Results for “HLW”

DOE OSTI2020

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW PPT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Co-Disposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW - 20331

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2016

U.S. Senate Bill S.854-IS - A Maladjusted Politicized Maze for Consent-Based Siting of New HLW-Repositories - 16019

At the end of 2015, the USA's HLW-disposal program had been on hold since 2010 pending the enactment of enabling legislation for one or both of: 1) The Yucca Mountain HLW repository; and/or 2) The law proposed in Senate Bill S.854-IS 'to establish a new organization to manage nuclear waste, provide a consensual process for siting nuclear waste facilities, ensure adequate funding for managing nuclear waste, and for other purposes'. But, S.854-IS does not acknowledge the existence of the Yucca Mountain HLW repository, which, if re-enabled, would affect both when another HLW repository would be needed and its disposal capacity. Furthermore, it neither timely nor meaningfully integrates waste generators, facility-host(s) and other directly affected parties with the new 'implementing' organizations deemed to be more susceptible to political influence and interferences than those plaguing the Yucca Mountain HLW repository program since 1987 that resulted in a multitude of contentions, lawsuits, delays, and increased costs. For these and other reasons very compelling and conclusive to the author, the legal status of the YM HLW repository should be 'definitive' before a law based upon S.854-IS is enacted. Instead, the near-term focus should be on: 1. Defining 'consent-based' quantitatively. 2. Promptly siting and opening at least one large, expandable, 'consolidated' HLW-storage facility allowing the government to begin taking title to commercially-generated HLW; most-expeditiously accomplished by amending existing legislation. 3. Updating S.854-IS based on lessons learned about siting, developing, and licensing nuclear-waste-storage and -disposal facilities in the USA and abroad the past 30+ years. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types, such as light- and heavy-water-moderated reactors, graphite-moderated reactors, and breeder reactors, with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and condition of SNF, a robust canister termed the DOE Standardized SNF Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard SNF Canister had four variations consisting of a 10- or 15-foot length and an 18- or 24-inch diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository these canisters were to be grouped with 24-inch diameter HLW canisters in a codisposal waste package. The 18-inch DOE Standardized SNF Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The 24-inch DOE Standardized SNF Canister would take the place of one the five HLW canister on the outer ring in the codisposal waste package. No DOE Standardized SNF Canisters have been loaded, and many fuel types can be loaded in multiple canisters. Depending on the selected diameter of the DOE Standardized SNF Canister for a particular fuel, the number of potential codisposal waste packages could vary. In addition, different types of DOE SNF may be able to be combined in a single canister. This could significantly change the number of DOE SNF canisters that are loaded and result in a decrease of the number of total potential codisposal waste packages. Ultimately, if too many HLW canisters need disposition, then a reduction in the number of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters will change the final total of codisposal waste packages very little. Likewise, if the ratio of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters to HLW canister produced is too high, then DOE Standardized SNF Canisters will not have enough HLW canisters to surround them in the codisposal waste package. This paper examines the results of differing loading strategies for a few DOE SNFs. It also compares the ranges of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters that may be produced to the ranges of HLW canisters that may be produced in order to determine potential scenarios.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2017

Support for HLW Direct Feed - Phase 2, VSL-15R3440-1

This report describes work performed to develop and test new glass and feed formulations originating from a potential flow-sheet for the direct vitrification of High Level Waste (HLW) with minimal or no pretreatment. In the HLW direct feed option that is under consideration for early operations at the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), the pretreatment facility would be bypassed in order to support an earlier start-up of the vitrification facility. For HLW, this would mean that the ultrafiltration and caustic leaching operations that would otherwise have been performed in the pretreatment facility would either not be performed or would be replaced by an interim pretreatment function (in-tank leaching and settling, for example). These changes would likely affect glass formulations and waste loadings and have impacts on the downstream vitrification operations. Modification of the pretreatment process may result in: (i) Higher aluminum contents if caustic leaching is not performed; (ii) Higher chromium contents if oxidative leaching is not performed; (iii) A higher fraction of supernate in the HLW feed resulting from the lower efficiency of in-tank washing; and (iv) A higher water content due to the likely lower effectiveness of in-tank settling compared to ultrafiltration. The HLW direct feed option has also been proposed as a potential route for treating HLW streams that contain the highest concentrations of fast-settling plutoniumcontaining particles, thereby avoiding some of the potential issues associated with such particles in the WTP Pretreatment facility [1]. In response, the work presented herein focuses on the impacts of increased supernate and water content on wastes from one of the candidate source tanks for the direct feed option that is high in plutonium.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2026

Direct vitrification of HLW: evaluation of candidate source tanks

The initial objective of the present work was to review Hanford HLW compositions to identify HLW streams that are good candidates for the HLW direct feed vitrification option. Another objective was to develop and identify HLW glass compositions and glass forming additive blends for vitrification of two HLW streams identified from the review that could be treated with little or no washing or other pretreatment and would be, therefore, good direct feed candidates. The HLW glass compositions and additive blends were developed to maintain high waste loadings, high processing rates, and acceptable product glass properties. This was accomplished through a combination of crucible-scale and DM100 melter system tests.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

Direct Vitrification of HLW [Final Report]

This report describes work performed to develop and test new glass and feed formulations to support the direct vitrification of High Level Waste (HLW) with minimal or no pretreatment. In the HLW direct feed option that is under consideration for early operations of the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), the pretreatment facility would be bypassed in order to support an earlier start-up of the vitrification facility. For HLW, this would mean that the ultrafiltration and caustic leaching operations that would otherwise have been performed in the pretreatment facility would either not be performed or would be replaced by an interim pretreatment function (in-tank leaching and settling, for example). These changes would likely affect glass formulations and waste loadings and have impacts on the downstream vitrification operations. The primary objective of the work described herein was to develop and identify HLW glass compositions and glass forming additive blends for vitrification of two optimized candidate HLW blends which have undergone little or no washing with no other pretreatment, while maintaining high waste loadings, high processing rates, and acceptable glass properties. This was accomplished through a combination of crucible-scale tests, vertical gradient furnace (VGF) tests, and confirmation tests on the DM100 melter system.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

Vitrification Testing of HLW with High Phosphate

Projections of the number of high level waste (HLW) canisters to be produced in the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) (e.g., [1]) are based upon the inventory of the tank wastes, the anticipated performance of the sludge treatment processes, and current understanding of the capability of the borosilicate glass waste form. The WTP HLW melter design, unlike earlier Department of Energy (DOE) melter designs, incorporates a glass bubbler system. The bubblers create active glass pool mixing and thereby improve heat and mass transfer and glass melting rate. The WTP HLW melters each have a glass surface area of 3.75 m 2 and depth of ~1.1 m. The two melters in the HLW facility together are designed to produce up to 7.5 MT of glass per day at 100% availability. Further increases in HLW waste processing rates can potentially be achieved by optimization of the feed and glass formulations, increasing the melter operating temperature above 1150⁰C, and by increasing the waste loading in the glass product. Increasing the waste loading also has the added benefit of decreasing the number of canisters for storage.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Novel Foaming Solutions for High Level Waste (HLW) Processing - 20195

Foaming occurs during treatment of high level waste (HLW) at Savannah River Site's Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) in the Chemical Process Cell (CPC) due to high gas generation from process steam and chemical offgas products [1]. The presence of amphiphilic particles in the waste slurry stabilizes the foam [2], [3]. Efficient processing of HLW requires foam control, as foam-overs lead to lower productivity and potential radioactive contamination of condensate streams. DWPF currently employs Siovation Antifoam 747, a surfactant produced by Momentive Performance Materials, as an antifoaming agent during waste treatment. Despite its ability to control foam generation, processing issues have arisen from its use [4]. During DWPF chemical processing, a chemical antifoam agent must be effective at temperatures up to 103 deg. C between pH 3-13. Antifoam 747 is effective at pH 7 but degrades as pH deviates [5]. Antifoam 747 is 90% by weight Momentive{sup TM} L77 and 10% by weight Momentive{sup TM} Y-17580. These ingredients are trisiloxane products, which are especially vulnerable to attack in acidic and caustic environments. Since Antifoam 747 readily degrades, periodic addition is required. Several processing concerns related to Antifoam 747 have affected DWPF operation. Its overuse warranted concern of potential flammable melter offgas under upset conditions due to the generation of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. As a result, a Potential Inadequacy in the Safety Analysis (PISA) was declared [6]. Antifoam contribution has been included in the melter offgas flammability strategy and the quantity of antifoam is monitored to ensure limits are not exceeded. Testing at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) determined that propanal, tri-methylsilanol, and hexamethyldisiloxane are generated as Antifoam 747 degrades, leading to a second PISA [7]. The formation of these byproducts poses additional flammability risks. Furthermore, the methyl and ethyl groups of these compounds may be responsible for the formation of the methyl and ethyl mercury discovered in DWPF [8], [9]. The formation of organomercury has specifically been called out by DOE as a need for increased research. The effectiveness of non-chemical methods for foam control and the efficiency of alternative antifoam agents were evaluated as part of an effort to improve HLW treatment operations at DWPF and to reduce, or eliminate, the flammability hazards associated with Antifoam 747 currently in use. Foaming of high-level waste (HLW) slurries is an issue at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC) which is currently mitigated with a chemical antifoam agent. The effectiveness of non-chemical methods for foam control and the efficiency of alternative antifoams were examined to improve HLW treatment at DWPF and to eliminate the flammability hazards associated with Siovation Antifoam 747 currently in use. Non-chemical foam control methods were deemed unviable for chemical processing at DWPF, as the spray/mist technique requires too much water and space limitations make installation and implementation of headspace agitators unfeasible. The use of ultrasonic energy thickened and further stabilized the foam. Two suitable alternative defoaming agents, Momentive{sup TM} Y- 17112 and Evonik Surfynol{sup R} MD-20, were identified. Both defoamers control foam over a pH range of 4- 13 at boiling, with no flammable degradation products, and only minimal quantities (100-200 mg/kg) are required under glycolic acid conditions. In order to validate the effectiveness of these defoaming agents, SRNL recommends irradiation testing and laboratory scale SRAT/SME experiments with actual radioactive waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2018

Regional Geologic Evaluations for Disposal of HLW and SNF: Alluvial Basins of the Basin and Range Province

The DOE Spent Fuel and Waste Technology (SFWT) R&D Campaign supports research on crystalline rock, shale (argillite) and salt as potential host rocks for disposal of HLW and SNF in a mined geologic repository. Modeling involving these host rocks for the generic GDSA reference cases has assumed saturated conditions at repository depths. In order to test two-phase flow capabilities of the GDSA flow and transport models, the SFWT Campaign is developing an unsaturated zone reference case. Alluvial basin-fill deposits within the Basin and Range province have unsaturated zones that can be as thick as 600 meters, although the thickness is typically much less. Basin-fill alluvium has been considered as a potential medium for HLW disposal in the US since the 1950s (NAS,1957; Smyth et al., 1979; Winograd, 1981). Attributes considered favorable for HLW disposal in alluvium in the Basin and Range province include an arid environment, low water flux , high sorption capacity (from clay s and zeolites), and ease of construction and stability of repository openings (Hardin et al., 2012). Hardin et al. (2012) also address the thermal issues inherent in the design of a HLW repository in alluvium with low thermal conductivity, which are not discussed in this report.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Sludge Processing Options for early HLW Treatment at Hanford

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site has 177 underground storage tanks that contain wastes from past nuclear fuel reprocessing and waste-management operations. Over 20% of this waste is in the form of an insoluble sludge that will require solids concentration and washing prior to vitrification for long-term disposal. An assessment of potential flowsheet operations to support feed preparation activities prior to high level waste (HLW) vitrification has been conducted to better evaluate pretreatment processing options. Settling studies assessing the baseline approach of a settle-decant method were explored as well as a crossflow filtration system to be used alternatively for concentrating and washing HLW sludge. Significant variations in behavior of settling rates and sludge characteristics give reason to evaluate alternative pretreatment options for the HLW. Non-radioactive sludge containing iron oxide, boehmite, and gibbsite were evaluated via gravity settling and crossflow filtration to determine the behavior of these compounds in various tank waste matrices. Understanding the predictive capabilities of HLW solids settling as well as sludge concentration via crossflow filtration can help provide technical guidance during flowsheet planning.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Enhanced HLW Glass Property-Composition Models – Phase 2

As a continuation of the Phase 1 HLW model development work as part of a phased approach to enhance and expand HLW glass property-composition models, additional data were collected for the HLW glass dataset and used to revise the models developed during Phase 1. These data are for glasses that are collectively referred to as ORP-2014 glasses. The sources of additional data for the Phase 2 work included: (i) actively designed glasses formulated to support various glass studies at VSL since the completion of Phase 1; and (ii) glasses from two statistically designed matrices to supplement the existing HLW compositional space. The Phase 2 matrix design was intended to augment and improve the coverage in the high aluminum region.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2026

Enhancement of HLW glass property-composition models

Since the WTP compositional space of HLW glasses is extremely large, development of HLW property-composition models is a multi-year task consisting of multiple phases. The primary focus of this work was to enhance the WTP HLW models of interest including PCT releases, spinel crystallization (T1%), viscosity, electrical conductivity, and TCLP-Cd response. Model development to predict nepheline formation upon CCC is the subject of a separate task. In particular, the earlier work has produced property-composition models for glass melt viscosity and glass melt electrical conductivity that showed good performance, while models for PCT releases and spinel crystallization (T1%) required improvement. Therefore, more efforts were directed in the present work to collect data and improve model performance for HLW glass PCT releases and spinel crystallization than for other properties. The present work is a continuation of earlier development phases and is responsive to the applicable Test Plan.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

A Bottom's-Up Model for Siting and Developing Consent-Based Disposal Solutions for SNF and HLW in the USA - 17332

At the end of 2016, the licensing and continued development of the USA's only candidate HLW-repository since 1987 at the Yucca Mountain (YM) site in Nevada had been on hold since 2010 pending the enactment of enabling legislation for one or more of the following paths forward: 1. Re-start of the YM HLW repository. 2. Consent-based siting and development (S and D) of new HLW-repositories for commingled disposal of commercially- (CHLW) and defense-generated (DHLW) HLW. 3. Consent-based S and D of a repository and/or deep boreholes for DHLW only. Public trust in the implementing and regulating entities and a definitive say in an apolitical S and D process by the directly affected parties (DAPs) are historical imperatives for gaining public acceptance and maintaining sustained support of any or all of them. However, due to the widespread negative legacy currently attributed to past politically-controlled S and D organizations, an even more politically controlled organizational structure and an amorphous, 'consent-based', S and D model like that introduced twice in proposed Senate bills since June 2013 will exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the main root causes to past contentions, lawsuits, delays, and cost-increases. We therefore recommend: 1) Assigning the responsibility for safe disposal of CHLW to an independent, chartered public corporation with requisite subject-matter expertise and adequate financial resources. 2) Enacting a related law that: a. Defines 'consent-based' in measurable terms; b. Assigns irrevocable veto rights to facility host state(s) based upon the majority opinion of its legal residents at pre-determined S and D milestones. c. Requires Congressional approval before the facility can open and close. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Progress in demonstrating the performance of Engineered Barriers for the disposal of HLW and SNF: lab studies and demonstration experiments - 20293

Disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuels (SNF) in a geological disposal facility requires a fundamental understanding of the degradation processes of materials used in its engineered barrier system (EBS) over very long timescales. Beyond the wasteform itself (i.e. the borosilicate glass for HLW or the fuel matrix and cladding for SNF), materials often employed in a disposal concept include metallic containers (typically copper and/or carbon steel) and clay-based buffer materials (typically bentonite). In this paper we explore key developments on the long-term evolution of materials employed for the immobilisation, isolation and containment of HLW and SNF in a geological disposal facility, including nuclear glasses, candidate container materials and clay buffers. Our discussion is based on the latest findings from both experimental studies and in-situ demonstration experiments. We present relevant findings from the long-term evolution of HLW glasses (UK composition), metallic materials for the containment system (envisaged in Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and other countries), and bentonite clays (envisaged in many national disposal programmes). (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Effects of He Ion Irradiation in Simple Borosilicate Glasses for HLW Immobilisation - 20324

High-level radioactive waste (HLW) consists of fission products and minor actinides. Borosilicate glass is the host material of choice in most countries to safely immobilize HLW, followed by eventual geological disposal. HLW glasses will experience both self-heating and self-irradiation effects due to the decay of fission products and minor actinides present therein. During the first 500 years of geological disposal, beta-gamma decay will be the main source of radiation due to short half-lives of fission products, as compared to very long-lived actinides which will be responsible for irradiation over much longer timescales. High-energy alpha particles and alpha recoil nuclei can potentially have significant impact (stored energy, volume change, accumulated dose, chemical durability) on the performance of the wasteform over longer timescales. Thus, to ensure safe and economic disposal over geological periods (10{sup 4} - 10{sup 6} years), the assessment of performance and properties in terms of radiation effects becomes indispensable. This work aims to simulate the effects of alpha decay in radioactive waste glasses. Two international glasses, namely UK 'MW' lithium-sodium borosilicate and Indian sodium-barium borosilicate, which are being used as HLW immobilization matrices by the UK and India respectively, were prepared by a melt-quench method and annealed below their glass transition temperatures. Both glasses were irradiated with 650 KeV He{sup 2+} ions with doses ranging from 10{sup 15} to 10{sup 17} ions/cm{sup 2}. Structural analysis was carried out using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) and Raman spectroscopies. First derivative continuous wave EPR spectra were recorded for all pristine and irradiated glass monoliths at room temperature using an X-band (frequency 9.6 GHz) EPR Bruker spectrometer. Results from EPR analyses showed the formation of irradiation induced paramagnetic centers at g ∼ 2.00 in all irradiated glasses. Raman spectra of pristine and irradiated samples were acquired, and showed notable changes in glass structure post-irradiation, with the emergence of a broad Raman band at 1560 cm{sup -1} upon irradiation with high fluences. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2022

The Effects of Mixing Multi-Component HLW Glasses on Spinel Crystal Size

The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant will vitrify radioactive waste into borosilicate glass. The high-level waste (HLW) glass formulations are constrained by processing and property requirements, including restrictions aimed at avoiding detrimental impacts of spinel crystallization in the melter. To understand the impact of glass chemistry on crystallization, two HLW glasses precipitating small (?5 µm) spinel crystals were individually mixed with a glass that precipitated large (?45 µm) spinel crystals in ratios of 25, 50, and 75 wt%. The size of spinel crystals in the mixed glasses varied from 5 to 20 µm. Small crystal size was attributed to: (1) high concentrations of nuclei due to the presence of ruthenium oxide and (2) chromium oxide aiding high rates of nucleation. Results indicate that the spinel crystal size can be controlled using chromium oxide and/or noble metal concentrations in the melt, even in complex mixtures like HLW glasses. Small crystals tend to settle slowly, so they are acceptable in the melter without a risk of failure. Allowing higher concentrations of spinel-forming waste components in the waste glass enables glass compositions with higher waste loading, thus increasing plant operational flexibility. An additional benefit to the presence of chromium oxide in the glass composition is the potential for the oxide to protect melter walls against corrosion.

Lonergan, Charmayne E.↗

DOE OSTI2024

Noble Metals Testing on the DM1200 Pilot Melter System with AZ-101 HLW Simulants, VSL-03R3740-2, Rev. 0

This report documents the results obtained with respect to the behavior of noble metals in tests on the DM1200 HLW Pilot Melter during processing of simulated HLW AZ-101 feed. The principal objective of these tests was to collect data to determine the extent of retention of noble metals in the melter since that is an important uncertainty in determining the expected life of the WTP HLW melter. The present results constitute one part of an integrated testing strategy that has been developed to address this risk.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗