Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:40:55.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Experimental Comparison of Alternative Solid Forms for Savannah River High-Level Wastes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

John A. Stone
John A. Stone*
Affiliation:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, South Carolina, USA
Get access

Abstract

Samples of borosilicate glass, high-silica glass, tailored ceramic, and SYNROC, incorporating simulated Savannah River high-level defense waste sludges, were leached by the MCC-1 procedure for times up to 28 days. Cesium, uranium, and cerium leach rates are reported for waste forms containing a composite sludge, at 40°C in deionized water, and at 90°C in deionized water, silicate water, and brine. The ordering of the waste forms from best to worst differs for each element leached, and none of the forms show a clear advantage for all the key radwaste elements. Some cesium leach rates for forms containing high-aluminum or high-iron sludges also are presented. So far, only small effects of sludge type have been observed, with one exception. This study is one of several inputs for selection of an alternative waste form for Savannah River waste.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Stone, J. A., Goforth, S. T. Jr., and Smith, P. K., Preliminary Evaluation of Alternative Forms for Immobilization of Savannah River Plant High-Level Waste, USDOE Report DP–1545 (E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC 1979).Google Scholar
2. Stone, J. A., Nucl. Chem. Waste Mgt. 2, 113 (1981).Google Scholar
3. Bernadzikowski, T. A. in: Proceedings of the 1981 National Waste Terminal Storage Program Information Meeting, USDOE Report DOE/NWTS–15 (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 1981) pp. 272–277.Google Scholar
4. Plodinec, M. J., Wicks, G. G., and Bibler, N. E. in: Advances in the Science and Technology of the Management of High-Level Nuclear Waste (in press).Google Scholar
5. Macedo, P. B., et al. in: Ceramics in Nuclear Waste Management, Chikalla, T. D., Mendel, J. E. eds., USDOE Report CONF–790420 (U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Information Center, Oak Ridge, TN 1979) pp. 321–326.Google Scholar
6. Harker, A. B., Jantzen, C. M., Morgan, P. E. D., and Clarke, D. R. in: Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Vol. 3, J. Moore, G. ed. (Plenum, New York 1981) pp. 139–146.Google Scholar
7. Newkirk, H., Ryerson, F., Coles, D., Hoenig, C., Rozsa, R., Rossington, C., Bazan, F., and Tewhey, J. in: Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management, Vol. 3, Moore, J. G. ed. (Plenum, New York 1981) pp. 165–172.Google Scholar
8. Materials Characterization Center, Nuclear Waste Materials Handbook—Waste Form Test Methods, USDOE Report DOE/TIC–11400 (Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 1981).Google Scholar
9. Flynn, K. F., Jardine, L. J., and Steindler, M. J. in: Radioactive Waste in Geologic Storage, ACS Symposium Series 100, Fried, S. ed. (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC 1979) pp. 115–127. Google Scholar
Johns, R. A. in: Proceedings of 25th Conference on Analytical Chemistry in Energy Technology (in press).Google Scholar
10. Hochel, R. C., Bowman, W. W., and Zeh, C. W., A High-Capacity Neutron Activation Analysis Facility, USDOE Report DP–1546 (E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC 1980).Google Scholar
11. Cloninger, M. O., Cole, C. R., and Washburn, J. F., An Analysis on the Use of Engineered Barriers for Geologic Isolation of Spent Fuel in a Reference Salt Repository, USDOE Report PNL–3356 (Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 1980).Google Scholar