Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:33:31.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uranium Dissolution and Geochemical Modeling in Anoxic and Oxic Solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Carol M. Jantzen  and
Cory L. Trivelpiece
Carol M. Jantzen*
Affiliation:
Savannah River National Laboratory Aiken, SC 29808, U.S.A.
Cory L. Trivelpiece
Affiliation:
Savannah River National Laboratory Aiken, SC 29808, U.S.A.
*
*(Email: [email protected])
Get access

Abstract

High Level Waste (HLW) glasses are to be stored in deep geologic repositories around the world. Some potential repository geologies have oxidizing groundwaters while some have reducing or anoxic groundwaters. The differences in the oxidizing potential of the groundwater, expressed as groundwater Eh, which has a profound impact on the release of multivalent species such as iron and uranium from the glass. Static leach testing of monolithic glass samples (ASTM C1220) doped with uranium were performed at 90°C in an Ar glovebox under anoxic and oxic conditions. Tests were performed in both deionized water and in simulated basaltic groundwater that was pre-equilibrated at low Eh. Geochemical modeling of the measured Eh-pH conditions from the oxic and anoxic experiments using Geochemist’s Workbench software, suggested that different colloidal species control the release of uranium species under oxic and anoxic conditions.

Keywords

nuclear materialsgeologiccolloid
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 2 , Issue 13: Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XL , 2017 , pp. 705 - 710
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2017 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Runde, W., Los Alamos Science, Number 26, 392–411 (2000).Google Scholar
White, W.B., in PNL-5157, Battelle Pacif. NW Laboratory, Richland, WA, 4.1-4.49 (1984).Google Scholar
Peters, R.D. and Diamond, H., H. PNL-3971, Batt Pacif. NW Lab., Richland, WA, 21pp. (1981).Google Scholar
Apted, M.J. and Myers, J., RHO-BW-ST-39p, Rockwell Hanford Ops., Richland, WA, 78pp. (1982).Google Scholar
Coles, D.G. and Apted, M.J., Sci. Basis for Nuclear Waste Mgt., VII, Material Research Society Proceedings 26, Elsevier Publ. Co., NY, 129-136 (1984).Google Scholar
Regalbuto, M., Jones, J. and Schneider, S., in Radioactive Waste Management and Contaminated Site Clean-up, Lee, W.E., Ojovan, M.I., and Jantzen, C.M. (Eds.), Woodhead Publ., London, UK (2013).Google Scholar
Hedin, A. and Olsson, O., Elements, 12, 247–252 (2016).Google Scholar
Grambow, B., Elements, 12, 239–245 (2016).Google Scholar
Mendel, J.E., Sci. Basis for Nuclear Waste Mgt., VI, Elsevier Publ. Co., NY, pp 1–7 (1983).Google Scholar
Jacobs, G.K. and Apted, M.J., EOS Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, Q, p 1065 (1981).Google Scholar
Jantzen, C.M., Adv. in Ceramics, 8, Am. Ceram. Soc, Columbus, OH, pp 385–393 (1984).Google Scholar
Jantzen, C.M., Mat. Res. Soc. Proceed. 26, Elsevier Publ. Co., NY, pp 613–621 (1984).Google Scholar
Jantzen, C.M. and Wicks, G.G., Mat. Res. Soc. Proceed. 44, MRS, Pittsburgh, PA 29–35 (1985).Google Scholar
Jantzen, C.M. and Bibler, N.E., Mat. Res. Soc. Proceed. 50, MRS, Pittsburgh, PA 219–230 (1986).Google Scholar
Jantzen, C.M. and Ramsey, W.G., Mat. Res. Soc. Pro. 176, MRS, Pittsburgh, PA, 217- (1990).Google Scholar
Ulrich, K-U., Rossberg, A., Foerstendorf, H., Zanker, H., Scheinost, A.C., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 70, 5469–5487 (2006).Google Scholar
Reich, T., Moll, H., Arnold, T., Denecke, M.A., Hennig, C., Geipel, G., Bernhard, G., Nitsche, H., Allen, P.G., Bucher, J.J., Edelstein, N.M. and Shuh, D.K., J. of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena, 96, 237–243 (1998).Google Scholar