Removal of cesium from uranium recovery process wastes

A summary of available information on ferrocyanide tank wastes

“…Following initial favorable results obtained by Mound Laboratory (1951) researchers, extensive bench-scale tests of the applicability of and conditions for ferrocyanide scavenging of 137Cs from alkaline Metal Recovery Process wastes were performed by Burns, Brandt, and Clifford (1954). These tests confirmed that precipitation of several metal, e.g., nickel, copper, zinc, etc., ferrocyanides would reduce 137Cs concentrations to or below the 0.1 I_Ci/mL criterion.…”

“…Early on in the development of the Uranium Recovery Process it was recognized that the • process would generate millions of gallons of waste, which would have to be either stored in underground tanks or otherwise disposed of (Burns, Brandt, and Clifford 1954). Then, as now, tank storage capacity at the Hanford Site was at a premium.…”

Ferrocyanide safety project: Comparison of actual and simulated ferrocyanide waste properties

“…All of these studies employed laboratory preparations of sodium nickel ferrocyanide, which is the likely form of ferrocyanide precipitated during scavenging operations, and/or simulated Hanford ferrocyanide wastes produced using the scavenging flowsheets (Burns et al 1954;Smith and Coppinger 1954;Stedwell 1954;Sloat 1955). Given that the Hanford ferrocyanide wastes have been stored more than 30 years in a harsh chemical environment and exposed to high doses of radiation, the potential is great that the chemical nature of the originally precipitated ferrocyanide will have changed or aged.…”

Analysis report for 241-BY-104 auger samples

“…Tests shoved (Burns 1954 andSatth 1954) that metal ferrocyantdes have a good aff|ntty for cesttm. If Introduced tnto slightly bastc waste solutions, these compounds cause the cestun to precipitate prtmrtly as sodtun ntckel cestum ferrocyantde [NaCsNtFe(CN)e ].…”