Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:29:38.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colloid Transport of Radionuclides: Yucca Mountain Performance Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Kathy A. Traexler ,
Satoshi Utsunomiy ,
Annie B. Kersting  and
Rodney C. Ewing
Kathy A. Traexler
Affiliation:
Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Satoshi Utsunomiy
Affiliation:
Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Annie B. Kersting
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Isotope Sciences Division, Livermore CA 94550
Rodney C. Ewing
Affiliation:
Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Get access

Abstract

Colloids have the potential to enhance transport of contaminants in the subsurface. Kersting et. al.,[1] have shown that plutonium, as well as europium, cobalt and cesium, were associated with groundwater colloids at the Nevada Test Site. 240Pu/239Pu isotopic evidence confirmed that the plutonium was from the Benham nuclear test located 1.3 km away. This observation has lead to an increased concern that colloids may be potential vectors for radionuclide transport from an underground geologic repository [1].

The Anaylsis/Model Reports (AMRs) describe the characteristics of colloids for sparingly soluble radionuclides. The types of colloids formed, stability of the colloids as a function of pH and ionic strength, and the attachment of radionuclides to the colloids are modeled by the AMRs. The AMRs attempt to present bounding and conservative estimates for key parameters; however, waste form corrosion data, natural system studies, and experimental data do not always support the assumptions made in the AMRs. Most specifically, all colloids at Yucca Mountain, whether generated by the dissolution of waste glass or spent nuclear fuel or occurring naturally in groundwater, are assumed to be either smectite or iron-oxy-hydroxides. Data from waste form corrosion experiments do not support this assumption: numerous other phases have been identified including weeksite, clay particles with brockite inclusions, schoepite, soddyite, uranophane, boltwoodite, calcite, dolomite, Na-silicates, Al-oxides, absolone, birnessite, analcime, hydrated silicates, and apatite. Furthermore, the response of many of these phases to changes in pH or ionic strength is not known. If fundamental data for these phases, such as the point of zero charge (PZC), is different than that of either smectite or iron oxy-hydroxides, the TSPA may not accurately predict colloid transport of radionuclides.

We have analyzed colloid samples from groundwater at the Nevada Test Site using high-angle annular dark field scanning transmission electron microscopy (HAADF-STEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopic (EDS) elemental mapping, and found that light rare-earth elements (LREE) and Th are associated with monazite. Cesium and uranium are associated with an unidentified phase that is rich in Si and Fe. In addition, Co-60, a fissiogenic element, is associated with a complex metal colloid that includes Fe, Ni, Mo, and Cr. None of these phases are accounted for in the AMRs and their response to changing geochemical conditions is unknown. In addition, the PZC of several Mn-oxide phases was determined and was found to extend beyond the range of PZCs accounted for in the AMRs by smectite and iron oxy-hydroxides. Pu has been shown to preferentially adsorb onto Mn-oxides in the presence of Fe-oxides [2, 3], and the AMRs may not accurately predict Mn-oxide colloid stability and subsequent transport of radionuclides of interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 807: Symposium Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXVII , 2003 , 653
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

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. Kersting, A.B., Efurd, D.W., Finnegan, D.L., Rokop, D.J., Smith, D.K., and Thompson, J.L., Nature (London), 1999. 396(6714): p. 56.Google Scholar
2. Duff, M.C., Hunter, D.B., Triay, I.R., Bertsch, P.M., Reed, D.T., Sutton, S.R., Shea-McCarthy, G., Kitten, J., Eng, P., Chipera, S.J., and Vaniman, D.T., Environmental Science and Technology, 1999. 33(13 1999): p. 2163.Google Scholar
3. Duff, M.C., Hunter, D.B., Triay, I.R., Bertsch, P.M., Kitten, J., and Vaniman, D.T., Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 2001. 47(2–4): p. 211.Google Scholar
4. Mertz, C., Colloid-Associated Radionuclide Concentration Limits. 2000, Argonne National Laboratory.Google Scholar
5. Mertz, C., Colloid-Associated Concentration Limits: Abstraction and Summary. 2000, Argonne National Laboratory.Google Scholar
6. Gong, W.L., Wang, L.M., Ewing, R.C., Vernaz, E., Bates, J.K., and Ebert, W.L., Journal of Nuclear Materials, 1998. 254: p. 249.Google Scholar
7. Feng, X., Buck, E.C., Mertz, C., Bates, J.K., Cunnane, J.C., and Chaiko, D.J., Radiochimica Acta, 1994. 66–7: p. 197.Google Scholar
8. Buck, E.C. and Bates, J.K., Applied Geochemistry, 1999. 14(5 1999): p. 635.Google Scholar
9. Bates, J.K., Bradley, J.P., Teetsov, A., Bradley, C.R., and ten Brink, M.B., Science, 1992. 256: p. 649.Google Scholar
10. Finn, P.A., Buck, E.C., Gong, M., Hoh, J.C., Emery, J.W., Hafenrichter, L.D., and Bates, J.K., Radiochimica Acta, 1994. 66–7: p. 189.Google Scholar
11. Wronkiewicz, D.J., Bates, J.K., Gerding, T.J., Veleckic, E., and Tani, B.S., Journal of Nuclear Materials, 1992. 190: p. 107.Google Scholar
12. Wronkiewicz, D.J., Bates, J.K., Wolf, S.F., and Buck, E.C., Journal of Nuclear Materials, 1996. 238: p. 78.Google Scholar
13. Buck, E.C., Wronkiewicz, D.J., Finn, P.A., and Bates, J.K., Journal of Nuclear Materials, 1997. 249: p. 70.Google Scholar
14. Degueldre, C, Triay, I., Kim, J.I., Vilks, P., Laaksoharju, M., and Miekeley, N., Applied Geochemistry, 2000. 15(7): p. 1043.Google Scholar
15. Bish, D., Vaniman, D., Chipera, S., and Carey, J.W., American Mineralogist, in press.Google Scholar
16. McCarthy, J. and Degueldre, C., Sampling and characterization of colloids and particles in groundwater for studying their role in contaminant transport, in Environmental Particles, Buffle, J. and van Leeuwen, H.P., Editors. 1993, Lewis Publishers: Ann Arbor. p. 247.Google Scholar
17. Buddemeier, R.-W. and Hunt, J.-R., Applied Geochemistry, 1988. 3(5): p. 535.Google Scholar
18. Kersting, A., Wang, L.M., You, L.P., Utsunomiya, S., Zhao, P.H., and Ewing, R., Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, 2002. 223: p. 151.Google Scholar
19. Vaniman, D.T., Chipera, S.J., Bish, D.L., Carey, J.W., and Levy, S.S., Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta, 2001. 65(20): p. 3409.Google Scholar
20. Stenhouse, M.J. and Pottinger, J., Radiochimica Acta, 1994. 66–7: p. 267.Google Scholar
21. McKinley, I.G. and Alexander, W.R., Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 1993. 13(1–4 Jun 1993): p. 249.Google Scholar
22. Coles, D.G. and Ramspott, L.D., Science, 1982. 215(5): p. 1235.Google Scholar
23. Weber, W.J., Ewing, R., Angell, C.A., Arnold, G.W., Cormack, A.N., Delaye, J.M., Griscom, D.L., Hobbs, L.W., Navrotsky, A., Price, D.L., Stoneham, A.M., and Weinberger, M.C., Journal of Material Research, 1997. 12: p. 1946.Google Scholar
24. Sposito, G., The Chemistry of Soils. 1989, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
25. Nagasaki, S., Tanaka, S., and Suzuki, A., Progress in Nuclear Energy, 1998. 32(1/2): p. 141.Google Scholar