Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:20:58.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ion Exchange and Dehydration Effects on Potassium and Argon Contents of Clinoptilolite

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

G. Woldegabriel  and
S. Levy
G. Woldegabriel
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop D462, Los Alamos, NM 87545
S. Levy
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop D462, Los Alamos, NM 87545
Get access

Abstract

Zeolite-rich Miocene tuffs are an important part of the principal hydrochemical barrier to water-borne radionuclide transport from a potential high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The timing of zeolitization is an issue that relates to paleohydrology, permeability, zeolite stability, and unsaturated-zone geochemical processes. Exploratory K/Ar dating of clinoptilolite, the most abundant and widespread zeolite, shows a striking and consistent pattern of increasing apparent ages (2–13 Ma) with depth. Only the isotopic ages from the saturated zone are compatible with geologic evidence suggesting an age >10 Ma for most of the zeolites.

Factors that may be responsible for the young apparent ages in the unsaturated zone were investigated. Cation exchange with recharge water and Ar diffusion under unsaturated conditions (processes that may be characteristic of the unsaturated zone) were evaluated experimentally for their effects on K/Ar systematics. Cation exchanging a natural clinoptilolite with Ca-, Cs-, K-, and Na-chloride solutions showed minimal effects on radiogenic Ar content. However, clinoptilolite heated at 2007deg;C for 16 hours in air lost a significant amount of its radiogenic Ar compared with minimal losses from clinoptilolite heated in water at 100°C for over 5 months. The preliminary results indicate that Ar loss from incompletely hydrated clinoptilolite may be a major factor contributing to the young apparent ages of clinoptilolite in the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 412: Symposium V – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XIX , 1995 , 791
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

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

1. Levy, S.S., in Proc. 2nd Annual Int. Conf. on High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, Nevada (American Nuclear Society and American Society of Civil Engineers, La Grange, IL and New York, NY, 1991), pp. 477–485.Google Scholar
2. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1OCFR part 960, 60-7-60-17 (1992).Google Scholar
3. Whelan, J.F., Vaniman, D.T., Stuckless, J.S., and Moscati, R.J., in Proc. 5th Annual Int. Conf. on High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, Nevada (American Nuclear Society and American Society of Civil Engineers, La Grange, IL and New York, NY, 1994), pp. 2738–2745.Google Scholar
4. Sawyer, D.A., Fleck, R.J., Lanphere, M.A., Warren, R.G., and Broxton, D.E., Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 106, pp. 1304–1318 (1994).Google Scholar
5. WoldeGabriel, G., Broxton, D.E., Bish, D.L., and Chipera, S.J., Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-12653-MS, 44 pp. (1993).Google Scholar
6. WoldeGabriel, G., in Natural Zeolites ‘93 Occurrence. Properties, and Use, edited by Ming, D.S. and Mumpton, F.A. (International Committee on Natural Zeolites, Brockport, New York, 1995), pp. 141–156.Google Scholar
7. Bish, D.L. and Aronson, J.L., Clays and Clay Minerals 41, 148–161 (1993).Google Scholar
8. Levy, S.S., Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-9706-MS, 77 pp. (1984).Google Scholar
9. Sheppard, R.A., Gude, A.J., 3rd, and Fitzpatric, J.J., U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1777, 22 pp. (1988).Google Scholar
10. Bish, D.L., Notebook TWS-EES-1-12/84-7, pp. 17, 38–39.Google Scholar
11. Sheppard, R.A., Gude, A.J., 3rd, and Mumpton, R.A., in Zeo-Trip ‘83, edited by Mumpton, F.A. (State University of New York, Brockport, 1983), pp. 25–3 1.Google Scholar
12. Altaner, S.P. and Grim, R.E., Clays and Clay Minerals 38, 561–572 (1990).Google Scholar
13. Govindaraju, K., Geostandards Newsletter XII, 21 (1989).Google Scholar
14. Odin, G.S. and 35 collaborators, in Numerical Dating in Stratigraphy, edited by Odin, G.S. (Wiley, New York, 1982), pp. 124–150.Google Scholar
15. Cox, A. and Dalrymple, G.B., J. Geophys Res. 72 (10), 2603–2614 (1967).Google Scholar
16. Ames, L.L. Jr., Am. Mineral. 45, 689–700 (1961).Google Scholar
17. Yang, I.C., in Proc. 3rd Annual Int. Conf. on High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Las Vegas, Nevada (American Nuclear Society and American Society of Civil Engineers, La Grange, IL, and New York, NY, 1992), pp. 732–737.Google Scholar
18. Broxton, D.E., Warren, R.G., Hagan, R.C., and Luedemann, G., Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-10802-MS, 160 pp. (1986).Google Scholar
19. Armbruster, T., Am. Mineral. 78, 260–264 (1993).Google Scholar
20. Sass, J.H. and Lachenbruch, A.H., U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82–973, 30 pp. (1982).Google Scholar
21. Barrer, R.M. and Vaughan, J.H., Surface Science 14, 77–92 (1969).Google Scholar
22. Loeven, C., Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-12376-MS (1993).Google Scholar