Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T05:25:06.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leaching Tc-99 from SRP Glass in Simulated Tuff and Salt Groundwaters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

N. E. Bibler  and
A. R. Jurgensen
N. E. Bibler
Affiliation:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory Aiken, SC 29808
A. R. Jurgensen
Affiliation:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Savannah River Laboratory Aiken, SC 29808
Get access

Abstract

Results of leach tests with Tc-99 doped SRP borosilicate waste glass are presented. The glass was prepared by melting a mixture of SRP 165 powdered frit doped with a carrier free solution of Tc-99 at 1150°C. Dissolution of portions of the resulting glass indicated that the Tc-99 was distributed homogeneously throughout the glass. Static leach tests up to 90 days were performed at 90°C in J-13 tuff groundwater or WIPP brine A at a SA/V of 100m−1. Normalized mass losses were calculated for Tc-99 as well as all the major elements in the glass. Results indicated that under ambient oxidizing conditions Tc-99 leached no faster than the glass-forming elements of the glass. In J-13 water, Tc-99 leached congruently with B. In WIPP brine A, it leached congruently with Si. Leach rates for Li were higher in both groundwaters, probably due to a contribution from an ion exchange mechanism. Leach tests were performed under reducing conditions in J-13 water by adding Zn/Hg amalgam to the leachate. In these tests the pH increased significantly, probably because of the reaction of the amalgam with the water. In a 21-day test, the pH Increased to 13 and leach rates for the glass were very high. Even though there was significant dissolutiop of the glass, the normalized mass loss based on Tc-99 was only 0.02g/m2. This result and the fact that reducing conditions at normal pH values do not significantly affect the dissolution of the glass, indicate that the low concentrations for Tc-99 obtained under reducing conditions are due to its solubility and not due to an increased durability of the glass.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 112: Symposium P – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XI , 1987 , 585
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

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. Coles, D. G. and Apted, M. J. “The Behavior of 99Tc in Doped-Glass/Basalt Hydrothermal Interaction Tests,” Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VII, edited by McVay, G. L. (Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, 1984), p 129.Google Scholar
2. White, W. B. “Dissolution of Specific Radionuclides,” in Final Report of the Defense High Level Waste Leaching Mechanisms Program, USDOE Report PNL-5157, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 4.1–4.9 (1984).Google Scholar
3. McGrail, B. P. “Waste Package Component Interactions with Savannah River Plant Defense Waste Glass in a Low-Magnesium Brine,” Nuclear Technology, 75, 165–178 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Baxter, R. G. “Description of Defense Waste Processing Facility Reference Waste Form and Canister,” Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC, USDOE Report DP-1606, Rev 1, (1983).Google Scholar
5. Nuclear Waste Materials Handbook - Waste Form Test Methods, MCC-1P Static Test, DOE/TIC-11400, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA (1981).Google Scholar
6. Bibler, N. E. “Leaching Fully Radioactive SRP Nuclear Waste Glass in Tuff Groundwater in Stainless Steel Vessels,” Advances in Cermanics, 60, 619–626 (American Ceramic Society, Columbus, Ohio 1986).Google Scholar
7. Rard, J. A. “Critical Review of the Chemistry and Thermodynamics of Technetium and Some of its Inorganic Compounds and Aqueous Species,” USDOE Report UCRL-53440, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Livermore, CA (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Glassley, W. E., “Reference Waste Package Environment Report,” USDOE Report UCRL-53726, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (1986).Google Scholar
9. Bibler, N. E., Wicks, G. G., and Oversby, V. M. “Leaching Savannah River Plant Nuclear Waste Glass in a Saturated Tuff Environment,” in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VIII, edited by Jantzen, C. M., Stone, J. A., and Ewing, R. C. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1984).Google Scholar
10. Knauss, K. G., Oversby, V. M., and Wolery, T. J., “Post Emplacement Environment of Waste Packages,” Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VII, edited by McVay, G. L. (Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, 1984), p 319.Google Scholar
11. Bazan, F. and Rego, J. H. “The Tuff Reaction Vessel Experiment,” USDOE Report UCRL-53735, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (1986).Google Scholar
12. Molecke, M. A. “A Comparison of Brines Relevant to Nuclear Waste Experimentation,” USDOE Report SAND83–0516, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, (1983).Google Scholar
13. Jantzen, C. M. and Wicks, G. G. “Control of Oxidation Potential for Basalt Repository Simulation Tests,” in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VIII, edited by Jantzen, C. M., Stone, J. A., and Ewing, R. C. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA, p 24–35 1985).Google Scholar
14. Jantzen, C. M. and Bibler, N. E. “The Role of Groundwater Oxidation Potential and Radiolysis of Waste Glass Performance in Crystalline Repository Environments,” in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VIII, edited by Werme, L. O. (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA p. 219–230 1986).Google Scholar