A Comparative Assessment of TRU Waste Forms and Immobilization Processes
- PDF / 532,322 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 420.48 x 639 pts Page_size
- 79 Downloads / 244 Views
V.
Topp,
Inc. 497
editor
A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF TRU WASTE FORMS AND IMMOBILIZATION PROCESSES*
W. A. ROSS, C. 0. HARVEY, R. 0. LOKKEN, R. P. MAY, F. C. L. TIMMERMAN, R. L. TREAT AND J. H. WESTSIK, JR. Pacific Northwest Laboratory**, Richland, Washington,
P. ROBERTS, 99352
ABSTRACT Six alternative TRU waste forms and seven waste immobilization processes are comparatively assessed on the basis of The both product properties and process costs and risks. waste forms are characterized for their leachability, mechanical strength, and thermal and radiation stability. The processes are evaluated in terms of costs (for processing, transportation, and repository disposal) and in terms of occupational exposure, industrial hazard, and quality assurance. Cast cement is recommended for immobilization of defense TRU wastes. A glass system, either borosilicate or aluminosilicate, is recommended for immobilization of commercial TRU wastes.
INTRODUCTION Transuranic (TRU) wastes are generated from defense activities related to production and processing of plutonium for weapons and will be generated in the commercial nuclear-power fuel cycle. Current national policy requires that these wastes be isolated from the biosphere for long periods of time. Transuranic wastes can be immobilized by a variety of processes. This paper summarizes a study that compares waste form properties and process operations These systems were selected for detailed and costs for seven systems (Table I).
TABLE I Immobilization processes and waste forms selected for the comparative study Immobilization process In-can glass-melting Joule-heated glass-melting Glass marble Cast-hydraulic cement Cold-pressed hydraulic cement Cold-pressed sintered ceramic Basalt glass-ceramic
Waste form product Borosilicate glass monolith Borosilicate/aluminosilicate glass monolitha) Borosilicate/aluminosilicate glass marbleaý Cast cement monolith Cold-pressed cement pellet Sintered ceramic pellet Basalt glass-ceramic monolith
a) Waste form properties are independent of the marble or monolithic products. Therefore,
only six waste forms are considered for the seven processes.
* Work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. ** Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute.
498 The seven processes have been study from 40 potential immobilization systems. A combined process sludge and incinerator ash was described separately [1]. used as the reference waste. This study is intended to provide quantitative data for selection of immobilization systems for waste generators.
WASTE FORM EVALUATION The six waste forms were characterized for leachability, mechanical strength, thermal pressurization, thermal stability, and radiation stability. The results of the materials testing are summarized below. Leachability An early draft of the Static Leach Test (MCC-1) [2] was used for the comparaThe waste forms were tested as a function of temperature, tive leach tests. Figure 1 shows the effect of temperature and leach
Data Loading...
