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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

High-level waste (HLW) throughput (i.e., the amount of waste processed per unit of time) is primarily a function of two critical parameters: waste loading (WL) and melt rate. For the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), increasing HLW throughput would significantly reduce the overall mission life cycle costs for the Department of Energy (DOE). Significant increases in waste throughput have been achieved at DWPF since initial radioactive operations began in 1996. Key technical and operational initiatives that supported increased waste throughput included improvements in facility attainment, the Chemical Processing Cell (CPC) flowsheet, process control models and frit formulations. As a result of these key initiatives, DWPF increased WLs from a nominal 28% for Sludge Batch 2 (SB2) to {approx}34 to 38% for SB3 through SB6 while maintaining or slightly improving canister fill times. Although considerable improvements in waste throughput have been obtained, future contractual waste loading targets are nominally 40%, while canister production rates are also expected to increase (to a rate of 325 to 400 canisters per year). Although implementation of bubblers have made a positive impact on increasing melt rate for recent sludge batches targeting WLs in the mid30s, higher WLs will ultimately make the feeds to DWPF more challenging to process. Savannah River Remediation (SRR) recently requested the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to perform a paper study assessment using future sludge projections to evaluate whether the current Process Composition Control System (PCCS) algorithms would provide projected operating windows to allow future contractual WL targets to be met. More specifically, the objective of this study was to evaluate future sludge batch projections (based on Revision 16 of the HLW Systems Plan) with respect to projected operating windows using current PCCS models and associated constraints. Based on the assessments, the waste loading interval over which a glass system (i.e., a projected sludge composition with a candidate frit) is predicted to be acceptable can be defined (i.e., the projected operating window) which will provide insight into the ability to meet future contractual WL obligations. In this study, future contractual WL obligations are assumed to be 40%, which is the goal after all flowsheet enhancements have been implemented to support DWPF operations. For a system to be considered acceptable, candidate frits must be identified that provide access to at least 40% WL while accounting for potential variation in the sludge resulting from differences in batch-to-batch transfers into the Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) and/or analytical uncertainties. In more general terms, this study will assess whether or not the current glass formulation strategy (based on the use of the Nominal and Variation Stage assessments) and current PCCS models will allow access to compositional regions required to targeted higher WLs for future operations. Some of the key questions to be considered in this study include: (1) If higher WLs are attainable with current process control models, are the models valid in these compositional regions? If the higher WL glass regions are outside current model development or validation ranges, is there existing data that could be used to demonstrate model applicability (or lack thereof)? If not, experimental data may be required to revise current models or serve as validation data with the existing models. (2) Are there compositional trends in frit space that are required by the PCCS models to obtain access to these higher WLs? If so, are there potential issues with the compositions of the associated frits (e.g., limitations on the B{sub 2}O{sub 3} and/or Li{sub 2}O concentrations) as they are compared to model development/validation ranges or to the term 'borosilicate' glass? If limitations on the frit compositional range are realized, what is the impact of these restrictions on other glass properties such as the ability to suppress nepheline formation or influence melt rate? The model based assessments being performed make the assumption that the process control models are applicable over the glass compositional regions being evaluated. Although the glass compositional region of interest is ultimately defined by the specific frit, sludge, and WL interval used, there is no prescreening of these compositional regions with respect to the model development or validation ranges which is consistent with current DWPF operations

MAR ASSESSMENTS OF THE HIGH LEVEL WASTE SYSTEM PLAN REVISION 16