9 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Characterization, Leaching, and Filtration Testing for Tributyl Phosphate (TBP, Group 7) Actual Waste Sample Composites
.A testing program evaluating actual tank waste was developed in response to Task 4 from the M-12 External Flowsheet Review Team (EFRT) issue response plan. The bulk water-insoluble solid wastes that are anticipated to be delivered to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were identified according to type such that the actual waste testing could be targeted to the relevant categories. Eight broad waste groupings were defined. Samples available from the 222S archive were identified and obtained for testing. The actual waste-testing program included homogenizing the samples by group, characterizing the solids and aqueous phases, and performing parametric leaching tests. The tributyl phosphate sludge (TBP, Group 7) is the subject of this report. The Group 7 waste was anticipated to be high in phosphorus as well as aluminum in the form of gibbsite. Both are believed to exist in sufficient quantities in the Group 7 waste to address leaching behavior. Thus, the focus of the Group 7 testing was on the removal of both P and Al. The waste-type definition, archived sample conditions, homogenization activities, characterization (physical, chemical, radioisotope, and crystal habit), and caustic leaching behavior as functions of time, temperature, and hydroxide concentration are discussed in this report. Testing was conducted according to TP-RPP-WTP-467
Recommended from our members
Laboratory Demonstration of the Pretreatment Process with Caustic and Oxidative Leaching Using Actual Hanford Tank Waste
This report describes the bench-scale pretreatment processing of actual tank waste materials through the entire baseline WTP pretreatment flowsheet in an effort to demonstrate the efficacy of the defined leaching processes on actual Hanford tank waste sludge and the potential impacts on downstream pretreatment processing. The test material was a combination of reduction oxidation (REDOX) tank waste composited materials containing aluminum primarily in the form of boehmite and dissolved S saltcake containing Cr(III)-rich entrained solids. The pretreatment processing steps tested included • caustic leaching for Al removal • solids crossflow filtration through the cell unit filter (CUF) • stepwise solids washing using decreasing concentrations of sodium hydroxide with filtration through the CUF • oxidative leaching using sodium permanganate for removing Cr • solids filtration with the CUF • follow-on solids washing and filtration through the CUF • ion exchange processing for Cs removal • evaporation processing of waste stream recycle for volume reduction • combination of the evaporated product with dissolved saltcake. The effectiveness of each process step was evaluated by following the mass balance of key components (such as Al, B, Cd, Cr, Pu, Ni, Mn, and Fe), demonstrating component (Al, Cr, Cs) removal, demonstrating filterability by evaluating filter flux rates under various processing conditions (transmembrane pressure, crossflow velocities, wt% undissolved solids, and PSD) and filter fouling, and identifying potential issues for WTP. The filterability was reported separately (Shimskey et al. 2008) and is not repeated herein
Recommended from our members
Characterization and Leach Testing for PUREX Cladding Waste Sludge (Group 3) and REDOX Cladding Waste Sludge (Group 4) Actual Waste Sample Composites
A testing program evaluating actual tank waste was developed in response to Task 4 from the M-12 External Flowsheet Review Team (EFRT) issue response plan.(a) The testing program was subdivided into logical increments. The bulk water-insoluble solid wastes that are anticipated to be delivered to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were identified according to type such that the actual waste testing could be targeted to the relevant categories. Eight broad waste groupings were defined. Samples available from the 222S archive were identified and obtained for testing. The actual wastetesting program included homogenizing the samples by group, characterizing the solids and aqueous phases, and performing parametric leaching tests. Two of the eight defined groups—plutonium-uranium extraction (PUREX) cladding waste sludge (Group 3, or CWP) and reduction-oxidation (REDOX) cladding waste sludge (Group 4, or CWR)—are the subjects of this report. Both the Group 3 and 4 waste composites were anticipated to be high in gibbsite, requiring caustic leaching. Characterization of the composite Group 3 and Group 4 waste samples confirmed them to be high in gibbsite. The focus of the Group 3 and 4 testing was on determining the behavior of gibbsite during caustic leaching. The waste-type definition, archived sample conditions, homogenization activities, characterization (physical, chemical, radioisotope, and crystal habit), and caustic leaching behavior as functions of time, temperature, and hydroxide concentration are discussed in this report. Testing was conducted according to TP-RPP-WTP-467
Recommended from our members
Filtration and Leach Testing for REDOX Sludge and S-Saltcake Actual Waste Sample Composites
A testing program evaluating actual tank waste was developed in response to Task 4 from the M-12 External Flowsheet Review Team (EFRT) issue response plan.( ) The test program was subdivided into logical increments. The bulk water-insoluble solid wastes that are anticipated to be delivered to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were identified according to type such that the actual waste testing could be targeted to the relevant categories. Under test plan TP-RPP-WTP-467, eight broad waste groupings were defined. Samples available from the 222S archive were identified and obtained for testing. Under this test plan, a waste-testing program was implemented that included: • Homogenizing the archive samples by group as defined in the test plan • Characterizing the homogenized sample groups • Performing parametric leaching testing on each group for compounds of interest • Performing bench-top filtration/leaching tests in the hot cell for each group to simulate filtration and leaching activities if they occurred in the UFP2 vessel of the WTP Pretreatment Facility. This report focuses on filtration/leaching tests performed on two of the eight waste composite samples and follow-on parametric tests to support aluminum leaching results from those tests
Recommended from our members
Characterization, Leaching, and Filtration Testing for Bismuth Phosphate Sludge (Group 1) and Bismuth Phosphate Saltcake (Group 2) Actual Waste Sample Composites
A testing program evaluating actual tank waste was developed in response to Task 4 from the M-12 External Flowsheet Review Team (EFRT) issue response plan.() The test program was subdivided into logical increments. The bulk water-insoluble solid wastes that are anticipated to be delivered to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were identified according to type such that the actual waste testing could be targeted to the relevant categories. Eight broad waste groupings were defined. Samples available from the 222S archive were identified and obtained for testing. The actual waste-testing program included homogenizing the samples by group, characterizing the solids and aqueous phases, and performing parametric leaching tests. Two of the eight defined groups—bismuth phosphate sludge (Group 1) and bismuth phosphate saltcake (Group 2)—are the subjects of this report. The Group 1 waste was anticipated to be high in phosphorus and was implicitly assumed to be present as BiPO4 (however, results presented here indicate that the phosphate in Group 1 is actually present as amorphous iron(III) phosphate). The Group 2 waste was also anticipated to be high in phosphorus, but because of the relatively low bismuth content and higher aluminum content, it was anticipated that the Group 2 waste would contain a mixture of gibbsite, sodium phosphate, and aluminum phosphate. Thus, the focus of the Group 1 testing was on determining the behavior of P removal during caustic leaching, and the focus of the Group 2 testing was on the removal of both P and Al. The waste-type definition, archived sample conditions, homogenization activities, characterization (physical, chemical, radioisotope, and crystal habit), and caustic leaching behavior as functions of time, temperature, and hydroxide concentration are discussed in this report. Testing was conducted according to TP-RPP-WTP-467
Recommended from our members
Characterization and Leach Testing for REDOX Sludge and S-Saltcake Actual Waste Sample Composites
This report describes processing and analysis results of boehmite waste type (Group 5) and insoluble high Cr waste type (Group 6). The sample selection, compositing, subdivision, physical and chemical characterization are described. Extensive batch leach testing was conducted to define kinetics and leach factors of selected analytes as functions of NaOH concentration and temperature. Testing supports issue M-12 resolution for the Waste Treatment Plant
Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context
Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health
Recommended from our members
Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context
Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health