1997
DOI: 10.2172/16875
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chemical and chemically-related considerations associated with sluicing tank C-106 waste to tank AY-102

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…PUREX sludge from the AR vault (AR) Washed PUREX sludge (AR) 64 PUREX cladding waste (CWP) 34 Schreiber (1996) and Reynolds (1997) discussed the origins of the waste in tank 241-C-106. Their conclusions, which are based on the review of historical operations records, the physical appearance of cores, and analytical work on grab samples, are summarized in Table 2-1.…”
Section: Waste Layersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…PUREX sludge from the AR vault (AR) Washed PUREX sludge (AR) 64 PUREX cladding waste (CWP) 34 Schreiber (1996) and Reynolds (1997) discussed the origins of the waste in tank 241-C-106. Their conclusions, which are based on the review of historical operations records, the physical appearance of cores, and analytical work on grab samples, are summarized in Table 2-1.…”
Section: Waste Layersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their conclusions, which are based on the review of historical operations records, the physical appearance of cores, and analytical work on grab samples, are summarized in Table 2-1. The composition of the lower three layers is based on historical information and observations of the 1986 core (Weiss and Schull 1988, Schreiber 1996, Reynolds 1997, Bailey 1999. The conclusion that these layers originated from washed Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) process sludge (AR), PUREX cladding waste (CWP), and uranium recovery waste (UR) is relatively secure.…”
Section: Waste Layersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The previous thermal analyses for Project \V-320 used a conservative fluffing factor of 2.0. A review of all available data resulted in a best estimate value of 1.4 (Reynolds 1997). Previous analyses used 241-C-106 heat loads ranging from 110,000 to 132,400 B t u h .…”
Section: Best Estimate Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This evaluation used conservative values for important physical properties including waste fluffing factor and tank 241-C-106 total heat load. A review ofthese and other thermal parameters was conducted and a set of best estimate values were established (Reynolds 1997). A thermal evaluation oftank 241-AY-102, which supports the process control for 241-AY-102, has been performed using this set ofbest estimate parameters.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%