Characterization of a Glass-Bonded Ceramic Waste Form Loaded With U and Pu

Abstract

Abstract-The TEAM Workshops originated from probknss in fusion reaeareh. Based on his recent observations regarding automotive modeling, the author asks whether TEAM-i&e worksho~and the accompanying cooperation among model= are of vahse in areas of economic competition. I. cO&@ETtTtON AND~PSRATIONIn her study of advanced automotive government-industry cooperative programs, Melissa Polverini [1] compared the Advanced Clean Energy Project in Japan, the Car of Tomorrow in Europe, and the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) in the USA. The Advanced Clean Energy Project assigned individual appointments to each company. That meant the companies needed to share little or no research information, The Car of Tomorrow is to come up with only one car design, which will then be put into production. Because of tha~the companies have to share information, which for competitive reasons they don't want to do, resulting in delays for the program. The PNGV attempts something in between. The companies work together on pre-competitive issues, but in the vehicle engineering phase, they act independently.I talked about this earlier this week in my panel presentation on PNGV modeling [2]. This morning let's think about cooperation in competitive industries. In particular, consider what role TEAM or TEAM-like workshops can play in this process. A VOLATfLE MEETINGWhat got me thinking about this was a particular PNGV Technical Team meeting. Each Technical Team has members from the '*BigThree" US automakers, from government agencies, and from the national laboratories [3]. This particular meeting was a meeting of the Systems Analysis Team, who are responsible for developing modeling tools and encouraging the other teams to do modeling. Members of other teams were also present as well as other people with broader responsibilities within PNGV. Every year the Peer Review Panel from the Nationai Research Council [4] recommends cost modeling for PNGV, and every year the automakers demur. But this particular meeting was about modeling somethhg else, modeling that the PNGV secretariat and the US Department of Energy (DOE) had km pushing for. The modeling had finally been done, but was badly flawed because it was based on bad assumptions. Because of these bad assumptions, the results ilom the modeling were a clear-cut "The bigger, the better" or "The smaller, the better." Even if the modeling had been done correctly, the results would be controversial because the different automakers had each been promoting different choices.The modelers and those of us tlom the Systems Analysis Technical Team believed the purpose of the meeting was to provide better assumptions, so the modeling could be redone. Instead, some of the industry people questioned the need for cooperative modeling, saying their in-house, proprietary modeling tools were far better, and could provide all that was needed.This sort of response is not unique to the auto industry. A week ago, representatives of another industry visited Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and ...

Properties of Plutonium-Containing Colloids Released from Glass-Bonded Sodalite Nuclear Waste form

“…Small inclusions of oxides (uranium, plutonium, and some rare earths) and halite (NaCl) are encapsulated by glass in the CWF near glass-sodalite phase boundaries. The uranium and plutonium oxides have been identified as clusters of (U,Pu)O 2 particles of colloidal size (20-50 nm) [2]. A transmission electron micrograph of these particles in CWF is shown in figure 1 (left).…”

Characterization and Performance of Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) Product as a Final Waste form

“…In the FBSR final waste form the radionuclide release (Cs and Re) is retarded preferentially to the matrix element, Na, release (Table V) or conversely, Na is released from one of the phases preferentially compared to the nosean phase which retains the Re. This finding is noteworthy because the Hanford specification for Na release for vitrified waste forms is an indicator for the congruent release of Tc 99 since Na and B and Tc 99 are all released at similar stoichiometric rates (congruently) from vitrified waste forms [10,11,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24].…”

“…In addition, sodalite structures are known to retain B [8], Ge [9], I [9,6], and Br [9,6] in the cage like structures. Indeed, waste stabilization at Argonne National LaboratoryWest (ANL-W) currently uses a glass-bonded sodalite ceramic waste form (CWF) for disposal of electrorefiner wastes for sodium-bonded metallic spent nuclear fuel from the EBR II fast breeder reactor [10,11].…”

Radioactive Demonstration Of Mineralized Waste Forms Made From Hanford Low Activity Waste (Tank SX-105, Tank AN-103, And AZ-101/102) By Fluidized Bed Steam Reformation (FBSR)

“…In addition, sodalite structures are known to retain B [11,12] and Ge [13] in the cage like structures. Waste stabilization at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) operated by Battelle Energy Alliance at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) currently uses a glass-bonded sodalite ceramic waste form (CWF) for containment of I from electrorefiner wastes from the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR) II fast breeder reactor [14,15]. Researchers' at Hanford had also researched and patented a process for stabilizing alkali metal iodides or aqueous solutions into alkali sodalites for applications at Hanford.…”