Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:16:00.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physicochemical Properties of Vitrified Forms for LILW Generated From Korean Nuclear Power Plant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2015

Cheon-Woo Kim ,
Hyehyun Lee ,
In-Sun Jang ,
Hyun-Jun Jo  and
Hyun-Je Cho
Cheon-Woo Kim
Affiliation:
Central Research Institute of KHNP, 1312-70 Yuseong-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea
Hyehyun Lee
Affiliation:
Central Research Institute of KHNP, 1312-70 Yuseong-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea
In-Sun Jang
Affiliation:
Central Research Institute of KHNP, 1312-70 Yuseong-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea
Hyun-Jun Jo
Affiliation:
Central Research Institute of KHNP, 1312-70 Yuseong-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea
Hyun-Je Cho
Affiliation:
Central Research Institute of KHNP, 1312-70 Yuseong-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea
Get access

Abstract

Since 1994, the KHNP has developed a vitrification technology to treat the LILW generated from Korean nuclear power plant. To vitrify the LILW including combustible Dry Active Waste (DAW) and Ion Exchange Resin (IER) containing Zeolite, two borosilicate glasses are formulated. One of the formulated glass, DG2, is for the DAW vitrification solely and the other one, AG8W1, is for the blended wastes (DAW & IER) vitrification in a commercial vitrification facility in HanUl (former Ulchin) nuclear power plant. The physicochemical properties of the two glasses have been evaluated. To evaluate the processability of the glasses, the viscosities and electrical conductivities of the glass melts were measured in the laboratory within a temperature range between 950 and 1,350 degrees C, respectively. The liquidus temperatures of the glasses were evaluated using a gradient furnace for DG2 and data from heat treatment for AG8W1. The Mössbauer spectroscopy for AG8W1 was employed to evaluate the relations between the redox equilibria of iron. In addition, to verify the waste acceptance criteria for the final disposal of the vitrified forms, the compressive strengths of the vitrified forms were tested after an immersion test, a thermal cycling test, and an irradiation test. To verify the chemical durability of the glasses, several tests such as PCT, ISO, VHT, Soxhlet, MCC-1, and ANS16.1 were carried out. The PCT showed leach rates of B, Na, Li and Si were much less than those of the benchmark glass. The ISO test was performed at 90 degrees C for 1,022 days and Cumulative Fraction Leached of all elements in the glasses were analyzed. According to the VHT, the glasses had an outstanding chemical resistance under humid environment at 200 degrees C for 7 days. The Soxhlet leaching was performed on rectangular glass samples at 98 degrees C for 30 days. To analyze the forward dissolution rates of major glass elements, the MCC-1 was conducted at temperatures of 40, 70, and 90 degrees C for three weeks in pH buffer solutions ranging from pH 4 to 11. The processability of the glasses was in the desired ranges. And the product quality of the glasses met all regulatory guidelines. Using two glasses, the CCIM commissioning tests in the UVF were successfully performed and they showed good workability.

Keywords

ceramicwaste managementscanning electron microscopy (SEM)
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1744: Symposium EE – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXXVIII , 2015 , pp. 211 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Jantzen, C. M., Ceramic Transactions, 23, 37–51 (1991).Google Scholar
Bickford, D.F., Ramsey, A. A., Jantzen, C.M., and Brown, K.G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 73(10), 2896–2902 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlmann, D.R. and Kreidl, N.J. (Eds.), Glass Science and Technology, (Academic Press Inc., New York, 1986), pp. 233–270.Google Scholar
Doremus, R., Glass Science, 2nd ed., (John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1994), Ch. 6 & 15.Google Scholar
Kim, C.W., and Day, D.E., J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 331, 20–31 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, H.D., and Hockman, A.L., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 70(8), 591–594 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, C.W., Ray, C.S., Zhu, D., Day, D.E., Gombert, D., Aloy, A., Mogus-Milankovic, A. and Karabulut, M., J. Nuclear Materials, 322, 152–164 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US DOE, Design, Construction, Commissioning of the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, DOE Office of River Protection, Richland, WA, Contract No.: DE-AC27-01RV14136, (2001). Google Scholar
Personal communication with Siegfried Weisenburger at INE in Germany, (2005).Google Scholar
McGrail, B.P, et al., “Measurement of kinetic rate low parameter on a Na-Ca-Al borosilicate glass for low-activity waste,” J. Nucl. Mater., 249, 175–189 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US DOE Argonne National Laboratory Report, ANL-05/43, 48-57 (2005).Google Scholar
US Department of Energy Report ANL–EBS-MD–000016, Rev. 00, ICN 01, Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System, Las Vegas, NV (2000).Google Scholar