No abstract

No abstract

Work performed under DOE Contract NO. DE-AC07-94D13223 DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCU!JEKf I S UNLlMiTED i DISCLAIMER This repon was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neitherthe United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied. or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy. completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed. or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product. process, or senrice by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or othemise. does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation. orfavoring bythe United StatesGovernmentorany agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessan'iy state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency

Through its annual process of identifying technology deficiencies associated with waste treatment, the Department of Energy's (DOE)Mixed Waste Focus Area (MWFA) determined that the former DOE weapons complex lacks efficient mixed waste stabilization technologies for salt containing wastes. These wastes were generated as sludge and solid effluents from various primary nuclear processes involving acids and metal f~s h i n g ; and well over 10,000 cubic meters .exist at 6 complex sites. In addition, future volumes of these problematic wastes will be produced as other mixed 'waste treatment methods such as incineration and melting are deployed.The current method used to stabilize salt waste for compliant disposal is grouting with Portland cement. This method is inefficient since the highly soluble and reactive chloride, nitrate, and sulfate salts interfere with the hydration and setting processes associated with grouting. The inefficiency results fi-om having to use low waste loadings to ensure a durable and leach resistant final waste form.The approach for addressing this deficiency is based on system engineering principles developed specifically for the MWFA'. Based on these principles, requirements for resolution were identified and a technology development . plan was prepared.The requirements, formulated with technical, regulatory, and stakeholder input, specify the performance levels expected for each salt waste stabilization process selected for development. The development plan documents the MWFA strategy for selecting and testing the various alternative stabilization technologies. The plan also defines the schedule and scope needed to ensure timely and cost effective delivery of adequate solutions to potential end users. Based on this strategy, the following five alternative salt waste stabilization technologies were selected for MWFA development funding in FY97 and FY98: 1) Phosphate Bonded Ceramics, 2) Solgel, 3) Polysiloxane, 4) Polyester Resin, and 5) Enhanced Concrete. 'Comparable evaluations were planned for the stabilization development efforts. Under these evaluations each technology stabilized the same type of salt waste surrogates as specified by the MWFA. Final waste form performance data such as compressive strength, waste loading, and leachability can then be equally compared to the requirements originally specified.In addition to the selected test results provided in this paper, the performance of each alternative stabilization technology, will be

This I;_ok was preparedas an account of work sponsoredby an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, rnak_=_s any warranty, expressor implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibilityfor the accuracy, completeness, or usefulnessof any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or representsthat its use would " not infringe privateiy owned dghts. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not neoessanlyconstituteor imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressedherein do not necessarilystate or reflect those of the United States Governmentor any agency thereof.