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

The current baseline assumption is that packaging ¡§as is¡¨ and direct disposal of high level waste (HLW) calcine in a Monitored Geologic Repository will be allowed. The fall back position is to develop a stabilized waste form for the HLW calcine, that will meet repository waste acceptance criteria currently in place, in case regulatory initiatives are unsuccessful. A decision between direct disposal or a stabilization alternative is anticipated by June 2006. The purposes of this Engineering Design File (EDF) are to provide a pre-conceptual design on three low temperature processes under development for stabilization of high level waste calcine (i.e., the grout, hydroceramic grout, and iron phosphate ceramic processes) and to support a down selection among the three candidates. The key assumptions for the pre-conceptual design assessment are that a) a waste treatment plant would operate over eight years for 200 days a year, b) a design processing rate of 3.67 m3/day or 4670 kg/day of HLW calcine would be needed, and c) the performance of waste form would remove the HLW calcine from the hazardous waste category, and d) the waste form loadings would range from about 21-25 wt% calcine. The conclusions of this EDF study are that: (a) To date, the grout formulation appears to be the best candidate stabilizer among the three being tested for HLW calcine and appears to be the easiest to mix, pour, and cure. (b) Only minor differences would exist between the process steps of the grout and hydroceramic grout stabilization processes. If temperature control of the mixer at about 80„aC is required, it would add a major level of complexity to the iron phosphate stabilization process. (c) It is too early in the development program to determine which stabilizer will produce the minimum amount of stabilized waste form for the entire HLW inventory, but the volume is assumed to be within the range of 12,250 to 14,470 m3. (d) The stacked vessel height of the hot process vessels in the hydroceramic grout process (i.e., 21 m) appears to be about the same as that estimated by the Direct Cementitious Waste Process in 1998, for which a conceptual design was developed. Some of the conceptual design efforts in the 1998 study may be applicable to the stabilizer processes addressed in this EDF. (e) The gamma radiation fields near the process vessels handling HLW calcine would vary from a range of about 300-350 R/hr at a distance of 2.5 cm from the side of the vessels to a range of about 50-170 R/hr at a distance of 100 cm from the side of the vessels. The calculations were made for combined calcine, which was defined as the total HLW calcine inventory uniformly mixed. (f) The gamma radiation fields near the stabilized waste in canisters would range from about 25-170 R/hr at 2.5 cm from the side of the canister and 5-35 R/hr at 100 cm from the side of the canister, depending on the which bin set was the source of calcine

Process Design Concepts for Stabilization of High Level Waste Calcine