Caustic Leaching of Hanford Tank S-110 Sludge

Lumetta, Gregg J.; Carson, Katharine J.; P, Darnell, Lori; Greenwood, Lawrence R.; Hoopes, F. V.; Sell, Rachel L.; Sinkov, Sergey I.; Soderquist, Chuck Z.; Urie, Michael W.; Wagner, J.J.

doi:10.2172/965704

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When Lumetta's data are plotted with the boehmite leaching data from these tests, as shown in Figure 2.14, B3 and B5 match the closest. Lumetta et al (2001). When the boehmite simulant results are plotted with the data from Lumetta (as shown in Table 2.5 and Figure 2.14), B3 and B5 match the results from tank waste S-101 and S-110 (high boehmite containing tank waste) the best.…”

Section: Screening Leach Testmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Each sample consisted of 5-mL supernatant, which was filtered through a 0.45-μm syringe filter after being drawn from the reaction vessel and then analyzed for aluminum and sodium by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry ( The results from the boehmite leaching tests as well as results from actual waste leaching are given in Table 2.5. Lumetta et al (2001) and Lumetta and Hallen (2007) reported boehmite dissolution in S-110 waste and S-101 waste under the same testing conditions of temperature and caustic concentration. Note that the tank waste tests used washed solids, and as such had minor concentrations of other anions present.…”

Section: Screening Leach Testmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and Characterization of Boehmite Component Simulant

Russell¹,

Peterson²,

Smith³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Screening Leach Testmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Screening Leach Testmentioning

confidence: 88%

Development and Characterization of Boehmite Component Simulant

Russell¹,

Peterson²,

Smith³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…All solvent extraction contacts were conducted in sealed glass vials. The S-110 and T-110 leachate solutions were generated during separate parametric sludge leaching tests (Lumetta et al 2001 and. Table 2.1 presents the concentrations of the major components in these solutions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sodium Hydroxide Extraction From Caustic Leaching Solutions

Lumetta¹,

Garza²,

Levitskaia³

et al. 2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis report describes experiments conducted to demonstrate the proof-of-principle of a method to recover NaOH from Hanford tank sludge leaching solutions. Aqueous solutions generated from leaching actual Hanford tank waste solids were used. The process involves neutralization of a lipophilic weak acid (t-octylphenol was used in these experiments) by reaction with NaOH in the aqueous phase. This results in the transfer of Na into the organic phase. Contacting with water reverses this process, reprotonating the lipophilic weak acid and transferring Na back into the aqueous phase as NaOH.The work described here confirms the potential application of solvent extraction to recover and recycle NaOH from solutions generated by leaching Hanford tank sludges. Solutions obtained by leaching sludges from Tanks S-110 and T-110 were used in this work. It was demonstrated that Na + is transferred from caustic leaching solution to the organic phase when contacted with t-octylphenol solutions. This was accompanied by a concomitant decrease in the aqueous-phase hydroxide ion concentration. Seventy to 80% of the extracted Na was recovered by 3 to 4 sequential contacts of the organic phase with water. Cesium was co-extracted by the procedure, but Al and Cr remained in the feed stream.The results of this study revealed several areas that will require further investigation before the technology can be implemented.

show abstract

“…The previous evaluation examined two existing sources of data, the 1982 SRS aluminum dissolution demonstration 9,15,16 and the 2001 PNNL Hanford sludge leaching tests. 17 The additional data generated during the LTAD process are shown as highlighted rows in Table 4 through Table 7. LTAD was run under different conditions and longer duration than the baseline aluminum dissolution process and several laboratory test. In all of these cases, caustic solutions were mixed with insoluble sludge solids and heated, with the objective of removing aluminum from the sludge phase.…”

Section: Fate Of Uranium and Plutoniummentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Low Temperature Aluminum Dissolution in Tank 51

Pike¹

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DISCLAIMERThis work was prepared under an agreement with and funded by the U.S. Government. Neither the U. S. Government or its employees, nor any of its contractors, subcontractors or their employees, makes any express or implied: 1. warranty or assumes any legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or for the use or results of such use of any information, product, or process disclosed; or 2. representation that such use or results of such use would not infringe privately owned rights; or 3. endorsement or recommendation of any specifically identified commercial product, process, or service. Any views and opinions of authors expressed in this work SUMMARYLiquid Waste Organization (LWO) identified aluminum dissolution as a method to mitigate the effect of having about 50% more solids in High Level Waste (HLW) sludge than previously planned. Previous aluminum dissolution performed in a HLW tank in 1982 was performed at approximately 85°C for 5 days, which became the baseline aluminum dissolution process. LWO initiated a project to modify a waste tank to meet these requirements.Subsequent to an alternative evaluation, LWO management identified an opportunity to perform aluminum dissolution on sludge destined for Sludge Batch 5, but within a limited window that would not allow time for any modifications for tank heating. A variation of the baseline process, dubbed Low Temperature Aluminum Dissolution (LTAD), was developed based on the constraint of available energy input in Tank 51 and the window of opportunity, but was not constrained to a minimum extent of dissolution, i.e. dissolve as much aluminum as possible within the time available. This process was intended to operate between 55 and 70°C, but for a significantly longer time than the baseline process. LTAD proceeded in parallel with the baseline project.The preliminary evaluation at the completion of LTAD focused on the material balance and extent of the aluminum dissolved. The range of values of extent of dissolution, 56% to 64%, resulted from the variation in liquid phase sample data available at the time. Additional solid phase data is available from a sample taken after LTAD to refine this range. This report provides additional detailed evaluation of the LTAD process based on analytical and field data and includes:• a summary of the process chronology,• a determination of an acceptable blending strategy for the aluminum-laden supernate stored in Tank 11, • an update to the determination of aluminum dissolved using more complete sample results, • a determination of the effect of LTAD on uranium, plutonium, and other metals, • a determination of the rate of heat loss from a quiescent tank, and • an evaluation of the aluminum dissolution rate model and actual dissolution rate.LTAD was successfully completed in Tank 51 with minimal waste tank changes. The following general conclusions may be drawn about the LTAD process:• Dissolution at about 60°C for 46 days dissolved 64% of the aluminum from the sludge slurry.• The aluminum-laden leach solution decan...

show abstract

Caustic Leaching of Hanford Tank S-110 Sludge

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Development and Characterization of Boehmite Component Simulant

Development and Characterization of Boehmite Component Simulant

Sodium Hydroxide Extraction From Caustic Leaching Solutions

Evaluation of Low Temperature Aluminum Dissolution in Tank 51

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About