Uranyl Acetate: RCRA?

[10525kfb@ibm.cl.msu.edu (Kristin Erickson)]

Continuing along the earlier discussion, after pow-wowing with some other
RSOs, and talking to our hazardous waste people, I decided to fine tune my
earlier post on uranyl acetate.

I stated it was RCRA waste. It actually is not RCRA, nor is it radioactive
licensed material, but is a waste that is NOT accepted by hazardous waste
sites, because of the fact that it is above background radiation when
measured with a detector.  What this effectively boils down to is that we
must manage this as a "hazardous" waste, even though no law defines it as
such.

The consensus seems to be that many of us are managing it as a radioactive
material to prevent possible liability or compliance issues.  Does anyone
have any better ways to "skin this cat"?  One RSO had considered treating
the waste, but then you have those permitting issues and contaminated
equipment to deal with.

My real motive is to ask ourselves the question, "Must we spend almost
$3000/drum to dispose of material at Barnwell that is not regulated as a
chemical or a radioactive material?"  This is the current problem facing
many of us, and what a waste of resources!

Well, enough philosophizing!  I'll be interested to hear any alternative
ideas that you may have.

Again, regards,

Kristin

************************************************************************
Kristin Erickson, Radiation Safety Officer
Office of Radiation, Chemical and Biological Safety
C124 Research Complex-Eng.
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Telephone: (517) 355-5008   Fax: (517)353-4871   Email: 10525kfb@msu.edu
************************************************************************