ASHTABULA SUCCESSES--MACRO NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PIECES! Page: 2 of 6
This article is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
WM'03 Conference, February 23 - 27, 2003, Tucson, AZ
To fill this treatment gap, the prime contractor RMI Environmental Services, commenced a technology development
and deployment project in 1998 to identify, permit, and mobilize the appropriate waste treatment systems to meet
regulatory milestones.
AEMP WASTE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS
The key restriction for processing AEMP wastes at proposed commercial offsite treatment facilities was the large
amount of commingled and/or non-homogenized enriched uranium and graphite. Selected features of the
challenging wastes are outlined in Table I below:
Table I. Partial List of Containerized Waste Forms: Description, Characterization, and Treatment Summary
Waste Form Waste Max Range Range RCRA Barium Salt RCRA
Volume U-Enrich [U-235] Graphite Metals (yes/no) Treatment
(cf) (wt%) (pCi/g) (wt%) (type)
Salt Debris 150 cf 1.25 wt% 12 - 234 1 - 50 Pb, Ba, Yes MACRO
(4 ea. B12) Cd, Cr
HEPA Filters 1,400 cf 1.25 wt% 12 - 234 1 -20 Pb, Ba, No MACRO
(2 ea. rolloff) Cd, Cr
D&D Debris 768 cf 1.25 wt% 12 - 234 5 - 20 Pb, Ba, No MACRO
(8 ea. B25) Cd, Cr
Lube Buckets 44 cf 1.25 wt% 12 - 234 5 -20 Pb, Ba, No MACRO
(1 ea. B12) Cd, Cr
Die Head 7,800 cf 1.25 wt% 12 - 234 50 - 100 Pb, Ba, Yes Micro
Residue (100 dm) Cd, Cr
Salt Sludge 78 cf 1.25 wt% 12 - 234 50 - 100 Pb, Ba, Yes Micro
(10 dm) Cd, Cr
Lead Batteries 15 cf 1.25 wt% 12 - 234 1 - 5 Pb No Macro
(2 dm)
TOTAL =10,255 cf
(293 m3)
The total amount of fissile U-235 in the individual containers or waste streams was high and sometimes above the
350 gm U-235 license limit at typical commercial treatment facilities. In addition, the total weight of graphite (as a
neutron moderator) could exceed one percent on a container basis. Together these posed additional administrative
processing and handling restrictions for treatment or disposal facilities. These limitations would have increased
sampling and processing costs to both the generator and processor. Therefore, alternatives were needed.
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS AND SELECTION
RMI Environmental Services commenced a technology and literature search to identify existing DOE mobile
treatment systems that might be available for immediate use and deployment at the AEMP site. Two-phase epoxies,
polyethylene/polybutadine, and spin-welding all existed in literature and reality with various advantages and
disadvantages. However, final review of DOE EM-50 program identified surplus polymer encapsulation equipment,
expertise, and applicable cost and performance data at Rocky Flats where the technology program had recently been
stopped in 1997.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Altmayer, S. A.; Forschner, J. A.; Kulpa, J. P. & Spoerner, M. T. ASHTABULA SUCCESSES--MACRO NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PIECES!, article, February 27, 2003; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc786149/m1/2/: accessed March 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.