Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T16:59:49.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary Analysis of Potential Chemical Environments Inside Failed Waste Containers at the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Virginia Colten-Bradley  and
John C. Walton
Virginia Colten-Bradley
Affiliation:
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852
John C. Walton
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas, 79968-0516.
Get access

Abstract

Prediction of radionuclide release rates for high-level waste requires estimates of the rates of waste form alteration and formation of secondary minerals inside the failed canister. Unsaturated repository sites may promote development of a variety of chemical environments related to two phase (liquid/ vapor) transport and temperature gradients caused by radiogenic decay. A mass balance (shell balance) approach is used to estimate the effects of dripping water, evaporation, and condensation on the waste canister and the presence of saline water inside the failed waste canister. The simplified calculations predict large variability of water chemistry over spatial scales of a few centimeters. The effects of the predicted aqueous chemistry on waste form alteration, secondary mineral formation, and radionuclide solubility are examined.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 333: Symposium V – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVII , 1993 , 755
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

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 Bourcier, W.L., Ebert, W.L., and Feng, X.. Modeling surface area to volume effects on borosilicate glass dissolution. Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVI, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc, Vol. 294, p. 577–582, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Nitsche, H., The importance of transuranium solids in solubility studies for nuclear waste repositories, Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XV, Mat. Res. Soc. Sym. Proc, vol. 257, p. 289–298, 1992.Google Scholar
3 Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C., Conduction of heat in solids, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1959). 44 42Google Scholar
4 Pruess, K., Wang, J.S.Y, and Tsang, Y.W., On thermohydrologic conditions near high-level nuclear wastes emplaced in partially saturated fractured tuff 1. Simulation studies with explicit consideration or fracture effects, Water Resources Research 26 (6): pp. 1235–1248 (1990).Google Scholar
5 Walton, J.C., Effects of Evaporation and Solute Concentration on Presence and Composition of Water in and Around the Waste Package at Yucca Mountain, Waste Management, Vol. 13, pp. 293–301, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Walton, J.C., Narasi Sridhar, Gustavo Cragnolino, Prasad Nair, And Tony Torng, An Approach To Analysis Of High Level Waste Container Performance In An Unsaturated Repository, this volume.Google Scholar
7 Garrels, R.M. and Mackenzie, F.T., in Equilibrium Concepts in Natural Water Systems, Amer. Chem. Soc. Adv. Chem Ser. 67, pp. 222–242, (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Drever, J.I. and Smith, C.L., Amer. J. Sci., 278, pp. 1448–1454, (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Eugster, H.P. and Hardie, L.A., in A. Lerman, Lakes - Chemistry, Geology, Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 237–293, (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Eugster, H.P. and Jones, B.F., Amer. J. Sci., 279, pp. 609–631, (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Palmer, C.E.A., Silva, R.J., and Miller, C.W., in Proceedings of Migration ‘91, Radiochim. Acta, (1981).Google Scholar
12 Felmy, A.R., Rai, D., Schramke, J.A., and Ryan, J.L., Radiochim. Acta, 48, pp. 29–35, (1989).Google Scholar
13 Kim, J.I., Lierse, C., and Baumgartner, F., in Plutonium Chemistry, Amer. Chem. Soc. Sym. Ser. 216, pp. 317–334, (1983).Google Scholar