Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:01:16.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Depleted Uranium Oxides and Silicates as Spent Nuclear Fuel Waste Package Fill Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2012

C. W. Forsberg
C. W. Forsberg*
Affiliation:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A new repository waste package (WP) concept for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is being investigated. The WP uses depleted uranium (DU) to improve performance and reduce the uncertainties of geological disposal of SNF. The WP would be loaded with SNF. Void spaces would then be filled with DU (∼0.2 wt % 235U) dioxide (UO2) or DU silicate-glass beads.

Fission products and actinides can not escape the SNF UO2 crystals until the UO2 dissolves or is transformed into other chemical species. After WP failure, the DU fill material slows dissolution by three mechanisms: (1) saturation of WP groundwater with DU and suppression of SNF dissolution, (2) maintenance of chemically reducing conditions in the WP that minimize SNF solubility by sacrificial oxidation of DU from the +4 valence state, and (3) evolution of DU to lower-density hydrated uranium silicates. The fill expansion minimizes water flow in the degraded WP. The DU also isotopically exchanges with SNF uranium as the SNF degrades to reduce long-term nuclear-criticality concerns.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 465: Symposium II – Scienfific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XX , 1996 , 615
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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. Cogar, J.A., Waste Package Filler Material Testing Report, BBA000000–01717–2500–00008REV00 (U.S. Department of Energy, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1996).Google Scholar
2. Crosthwaite, J. L., The Performance Assessment and Ranking of Container Design Options for the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program, TR-500, COG-93–410 (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Research Co., 1994).Google Scholar
3. Forsberg, C. W., et al. , DUSCOBS - A Depleted-Uranium Silicate Backfill For Transport. Storage, and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, ORNL/TM-13045 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN., 1995).Google Scholar
4. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Multi-Purpose Canister System Evaluation: A Systems Engineering Approach (U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1994).Google Scholar
5. Smellie, J. A. T., Karlsson, F., and Grundfelt, B.., Proc. GEOVAL'94: Validation Through Model Testing (Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, 1995), p. 363–385.Google Scholar
6. Finn, P. A., Hoh, J. C., Bates, J. K., and Wolf, S. F., Proc. Topical Meeting. DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel - Challenges and Initiatives, Salt Lake City, Utah, December 13–16, 1994 (American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1994).Google Scholar
7. Murphy, W. M., Technology Today (June 1992).Google Scholar
8. Smith, D. K., Schettz, B. E., Anderson, C. A. F., and Smith, K. L., Uranium, 1, (1982), p 79.Google Scholar
9. Pearcy, E. C., Prikryl, J. D., Murphy, W. M., and Leslie, B. W., Applied Geochemistry, 9, (1994), p. 713–732.Google Scholar
10. Murphy, W. M. and Pearcy, E. C., (Mat Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 257, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992), p. 521–527.Google Scholar
11. Murphy, W. M., Radwaste Mag., 2 (6), (November 1995), p. 44.Google Scholar
12. International Atomic Energy Agency, Natural Fission Reactors. Proc, of a Mtg.of the Technical Committee on Natural Fission Reactors. Paris France. December 19–21. 1977 (Vienna, Austria, 1978).Google Scholar
13. Naudet, S. R., Natural Fission Reactors. Proc, of a Meeting of the Technical Committee on Natural Fission Reactors. Paris. France. December 19–21. 1977, IAEA-TC-119/22 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 1978), p. 589–599.Google Scholar
14. Nuclear, U.S. Regulatory Commission, Safety Evaluation Report for the Claiborne Enrichment Center, Homer, Louisiana, Docket No. 70–3070, NUREG-1491 (Washington, DC., January 1994).Google Scholar
15. Hickey, J. W. N., Letter from J. Hickey. Chief Fuel Cycle Safety Branch. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission To Louisiana Energy Services. L.P., Docket No. 70–3070 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, September 22, 1992).Google Scholar
16. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.; EG&G Idaho, Inc.: and Westinghouse Savannah River Co, Radiological Performance Assessment for the E-Area Vaults Disposal Facility, WSRC-RP-94–218 (Oak Ridge National laboratory, Grand Junction, CO., 1994).Google Scholar