View Document Here - Hanford Site

WHC-SD-W100-TI-003 Rev. 0
the statement of work requires all specimens to be prepared from a single
batch, this was not critical for the control specimens and preparation of the
rest of the control samples could be completed later.
Batch #2 was the Type 1 surrogate LETF salt. The formula for this batch was:
Binder, 2000 grams
Catalyst, 50 grams
Promoter, 2 grams
Surrogate, 4000 grams
Spiking salts:
Cobalt Chloride, 61.08 grams
Strontium Chloride, 46.04 grams
Cesium Chloride, 19.17 grams
The promoter and binder were mixed, then the spiking salts were added. The
salts did not appear to get mixed very well, due to the small size of the
mixer and large batch container size. the surrogate was then added in
portions, until roughly halfway through, when the mixer stalled several times.
After this point, mixing was only possible in the top few inches of the batch,
since the mixer wo.:ldstall if it was submerged more than about 2 to 3 inches.
After about 20 minutes, the entire quantity of surrogate had been added, and
the catalyst was added in two portions. The mix was then scooped into the
specimen molds. A portion of the mix was placed in a paper cup for
measurement of the exotherm. ,
Batch #3 was Type 3 surrogate basin sludge. The formula for this batch was
the -same--as-fcr Type-1 sttrrogat-e--sb ive. The mixing procedure was the same,
with the exception that the spiking salts were added directly into the
surrogate and mixed with a spatula, due to the semi-liquid consistency of the-
surrogate. No mixing problems were encountered, and the mixture was poured
into the specimen molds and a paper cup for exotherm measurement.
After breaking for lunch, we met in the conference room to discuss the details
of the formulation development work for types 2 and 4 surrogate. Various
_ techniyueshad been attempted,_including increasing the amount of promoter
added, adding ammonium solutions to complex the copper, mixing types I and 2,
changing the waste loading, roasting the surrogate, and changing order of
addition of the polymer reagents and the waste. None of these techniques were
successful. Detailed laboratory notes are attached, and the first progress
report from Stock will include further discussion of this work.
After reviewing the results of the formulation work, we concluded that two
additional attempts should be tried. The first test involves adjusting the pH
of the surrogate type 2 to around 10. This should result in a surrogate that
more closely resembles the pH of the actual waste. In the second test, a
mixture of sodium fluoride and sodium sulfate will be processed to examine the
possibility that fluoride may be interfering with the polymerization reaction.
Verbal authorization to proceed with these trials was given by WHC.
--- -- --Follcwing the-cisctassion of the- polyyner-fttrmulaticn dYvelopment work, we were
presented with information on Stock's equipment development work for in-drum
mixing equipment, using preloaded waste and double planetary mixer equipment.
54-3000-101 (9/59) (EF) GEF014
DS1
F-4
>._r
;?7