Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T22:30:36.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Uranium and Rare Earth Partitioning in Synroc

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1992

K. L. Smith
Affiliation:
Advanced Materials Program, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, PMB 1, Menai, N.S.W. 2234, Australia
G. R. Lumpkin
Affiliation:
Advanced Materials Program, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, PMB 1, Menai, N.S.W. 2234, Australia
M. G. Blackford
Affiliation:
Advanced Materials Program, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, PMB 1, Menai, N.S.W. 2234, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Improved AEM techniques were used to investigate three Synrocs containing 10 wt/ simulated HLW and a fourth sample with ∼18 wt/ simulated HLW. One of the 10 wt./ loaded Synrocs also contained an addition of 1.0 wt/ Na2O and another contained an addition of 2.0 wt/ Fe2O3. This work is part of a larger study initiated with the objective of determining if the bulk composition of Synroc affects the partitioning of elements between individual phases. Results from the four samples in this study show that, as expected, elemental partitioning is mainly controlled by the ionic radius criterion, with smaller Y, Gd, and U ions having a preference for zirconolite and the larger Ce and Nd ions favouring perovskite. Additions of Na and Fe lead to the formation of CAT and loveringite at the expense of rutile or Magneli phases, but only have minor effects on partitioning coefficients. Partitioning coefficients, DZ/P, for REE, Y, and U in the four Synrocs are the same (within experimental error).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

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. Ringwood, A.E., Kesson, S.L., Reeve, K.D., Levins, D.M. and Ramm, E.J., “Synroc” in Radioactive Wasteforms for the Future, editors Lutz, W. and Ewing, R.C., (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988) pp 233334.Google Scholar
2. smith, K.I., Lumpkin, G.R., Blackford, M.G., Day, R.A. and Hart, K.P., J. Nucl Mat., 190, 287 (1992).Google Scholar
3. Dosch, R.G, Headley, T.J. and Hlava, P., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 67, 354 (1984).Google Scholar
4. Morgan, P.E.D., Shaw, T.M. and Pugar, E.A., in Advances in Ceramics Vol.8, Nuclear Waste Management I. edited by Wicks, G.G and Ross, W.A., (American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH, 1984) p. 234.Google Scholar
5. Harker, A.B. and Flintoff, J.F., in Advances in Ceramics Vol.8, Nuclear Waste Management I. edited by Wicks, G.G and Ross, W.A., (American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH, 1984) p. 222.Google Scholar
6. Evans, J.P and Marples, J.A.C., “The Preparation of Fully Active Synroc and its Radiation Stability,” Rept. No. AERE-g 3592, AERE Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK, 1985.Google Scholar
7. Kesson, S.E. and Ringwood, A.E., “Scientific Basis for Nuclear Wasre Management VII”. Edited by McVay, G.. Plenum Press, New York, 1984.Google Scholar
8. Dosch, R.G. and Lynch, A.W., “Solution Chemistry in Synroc Preparation,” Rept. No. SAND 80-2375, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, 1980.Google Scholar
9. Xu, J.J., Shaikh, A. S., and Vest, R. W, IEEE Trans UFFC 36, 307 (1989).Google Scholar
10. Buykx, W.J., Hawkins, K., Levins, D.M., Seatonberry, B.W., Ryan, R.K., Hart, K.P., Stevens, G.T., Watson, K.G., Weedon, D., and White, T.J., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 71, 678 (1988).Google Scholar
11. Meyer, V. and Janny, A., Berichte. 15 1525 (1882).Google Scholar
12. Reeve, K.D., Levins, D.M., Woolfrey, J.L. and Ramm, E.J., in Advances in Ceramics Vol.8, Nuclear Waste Management I. edited by Wicks, G.G and Ross, W.A., (American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH, 1984) p. 201.Google Scholar