Glass Ceramic Waste Forms for Combined CS+LN+TM Fission Products Waste Streams

In this study, glass ceramics were explored as an alternative waste form for glass, the current baseline, to be used for immobilizing alkaline/alkaline earth + lanthanide (CS+LN) or CS+LN+transition metal (TM) fission-product waste streams generated by a uranium extraction (UREX+) aqueous separations type process. Results from past work on a glass waste form for the combined CS+LN waste streams showed that as waste loading increased, large fractions of crystalline phases precipitated upon slow cooling.[1] The crystalline phases had no noticeable impact on the waste form performance by the 7-day product consistency test (PCT). These results point towards the development of a glass ceramic waste form for treating CS+LN or CS+LN+TM combined waste streams. Three main benefits for exploring glass ceramics are: (1) Glass ceramics offer increased solubility of troublesome components in crystalline phases as compared to glass, leading to increased waste loading; (2) The crystalline network formed in the glass ceramic results in higher heat tolerance than glass; and (3) These glass ceramics are designed to be processed by the same melter technology as the current baseline glass waste form. It will only require adding controlled canister cooling for crystallization into a glass ceramic waste form. Highly annealed waste form (essentially crack free) with up to 50X lower surface area than a typical High-Level Waste (HLW) glass canister. Lower surface area translates directly into increased durability. This was the first full year of exploring glass ceramics for the Option 1 and 2 combined waste stream options. This work has shown that dramatic increases in waste loading are achievable by designing a glass ceramic waste form as an alternative to glass. Table S1 shows the upper limits for heat, waste loading (based on solubility), and the decay time needed before treatment can occur for glass and glass ceramic waste forms. The improvements are significant for both combined waste stream options in terms of waste loading and/or decay time required before treatment. For Option 1, glass ceramics show an increase in waste loading of 15 mass % and reduction in decay time of 24 years. Decay times of {approx}50 years or longer are close to the expected age of the fuel that will be reprocessed when the modified open or closed fuel cycle is expected to be put into action. Option 2 shows a 2x to 2.5x increase in waste loading with decay times of only 45 years. Note that for Option 2 glass, the required decay time before treatment is only 35 years because of the waste loading limits related to the solubility of MoO{sub 3} in glass. If glass was evaluated for similar waste loadings as those achieved in Option 2 glass ceramics, the decay time would be significantly longer than 45 years. These glass ceramics are not optimized, but already they show the potential to dramatically reduce the amount of waste generated while still utilizing the proven processing technology used for glass production