skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: FINAL REPORT MELTER TESTS WITH AZ-101 HLW SIMULANT USING A DURAMELTER 100 VITRIFICATION SYSTEM VSL-01R10N0-1 REV 1 2/25/02

Abstract

This report provides data, analyses, and conclusions from a series of tests that were conducted at the Vitreous State Laboratory of The Catholic of America (VSL) to determine the processing rates that are achievable with AZ-101 HLW simulants and corresponding melter feeds on a DuraMelter 100 (DM100) vitrification system. One of the most critical pieces of information in determining the required size of the RPP-WTP HLW melter is the specific glass production rate in terms of the mass of glass that can be produced per unit area of melt surface per unit time. The specific glass production rate together with the waste loading (essentially, the ratio of waste-in to glass-out, which is determined from glass formulation activities) determines the melt area that is needed to achieve a given waste processing rate with due allowance for system availability. Tests conducted during Part B1 (VSL-00R2590-2) on the DM1000 vitrification system installed at the Vitreous State Laboratory of The Catholic University of America showed that, without the use of bubblers, glass production rates with AZ-101 and C-106/AY-102 simulants were significantly lower than the Project design basis rate of 0.4 MT/m{sup 2}/d. Conversely, three-fold increases over the design basis rate were demonstrated with themore » use of bubblers. Furthermore, an un-bubbled control test using a replica of the melter feed used in cold commissioning tests at West Valley reproduced the rates that were observed with that feed on the WVDP production melter. More recent tests conducted on the DM1200 system, which more closely represents the present RPP-WTP design, are in general agreement with these earlier results. Screening tests conducted on the DM10 system have provided good indications of the larger-scale processing rates with bubblers (for both HL W and LAW feeds) but significantly overestimated the DM1000 un-bubbled rate observed for C-106/AY-102 melter feeds. This behavior is believed to be a consequence of the role of heat transfer in rate attainment and the much greater role of wall effects in heat transfer when the melt pool is not agitated. The DM100 melter used for the present tests has a surface area of 0.108 m{sup 2}, which is approximately 5 times larger than that of the DM10 (0.021 m{sup 2}) and approximately 11 times smaller than that of the DM1000 (1.2 m{sup 2}) (the DM1000 has since been replaced by a pilot-scale prototypical HLW melter, designated the DM1200, which has the same surface area as the DM1000). Testing on smaller melters is the most economical method for obtaining data over a wide range of operating conditions (particularly at extremes) and for guiding the more expensive tests that are performed at pilot-scale. Thus, one objective of these tests was to determine whether the DM100 melters are sufficiently large to reproduce the un-bubbled melt rates observed at the DM1000 scale, or to determine the extent of any off-set. DM100-scale tests can then be used to screen feed chemistry variations that may serve to increase the un-bubbled production rates prior to confirmation at pilot scale. Finally, extensive characterization data obtained on simulated HLW melter feeds formed from various glass forming additives indicated that there may be advantages in terms of feed rheology and stability to the replacement of some of the hydroxides by carbonates. A further objective of the present tests was therefore to identify any deleterious processing effects of such a change before adopting the carbonate feed as the baseline. Data from the WVDP melter using acidified (nitrated) feeds, and without bubbling, showed productions rates that are higher than those observed with the alkaline RPP feeds at the VSL. Therefore, the effect of feed acidification on production rate also was investigated. This work was performed under Test Specification, 'TSP-W375-00-00019, Rev 0, 'HLW-DM10 and DM100 Melter Tests' dated November 13, 2000 and the corresponding Test Plan. It should be noted, however, that the RPP-WTP Project directed a series of changes to the Test Plan as the results from previous tests were reported. As a result, the test matrix that was executed differs from that in the Test Plan.« less

Authors:
; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Hanford Site (HNF), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Environmental Management (EM)
OSTI Identifier:
1034649
Report Number(s):
ORP-51436 Rev 0
VSL-01R10N0-1, Rev. 1, 2/25/2002; TRN: US1200885
DOE Contract Number:  
DE-AC27-08RV14800
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; ACIDIFICATION; ADDITIVES; CARBONATES; CHEMISTRY; COMMISSIONING; DESIGN; GLASS; HEAT TRANSFER; HYDROXIDES; REPLICAS; RHEOLOGY; SCREENS; STABILITY; SURFACE AREA; TESTING; VITRIFICATION; WALL EFFECTS; WASTE PROCESSING; WASTES

Citation Formats

KRUGER AA, MATLACK KS, KOT WK, and PEGG IL. FINAL REPORT MELTER TESTS WITH AZ-101 HLW SIMULANT USING A DURAMELTER 100 VITRIFICATION SYSTEM VSL-01R10N0-1 REV 1 2/25/02. United States: N. p., 2011. Web. doi:10.2172/1034649.
KRUGER AA, MATLACK KS, KOT WK, & PEGG IL. FINAL REPORT MELTER TESTS WITH AZ-101 HLW SIMULANT USING A DURAMELTER 100 VITRIFICATION SYSTEM VSL-01R10N0-1 REV 1 2/25/02. United States. doi:10.2172/1034649.
KRUGER AA, MATLACK KS, KOT WK, and PEGG IL. Thu . "FINAL REPORT MELTER TESTS WITH AZ-101 HLW SIMULANT USING A DURAMELTER 100 VITRIFICATION SYSTEM VSL-01R10N0-1 REV 1 2/25/02". United States. doi:10.2172/1034649. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1034649.
@article{osti_1034649,
title = {FINAL REPORT MELTER TESTS WITH AZ-101 HLW SIMULANT USING A DURAMELTER 100 VITRIFICATION SYSTEM VSL-01R10N0-1 REV 1 2/25/02},
author = {KRUGER AA and MATLACK KS and KOT WK and PEGG IL},
abstractNote = {This report provides data, analyses, and conclusions from a series of tests that were conducted at the Vitreous State Laboratory of The Catholic of America (VSL) to determine the processing rates that are achievable with AZ-101 HLW simulants and corresponding melter feeds on a DuraMelter 100 (DM100) vitrification system. One of the most critical pieces of information in determining the required size of the RPP-WTP HLW melter is the specific glass production rate in terms of the mass of glass that can be produced per unit area of melt surface per unit time. The specific glass production rate together with the waste loading (essentially, the ratio of waste-in to glass-out, which is determined from glass formulation activities) determines the melt area that is needed to achieve a given waste processing rate with due allowance for system availability. Tests conducted during Part B1 (VSL-00R2590-2) on the DM1000 vitrification system installed at the Vitreous State Laboratory of The Catholic University of America showed that, without the use of bubblers, glass production rates with AZ-101 and C-106/AY-102 simulants were significantly lower than the Project design basis rate of 0.4 MT/m{sup 2}/d. Conversely, three-fold increases over the design basis rate were demonstrated with the use of bubblers. Furthermore, an un-bubbled control test using a replica of the melter feed used in cold commissioning tests at West Valley reproduced the rates that were observed with that feed on the WVDP production melter. More recent tests conducted on the DM1200 system, which more closely represents the present RPP-WTP design, are in general agreement with these earlier results. Screening tests conducted on the DM10 system have provided good indications of the larger-scale processing rates with bubblers (for both HL W and LAW feeds) but significantly overestimated the DM1000 un-bubbled rate observed for C-106/AY-102 melter feeds. This behavior is believed to be a consequence of the role of heat transfer in rate attainment and the much greater role of wall effects in heat transfer when the melt pool is not agitated. The DM100 melter used for the present tests has a surface area of 0.108 m{sup 2}, which is approximately 5 times larger than that of the DM10 (0.021 m{sup 2}) and approximately 11 times smaller than that of the DM1000 (1.2 m{sup 2}) (the DM1000 has since been replaced by a pilot-scale prototypical HLW melter, designated the DM1200, which has the same surface area as the DM1000). Testing on smaller melters is the most economical method for obtaining data over a wide range of operating conditions (particularly at extremes) and for guiding the more expensive tests that are performed at pilot-scale. Thus, one objective of these tests was to determine whether the DM100 melters are sufficiently large to reproduce the un-bubbled melt rates observed at the DM1000 scale, or to determine the extent of any off-set. DM100-scale tests can then be used to screen feed chemistry variations that may serve to increase the un-bubbled production rates prior to confirmation at pilot scale. Finally, extensive characterization data obtained on simulated HLW melter feeds formed from various glass forming additives indicated that there may be advantages in terms of feed rheology and stability to the replacement of some of the hydroxides by carbonates. A further objective of the present tests was therefore to identify any deleterious processing effects of such a change before adopting the carbonate feed as the baseline. Data from the WVDP melter using acidified (nitrated) feeds, and without bubbling, showed productions rates that are higher than those observed with the alkaline RPP feeds at the VSL. Therefore, the effect of feed acidification on production rate also was investigated. This work was performed under Test Specification, 'TSP-W375-00-00019, Rev 0, 'HLW-DM10 and DM100 Melter Tests' dated November 13, 2000 and the corresponding Test Plan. It should be noted, however, that the RPP-WTP Project directed a series of changes to the Test Plan as the results from previous tests were reported. As a result, the test matrix that was executed differs from that in the Test Plan.},
doi = {10.2172/1034649},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2011},
month = {12}
}