Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming of Hanford LAW Using THORsm Mineralizing Technology

Olson, A.L.; Soelberg, Nick; Marshall, Douglas W.; Anderson, Gary L.

doi:10.2172/911005

Cited by 19 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nitrates, nitrites, and organics are destroyed (TTT 2009, Vora et al 2009). Organic nitrogen is converted to N 2 , and organic carbon is converted to CO or CO 2 (Olson et al 2004). In the presence of a reducing agent such as organic carbon, nitrates and nitrites are converted to nitrogen gas (Vora et al 2009).…”

Section: Fbsr Process Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary Waste Form Screening Test Results—THOR® Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming Product in a Geopolymer Matrix

Pires¹,

Westsik²,

Serne³

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryScreening tests are being conducted to evaluate waste forms for immobilizing secondary liquid wastes from the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). Plans are underway to add a stabilization treatment unit to the Effluent Treatment Facility to provide the needed capacity for treating these wastes from WTP. The current baseline is to use a Cast Stone cementitious waste form to solidify the wastes. Through a literature survey, DuraLith alkali-aluminosilicate geopolymer, fluidized-bed steam reformation (FBSR) granular product encapsulated in a geopolymer matrix, and a Ceramicrete phosphatebonded ceramic were identified both as candidate waste forms and alternatives to the baseline. These waste forms have been shown to meet waste disposal acceptance criteria, including compressive strength and universal treatment standards for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals (as measured by the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure [TCLP]). Thus, these non-cementitious waste forms should also be acceptable for land disposal. Information is needed on all four waste forms with respect to their capability to minimize the release of technetium. Technetium is a radionuclide predicted to be in the secondary liquid wastes in small quantities, but the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) risk assessment analyses show that technetium, even at low mass, produces the largest contribution to the estimated IDF disposal impacts to groundwater.To support a final waste form down-selection, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is conducting screening tests on the candidate waste forms to provide a basis for comparison. This report documents the screening test results on the FBSR granular product encapsulated in a geopolymer (GEO-7) matrix. Ultimately, either one or a few waste forms will be chosen in a down-selection process. The down-selected waste form(s) will be compliant with regulations and performance criteria and will lead to cost-effective disposal of the WTP secondary wastes. Later, more comprehensive and longer term performance testing will be conducted, following the guidance provided by the secondary waste form selection, development, and performance evaluation roadmap.Three draft test protocols (e.g., 1313, 1315, and 1316) being developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were used to screen the encapsulated FBSR stabilization technologies. These EPA draft methods are a combination of static and semi-dynamic leach experiments that can be used to provide more detailed mechanistic information on material performance in comparison to the current standard leach methods, such as ANSI/ANS 16.1 and TCLP. The EPA draft Method 1313 is a static-leach test method where extraction experiments are conducted in dilute acid or base with deionized water (DIW) over a range of pHs at a fixed liquid-to-solid ratio. Instead of a dilute acid or base at a fixed liquid-to-solid ratio, draft Method 1316 uses DIW as the leachant for a range of liquid-to-solid ratios. The EPA...

show abstract

Section: Fbsr Process Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary Waste Form Screening Test Results—THOR® Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming Product in a Geopolymer Matrix

Pires¹,

Westsik²,

Serne³

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LAW 1123 bed product was a result of mixing Hanford LAW Envelope A simulant with OptiKasT clay. The LAW FBSR test was run for 55 hours (Olson et al, 2004a). The SBW 1173 bed product was produced by mixing SBW simulant with Sagger XX clay, and resulted from a FBSR test that had a duration of 100 hours (Olson et al, 2004b).…”

Section: Materials Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-Pass Flow Through (SPFT) Testing of Fluidized-Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) Waste Forms

Lorier¹,

Pareizs²,

Jantzen³

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTwo samples of fluidized-bed steam reforming (FBSR) mineral waste form product were subjected to single-pass flow-through (SPFT) testing. Sample LAW 1123 resulted from pilot-scale FBSR processing with a Hanford Envelope A low-activity waste (LAW) simulant. Sample SBW 1173 resulted from pilot-scale FBSR processing with an Idaho National Laboratory (INL) simulant commonly referred to as sodium-bearing waste (SBW). The pilot-scale waste forms were made at the Science and Technology Applications Research (STAR) facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The durability of the two FBSR waste forms was assessed via the SPFT test in this study. Both samples were multiphase mineral waste forms, so the SPFT test results provide an overall release rate from the multiple mineral species in each sample and are dependent on the amount of each phase present and the mineralogy of the phases present. SPFT testing was performed at temperatures of 25°, 40°, 70°, and 90°C on LAW 1123, while SBW 1173 was only tested at 70° and 90°C. The 70° and 90°C data were compared to each other and the LAW-1123 results were compared to previous testing performed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) on a LAW Envelope C (high organic content) waste simulant.The objectives of this study were to obtain forward dissolution rate data for both STAR FBSR bed products (using SPFT tests). Also, a qualitative comparison of the FBSR bed products to a glass waste form (specifically the low-activity reference material (LRM) glass) was performed. For these comparisons, the relative surface areas of the FBSR and glass products had to be measured. Due to the more porous and irregular surface of FBSR bed products, the surface area of the bed products was determined using the Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller (BET) measurement method. The surface area of a glass is much smoother and the calculated geometric surface area is typically used for determining dissolution behavior.Presently there are no specifications or standard release rates that the FBSR tested materials have to meet, e.g. the data from the FBSR testing is normally used during subsequent Performance Assessment (PA) calculations. Since a PA calculation is not part of this study, the LAW and SBW steam reforming samples were compared to each other, to previous LAW FBSR SPFT results, and to the results from the LRM reference glass. The experimental durability data generated from this study suggests that an FBSR mineral waste form product would be an adequate alternative form to borosilicate glass. The tested FBSR mineral waste forms showed normalized release rates for matrix elements such as Si to be more than 200X slower than the LRM glass. However, further durability testing and mineral phase information is recommended to further substantiate these findings.

show abstract

“…This provides a tie-back to the 2008 engineering-scale FBSR tests at HRI by TTT which used the same simulant 29 and the 2004 pilot-scale FBSR tests at SAIC-STAR. 23 Thus, the availability of data from the SRS LAW test, and comparisons to the 2004 SAIC/STAR facility pilot-scale and the 2008 HRI engineering-scale facility test results outlined in Table I will provide an important correlation using actual radionuclides to these previous tests that used surrogates. Building correlations between work with radioactive samples and simulants is critical to being able to conduct future relevant simulant tests, which are more cost effective and environmentally sensitive than tests with radioactive wastes.…”

Section: Mineralization Of Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radioactive Demonstrations of Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) with Hanford Low Activity Wastes

Jantzen

Crawford

Burket

et al. 2013

Advances in Materials Science for Environmental and Energy Technologies II

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming of Hanford LAW Using THORsm Mineralizing Technology

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Secondary Waste Form Screening Test Results—THOR® Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming Product in a Geopolymer Matrix

Secondary Waste Form Screening Test Results—THOR® Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming Product in a Geopolymer Matrix

Single-Pass Flow Through (SPFT) Testing of Fluidized-Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) Waste Forms

Radioactive Demonstrations of Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) with Hanford Low Activity Wastes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About