Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:00:36.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Uranium (VI) Solubility in Carbonate-Free ERDA-6 Brine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Jean-Francois Lucchini
Affiliation:
[email protected], Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Carlsbad, New Mexico, United States
Hnin Khaing
Affiliation:
[email protected], Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Carlsbad, New Mexico, United States
Donald T. Reed
Affiliation:
[email protected], Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Carlsbad, New Mexico, United States
Get access

Abstract

When present, uranium is usually an element of importance in a nuclear waste repository. In the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), uranium is present in significant quantities, with about 647 metric tons to be placed in the repository [1]. Therefore, the chemistry of uranium, and especially its solubility, needs to be determined under WIPP-relevant conditions.

Long-term experiments were performed to measure the solubility of uranium (VI) in carbonate-free ERDA-6 brine, a simulated WIPP brine, at pCH+ values between 8 and 12.5. These data, obtained from the over-saturation approach, were the first WIPP repository-relevant data for the VI actinide oxidation state. The solubility trends observed pointed towards low uranium solubility in WIPP brine and a lack of amphotericity. At the expected pCH+ in the WIPP (˜ 9.5), measured uranium solubility approached 10-7 M. The objective of these experiments was to establish a baseline solubility to further investigate the effects of carbonate complexation on uranium solubility in WIPP brines, during the ongoing research program in actinide solubility under WIPP-relevant conditions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

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

1U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), DOE/WIPP 2009-3424, 2009.Google Scholar
2 Neck, V. and Kim, J.I. Radiochim. Acta 89, 1 (2001).Google Scholar
3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (private communication with U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories, and Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2 March 2005).Google Scholar
4 Lucchini, J.F. Borkowski, M., Richmann, M.K. Ballard, S. and Reed, D.T. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 444/445, 506 (2007).Google Scholar
5 Lucchini, J.F. Khaing, H., Borkowski, M., Richmann, M.K. and Reed, D.T. Report LA-UR-10-00497, 2010.Google Scholar
6 Nitsche, H., Muller, A., Standifer, E.M. Deinhammer, R.S. Becraft, K., Prussin, T. and Gatti, R.C., Radiochim. Acta 58/59, 27 (1992).Google Scholar
7 Rai, D., Felmy, A.R. Juracich, S.P. and Rao, L. F., Report SAND94-1949, 1995.Google Scholar
8 Borkowski, M., Lucchini, J.F. Richmann, M.K. and Reed, D.T. Report LA-14360, 2009.Google Scholar
9 Arocas, P. Diaz and Grambow, B., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 62, 245 (1998).Google Scholar