| Publication Date |
2004 |
| Personal Author |
Herman, C.C.; Edwards, T. B.; Peeler, D. K. |
| Page Count |
72 |
| Abstract |
Several alternatives to the use of monosodium titanate (MST) are being examined to affect enhanced performance in both the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) and the Actinide Removal Process (ARP) facilities. The currently available (and baseline) material, MST, exhibits lower capacity and removal kinetics, particularly for plutonium, than that desired in the pretreatment of SRS waste solutions. An increase in the removal capacity and kinetics would reduce the risk of batches of decontaminated supernate not meeting saltstone waste acceptance criteria. Enhanced performance would also serve to increase processing throughput by decreasing the required batch contact time. However, the introduction of any actinide removal/sorbent stream results in downstream impacts to the Defense Waste Processing Facility's (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC) and projected operating windows--such impacts are the focus of this report. The specific alternative sorbent streams evaluated were: (1) optimized MST, (2) Engineered MST Case A (internal gelation process), (3) Engineered MST Case B (internal hydrolysis process), and (4) In-Situ Mixed Iron Oxide (ISMIO). All of the alternative sorbents were compared to the baseline MST stream. Based on the assessments performed and the assumptions made for this study, all of the options being considered are plausible from a DWPF CPC and glass formulation perspective. |
| Keywords |
|
| Source Agency |
|
| Corporate Authors |
Savannah River National Lab., Aiken, SC.; Department of Energy, Washington, DC. |
| Supplemental Notes |
Sponsored by Department of Energy, Washington, DC. |
| Document Type |
Technical Report |
| NTIS Issue Number |
200515 |
