skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Comparative assessment of TRU waste forms and processes. Volume I. Waste form and process evaluations

Abstract

This study provides an assesses seven waste forms and eight processes for immobilizing transuranic (TRU) wastes. The waste forms considered are cast cement, cold-pressed cement, FUETAP (formed under elevated temperature and pressure) cement, borosilicate glass, aluminosilicate glass, basalt glass-ceramic, and cold-pressed and sintered silicate ceramic. The waste-immobilization processes considered are in-can glass melting, joule-heated glass melting, glass marble forming, cement casting, cement cold-pressing, FUETAP cement processing, ceramic cold-pressing and sintering, basalt glass-ceramic processing. Properties considered included gas generation, chemical durability, mechanical strength, thermal stability, and radiation stability. The ceramic products demonstrated the best properties, except for plutonium release during leaching. The glass and ceramic products had similar properties. The cement products generally had poorer properties than the other forms, except for plutonium release during leaching. Calculations of the Pu release indicated that the waste forms met the proposed NRC release rate limit of 1 part in 10/sup 5/ per year in most test conditions. The cast-cement process had the lowest processing cost, followed closely by the cold-pressed and FUETAP cement processes. Joule-heated glass melting had the lower cost of the glass processes. In-can melting in a high-quality canister had the highest cost, and cold-pressed and sintered ceramic the second highest.more » Labor and canister costs for in-can melting were identified. The major contributor to costs of disposing of TRU wastes in a defense waste repository is waste processing costs. Repository costs could become the dominant cost for disposing of TRU wastes in a commercial repository. It is recommended that cast and FUETAP cement and borosilicate glass waste-form systems be considered. 13 figures, 16 tables.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (USA)
OSTI Identifier:
6749196
Report Number(s):
PNL-4428-Vol.1
ON: DE83000925; TRN: 82-024441
DOE Contract Number:  
AC06-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROCESSING; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; SOLIDIFICATION; ALPHA-BEARING WASTES; BASALT; BOROSILICATE GLASS; CASTING; CEMENTS; CERAMICS; COLD PRESSING; COST; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; GLASS; LEACHING; MELTING; PLUTONIUM; RADIATION EFFECTS; SILICATES; SINTERING; STABILITY; ACTINIDES; BUILDING MATERIALS; DISSOLUTION; ECONOMICS; ELEMENTS; FABRICATION; IGNEOUS ROCKS; MANAGEMENT; MATERIALS; MATERIALS WORKING; METALS; OXYGEN COMPOUNDS; PHASE TRANSFORMATIONS; PRESSING; PROCESSING; RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; ROCKS; SEPARATION PROCESSES; SILICON COMPOUNDS; TRANSURANIUM ELEMENTS; VOLCANIC ROCKS; WASTE MANAGEMENT; WASTE PROCESSING; WASTES; 052001* - Nuclear Fuels- Waste Processing

Citation Formats

Ross, W A, Lokken, R O, May, R P, Roberts, F P, Timmerman, C L, Treat, R L, and Westsik, Jr, J H. Comparative assessment of TRU waste forms and processes. Volume I. Waste form and process evaluations. United States: N. p., 1982. Web. doi:10.2172/6749196.
Ross, W A, Lokken, R O, May, R P, Roberts, F P, Timmerman, C L, Treat, R L, & Westsik, Jr, J H. Comparative assessment of TRU waste forms and processes. Volume I. Waste form and process evaluations. United States. doi:10.2172/6749196.
Ross, W A, Lokken, R O, May, R P, Roberts, F P, Timmerman, C L, Treat, R L, and Westsik, Jr, J H. Wed . "Comparative assessment of TRU waste forms and processes. Volume I. Waste form and process evaluations". United States. doi:10.2172/6749196. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6749196.
@article{osti_6749196,
title = {Comparative assessment of TRU waste forms and processes. Volume I. Waste form and process evaluations},
author = {Ross, W A and Lokken, R O and May, R P and Roberts, F P and Timmerman, C L and Treat, R L and Westsik, Jr, J H},
abstractNote = {This study provides an assesses seven waste forms and eight processes for immobilizing transuranic (TRU) wastes. The waste forms considered are cast cement, cold-pressed cement, FUETAP (formed under elevated temperature and pressure) cement, borosilicate glass, aluminosilicate glass, basalt glass-ceramic, and cold-pressed and sintered silicate ceramic. The waste-immobilization processes considered are in-can glass melting, joule-heated glass melting, glass marble forming, cement casting, cement cold-pressing, FUETAP cement processing, ceramic cold-pressing and sintering, basalt glass-ceramic processing. Properties considered included gas generation, chemical durability, mechanical strength, thermal stability, and radiation stability. The ceramic products demonstrated the best properties, except for plutonium release during leaching. The glass and ceramic products had similar properties. The cement products generally had poorer properties than the other forms, except for plutonium release during leaching. Calculations of the Pu release indicated that the waste forms met the proposed NRC release rate limit of 1 part in 10/sup 5/ per year in most test conditions. The cast-cement process had the lowest processing cost, followed closely by the cold-pressed and FUETAP cement processes. Joule-heated glass melting had the lower cost of the glass processes. In-can melting in a high-quality canister had the highest cost, and cold-pressed and sintered ceramic the second highest. Labor and canister costs for in-can melting were identified. The major contributor to costs of disposing of TRU wastes in a defense waste repository is waste processing costs. Repository costs could become the dominant cost for disposing of TRU wastes in a commercial repository. It is recommended that cast and FUETAP cement and borosilicate glass waste-form systems be considered. 13 figures, 16 tables.},
doi = {10.2172/6749196},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {1982},
month = {9}
}