FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMER (FBSR) PRODUCT: MONOLITH FORMATION AND CHARACTERIZATION

The most important requirement for Hanford's low activity waste (LAW) form for shallow land disposal is the chemical durability of the product. A secondary, but still essential specification, is the compressive strength of the material with regards to the strength of the material under shallow land disposal conditions, e.g. the weight of soil overburden and potential intrusion by future generations, because the term ''near-surface disposal'' indicates disposal in the uppermost portion, or approximately the top 30 meters, of the earth's surface. The THOR{reg_sign} Treatment Technologies (TTT) mineral waste form for LAW is granular in nature because it is formed by Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR). As a granular product it has been shown to be as durable as Hanford's LAW glass during testing with ASTM C-1285-02 known as the Product Consistency Test (PCT) and with the Single Pass Flow Through Test (SPFT). Hanford Envelope A and Envelope C simulants both performed well during PCT and SPFT testing and during subsequent performance assessment modeling. This is partially due to the high aluminosilicate content of the mineral product which provides a natural aluminosilicate buffering mechanism that inhibits leaching and is known to occur in naturally occurring aluminosilicate mineral analogs. In order for the TTT Na-Al-Si (NAS) granular mineral product to meet the compressive strength requirements (ASTM C39) for a Hanford waste form, the granular product needs to be made into a monolith or disposed of in High Integrity Containers (HIC's). Additionally, the Hanford intruder scenario for disposal in the Immobilized Low Activity Waste (ILAW) trench is mitigated as there is reduced intruder exposure when a waste form is in a monolithic form. During the preliminary testing of a monolith binder for TTT's FBSR mineral product, four parameters were monitored: (1) waste loading (not optimized for each waste form tested); (2) density; (3) compressive strength; and (4) durability must not be compromised--binding agent should not react with the NAS product and binding agent should not create an unfavorable pH environment that may cause accelerated leaching. It is the goal of the present study to survey cementitious waste forms based on Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), Ceramicrete, and hydroceramic binders by correlating waste loading, density and compressive strength and then determine if these binders affect the product performance in terms of the PCT response. This will be done by making a one-to-one comparison of the PCT response measured on granular NAS mineral product (mixed bed and fines products) with the PCT response of the monolithed NAS product in the different binders. Future studies may include, refining the above binders, and examining other binders. It is likely that binders formed from kaolin would be most compatible with the chemistry of the THOR{reg_sign} mineral waste form which is made by steam reforming of kaolin and sodium rich wastes. The economics of production on a large scale have yet to be investigated for any of the binders tested.

[1]  N. E. Bibler,et al.  Characterization of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Environmental Assessment (EA) glass standard reference material , 1992 .

[2]  Carol M. Jantzen,et al.  Fluidized Bed Steam Reformed (FBSR) Mineral Waste Forms: Characterization and Durability Testing , 2006 .

[3]  D. A. Burbank.  Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Immobilized Low Activity Waste (ILAW) Disposal Facility , 2002 .

[4]  E. Teller,et al.  ADSORPTION OF GASES IN MULTIMOLECULAR LAYERS , 1938 .

[5]  W. Ebert.  The effects of the glass surface area/solution volume ratio on glass corrosion: A critical review , 1995 .

[6]  M. Steindler,et al.  Extended leach studies of actinide-doped SRL 131 glass , 1982 .

[7]  B. Mcgrail,et al.  Waste package component interactions with Savannah River defense waste glass in a low-magnesium salt brine , 1986 .

[8]  F. Lea.  The chemistry of cement and concrete , 1970 .

[9]  David R. Clarke,et al.  Leaching of polyphase nuclear waste ceramics: microstructural and phase characterization , 1982 .

[10]  S. Wolf,et al.  The Release of Technetium from Defense Waste Processing Facility Glasses , 1995 .

[11]  N. Godon,et al.  Leaching of Actinides from Nuclear Waste Glass: French Experience , 1991 .

[12]  I. Neretnieks,et al.  Atmospheric oxidation of the pyritic waste rock in Maardu, Estonia, 2: an assessment of aluminosilicate buffering potential , 2000 .

[13]  C. M. Jantzen,et al.  Characterization and Performance of Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) Product as a Final Waste Form , 2003 .

[14]  John K. Bates,et al.  Product Consistency Leach Tests of Savannah River Site Radioactive Waste Glasses , 1989 .

[15]  Ic Moore,et al.  Atomic Absorption Analysis of Portland Cement and Raw Mix Using a Lithium Metaborate Fusion , 1973 .

[16]  Arlin L. Olson,et al.  Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming of Hanford LAW Using THORsm Mineralizing Technology , 2004 .

[17]  J. F. Sproull,et al.  Waste acceptance product specifications for vitrified high-level waste forms. Revision 1 , 1993 .

[18]  Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry.  Standard Test Methods for Determining Chemical Durability of Nuclear, Hazardous, and Mixed Waste Glasses and Multiphase Glass Ceramics: The Product Consistency Test (PCT) 1 , 2002 .

[19]  Yun Bao,et al.  Preparation and Properties of Hydroceramic Waste Forms Made with Simulated Hanford Low-Activity Waste , 2005 .

[20]  Nicholas R. Soelberg.  Phase 2 THOR Steam Reforming Tests for Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment , 2004 .

[21]  D. J. Bradley,et al.  Leaching of actinides and technetium from simulated high-level waste glass , 1979 .

[22]  M. Maloney,et al.  Investigations in Ceramicrete Stabilization of Hanford Tank Wastes , 2003 .

[23]  John H. Bullock,et al.  Analytical methods utilized by the United States Geological Survey for the analysis of coal and coal combustion by-products , 2002 .

[24]  J. M. Pareizs,et al.  Single-Pass Flow Through (SPFT) Testing of Fluidized-Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) Waste Forms , 2005 .

[25]  A. Jurgensen,et al.  Leaching Tc-99 from SRP glass in simulated tuff and salt groundwaters , 1987 .

[26]  R. Aines,et al.  Leaching of actinide-doped nuclear waste glass in a tuff-dominated system , 1987 .

[27]  Carol M. Jantzen,et al.  DURABILITY TESTING OF FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMER (FBSR) WASTE FORMS , 2006 .

[28]  S. Fillet,et al.  Leaching of Actinides from the French LWR Reference Glass , 1985 .

[29]  Herbert T. Schaef,et al.  Laboratory Testing of Bulk Vitrified and Steam Reformed Low-Activity Waste Forms to Support A Preliminary Risk Assessment for an Integrated Disposal Facility , 2003 .