Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK
list:$40.50
Web:$36.45
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

Free PDF Access
topleft topright

Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop (1996)
Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources (CGER)

Page
39
bottomleft bottomright
  E-mail
 Facebook
 Digg
 Stumble
 Twitter
More

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.

Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop

Appendix D
Identification and Summary of Characterization of Materials Potentially Requiring Vitrification

Allen G. Croff

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The submitted manuscript has been authored under a contract of the U.S. Government under contract number DE-AC05-96OR22464. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so for U.S. Government purposes.

May 13, 1996

Prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6285

managed by

LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY RESEARCH CORPORATION

for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464

PREFACE

What follows constitutes background information for the Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology International Workshop in general and the presentation entitled "Identification and Summary Characterization of Materials Potentially Requiring Vitrification", given during the first morning of the workshop. Summary characteristics of nine categories of U.S. materials having some potential (interpreted liberally) to be vitrified are given in tables. This is followed by an elaboration of each of the nine categories. References to even more detailed information are included.

 Page
39

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 39
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop Appendix D Identification and Summary of Characterization of Materials Potentially Requiring Vitrification Allen G. Croff Oak Ridge National Laboratory The submitted manuscript has been authored under a contract of the U.S. Government under contract number DE-AC05-96OR22464. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so for U.S. Government purposes. May 13, 1996 Prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6285 managed by LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY RESEARCH CORPORATION for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464 PREFACE What follows constitutes background information for the Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology International Workshop in general and the presentation entitled "Identification and Summary Characterization of Materials Potentially Requiring Vitrification", given during the first morning of the workshop. Summary characteristics of nine categories of U.S. materials having some potential (interpreted liberally) to be vitrified are given in tables. This is followed by an elaboration of each of the nine categories. References to even more detailed information are included.

OCR for page 40
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop TABLE 1. Summary Of U.S. Materials Having Some Potential To Be Vitrified (each type is further discussed in a separate section) Material Type Volume, m3 or m3/yra Radioactivity Density, Ci/m3 Power Density, W/m3 Material Description Vitrification Possibilities 1. Spent civilian nuclear fuel 12000 10,000,000 50000 Light-water reactor spent fuel Unlikely unless required by repository 2. DOE spent fuel 1200 Not quantifiable; Moderate-to-high Not quantifiable; Moderate-to-high Variety of spent fuels Likely for Al-clad fuels, possible for others 3. DOE "tank" wastes 375000 1,000 - 10,000 5 - 50 Alkaline liquid, saltcake, sludge; calcine Highly likely for essentially all retrieved tank waste 4. Capsules:           Cs 3.5 23,000,000 115,000 Capsules of CsCl Likely if overpack is unacceptable Sr 1.1 21,000,000 140,000 Capsules of SrF2   5. Transuranic wastes       Wide variety of materials with TRU >100 nCi/g Likely for only a small fraction unless WIPP-WAC change substantially Remotely handled 2,500 + 14/yr 1,000 1 - 2     Contact handled 70,000 + 1500/yr 25 - 50 0.5 -1.5     6. Low-level radioactive waste,       Extremely wide variety of materials with <<100 nCi/g Likely for LLW from tank waste processing. DOE 38,000/yr 9 - 27 0.01 - 0.05     Commercial: Class A   0.6 0.03 - 0.1   Unlikely for most other LLW. Commercial: Class B 24,000/yrb 60 15     Commercial: Class C   01. - 7,000 0.003 - 115     Commercial: > Class C 63 + 20/yr >0.1 - 7,000 >0.1 - high > 0.003 - high     7. Low-level mixed waste       Extremely wide variety of materials with <<100 nCi/g Likely in selected applications, but extent is unpredictable Commercial 2,100 Not quantifiable low Not quantifiable low     DOE 138,000         8. Surplus plutonium 2 11,000,000 44,000 Plutonium in a variety of materials and contamination Either vitrification or irradiation will be used 9. Environmental restoration 78,000,000 Not quantifiable Low with small-volume exceptions Not quantifiable Law with small-volume exceptions Extremely wide variety of materials and contamination High-toxicity wastes and some in-situ are likely. Unlikely for the bulk of the waste. a Fixed values are existing volumes which are given where production has essentially ceased or where disposal rates are approximately equal to production rates. Rates are given where volumes continue to increase significantly. b Sum of annual production rates for Classes A, B, and C.

OCR for page 41
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 1. Civilian Light-Water-Reactor Spent Fuel Genesis Uranium dioxide fuel that has been irradiated for 3 to 5 years in the approximately 100 civilian pressurized-water reactors (PWRs; 2/3 of capacity) and boiling water reactors (BWRs; 1/3 of capacity) to produce electric power. Description Basic component is a fuel rod or fuel element, which is a stack of right-circular cylindrical uranium dioxide fuel pellets in a welded Zircaloy tube. Zircaloy is a metal alloy composed primarily of zirconium with small amounts of tin and iron. The rods are held in a square array with a metal lattice grid spacer typically composed of Zircaloy but with some made of nickel alloys. The array of rods is held together in the axial direction with tie rods (typically made of Zircaloy) attached to metal end pieces (typically made of stainless steel) to constitute a fuel assembly. BWR fuel assemblies are enclosed by a solid sheet of Zircaloy called a fuel channel along the length of the fuel assembly. TABLE 2. Civilian Light-Water-Reactor Spent Fuel Attribute   PWR BWR Diameter/width Fuel pellet 0.82 cm 1.06 cm   Fuel rod 0.95 cm 1.25 cm   Assembly 21.4 cm 13.9 cm Fuel rods per assembly Array 17 × 17 8 × 8   Number 264 63 Height Fuel Stack 3.66 m 3.76 m   Rod 3.85 m 4.06 m   Assembly 4.06 m 4.47 m Assembly weight   658 kg 320 kg Fuel per assembly Uranium metal 461 kg 183 kg   Uranium dioxide 523 kg 208 kg Metal hardware per assembly   135 kg 112 kg Assembly volume   0.186 m3 0.0863 Avg. specific power, MW/Mg U   37.5 25.9 Burnup, GWd/Mg U Historical 33 27.5   Future 60 46 Composition (Historical burnup - Future burnup)     Initial 235U enrichment, % 3.30 - 4.73 2.77 - 3.64 Final Uranium, kg/Mg Initial U 955.4 - 922.2 962.5 - 937.1   Uranium enrichment, %235U 0.84 - 0.54 0.79 - 0.57   Plutonium, kg/Mg Initial U 9.47 - 14.38 8.26 - 12.3   Fissile Pu, % 239,241Pu 71-62 72-65   Other actinides, kg/Mg Initial U 0.71 - 1.8 0.59 - 1.50   Fission products, kg/Mg Initial U 34.4 - 61.6 28.6 - 49.1 Inventory (Annual Addition - Cumulative), Mg Initial U       1994 1207 - 19,024 675 - 10,788   2000 1300 - 27,400 600 - 14,900   2010 1400 - 39,000 700 - 21,400   2020 700 - 50,200 400 - 26,900 References: Croff (1980), Croff and Alexander (1980); Croff et al. (1982), DOE (1992, 1995a), Ludwig and Renier (1989), Roddy et al. (1986).

OCR for page 42
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 2. DOE-Responsibility Spent Fuels Genesis Irradiated fuel produced in a diverse army of DOE-owned facilities or for which DOE has assumed responsibility. Principal sources of these spent fuels are as follows: Nuclear weapons production complex such as Hanford N-reactor fuel and unreprocessed production reactor fuel at Savannah River Site. Naval nuclear reactors. A diverse assortment of research, test, and demonstration reactors. Description DOE-responsibility spent nuclear fuels have an extremely wide-ranging assortment of shapes, forms, and characteristics. A categorization system for these fuels has been developed along seven imensions: Enrichment: high, low, natural, depleted Fuel Type: hydride, oxide, alloy, carbide, etc. Fuel Matrix: Zr, A1, stainless steel, graphite, etc. Cladding: Zircaloy, A1, stainless steel, etc. Actinide Content: minor actinides, Pu Other Materials Present: graphite, Na, Ca, B, etc. Burnup: High, medium, low More detailed characterization of fuels comprising the majority of the inventory is contained in some of the references. Understanding the DOE spent nuclear fuel inventory is further complicated by the fact that these materials are stored at a variety of sites and facilities. It is likely that not all of these materials have yet been identified, although what remains to be included is likely to add little to the existing inventory. The largest amount of this material is unreprocessed production reactor fuel stored in basins at Hanford and contains about 2,00 MgU. A substantial amount of Al-clad fuels is stored at Savannah River Site. The Idaho site has a substantial amount of a wide variety of fuel stored, ranging from Naval reactor to the core that was destroyed in the Three Mile Island Accident to HTGR fuel from Fort St. Vrain. The production of DOE-responsibility spent fuels has largely ceased with the following major exceptions: Naval reactor fuels Research reactor fuels: U.S. and other countries Potential new fuels from resumption of tritium production References: DOE (1992, 1993, 1994b, 1995a).

OCR for page 43
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 3. DOE ''Tank'' Wastes Genesis Initially-acid wastes from the reprocessing of spent fuels or processing of irradiated targets to recover valuable constituents by applying a variety of chemical technologies. Most of this is classified as high-level waste, although some is transuranic waste and some is low-level waste. Most of the material was neutralized by adding an excess of sodium hydroxide, resulting in the precipitation of many chemicals. Additionally, some of the tank wastes have been further separated and concentrated. There is now about 380,000 m3 of radioactive mixed waste stored in 332 tanks at Savannah River Site, Hanford Site, Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, West Valley Demonstration Project, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Description Alkaline wastes comprise the largest volume of DOE tank wastes and have roughly similar characteristics. These wastes are composed of one or more of the following constituents: Liquid: Supernatant and drainable interstitial liquids in the tanks. Alkaline liquids contain substantial amounts of dissolved chemicals, especially sodium salts such as hydroxide and nitrate/nitrite, often near or at their respective solubility limit. Acidic liquids typically contain only process chemicals, including much lower sodium concentrations, because they have not been neutralized. Salt Cake: A crystalline mixture of chemical salts that were precipitated when neutralized liquids were concentrated to reduce storage volume or potential waste mobility. Composed of the same mix of chemicals that are dissolved in the liquid. Sludge: A generally thick, amorphous mixture of relatively insoluble chemicals that precipitated as a result of neutralization. Iron and aluminum compounds are typically important, but sludges are usually heterogeneous and contain a wide variety of cations and anions as well as interstitial salt cake or liquid. Slurry: Tank waste comprised of solid particles suspended in a liquid. Most of the solids are alkaline nitrate salts that crystallized when liquid wastes were concentrated, but some solids similar to sludges are also present. Only found in double-shell tanks at Hanford. Calcine: A granular, flowable solid (similar to powdered detergent) resulting from heating liquid wastes to the point where all of the water is evaporated but where the more stable oxygen-bearing anions (nitrate, sulfate) are not decomposed to oxides. Only found at ICPP. Zeolite: An inorganic ion exchange material that has been used to sorb and precipitate radioactive cesium from liquids at West Valley. Precipitate: Radioactive cesium that has been precipitated from liquid waste at the Savannah River Site using potassium tetraphenyl borate. References: Sears et al. (1990), Lee and Campbell (1991), Kupfer (1993), DOE (1994a), Gephart and Lundgren (1995).

OCR for page 44
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop TABLE 3. Characteristics, Type, and Location of DOE "Tank" Wastes Characteristic Waste Location and Type Savannah River Site Hanford Site Liquid Sludge Salt Cake Precipitate Liquid Sludge Salt Cake Slurry Volume, 103 m3 59.3 14.3 53.1 0.2 25.1 46 93 94.7 Radioactivity, MCi 86.4 400.9 145.0 0.1 19.9 110.3 11.5 62.1 Water, Wt % 71.0 55.0 6.4 88.5 40.2 33.6 10.5 56.2 Density 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.05 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.3 Characteristic Waste Location and Type West Valley Development Project Idaho Chemical Processing Plant Oak Ridge National Laboratory Alkaline Liquid Sludge Acidic Liquida Zeolite Liquids Calcines Liquid Sludge Volume, 103 m3 1.39 0.05 0.05 0.06 7.7 3.5 0.98 0.41 Radioactivity, Ci 1.9 11.6 1.8 10.6 4.5 40.4 0.02 0.04 Water, Wt % 60.5   40.0   60 - 77 0 68.5 52.2 Density, g/cm3         1.1 - 1.3 1.1 - 1.8 1.23 1.35 a This waste was recently combined with the neutralized waste at West Valley Development Project.

OCR for page 45
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 4. Capsules of Separated Radiocesium and Radiostrontium Genesis During the late 1960s and 1970s, the contents of many Hanford tanks were recovered and chemically processed to remove radiocesium and radiostrontium, after which the wastes were returned to the tanks. This was done to reduce the heat and radioactivity generated by the wastes in the tank, thus allowing its volume to be further reduced. The radiocesium and radiostrontium in the separate streams were processed into solids and encapsulated. Description TABLE 4. Hanford Radioisotope Capsules Characteristic Radiocesium Capsules Radiostrontium Capsules Number of Capsulesa 1328 605 Capsule Construction Double-encapsulated cylinders (SS 316L/SS 316L) with welded lids Double-encapsulated cylinders (Hastelloy C-276/SS 316L) with welded lids Capsule Dimensions     Length, cm 53 51 >Diameter, cm 6.67 6.67 Capsule contents Melt-cast CsCl 38,500 Ci (average)b 260 W (average)b Compacted SrF2 powder 40,100 Ci (average)b 193 W (average)b Inventory     Volume, m3 2.4 1.1 Radioactivity, MCi 55.5c 23.0 a An additional 249 radiocesium capsules and 35 radiostrontium capsules have been dismantled. The contents are not expected to be returned to Hanford. b as of January 1, 1995. c Includes ˜200 Ci of 135Cs, which has a half-life of 3 million years. References: ERDA (1977), DOE (1991, 1995a, 1996b).

OCR for page 46
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 5. Transuranic Wastes Genesis Transuranic (TRU) wastes are materials (a) contaminated with alpha-emitting radionuclides that have an atomic number greater than 92 and half-lives greater than 20 years such that the total concentration of these radionuclides exceeds 100 nCi/g of waste at the time of assay. Before 1984 TRU wastes were defined as those containing 10 nCi/g of such radionuclides, and some TRU waste in storage has TRU radionuclide concentrations in the 10 to 100 nCi/g range. Wastes contaminated with other alpha-emitting radionuclides (e.g., 233U, 244Cm) or radionuclides that eventually decay to other alpha-emitting radionuclides (e.g., 241Pu) may be managed as if they were TRU waste according to DOE orders; this is not codified in law. TRU wastes are produced as secondary wastes during the processing (e.g., separation, fabrication) of materials (e.g., spent fuel, targets, recovered plutonium). Such wastes are produced only by DOE. Similar wastes produced by commercial operations are considered to be Greater-Than-Class-C low-level waste. Description TRU wastes exist as a wide range of materials that have been contaminated with sufficient amounts of TRU radionuclides as described above: Assorted solid trash such as protective clothing, paper, rags, glass, tools, and equipment that have been stored awaiting further processing and/or disposal. Liquids, sludges, and a variety of chemical compounds that are being stored awaiting further processing and disposal. Waste (> 10 nCi/g) that was managed by burial in near-surface trenches before 1970. Soil contaminated by leaking TRU waste containers or the use of soil columns as an ion exchange medium to retard radionuclides released in dilute liquid waste streams. TRU wastes are further subclassified as "contact handled" or "remote handled," depending on whether the dose rate at the surface of the waste package is less than or greater than 200 mrem/hr. Remotely-handled TRU (RH-TRU) wastes constitute about 3% of the total volume and 25% (0.2%) of the total (TRU) radioactivity. The higher radiation levels of RH-TRU wastes result from the presence of fission products, primarily 137Cs. TRU wastes are also further subclassified as to whether they are "mixed" wastes by virtue of containing chemically hazardous constituents regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (primarily), but also the Toxic Substances Control Act or various state regulations. About 55% of TRU wastes are mixed wastes. References: DOE (1991, 1994a, 1995a).

OCR for page 47
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 6. Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Genesis Low-level waste (LLW) is defined by exclusion: it is waste that is not spent fuel, high-level waste, transuranic waste, or byproduct material such as uranium and thorium mill tailings. As such, it must contain less than 100 nCi/g of TRU radionuclides and limits also exist on medium-to-long-lived fission and activation products as well as non-TRU actinides. LLW containing hazardous chemicals is considered separately in Sect. 7. Commercial LLW is governed by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) regulations. It is managed in three classes (A, B, C) with increasing radionuclide concentrations and increasingly stringent disposal requirements. Commercial LLW having radionuclide concentrations greater than Class C is also produced. These wastes are produced by utilities generating electricity using nuclear power plants, commercial firms using radioactive materials to manufacture various items and substances, hospitals that use radionuclides for diagnosis and treatment, and research institutions that use radionuclides in R&D. DOE LLW is governed by DOE orders. Subclasses of DOE LLW are defined on a site-by-site basis, as are waste acceptance criteria which may vary widely. These wastes result from a wide range of DOE activities related to production of nuclear weapons and R&D. Description Commercial LLW is composed of a collage of waste types as diverse as their sources: Irradiated components, contaminated materials, and immobilized liquids and sludges from nuclear power plant operations. Contaminated trash from nuclear fuel cycle operations (e.g., fuel fabrication). Industrial activities (e.g., radiopharmaceuticals, manufacture of sealed sources). Medical wastes from radiopharmaceuticals administered to humans and radioactive sources used to treat diseases. Research activities, primarily tracers used in biological research but also in geological research. In part, DOE LLW is composed of many of the same waste types as commercial LLW because it undertakes many similar activities. In addition, a large amount of DOE LLW has been produced by the processing of materials related to the production of nuclear weapons, which has no parallels in the commercial sector. This includes not only general process wastes, but also unusual waste forms such as grouted LLW resulting from the processing of high-level waste at the Savannah River Site and grouted waste that was injected into the earth at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The preponderance of commercial and DOE LLW is emplaced in near-surface disposal facilities relatively soon after it is generated. Thus, the amount of LLW in storage is small compared to what is already emplaced. One exception to this is LLW that has radionuclide concentrations greater than Class C. By law, disposal of this waste is the responsibility of the Federal government (i.e., DOE). Its disposal destination and attendant waste acceptance criteria are yet to be determined. References: DOE (1995a); Loghry et al. (1995).

OCR for page 48
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 7. Low-Level Mixed Wastes Genesis Mixed low-level waste (MLLW) contains both radionuclides and hazardous chemicals. Low level radioactive waste is defined in Sect. 6. Hazardous chemicals are those defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), although chemicals defined by other acts (e.g., Toxic Substances Control Act, state regulations) are included in this category. Although not specifically denominated as such, many wastes in earlier sections are actually mixed wastes. In particular, tank wastes and many transuranic wastes contain hazardous chemicals that result in their being considered to be mixed. Description Commercial MLLW is composed of a variety of materials from diverse operations and institutional sources. Annual production in 1990 was about 3500 m3, of which the largest portion was liquid scintillation fluids. Other materials comprising commercial MLLW include waste oils, chlorinated organic chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons, contaminated heavy metals (e.g., lead, mercury), and corrosive aqueous liquids. A large portion of commercial MLLW (especially the organic chemicals) is treated soon after being generated. A total of about 2,100 m3 of commercial MLLW was in storage in 1990. Contaminated heavy metals constituted the largest volume, with contaminated organic chemicals following closely. It is estimated that about 75% of this is waste being accumulated prior to treatment. The most important generators (in decreasing order of importance) are industrial, academic, government, medical, and civilian nuclear power. Details are included in tables that follow. DOE MLLW is composed of an extremely wide variety of materials from diverse operations and legacies The inventory of DOE MLLW is about 140,000 m3, of which 68% is contaminated inorganic solids and contaminated soils and gravels. Mostly inorganic contaminated debris accounts for most of the remainder. Projected generation of DOE MLLW for the next 5 years is estimated to be about 31,000 m3 (ignoring final waste forms), which is composed of mostly contaminated inorganic solids, although liquids are more significant than in the legacy material. The vast majority of these wastes are being stored at DOE sites, and the rate of treatment and disposal is far less than the generation rate. References: Klein et al. (1992), DOE (1995a,b).

OCR for page 49
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 8. Surplus Plutonium Genesis High-quality plutonium was produced and separated for military purposes for decades. Recent agreements to substantially reduce the size of nuclear arsenals will lead to some of the existing plutonium stockpile no longer being needed for national security purposes. In the U.S. the primary permanent disposition alternatives being considered are to: convert the Pu to the oxide, fabricate it into spent fuel, irradiate it in light-water reactors, and then dispose of it in a repository as spent fuel, or incorporate the Pu directly into a waste form for subsequent disposal in a repository. The other country with significant amounts of surplus military Pu is Russia. The Russians view the Pu as a valuable fuel resource and plan on using it as such. If the Russians were to sell the Pu to the U.S., its permanent disposition would presumably be the same as stated above. It should be noted that the Russians do not sharply distinguish military and civilian plutonium stocks as in the U.S., and most Pu has been and continues to be generated in power reactors. Description The composition of military Pu has been stated to be approximately as follows: 239pu 93.0% 240pu 6.0% 241pu 0.5% The amounts of Pu that will be declared surplus to national security needs are officially stated as follows: United States 38 Mg Russia 100 Mg The Russians continue to produce military-grade Pu at a rate of about 1.5 Mg/y because of the need for electric power from three production reactors that remain in operation. About 28 Mg of U.S. surplus plutonium exists as the metal and the rest is in a variety of forms (oxide, unirradiated fuel, irradiated fuel, and other forms). References: Albright et al. (1993), Diakov (1995), DOE (1996a).

OCR for page 50
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop 9. DOE Environmental Restoration Wastes Genesis The DOE has hundreds of unused legacy sites and facilities that are contaminated with radionuclides, hazardous chemicals, or combinations thereof. It has undertaken a long-term environmental restoration program to remediate the sites and to decontaminate and decommission (D&D) the facilities. Description Environmental restoration wastes are not well characterized because: in situ legacy contents are often not well characterized concerning the nature of the materials and spread of contamination the processes by which D&D of facilities will be accomplished is not yet known; thus, the secondary waste streams have not yet been defined. Taken as a whole, environmental restoration wastes are projected to be less heavily contaminated and more heterogeneous than other waste types. The wastes are segregated into two broad categories: contaminated soil (including sediment and sludge) and contaminated debris (metal, concrete, wood, asphalt, brick, plastic, rubble). A small fraction of this waste (˜170,000 m3) is residues from processing of highly concentrated uranium ores during World War II, and as a consequence contains very high concentrations of radium. References: DOE (1995a), National Research Council (1995).

OCR for page 51
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop References Albright, D, F. Berkhout, And W. Walker, 1993, World Inventory of Plutonium And Highly-Enriched Uranium, 1992, Oxford University Press (1993). Croff, A. G, 1980, ORIGEN2—A Revised and Updated Version of the Oak Ridge Isotope Generation and Depletion Code, ORNL-5621. Croff, A. G, and C. W. Alexander, 1980, Decay Characteristics of Once-Through LWR and LMFBR Spent Fuels, High-Level Wastes, and Fuel Assembly Structural Material Wastes, ORNL/TM-7431. Croff, A. G., M. S. Liverman, and G. W. Morrison, 1982, Graphical and Tabular Summaries of Decay Characteristics for Once-Through PWR, LMFBR, and FFTF Fuel Cycle Materials, ORNL/TM-8061. Diakov, A. S., 1995, Disposition of Separated Plutonium: An Overview of the Russian Program, paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Radioactive Management and Environmental Remediation , Berlin, Germany. DOE, 1991, Integrated Data Base for 1991: U.S. Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 7. DOE, 1992, Characteristics of Potential Repository Wastes, DOE/RW-0184-R1. DOE, 1993, Spent Fuel Working Group Report on Inventory and Storage of The Department's Spent Nuclear Fuel and Other Irradiated Nuclear Materials and Their Environmental, Safety, and Health Vulnerabilities. DOE, 1994a, Integrated Data Base Report for 1993: U.S. Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 9. DOE, 1994b, DOE-Owned Spent Nuclear Fuel Strategic Plan. DOE, 1995a, Integrated Data Base Report-1994: U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 11. DOE, 1995b, 1995 Mixed Waste Inventory Summary Report, U.S. DOE Office of Environmental Management. DOE, 1996a, Department of Energy Declassifies Location and Forms of Weapon-Grade Plutonium and Highly-Enriched Uranium Inventory Excess to National Security Needs, DOE FACTS (press release). DOE, 1996b, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Tank Waste Remediation System , DOE/EIS-0189D. ERDA, 1977, Alternatives for Long-Term Management of Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste-Hanford Reservation, ERDA 77-44. Gephart, R. E, and R. E. Lundgren, 1995, Hanford Tank Clean Up: A Guide to Understanding the Technical Issues, PNL-10773. Klein J. A, et al, 1992, National Profile on Commercially Generated Low-Level Radioactive Mixed Waste, NUREG/CR-5938. Kupfer, M. J, 1993, Disposal of Hanford Site Tank Waste, WHC-SA-1576-FP. Lee, D. D, and D. O. Campbell, 1991, Treatment Requirements for Decontamination of ORNL Low-Level Liquid Waste, ORNL/TM-11799. Loghry, S. L. et al., 1995, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Source Terms for the 1992 Integrated Data Base, ORNL/TM-11710. Ludwig, S. B, and J. P. Renier, 1989, Standard- and Extended-Burnup PWR and BWR Reactor Models for the ORIGEN2 Computer Code, ORNL/TM-11018 (December 1989). National Research Council, 1995, Safety of the High-Level Uranium Ore Residues at the NFSS, Lewiston, New York, National Academy press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 52
Glass as a Waste Form and Vitrification Technology: Summary of an International Workshop Roddy, J. W., et al., 1986, Physical and Decay Characteristics of Commercial LWR Spent Fuel, ORNL/TM-9591/R1. Sears, M. B., et al., 1990, Sampling and Analysis of Radioactive Liquid Wastes and Sludges in the Melton Valley and Evaporator Facility Storage Tanks at ORNL , ORNL/TM-11652.

Representative terms from entire chapter:

river site