Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:54:49.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Alumino and Calcium Phosphate Sintering Aids for Consolidation of Halide Containing Wastes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2012

Shirley K. Fong  and
Brian Metcalfe
Shirley K. Fong
Affiliation:
Materials Science Research Division, AWE, Aldermaston, Berkshire RG7 4PR, UK
Brian Metcalfe
Affiliation:
Materials Science Research Division, AWE, Aldermaston, Berkshire RG7 4PR, UK
Get access

Abstract

A process has been developed at AWE for the immobilisation of halide containing wastes arising from the reprocessing of plutonium. Initially, the wastes are calcined with a calcium phosphate to form a number of target host phases, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) and apatite for the immobilisation of actinides, and apatite and spodiosite for halide.

These mineral phases are then mixed with a glass binder, cold pressed and sintered to form a monolithic waste form. Two glass binders GTI/168, a sodium alumino phosphate glass and GTI/206, a sodium calcium phosphate glass were compared to optimise the halide retention in the waste-form. Analysis from powder X-ray Diffraction (PXRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed that neither glass stabilises spodiosite. However, GTI/206 glass retains 10 wt.% more apatite and results in a much smaller proportion of the non-chloride bearing whitlockite phase than GTI/168.

In all compositions where GTI/168 glass was used as a sintering aid, the sodium deficient and calcium enriched glass was present as an amorphous matrix phase.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1475: Symposium NW – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXXV , 2012 , imrc11-1475-nw35-p10
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

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. Chaumont, J., Soulet, S., Krupa, J.C. and Carpena, J., Journal of Nuclear Materials, 301, 122 (2002).10.1016/S0022-3115(01)00758-9Google Scholar
2. Utsunomiya, S., Yudintsev, S., Wang, L.M., Ewing, R.C., Journal of Nuclear Materials, 322, 180 (2003).10.1016/S0022-3115(03)00327-1Google Scholar
3. Metcalfe, B. L., Fong, S., Gerrard, L.A., Donald, I. W., Strachan, D. and Scheele, R., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXX , edited by Dunn, D., Poinssot, C. and Begg, B, (Materials Research Society, Warrendale, 2007), p157–162.Google Scholar
4. Vance, E. R. and Ball, C. J. J. Am. Ceram. Soc, 86, 1223, (2003).10.1111/j.1151-2916.2003.tb03455.xGoogle Scholar
5. Horie, K., Hidaka, H., and Gauthier-Lafaye, F., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 68, (1), 115–125, (2004).10.1016/S0016-7037(03)00415-0Google Scholar
6. Bruker-AXS, Diffrac PLUS Evaluation Package Release 2010 version.16.Google Scholar
7. International Centre for Diffraction Data ICDD, USA, Version 2010.Google Scholar
8. Toby, B. H., J.Appl. Cryst, 34, 210, (2001).10.1107/S0021889801002242Google Scholar