Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:32:49.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Long-Term Stability of Becquerelite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

R.J. Finch
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2, Canada
J. Suksi
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Unioninkatu 35, FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland
K. Rasilainen
Affiliation:
VTT Energy, P.O. Box 1604, FIN-02044, Helsinki, Finland
R.C. Ewing
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

Uranium-series disequilibria data, in conjunction with petrographic analyses, indicate that the uranyl oxide hydrate becquerelite can persist for hundreds of thousands of years, possibly longer. Becquerelite probably forms continuously as ground water compositions permit and is resistant to U leaching by ground water. On the time scale of interest for the geologic disposal of spent UO2 nuclear fuel, becquerelite is a long-lived sink for uranium in oxidizing, U and Ca-bearing ground waters. Such long-term stability also supports recent solubility experiments that indicate natural becquerelite has a lower solubility product than that determined for synthetic becquerelites.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

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] Casas, I., Bruno, J., Cera, E., Finch, R.J., Ewing, R.C., Kinetic and thermodynamic studies of uranium minerals. Assessment of the long-term evolution of spent nuclear fuel. SKB Technical Report, series TR94, Stokholm, 1994 (in press).Google Scholar
[2] Sandino, A. and Grambow, B., Solubility equilibria in the U(VI)-Ca-K-Cl-H20 system. transformation of schoepite into becquerelite and compreignacite. Radiochimica Acta (in press).Google Scholar
[3] Vochten, R. and van Haverbeke, L., Mineralogy and Petrololgy 43, 6572 (1990).Google Scholar
[4] Finch, R.J. and Ewing, R.C., SKB Technical Report 91–15 (1991).Google Scholar
[5] Rasilainen, K. and Suksi, J., On the quantitative interpretation of uranium series disequilibria (in Finnish). VTT Research Notes 1404 (1992).Google Scholar
[6] Frondel, C., Systematic mineralogy of uranium and thorium. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bulletin 1064 (1958) 399 pp.Google Scholar
[7] Gauthier, G., Francois, A., Deleins, M., and Piret, P., The Mineralogical Record 20, 26 (1989)Google Scholar
[8] Finch, R.J. and Ewing, R.C., J. Nucl. Mater. 190, 133 (1992).Google Scholar
[9] Alexander, R., MacKenzie, A.B., Scott, R.D. and McKinley, I.G., NAGRA Technical Report 87–08 (1990).Google Scholar
[10] Finch, R.J. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New Mexico (1994) 257 p.Google Scholar
[11] Finch, R.J., Miller, M.L. and Ewing, R.C., Radirchimica Acta 58/59, 433 (1992).Google Scholar
[12] Finch, R.J. and Ewing, R.C. in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVI, edited by Sombret, C. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 257, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992) pp. 465472.Google Scholar
[13] Finch, R.J. and Ewing, R.C. in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVIII, edited by Barkatt, A. and Van, R.A. Kronynenburg (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 333, Pittsburgh, PA, 1994) pp. 625630.Google Scholar