Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:24:20.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flow Path Mineralogy: Its Effect on Radionuclide Retardation in the Geosphere

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

Kenneth V. Ticknor ,
D. C. Kamineni  and
T. T. Vandergraaf
Kenneth V. Ticknor
Affiliation:
AECL Research, Whiteshell Laboratories, Pinawa, Manitoba ROE 1LO
D. C. Kamineni
Affiliation:
AECL Research, Whiteshell Laboratories, Pinawa, Manitoba ROE 1LO
T. T. Vandergraaf
Affiliation:
AECL Research, Whiteshell Laboratories, Pinawa, Manitoba ROE 1LO
Get access

Abstract

The geological formation surrounding a nuclear fuel waste disposal vault is an important barrier to the migration of radionuclides to the biosphere. Field investigations of plutonic rocks in the Canadian Shield have shown that open, water-bearing fractures form the main potential migration paths for radionuclides through the geosphere. Any interaction between the radionuclides in solution and the minerals in these fractures will retard radionuclide movement towards the biosphere. The minerals lining these open fractures are products of rock alteration and have themselves been subject to varying degrees of alteration over time. Accordingly, the fracture mineralogy is quite different from the bulk mineralogy of the intact host rock.

The degree to which measured radionuclide sorption varied with mineralogy was examined by laboratory sorption studies using static batch techniques and autoradiography combined with petrography. Fission products (Sr, Cs) and actinides (U, Np, Pu) were among the radionuclides studied. It was found that most fracture-infilling minerals such as hematite, goethite, illite, kaolinite, chlorite, epidote, gypsum and muscovite show preferential sorption for certain radionuclides. Calcite sorbs actinides such as U, Np and Pu from solution, but not ion exchangeable radionuclides such as Cs and Sr. Quartz shows the least affinity for any of the radionuclides studied.

It is concluded that variations in the type, amount and composition of fracture-infilling minerals must be considered in the assessment of the suitability of any geological formation as a radioactive wastes disposal site.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 212: Symposium P – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XIV , 1990 , 661
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1991

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. Dormuth, K.W. and Nuttall, K., Radioactive Waste Management and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 8, 93 (1987).Google Scholar
2. Davison, C.C., Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Technical Record, TR-299*, (1985).Google Scholar
3. Kamineni, D.C. and Stone, D., Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 83, 237 (1983).Google Scholar
4. Kamineni, D.C., Dugal, J.J.B. and Ejeckam, R.B., Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Technical Record, TR-221*, 1984.Google Scholar
5. Stone, D., Kamineni, D.C. and Brown, A., Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Technical Record, TR-243*, 1984.Google Scholar
6. Kamineni, D.C., McCrank, G.F., Stone, D., Ejeckam, R.B. and Sikorsky, R., in Current Research, Part B, Geological Survey of Canada Paper 85–1B, 81–88, (1985).Google Scholar
7. Kamineni, D.C., Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 93, 471 (1986).Google Scholar
8. Ejeckam, R.B., Stone, D. and Kamineni, D.C., Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Technical Record, TR-490*, 1990.Google Scholar
9. Kamineni, D.C., Vandergraaf, T.T. and Ticknor, K.V., Canadian Mineralogist 21, 625 (1983).Google Scholar
10. Vandergraaf, T.T., Abry, D.R.M. and Davis, C.E., Chemical Geology 36, 139 (1982).Google Scholar
11. Kamineni, D.C., Ticknor, K.V. and Vandergraaf, T.T., Clay Minerals 21, 909 (1986).Google Scholar
12. Ticknor, K.V., Vandergraaf, T.T. and Kamineni, D.C., Applied Geochemistry 4, 163 (1989).Google Scholar
13. Torstenfelt, B., Andersson, K. and Allard, B., Chemical Geology 36, 123 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Relyea, J.F., Washburne, C.D. and Fulton, R.W., in Task 4 Third Contractor Information Meeting, Volume II. Seattle, WA, 1979 Oct. 14–17. Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report, PNL-SA-8571, 1979.Google Scholar
15. Gascoyne, M., Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Technical Record, TR-463*, 1988.Google Scholar
16. Ames, L.L., McGarrah, J.E. and Walker, B.A., Clays and Clay Minerals 31, 321 (1983).Google Scholar
17. Ames, L.L., McGarrah, J.E. and Walker, B.A., Clays and Clay Minerals 31, 343 (1983).Google Scholar
18. Relyea, J.F., Ames, L.L., Serne, R.J., Fulton, R.W. and Washburne, CD., in Task 4 Second Contractor Information Meeting, Volume II. Seattle, WA, 1978 Oct. 1–5. Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report, PNL-SA-7352, 1978.Google Scholar
19. Relyea, J.F., Serne, R.J., Fulton, R.W., Washburne, CD. and Martin, W.J., in Task 4 Third Contractor Information Meeting, Volume II. Seattle, WA, 1979 Oct. 14–17. Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report, PNL-SA-8571, 1979.Google Scholar