Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:59:26.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reexamining the Dissolution of Spent Fuel: A Comparison of Different Methods for Calculating Rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Brady D. Hanson  and
Ray B. Stout
Brady D. Hanson
Affiliation:
Radiochemical Science & Engineering Group, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352, U.S.A., [email protected]
Ray B. Stout
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

Dissolution rates for spent fuel have typically been reported in terms of a rate normalized to the surface area of the specimen. Recent evidence has shown that neither the geometric surface area nor that measured with BET accurately predicts the effective surface area of spent fuel. Dissolution rates calculated from results obtained by flowthrough tests were reexamined comparing the cumulative releases and surface area normalized rates. While initial surface area is important for comparison of different rates, it appears that normalizing to the surface area introduces unnecessary uncertainty compared to using cumulative or fractional release rates. Discrepancies in past data analyses are mitigated using this alternative method.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 824: Symposium CC – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXVIII , 2004 , CC2.4
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

1. Gray, W. J. and Wilson, C. N., Spent Fuel Dissolution Studies FY 1991 to 1994, PNL-10540, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, December 1995.Google Scholar
2. Brunauer, S., Emmet, P., and Teller, E., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 60, 309(1938).Google Scholar
3. Stroes-Gascoyne, S., Johnson, L. H., Tait, J. C., McConnell, J. L., and Porth, R. J., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XX, edited by Gray, Walter J. and Triay, Ines R., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 465, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997) pp. 511–518.Google Scholar
4. Finch, R. J., Buck, E. C., Finn, P. A., and Bates, J. K., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXII, edited by Wronkiewicz, D. J. and Lee, L. H., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 556, Warrendale, PA, 1999) pp. 431–438.Google Scholar
5. Röllin, S., Spahiu, K., and Eklund, U.-B., J. Nuc. Mat. 297, 231–243 (2001).Google Scholar
6. Gray, W. J., Spent Fuel Dissolution Rates as a Function of Burnup and Water Chemistry, PNNL-11895, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, June 1998.Google Scholar
7. Hanson, B. D., Friese, J. I., and Soderquist, C. Z., presented at the 2004 MRS Spring Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 2004.Google Scholar
8. Serrano, J. A., Glatz, J. P., Toscano, E. H., Barrero, J., and Papaioannou, D., J. Nuc. Mat. 294, 339–343 (2001).Google Scholar
9. Shoesmith, D. W., J. Nuc. Mat. 282, 1–31 (2000).Google Scholar
10. Oversby, V. M., Uranium dioxide, SIMFUEL, and spent fuel dissolution rates- a review of published data, SKB Technical Report 99-22, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., 1999.Google Scholar
11. Grandstaff, D. E., Economic Geology, 71, 1493–1506 (1976).Google Scholar
12. Habashi, F. and Thurston, G. A., Energia Nucleare, 14 (4) 238–244 (1967).Google Scholar