English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A testing program evaluating actual tank waste was developed in response to Task 4 from the M-12 External Flowsheet Review Team (EFRT) issue response plan (Barnes and Voke 2006). The test program was subdivided into logical increments. The bulk water-insoluble solid wastes that are anticipated to be delivered to the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were identified according to type such that the actual waste testing could be targeted to the relevant categories. Under test plan TP RPP WTP 467 (Fiskum et al. 2007), eight broad waste groupings were defined. Samples available from the 222S archive were identified and obtained for testing. Under this test plan, a waste testing program was implemented that included: • Homogenizing the archive samples by group as defined in the test plan. • Characterizing the homogenized sample groups. • Performing parametric leaching testing on each group for compounds of interest. • Performing bench-top filtration/leaching tests in the hot cell for each group to simulate filtration and leaching activities if they occurred in the UFP2 vessel of the WTP Pretreatment Facility. This report focuses on a filtration/leaching test performed using two of the eight waste composite samples. The sample groups examined in this report were the plutonium-uranium extraction (PUREX) cladding waste sludge (Group 3, or CWP) and reduction-oxidation (REDOX) cladding waste sludge (Group 4, or CWR). Both the Group 3 and 4 waste composites were anticipated to be high in gibbsite, thus requiring caustic leaching. WTP RPT 167 (Snow et al. 2008) describes the homogenization, characterization, and parametric leaching activities before benchtop filtration/leaching testing of these two waste groups. Characterization and initial parametric data in that report were used to plan a single filtration/leaching test using a blend of both wastes. The test focused on filtration testing of the waste and caustic leaching for aluminum, in the form of gibbsite, and its impact on filtration. The initial sample was diluted with a liquid simulant to simulate the receiving concentration of retrieved tank waste into the UFP2 vessel (< 10 wt% undissolved solids). Filtration testing was performed on the dilute waste sample and dewatered to a higher solids concentration. Filtration testing was then performed on the concentrated slurry. Afterwards, the slurry was caustic leached to remove aluminum present in the undissolved solid present in the waste. The leach was planned to simulate leaching conditions in the UFP2 vessel. During the leach, slurry supernate samples were collected to measure the dissolution rate of aluminum in the waste. After the slurry cooled down from the elevated leach temperature, the leach liquor was dewatered from the solids. The remaining slurry was rinsed and dewatered with caustic solutions to remove a majority of the dissolved aluminum from the leached slurry. The concentration of sodium hydroxide in the rinse solutions was high enough to maintain the solubility of the aluminum in the dewatered rinse solutions after dilution of the slurry supernate. Filtration tests were performed on the final slurry to compare to filtration performance before and after caustic leaching

Filtration and Leach Testing for PUREX Cladding Sludge and REDOX Cladding Sludge Actual Waste Sample Composites