Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T06:57:40.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical Interactions in the Near-Field of a Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel – A Modeling Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Heikki Kumpulainen ,
Jarmo Lehikoinen  and
Arto Muurinen
Heikki Kumpulainen
Affiliation:
VTT Chemical Technology, P.O. Box 1404, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland
Jarmo Lehikoinen
Affiliation:
VTT Chemical Technology, P.O. Box 1404, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland
Arto Muurinen
Affiliation:
VTT Chemical Technology, P.O. Box 1404, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland
Get access

Abstract

The near-field chemistry of the repository for spent nuclear fuel arising from interactions between the groundwater, compacted bentonite clay, canister and the spent fuel was calculated using a three-successive-closed-systems approach. The calculations were performed for fresh granitic and saline groundwaters using the thermodynamic computer codes, HYDRAQL/CE and EQ3/6. The effects of water chemistry inside the canister as well as water radiolysis on fuel dissolution were taken into consideration. The groundwater and the three barriers of the near-field were accounted for by this approach, with particular emphasis given to the pH, Eh and actinide solubilities.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 608: Symposium QQ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXIII , 1999 , 123
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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

1 Kumpulainen, H., Lehikoinen, J., Muurinen, A., and Ollila, K., Report VTT Tiedotteita 1912, 1998 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
2 Arthur, R.C., and Apted, M.J., Report SKI 96-31, 1996.Google Scholar
3 Papelis, C., Hayes, K.F., and Leckie, J.O., Dept. Civil Eng., Stanford Univ., CA, Technical Report No. 306, 1988.Google Scholar
4 Wolery, T.J., Report UCRL-MA- 110662 Pt. 1, 1992.Google Scholar
5 Müller-Vonmoos, M., and Kahr, G., Report NTB 83-12, 1983.Google Scholar
6 Grauer, R., Report NAGRA TR 86-12E, 1986.Google Scholar
7 Muurinen, A., and Lehikoinen, J., Eng. Geol., 54, 207 (1999).Google Scholar
8 Bond, A.E., Hoch, A.R., Jones, G.D., Tomczyk, A.J., Wiggin, R.M., and Worraker, W.J., Report SKB 97-19, 1997.Google Scholar
9 O'Neill, H.St.C., Am. Miner., 73,470 (1988).Google Scholar
10 Anttila, M., Report YJT-92-03, 1992 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
11 Anttila, M., personal communication.Google Scholar
12 Loida, A., Grambow, B., Geckeis, H., and Dressler, P., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVIII, edited by Murakami, T., and Ewing, R.C. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 353, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995), pp. 577–584.Google Scholar
13 Werme, L., Sellin, P., and Forsyth, R., Report SKB 90-08, 1990.Google Scholar
14 Arthur, R.C., and Apted, M.J., Report SKI 96-30, 1996.Google Scholar