low-head project development.; Modular hydropower design and prefabricated modular foundations represent a promising but unproven paradigm for new hydropower development. Design and construction approaches using optimized and highly repeatable, reliable components would benefit project cost, time, and risk but require additional research and development.; Temporary construction features for foundations, including cofferdams, water diversion, and water control systems, can prove costly and have inherent construction risk.; For economically viable development, hydropower geotechnical foundations should be limited to 4 to 15% of the project’s total initial capital costs. Many proposed projects have experienced cost overruns attributable to foundation difficulties or surprises during construction. These overruns may have been due to inadequate investigations, lack of adequate engineering effort to tailor the structures to site geology and topography, and/or contractual terms, among other considerations.; Challenges for hydropower foundations and opportunities for innovative technology solutions are identified in the following areas (consistent with the three main phases of foundation development): Geotechnical site assessment, Foundation design and materials, Construction methods and technology. Ultimately, this report aims to provide information about geotechnical foundations for low-head hydropower and to motivate transformative technologies to support hydropower growth.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Corrosion of Steel During Long-Term Exposure to Evolving Cementitious Environments

SRS is proceeding with closure of the H-Area Tank Farm (HTF) and F-Area Tank Farm (FTF). Closure consists of removing the bulk waste, heel removal, and filling the tank with tailored grout formulations. The long-term performance of the concrete and steel materials of construction and the closure grout is an important consideration for Performance Assessment (PA) of closed tanks in FTF and HTF. Over PA timeframes of hundreds, thousands, to tens of thousands of years, the chemical and physical properties of the concrete and steel materials will slowly degrade due to environmental exposure and material aging. In the interim these materials will provide a barrier to the leaching of radionuclides into the soil. Savannah River Remediation (SRR) is updating relevant portions of these analysis inputs to support an imminent revision to the HTF PA and a future update to the FTF PA. This analysis provides an update to the previous PA inputs for steel corrosion. The Central Scenario for the PA analysis includes three postulated modeling cases: 1) Realistic Case, 2) Compliance Case, and 3) Pessimistic Case. This analysis also included a Fast Flow Path Case. This latter case considered the circumstance where the initial condition of the concrete was a completely degraded state and that grout shrinkage exposed the steel to the soil environment immediately. In effect, the steel was unprotected by the concrete and grout. The cases have various degrees of conservatism considered. Chemical, physical and tank configuration parameters were investigated to understand their effects on the predicted time to release of the contaminants. The assessment reviewed the initial tank and steel configuration, service life degradation of the steel, and potential corrosion mechanisms associated with degradation of the concrete materials.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Foam and Unreacted Material Reduction in Magnesium Oxysulfate for SRPPF Waste Solidification

A magnesium oxysulfate (MOS) grout formulation has been proposed to solidify the liquid effluent from the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF) Aqueous Recovery System (ARS). This formulation uses a combination of light-burnt MgO, anhydrous MgSO 4 , and dead-burnt MgO resulting in a grout with good mixability and acceptable density. The setting time for the grout is within the operational limits of the SRPPF facility and the leachate pH is ~9.4, which is within the assumed pH range of the brine from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). When first tested at the 1-gallon small-scale and 55-gallon full-scale, there was a significant foam layer that raised concerns of a nonhomogeneous final form. A nonhomogeneous mixture could have variable density throughout the waste form and therefore allow for unequal shielding. To reduce the potential for unequal shielding in the final form, a series of foam reduction tests were carried out and a final formulation of 28 wt% light burnt MgO, 10 wt% MgSO 4 , and 62 wt% dead burnt MgO was used to remove the foam in under two hours while still maintaining a mix that has an acceptable density, mix time, peak temperature, and set time.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Reduction of Porosity in Cementitious Waste Forms to Reduce Effective Diffusivity

Although current practices meet regulations for grout waste forms, development of sequestration materials and techniques for contaminants of concern could expand the use of grout waste forms and reduce risk to established processes from future compositional changes. There are contaminants in waste streams that are not permanently and completely sequestered in current grout waste forms under certain conditions. These contaminants include methyl mercury, 129 I, 99 Tc, and nitrate. Each of these species have minor fractions that are not permanently and completely isolated from the environment and therefore potentially contribute to long-term environmental impacts. An approach of interest includes the technique of reducing porosity to result in reduced leachability of all contaminants simultaneously. The current Savannah River Site (SRS) saltstone formulation was used to evaluate the relationship between leachability and porosity reduced waste forms by altering the water-to-binder ratio. Results indicated decreasing the water-to-binder directly reduced porosity and resulted in the waste form’s ability to more effectively immobilize nitrate. This work was funded by the Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) Technology Operations Office (TOO) Project # HQ221818.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Defining a Metric to Assess Leachability of Contaminants from Cementitious Waste Forms in Lab Testing Related to Hanford - 20478

This paper reports on the determination of performance metrics for the release of four contaminants (technetium, iodine, nitrate, and chromium) from a theoretical supplemental low-activity waste (LAW) inventory of grout in the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). The performance metric was defined as a retardation factor, R, that can be used to quantify a waste form's ability to retain one contaminant compared with an un-retarded species (e.g., sodium). By setting the target R value at the magnitude required to maintain concentrations of the contaminants below the drinking water standard at the point of compliance for the IDF, a bar for grout leach performance can be established for screening laboratory leach test data. The R can be converted to a corresponding laboratory-observed diffusivity value against which to assess leach test data. The individual performance metrics were determined through an iterative set of simulations using a variable saturation and transport flow model of a grout waste form inventory in the IDF to calculate the resulting concentration-based requirements at the point of compliance. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Declaration of the Chemical Composition of Waste-products for the German Repository Konrad Using Substance Vectors - 20500

The waste acceptance criteria of the German repository Konrad require beside a radiological declaration a compositional declaration to be able to avoid negative impact on the groundwater by a presumed leakage into the groundwater after complete corrosion of the containers in the future. The declaration of the composition has to specify compounds and substances not element analyses, because the chemical behavior and toxicity especially of organic compounds varies strongly The relevant compounds have to be described and quantified using defined substance codes provided by the operator. For simple waste types like pure concrete or steel components, the definition of the composition is rather simple. The composition of more complex waste streams is generally declared using producer specific material vectors, which can be derived for defined waste types (e.g. grouted fluids, ash from combustion, super-compacted mixed waste etc.). Additional substance vectors exist for containers, drums and grout, which together with the waste composition yield the total composition of the waste packages. The substance vectors for homogeneous waste streams like cementitious demolition waste, solidified fluids and ash are mostly based on analyses provided by the waste owner. In some cases, analyses from non-radioactive analogues or data sheets can also be used to demonstrate the composition. For each qualified treatment of radioactive waste streams the material composition is described and balanced on the basis of specific material vectors, which are composed of material codes from the material and cask list provided by the Federal company for radioactive waste disposal. For mixed waste streams like super-compacted or grouted mixed waste or materials simply packed in containers an analyses cannot be used. In these cases, the compositional information from the bookkeeping can be used for the entire waste stream to calculate a mean composition including a compositional range (min / max composition). Only waste packages with an approved material description can be delivered to Konrad. Therefore, the material declaration of all waste streams and the resulting waste products is crucial for all waste owners in Germany to be able to have enough waste packages ready, when the repository is going to open in 2027. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Saltstone third quarter calendar year 2019 (3QCY19) toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) results

The aqueous waste from Tank 50 (salt solution) is sampled quarterly for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). Salt solution is treated at SPF and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Per request of customer, X-TAR-Z-00008, Revision 01, two SDF waste form (saltstone) samples were prepared in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the Tank 50 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) sample and Z-Area premix material for the third quarter of calendar year 2019 (3QCY19). One sample contained a Full Premix which included 10:45:45 (by weight) of cement, slag and fly ash. The second sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash only referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”. Results from this technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request (TTR) prepared by Savannah River Remediation (SRR). After a 28 day cure, a sample of each of the SDF waste forms was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The 3QCY19 saltstone (Full Premix) and the Cement-Free grout samples met the South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) 61-79.261.24 and 61-79-268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs), and also met the SPF WAC.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Saltstone First Quarter Calendar Year 2021 (1QCY21) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from Tank 50 (salt solution) is sampled quarterly for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). Salt solution is treated at SPF and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z00023, Revision 0, two SDF waste form (saltstone) samples were prepared in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the Tank 50 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) sample and Z-Area premix material for the first quarter of calendar year 2021(1QCY21). One sample contained a Full Premix which included 10:45:45 (by weight) of cement, slag and fly ash. The second sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash only referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”. Results from this technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request (TTR) prepared by Savannah River Remediation (SRR). After at least 28 days cured, a sample of each of the SDF waste forms was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The 1QCY21 saltstone (Full Premix) and the Cement-Free grout samples met the South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) 61-79.261.24 and 61-79-268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs), and also met the SPF WAC that was in effect at the time of the tank sampling.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Saltstone Third Quarter Calendar Year 2021 (3QCY21) Toxicity Characteristic Leading Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from Tank 50 (salt solution) is sampled quarterly for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). Salt solution is treated at SPF and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00023, Revision 0, two SDF waste form (saltstone) samples were prepared in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the Tank 50 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) sample and Z-Area premix material for the third quarter of calendar year 2021(3QCY21). One sample contained a Full Premix which included 10:45:45 (by weight) of cement, slag and fly ash. The second sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash only referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”. Results from this technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request (TTR) prepared by Savannah River Remediation (SRR). After at least 28 days cured, a sample of each of the SDF waste forms was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The 3QCY21 saltstone (Full Premix) and the Cement-Free grout samples met the South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) 61-79.261.24 and 61-79-268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs), and also met the SPF WAC that was in effect at the time of the tank sampling.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

January 2022 Semiannual Saltstone Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from Tank 50 (salt solution) is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). Salt solution is treated at SPF and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00025, Revision 0, two SDF waste form (saltstone) samples were prepared in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the Tank 50 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) sample and Z-Area premix material for the January 2022 semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) samples. One sample contained a Full Premix which included 10:45:45 (by weight) of cement, slag and fly ash. The second sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash only referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample.” Results from this technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request (TTR) prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC). After at least 28 days cured, a sample of each of the SDF waste forms was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The January 2022 semiannual saltstone (Full Premix) and the Cement-Free grout samples met the South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) 61-79.261.24 and 61-79-268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs), and also met the SPF WAC that was in effect at the time of the tank sampling.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

July 2022 Semiannual Saltstone Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from Tank 50 (salt solution) is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). Salt solution is treated at SPF and disposed of in the Salstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00025, Revision 0, two SDF waste form (salstone) samples were prepared in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the Tank 50 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) sample and Z-Area premix material for the July 2022 Semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) samples. One sample contained a Full Premix which included 10:45:45 (by weight) of cement, slag and fly ash. The second sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash only referred to as the "Cement-Free grout sample." Results from this technical report support Task 2: 'Grout Leaching Analyses' of the Task Technical Request (TTR) prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC). After at least 28 days cured, a sample of each of the SDF waste forms was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The July 2022 semiannual salstone (Full Premix) and the Cement-Free grout samples met the South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) 61-79.261.24 and 61-79-268.48 requirements for the non-hazardous waste form with respect to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs), and also met the SPF WAC that was in effect at the time of the tank sampling.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

January 2023 Semiannual Saltstone Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from Tank 50 (salt solution) is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). Salt solution is treated at SPF and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00027, Revision 0, two SDF waste form (saltstone) samples were prepared in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the Tank 50 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) sample and Z-area premix material for January 2023 semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) samples. One sample contained a Full Premix which included 10:45:45 (by weight) of cement, slag, and fly ash. The second sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash only referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample.” Results from the technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request (TTR) prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC). After at least 28 days cured, a sample of each of the SDF waste forms was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The January 2023 semiannual saltstone (Full Premix) and the Cement-Free grout samples met the South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) 61-79.261.24 and 61-79.268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs), and also met the SPF WAC that was in effect at the time of the tank sampling.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Solidification of SRPPF Aqueous Recovery Liquid: Process Disruptions

Savannah River National Laboratory has identified a magnesium oxysulfate grout formulation to solidify the liquid effluent from the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF) Aqueous Recovery System (ARS). The formulation uses reactive, light burnt MgO, anhydrous MgSO 4 , and dead burnt MgO and provides good mixability, similar density to the original Portland Cement-based mix, and a leachate pH of 9.39, within the assumed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) brine pH range. The formulation will solidify the effluent using a solid first, lost paddle design, within a 55-gallon drum. A series of seven different process disruptions, or irregular processing during the expected ARS liquid effluent solidification process, were completed to assess the severity of the impact of the process disruption and how the formulation behaves under these conditions. Seven process disruptions were investigated including: No Mixing, Partial Mixing, Compacted/Stratified, Sealed, Overfilled, Underfilled, and Undermixed. The impact on solidification, leachate pH, Er (a Pu/Am surrogate) distribution, and density of the resulting grout were established. Overall, four of the process disruptions, No Mixing, Partial Mixing, Compacted/Stratified, and Overfilled, resulted in basic, unabsorbed liquid that would require additional solidification to be acceptable for WIPP. Most solids generated in this testing met the expected WIPP leachate pH requirements. Solids from the Compacted/Stratified process disruption test, however, produced a leachate pH slightly above the assumed range in the WIPP performance assessment. The distribution of Er for most of the tests was relatively consistent. The No Mixing process disruption test, however, resulted in non-homogeneous Er distribution, indicating that radioactive material would not be evenly distributed throughout this solid’s matrix. The Overfilled test is the only mix with a density slightly below the acceptable value. The Sealed and Overmixed tests produced a solid closest to the standard mix with no unabsorbed liquid, expected leachate pH levels, consistent Er concentrations, and expected density, indicating these process disruptions do not have a negative impact on the final grout form. Based on the other process disruptions, it is critical to have premixed dry materials and a well-defined mixing process to produce a solid, homogeneous magnesium oxysulfate cement, with no unabsorbed liquid. These process disruption tests show that the lack of adequate mixing is fundamental to creating an improperly solidified material that may require remediation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

April 2024 Semiannual Composite Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Decontaminated Salt Solution (DSS) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). Salt solution is treated at SPF and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00027, Revision 0, one SDF waste form (saltstone) sample was prepared in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the SWPF Decontaminated Salt Solution (DSS) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) sample and Z-area premix material for the April 2024 semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) sample. The sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash (referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”). Results from the technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request (TTR) prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC). After at least 28 days cured, a sample of the SDF waste form was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The April 2024 semiannual Cement-Free grout sample met the South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) 61-79.261.24 and 61-79.268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs), and met the SPF WAC that was in effect at the time of the tank sampling.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

October 2024 Semiannual Composite Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Decontaminated Salt Solution (DSS) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). Salt solution is treated at SPF and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00027, Revision 0, one SDF waste form (saltstone) sample was prepared in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from the SWPF Decontaminated Salt Solution (DSS) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) sample and Z-area premix material for the October 2024 semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) sample. The sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash (referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”). Results from the technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request (TTR) prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC). At 64 days cured, a sample of the SDF waste form was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The October 2024 semiannual Cement-Free grout sample met the South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (HWMR) 61-79.261.24 and 61-79.268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs), and met the SPF WAC that was in effect at the time of the sample collection at SWPF.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

April 2025 Semiannual Composite Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Decontaminated Salt Solution (DSS) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from the Salt Waste Processing Facility is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility. Salt solution is treated at the Saltstone Production Facility and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00027, Revision 0, one Saltstone Disposal Facility waste form was prepared at Savannah River National Laboratory using the Salt Waste Processing Facility Decontaminated Salt Solution and Z-area premix material for the April 2025 semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure sample. The sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash (referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”). Results from the technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion. At 43 days cured, the Saltstone sample was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. The April 2025 semiannual Cement-Free grout sample met the South Carolina Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 61-79.261.24 and 61-79.268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents, and met the Saltstone Production Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria that was in effect at the time of the sample collection at the Salt Waste Processing Facility.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

October 2025 Semiannual Composite Salt Waste Processing Facility Decontaminated Salt Solution Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Results

The aqueous waste from the Salt Waste Processing Facility is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Disposal Facility. Salt solution is treated at the Saltstone Production Facility and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00027, Revision 0, one Saltstone Processing Facility Decontaminated Salt Solution and Z area premix material for the October 2025 semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure sample. The sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash (referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”). Results from the technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion. At 51 days cured, the Saltstone sample was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. The October 2025 Semiannual Cement-Free grout sample met 61 79.268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents and met the Saltstone Production Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria that was in effect at the time of the sample collection at the Salt Waste Processing Facility.

Hsieh, Madison [Savannah River National Laboratory↗

The corrosion behavior of borosilicate glass in the presence of cementitious waste forms

Borosilicate glasses are widely used for radioactive waste disposal due to their ability to incorporate a variety of contaminants and radionuclides while exhibiting high durability in various disposal scenarios. This research evaluated the dissolution of borosilicate glass using both single-pass-flow-through (ASTM C1662-18) and product consistency test (ASTM C1285-21) methods with different solutions, including a cementitious-contacted water (called grout-contacted, GC, from this point) and solutions with varying levels of dissolved cementitious species such as Si, Ca, Al. Here, the results indicated that the presence of Ca plays a crucial role in suppressing glass corrosion, as evidenced by the slower normalized dissolution rates, which were one order of magnitude lower for boron and two orders of magnitude lower for rhenium, observed in both Ca-amended and GC solutions compared to the pH 12 buffer solution. This effect is attributed to the formation of a dense, low-porosity, and strongly bonded calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) layer on the glass surface, which implies that a glass corrosion process is influenced by ion exchange involving alkali ions Na + , K + , Ca 2+ , and hydrogen-containing species. A small number of glass particles treated in the GC solution showed minor corrosion pits in the form of shallow craters with an average diameter of approximately 500 μm. This observation is correlated with a significant reduction, 2000 to 3000 times lower, in the cumulative volume of glass pores, indicating that smaller pore voids were “sealed” in the presence of Ca 2+ ions, likely attributed to the formation of CSH precipitation or other corrosion products such as calcium carbonate saturated from the grout solution. These findings suggest that the presence of dissolved Ca in the GC solution can slow down the dissolution of borosilicate glass, contrary to the expected trend of higher dissolution rates resulting from exposure to high alkaline and thus higher pH solutions.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗