Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:56:12.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Host Phases for Actinide Elements in the Metallic Waste Form

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2011

D. E. Janney
D. E. Janney*
Affiliation:
Argonne National Laboratory-West, Idaho Falls, ID 83403, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Argonne National Laboratory has developed an electrometallurgical process for conditioning spent sodium-bonded metallic reactor fuel prior to disposal. A waste stream from this process consists of stainless steel cladding hulls that contain undissolved metal fission products such as Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, and Ag; a small amount of undissolved actinides (U, Np, Pu) also remains with the hulls. These wastes will be immobilized in a waste form whose baseline composition is stainless steel alloyed with 15 wt% Zr (SS-15Zr). Scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations of simulated metal waste forms (SS-15Zr with up to 11 wt% actinides) show eutectic intergrowths of Fe-Zr-Cr-Ni intermetallic phases with steels. The actinide elements are almost entirely in the intermetallics, where they occur in concentrations ranging from 1–20 at%. Neutron- and electron-diffraction studies of the simulated waste forms show materials with structures similar to those of Fe2Zr and Fe23Zr6.

Dissolution experiments on simulated waste forms show that normalized release rates of U, Np, and Pu differ from each other and from release rates of other elements in the sample, and that release rates for U exceed those for any other element (including Fe). This paper uses transmission electron microscope (TEM) observations and results from energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) and selected-area electron-diffraction (SAED) to characterize relationships between structural and chemical data and understand possible reasons for the observed dissolution behavior.

Transmission electron microscope observations of simulated waste form samples with compositions SS-15Zr-2Np, SS-15Zr-5U, SS-15Zr-11U-0.6Rh-0.3Tc-0.2Pd, and SS-15Zr-10Pu suggest that the major actinide-bearing phase in all of the samples has a structure similar to that of the C15 (cubic, MgCu2-type) polymorph of Fe2Zr, and that materials with this structure exhibit significant variability in chemical compositions. Material whose structure is similar to that of the C36 (dihexagonal, MgNi2-type) polymorph of Fe2Zr was also observed, and it exhibits less chemical variability than that displayed by material with the C15 structure. The TEM data also demonstrate a range of actinide concentrations in materials with the Fe23Zr6 (cubic, Mn23Th6-type) structure.

Microstructures similar to those produced during experimental deformation of Fe-10 at% Zr alloys were observed in intermetallic materials in all of the simulated waste form samples. Stacking faults and associated dislocations are common in samples with U, but rarely observed in those with Np and Pu, while twins occurred in all samples. The observed differences in dissolution behavior between samples with different actinides may be related to increased defect-assisted dissolution in samples with U.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 757: Symposium II – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXVI , 2002 , II3.5
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2003

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] Ackerman, J. P., Johnson, T. R., Chow, L. S. H., Carls, E. L., Hannum, W. H., and Laidler, J. J., Prog. Nucl. Energy 31, 141 (1997).Google Scholar
[2] McDeavitt, S. M., Abraham, D. P., Park, J. Y., and Keiser, D. D. Jr, JOM 49, 29 (1997).Google Scholar
[3] Bauer, T. H., Abraham, D. P., Fink, J. K., Johnson, I., Johnson, S. G., and Wigeland, R. A. in Proc. of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLWRM), Las Vegas, NV, 2001.Google Scholar
[4] Johnson, S. G., Noy, M., DiSanto, T., and Barber, T. L., in Scientific Basis for Waste Management, edited by McGrail, B.P. and Cragnolino, G.A., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 713, Warrendale, PA 2001) pp. 705–711.Google Scholar
[5] Johnson, S. G., Noy, M., DiSanto, T., Frank, S. M., and Keiser, D. D. Jr, Rad. Waste Mang. Envir. Rest. 22, 300 (2002).Google Scholar
[6] Keiser, D. D. Jr, Abraham, D. P., Sinkler, W., Richardson, J. W. Jr, and McDeavitt, S. M., J. Nucl. Mat. 279, 234 (2000).Google Scholar
[7] Goldstein, J. I., Williams, D. B., and Cliff, G. in Principles of Analytical Electron Microscopy, edited by Joy, D. C., Romig, A. D. Jr, and Goldstein, J. I. (Plenum, New York, 1986) pp. 155–217.Google Scholar
[8] Abraham, D. P. and Dietz, N., Mat. Sci. Eng. A329, 610 (2002).Google Scholar
[9] Granovsky, M. S. and Arias, D., J. Nucl. Mat. 229, 29 (1996).Google Scholar
[10] Hirth, J. P. and Lothe, J., Theory of Dislocations, 2nd ed. (Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL, USA, 1992).Google Scholar
[11] Reed-Hill, R. E., Physical Metallurgy Principles, 2nd ed. (PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Boston, MA, 1973).Google Scholar
[12] Abraham, D. P. and Richardson, J. W. Jr. in Long Term Stability of High Temperature Materials, edited by Fuchs, G. E., Dannemann, K. A., and Deragon, T. C. (TMS, Warrendale, PA, 1999) pp. 169–179.Google Scholar
[13] Janney, D., Microscopy and Microanalysis 8 supplement 2 (2002).Google Scholar