Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 304, Issue 3, pp 1253–1259 | Cite as

A scanning electron microscopy study of bismuth and phosphate phases in bismuth phosphate process waste at Hanford

  • Jacob G. Reynolds
  • Jason S. Page
  • Gary A. Cooke
  • John Pestovich
Article
First Online:
Received:

Abstract

This study characterizes major bismuth and phosphate-bearing phases in Hanford radioactive waste from the bismuth phosphate process using scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectroscopy. Large bismuth phases displayed lath morphology and consisted of sodium, iron, bismuth, and phosphorus. The majority of the bismuth and phosphate observed was in small particulate (<2 µm in diameter) containing sodium, phosphorus, iron, and nickel. Additionally, phosphorus was included in a sodium–aluminum–phosphate lath-shaped species. Characterization of these waste types is of particular importance since they may have the bounding particle properties for designing waste mixing and transport processes used during treatment.

Keywords

Hanford Bismuth phosphate Radioactive waste Nuclear waste 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Supplementary material

10967_2015_3980_MOESM1_ESM.docx (64 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 64 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hill RCP, Reynolds JG, Rutland PL (2011) A Comparison of Hanford and Savannah River site high-level wastes. In: Proceedings of the 13th international high-level waste management conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 114–117Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seaborg GT (1989) Nuclear fission and transuranium elements—50 years ago. J Chem Educ 66:379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lumetta GJ, McNamara BK, Buck EC, Fiskum SK, Snow LA (2009) Characterization of high phosphate radioactive tank waste and simulant development. Environ Sci Technol 43:7843–7848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Certa PJ, Empey PA, Wells MN (2011) River Protection Project System Plan. ORP-11242, Rev. 6. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, Richland, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paul N, Biggs S, Edmonson M, Hunter TN, Hammond RB (2013) Characterizing highly active nuclear waste simulants. Chem Eng Res Des 91:742–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lumetta GJ, Braley JC, Peterson JM, Bryan SA, Levitskaia TG (2012) Separating and stabilizing phosphate from high-level radioactive waste: process development and spectroscopic monitoring. Environ Sci Technol 46:6190–6197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGinnis CP, Welch TD, Hunt RD (1999) Caustic leaching of high-level radioactive tank sludge: a critical literature review. Sep Sci Technol 34:1479–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reynolds JG, Cooke GA, Herting DL, Warrant RW (2012) Evidence for dawsonite in Hanford high-level nuclear waste tanks. J Hazard Mater 209–210:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reynolds JG, Cooke GA, Herting DL, Warrant RW (2013) Salt mineralogy of Hanford high-level waste staged for treatment. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:9741–9751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reynolds JG, Huber HJ, Cooke GA, Pestovich JA (2014) Solid-phase zirconium and fluoride species in alkaline zircaloy cladding waste at Hanford. J Hazard Mater 278:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lumetta GJ, Rapko BM, Liu J, Temer DJ (1998) Enhanced sludge washing for pretreating Hanford tank sludges. In: Schultz WW, Lombardo NJ (eds) Science and technology for disposal of radioactive tank wastes. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geeting JGH, Hallen RT (2005) Filtration, washing, and caustic leaching of Hanford tank AZ-101 sludge. Sep Sci Technol 40:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geeting JGH, Hallen RT, Peterson RA (2006) Ultrafilter conditions for high level waste sludge processing. Sep Sci Technol 41:2313–2324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russell RL, Billing JM, Smith HD, Peterson RA (2009) Validation of ultrafilter performance model based on systematic simulant evaluation. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:10077–10086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schonewill PP, Daniel RC, Russell RL, Shimskey RW, Burns CA, Billing JM, Rapko BM, Peterson RA (2012) Development of an S-saltcake simulant using crossflow filtration as a validation technique. Sep Sci Technol 47:2098–2107Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McKeown DA, Gan H, Pegg IL (2012) X-ray absorption studies of bismuth valence and local environments in borosilicate waste glasses. J Nucl Mater 420:116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sengupta P (2012) A review on immobilization of phosphate containing high level nuclear wastes within glass matrix—present status and future challenges. J Hazard Mater 235–236:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Izak P, Hrma P, Arey BW, Plaisted TJ (2001) Effect of feed melting, temperature history, and minor component addition on spinel crystallization in high-level waste glass. J Non-Cryst Solids 289:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pierce DA, Hrma PA, Marcial J, Riley BJ, Schweiger MJ (2012) Effect of alumina source on the rate of melting demonstrated with nuclear waste glass batch. Int J Appl Glass Sci 3:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith PA, Vienna JD, Hrma P (1995) The effects of melting reactions on laboratory-scale waste vitrification. J Mater Res 10:2137–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hrma P, Kruger AA (2008) Nuclear waste glasses: continuous melting and bulk vitrification. Adv Mater Res 39–40:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fedorov AG, Pilon L (2002) Glass foams: formation, transport properties, and heat, mass, and radiation transfer. J Non-Cryst Solids 311:154–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pokorny R, Hrma P (2012) Mathematical modeling of cold cap. J Nucl Mater 429:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kosson DS, Calabrese RV, Gekler WC, Powell RL, Sandler SI (2010) CRESP review team letter report 7—PJM vessels. In: The Consortium for risk evaluation with stakeholder participation III, Vanderbilt University, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wells BE, Kurath DE, Mahoney LA, Onishi Y, Huckaby JL, Cooley SK, Burns CA, Buck EC, Tingey JM, Daniel RC, Anderson KK (2011) Hanford waste physical and rheological properties: data and gaps. PNNL-20646. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kurath DE, Wells BE, Huckaby JL, Mahoney LA, Daniel RC, Burns CA, Tingey JM, Cooley SK (2012) Hanford waste physical and rheological properties: data and gaps. In: Proceedings of waste management 2012, Waste Management Symposia Inc., Tucson, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    U.S. Department of Energy (2013) Hanford tank waste retrieval, treatment, and disposition framework. U.S Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burke CA, Landon MR, Hanson CE (2012) Development and deployment of a mobile arm retrieval system (MARS). In: Proceedings of waste management 2012, Waste Management Symposia Inc., Tucson, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ASTM International (2011) ASTM standard C1751-11 standard guide for sampling radioactive tank waste. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nguyen DM (2010) Tank 241-C-107 data assessment report. RPP-RPT-44225, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC, Richland, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dunn PJ, Grice JD, Wicks FJ, Gault RA (1988) Paulkellerite, a new bismuth iron phosphate mineral from Schneeberg, Germany. Am Mineral 73:970–972Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krause W, Bernardt HJ, McCammon C, Effenberger H (1998) Brendelite, (Bi, Pb) 2Fe3+, 2+O2(OH)(PO4), a new mineral from Schneeberg, Germany: description and crystal structure. Mineral Petrol 63:263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kampf AR, Adams PM, Kolitsch U, Steele IM (2009) Meurigite-Na, a new species, and the relationship between phosphofibrite and meurigite. Am Mineral 94:720–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lindberg ML (1957) Relationship of the minerals avelinoite, cryilovite, and wardite. Am Mineral 42:204–213Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moore PB, Ito J (1978) Kidwellite, NaFe9 3+(OH)10(PO4)6.5H2O, a new species. Mineral Mag 42:137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Buck EC, McNamara BK (2004) Precipitation of nitrate–cancrinite in Hanford tank sludge. Environ Sci Technol 38:4432–4438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reynolds JG, Cooke GA, Huber HJ (2013) Degradation of dome cutting minerals in Hanford waste. In: Proceedings of waste management 2013, Waste Management Symposia Inc, Tucson, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pough FH, Henderson EP (1945) Brazilianite, a new phosphate mineral. Am Mineral 30:572–582Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frost RL, Xi Y (2012) Molecular structure of the phosphate mineral brazilianite NaAl3(PO4)2(OH)4—a semi precious jewel. J Mol Struct 1010:179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Davidson JM (1896) Wardite: a new hydrous basic phosphate of alumina. Am J Sci (Ser 4) 2:154–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Frost RL, Xi Y (2012) A vibrational spectroscopic study of the phosphate mineral wardite NaAl3(PO4)2(OH)4.2H2O. Spectrochim Acta, Part A 93:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yokal RA, Urbas AA, Lodder RA, Selegue JP, Florence RL (2005) 26Al-containing acidic and basic sodium aluminum phosphate preparation and use in studies of oral aluminum bioavailability from foods utilizing 26Al as an aluminum Tracer. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect B 229:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abduragimova RA (1978) Physicochemical investigation of the mutual influence of sodium and potassium sulfates, phosphates, and aluminates. J Appl Chem USSR 28:31–34Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reynolds JG (2012) The apparent solubility of aluminum(III) in Hanford high-level waste. J Environ Sci Health, Part A 47:2213–2218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Miller AG (1977) Laser Raman spectrometric determination of oxy anions in nuclear waste materials. Anal Chem 49:2044–2048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Herting DL (2013) Aluminum phosphate study final report. WRPS-1305277, Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rai D, Yui M, Schaef H, Kitamura A (2010) Thermodynamic model for BiPO4(cr) and Bi(OH)3(am) solubility in the aqueous Na+–H+–H2PO4–HPO42–PO43–OH–Cl–H2O system. J Solut Chem 39:999–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob G. Reynolds
    • 1
  • Jason S. Page
    • 1
  • Gary A. Cooke
    • 1
  • John Pestovich
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington River Protection Solutions, LLCRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations