Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:27:19.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison and Modeling of Aqueous Dissolution Rates of Various Uranium Oxides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2012

S. A. Steward  and
E. T. Mones
S. A. Steward
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550
E. T. Mones
Affiliation:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550
Get access

Abstract

The purpose of this work has been to measure and model the intrinsic dissolution rates of uranium oxides under a variety of well-controlled conditions that are relevant to a geologic repository. When exposed to air at elevated temperature, spent fuel may form the stable phase U3O8. Dehydrated schoepite, UO3H2O, has been shown to exist in drip tests on spent fuel.

Equivalent sets of U3O8 and UO3H2 dissolution experiments allowed a systematic examination of the effects of temperature (25–75°C), pH (8–10) and carbonate (2–200×10−4 molar) concentrations at atmospheric oxygen conditions.

Results indicate that UO3H2O has a much higher dissolution rate (at least ten-fold) than U3O8 under the same conditions. The intrinsic dissolution rate of unirradiated U3O8 is about twice that of UO2. Dissolution of both U3O8 and UO3.H2O shows a very high sensitivity to carbonate concentration. Present results show a 25 to 50-fold increase in room-temperature UO3H2O dissolution rates between the highest and lowest carbonate concentrations.

As with the UO2 dissolution data the classical observed chemical kinetic rate law was used to model the U3O8 dissolution rate data. The pH did not have much effect on the models, in agreement with the earlier analysis of the UO2 and spent fuel dissolution data,. However, carbonate concentration, not temperature, had the strongest effect on the U3O8 dissolution rate. The U3O8 dissolution activation energy was about 6000 cal/mol, compared with 7300 and 8000 cal/mol for spent fuel and UO2 respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 465: Symposium II – Scienfific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XX , 1996 , 557
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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. Finn, P.A. et al. , Proc, of Topical Meeting on DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 421–429 (1994).Google Scholar
2. Steward, S. A. and Gray, W. J.. Proc.5th Annual Intl. High-Level Radio. Waste Mgmt Conf., 4, 2602–8 (1994).Google Scholar
3. Gray, W.J., Leider, H.L. and Steward, S.A., J. Nucl. Mater., 190, 46–52 (1992).Google Scholar
4. Steward, S. A. and Weed, H. C., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVII, edited by Barkatt, A. and Van Konynenburg, R. A. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 333, Pittsburgh, PA, 1994) pp. 409–416.Google Scholar
5. BBN Software Products Corporation, RS/Discover, Version 2 (1989).Google Scholar
6. Gayer, K. H. and Leider, H., JACS, 77, 1448 (1955).Google Scholar
7. Gray, W. J., Thomas, L. E. and Einziger, R. E., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVI, edited by Interrante, C. G. and Pabalan, R. T., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 294, Pittsburgh, PA, 1993) pp. 47–54.Google Scholar
8. Stumm, W. and Morgan, J. J., Aquatic Chemistry: An Introduction Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria In Natural Waters. 2nd ed. (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981), Chapter 2.14.Google Scholar